On
November 13, 1946, Wanda Coleman was born into a Los Angeles that was
recovering from segregation but barely covering any ground towards social or
racial equality. Growing up in the 1950’s and 60’s Wanda Coleman felt
ostracized, due in part to her appearance. She recalled, “Boys gawked at me, and
girls tittered behind my back. Black teachers shook their heads in pity, and
White teachers stared in amusement or in wonder.” Beyond the torture she
experienced in her childhood, she also experienced the harsh contrast in status
between African-Americans and whites in society at the time. Her father was a
janitor, and her mother was a seamstress and housekeeper, sometimes working for
Hollywood stars such as Ronald Reagan. With this background fueling her, Wanda
reflected on her surroundings through poetry, which was often described as
uncompromising, “take-no-prisoners” performances that brought you into her
world.
Despite
feeling oppressed by the conditions in which she grew up, Wanda expressed
herself in a way that refused to submit to the white pressure around her.
Instead of lashing out against the whites or falling into a meek submission,
Wanda was able to maintain her integrity by choosing this other form of
expression. Although one can see Wanda’s style of writing and her form of expression
as being at odds with that which the grandfather believes in, I find them
similar in many ways. The grandfather in Ellison’s Invisible Man appears to be promoting a method of expression that
may come across as meek, but is actually a strong form of defiance by not
conforming to the mold that the whites want for him. He tells the grandson to
“undermine ‘em with grins [and to] agree ‘em to death and destruction.” This
method is neither lashing out nor resigning to submissiveness. It is creating a
unique path that maintains one’s individual integrity, just like the method
that Wanda takes on in her poetry.
There
seems to be a clear argument between these two pieces: rather than submit to
the dominant white force, to follow a path that promotes one’s individual
integrity and allegiance to personal background or culture. This relates back
to the question we brought up in class—does the means justify the ends? The
grandfather in Ellison would not think so. In Kurashige’s piece, Between “White Spot” and “World City,”
LAPD officer turned city councilman, Tom Bradley, was described as having a
career that was built upon alliances with whites. This raises the question –
does achieving success require this seemingly unfavorable means? Or were these
unique scenarios, that are now outdated?
While
both of these pieces are a commentary on the racial inequality present in Los
Angeles, I question what they ask of the audience. Wanda writes in such a way that
bluntly brings attention to the inequality inherent our society. However, rather
than the poem coming across as a complaint, she seems to end her poem on a note
of empowerment with the final line being, “my wings.” This echoes the first
line that seems to state that such wings are necessary to rise above the
oppression inherent in society. Is this piece a simple commentary on her
personal life, or does she expect people of color in Los Angeles at large to
find their wings, as well?
To me, Wanda Coleman’s piece was so personable, that I felt as if her form of expression was the most effective in spreading it’s message. I picked up the raw, unpolished feelings and emotions found through her memories and took them to heart. But now what? Her piece can be taken to be a simple commentary on her personal life but in my point of view, I think she hoped that people of color in LA would find their wings and perhaps not risk everything to achieve their goals, but at least take a piece of what she was saying and carry it with them on a day to day basis. I feel as if she would be against the unfavorable means to the end and would look for an alternative path that not only satisfied her integrity/pride/goals, but also respected others.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Annika's conclusion I would argue that the line "my wings" is not one of empowerment but of bitterness. Coleman does not expect black people in Los Angeles to get their wings just as she did not. In her conclusion Coleman describes her wings as "what's due me". She believes she flew "high enough" to get her wings and was unjustly deprived. I agree with Annika that this piece is not a complaint. In fact the last two paragraphs seem to be the only ones that show this bitterness. The rest of the poem seems to accept the reality as it is and interestingly, for the most part refrains from judgment or indictment of these circumstances. This apparent passivity, however, does not fall into the category of "meek submission". Instead it reads as a cynical acceptance of unjust circumstance; almost in an attempt to denigrate the severity of the slight. Not to say that the Coleman is brushing off the racism she experienced but that her form of protest is to "not give them the satisfaction". She chose this expression over Anger and over Washingtonian internal rebellion.
