--In light of our conversation in class before break about racial distinctions and the shifting categories of blackness in the novel, how does this reading add to or further complicate racial categories through characters like Mr. Walters or the experiences of Mr. Stevens when he tries to hide his identity through a new set of clothing (which begins a whole series of racial transformations for him)?
--In this section of the novel, we are led through the process whereby a race riot is started. What does this tell us about the novel's vision of the origin and/or process of racism in antebellum America? How would you compare this vision of racism to contemporary notions of or attitudes toward racial conflict?
--In this section, Mr. Walters comes to stand out as a representative figure of blackness. What does he represent and how are his politics embodied in his actions during the riot? What do you see as Webb's broader message to a black or white audience through Walters?
There can be almost no doubt that Mr. Walters is indeed the representative figure of blackness in The Garies and Their Friends. Not only is he the most successful African-American (so successful, in fact, that even white men are forced to borrow money from him), but he also becomes the leader of the African-American defense. And yet what I find particularly interesting about Mr. Walters is that, despite the fact that he is a strong, independent African-American, Frank Webb seems to have molded his character to be as inoffensive to his white readers as possible.
ReplyDeleteNo where is this more obvious than in the scene right before the rioters approach Mr. Walters home, at which time he is forced to defend himself to his audience. He has to explain that he has “a right to defend [his] own,” and explain that he tried to go through the legal channels of “ask[ing] protection of the law” (208). If this was a white character whose home was being attacked, obviously Webb would not have needed to include such a defense in his narrative. Any white member of Webb’s audience would have naturally known of a white character’s right to defend his own property, as this is one of the most important ideas in American government. But Mr. Walter’s language in this section reveals that Webb is painfully aware that his white audience may not naturally assume the same of a black character. Indeed, they might even find it offensive that Mr. Walters had fought back at all.
It seems to me that this then, is Mr. Walters defining feature as a representative of the black community. He represents not only the idea that a black man might be successful, but that his success can also be defended because he too has certain rights. Mr. Walter’s becomes the leader of the riot defense because he has the courage to stay and fight for his rights, unlike others in the neighborhood who lacked the power to do so. His desire to marry Esther further shows that what he, and therefore Webb, value is the courage to stand up and defend oneself against a society that all too often oversteps even its own laws to abuse those of another race. And yet this courage is only ever used for defense. Mr. Walters very carefully refuses to send the first volleys during the riot, and manages to avoid giving in to a hatred that might have led him to attempt revenge. Webb makes it very clear too that such courage must only be employed when the legal system which is supposed to protect African-Americans has already failed. And so, while Mr. Walters might have been portrayed as a revolutionary figure, he instead comes off as a loyal American, fighting only for his own rights and nothing more.
--Nick Cobblah
Based on the events in this novel, race relations were much worse off in the north than they were in the south. In Georgia the Garies were allowed to live in peace, despite their exclusion from main society. However they are openly attacked in the north when it is found out that Mrs. Garie is black. The fact that there were riots against anyone who was black in the north is one of the more shocking components of the novel. Today we are taught that people in the south were very anti-black, only using them as slaves and reacting violently when blacks required equal rights. The north is portrayed as a region full of abolitionists ready to go to war to free blacks from oppression. The truth comes out in the novel that the north only used the freedom angle to garner support internationally. In reality, when blacks begin arriving in the north after their freedom is gained, they are treated with contempt, inferiority, and outright violence and abolitionist is considered a dirty word in the north. . The explanation for this could be that southerners were used to having blacks around. The only ignored them instead of giving them equality. In the north there was an appearance of equality, even with the separate but equal public standards. However it was only an appearance as blacks were not ignored, but treated with much ignorant discussion and, by this point in our reading assignment, violence. Especially after the reader has been introduced to these black families as completely equal to whites in terms of behavior and intelligence, the outrage of their mistreatment and abuse becomes the central feeling for the readers. This technique really helps the reader understand how the prejudice is not only uncalled for but flat out wrong.
ReplyDelete--Heather Hobbs
Besides showing the high levels of prejudice that existed in the North, Webb's novel is also making a case for race riots as incited by ambitious white men rather than lower class laborers like immigrants. Though poor workers naturally compete with free blacks for jobs, they are not the ones who feel most threatened. Since employers would prefer to hire whites for any job besides a footman, poor white workers really have little to fear from black competition. Instead it is wealthier whites who feel threatened by rich black men like Walters, black children who win their daughters' affection, and most of all by blacks who marry their relatives and produce heirs that would inherit a fortune that could be theirs. It is astounding and perhaps hard to believe that the motivations for a race riot can be entirely personal and can trace back to one person, Mr. Stevens. The Irish attackers aren't hurt as much as the black victims in this riots, but they are victims also. The most prejudiced in society don't dirty their hands with the physical task of attacking blacks. They remain in the background, unpunished and ready to take full advantage of the favor afforded by whiteness of their skin.
