#and don’t get me started on the internalized colorism and racism left over from colonization and Jim Crow era | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

chrysanthe0-blog · 6 years ago

Text

WRITE LEFT - contextualizing the LA in slavery

In May 2017, I published a zine called ‘write left: selections and reflections from the author’s late night #WikipediaWanderings.’ It contains 3 essays inspired by my amateur research into the history of southern California. Here is the first piece.

Recently, my partner was given the opportunity to spend some time in the South. Neither of us were familiar with the area, and we didn’t know what he should expect. We’d heard a tale of two regions. The first view was defined by one of its namesakes - Southern hospitality, where people on the street give you a friendly hello, strangers welcomed you into their home with open arms and a pitcher of sweet tea, a genteel demeanor in strong contrast to the fast-paced city nature of “the North”.

We were quicker to think of the South in the other light, one brought about from its history as the American epicenter of enslavement, debasement and cruelty that is the chattel slave system of Africans/ African-Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries. Where people still proudly flew Confederate flags as if oblivious to the pain and turmoil of black life that that symbol represented. We could tell that the foundations of racism and hatred ran deep, and my partner (white but woke) wondered about walking amongst them.

Of course, we were judging from afar, as we lived in California, the biggest blue state in the nation. Racism was, is and continues to oppressively dictate the lives of people of color in our great state; for a small sampling see pernicious ICE raids & LAPD targeting of black and brown bodies. But the South! Didn’t the systematic barbarity of the transatlantic slave trade take evil to a whole ‘nother level?

As if I could point the finger away from the land I live.

I recall vividly when my 5th grade teacher told our class that America (which I’d only ever been taught to see as the best most freedomest nation ever) was responsible and must account for 2 great evils in its history: how we treated Africans/ African-Americans and the indigenous people of this land**. I don’t mean to minimize the destruction of life methodically achieved through the Southern slavery system, but why am I so quick to bring up one evil, and not that which has been wrought upon the first peoples of this nation?

As an Angelena, I too live in a land that has enslaved members of another race and assumed their inferiority. That this has been perpetrated by the 3 powers that claimed their rule over this land - Spain, Mexico, and finally the U.S. - does not lessen our culpability in owning up to this past.

It was under Spanish rule that in 1799 Padre Antonio de la Concepcion Horra reported, “The treatment shown to the Indians is the most cruel I have ever read in history. For the slightest things, they receive heavy flogging, are shackeled and put in the stocks, and treated with so much cruelty that they are kept whole days without water.” In elementary school in California, children learn about the Spanish missions, making their own replica and going on a field trip to visit the historical site. What is often missing from the lesson is how they were built with Indian labor, with the express purpose of converting Native Americans to Catholicism, after which the native people of the land were forced to live within the settlements and work for the Spanish. Runaways and rebels were punished harshly, but throughout this period, Native Americans resisted their colonizers through uprisings and other attempts to achieve their freedom from bondage.

It was under Mexican rule that the missions and other large land estates were awarded to wealthy ranchos, who counted on the native population as their labor force. Native Americans had no choice but to enter this pact; if they did not, their villages would be raided and their labor would be taken by force anyway. Going further, in 1846, Mexico’s Assembly passed resolutions calling for funding to locate and demolish Indian villages.

It was under American rule where in 1850 state legislators legalized white custody of Indian minors and prisoner leasing. Ten years later, they legalized the “indenture” of “any Indian,” which triggered an increase in violent kidnappings of Indian people. As one lawyer at the time put it “Los Angeles had its slave mart [and] thousands of honest, useful people were absolutely destroyed in this way.”

And during this whole time, the Native American population fell at an incredible rate, further decimated by the onslaught of European diseases. This point is important, because sadly, one of the main reasons our public education fails to acknowledge our genocide of Native Americans is because America has so totally accomplished its goal of annihilation of indigenous people.