ReplyDeleteThis means vs. ends argument we have been discussing in the Ellison piece is something that I find hard to wrap my head around. I keep asking myself the question, does the means justify the ends, or does the ends justify the means? This ethical dilemma Ellison presents is very powerful. If the means justify the ends, Ellison should have stood up to the racism and injustice presented, he should have said or done something to protect himself and his fellow African Americans. If the ends justify the means, then Ellison did everything perfectly. Although it was brave to take the physical and emotional beating, I also feel like on the other hand it was somewhat cowardly. Ellison didn’t even try to fight back against the social injustice taking place. Because of this, I don’t feel like anything in this situation was justified. He didn’t take his own path like that presented in Wanda Coleman’s poem, but rather the easy way out of the situation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Daniel and Annika argue in favor of Coleman's optimism, if one can call it that, in her poem, I don't think that gathers the entire scope necessary. With both the grandfather in Invisible Man and Coleman in Angel Baby Blues, the authors are acutely aware of the societies they live in. Coleman seems to simply comment on her surroundings in the poem and the grandfather's advice is too cunning to have overlooked the environment of the country racially. Still, I think they took their apparent passivity as the route they saw most productive to achieving the change they sought. From our contemporary perspective, their routes may seem counter-intuitive or weak, but possessing the foresight and planning to make this decision helped pave the way to create our current mindset.
ReplyDeleteI was very engaged when you said that “Wanda was able to maintain her integrity”, because I think that was a very good way to describe the way Wanda has created a new art form. She did not use other ways of expression because her words wouldn’t have been heard. I was amazed by her poem and how different it was compared to many of the more “traditional” poems I have read. Part of what made this poem so powerful was how surprising it is to read it for the first time. I found a spoken version of her poem online and was stunned by how distinctive it was, but in no way was the unconventionality distracting. It was refreshing and the cadence and randomness to her words added to the message of her poem.
ReplyDeleteI was also engaged when you described the grandfather as strong despite his meek appearance. When I read the Invisible Man, I pictured the grandfather as kind of sneaky, as if on his deathbed he was saying: “Haha! I fooled you all. You thought I was doing everything because you made me, but I was doing it all on my own.” I also couldn’t help but wonder as I was reading if on his deathbed he was suddenly wondering why he had not stood up for himself and so said that he was only pretending his whole life. I don’t really agree with the second thought, but it struck me as I was reading your article that these two immediate impressions could be so different.
I disagree with the claim that Ellison’s grandfather appears to be promoting a method of expression that is inherently a strong form of defiance. Yes, submissiveness irritated and sought to oppose the feral black stereotype, but submissiveness also reinforced the fact that the white population dominated the black population. Although Ellison received a college education and prize at the end of his performance, he was greatly humiliated in the process. That being said, the outcome is obviously important, but the means is almost just as important. Ellison in Invisible Man proves victorious in the end, but his means of achieving success greatly undermines his accomplishments. By submitting to the powerful white men, Ellison fails to maintain his integrity, and as a reader, I lost respect for him. Personally, I believe that people should have values by which they live, and they should abide by those values. By disregarding those values, people cheat themselves, and they have not been completely successful. Unlike Ellison, Wanda Coleman stays true to herself and to her beliefs, and for this reason, I respect her more. As illustrated by Coleman, one can achieve success through respectful and virtuous means – it just requires a little more creativity, patience, and determination.
ReplyDeleteThe most powerful element of Coleman's poem for me isn't necessarily its raw emotional power or language but its pure and unadulterated honesty. I don't believe that the poem is written with the purpose of igniting colored people to take off and 'get their wings', but it's also much more than just a simple commentary on her own life. Despite the rawness of the emotions and language presented in the poem, it's anything but simple; as human emotions can be messy and complicated, so is the poem's message. Coleman punctuates her poem with short directions from Hollywood to various ghettos and gang-infested areas (Watts, East LA, Baldwin Village) as well as affluent white areas (Playa del Rey). This contrast in a way reveals LA; from iconic Hollywood, you can drive for less than 30 minutes and end up in Watts, or "be bleached and beached" in Playa del Rey. While the means are fairly similar in their bare-bones descriptiveness, the ends differ mightily. In my opinion, Coleman is trying to show that in Los Angeles, the means matter little compared the the end results, leading to a sort of chaos as everyone goes about their own means to accomplish similar ends. It is this Los Angeles that she puts on display with Angel Baby Blues.
