Author: Michael Paul

On September 23, 2019, writer and journalist Andrew Solomons visited the University of Richmond to speak on the topic of “Radical Compassion” at the Weinstein-Rosenthal Forum on Faith, Ethics, and Global Society. In times like today, or any time for that matter, Solomons argues that there is a need for unconditional love and compassion. Although he offered a variety of different stories and anecdotes, each revolved around the idea concept of the distinction between insiders and outsiders. Each society is beautiful, but each also has outsiders. Solomons questions what mainstream society is and acknowledges that being different is good, but being alone and different is difficult. Radical compassion is a way to forge meaning and build identity among individuals. It invites everyone to share joy, and doing so changes the world.

One aspect of Solomons’ talk that stood out was his reference to Toni Morrison (how relevant). Through this comparison, Solomons points out that the idea of freedom is not static. Because freedom is a verb, it must be lived every day and entails commitment. Once one is set free, he or she must claim a free self, but that does not mean this is without pain and oppression. It is hard for someone to live an oppressed life alone. For Sethe in Beloved, her children give her meaning and her future gives her meaning. She is able to endure the hardships of her life because she has a purpose, but more importantly, because she is not alone. She received radical compassion from Amy on her journey away from Sweet Home and she found community at the 124 house. Without these, Sethe might not have endured. 

This idea of radical compassion should be an important factor in our own lives. Naturally, people will create walls and group themselves. But to Solomons point, each group is unique and special in its own way. It is our job to build and relationships and understand each other unconditionally in the same way a parent loves his or her child unconditionally. It takes effort but being closed-minded shields us from the beauty of others. Because we need meaning, we should also pay it back and give others meaning. I found this talk extremely interesting, engaging, and thought-provoking and I would urge everybody to look into Andrew Solomons books and TED Talks. 

 

1 Comment

The Beloved story is starting to pick up with the entrance of Beloved and the integration of Paul D within the 124 household. While this surely adds to an already complex story, I instead would like to focus on the idea of the future. Previously, we discussed how Toni Morrison appears to blend time; it is hard for the reader to identify what is now and what is the past. While this has worked to show Sethe’s fear of the past, we see on page 71, for one of the first times, a shift towards the future on the topic of the eatings when Morrison narrates, “she wouldn’t say another word. Until the next time when all three of them ran through the wind back into the house.” Similarly, Sethe acknowledges her preoccupation with the future when she says “I have other things to do: worry, for example, about tomorrow” on page 83.

It is no coincidence that this shift occurs in tandem with the introduction of Beloved and Paul D. While Sethe had been running her whole life, working to forget the past, this is the first time when things are starting to look good for the residents of the 124 house. Beloved seems to take the place of the dead baby (we also have not had any ghost interactions lately) and Paul D is working to integrate the “family” into society by bringing them to the carnival. For the first time since this book began, Sethe and Denver finally have direction and are excited for what the future holds. That is not to say that the past is gone, though. Morrison does say that Sethe’s “brain was not interested in the future,” but we are beginning to see a shift that might be cognisant of a shifting time. Post abolition but still with a long way to go, the future might have been bright for many African Americans, but a preoccupation with all that has been done and a dark past are hard to forget and move on from.

2 Comments

Although Langston Hughes was by no means the only voice of the Harlem Renaissance, he had an immense amount of influence in his objectives to portray the reality of America at the time. One poem of his that particularly stood out to me was “Will V-Day Be Me-Day Too.” In this poem, Hughes says, “When we see Victory’s glow, Will you still let old Jim Crow” showing his commitment to his country but also identifying what he is actually fighting for (and how ugly it might be). He later equates black oppression to the oppression of the “Germans to the Jews.” Clearly, Hughes is describing immense problems with America at the time. He is patriotic but recognizes that there is still a long way to go for the American dream. “America was never America to me” is another line that stood out for this reason. Hughes clearly has a well-defined sense of what America should be in his mind, even if reality doesn’t fit his expectations. He is still optimistic about the future but realizes that it takes effort to create the America he wants. Hughes’ poetry works to close the gap between his (and many others’) dreams and the actuality of what America realistically is.

