What does it mean to be a “credit to the race?”
In Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison, Mary tells the narrator to make sure that he is a credit to the race in whatever he does. The narrator in Invisible Man does not want Mr. Norton to talk to Trueblood because he feels as if he would hurt Mr. Norton’s perception of the race. And in the poem “Citizen ,I” by Claudia Rankine, the author considers whether it was up to her to apologize to the woman about her child not getting accepted into the college she like and whether it’s up to her to defend affirmative action to the woman.
A repeating theme in these poems and novels is the idea that a black person must always be a representative of their race and that they can do nothing wrong ever for fear of tarnishing the reputation of all other black people. But is it the responsibility of black people to always represent their entire race? Why can’t people just represent themselves and not be expected to explain the mentality and actions of “their people?”
Often times characters such as Trueblood would be considered dangerous or detrimental to black people because he represents a stereotype that white America is often only too happy to have confirmed. When someone does or says something that correlates with a subconscious stereotype that people have, this stereotype unfortunately reinforced, whether or not the stereotype is true.
But how is this fair? Why can’t Trueblood just be one horrible but isolated incident that reflects badly on only Trueblood himself? We don’t even really know why we are so worried about Trueblood’s story but all we, and the narrator, know is that we desperately don’t want Mr. Norton to know.
We as readers are also frustrated when he sucks up to the white people in Invisible Man and does not act as what we would consider a credit to the race. But why should he have to? Why can’t the narrator simply get his education and become successful and leave his worries behind? Does he have some kind of duty to stand for the people standing for him? Is it okay for him to cut ties with the South and become a new person in New York, or does he have a responsibility to share whatever he makes of himself with those he left behind? And if there is that duty, why isn’t it one shared by white people?
As we talked about in class discussions, often times people look to the minority in the room when talking about race related topics because they expect the person of color to speak for all people of the same race as them. But why is it the responsibility of these minorities to speak for so many individual people? And in some situations, can they?
This notion of race representation that you are getting at is largely the reason why the narrator feels so nervous in the Trueblood and Golden Day scenes. While it seems logical to think that the narrator has absolutely no part in Trueblood's story or the actions of the patients at the Golden Day, he still feels nervous about bringing Norton to this area of town. The narrator feels this because he thinks that the actions of Trueblood and the patients at the Golden Day, all of whom are black, will in turn reflect badly on him. He thinks this partly because it is his fault for bringing Norton there in the first place, but partly due to race representation, as he fears that Norton will be exposed to some of the more crude lifestyles which certain blacks live in, and that this will in turn cause him to discredit the black race as a whole on a subconscious level, ultimately causing Norton to have a worse view of him.
ReplyDeleteThe sentiment you've expressed is one that I've noticed a lot of minorities and marginalized groups in general struggling with. On the one hand there's the option of educating white people and letting them understand. Surely it would be beneficial. But on the other hand why should anyone have to? If someone that's not part of a marginalized group truly cares about the welfare of said group, then how hard can it be for them to just inform themselves? It's especially frustrating when people use that ignorance (that they claim derives from a lack of explanation from the marginalized people) as an excuse to make stupid statements. It is no one's responsibility but yours to be informed.
ReplyDeleteThis conversation point from 1952 is still insanely relevant today with respectability politics (among other involved points) still being discussed, demanded, condemned all the time. (Often largely white or otherwise non-black) people still bring up MLK Jr. as the way black people "should" respond to injustice/be activists, and the arguments vary: is it morally/professionally correct/respectable? Is it strategic/smart to appeal to white conservatives peacefully, even if they do not deserve it, or should black activism be angry and confrontational?
ReplyDeleteAlso, this whole idea of whether elements of black culture (hairstyles; jewelry; dialect; etc) are "ghetto"/"professional" is something I relate to this. It's not your main point I know, but I think you covered your main point pretty thoroughly already lol.
Also, there's this whole idea of hyper-visibility for 'minority' groups/black people specifically in America; given that white is still assumed the default* more often than I'd even think, whiteness is normal, whiteness does not have to be commented on, whiteness is not "distinct". A movie has an all-black cast and immediately that movie is marketed towards black people, that movie is making a political statement, that movie is noteworthy; a movie has an all-white cast, that's just any Hollywood movie. How often do we hear "European-American" given how much we hear "African-American"? Thus, when a white person does something, they do it as a person, because their white skin is not "noticed"; when a black person does something, they do it emphatically as a black person, maybe because there is something notable about being present in media, science, business, whatever after centuries of literally not being allowed to and decades of proportionately higher poverty and employment prejudice etc. as an aftermath. I think this hyper-visibility ties heavily into black people acting for their race but white people acting for themselves, supposedly.
*Even moreso in countries outside America actually, looking into America; Chile is really racist about this, with white people being "Americans" but other non-white, non-black people assumed as foreigners, perpetually, no matter how many generations they go back as American citizens. And black people are ignored or always emphatically black, and to Chilean people black American culture is not what they think of when they describe American culture; they discuss white (Republican) American culture and call it simply American. I'm kind of tired right now lol but does that make sense?
We encountered a version of this dynamic in the excerpt from Claudia Rankine's _Citizen_ that Alexandre read in class on Friday--the white woman who invites the speaker to lunch seems to expect her to either explain/justify affirmative action, or "apologize" on behalf of the school where she got her degree (but which she is currently unaffiliated with), simply because of her race. The fatigue I hear in the speaker's tone, the sense that this is going to be a rather long, awkward, and unpleasant lunch, nicely reflects the topic you're writing about here.
ReplyDeleteYou're touching on one of the most prominent absurdities that attends racial discourse in America, and it's one that Ellison will explore throughout the novel. (We already see the narrator being "cast" as a spokesman for Harlem, in a role where he'll presumably have to "represent the race"--stay tuned for how this works out!)
I liked your post a lot, and I think it's also a very important issue. This isn't just a topic in the past either, which is to say it's still such a big issue today. One think I think about is how many people forget about this when they talk about racism. It's not like one person is doing something racist that can be pinpointed, it is a whole culture of racism and believing in "black people" being a group of one type of person. I think people easily ignore this because it's not something you have to worry about if you're not a minority. In the book the narrator is so aware that he doesn't want to be associated with uneducated backs, and he fears whites will think all blacks are like the veteran or Trublood. It's odd here to think of this idea working literally in the narrators mind or make him dislike other blacks.
ReplyDeleteTo become successful the narrator does not have to stand up for his race, but has to act subversively toward the white man. Ellison makes it clear that the path of education leads nowhere. To gain power what the narrator must do is wear a mask, pretending to suck up while maintaining rebelliousness inside. We are frustrated that the narrator actually believes in the game, and therefore becomes one of the pawns instead of the player.
ReplyDeleteThe post asks, do African Americans have a duty to right the wrongs that were created by oppression, or can those wrongs be ignored? Is it alright for one to forget the past and step outside history?