Tofu Elephants, by Gina Lam

I have been attending interviews for summer internships and I am always asked the same group of questions. What are your achievements, grades, classes, qualifications and experiences? I don't believe the questions really encompasses who I am. I can only imagine how difficult it is to be an interviewer because all the questions are the same and candidates answer what they believe the interviewer is looking for. I hypothesize that most participants have the similar answers. How do people even differentiate between people? How should I define myself and justly represent my self within the few minutes that I have and how do interviewers define me? The interviews reminded me of the activity we did in class when we were asked to define ourselves and our identity. During the exercise, I thought about tofu and elephant. Tofu is soft and wiggly. People look at tofu and assume that it is gross and think asian cuisines, which people think toads and cats chopped and marinated in soy sauce. But tofu is soft, versatile, it can be added to any dish and still be great. When people think protein, they think steak and big portions of meat, but tofu is higher in protein and very nutritious. Tofu might fall apart but even in pieces it still is great; similarly, sometimes I get frazzled, but I am all about solving the problem as soon as humanly possible and moving past the problem.

People look at elephants and all they see is a big, gray animal, that makes ivory. They do not see the beautiful and intelligent creatures, all they see is money. People have hunted elephants and nearly caused them to be extinct. However elephants are so amazing and instead of killing them, people should be learning from them. Elephants are matriarchal, gentle, compassionate and always remember where they were born and where they come from. Elephants might look big, intimating and stupid, but they are the complete opposite and we probably look small and stupid to elephants. 

People look at me and expect me to be quiet and complicit with everything, I think it's largely because I am Chinese and I am a nice person. There are expectations paste onto me, even before people meet me. Interviewers look at my name and they think asian, overachiever and obedient. However, when I behave differently from the expectations, people have difficultly acknowledging and processing the difference. I am extremely passionate about human rights and I have a soft spot for immigrants, children and the elderly. When people think it is okay to victimize Chinese grandmas on the train and I assertively ask them how ashamed or disgusted do they think their mom or grandma would be, they suddenly have difficulty understanding my english. People tend to ignore my words when I speak assertively or they try to discount my opinion.

I wonder what would happen if during an interview I was asked to definite myself and I said tofu or elephant. Most likely I would not get the job because the interviewer would have a difficult time digesting my answer. The interviewers expect answers along the lines of adjectives that paint an ambitious and consistent candidate. Instead of taking the time to internalize the answer and decide whether there is merit, people would just brush it aside. We live in a world were there are expectations for everything. The interviewers expect certain frame of answers and I expect certain type of questions. We expect things from people and it is difficult to digesting anything different. People have to consciously attempt to internalize anything different. We have become a robotic society where there are expectations and identities are copied and pasted on bodies. Unfortunately, there is very little room made for the weird and the funky. 

James Baldwin and Nina Simone

I recently decided to take another listen to the live version of  Nina Simone’s song, “I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free” that she performed at the 1976 Montreux Jazz Festival. One particular line that really caught my attention in class, and again during my second listening was when she says, “Everybody should be free because if we ain’t we’re murders.”  It grabbed my attention first for standing out so much in comparison to otherwise relativity light lyrics. When looking up the lyrics I found that this particular line was not in the recorded version.  The fact that the line was organic to the live performance made it have an even greater impact on me.  The line made me think about Baldwin’s writings about his father and the hate he held onto. It made me think how detrimental structures, like race that keep us “chained,” are to the human body, both mentally and physically.  In a way then it is true that to not be mentally free from these structures is to murder ourselves.

Another section that was unique to the live version and that I really enjoyed was her saying that she finally knows, “How it feels not to be chained to anything, to any race, to any faith, to anybody, to any greed, to any hopes, to anything.” I felt that this again just embodied even more the beauty in breaking free from these structures that work so hard to restrain us.

By Artur

In 1968, following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., an interesting experiment with implications on prejudice and discrimination was conducted in an elementary school classroom. After a student asked Jane Elliot about MLK Jr., she decided to try the experiment out. Its results, in my mind, say something about human nature.