ReplyDeleteIn accordance with most of the texts we’ve read, characters such as Sammy Glick, Tom Bradley, and Walter Huff, and now Elison’s narrator believe that the best method to reach a so called “success” requires seemingly unfavorable means, including submission, deceit, and murder. I would not agree that the best method to success is through unfavorable means, although it may be the most time and energy efficient option. There is a whole spectrum of personal success lying somewhere between extremes of the lying, cheating, killing, and submitting your way to the top and the working tooth and nail to achieve your goals. Wanda Coleman could fall on the honorable side of the spectrum; however, her cynicism in Angel Baby Blues implies her understanding of LA as a dog-eat-dog-world where you get “burned baby burned.” Coleman found an effective way of expressing her experiences without resorting to unfavorable means, which on its own suggests that there are other paths to success.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think it can be useful to draw parallels between Coleman and the characters in the Invisible Man, I think it is important to recognize that the two did not live in the same time period. While in our privileged, politically-correct time we find the actions of the IM somewhat frustrating, in that we wish he would just rise up and challenge the white man, it is important to realize that the IM didn't really have any other options. He did try to be creative and say something revolutionary, but he was up against the wealthy white men. Maybe he could have chosen to do something like Wanda Coleman and venture off the beaten path to find a unique way of expressing himself that conformed to neither the good or the bad stereotypes that the whites ascribed to him; however, he was afraid. I don't think it's fair to say that he was disregarding his values -- sometimes it's more important to live and be a spokesperson for your community than to shake things up. I hesitate to say that the IM was in a more desperate situation, but, in many ways, he was. Wanda Coleman came from a time frame and a place where her reaction to the inequities in society could be accepted -- maybe she would still face hardship, but there were people who felt similarly, behind her and ready to support her.
ReplyDeleteI see us having two separate dialogues right now: one over an ends versus means dynamic, and one discussing optimism in the Coleman poem. In an effort to unify these discussions, I'd like to direct attention to the first line of that poem: "they say if you fly high enough you will get your wings." There's an inherent paradox there we should pay attention to, right? It's a quote that deals a lot with agency and work and what it takes to "make it." It's a commentary that corresponds with what we see in the Ellison reading: the indignities imposed on black expression by the white racist hierarchy ensure that one never gets their wings in the pursuit of social mobility. In a lot of ways, I think Wanda and the narrator from Ellison seek the same avenues to prosperity but face similar barriers. I don't see a bold argument on either the ends vs. means side or the optimism vs. pessimism one. Both these narrators are folks denied the freedom to express themselves openly because of the hard realities of racist America, yet they are trying anyway. I think it's unfair to give Wanda Coleman credit for expressing herself through poetry and to criticize Ellison's narrator for compromising in the battle royale. There's no playbook to follow here, each of them is making their way in America the best they know how. Hopefully our dialogue can focus more on the nuances of these takes on the Black American Dream moving forward. Are our two authors fighting for the same cause? Do the ends justify the means? Is there cause for optimism or pessimism? I don't think either of these texts grant us the security of definitive answers, but hopefully I'm wrong about that. Maybe I can get the ball rolling with a mantra both authors would surely have held dear:
ReplyDeleteKeep your eyes on the prize, hold on.
I agree with Emily that it's not fair to criticize the narrator of The Invisible Man for following the approach of his grandfather and be meek. At least for me, it's hard to say that he abandoned his true beliefs and morals by being meek; at this point in his life (and we only read chapter one!), I'm not entirely sure he was even sure what his values were. He knew who his enemy was--his grandfather's voice in the back of his head always made sure of that--but he was conflicted as to how he should fight back against the enemy. I could see glimpses of a real attempt to fight back in the way he tried to topple one of the white elites onto the electrified rug, in the way he said "equality" instead of "responsibility." Whether those were glimpses of his true nature or a flaw to be corrected later, I don't know. But I think we have to be mindful of the fact that the IM had to adopt a bit of a Sammy Glick "whatever works" attitude, and just keep moving forward. And Coleman's argument was a similar one. Nowhere in her poem did I see a desire to fight or a need to be accepted. I saw the hardships of her life growing up, tinged with hope and motivation to keep moving forward.