Or as comedian Solomon Georgio puts it: “The Native Americans as a people have suffered the worse genocide in human history. Some may say, hey Solomon what about the Holocaust? And I wouldn’t take that away from anyone, the Holocaust was a terrible, terrible tragedy. However…I have seen 10 or more Jewish people in the same room. I haven’t seen 10 Native Americans…in my life. They used to live right here.”

In Mexico, self-identified indigenous people make up 21.5% of the population. In Canada, it’s 4.2%. In USA, the indigenous population is only 1.4% of the general population. The USA has been the most systematically cutthroat in ending the lives of its native peoples, and as a result, it is possible in today’s world to not be visibly reminded of their presence.

But it is our duty to empathize, feel into their struggle, and most importantly act in solidarity with these communities. Here is an incomplete list of concrete steps we can take today, most local to the Los Angeles area:

- We can support indigenous-led movements such as the movement against the Dakota Access Pipeline and divestment efforts from banks that support the destruction of Native American land. In June 2017, LA City Council, pressured by the indigenous-led Divest L.A. movement, voted unanimously to divest over $40 million in investments from Wells Fargo.

- We can pressure LA City Council to follow the example of other cities and turn Columbus Day into Indigenous Peoples Day, as well as formally recognize the genocide of the Native American people. In August 2017, LA did just that, replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day.

- We can join the new petition to decolonize our children’s education when it comes to learning about the Spanish missions, recentering the narrative to focus on “the impact and daily life of the native population within these missions.” The 2nd CA Indian Curriculum Summit happened at Sacramento State on October 2017, with the purpose to “provide 3rd and 4th grade teachers with California Indian vetted replacement units that address Common Core Standards.”

- We can use our money to support Native American stories, media and art, such as film festivals like LA Skins Fest. The next LA Skins Fest happens annually in November at TCL Chinese Theater in Hollywood. Find out more at www.laskinsfest.com.

As expected, my partner survived the South. What he saw was appalling - “Drunk Lives Matter” on a T-shirt, a man trying to start a fight as my partner booed a parade’s Confederate flag. But peeking into that world through him, made me think about mine. We can’t even get it right in CA, a state that prides itself on its “progressive values”. For the indigenous people of this land, and for us, the descendants of settlers, who are committed to living by our values and fighting for the liberation of all peoples, it’s time to act. Let’s start locally, in the place that we’re in, with the hope that everyone else is thinking the same.

**Shoutout to Mr. Sig for keeping it real! Although - only 2 evils? The Chinese laborers of the nineteenth century, Japanese families forced into internment camps during WW2, Latino youth of the ‘Zoot Suit Riots�� and many other marginalized groups beg to differ…

References “Demographics of Canada.” Wikipedia “Demographics of Mexico.” Wikipedia “Demographics of the United States.” Wikipedia “A History of American Indians in California.” Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. National Park Service. November 17, 2004 “History of Enslavement of Indigenous Peoples in California.” Wikipedia “History of Los Angeles.” Wikipedia Madley, Benjamin. “It’s time to acknowledge the genocide of California’s Indians.” Los Angeles Times. May 22, 2016 “Repeal, Replace and Reframe the 4th Grade Mission Project.” California Indian Curriculum. Sacramento State. “Solomon Georgio Stand-Up 02/10/15 - Conan on TBS”

#write #essay #left #america #los angeles #indigenous #genocide

1 note · View note

theeyeswerewatchinggod-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Podcast Transcript May 16, 2019

[Podcast Introduction Music]

Suhrin: Hello everyone! You have your two favorite literary critics here. Today we’re going to discuss one of Oprah’s favorite romance novel of all time! I’m your host Suhrin and this is my co-host..

Dominic: Dominic!

Suhrin: Yeah, so. Have you ever read Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God? Or perhaps ever seen the movie?

Dominic: Well, it so happens to be one of my favorite novels of all time. The story is so compelling in the way that it evocatively portrayes all these loaded but profound themes of slavery, racism, and feminism, among others. But, the movie seems to be lacking in many of these themes, you know what they say. If you love the book, don’t watch the movie. Unless you like being angry… Can’t forget the whole Percy Jackson debachuel.