On the first day, Elliot explained to the kids that blue eyed students were superior to the students. She began running her classroom in a way that segregated kids based on eye color, and clearly favoring the blue eyed kids. The brown eyed students, who were told to wear brown fabric around their necks, resisted until given a (made-up) scientific explanation by Elliot. The blue-eyed students began acting arrogantly and had a nasty attitude towards the brown eyed students. They also began doing better in class, even those students who had previously been poor students. Conversely, the brown eyed students regressed in class, even those who had excelled before, and became less social outside of class. The following Monday, Elliot had explained that she was mistaken and it was actually brown eyed students that were superior. Afterwards, the roles reversed and it was the brown eyes students who became arrogant and academically superior, while blue eyed students regressed. Furthermore, Brown eyed students began treating blue eyed students similarly to the way they were treated the previous week. 

What does an experiment like this imply? It seems that young kids cling to differences they are told make them better or worse than others. They begin to act in ways that fulfill those differences, such as getting better grades because they were told their eyes made them smarter. If you convince  child that a stereotype is true, they will act in ways that make it true. So why does this matter? Think of everything in society that tells a black student, a homosexual person, a woman, an impoverished individual, etc. that they are somehow inferior to someone else. Then the reasoning offered behind it is the grades these “inferior” students receive, or the way they carry themselves, or their economic situations, etc. Yet these claims lose all legitimacy as they are the causes of themselves. The claims that certain groups are inferior make them inferior. This is the less problematic revelation of the experiment. 

The worrisome part of the experiment is how quickly and strongly the kids internalized what Jane Elliot told them. Within less than a week the eye color of these kids dominated their identities, even though it pit them on opposite sides with some of their friends. The experiment hints at the idea that differences are the most defining parts of our identity, especially when people are told they have implications on their status. This was a simple experiment by a schoolteacher. Imagine this experiment were to continue? Wouldn’t it be ridiculous is we discriminated against each other based on eye color? If the answer is yes, then why is it not ridiculous when it’s race? Why is it not when it’s gender? Why Is it not, ever? 

 "Prejudice cannot stop until somebody refuses to hate. Are we too deep for that to happen?

Reflection on NPR Article

James Baldwin Reappeared Just When We Needed Him Most
by Saeed Jones

We are studying James Baldwin in 2014, the Year of Baldwin, the year he would have turned 90 years old. Recently a collection of his poems was published, and Saeed Jones discusses this in his NPR blog post linked above. Today our lives are rushed and busy, and we often neglect to take the time to think about who we are and what our place is. The year of Baldwin has perhaps come just when we need it most, as a society, and as a group of students. Baldwin's work inspires us to ask questions, to start conversations and to grow as individuals.

By Suzanna Shermon

The melting pot ideal implies that everybody in a society comes together to form

a whole. Dissecting the term itself, “melting pot” implies that someone who gets thrown

in it “melts” and meshes with everybody else, simultaneously losing his or her own

identity to contribute to the greater whole. The benefits of this ideal are that everybody

in a society is equal to one another and all races and religions have uniform advantages,

implying that concepts like prejudice and discrimination do not apply. This concept is

faulty because in most societies there is always a hierarchy of power. Certain people or

groups have a larger advantage and more control than others, creating a set back in the

utopian idea that all members in a melting pot society are equal. Instead of melting in

with each other, we form a hierarchy of races and ethnic groups, where some races and

ethnic groups are more superior to others, rather than all of us being equal as the “melting

pot” idea suggests. James Baldwin once said: “People aren’t meant to be melted. Melted

down into what? It’s a very unfortunate image.” We do not form a whole. We do not melt

in with each other. Instead, every man stands as an island, and represents himself.

