Harlem Duet and the prospect of "Going Beyond Race"

I had to read Harlem Duet for class the other day and when we discussed the play in our lectures, there was a recurring element in the reflections of my predominately female, predominately non-black classmates and that was, they thought the play “went beyond race”. Most people in my class said something along the lines of, “Even though I’m not a black woman, I can relate to the feeling of a husband/boyfriend leaving me for another woman…” While I appreciate that level of empathy or understand how non-black women and men could enjoy or relate to the play, it irked me to hear the statement “went beyond race.” Why? Because it trivializes that aspect of the play – an aspect that is so integral, so fundamental to Djanet Sears’ literary work – and it trivializes the politics and struggles and injustices that come with race as well.

The mere fact that Othello gives Billie that impassioned, insulting, and hurtful speech about how white women are easier than black women because they do not emasculate and pigeonhole men or come home complaining about injustice in the workplace clearly demonstrates that this play is all about race. Othello’s speech indicates that he cannot stand to be with a black woman any longer because it reminds him that he is a black man; the injustices a black woman faces in the workplace reflect the injustices he pretends not to experience at his workplace. Therefore, his rejection of the black woman is a rejection of being black.

This is further demonstrated by the fact that upon reaching a certain level of professionalism, Othello leaves Billie for Mona. Certain people in my class found the “woman does everything for the man and then he leaves her for someone else” cliché albeit sad. And perhaps they are right. What they fail to realize though is that Othello leaves Billie for a white woman because he feels as if having a white woman by his side means that he has made it – he is successful, he is worthy.

Of course, Othello’s desire to be seen as a man, to live his own life without the burden of history, without feeling a certain obligation is understandable. But still, it is essentially impossible to sympathize with him and that is because to him, being “seen as a man” and “living his own life” means rejecting his heritage, rejecting his culture and assimilating into a dominant and racist society he deems worthier than his roots. He blames the black community for putting the burden of history on his shoulders; he does not blame the white society for forcing the black community to bear this burden. He criticizes the oppressed for being consumed with a history that has hindered them from advancing and does not even think about who gave the oppressed this history.

And I’m not saying Billie doesn’t have faults. She certainly does. She is so consumed with race that it drives her mad and she ends up in a mental institution. She is too preoccupied with the past to live life in the present. She cannot be consciously aware of her African-American history while trying to live her own life, she wallows in the history. So yes, she most definitely has flaws. But throughout the play, I found myself agreeing with her and most of her viewpoints. Othello is merely an extremely selfish, self-hating black man who has deluded himself into thinking that history has no or should not have any meaning.

In the end, my point is, Harlem Duet is not a play that “goes beyond race” because race and all of the politics that surround it is the central, essential aspect.

The Ambiguity Central to Do The Right Thing

I'm currently taking American Popular Cinema since the 1970s and it's a wonderful course. Many of the films that are on the syllabus are ones that I have seen, ones that I love, and ones that I am so incredibly happy to write essays about and to deconstruct in lecture. And while I have enjoyed studying films such as The Godfather, Breakfast Club, Thelma and Lousie, and Halloween in an intensely academic way, I knew that I would feel differently (not negatively) about Do The Right Thing.

Even though Spike Lee's film was made in 1989, it is just as relevant and just as contentious today as it was then and my lecture proved that. Most of my class sympathized with Sal and therefore viewed the film as one that incites and encourages violence. Conversely, I sympathized with the African-American characters and therefore I felt the opposite. I say 'therefore' because who you sympathize with in the film determines how and what you think of the ending and the film as a whole.

In my opinion, Do The Right Thing does not incite or encourage violence and those who think it does are taking the film in an extremely literal sense. When the Black community destroys Sal's Pizzeria after Radio Raheem's death, they are destroying an oppressive idea. Sal's Famous Pizzeria is representative of the exploitation of African-American neighbourhoods and I think while this is subtle, it is something that unravels throughout the course of the film.

For instance, the fact that Sal does not comply or even consider Buggin Out's demand to put African-American leaders/celebrities on the Wall of Fame demonstrates my aforementioned point. Buggin Out makes a very valid point in saying that since the Black community funds the pizzeria, there should be some sort of representation of clientele. Sal's absolute refusal illustrates his inability to acknowledge anything productive or great from the people he takes money from on a daily basis.

That Sal never once leaves his pizzeria signifies his lack of interaction with the community. He only puts up with Mookie's horrible work habits because as a delivery boy, he takes away that necessity. Sal's only interactions with the community are business-oriented and somewhat condescending. He does not want to get to know the people of the community, he does not want to help in advancing the state of Bedford-Stuyvesant - he only uses the Black community to his economic advantage. In other words, Sal is capitalizing off of a poor Black neighbourhood.