Suhrin: It is really interesting that you mention that, because I wanted to talk about comparing and contrasting the film and the novel in terms of those themes! In fact, I wanted to sort of break down those themes and discuss the intent and the effect of these themes and the way these two mediums—the novel and the film—differ.

Dominic: Well, let’s get into it then. For starters, I think it’s worth exploring how the institution of slavery is portrayed in the novel. When Janie gets married to Joe Starks he claims a black town as his own and decides that he will become the mayor. He makes grand accomplishments in the town by erecting buildings, lamp posts, a store, and just about all the essentials for your very own town start-up. He seems like a great leader who gets things done, but there were, however, talk of people being underpaid in the town for their manual labor and some being left hungry. It really highlights how Joe Starks does not value the townspeople in terms of human decency—as we see through their low wages—but definitely not as much as he values his own voice.

Suhrin: Yeah, I agree with that. I would say it sort of mimics the way slave owners would use their slaves for advancement of their plantation with cruel treatment. It creates a parallel with the institution of slavery, really. I also wanted to go back on what you said about trying to claim the town as his own. It’s reminiscent of how the Puritans came to the United States and claimed the land as their own, there’s a colonial ideal that Joe Starks seems to embody, despite being a black man. Similarly, Joe Starks claims to “help the townspeople”, but treats them in an unfair way which parallels the way Puritans treated Native Americans. They used them for their land, resources, labor, and basically exploited them while simultaneously preparing them for slaughter. Of course, Joe Starks doesn’t kill anyone outright, except maybe Janie, metaphorically. He oppresses her, he enslaves her in their marriage, and he confines her to female gender roles and imprisons her in the store, where she spends the majority of her days removed from her community. So I think this all speaks to the idea of slavery, colonization, and the oppressive forces these bring.

Dominic: Yeah, I really like that comparison... There’s something deeply intrinsic in the black experience of oppression that seems to harken back to the relatively recent evil of slavery, even with her relationship with Teacake, there’s a specific part in the novel that helps build on this theme of slavery. Remember the scene where Teacake whips Janie? He describes that he needs to relieve “that awful fear inside him” and that “being able to whip her reassured him in possession,” (Hurston 147). I think this is just so wrong and definitely alludes to slavery.

Suhrin: I agree. It definitely parallels with the aspect of how slave owners would whip their slaves as punishment but also to represent their ownership over them. I think later on in the scene other people watch Teacake “punish” his woman and they praise him. It relates to how slaveholders would publicly abuse their slaves to represent their possession and wealth. The whipping is a tool of oppression, it breaks their will and resilience, crushes the spirit, and incites fear. It encourages the manufacturing of a glassy-eyed autonomous robot workforce, devoid of humanity, it being whipped right out of them.

Dominic: I guess this leaves us with this burning question: just what was Hurston’s intent here? What implications does this evocation of the institution of slavery have? I think it’s definitely speaking to how this terrible thing—institutionalized slavery—how even then the black community felt the beginnings of what would be a long lasting effect on African American life. The impact of slavery and the ripples it made in the world, in our everyday lives when we go out into society and interact with black people, it’s all stemming from this awful thing that was happening for hundreds of years. And I think the way their actions in the novel mimic the cruel actions of slavery, and the fact that it’s black people doing it to black people, it represents how they internalized those emotions and experiences, and through intergenerational trauma it shapes their lives even after, it marks their character with the effects of the ripples-turned-waves of slavery.

Their ancestors faced this cruel treatment and maybe subconsciously they emulated this treatment with their children since these experiences have stained their blood, their skin, their very souls. It also explores this larger idea of slavery not being just about white and black relations, but the lasting effects of post-slavery that still lingers within black communities.

Suhrin: Hurston is maybe trying to show a little sympathy to these African American characters that act in this manner due to the intergenerational trauma, but it does not mean that it is still justified. I think the way that the novel ends with both husbands dying shows sort of how their actions should still be met with an equal punishment. Slave owners will get what’s coming to them.

