This blog contains the innermost thoughts, feelings, and interpretations of students at Columbus State University who are studying early African American literature.
How does the debate between W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington inform Hopkins's characterizations? What characters does the author identify with most? What position does she take on that debate?
It is evident that the debate between the two “light-bright-damn near-white” scholars had become extremely intense, by the publishing date of this novel. We as readers can see this because the ideals of the two men are shown vicariously through the characters of Will Smith and Arthur Lewis, who represent Du Bois and Washington respectively. Will Smith, a “brilliant philosophical student” believed, just as Du Bois himself, that “the only way to bring the best faculties of the Negro to their full fruition was by the careful education of the moral faculties along the lines of the natural laws”. Dr. Lewis, echoing Washington’s ideas on industrial education along with the understanding that while he remains in the South, he must “keep in with the whites” because “if you want honey, you must have money”. Dr. Lewis seems to capture the essence of the hustler spirit of Booker T. as he use his assimilation with White patrons to support him in educating freed Blacks in the industrial ways of life.
While Harper seems to more than likely to relate to her Du Bois-like characters with their Caucasian features, their “fair” skin, “aquiline” noses, and “black and curly” hair “just a tinge of crispness to denote the existence of Negro blood,” she actually uses these over-used characters in literature as a theme for her larger scheme of trickery, just like Booker T. While she does fail to mention the beauty and grandeur of those darker characters with less than perfect features, it is only to sell her novel to her intended audience—white patrons who had enough societal pull to support the magazine the novel was highlighted in, and who would feel empathy in regards to the lynchings and rapes of lighter skinned Black men and women. She had to, in order to increase the sell of her book, as Lape mentioned on Tuesday, give her white audience characters they could relate to more easily; how could a former plantation mistress relate to “darkies” when they could somewhat relate to mulatto/a men and women who caused their onlookers to stop and stare; beauty is loved by all, is it not?
However, on a deeper level, Hopkins is perhaps making the correlation that it is the white blood that corrupts the mulatto. It is the white blood inside of them that causes them to war within themselves; a war that they lose each time because of their tragic, weak hearts. Look at Grace Montfort who, because of her changed situation chooses to commit suicide rather than protect her own children, who need her more now than ever. She does not epitomize the Black matriarch who is strong because her children need her for strength; Hopkins uses Grace to show that it is the white blood inside of her that tragically befalls her. Hopkins even mentions, in the voice of an insignificant character, “Lo, the poor mulatto! despised by the blacks of his own race, scorned by the whites! Let him go out and hang himself”! Harper provides no empathy for the mulatto; we do not feel sorry for the mulattos in this tale, for they are nothing worth sympathizing. Instead, Harper signifies on the ideals of Washington in her ability to get “honey” from those who provide “money,” while simultaneously providing a deep message to her African American audience that implicitly states that their pure black blood is what makes them pure and beautiful, and less prone to tragedy in their lives.
I found it kind of difficult to determine which positon Hopkins took, althought I was able to catch the political message she was trying to make. Clearly, Hopkins uses two of her characters to embody the the teachings of Booker T. Washington: Arthur Lewis and John P. Langely. Lewis being the most obvious. The frist time that I clearly saw the debate was was were Dora and Sappho were talking about Lewis. Dora explained his ideology and Sappho quickly responded, "I doubt it, that reasoning might be practically illustrated with benefit to us for a few years in the South, but to my mind would not effect a permanent cure for race troubles if we are willing to admit that human nature is the same in ua as in others." She continues into page 125 and 126. Will Smith very much embodies Dubois as does Sappho. *please excuse any typos, haven't slept*
Many of Hopkins’s characters are hard workers and realize they must work diligently in order to have those things that come easy to white characters. This idea of blacks focusing on becoming hard workers is somewhat reminiscent of what Booker T. Washington has to say in some of his writings. However, Hopkins does not leave out examples of blacks characters that take the time to cultivate their minds. She portrays her characters with a high degree of self-awareness and dignity. Mrs. Montfort is described “possessed of a bright, joyous nature, she liked nothing better than to gather about her the young men and women of the neighborhood and make life pleasant for them; and they in turn learned from her customs and refinements which otherwise might never have come their way.” Not only is she described in high regard but also it states that she teaches them about refinement. Hopkins does a great job of creating strong and interesting female characters. The women are characters who are complicated individuals, as it should be, and I think she does such a great job because she can identify with these characters and give some real insight to what they may be thinking or feeling. She noticed the lack of perspective from the view of women and seems to seek to remedy that in her writing. Also she does an amazing job of capturing positive examples of black families that are caring and who have strong relationships to one another. White readers would be able to read this story and find similarities between the families in the book and their own. I think Hopkins was a woman who was fully aware of what she was trying to accomplish and was willing to praise and endorse those things that would up lift her race and further the true positive image of a strong, intelligent, and exemplary black citizen. She saw writing as a means of delivering this message and used both Dubois and Washington’s ideas in her writing.
