Native Son's Bigger and Doing the Right Thing

At this time I have both recently read Native Son and "How Bigger Was Born," both by Richard Wright. I have also watched Do The Right Thing. The biggest difference between the two that I see is not an issue of philosophy, but rather one of focus. Native Son and "How Bigger Was Born" both focus on the separation of African Americans from society. Do The Right Thing, meanwhile, was focused more on the lives of African Americans and what leads to their suffering in a more personal, specific way. This is not to say that these two themes are mutually exclusive - "How Bigger Was Born" tells of specific pains African Americans endure, and personal sufferings within "white society." Do The Right Thing shows the separation of society quite clearly as well - Sal's family are the only whites in the community, and it is a point of contention. But the importance of each issue is different in the two works. Every society has members with a range of opinions. Another difference between "How Bigger Was Born" and Do The Right Thing is that Do The Right Thing portrays an entire community, with a range of voices, while Richard Wright focused largely on the more aggressive opponents to the current system. In do the right thing, while we have no reason to believe anyone is happy with the separation, it is simply a fact of life. Richard Wright focused on those who would not accept this, basing his story on many real members of the African American member of society. He calls these members, "Bigger Thomases," after the main character in his book. "The Bigger Thomases were the only Negroes I know of who consistently violated the Jim Crow laws of the South and got away with it, at least for a sweet brief spell. Eventually, the whites who restricted their lives made them pay a terrible price." Do The Right Thing is similar to "How Bigger Was Born," because in both it is these members that make dramatic events occur. Although Buggin' Out does not have the physical stature of Wright's Bigger Thomases, he certainly fits the core characteristic of dissatisfaction with the current system. When Buggin' Out argues about, "no brothers on the wall" of Sal's wall, he is not as upset about the wall itself as much as what he sees as a symbol of African American exclusion from society.

I think some of the power of this film comes from the realism of the characters. I see no “bad characters,” with the possible exception of the police, who have no truly redeeming actions or characteristics. All characters, at different times, do things that are “the right thing.” Sal, for instance, defended the community from Pino and tried to keep peace within his shop. At the same time, he should not have gone for a baseball bat even despite the provocation from Radio Raheem, and should not have destroyed the radio. However, he absolutely did not deserve to have his shop burned, or to be blamed for Radio Raheem’s death. If Raheem hadn’t died, Sal may have, and in any case he made no actions to encourage the police to kill Raheem. When Raheem died, the community was wrong to see Sal as complacent purely for being white. In some instances, I feel even more struggle to decide if something is “right” because single actions are more ambiguous, especially because the motives can only be guessed at. For instance, Mookie throwing a trash can and breaking Sal’s window started the attack on Sal’s diner, but also redirected the focus from Sal. In that specific instance, I believe Mookie was majorly trying to redirect focus and save Sal, because doing so to cause violence seems out of character with the rest of his actions and the fact that he seems to like Sal, and Sal said he was, “like a son.” However, I think that Mookie may have chosen a less dramatic and destructive path – such as trying to talk to the mob – because of pain over Raheem’s death. Even this may have been good because by feeling the same pain as the mob, he may have understood that only some destruction would appease them, and it is better stone and wood than flesh and bone.

The Appeal of Communism - The BPP, Education, and Communist Rise in America

In 1968 Bobby Seale, co-founder and chairman of the Black Panther Party, wrote a book trying to fix what he believed were misconceptions about the Party, and to explain and justify their methods and goals. Essentially, at this time the BPP was an openly communist orginization, with core beliefs with a core in basic Marxism. At the time, the system was very appealing to young black men. This is for several reasons. Communism as a whole has a basic human appeal, because it allows it's members to see themselves as on the moral high ground. Under a basic capitalist system, success is based on hard work and luck. Obviously, other factors - such as available education - are factors, but issues like these are grounds for reform, not revolution.

For this reason communist groups don't focus on why some people are successful, or even the things that keep a capitalist system from flowing. Instead, they focus on the pure fact that some have more money than others. Because supporters of communism are usually those who feel they do not live the lifestyle they deserve, as a communist they see themselves as the victims of the rich, who in reality were either hard working, lucky, or both. This convieniantly also means that the money that would fund their lifestyle wouldn't come from them, it would come from the rich who had "stolen" the money from them. All of this appealed to young black men, who could mix this false sense of self-righteousness and how society had wronged them with the real injustices they had to endure. This was not only a way to gain a better lifestyle from the "thieving" rich, but also a way to end the injustices which, no matter what political situation, really did have to end.

The other reason that this philosophy appealed to "young black men" is because they felt they were not part of the democractic system. This was valid to an extent, because some policies were in place to limit the involvement of blacks. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 ended direct limitations on voting, but county borders could still be used to limit black involvement. In addition, the Northern educational system was dominated by whites, which denied black children role models. C. Herbert Oliver, a parent of one such child, explained that this was very different from the South, where segregated schools gave black children role models in teachers and principals. This was the main difference between the two, and the Northern system meant that black children saw themselves, as blacks, seperate from the power system from an early age. This carried into their adult life were they would subconciously focus on the very real injustices in the polical system, making them seem even bigger than they really were.

