Blog #3

I really enjoyed reading Amy Lowell's poem, "September 1918." Although it may be short, I think Lowell captures and describes-in great detail-the ambience of the times. The first world war was almost over; she even mentions it in the first line of the third stanza, "Some day there will be no war." And this comes as a surprise, since the first two stanzas are littered with images of a beautiful, Autumn day, "This afternoon was the [colour] of water falling through sunlight, The trees glittered with the tumbling of leaves. . ." Yet, one could argue these first two lines are already giving away subtle hints: Lowell's use of the words tumbling and falling (and in the third line, dropped) can be considered to foreshadow the darker underlying theme she reveals near the end of the poem. With the war right outside her door the past four years, I am certain Lowell has heard the sound of bombs "dropping" and planes "falling" out of the sky. And I am sure these terms were expressed all the time in conversations and newspapers, as well, to describe the current events. (Anthology, p 713)

Lowell continues to paint a picture of beauty and happiness in the fourth line of the first stanza, "And the houses ran along them laughing out of square, open windows." Then she gives us the next, but last, line of merriment as she conveys the image of two boys in the park that, "Were carefully gathering red berries, To put in a pasteboard box." Thus far, Lowell has given her readers a reflection of enjoyment and prosperity, but the very next line contains her mention of the war. This stanza is represented with such darkness and melancholy, especially the first (aforementioned) and last three lines: "For I have time for nothing, But the endeavor to balance myself, Upon a broken world." (Anthology, p 713)

In contrast-amongst all the doom and gloom-I think Lowell is offering her readers hope, as well as herself; she talks of a brighter and more optimistic future. The first seven lines in the third stanza really explain this concept best. "Some day there will be no war. Then I shall take out this afternoon, And turn it in my fingers, And remark the sweet taste of it upon my palate, And note the crisp variety of its flights of leaves, To-day I can only gather it, And put it into my lunch-box. . ." I feel what Lowell is trying to articulate is that this moment, whether fantasy or reality, can only be retrieved when there is a time of peace-until then, it will just be a daydream, or memory. (Anthology, p 713)

Race and the American Novel: Personal Synthesis

Uncle Tom's Cabin is an interesting novel to read when dealing with the issue of racism-the fact that it was written by a white women is controversial enough. There is so much criticism, and some warranted, but at the end of the day I think it all leads us to one place. The idea that much progress has been made and that racism is a thing of the past is just absurd.

 Sometimes I wonder if the critiquing of the person telling the story is a form of perpetuating the problem as well. Does it really matter who tells the story, so long as it gets told at all? But that is easy for me to say since I am white. What is that saying? "Blind are the privileged." Anyway, Baldwin made an astute observation when he pointed out the light-colored skin of Eliza and George. I don't know if I can agree with him that their differing fate was based on this fact, but then again, that may be my white privilege talking. It certainly seems possible, but would that not be an accurate representation of what went on in those times? Lighter-skinned African Americans did fair better than their darker counterparts. Had Stowe portrayed it the other way around, she would probably be criticized for painting a false, "rose-colored" picture of the times. And people would have been angry for her making it seem as though light-colored African Americans did not get preferential treatment and darker people sometimes did. So either way you look at it, it seems as though nobody can win when it comes to writing an accurate representation of that time period.

I was not there, so I have no idea what happened and what did not; I can only do my best to educate myself with the available information. But that is part of the controversy-what is accurate? If we just go by who is telling the story, then I don't know that any of it is. Slave narratives are not even telling the whole truth, so is anyone? I guess, in the end, I take all of it with a grain of salt. But, overall, this has given me a better understanding of what went on during the slavery years, both with black and white people, and it has also lead me to realize it is far from over. We have only made minimal progress-racism is just more subtle today. It may be politically frowned upon, but it is still morally justified, with some individuals. That is why classes like this need to exist and continue to teach the value of human life and dignity, and to understand and love one another, even when they are different from you.

Race and the American Novel: Critical Commentary

I think what James Baldwin is trying to get at in his critique of UTC is that society should not have the power to label us; as human beings we are all unique but should be equal. "The failure of the protest novel lies in its rejection of life, the human being, the denial of his beauty, dread, power, in its insistence that it is his categorization alone which is real an which cannot be transcended" (Baldwin, 539). He explains that Stowe's representation of her fellow African American's in this novel has negative connotations, in this day and age, that is. I don't know if I entirely agree with that opinion, however, I think I see where he is coming from, at least.

There is so much talk of religion in the novel, but Baldwin reflects negatively on it, as if it is demeaning to the slaves portrayed in the book. "It must be remembered that the oppressed and the oppressor are bound together within the same society; they share the same beliefs, they both alike depend on the same reality" (Baldwin, 537). I think what he is trying to explain is that both blacks and whites in this novel are basing their lifestyles off of the same values and morals that go along with a very "white" Christian religion. And his point is that this religion, in and of itself, demeans the lives of African Americans. Or, at the very least, the way white people, and blacks as well, interpret the religion is that blacks are beneath them, and that in order to be descent human beings they must abide by the laws of the bible, but in accordance to how whites interpret it.