Nevertheless, despite the existing prejudice in the United States, this country

is still better than many others. My parents were born and raised in the Soviet

Union. In the Soviet Union, prejudice was the law. People were forbidden from

practicing religion. If people were ever discovered practicing their religion, they

were often arrested. Nevertheless, despite all practice of religion being forbidden,

there was still an unofficial hierarchy of religion. Christians often berated Jewish

people. Christian children in elementary schools made fun of children that even

resembled a Jewish appearance. My mother never had any typical “Jewish qualities”

to her appearance, so children in her class always assumed she was Russian

Orthodox. However, after a parent night at her school, all the children soon realized

that her father looked extremely Jewish. The next day, she found notes on her desk

with vulgar words that all essentially meant “Jew.” My parents ran away from that

country and its hate and prejudice with hope that life will be better in America.

While it is true that our country is far from ideal, it must be admitted that we

are far better off in terms of prejudice than many other countries. Yes, we are far

from being a melting pot of immigrants and natives forming a whole. However, we

do provide a much better life for our immigrants than the countries that they came

Our problems with prejudice, however, may come from the prejudice that

some immigrants bring with them here. For instance, if a Russian Christian family

moves to the United States and take their prejudgment of Jewish people with them,

then the prejudice now moves from Russia to America, and is yet another addition

to the existing web of prejudice. In sixth grade, I had a classmate that constantly

teased Jewish people over their curly hair and the shape of their noses. For some

reason though, she tried to befriend me. To my embarrassment, I found myself lying

to her, saying that I am only half Jewish, only to avoid her taunting. Needless to say,

our friendship did not last long. I soon realized how uncomfortable she made me

feel, and how I cannot be friends with somebody with whom I have to lie about who

I am just to be accepted.

While our country may be better than other countries in terms of prejudice,

we still have a long way to go. Just like Baldwin teaches: we must learn to love each

other and accept each other. This way, situations like my sixth grade fiasco can be

avoided. Loving each other will help us not just be kinder to people and kill off

prejudice, but it will also help as mature as individuals, and maybe, finally, conform

to the ideal of a melting pot.

By Suzanna Shermon

I keep thinking back to the anecdote that Professor Moore told our class in the beginning

of the semester. For those of you who don’t know or don’t remember this story, it goes

like this: Professor Moore goes to a barber shop in which a group of men are saying

disgraceful things about women. Despite his state of disgust, Professor Moore did not

stand up to those men. As we were discussing this story in class, most people, including

Professor Moore, concluded that by not standing up to people who are racist, sexist, or

any other type of “-ist” in which they go against a certain stereotype, we are essentially

joining them on their cruel actions. At first I agreed. After all, society won’t change

unless people force it to change, right? As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Be the change

you want to see in the world.”

Nevertheless, something kept bothering me about this story. As I thought back I realized

that society is not a whole. Think of it this way; if society is a whole then there is no

way that one person (Professor Moore in this case) could change all of society, even if

he or she stood up to every jerk that came his or her way. If society is a whole, then we

would all be equal and all represent one another, which clearly is not the case with all

the prejudice and hatred that our society experiences. By standing up to the chauvinist,

disgraceful men at the barber shop, Professor Moore would not have changed society. In

fact, I don’t even think that he would have changed the opinions of those men, regardless

of what he did or said to them. People do not change. That bully from the playground

is still out there being cruel to people- in fact, maybe he was sitting right there in that

barber shop. At best, those men would have bowed their heads and nodded with false

understanding, but went back to disgracing women the very next day. At worst, they

would take their anger out on Professor Moore. If your action causes a positive change

even in one person, often it is worth risking your own well being to achieve that change.

Unfortunately, you will probably never change a person, especially a stranger, and

usually it is not worth it to take that risk.

As depressing as that may sound, I realized that it is not a bad thing. Since society is not

a whole, those men in the barber shop do not represent all of society. In the same manner,

homophobics and racists do not represent all of society. In fact, nobody who exhibits

prejudice represents all of society. People are so diverse in all of their beliefs that society

barely has a common opinion on anything. The only thing we, as a society, share in

common is the country in which we live in. With that said, society cannot possibly shape

us because we do not really have a society- just a group of extremely diverse individuals

living in the same place at the same time. Unfortunately, the problem is that some people

act like their opinions are more important that anyone else’s. What is even worse is that

people like that often obtain power, and give off the false impression that everyone else

in “society” feels the same way they do. The sooner we realize that society is an illusion,

the sooner we realize that it cannot possibly shape us.