What made Hughes unique and possibly what caused his poems to be so well known today is that he takes a unique take on America. He is both hopeful, but realistic; crude and refined in his diction. This is probably why his works appealed to such a diverse crowd. He uses lingo that is representative of the black community at the time in his well structured and poems and works, clearly showing his education at Columbia University. It is easy to understand the purpose of his poems at a quick glance but it takes a much deeper effort to realize his genius. Hughes is clearly a part of high culture today with influences that span much wider categories. J.I.D., for example, is a rapper from Atlanta who has, on multiple occasions, claimed he is heavily influenced by Langston Hughes. With such a wide influence today, I wonder how his works were received in the early to mid 20th Century or if Hughes ever knew the impact he had. Like many of the artists mentioned in “Or Does it Explode,” it would make sense that the conflicting responses Hughes received at the time are a testament to the power of his written word and of him as a prominent figure.

4 Comments

When it was first published in 1852, Uncle Tom’s Cabin reached an array of audiences differently quite differently. Although only 1.5% of the non-slave population read the book, its influence was much further reaching. Reactions varied considerably, ranging from ridiculing the book for its inaccurate depiction of slavery to praising it for its message that was quite unpopular for the time. Especially considering that most slaves were illiterate, it took decades before Uncle Tom’s Cabin moved from its place in low or pop culture to the high culture it is treated as in the classroom now. 

Part of the reason the book might not have been as accepted during the time it was written is that it resonated positively with a small subset of the audience. As Hagood discusses, Stowe would have been able to reach a larger audience if she sympathized more with the plight of women. While this would have reached a wider audience and potentially received a more positive appraisal in the mid 19th century, it would have taken away from the purpose of Stowe’s writing. Humans construct their reality through storytelling, and although Stowe’s depiction of slavery illustrated “colors that make up the picture but not the world of ours,” it contributed to its overall reception, especially in the long-term. Stowe clearly did not want to accurately depict slavery because people already knew what it was like – they lived through it at the time. By exaggerating and focusing on the worst aspects, Uncle Tom’s Cabin was able to resonate more deeply with its readers, whether positively or negatively. 

The book struck the emotions of the nation. Some were outraged and some were moved to improve the world, but overall, there was a strong set of reactions, which Stowe was probably looking for. Any publicity is good publicity and Uncle Tom’s Cabin started a conversation that never ended and perhaps even influenced Abraham Lincoln’s movement towards abolition. Because of Stowe, I am even writing about her work today, nearly 150 years later. In my mind, that is a success and proves that the most influential works don’t have to be the most accurate. Digging into the purpose of a creation may take time to get the point across, but if you go deep enough, the answer lies within.

3 Comments

Clearly, Shakespeare had a deep knowledge of historical and pop-culture events that allowed him to write in-depth and thought-provoking plays during his time. One of these was Richard II, a historical play about Richard II (clever title, right?). What is unique about this play is that it seems to be relevant during all time periods. There is always the problem of establishing legitimacy for leaders, and there will always be dissatisfied a dissatisfied public (at least partially). 

I immediately noticed a connection between the content in Richard II and the 2016 presidential election. In both, there is a power grab from an outside individual, whether that by Henry, who was not initially in a position to grab power, or Donald Trump, who had no previous experience in politics. Both leaders were viewed as a solution to problems that fell under both of their previous leaders, and both found legal ways to become a formal leader, despite possible opposition from the public. It is true that legitimacy and popularity are tightly connected since both mentioned leaders became large debating points. Trump’s ability to win the presidential election, despite losing the popular vote is a partial reason why his legitimacy may be questioned. One of the main differences between the leader-follower relationship in Richard II and America today is that it is much more difficult now to overthrow a leader. Legally, Trump is a legitimate leader, but if he begins to lose popularity, then there is the option to elect another more popular leader.

This relationship between legitimacy and popularity has another recent example with the election of George W. Bush. Like Trump, Bush also lost the popular vote but was still able to win the electoral college. Over time, like most presidents, Bush’s popularity declined, but he was able to improve his popularity with the start of a “war” – the War on Terror. There is a clear connection between this and Henry’s grab for power. When Henry’s legitimacy was questioned, he started a war as well. This constant connection between popularity and legitimacy gives rise to leadership practices that might not be in the best interest of the public. History seems to be a constant cycle between ruler and usurper as the legitimacy of leaders ebb and flow with time. This poses the interesting question of leader emergence vs effectiveness and their relationship, but that might be for another class.

2 Comments