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.
No comments:
Post a Comment