In Giovanni’s Room, David struggles with his sexuality. Despite being gay, David fought

as hard as he could to be straight because the society that he lived in all his life “frowns

upon” homosexuality. Baldwin displays this internal conflict through David’s feelings

for Giovanni. David’s feelings constantly change between love and hate for Giovanni.

At times, David claims to love and hate Giovanni at the same time. The love that David

feels is natural, his true feelings for Giovanni, feelings that he cannot control. The hatred,

however, is the feelings that David thinks society would want him to have for Giovanni

instead. David’s hatred for Giovanni is actually the hatred he feels for himself because

instead of complying to society’s “standards” of being in a heterosexual relationship with

a woman, David fell in love with a man. In the end, David’s hatred for himself overcame

his love for Giovanni, and he decided to give in to society.

If only David knew that not everybody in society is homophobic or anti-gay. Perhaps,

then, he would live happily ever after with his love, without feeling any hatred for

Giovanni or himself. We have to learn to accept ourselves for who we are and the way we

were born, instead of letting anybody else shape us.

The truth, at the very least to me, is really obvious: you simply cannot hate people for

the way they were born or the lifestyles that they chose for themselves. People do not

change, no matter how hard they try to mask who they really are. This goes for all the

diverse people in our society: including both the gays and the homophobics. No matter

how much homophobics tell homosexuals to be straight, at the end of the day, gay

people will always love people of the same gender as them. Others may try to convince

homophobics that they are wrong in their beliefs. Yet, once again, at the end of day they

will still be homophobic. Wasting our last nerves or putting ourselves at risk will not do

much in terms of changing people to what we want them to be. The best we can do is

learn to accept ourselves and others for what we are because once again, since society is

an illusion, the only thing left to shape a person is the person himself.

By Artur Balanovskiy

Artur Balanovskiy

Race, Identity and Globalization

 Love is the Answer

Darnell Moore stated in a course named Race, Identity and Globalization that, “Love eliminates

space that would keep you apart.” That seems to be the point of the course as a whole- learning to

eliminate the space between people of different races, genders, classes, etc., and how that requires an

understanding of both other people and one’s self. When one interacts with another individual, in a way

they are faced with themselves. Going to Meet the Man by James Baldwin was a clear attempt to break

the barrier between people, and it was successful because Baldwin wrote understandingly from the

perspective of his own oppressors. By contrast, some messages such as one particular sermon by Jeremiah

Wright are not as successful because of their hostile and differentiating nature. When interactions of any

kind, face to face or through art, are initiated with an effort to understand each other, people grow to love.

When they alienate any group or individual, however, they further create the separation between people,

and greatly impact the success and reactions that will follow.

Going to Meet the Man was James Baldwin’s most direct attempt to eliminate the space between

the black and white communities. He writes from the perspective of a white debt collector named Jesse,

who harbors strong white supremacist feelings that influence his actions towards Civil Rights protestors,

and people of color in general. Yet Baldwin presents this character, who had beaten and battered a black

protester early in the story, in a way the reader can sympathize with. Baldwin understood that nobody is

born with such hatred in their minds, and it takes an effort to see from another’s viewpoint to begin to

love them. Through his writing, Baldwin is eliminating space between himself and his oppressors. Aside

from putting in perspective the brutality that white supremacists have been taught, he also comes into

contact with himself through this writing. He sees how his oppressors see him and understand that the

way he is seen is a result of the victimization his so-called enemies have faced. Therefore, by hating his

oppressors he understands he hates a victim, and with that knowledge he can learn to stop hating and start

loving. In fact, his readers can begin to see that if they cannot learn to love their enemies, they are further

alienating both sides from each other. This is what makes Baldwin so highly regarded and respected as a

writer and Civil Rights activist: he teaches us to love.