The Ultimate Individualist*

I was just reading Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Wow. Emerson believes that a person should define his place in society by what that person believes in, wants, and feels. He rejects what I call social correction, when society tries to restrict someone by rejecting them if they do something unexpected. In Emerson's words, "for nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure." Emerson also takes this policy to surprising extremes. For instance, he is very critical of what he calls

"'the foolish face of praise,' the forced smile which we put on in company where we do not feel at ease to answer to conversation that does interest us."

Emerson is talking about acting interested, or at least not overly bored, when talking with someone about a subject we don't care about. To most people, this is simply polite - we don't want to seem rude or abrasive by just disregarding someone else's interests. Emerson, however, feels differently. He thinks that someone shouldn't feel restricted by a society that expects him to hide his feelings. However, necessary in all this is the implication that Emerson believes most people try to restrict others, and are restricted themselves. Society is, by definition, a group of individuals. Therefore in order for society do something, a majority of individuals in that society must decide to do it. This is a sort of paradox, where each individual is restricted, but is also part of the group that is doing the restricting. Emerson believes that the Great People of the world are those who reject these attempts to contain thought and speak their minds no matter what.

----------------
*If that's a real word, it's existence is purely by coincidence

Quran Burning: What Can Be Done is Not What Should Be Done

On September 11th, 2010, a Florida church is planning on holding a Quran burning. This article explains all the different people who are against the plan - the local mayor, Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton, and even Obama have all weighed in.

Let me start by saying that I don't remember everything from September 11th. I remember being at school, on that day or soon after, and everyone was talking about... something. I could feel, in second grade, that everyone was afraid... of something. But no one wanted to tell me. Who wants to explain the horrors of the terrorist attack to a seven year old? So while no, I don't remember everything, I remember the fear. I remember that no one knew what would happen next. I get that, and any other reaction would be unnatural. So when I say that what this Florida Church is doing is wrong in a bunch of different ways, I can understand the feelings that caused this plan to come about. I, and everyone else in America, were surrounded by those feelings when the September 11th attacks happened. But this response to those feelings doesn't make any sense.

The terrorists responsible for these attacks were Islamic extremists. Their belief in Islam was used to fuel their hatred for the United States. But blaming all of Islam for these attacks is like blaming all of Christianity for the KKK. I'm not saying that this church doesn't have the right to burn the Quran books, because this is the kind of expression the First Amendment protects- the US government might not like what the Florida Church is doing, but they can't stop them. And they have good reason not to want this burning to take place. This stunt could incite violence half a world away, in Afghanistan and Iraq. This pastor has every right to commit a protest that could kill US soldiers and civilians far, far away. But just because he can, doesn't mean he should.

After I was upset, that day by the school busses, the school principal saw that I was upset. I don't know what she said, but I know it made me feel better. Now, it's been almost exactly 9 years since the attacks, and everyone is less emotional. Tomorrow will re-awaken those emotions, and that's not a bad thing. But that doesn't mean we should do stupid, meaningless things like attack a religion because of the worst people who call themselves Muslim. We could, but that doesn't mean we should.

A Kind Of Revolutionary View

Though I read three different articles, the one I want to respond to is Zinn's "A Kind of Revolution." I felt as if he had a preconcieved notion of an elite colonial class, and then tried to find any evidence he could to support it. He seems to imply that the Continential Congressmen were wealthy, and so automatically elistists fighting for their own interests. I don't agree. I interpret their status a different way - these were well-educated men who became wealthy by being successful in their chosen fields. Then, because they were the best lawyers, doctors, etc., they were asked to represent their colony in the Continential Congress. Sending the best lawyers in particular makes sense - the Continential Contress were addressing issues of public policy. This isn't a way to supercede Zinn's ideas - I'm just proposing another idea, one that I believe makes less assumptions.

The (Original) American Crisis

I just read Thomas Paine's pamphlet, "The American Crisis." What I find interesting is that he doesn't focus on explaining why the British are evil. That's just assumed. Instead, he simply says that the British are evil, so the Americans have to fight. And he also targets the unity of the state, which is something that isn't even thought about today.

I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake.

Thomas Paine makes it a point to say that he is asking everyone to help. He knows that what the British are doing isn't a problem for one colony or another, but instead a problem of every colony. I belief his use of the word "state" was also deliberate. He knows that if the colonies are to be unified, the idea of unification and separation has to start now. At this point the war is not over - in fact, they are right in the thick of it. Paine wanted the British colonies to think of themselves as American states. In order to help this mindset, he himself used the language of independence in his pamphlets.

Thomas Paine's focus in this article isn't just the idea of Independence. It is also a sort of call to arms. One of the ways he does this is by proposing a terrible future for cowards.

The heart that feels not now, is dead: the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and make them happy.

The idea here is that people who don't act today, who shrink back from the responsibility Paine feels they have, will be seen as cowards after the Independence is won.