It is hard to say whether Hopkins is pro- Washington or pro -DuBois. Her characters seem to embody many of the ideals of both: hard work v. education. And while she does portray the typical story line of the ‘unknowing white family that finds out they have black lineage’ via the Montfort’s they could be described as being both hardworking and educated. We know little of the Montfort family history except that Grace comes from a considerable amount of money (being raised by her uncle) and that Mr. Montfort seems to have inherited wealth also. And it is obvious they both were educated, hence the mention of attending British schools (supporting the “DuBoisan” argument). The question becomes, do we as readers believe that they are hard working and they had to raise themselves from the lower ranks to become successful like Washington espouses? Well, maybe not Mr. Montfort and Grace themselves, but if we as readers actually believe the rumors started by Pollock that they (namely Grace) descended from black ancestry then one could argue that someone in his/her family worked hard to achieve the success of other rich white men. And that “many of these ‘colored’ people became rich planters or business men (themselves owning slaves) through the favors heaped upon them by their white parents”. Privileged or not, even the “favors” given to a mulatto child had to be cultivated by the child in order to ensure their success. So in this way the Montfort family could even exhibit the ideas of both Washington and DuBois.
This is to say however, that the family did have African lineage. Hopkins leads the reader to believe this is true by planting ideas about how Grace has African American features. It is possible that Grace did ascend from African blood, as suggested in the first chapter. But I think it is also possible for the whole incident to be a coincidence. Just because she has brown curly hair, brown eyes, and creamy skin does not mean she is of African descent. She grew up in the West Indies, a place where many different groups of people lived, and where many different races of people could intertwine to create all sorts of biracial families. The only reason we believe Grace to be part black is because of Pollock and Bill Sampson. They are no more a reliable source as to whether a person is mixed than even Hopkins herself. It is a startling idea but she leaves it open to debate for she neither confirms nor denies that she is from African descent. If the situation was a misunderstanding then we could say that Hopkins is trying to create the picture that no one can escape the bonds of slavery, not even a white woman. I feel she leaves it open so that her white audience could better identify with Grace. I wonder what everyone else thinks of my “conspiracy theory”. Hmm…
I’m amongst a great discussion, I know I am! Okay, so….Hopkins…we meet DuBois and Booker T. once again? I never get tired of these arguments…but first to answer the question of which position Hopkins take on this debate…well, her character Sappho was appalled at Dora’s little friend, Dr. Arthur Lewis’s ideal of bettering the race. She immediately fights for the “colored man’s” right to vote. I have to say that Hopkins relate the most to Sappho for if she had not, there would be no such character. Hopkins is definitely a DuBoisean, and I like that!
Before I recognized this fact, I realized that Hopkins has this debate continuously circulating throughout her work, especially among the men. When she describes Henry Smith’s “early manhood”, he had to rely on industrial work to pull him up in the bucket so to speak just because he had very little education to rely upon. However, Hopkins identifies this as a part of the “negro struggle” exactly what DuBois’ complete study revolves around. Now, Booker T. does contribute to the “Negro Problem” because he teaches industrialism to other Blacks—that to become a business man, one must forget the rights of American citizenship…of course we all know this is where the argument spurts—and Hopkins dives right in. Henry Smith’s children are raised oppositely—they do not have to work odd jobs to get food on the table…he’s done that for them already…instead, Dora is a musician, William is a College student—these characters are educated and would not have to rely solely on the ideals of advancing by industrialism—they are able to do the same as their father (but with the same struggle) but they have instead, the brains to do better and they deserve better.
Sappho is one of those characters who admires advancement through enfranchisement and education—that’s why she’s so sore towards Dr. Arthur…and this guy's a real BTW. Not to mention the strong whiff of feminism among Hopkins writings when Sappho swears upon Arthur’s ideology of the vocal capacity of a women…Dora’s response freakishly reminded me of that “veil” idea-- and I’m not a fan of it’s use for BTW followers.