When one’s interactions with others do not inspire love, those who cannot identify with them

will usually become defensive and aggressive towards them and their message. Jeremiah Wright is a

prime example of this. Wright is the pastor at president Obama’s church in Chicago, and has even been

called Obama’s mentor. Yet he came under scrutiny during the campaigning for the Democratic primaries

between Obama and Hillary Clinton, because of a sermon he gave where he explained (in a passionate,

maybe even aggressive way) that Clinton could not understand the struggles of being black and fighting

for equality with “rich white people.” His message about the struggles of black people was not wrong. He

even said at one point that Jesus taught him to love his enemies. What he did, however, that caused him

to be called a racist and painted in a negative light was that he differentiated so strongly between Hilary

Clinton, as well as the white community as a whole, and Obama. By saying white people could never

understand the struggles of black people, and that Clinton’s struggles could not compare to Obama’s, he

was appealing to much of the black community who could sympathize with his words, but alienating the

white community. Rather than eliminated the distance, he was creating it. This sermon was an interaction

with white people, and Hilary Clinton, and his claims that she could not understand their struggles is

evidence that he could not understand hers either. His interaction illuminated how he sees himself, and

Artur Balanovskiy

Race, Identity and Globalization

when his reaction is one of blaming the other, he is really placing self-blame on somebody else. He was

creating hate rather than love, because he was creating separation instead of deleting it, due to his own

inability to understand his other.

In class Professor Moore asked us to find the differences in the message, rhetoric, etc. between

James Baldwin’s writing and Jeremiah Wright’s sermon. In many ways the two are similar. Both are

passionate about the struggles of the black community, and fight to see its advancement. Yet while

Baldwin’s Going to Meet the Man humanizes a white supremacist, a true racist (even if a fictional

character), in a way that allows even the oppressed black person to understand Jesse as a person. Wright,

on the other hand, creates an evident separation between a white Democrat who opposed the black Obama

politically. Baldwin brought different people together while Wright ended up pulling them apart. Baldwin

created love, and Wright’s sermon did not. For that reason Wright faced a backlash and was accused

of being a racist: his sermon makes love between the white and black communities impossible. Love is

the key to creating change though interactions and art. We ask the question of how to solve the world’s

problems and inequalities, and love is the answer.

Stillness In Love

by Quincey Martin-Chapman

It has stayed upon my heart and mind our most recent discussion on love. More specifically what love points out in ourselves. I thought to keep this writing cohesive I might have to choose between whether to discuss self-discovery or love. It continues to become clear to me that it might just be impossible to separate the two.

The class discussion’s connection to James Baldwin also became clearer to me as I began to read Giovanni’s Room. The definition of love as what gets rid of the distance that would otherwise keep us apart made a specific quote especially stand out to me. James Baldwin’s main character, David, says at the end of chapter one,

“I had decided to allow no room in the universe for something which shamed and frightened me. I succeeded very well- by not looking at the universe, by not looking at myself, by remaining, in effect, in constant motion.”

I read “no room in the universe” as the character’s ultimate way of keeping the distance in tact, in turn shutting out love.  Our tendency to remain in motion and busy to avoid looking at ourselves and also getting to know others rings very true. I think about how in class we brought to attention how little we offer and often how little we expect when we ask someone about themselves or who they are. It is much easier to know the basics, to spit out in almost robotic nature our careers and our hobbies, and lists of achievements. But never do we really tell someone WHO we are. Part in problem we truly and fully do not know. But why do we not care enough to try and learn?

What do we have to lose when we really get to know someone? Perhaps it is our ego or our unchallenged, relatively likable, view of ourselves. Anthropology teaches us that it is through others we understand who we are. We in many ways come to know and become cognizant of ourselves through the differences in others we can easily identify. “Because I am not you, I am,” I’ve once heard an anthropology teacher say. I was also once told, however, it is a dangerous thing to define something by opposition, that this in fact is not defining something at all.