Consequently, I can completely understand the community's frustration and anger at the end of the film. Police brutality is what killed Radio Raheem, yes. But it was Sal's inability to represent his clientele, his disgust of hip-hop (an aspect of African-American culture) and his inherent racism that caused the events that caused the police to arrive. Meaning, that it was the exploitation and capitalization of the Black community that catalyzed the police brutality. So the community makes an attempt to destroy the exploitation and capitalism.

They [the community] have seen and been through enough that pacifism and passivity seem to be synonymous concepts and they feel as if it is time to take action. It is time to do things a different way, a more militant way, a more reactive way. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So I indeed will end with a Malcolm X quote:

"I don't favor violence. If we could bring about recognition and respect of our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach his objectives peacefully. But I'm also a realist. The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are Black people."

The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao: The Great American Novel of the 21st Century

It took me a while to write this blog post because after I finished reading The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, the only thing I had to say was that Junot Diaz's novel is absolutely, 100% amazing. But now I think I'm ready to explain why I think this book is one of the best books I have ever read.

Firstly, there is the narrative voice. From time to time there are shifts in the narrative voice but the story is written mostly from Yunior's perspective. I fell in love with Yunior's glib, devil-may-care tone when I read a short story, Fiesta 1980, from Diaz's debut, Drown (an anthology of short stories) and I appreciated it a lot more in Oscar Wao. Not only does this humourous narration make the book a highly entertaining read, it also allows for the reader to relate to the characters because, due to Yunior's slick and informal tone, they seem a lot more colourful and realistic even though the events these characters experience are quite extraordinary.

Furthermore, Diaz illustrates and opens up a world that is either familiar or unknown depending on who the reader is and what culture he/she comes from. I am not Dominican so I can't say anything for sure, but I feel as if Diaz is successful in explaining certain aspects of Dominican or Dominican-American culture without being "textbook" about it - and I'm not talking about the footnotes that are on certain pages - I am talking about Yunior's sly inputs during the course of the story.

I also found Diaz's continuous references to Lord of the Rings highly entertaining and surprisingly highly relevant. In fact I watched The Two Towers immediately after finishing the book. I also enjoyed the postmodern aspect of Oscar Wao and finally, throughout the book I found various passages and quotes that will add to my list of "favourite quotes" on facebook (I just HAD to bring facebook into one of my posts, I know).

In the end, I am absolutely in love with the Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, I find Junot Diaz to be an author of extremely high calibre and I look forward to reading whatever novel he writes next.

Avatar: A futuristic movie filled with old-fashioned ideas

I’m not really one for science fiction but after all of the hype surrounding James Cameron’s Avatar, I had to see it for myself. I have to admit the movie was visually appealing (even if the 3D glasses I was forced to wear blurred my vision rather than enhanced it) but I found the story itself unoriginal and more importantly, I found the way in which the Na’vi race was portrayed problematic.

Yeah, the Na’vi are blue but their faces are a melting pot of ethnic features and their long hair is dreadlocked. Plus, the main Na’vi characters are voiced by four black actors (Zoe Saldana being the prominent Na’vi character and love interest to the movie’s white protagonist Jake Sully). Consequently, it is not enough that the Na’vi are meant to be an extraterrestrial race – no, Cameron must further emphasize the “other” aspect of these fictional people by giving them recognizably ethnic features and by having black actors portray them.

Now, I know that Avatar is meant to be symbolic; that it is supposed to be a reflection of the imperialistic and colonial exploits of our world (Cameron admitted this himself in an NBC interview stating that the plot is centered on how greed and imperialism “tends to destroy the environment” and so on and so forth). And I think that if Cameron had done it right, I would have appreciated it. But Cameron did not do it right. He merely perpetuated tropes and themes that have negatively or condescendingly portrayed other races. For instance, before the (white and for the most part middle-aged) humans officially declare war on the Na’vi, Sully inhabits his Avatar and desperately attempts to make a diplomatic agreement between the two races. But of course, the Na’vi ignorantly ignore his advice and believe that their bow and arrows will take down the humans’ advanced machinery. And when that doesn’t work, Sully becomes one of the Na’vi people and leads them into battle because for some reason, the actual leader of the Na’vi can’t seem to do it himself. Therefore, Cameron adds to the vast amount of literature and movies that portray the need for the white man to rescue an ethnic race because they are not intelligent or strong enough to overcome extraordinary obstacles themselves.

Of course, that isn’t the only contentious detail. The way in which the Na’vi are portrayed as the “primitive other” is also problematic, for while the film tends to praise the Na’vi people for being in touch with nature, the fact remains that these fictional and yet recognizably ethnic people are inherently bestial and are meant to be the antithesis of refinement and civilization. Cameron doesn’t depict civilization as being a particularly good or moral place but he still depicts civilization as something that is Western.

It is in my opinion that Cameron’s heart was in the right place when he made this movie but it is also my opinion that the story was hackneyed, that it lacked insight, and that it was filled with Western arrogance.

