Problematic Stereotypes

I recently read an article that described a GOP senate candidate’s political tactics to gain voters in Harlem. In his mind he was trying to gain votes by handing out free stuff, but in reality he was perpetuating and enforcing a major stereotype of the black community. He wanted to appeal to the black voters of Harlem, so he handed out free watermelon, fried chicken, and Kool-aid.

            He was immediately met with a lot of backlash, with one man saying, ““It’s racist. Whoever he is, I think he should go back in whatever hole he crawled in and have a great life.” However the candidate still insists that this was in efforts to help the community. He said, “What I think is anyone who gives free food to people is doing them a favor. Get a bunch of people who say it’s offensive and let me go into their neighborhood and give it out for free and see if they take it.” The candidate, a non-white Latino, continues to back his decision and does not understand the racially charged tones of his decisions.

It’s really concerning that a potential senator is completely comfortable with and in favor of perpetuating these well-known and historic stereotypes. By allowing our leaders, or potential leaders, to continue to speak this way or believe in this, we are continuing to stereotype and dehumanize African Americans. It’s extremely problematic that we, and our leaders see no problem with reducing people to petty stereotypes and that people feel comfortable using these in their political games.

            This article brought me back to the exercise we did in one of the first classes when we listed stereotypes of both blacks and whites. While we all kind of joked around about these stereotypes for both races, this article brought me back to realize how serious these stereotypes are in some peoples’ eyes. I think it’s unavoidable for anyone to completely rid themselves of stereotyping others, but it’s really worrisome to see how people hold these stereotypes as the truth and then try to use them to their advantage.

            I believe we need to continue to work to break down stereotypes against everyone. How we do this, I’m not quite sure, but I feel certain that until we see people as people and not confine them to the boxes we’ve accepted, we will not make progress as a society.

Stephanie Smallwood and Understanding Commodification

In revisiting some of our assigned readings for the last two reaction papers, I have rediscovered my great appreciation for the work of Stephanie Smallwood. In both Smallwood readings that we discussed, Saltwater Slavery and “Commodified Freedom,” Smallwood highlights the underlying themes of racial slavery that have become the backbone for a lot of our class discussions.

The most resonant theme for my rationalization of American slavery has been commodification. Smallwood defines the term in “Commodified Freedom,” discussing how the word commodity developed to reference concrete objects that are “fetishized” within the market. She also discusses how the processes of commodification involve subjective processes of conceptually dividing a slave or groups of slaves into terms that denote value in the market. As she states throughout the piece, commodification can only be viewed from the end result of a commodified being, which makes understanding the mindset of slave owners and traders that much more complex. This idea ties into our reading and discussion of Soul by Soul, which breaks down the reasoning of a slave’s value into concrete characteristics observed by a potential buyer or trader. In rationalizing the reality of this system, Smallwood’s definition of the terms of commodification provides insight into how the slave system developed and grew as a market rather than a morally charged practice.

Another theme that Smallwood brings to light within this reading is resistance to commodification. Because it is so subjective and difficult to see, resisting physically and ideologically was vitally important to the humanization of enslaved Africans. This idea plays into several of the discussions we have had in class about the significance of Phillis Wheatley’s work and the importance of slave narratives in individualizing and humanizing the millions of people that were categorized by their race and value to the economy. This idea is also important in understanding the dominance that whites had over society at the time, as most resistance was crushed or ignored for the benefit of those in power. It is important to draw the comparison from this very blatant system of white oppression to the white privilege that pervades American society today, as much of the inequality without a doubt stems from the racial prejudice and oppression of the slave system that existed at the country’s establishment.

The chapters we read from Saltwater Slavery delve into the physical manifestation of commodifying human beings as well as the effects that this commodification had on the lives of individual enslaved Africans. It discusses the profound displacement that Africans felt when forced out of their homes and onto a ship headed for a new continent. She also discusses the categorization of enslaved Africans as “cargo” within ships built for the purposes of carrying human slaves, which exemplifies the commodification practiced by slave traders in reducing enslaved Africans to transportable goods. One of the most poignant lines from this piece is on page 125, in which Smallwood explains that “commodification built toward a crescendo that threatened to never arrive, but to leave the African captives suspended in an agony whose language no one knew.”

Several of Smallwood’s ideas have provided the basis for our understanding of the experience of black people in America. She writes eloquently on the lived experiences of enslaved Africans, which calls our attention as students to the specific lives of each slave rather than to “slaves” as a whole. Her work also explores the importance of commodification in the slave system, which perpetuated the objectification and dehumanization of enslaved Africans throughout the slave trade. These readings have been extremely helpful in understanding the details and nuances of the African-American experience throughout history.