So what happens when we go deeper and move past these surface differences? It seems we instead begin to identify things that aren’t so different, things that are actually rather similar to us. Most frightening of all then, we experience the face on confrontation of things we don’t like about ourselves.  A passage from Giovanni’s Room that really took me aback was when the main character was describing the transvestites in the bar, saying that,

“his utter grotesqueness made me uneasy; perhaps in the same way that the sight of monkeys eating their own excrement turns some people’s stomachs. They might not mind so much if monkeys did not- so grotesquely so- resemble human beings.”  

While reading this section I was quite uncomfortable, I was annoyed that the character kept referring to the men as “it”, and even the comparison to monkeys eating their own excrement seemed tremendously offensive.  It was only until the very last line of this quote that it truly set in what his disgust meant. It was the disgust he had for himself.  It seems true that what evokes the most emotional reaction from us does so because it hits very close to home.  It is often said that homophobia is a hatred that actually stems from self-hate and fear of one’s own potential homosexuality.

Returning to the first quote regarding constant motion, David then goes on in referring to his struggles with confronting his sexuality, that the constant motion was not always a distraction and that he was still left to  “fac[e] in myself the terrors I sometimes saw clouding another man’s eyes.”  I felt that this represented so much more than a literal look or a glance, but that in these other men’s eyes was a reflection, a reflection of self.  This reference to eye contact made me think of the film, Tongues Untied, by Marlon Riggs. In the film there was a scene that made commentary on the refusal in the black gay community to look at or acknowledge another black gay man in passing.  In an interview with Lyle Ashton Harris, Marlon Riggs explains the scene as

“the gaze of shame and negation that we know so well. Rather than come to terms with the truths in our lives and the shame, we try to avoid them. We project all of our ambivalence, our hidden terror, our shame, our hurt onto others because their faces look like ours.  We don’t know anything about the man who is up the street and looking at us, but we invest that image, that face with everything inside ourselves and don’t want to deal.”  

This response in so many ways for me summed up Giovanni’s main character, David, and the heart of our class discussion. I believe this applies not only under the umbrella of accepting one’s sexual orientation, but in all our interactions with others. It recalls another thing mentioned in an earlier class, in regards to any act of judgment on a person before knowing them as an act of violence. I also now read this judgment as a form of violence against self as well.

What do we really have to lose when we get to know another person? The pain, the hate, the fear, the violence, and in the spirit of Donny Hathaway, the load we’ve been carrying, “why not share?”  But more importantly what do we gain when we learn another person, when we remove the distance? LOVE.

Love, to me, is also stillness. Our “constant motion” efforts allow, as David suggests, ensures distance, and protection from our fears.  Getting to truly know someone requires stillness. Love requires stillness. When things become uncomfortable and the urge to wriggle your way into an easier position comes, love is being able to remain in that stillness with another. This is not to be mistaken with negative connotation of stillness as simply lack of action. We have been taught that stillness goes hand in hand with the absence of ambition or progress, and we must therefore keep ourselves busy.  But I believe that stillness in love fosters more growth than any packed schedule-planner could ever offer.

By Gina Lam

Jeremiah Wright was loud, aggressive and passionate. While Toni Morrison was calm and witty. But it appears people accept and hear her information more because of how she delivered it.  Mr. Wright was right about the inequality and the government doing more to help the wealthy and privileged white people. However he was wrong to use Hillary Clinton as a representation of privilege and to represent Barack Obama as encompassing all the discrimination people of color face. Both are not entirely true. Obama is privileged in many aspects, while Clinton faces discriminations as a female. I have no problem with his general message that inequality exist and that the government does very little to rectify it. Mr. Wright used many legislation that the U.S. government passed to as evidence of social inequality such as: Jim Crow laws, convict leasing, crack cocaine verses powder cocaine ratio, 3 strikes rules and our prison system. Mr. Wright is very passionate and loud when he speaks, I am not sure if he is screaming or maybe he just speaks that way during his sermons, his sermon voice. But Mr. Wright definitely has a right to be enraged for himself, for his community and all people of color. There is a lot to be angry and emotional about. 