Beloved by Toni Morrison: A brilliant book about Trauma

Today I was engaged in a debate that I've been having for two years now. It is a debate I always welcome with anyone and it concerns a topic I'm very passionate about. While Toni Morrison's Beloved won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize, many of my friends and fellow students believe the novel is undeserving of the award, that it is far too pretentious, and that it is a vanity piece in that it merely displays how clever Morrison is.

I respectfully disagree.

Toni Morrison is my favourite author and Beloved is my favourite book of all time (Drown by Junot Diaz is a strong contender). While I can hardly call the writing simplistic, I refuse to acknowledge it as pretentious. I believe the writing is intelligent and that if the author were a white man rather than a Black woman and if the book's subject had nothing to do with enslavement, it would be considered as such. Of course, I have heard theories that Morrison only won the Pulitzer because of the fact that Beloved is about enslavement; these theories usually come from my white friends who find the book an uncomfortable/frustrating read because they feel as if the book is merely "another" story detailing how white people have marginalized and "screwed over" (as they say) African Americans. My response to them is twofold.

One: enslavement is a very big part of American history and it is not an event you can merely wish away just to make yourself feel more comfortable; it is not an event we should or can forget especially since the traumas of enslavement are ongoing considering that even today, African Americans are very much a marginalized group. Second: the purpose of Beloved really isn't to point fingers. It is a book about trauma. I cannot stress this enough. The novel is about how a Black family, how a Black community, tries to find happiness, independence and identity but the effects, the traumas, and the mere memories of enslavement constantly hinder their attempts to advance. Beloved concentrates on Black characters and details the ways they try to cope with a horrific experience that psychologically and emotionally broke them; the depravity of the white "slave" masters is not the focus.

But even if the inequitable and barbaric power dynamic between the white masters and Black enslaved peoples was the focus, that should not and would not render the novel bad. For those who think it would, perhaps they should analyze why they are unable to read about a book portraying true historical facts.

The Problem With The Tale of Despereaux

I just finished watching The Tale of Despereaux and while I find the movie visually engaging and the "mice are cowardly" theme cute (even if it does become hackneyed over the course of the film), I just cannot get over the way "Ratworld" was introduced. As in many books and films, rats in The Tale of Despereaux are depraved and vicious creatures. As if to heighten these characteristics, when the film first displays the squalid Ratworld, it does so over a score of African drum beats and Arabic melodies. The blatant racism behind the fact that this music is meant to invoke a sense of barbarism and savagery is atrocious and detestable. Exactly what message is this movie sending to its child audience? And for those who believe that deconstructing the music of an animated film is ridiculous and that I am merely going "PC crazy," I have two things to say. Firstly, I HATE the term and the entire concept of "politcal correctness" because it does not eradicate or solve anything - it merely asks a racist/misogynist/bigot to cloak their views. For instance, if a racist wants to refer to a Black person as a "nigg--" but says "African-American" to uphold "political correctness," said racist is still calling the Black person a "nigg--" in his/her mind and still has the same views. Secondly, nothing in film is an accident and so the responsible thing to do when presented with a situation such as the one in the Ratworld scene is to question why did the composer/director choose to use African and Arabic musical tones to introduce a world that is meant to represent debasement, primitivism and vulgarity? What implications does this choice have? And why, in this day and age, is the concept of the primitive other one that is still very much alive?

The Danger of Twilight

Two nights ago, I went out with my friends to celebrate my 19th birthday. But instead of going to a club (as was our original plan) we ended up losing ourselves in conversation about certain television shows, movies, and books (you know you're an English major when ...) And a bulk of our conversation consisted of the danger and flimsiness of Stephanie Meyers' Twilight "Saga". Admittedly, we had all read the books and had gone to see the films (in fact the conversation started with us admiring the built of Taylor Lautner and the Jacob Black persona). However, I believe that the fact we have read the books and have seen the movies allows us to criticize the books more thoroughly and more productively than the people who merely state they hate the franchise. What I realized is that when I read New Moon, I did find some things problematic but when putting the book on screen, all of those probelmatic aspects become heightened and emphasized. The mere concept of a teenage girl going on suicidal endeavours just to "see" her estranged boyfriend or "hear" his voice is not only ridiculous but socially regressive. That Bella's character is not able to take care of herself and relies on another man (Jacob Black) when her boyfriend (Edward) leaves is also extremely problematic - why is it that the only strong female characters in the novel are vampires? Furthermore, the relationship she has with Edward is completely unhealthy as he is possessive rather than protective and that they are willing to die for one another since life without one is meaningless is for, lack of a better word, completely insane. And while Bella's relationship with Jacob Black is normal, human and "natural" he still manipulates her into kissing him by threatening to commit suicide (seems to be a theme prevalent in the series). However, what I find most disturbing about everything mentioned is that while my friends and I are able to deconstruct the series and pick out what is problematic (due to being young women) the little girls who read these books find them romantic and want to grow up to be Bella and attract men like Edward (who is literally the "unattainable male character"). I am not saying that Twilight should not be read but I am saying that despite being a superficial book, it is one that should be taken with a grain of salt.