Solange’s “A Seat at the Table”

I fell in love with Solange’s album the moment I heard the title. I am unsure whether the title was a coincidence or not, but the week before Solange’s album release, Keith Scott and Terrence Crutcher were shot and killed by police. That same week, The New York Times dedicated a page in their paper to print Langston Hughes’ poem I, Too which depicts the relationship between a black man who has so much love for a country that refuses to claim him and seems ashamed of him. The print of the poem was intended to stand in solidarity with African American victims of police brutality, allowing a timeless piece to speak volumes on the necessary conversation of current race relations in America. Langston writes,

“I too sing America.

I am the darker brother,

They send me to eat in the kitchen when company comes…

Tomorrow,

I’ll be at the table when company comes.

Nobody’ll dare

Say to me,

“Eat in the kitchen…”

Solange took the lyrics “at the table” from the poem and turned them into her album title “A Seat at the Table.” The headline sets the tone for a beautiful compilation of music and lyrics that purposefully create a dialogue and space for African Americans to celebrate their blackness. The album is fluid, each song flowing into the next to shed light on the modern-day black experience.

The first song, “Weary,” echoes the album’s theme of celebrating blackness as she states, “I’m gonna look for my body…I’m gonna look for my glory.” These lyrics relate a lot to our readings and how enslaved and freed blacks alike first sought to validate black humanity through giving written and oral accounts on black life (i.e. David Walker, Frederick Douglass, Phillis Wheatley).  Subsequently, near the 1820s-1830s, blacks embraced and established their identities in spite of their commodification by simultaneously developing their own autonomous way of life and culture despite their slaveholders’ wishes for them to remain solely as property. She also has beautiful interludes such as “Tina Taught Me” where her mother speaks on the “beauty in Black people” and how sad it is that black pride is sometimes frowned upon and mistaken for being anti-white. The interlude makes the point that in America, all we are ever taught is white history. This hits on the crucial point that regardless of background, living as an American means always being immersed in white culture and acknowledging white and/or European history. Even today we see a relegation and hesitance in school systems and society to recognize and proclaim the cultures and histories of people of non-European descent.

In one of my favorite songs on the album, Solange sums up the main message resonant throughout the work when she says, “made this song to make it all y’alls turn, for us, this is from us.” This line highlights the importance of creating spaces and opportunities to celebrate your identity when there aren’t enough existing spaces available for you to do so. Solange successfully created a body of work that allows musical artists the opportunity to speak critically on social issues and celebrate their culture.  Her album also allows a hypothetical space for African Americans to listen to these songs and take pride in their identities, to take “A Seat at the Table,” because even in 2016 we still see a common trend of African Americans needing and fighting to proclaim and celebrate their identities and humanity within a society and space reluctant to accept blackness as equal and socially acceptable.

Yes, this was a shameless plug/ album review. I think this album is great, and if this post interests you, I’m sure the album will too!

Patriotism: Where We Draw the Line

In recent conversation, it has been questioned whether or not Nat Turner is/ was considered a patriot. A patriot by definition is, “a person who loves and strongly supports and fights for his or her country” (Meriam-Webster).  By the actual definition one may argue no Turner was not a patriot, because he rebelled against the nature of his country which was the institution of slavery. Many seem to believe that his act of rebellion first hand was a delusional act, simply for the fact that he got his notions from visions from God. I find this first accusation to be absurd because of the usage of the term delusional to be insensitive when discussing faith and religion. I made a comparison between Nat and Moses from the Exodus story, because Moses also had communication with God to find out that he needed to help set his people free. Nobody to my knowledge has commented that Moses was delusional, so why is it that Nat was put in that category.

Another reason why some may believe that Turner isn’t a patriot if for the fact that he led people to kill many people of the opposite race. I find that to be a crazy notion as well because when you think about how the Americans fought a war with the British, who were a higher order Americans had to respond to at the time, to have their independence, they at some point killed plenty of people themselves, but all of those that fought are considered patriotic. What made those people who killed different from Turner besides his race and his social status of being enslaved?

I personally see Nat Turner as a patriot based off the definition and morally. In the definition of patriot, it implies a sense of loyalty to one’s country. Just because it doesn’t seem like Nat is loyal to the land of America, doesn’t mean that he is not loyal to his native land, that he and his fellow enslaved peers derived from. Who’s to say that this was not the country that Nat was truly fighting for? He took the phrase “give me liberty or give me death” to heart, in the fact that death was the sacrifice of his life, other lives, or even both. Morally I’m sure plenty of enslaved people had these hearings and visions from God about freedom, but Nat was the one that chose to step up and fight for what he believed was morally just. The act of killing was not a moral act, but that is no reason to discredit Turner for his heroic sacrifice, and that is why I see him as a Patriot. What do you define a patriot to be?