It is interesting how as a society whenever people speak with passion, they are either automatically discounted or told to calm down. It happens everyday, once someone raises their voice, people say okay don’t need to get emotional. But certain things require emotional and it would be weird if people did not get emotional. For example victim blaming enrages me, it would be weird if people did not show emotion and were content with a community that accepts victim blaming. If people were monotonic when discussing rape, assault, being frisked and discriminated against. Being emotion is usually equated with women and also accepted as the opposite of rationality.

When I was listening to Wright speak, I felt like he was directly yelling at me and about to reach off the screen and point his finger at me. While Morrison she took her time and she was calmer; therefore most people discredit Wright especially since the clips were shown right after one another. But after leaving the class, I realize that everything Wright said was true. Although how he said was overwhelming, I agreed with his message. White people are privilege in many ways that People of Color are not. It is enraging to have to grow up in a system and having to go to pre-school and have your classmates make fun of your lunch and make you the “other”. 

Wright was speaking when the Democratic nomination for presidency was taking place and Wright had an agenda. He wanted the Black community to vote for Obama. His sermon had a purpose and a point. He used his authority in church to influence voters. Although I agree with majority of what he said, I cannot overlook the fact that he was not just preaching to inform his congregation he was preaching for his own purpose and agenda. The fact that there was a motive tainted my perspective of Wright, who has authority and power in his community but he did not use it responsibility. I believe that is what separates Wright from Baldwin. Baldwin talks about what he knows and experienced. He only talks about negros, Harlem and things that he knows and can understand. He speaks on what he knows to be true for the sake of writing and expressing himself, he does not have an agenda. Baldwin gives people information and allows his readers and audience to interpret his narrative for themselves. Mr. Wright did not give his congregation actual political information. He did not discuss the issues or policies the two democrats supported.
Instead he either tore down or brought up democratic nominee based on their appearance. He didn’t let his congregation decide for themselves which candidate would have the most to offer and would actually improve their quality of life. He dumbed the information down to basically his opinion and what he wanted people to believe. He did not give them the information or trust them to process the information on their own he just spoon fed them how he felt and what he wanted. 

 In Toni Morrison video, what caught my attention was when she said African Americans are not victims. Baldwin believes African Americans are victims. But I like that they use the word differently. Baldwin used victim to mean that we are all victims of the system, everyone of all color, including white people are victims of the system. While Morrison meant that Blacks are not to be pitied or fought for; they can fight for themselves and they don’t need to be given empathy or sorrow like helpless children.  

Amen Corner was not a difficult read but difficult to process and come to terms with how I felt.  I am not sure how I feel about all the characters whether I like them or not, except for Odessa. I really like what she says at the end “ Brothers and sisters if you knew just a little but about folk’s lives, what folks go through and the low, black place they find their feet- you would have a meeting this afternoon.” It is really overwhelming how strongly people can believe and how quickly those belief can change. Whenever belief or favor is brought up, I am reminded of how quickly people favored Bush, when he announced that he was going to war and how quickly the same numbers dropped after Hurricane Katrina. Public love and adoration is so fickle, that it is very pointless. In Margaret’s church, her congregation initially had so much respect for her and she lived off that respect. But as the story progresses, it is overwhelming how quick and harsh Margaret and her congregation judge each other. Margaret was so strict and believed she was chosen and therefore above everyone else. Towards the end, they had a complete disregard for Margaret, condemning her by association. She worked so hard for the congregation and to prove herself righteous. Margaret had to constantly be proving herself moral and once she “slipped, everyone could not wait to condemn her. It was so easy and quick for her congregation to find fault. They are so harsh with each other and so quick to condemn each other.

