Racehorses and Basketball

           In class, we discussed Gunnar telling Scoby in a letter that he “sympathize[s] with these animals ‘cause this place makes [him] feel like a racehorse” (Beatty 146). The more I thought about this passage, the more I realized how many ways it could apply to Gunnar.

           Let’s first think about racehorses. Racehorses are used for entertainment purposes, usually with people betting on the outcome of races. They are constantly trained and looked after carefully to make sure they are in good physical condition. Certain breeds of horses are seen as better for the sport, having more agility or whatever traits that are needed. The racehorses make a lot of money for their owners but are only valuable to those owners for a certain amount of time. While racehorses may have a brief claim to fame, they are generally forgotten as they fade out of the spotlight. Several horses are euthanized as they get injuries too great to recover from, such as breaking a leg. Doesn’t sound so great for the horses, does it?

           Now think about basketball. Basketball is a form of entertainment, probably one that several of us enjoy watching. A stereotype seen in Beatty’s book and present today is that black people are better at basketball. Gunnar is constantly pushed and monitored to be at his best level for each game. While playing college basketball, Gunnar isn’t really getting much benefit from it, instead, others make money through his efforts. We see all of these colleges trying to recruit him, but each college just wants to be the one to profit from Gunnar’s talent. However, just like racehorses, basketball players slow down and many get forgotten, becoming discarded as their talent is no longer the same as it was. This paragraph unfortunately echoes many of the things of the prior paragraph.

           What we see in basketball and racehorses is this system where the people who benefit are not those putting in the effort. The owners get money and the fans get the enjoyment of watching the sport. In some cases like Gunnar’s, the people (or horses) don’t actually want to be playing for all these people but end up in that situation because of their talent. One interesting thing with racehorses is that certain breeds are seen as being better racehorses which reminds me of the whole notion of African-Americans being better at basketball, or athletics in general. In both of these cases, I see somebody being exploited for the benefit for others. What was first read by me as a casual comment seems to be so true on so many levels its surprising. It makes me just wonder how many other hidden meanings I missed while reading the novel. Maybe I’m looking too deep into this. What do you think?

A "Rememory" of Ellison

     While reading "Beloved", you could say I had a "rememory" of my own. In the last section of Morrison's novel, Denver left the Bodwins "but not before she had seen, sitting on a shelf by the back door, a blackboy's mouth full of money...Painted across the pedestal he knelt on were the words 'At Yo Service'" (Morison 300). This scene immediately reminded me of when the narrator in "Invisible Man" when he saw something he "never noticed before...a piece of early Americana, the kind of bank which, if a coin is placed in the hand and a lever pressed upon the back, will raise its arm and flip the coin into the grinning mouth" (Ellison 319). Both of these cases are quite similar. Both of these characters notice this bank of this black person caricature by the door of the room they're leaving. This bank also happens to be at the house of somebody seen as more morally upright than some of the other characters in the novel.

     In the case of the narrator in "Invisible Man", the bank is found in Mary's house. Mary was kind to the narrator and became somewhat like a mother-like figure. It was shocking to find such a bank in her house, especially since she too is black. For Denver, the bank she finds is in the house of the Bodwins, a white family that advocates for black people. We don't get a reaction from Denver, but I know I was surprised to find another one of these banks, especially in the Bodwins house. So what do these banks mean in these stories? They didn't play a crucial role in the plot of either story, though the bank did have more importance in "Invisible Man."

    After some thinking, I concluded that Morrison and Ellison included these banks to make the characters more realistic. In these stories, the reader probably got the idea that of Mary and the Bodwins as moral people, advocating for black people. However, including the banks seem to contrast with that idea. By adding the banks in these stories, the reader realizes that even though these people may advocate for black people, they won't be perfect. Whether they purposefully had these items or they were just the remnants of the slavery era, these characters still had connections to such ideas. Adding these banks can just help remind the reader of this fact. That's just what I have thought of so far, but what do you think?

The Search for a Message

            Does Hurston’s novel have a message? After reading two books so centralized around the problem of race, Hurston’s book feels somewhat underwhelming. Richard Wright seemed to think so, saying Hurston’s “novel carries no theme, no message, no thought.” However, part of the problem is that we came in probably expecting another novel based around race. While searching for the message on race, we can miss the Hurston’s discussion on gender and culture.

            In Hurston’s novel, we meet Janie, who is the black female protagonist of the story. As readers, we get to see her become independent. She learns how to do several skills, such as shooting a gun, which at that time, would be unusual for a woman to know how to do. Instead of staying in Eatonville to mourn the loss of her husband before remarrying, she does the unconventional and leaves with a stranger to eventually go work on the Muck. Janie doesn’t want to be treated as a wealthy person but instead wants to be working along with Tea Cake and his friends. Janie knows what she wants to do and does it. Present day, this sort of story wouldn’t be surprising, but when this book was actually published, it would have been a lot more surprising. The novel depicts the empowerment of Janie, which is somewhat revolutionary.