It is complicated and hard to decipher exactly what Baldwin is attempting to say, but I think he means that in Stowe's novel, black people are underestimating themselves, not giving themselves enough credit and dignity, and equating their own value with how they live their lives according to the way white people interpret the way the bible thinks they should. In other words, blacks feel they have triumphed over the adversity of the whites when they obey the "laws" of god; they receive comfort in the fact that their religious faith has promised them a fruitful "life after death" because they did right in the eyes of the lord. When, in fact, according to Baldwin, they did nothing of the sort. Baldwin is trying to say that this novel, as Stowe intended, was supposed to be about the triumph over adversity and racism by blacks. He thinks that all it did was perpetuate the categorization of people (blacks) based on theology. And I can see what he means by that. But I don't think this was a bad novel all. Stowe represented a particular era and the culture that accompanied it, and I don't think portraying something unrealistic would be appropriate at all. Maybe Baldwin is just uncomfortable that this is just the facts of what occurred during that time period; the truth is the truth, no matter how ugly for both parties involved. But I do understand what he is attempting to get across, and that is that there is a serious amount of categorization going on in this time frame. What Baldwin is uncomfortable with is that blacks are categorizing themselves within this theologically religious belief structure. This is entirely what the whites are doing, and doing to the blacks, and that is the problem. If you are to believe in a religious system that puts one race before another, you have already failed. I guess what he is trying to say is that Stowe only represented victory in accordance to a very flawed and racist categorization that blacks, themselves, believed in and abided by. But I argue that that is an easy justification for the times. You have to look at what it was like then. Of course, if she wrote this today it would be different, but these events didn't happen today, they happened a long time ago, when life was very different. All Stowe did was portray a very honest and accurate example of what life was life back in those times. And I don't think anyone from that time period would have wanted it any other way.

Race and the American Novel: Textual Background and Context

Clearly, the 1800's was a time a great atrocities, sorrow, and genocide. About 1854 the controversy over slavery was reaching a boiling point as the congressional debate on the Kansas-Nebraska Act was underway. "Appeal to the Women of the Free States" describes-quite accurately-the general consensus of women when referring to the choice of being a slave state or free state. The author(s) explains the genuine disapproval women have of slavery and how devastating it was for them, emotionally, to watch it continue. "Of the woes, the injustice, and the misery of slavery, it is not needful to speak. There is but one feeling and one opinion on this among us all. I do not think there is a mother among us all, who clasps her child to her breast, who could ever be made to feel it right that that child should be a slave; not a mother among us all who would not rather lay that child in its grave (UTC p 459)."

The author(s) also touches on women's rights in this essay, "However ambition and the love of political power may blind the stronger sex (UTC p459)." It goes on to say that women don't have a voice because they are being silenced by the men who have such political power. And the author(s) insist that women need to speak up and make their voices heard because that is their duty as a women-which brings up my next point. I do love how women are trying to make a change and get involved in political matters, besides doing housework and taking care of their husbands. However the excerpt shows how prevalent female oppression still was then-even when pushing the boundaries for women's rights. "What, then, is the duty of American women at this time? The first duty is for each woman, for herself thoroughly to understand the subject, and to feel that as mother, wife, sister, or member of society, she is bound to give her influence on the right side (UTC p 461)."

That particular statement-the way it is worded-along with this one, "I do not think believe there is a husband who would think it right that his wife should be considered, by law, the property of another man, and not his own (UTC p 459)." is still tainted with sexist undertones. The belief that a women is a man's property once they are married, and that a wife's duty is to gently influence her husband, is also seen in the actual novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Mrs. Shelby pleads with her husband not to sell Tom-she begs him to turn to religion and look internally for some shred of morals and values that they swear to live by in church every Sunday, but to no avail. She reacts much the same way the author of "Appeal to the Women of the Free States" claims she would-she is upset and refuses to take part in any of the trade, "I'll be in no sense accomplice or help in this cruel business. . . they shall see, at any rate, that their mistress can feel for and with them (UTC p32)!"

I think this essay helps us, as readers, understand some of the moral dilemmas being faced at this time in history. But, particularly, this article helps us see that-on a much smaller, but still severe scale-women were a minority much like people of non-Caucasian descent. No, they were not all being savagely beaten and tortured, but they were looked at as property, abused, given duties, seen as inferior and less intelligent, belittled, bound by the law, and so on. Basically, they were looked at as a child, maybe one step above if at all; suffice to say, the oppression of women largely resembled slavery.