Baldwin brought the complex structure of church and even people who have never stepped foot into a church could witness the complexity, contradictions and how strong faith is. Baldwin does a great job demonstrating how uplifting and how condemning a church community can be. Margaret felt chosen and people believed that she was too, which allowed her to leave her past behind and to be so strong. However once her congregation believed Margaret had any signs of being “immoral” they shoved her off the throne and couldn’t wait to place themselves in it. They tried to shame each other to not be bad and to no fulfill the stereotypes of gang, crimes violence, drugs and alcohol abuse. It felt like there was so much on the line to appear holy and moral, and therefore they needed to be strict and harsh to each other, which is ironic because people are afraid of how outsiders judge them that they end up judging each other in the same unforgiving manner. The church itself needed to keep up appearances and as a reader it felt like, if outsiders believed that the church was not at its best that automatically the church was a sinful place. There is so much stress to keep up appearances and it seems very tiring and relentless.  

Reflection on Perspective

A Reflection on Perspective

by Jessica Troy

As we read Baldwin’s words, we are learning about his perspective as a black man in America, viewing his world through his eyes. In class, I was interested to discuss the perspective of those who Baldwin interacted with. It had never occurred to me to look at literature in that way. I was particularly interested in the scene from Notes on a Native Son on pages 593-94. In this scene, which was also discussed in the documentary, Baldwin describes an experience he had as a young man in a diner. The young white waitress informed him that he wouldn’t be served, and he threw a glass of water at him in a fit of rage. 

Baldwin remarks that he was overcome with something he had never felt before. This is perhaps the first time Baldwin realizes the hatred he carries in his own heart. We understand prejudice and that the motivation for it often comes from hate, but we cannot overcome prejudice without an understanding of all people, of their background and situation. We must look past our own hatred toward those who mistreat us, we must look to understand them, because without understanding we are perpetrators of a vicious cycle of the mistreatment of others. 

I am interested in exploring the perspective of the young woman who’s unfortunate duty it was to inform Mr. Baldwin that the restaurant would not be serving him because of the color of his skin. She is tired, she has a waitressing job that she cannot afford to lose, her manager doesn't really speak to his staff, he barks orders at them from the bar. Today is particularly bad, and he shouts particularly loudly at her when a black man enters and seats himself in her section. She is a non-confrontational person. She really wishes she could just serve him and be done with it, but her manager is glaring, and he’ll be shouting again before she knows it. She is scared. She doesn’t want to offend anyone, she doesn’t want the man to yell at her, she doesn’t want to cause a scene. 

The man pretends he didn’t hear her. She can feel her manager’s beady eyes on the back of her neck. She takes one step closer, she repeats herself, using the kindest voice she possibly can. She tenses, hoping for the best. But the man, in the blink of an eye, is hurling a glass of water at her. She ducks just in time. She is terrified, and angry. It’s not her fault she can’t serve him. 

We all experience prejudice in our lives, and in class we wrote an experience where we felt prejudiced against, and what we could imagine the aggressor was feeling at the time. I shared an experience I had with a girl who lived in my apartment at college last year. She is a black woman, and I am a white woman. She and I, and some other friends were sitting around one night at the beginning of the year. We didn’t know each other very well. A friend had mentioned a man who I had dated briefly the previous spring. That man was black. The girl I lived with asked if he was cute, and I showed her a few photos that had been posted to my Facebook page. She began to berate and tease me, saying crude things like “Once you go black, you never go back,” asking why I felt like I deserved a black man, what I had done to run out of white boys, and telling me that if I kept it up, I would have a black baby in one to five years. 

I was horrified at the time, but in class, looking back on the event, I was almost amused. As I thought about her perspective, I nearly pitied her. I imagine her fueled by jealousy. I hate to seem boastful, but I am more confident with men, more outgoing and have more dating experience than she did. I understand her jealousy, but at the time was enraged at her implication that I didn’t deserve to date a person based on the color of their skin. Thinking about her feelings and motivations helped me realize how we as a society look at race in relationships. I have a better understanding now of her feelings and while they do not help us move forward in our lives, my understanding helps me grow as an individual, personally and in my relationships with others.