6 comments:
Well! Am I the first to grace the page??
It is evident that the debate between the two “light-bright-damn near-white” scholars had become extremely intense, by the publishing date of this novel. We as readers can see this because the ideals of the two men are shown vicariously through the characters of Will Smith and Arthur Lewis, who represent Du Bois and Washington respectively. Will Smith, a “brilliant philosophical student” believed, just as Du Bois himself, that “the only way to bring the best faculties of the Negro to their full fruition was by the careful education of the moral faculties along the lines of the natural laws”. Dr. Lewis, echoing Washington’s ideas on industrial education along with the understanding that while he remains in the South, he must “keep in with the whites” because “if you want honey, you must have money”. Dr. Lewis seems to capture the essence of the hustler spirit of Booker T. as he use his assimilation with White patrons to support him in educating freed Blacks in the industrial ways of life.
While Harper seems to more than likely to relate to her Du Bois-like characters with their Caucasian features, their “fair” skin, “aquiline” noses, and “black and curly” hair “just a tinge of crispness to denote the existence of Negro blood,” she actually uses these over-used characters in literature as a theme for her larger scheme of trickery, just like Booker T. While she does fail to mention the beauty and grandeur of those darker characters with less than perfect features, it is only to sell her novel to her intended audience—white patrons who had enough societal pull to support the magazine the novel was highlighted in, and who would feel empathy in regards to the lynchings and rapes of lighter skinned Black men and women. She had to, in order to increase the sell of her book, as Lape mentioned on Tuesday, give her white audience characters they could relate to more easily; how could a former plantation mistress relate to “darkies” when they could somewhat relate to mulatto/a men and women who caused their onlookers to stop and stare; beauty is loved by all, is it not?
However, on a deeper level, Hopkins is perhaps making the correlation that it is the white blood that corrupts the mulatto. It is the white blood inside of them that causes them to war within themselves; a war that they lose each time because of their tragic, weak hearts. Look at Grace Montfort who, because of her changed situation chooses to commit suicide rather than protect her own children, who need her more now than ever. She does not epitomize the Black matriarch who is strong because her children need her for strength; Hopkins uses Grace to show that it is the white blood inside of her that tragically befalls her. Hopkins even mentions, in the voice of an insignificant character, “Lo, the poor mulatto! despised by the blacks of his own race, scorned by the whites! Let him go out and hang himself”! Harper provides no empathy for the mulatto; we do not feel sorry for the mulattos in this tale, for they are nothing worth sympathizing. Instead, Harper signifies on the ideals of Washington in her ability to get “honey” from those who provide “money,” while simultaneously providing a deep message to her African American audience that implicitly states that their pure black blood is what makes them pure and beautiful, and less prone to tragedy in their lives.
I found it kind of difficult to determine which positon Hopkins took, althought I was able to catch the political message she was trying to make. Clearly, Hopkins uses two of her characters to embody the the teachings of Booker T. Washington: Arthur Lewis and John P. Langely. Lewis being the most obvious. The frist time that I clearly saw the debate was was were Dora and Sappho were talking about Lewis. Dora explained his ideology and Sappho quickly responded, "I doubt it, that reasoning might be practically illustrated with benefit to us for a few years in the South, but to my mind would not effect a permanent cure for race troubles if we are willing to admit that human nature is the same in ua as in others." She continues into page 125 and 126. Will Smith very much embodies Dubois as does Sappho. *please excuse any typos, haven't slept*
Many of Hopkins’s characters are hard workers and realize they must work diligently in order to have those things that come easy to white characters. This idea of blacks focusing on becoming hard workers is somewhat reminiscent of what Booker T. Washington has to say in some of his writings. However, Hopkins does not leave out examples of blacks characters that take the time to cultivate their minds. She portrays her characters with a high degree of self-awareness and dignity. Mrs. Montfort is described “possessed of a bright, joyous nature, she liked nothing better than to gather about her the young men and women of the neighborhood and make life pleasant for them; and they in turn learned from her customs and refinements which otherwise might never have come their way.” Not only is she described in high regard but also it states that she teaches them about refinement. Hopkins does a great job of creating strong and interesting female characters. The women are characters who are complicated individuals, as it should be, and I think she does such a great job because she can identify with these characters and give some real insight to what they may be thinking or feeling. She noticed the lack of perspective from the view of women and seems to seek to remedy that in her writing. Also she does an amazing job of capturing positive examples of black families that are caring and who have strong relationships to one another. White readers would be able to read this story and find similarities between the families in the book and their own. I think Hopkins was a woman who was fully aware of what she was trying to accomplish and was willing to praise and endorse those things that would up lift her race and further the true positive image of a strong, intelligent, and exemplary black citizen. She saw writing as a means of delivering this message and used both Dubois and Washington’s ideas in her writing.