            Another key thing to remember is the culture depicted. As we learned in the documentary, Hurston grew up and studied these southern rural communities and had a deep interest in them. Their Eyes Were Watching God is a way for Hurston to show to the world what these communities were really like. She doesn’t show all her knowledge about those rural towns, but we get to see some aspects like the porch where the community members would come together to meet. The introduction of this culture can also go over our head, because of the time period we’re in. When this book was published, there were not really any books taking place in those rural areas, and if they did, the people were usually represented by what society thought they would act like. For Hurston to show these communities in this way would be something different and new.

            Overall, Hurston’s book did have a message to show us, but it can be easier to miss since her messages are much more drastic in another time period and are less race related. Having a black female protagonist would be normal by today’s standards, and we don’t really have a pre-existing idea of these rural communities from a previous time period. All of that plus the expectation for a message on race makes the novel seem much mellower. However, once put into perspective, I think it’s quite evident that Hurston’s novel has a message and a somewhat radical one at that.

Changing or Consistent?

            In Invisible Man, we constantly went back to the theme of the narrator’s conscious. Chapter by chapter, we compared the current narrator to the one we saw in the prologue, waiting for the evolution to happen. Over time, we saw how the narrator developed from a naïve graduate to somebody who knew not to trust people randomly. But did he really change?

            To clarify, let remind you of a scene. When Brother Jack initially comes to the narrator to recruit him, the narrator immediately goes on guard. The narrator thinks, “Let him make his own speeches,” (Ellison 294). This change seems like a major development. I can easily imagine the narrator from the earlier chapters totally going with Jack. The narrator at this stage is able to deny Jack. The only reason the narrator goes back to the Brotherhood is to get money to pay Mary with, which is understandable. What happens next though is strange. Through whatever process of “education” he went through with Brother Hambro, the narrator is suddenly all for the Brotherhood. When Jack comes to pick him up to go get a drink, the narrator tells us, “I was disappointed. I wanted no drink; I wanted to take the next step that lay between me and an assignment,” (Ellison 357). All of a sudden the ambitious narrator from the start of the book is back. The narrator no longer seems wary, but instead eager to impress Jack. The narrator has made substantial changes to his conscious, but he continually reverts back to his old form in this scene and other parts of the book as well. It brings into question, what about the prologue narrator?

            As I mentioned before, we constantly looked back to the prologue narrator as the narrator who wouldn’t let his ambition and excitement blind him. We expected him to be more reserved, unlike his previous optimistic self. Yet in the epilogue, we see him lose that. The narrator tells us that “there’s a possibility that even an invisible man has a socially responsible role to play,” (Ellison 581). It echoes ominously of the scene of his speech, where he was forced to say “social responsibility” over and over. He seems like he hasn’t learned from his past, and pushes forward with his new optimism. The narrator is once again ready to jump into a situation, and his reasoning seems a bit weak. Is the narrator ready to return to the surface? Has he really changed?

What's up with the Brotherhood?

            Clifton's sudden appearance and death in Invisible Man raised more questions than answers. Where has he been this whole time? Why didn't he return back to the Brotherhood? Why did he decide to sell the racist Sambo dolls?
           The death of Clifton also leaves the narrator and the reader somewhat torn about what to feel. On one hand, Clifton was selling these Sambo dolls that totally goes against what the whole Brotherhood stood for. On the other hand, the police officer shot and killed Clifton due to his race. The narrator feels a surge of anger when he sees these dolls but he also feels horrified by the fact that the officer killed Clifton. This scene is a lot for both the narrator and us to take in. In the end, the narrator decides to have the funeral event/march/rally for Clifton, choosing to spread the word about Clifton's death from the officer (but not including the detail that he sold racist dolls). But as readers we can understand this choice. Clifton's unjust death isn't the first to happen, so it makes sense for the narrator to decide to spread the word and let the community know of the event to try to get them to take action. However, since the dolls didn't play a key role in the reason why he was shot and the narrator never learned why Clifton decided to sell these dolls, why include that detail? It would just add confusion and make the story focus on a detail that makes the listener miss the point the narrator is trying to spread: an officer killed Clifton because he was black.
            However, the Brotherhood is far less understanding. They see the narrator spreading this story, ignoring the fact that Clifton was selling racist dolls. This part of the book is where it can get a bit confusing. I know from the sense I've gotten from the Brotherhood before this point, I could totally see them choosing to gloss over a detail like the Sambo dolls to use the story to their full advantage. I see the Brotherhood choosing specific goals and then using whatever they have at their disposal to get them to that goal. They, however, are completely disgusted by the fact that the narrator chose to use Clifton's death in this way. And I guess I'm just wondering, why?
            As I've thought about it more and more, I'm starting to wonder if the Brotherhood is not mainly upset because of the dolls (though it still may be a factor), but if instead it's something with either Clifton or the narrator or both. Clifton's disappearance was quite random, and as we talked about at one point in class, it wouldn't be unexpected of the Brotherhood to choose to remove Clifton and not tell the narrator that. Just think, multiple times we have heard about Clifton's violence. The Brotherhood wants to create change with science and words, so they might have decided that Clifton had gone too far in his violence at some point and kicked him out. Or it could be about the narrator. We already got some idea that something was up with the Brotherhood. They have basically ignored the narrator the whole time he's been back in Harlem. Could something have changed their mind about the narrator? Then the narrator stages this march/rally all on his own since the Brotherhood continued to ignore him. Could they have purposely ignored him to see if he would continue on his own, allowing another excuse to get mad at him (since they really seem to want to have an excuse to do that)?
            I'm not sure how many of these ideas could really be true, but I thought I would share them to see what you would think about them and if you have any ideas about why the Brotherhood is acting so strange.

