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.