ReplyDelete--Kaitlyn Dryer
Grr. This is one of those days when I hate the internet. I copied my post before I submitted it, knowing that it would get rejected like usual, but this time when I went to paste it I discovered that only the second paragraph had copied. So that post should have started out by explaining:
ReplyDeleteI definitely see what Heather is saying about race riots contributing to the novel's portrayal of prejudice in the North being even worse than in the South. However, I also think it's really important to look at what, specifically caused the riot. The attack on the Garies doesn't happen just because the community finds out that Mrs. Garie is black. Rather, Webb describes it on every step of the way as being motivated by Mr. Stevens's personal grudge against Mr. Garie and his discomfort with successful blacks. His specific involvement along every step of the way--inciting the mob because it's financially advantageous and personally convenient, planning the targets, spurring the angry Irishmen on toward Mr. Garie's house, and even hiring an assassin--parallels his wife's leadership in getting the Garie children kicked out of school. If Mrs. Stevens had not plotted against the Garies, publicized the issue and bargained for a pledge from all the other white mothers to withdraw their children, she alone would have had no influence on the amiable schoolteacher. What's more, the other women would probably not have made any organized effort or considered threatening to remove their own children from school, even if they had learned of Mrs. Garie's race. The Stevens' personal grudge and the motivation drawn from their own bitterness is the direct reason for the Garies' tragedy.
Racism is probably one of the most difficult terms to define, but is at the same time it is easily identified. Since The Gaires and Their Friends is a book that is about race relations during the antebellum period, it stands to reason that there are a number of different types of racism presented in the book. The overt anti-black racism of the Stevens family (adults) makes for a great set of antagonists in the story. They seem to embody the most unfounded and unapologetic beliefs of the social hierarchy in regard to race. Perhaps the only characters that approach this viewpoint are the 2 servants at Mrs. Bird’s home in Warmoth Betsey and Alfred. Fortunately for Charlie, Betsey and Alfred do not have the wealth or the social position with which to make much of an impact on the boy. By having characters like the Stevens family and the servants at Warmoth Webb shows that racism is not limited to one or two economic/social positions, but is a systematic and far-reaching problem. Conversely, there does not seem to be an overtly anti-white character. It seems that an anti-white mindset does exist in this world based on the conversation between Walters and Balch, where Walters reveals that he knows “men of colour” who say they “had no desire to change their complexions” (275). Of course, having not finished the book, I reserve the right to adjust the prior claim. Then there is the more subtle racism displayed by people like the Miss Jordan. She obviously has serious reservations about removing the Garie children from her school and in many ways is only bending to the will of a small, but influential segment of the community represented by just one family. However, even before being bullied into removing Em and Clarence from her school, she claims to not have any black children in her school, which means that at some point there was a racially motivated screening process. Whether this is intentional or not, is of no consequence, since she ultimately decides to expel the Garie children. While this is almost unthinkable to a modern audience, she was probably conceived to represent an empathetic segment of white society. Still, by not taking a stand on the issue that she disagrees with, Miss Jordan is just allowing the racism to persist as to not inconvenience herself. The situation of the Irish is also very interesting. They are clearly working from their own motivating factors and stand somewhere in-between the empowered European Americans and the yet to be enfranchised African Americans. There seems to be a bit of racism displayed by the author in his conception of the Irish Americans. The Irish portrayed seem to be mindless drunks who are basically hired muscle trying to protect their own interests.
ReplyDelete(cont)
ReplyDeleteI guess my point here is that when looked at close enough, a case could be made that every adult character in the book is racist on some level. It may be a very mild or obsequious form of racism, but they all live in a country where a substantial percentage of a certain race is enslaved. It seems unlikely that there would not be a sense of superiority among the European Americans in addition to bitter resentment of them by the African descends slaves. This shows a systematic problem that is exacerbated by certain incendiary individuals. How far has the country come since then? I don’t really know. There still seems to be a good amount of racism present in the workforce, not to mention how and where people choose to live. Perhaps the most shocking thing for me recently was in a class last semester where the nearly everyone that gave their views on racism seem to feel that it was a problem that had been dealt with and was no longer an issue in this part of the country (the midwest) let alone this university. There were an incredibly limited number of races represented in the class (1), but still it was a bit unnerving to think that in a room of 30 people, the majority of them seemed to believe that racism wasn’t much of an issue anymore. I guess my refutation for that claim is that the country is less than 20 years removed from a race riot that claimed more than 50 lives and nearly a billion in damages.