It is hard to say whether Hopkins is pro- Washington or pro -DuBois. Her characters seem to embody many of the ideals of both: hard work v. education. And while she does portray the typical story line of the ‘unknowing white family that finds out they have black lineage’ via the Montfort’s they could be described as being both hardworking and educated. We know little of the Montfort family history except that Grace comes from a considerable amount of money (being raised by her uncle) and that Mr. Montfort seems to have inherited wealth also. And it is obvious they both were educated, hence the mention of attending British schools (supporting the “DuBoisan” argument). The question becomes, do we as readers believe that they are hard working and they had to raise themselves from the lower ranks to become successful like Washington espouses? Well, maybe not Mr. Montfort and Grace themselves, but if we as readers actually believe the rumors started by Pollock that they (namely Grace) descended from black ancestry then one could argue that someone in his/her family worked hard to achieve the success of other rich white men. And that “many of these ‘colored’ people became rich planters or business men (themselves owning slaves) through the favors heaped upon them by their white parents”. Privileged or not, even the “favors” given to a mulatto child had to be cultivated by the child in order to ensure their success. So in this way the Montfort family could even exhibit the ideas of both Washington and DuBois.
This is to say however, that the family did have African lineage. Hopkins leads the reader to believe this is true by planting ideas about how Grace has African American features. It is possible that Grace did ascend from African blood, as suggested in the first chapter. But I think it is also possible for the whole incident to be a coincidence. Just because she has brown curly hair, brown eyes, and creamy skin does not mean she is of African descent. She grew up in the West Indies, a place where many different groups of people lived, and where many different races of people could intertwine to create all sorts of biracial families. The only reason we believe Grace to be part black is because of Pollock and Bill Sampson. They are no more a reliable source as to whether a person is mixed than even Hopkins herself. It is a startling idea but she leaves it open to debate for she neither confirms nor denies that she is from African descent. If the situation was a misunderstanding then we could say that Hopkins is trying to create the picture that no one can escape the bonds of slavery, not even a white woman. I feel she leaves it open so that her white audience could better identify with Grace. I wonder what everyone else thinks of my “conspiracy theory”. Hmm…
I’m amongst a great discussion, I know I am! Okay, so….Hopkins…we meet DuBois and Booker T. once again? I never get tired of these arguments…but first to answer the question of which position Hopkins take on this debate…well, her character Sappho was appalled at Dora’s little friend, Dr. Arthur Lewis’s ideal of bettering the race. She immediately fights for the “colored man’s” right to vote. I have to say that Hopkins relate the most to Sappho for if she had not, there would be no such character. Hopkins is definitely a DuBoisean, and I like that!
Before I recognized this fact, I realized that Hopkins has this debate continuously circulating throughout her work, especially among the men. When she describes Henry Smith’s “early manhood”, he had to rely on industrial work to pull him up in the bucket so to speak just because he had very little education to rely upon. However, Hopkins identifies this as a part of the “negro struggle” exactly what DuBois’ complete study revolves around. Now, Booker T. does contribute to the “Negro Problem” because he teaches industrialism to other Blacks—that to become a business man, one must forget the rights of American citizenship…of course we all know this is where the argument spurts—and Hopkins dives right in. Henry Smith’s children are raised oppositely—they do not have to work odd jobs to get food on the table…he’s done that for them already…instead, Dora is a musician, William is a College student—these characters are educated and would not have to rely solely on the ideals of advancing by industrialism—they are able to do the same as their father (but with the same struggle) but they have instead, the brains to do better and they deserve better.
Sappho is one of those characters who admires advancement through enfranchisement and education—that’s why she’s so sore towards Dr. Arthur…and this guy's a real BTW. Not to mention the strong whiff of feminism among Hopkins writings when Sappho swears upon Arthur’s ideology of the vocal capacity of a women…Dora’s response freakishly reminded me of that “veil” idea-- and I’m not a fan of it’s use for BTW followers.
Post a Comment