Becoming "More Human"

           Now, this wasn't my original intention, but this next post relates somewhat back to my last post on this blog. While reading Chapter 16 for class on Monday, I stopped and thought. You see, the past week I have been thinking about ideas from Invisible Man that have stuck in my head. One of the main ideas that I keep thinking about was the development we see in the narrator. When the narrator is giving his speech, he says, "I feel, I feel suddenly that I have become more human. Do you understand? More human. Not that I have become a man, for I was born a man. But that I am more human. I feel strong. I feel able to get things done!" (Ellison 346). Now reading this part of the narrator's speech brought me back to thinking about the whole topic of dehumanization I thought about when reading Native Son and how Mary's death freed Bigger in a way that made him feel more human.
           Don't get me wrong, Bigger and this narrator have many things not in common. To the extent of our knowledge, the narrator growing up tried to follow whatever rules the white people had and accepted whatever identity they gave him. However, Bigger responded to the rules of the "white world" in a much more rebellious fashion. Sure, he acted docile around white people, but as readers, we could see his mind was much more conscious. Bigger seemed to understand the concept Bledsoe wanted the narrator to understand: give them want they want, but don't actually believe all their rules and what they tell you.
           However, this scene where the narrator announces his newfound discovery of feeling human, it felt quite reminiscent of  Native Son. Bigger felt humanized by being able to make his own choices without the constriction of the expectations of the white people. In Invisible Man, we have seen identity after identity be imposed on him, with the narrator trying to fulfill that role. Gradually, as the book has continued, we have seen the narrator start to wonder whether or not these identities are really good for him. It's easy to understand why the narrator didn't feel quite so human earlier in his life because, much like Bigger, he didn't have really have much of a choice of what to do. At this point in the novel, the narrator has freed himself from many of these restrictions and was giving a speech he believed in, not one to make some white people happy enough to give him a scholarship. Now only that, but the narrator is giving his speech through a job he chose to accept. As we discussed in class, there are some definite sketchy things about this job that does seem restrictive, but in that moment, giving that speech, we can see how the narrator can feel changed into a person that has this control over life. 
           Though something to keep in mind, at the end of the chapter, the narrator is informed he "is to undergo a period of intense study and indoctrination" (Ellison 351). Just as the narrator has this feeling of being a human, it seems like he is going to be restrained once more until the organization he is working with thinks he is properly educated. Will this education diminish this sense of humanness? Will it restrict his choices once more? At this point, I'm not sure, but it is certainly something to look out for.

An Animal or a Human?

One idea that really stuck with me when reading Native Son, was this idea of dehumanization. The African-Americans in this novel are treated like animals. People from the “white world” think that they need to train or educate these people to do as they want and have them living in housing that is smaller and inferior to the houses owned by white people, much like how many people treat animals. If the rich white liberals thought of the black people as humans, they would (or at least should) be trying harder to treat them that way. Mr. Dalton instead tries to “help” them by donating ping pong tables. I feel like the reasoning behind donating ping pong tables is much like the reasoning a pet owner has when giving their pet a toy. The pet has the toy to occupy them from doing something bad like shredding the couch. Mr. Dalton donates these ping pong table to keep the young black people (like Bigger) from starting some sort of trouble. When he does this action, he is acting like doing this simple solution will fix the problem at hand when the actual problem is much more complex.

Another example of this dehumanization is when Mary tells Bigger she wants to “see how [his] people live” (69). Mary doesn’t want to go to Bigger’s neighborhood to get to know him or his family or any of the other people but instead she wants to go to see how they live. It suggests that they are some sort of creature that Mary doesn’t know much about and she just wants to learn how that creature lives. Even when Max gave his speech, he dehumanized Bigger by talking about Bigger as a symbol, and less like a person. But I also must give Max some credit because I think he was the only person in the whole book that told Bigger, “I want you to tell me all about yourself” (345). For once Bigger was acknowledged as a person in this novel, and so it’s no wonder that we read Bigger telling Max, “I’m glad I got to know you before I go!” (423). Bigger got to meet someone interested in him as a person, and I think that helped Bigger understand himself.

I think by showing how Bigger is treated less like a fellow human and more like an animal, the reader can better understand the frustrations Bigger has and why killing Mary might have felt good for him. Killing Mary finally gave him a feeling of control and he could decide what to do after that. Bigger also would finally have attention and people fearing him. Before killing Mary, he was treated as lesser by the white people and he struggled to have control of his life with his friends and even his family. Bigger never had a true chance to make his own choices, and that’s what Mary’s death gave him.