Dominic: That’s a bit cutthroat, but maybe! I think one thing for certain is that the novel explores this theme of slavery in a deep manner where it gets the reader to think about this cyclical system and its impact. As for the film, I don’t think this theme was adequately portrayed or explored. Sure we see Joe Starks create the town like in the novel, but the very real problems of underpaid labor and starving people are cut from the film. The film works hard to not portray him in a negative light in this way, and in doing so it makes his character less dynamic and minimizes the complexity of Janie’s struggle with identity as she buckles under the weight of his oppression. Also, they conveniently leave out the part where Teacake whips Janie. What appears to be minor details in the novel that are consciously left out by the filmmakers really makes a huge difference. I think the message gets lost somewhere in the translation from novel to film. We don’t see how institutionalized slavery affects the African American community, or more specifically Janie, and in leaving this out, the filmmakers fail to adequately portray Janie’s struggle with coming to terms with her identity as someone who’s black, someone whose grandmother was a slave, and someone who’s a woman.

Suhrin: I think so too. And I feel like we can’t talk about this theme of slavery without exploring the other racial undertones in the novel. For me, I think that the portrayal of racism is greatly focused in the novel specifically with Mrs. Turner. She is described as this woman with European features and praises Janie greatly for her own superior European aspects as well, romanticizing her light skin. It’s interesting how she describes Janie and herself as superior to the other members of the community due to the fact that they are “less black”. It really represents the idea of racism and specifically colorism. It’s interesting how Mrs. Turner conceives race though, it’s very hierarchical and rigid, offering little mobility upwards. You’re born into your lot, your caste, and you have a duty to act a certain way, going so far as to justify her belittlement and blatant colorism on this same power structure. The blacker you are, the worse you deserve to be treated. The whiter you are, the greater the need to treat those below you more terribly to make it known it’s not okay to be dark, to make them resent themselves for being black in hopes of somehow bringing an end to the race overall. In destroying their self-worth, Mrs. Turner hopes to discourage the propagation of the black community. She even offers Janie to be with her brother because he is not as dark as Teacake. It’s this idea that they need to dilute the dark melanin in black people to preserve this sense of superiority inherent to white skin.

Dominic: You know, I like what you’re saying here, these are some very astute observations. If we’re thinking about what Hurston’s thinking about as she wrote Their Eyes Were Watching God, the intention seems to be to represent this issue revolving around racism as something larger than blatant nastiness, but something more sinister and insidious that works itself into the minds of black and mixed people too, not just white people. It’s a disease that takes form in the shape of the internalized racism that’s ingrained in these communities and propagated like a virus spreading. Because Mrs. Turner is still a black women, she may be passing for a white women, or conceptualize herself in the realm of white identity, but she’s still also black. And it’s so sad to see the lengths she goes to to spread hate and misery.

Suhrin: That’s a sharp contrast to the movie, I think, we never hear or see any mention of Mrs. Turner’s character in the film. Perhaps it’s because they thought the inclusion of her character was a minor detail, but I really don’t think so. Her absence from the narrative leaves out important commentary on internalized racism and the toxicity of colorism.

Dominic: Mrs. Turner is especially crucial to Janie’s journey to self-discovery and identity. I read an analytical article by this scholar, Lihua Zhao, and she writes this wonderful piece on how Janie suppresses race and racial issues until Mrs. Turner forces her to confront them. Throughout the novel, we see Janie traversing the American South, and she rides trains and marvels at the beauty of the world. She goes on all these outings to restaurants and social spaces where Jim Crow laws are likely in place, since the South is most definitely still segregated in Janie’s world, but she never acknowledges it.

There’s different compartments for black and white folks on trains, there’s different restrooms, sometimes they’re barred from entire establishments based on their skin color, and not once do we see Janie speak to this. Zhao explains how this shows Janie’s alienation from black society and her denial of her black identity. I think this is a super interesting idea, considering the novel opens with Janie growing up among white children, not knowing she’s black until she’s shown a picture of herself.