ReplyDeleteI was engaged by the idea of Wanda Colema's Angel Baby Blues answering a question posed in Ellison's Invisible Man. It's difficult for me to say that this is 100% true as I have not read the entirety of Invisible Man, yet from the portion we read I feel that this is an interesting way of looking at these two pieces. The question of how to work for one's dreams without sacrificing one's true beliefs is difficult, especially so in the time in which Invisible Man took place. Difference in atmosphere for the two pieces we read most certainly affected the actions and expression found in each narrative. I felt that Coleman's honest expression of her hardships and beliefs through the medium of her choice added to a much needed answer to the question posed by Ellison's Battle Royale.
ReplyDeleteGiven the permutations of lyrics in the different versions of "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize," the song is an apt example of evolving approaches and beliefs about Black success in America. There are three major versions I'd like to discuss. First, the song's original version, titled, "Keep Your Hands on the Plow":
ReplyDeleteHeard the voice of Jesus say
Come unto me, I am the way.
Keep your hand on the plow, hold on.
When my way gets dark as night,
I know the lord will be my light,
Keep your hand on the plow, hold on.
When I get to heaven, gonna sing and shout
Be nobody there to put me out.
Keep your hand on the plow, hold on.
I know my robe's gonna fit me well,
I tried it on at the gates of Hell.
Keep your hand on the plow, hold on.
The original song's lyrics advocate a faith-based non-confrontational approach to social progress: keep your head down and God will grant you "what's due you" in the afterlife.
But in a later version of the work, a more aggressive stance is taken:
Paul and Silas began to shout
Doors popped open, and all walked out
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on
Well, the only chains we can stand
Are the chains of hand in hand
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on
Got my hand on the freedom plow
Wouldn't take nothing for my journey now
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on
These changes indicate a shift in the reasoning of Folk figures. Now, complacency is the enemy - if you voice your discontent, suggests the song, things can change. Now, "the prize" is not salvation in the afterlife but freedom in this one. Keep your eyes on the prize the way you'd keep your eye on the ball - swing, risk striking out and toss the dice on a single. Now, advocating solidarity and persistence, the song begins to persuade its listener to action.
But neither version is as direct with its audience as the most recent well-known iteration:
Now only thing I did was wrong
Was stayin' in the wilderness too long
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on
The only thing we did was right
Was the day we started to fight
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on
This version of the song is an about face from the original "Keep Your Eyes on the Plow." It urges its audience to fight and suggests that any previous course of action was a waste of time - now, the objective is clear. The prize isn't reward for cooperation, it's treasure for the taking. As the 1960s arrived, so too did lasting changes to race relations in America. But notice that Jimi Hendrix isn't known for writing a song called Racial Appeasement - no. Freedom.
**I lost a bit of my comment because I forgot to sign in and a lost my original post. This is all I can remember from my previous text.**
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to observe that Wanda Coleman's piece was "raw" and "honest" through her use of deconstructed grammar and acute descriptions yet we must ask ourselves, why is this significant? It may be true that her text was a little more unfiltered than the Invisible Man excerpt yet it is too easy to simply state the obvious arguments here. Both texts are obviously making arguments on the racial injustice of the time, but we need to identify their motives and how they want their work influence. I believe that her piece was written to try to inspire while the grandfather text was only to inform. Personally, Coleman's piece sank much deeper into me than the Invisible Man section simply due to the level of straightforward explanation present in grandfather's words. I felt a stronger sense of empowerment through her work and I feel that we must draw a complete distinction between the persuasiveness of their arguments.
While Grandfather's defiance may take a lot of mental strength, emotionally he is nowhere near as strong as IM or Coleman. IM takes a physical and mental beating from the white people at his reception and he still is excited to go to college and dreams of furthering himself in society. THAT is strength. Coleman refuses to submit to an art form that won't perfectly suit her or remain silent, so she paves her own path to make sure her voice is heard. THAT is strength. No matter how strong Grandfather is being inside his head, if everyone else just views him as meek and quiet, he can't possibly be making any change. In order to earn his wings, he should have actually said or done something to make change throughout his life, instead of having some crazy attack at the very end which scares his audience almost as much as it inspires them. Grandfather doesn't earn his wings while Coleman and IM do.
ReplyDelete