Suhrin: That’s so interesting, it reminds me of this duality that seems to be essential to Janie’s character. I’m glad they didn’t cut that out of the movie, where Janie says she learns to portray herself and act a certain way externally, but her mind and her feelings are kept inside as she erects a wall between her internal and external worlds. And then this weird juxtaposition creeps in with her second husband, Joe Starks. He begins treating her like something other, and the townspeople follow suit. This idolization of the black woman was a much larger, more central issue in the novel than in the film.

Dominic: In the novel we also get a nice inversion of the meaning of the color black. She starts wearing black when Joe dies, but when Joe is alive and idolizing her, her black racial identity is essentially erased by this problematic idea of racial uplifting. Her black skin does not connote blackness for her, but the illusion of something more, conflating her status to that of a white woman. And on the exterior, Janie would put on a façade to appease Joe and the black community he represents that wants to put black women on a pedestal. But in Janie’s interior, she longs to partake in the conversations happening on the store’s porch, she wants to attend community events and gatherings not as a trophy wife, but as a regular person having fun and reveling in the sense of community. So, when Joe dies, Janie can finally destroy the wall he placed between her and Eatonville and her interior and exterior. In donning the black to grieve, she’s also reconnecting with her black community. For Janie, it’s not about living a posh leisurely life of a white woman, but living how she wants as a real black women. She finds freedom in Joe’s death, she finds an escape from the burden of having to be the model black woman, the ideal for all other black women to work toward, an ideal that alienated her from the very same race this ideal is striving to uplift.

Suhrin: I completely agree with that interpretation, Janie goes through quite a journey to understand herself and her racial identity. And it’s such a beautiful moment for Janie when she and Tea Cake banish Mrs. Turner from the muck farm, and sadly we don’t get that in the film. In the novel when the cast out Mrs. Turner, it’s as if Janie finds peace with her black identity, her black life, and she knows she has no room in it for the hate Mrs. Turner represents. And in portraying these issues of race and colorism, it allows the reader to be more introspective and think on how we should work to improve these issues in our society today. Because racism, colorism, and internalized-racism are still very real problems people of color face.

Dominic: Very true. The gender dynamics are pretty interesting too, when you compare the novel and the film. In terms of feminism, I think the novel doesn’t really do it much justice. In a way Janie is very submissive to the commands of her husbands. When Joe tells her to put on that head-rag to cover her hair, she sort of reluctantly does so, but she does it. In doing so, he masks her beauty, her stunts her identity, and that visual of putting her hair up and keeping it and her head wrapped up, it feels like he’s metaphorically shackling her mind. But even when she has that moment where she lets down her hair after Joe passes away, it just did not scream feminism to me. I liked that she found freedom in being single and she didn’t really feel the need to grieve Joe, not for long anyway, because he made her feel terrible about her body and herself. But it just felt like I expected more feminist commentary from a book written by a black woman living in the South, where gender norms are stricter than most places. In our contemporary world we’re getting things like female Ghostbusters, explorations of power dynamics and gender roles in TV and literature like The Handmaid’s Tale, and we have female superheroes like Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman, and Scarlett Johansson, who can play just about any race and ethnicity, ha! But seriously, these women are role models and they’re portraying strong individuals and acting as great representation for women and young girls everywhere, and I just expected a little more of that from Their Eyes.

Suhrin: I totally get what you are trying to say. In the movie, she’s definitely more resistant to hiding her hair than she is in the book. When she realizes how Joe is trying to control her and segregate her from the community, she actually makes an attempt to run away and defy him. Then Joe starts screaming that no one will want, just as someone’s plaything, insinuating prostitution even, and Janie quietly, resigned, walks back into their house, and this was really powerful. I think including this scene makes it compelling to the idea that Janie is a strong female character with a strong will, and even then she is trapped in this situation, and we see this visually with her struggle in the film. Also, the moment she lets down her hair seems a whole lot more dramatized. The symbol of how the head rag is a metaphor for the constraint that men put on women seems to be far more prevalent. Maybe it’s because of the medium itself, film being more visual, that the effect feels more pronounced, but it was definitely a more focalized symbol in the movie than the novel.

Dominic: Could this relate to the idea that the movie is geared towards a female audience? I think the film is made so it is palatable for women by highlighting these feminist ideals, ironically in a sexist way. By leaving out these important themes from the novel of slavery and racism in the movie and focusing solely on the romance plotline, while simultaneously altering Janie’s character to portray this more contemporary ideal feminist woman, it feels as if the filmmakers aren’t taking women as seriously as they should. It’s like they’re dumbing down this beautiful piece of literature for an audience—women—whom they think is only interested in watching romance movies where they don’t have to think too much, just feel, as a woman does. There’s no room for explorations of identity, race, and slavery, let other filmmakers and the literature handle that, in the capitalistic world of film they need to produce something that sells, not something that provides scathing social commentary or sheds light on important and prevalent social issues.

Suhrin: Yup, you put it in words. The movie is definitely far more romanticized than the novel. Especially the way that it includes all those steamy sex scenes, and the primary focus is Janie’s search for love. They’re selling sex and romance, and although Janie’s character feels like more of a feminist in the film, I definitely think it’s for all the wrong reasons. What a confusingly hot take though, feminism is sexist in film! You have to take a minute to wrap your head around that, but I think it makes sense when you’re looking at it retrospectively and in terms of intent and purpose. Yes, we love feminist Janie who stands up for herself, yes we wish novel Janie were more like film Janie, but we also wish the film wasn’t butchered to leave out all these important themes and social issues the novel explores in depth.

Suhrin: All in all, slavery and racism is skillfully explored in the novel. The institution of slavery, and later racism, that persis in history have a negative effect on the African American community. It is shown when they partake in or emulate slavery and racism with their own people. It sort of represents the cyclical system that’s so ingrained in our society, but certainly not justified. By doing so, it makes the novel deeper than a love story. The novel doesn’t contain big ideas of feminism strongly, but perhaps it could have been the time period which does not allow for women of color writers to write about such controversial things, or maybe even radical at the time.

Dominic: In contrast, the film does not explore the ideas of slavery and racism, which makes it lacking in depth for me. Sure, romances can be powerful and uplifting and profound, but it’s a heavily gendered genre in film and literature, so I think the film definitely propagates this idea of romance being cheap and low-brow by leaving out all these themes. Nonetheless, the film also tends to have feminism a bit more ingrained in the story. Janie’s resistance to these men trying to control her life and her struggle is clearly portrayed in a feminist light. This highlights the power dynamics in society between men and women, especially back then, with women finding themselves stuck in situations where they’re helpless because they chose to marry the wrong man. But the way that feminism and romance are incorporated makes me believe that it was geared towards a female audience for purely capitalistic motivations.

Suhrin: I recently read an article written by Richard Wright and it discusses how the novel is “cloaked in facile sensuality,” and portrays the minds of “Negro-folk mind in their pure simplicity,”. It’s really interesting he feels this way because I would have to disagree. Yes, I think the novel and the film do not touch on every single theme out there, but they both portray greater ideas that go beyond just mere narrative. There’s so much commentary on society! There’s so much representation for women of color, for women writers, for victims of domestic violence, and for victims of racism, colorism, and internalized-racism. Neither the novel or the film are perfect, but in a meta way, these two mediums for Janie’s story act in conversation to spark more conversation, like the one we’re having now. Both mediums act together to get people thinking, talking, and hopefully to enact change. And for that, I love Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God.

Dominic: Beautifully put Suhrin, I agree wholeheartedly.

Well, it appears that’s all we have time for today. Thanks for joining us as you listen on your way to work, as you drive your kids to school, or maybe just as you cruise down the highway, listening to us ramble. You all be safe out there and enjoy your morning. This has been your co-host, Dominic Rochel, and..

Suhrin: Suhrin Whang! Y’all take care now!

[Podcast Outro Music]

0 notes