Black Boy: Morality

I don't think Richard was ever really taught morality. He was influenced, but was really the one responsible for figuring out what he believed was moral and what was not. On a base level, he learned what not to do because when he did it, he was beaten by his parents. That's not really a question of morality, though; that's just behaving according to the rules of the household. In school, no one really made an attempt to teach him morality, aside from the fact that he as a black man should step aside for the white man. His relatives and a few people at school tried to bring religion to him, but though he wanted to participate, he could never really fully believe. Richard is very much an observer through the book. He's able to step back and observe peoples' actions and their reasons for doing them. I think this is how he was able to assemble his own systems of beliefs. I don't think that Richard's journey to discovering his own sense of morality really relates to the article because he essentially developed it himself.

Comparing Richard's journey to "Schools and Moral," Richard is like the Catholics. Though he represents a minority, he deeply desires others to behave according to his beliefs, such as treating everyone equally regardless of race. However, he's up against the Protestants: white people who assert their authority and the black people who smile and nod. Each time he petitions to a higher power to even gain an ounce of support, the will of the majority reigns. Racism, like Protestantism, was at the time an intrinsic value of American life. To come up against it was futile without changing the minds of the majority.

Wright's Realization

At the end of the novel, Wright discovers that none are living a "human life." The blacks, as well as the whites, were lost about how humans should live, and because of this, both groups were miserable.

I agree with this to an extent. The blacks were certainly miserable. I can't judge how miserable the whites were. It's likely that many knew that what they were doing was wrong, but being raised that way for their entire lives would lull them into complacency. Many would be so convinced of the inferiority of blacks that they would truly believe that their behavior was acceptable-and it was in the time period. I don't think that the whites were miserable because as far as they were concerned, they were acting humanly. They didn't see the blacks as being as human as they, therefore, they felt justified in treating them poorly.

However, there is always the possibility of there being a few tortured, white souls who knew that they were doing wrong but continued to act. These are the people that Wright was discussing. They were trapped within their time.

Artists and Politicians

I disagree that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles. Wright writes that the artists "enhances life by his prolonged concentration upon it," and the politician attempts only to place men into categories regardless of their personal feelings. This is not true because both individuals take on these traits. Books and paintings are often directed to specific audiences. The artist attempt to draw his chosen emotional response from he chosen group of people, which means that he has targeted a category. The politician does the exact same thing. While campaigning, President Obama spoke to audiences, changing his message according to the crowd. Politicians often spend their whole lives trying to understand what the people need to figure out how to change it, just as artists try to discover this and have it reflect through their work.

Wright thinks of himself as an artist, but he is putting men into categories, which is what he criticizes politicians for doing. He believes that an artist is not a politician and a politician is not an artist. This demonstrates how similar politics and art are according to his definition.

One Voice

I think that one voice can move a crowd to action provided some other details. The masses would have to have faith that the person had some sort of power; Young succeeded in causing such a strife because the group believed that he was receiving word from a higher authority. Additionally, the crowd must at least somewhat agree with the person. Not only did Young represent an authority, but also he seemed to be an ardent supporter of something they already believed in. Were he a Republican trying to have influence over the Communists, they would probably have just ignored him.

When speaking of a larger group of people, that "one person" would ultimately not be a single individual. If a group is trying to change the world, it needs a representative to serve as a face for them. Say for the Communists, that's Pamela Anderson. Pamela Anderson will give speeches, talk to papers and TV stations, and sign the books she wrote, but it won't be her who's making people rise to action. The real power is in her colleagues because they are the ones whose ideas she's spreading. Pamela Anderson could know nothing about Communism other than what the true believers have written for her to say into the mic, but whenever people think of the party, they'll think of her. One person cannot be responsible for calling people to action, but the group who is responsible needs a face to put on their message if they want to be remembered.

American Culture According to Wright

In the parentheses on pages 272 and 273, Wright describes how in order for the black man to be on par with the white man, there would need to be a complete social upheaval. He writes that America is too fresh for such a change that is needed to occur. Though America depends on the black man's labor, it has been so long an integral part of American civilization that she will not soon be willing to bend for him.

I am particularly intrigued by the last two paragraphs of this passage. He describes the life of a black man as having a deeper emotional connection to the world in contrast to the flighty, superficial white women he works with. While the girls prance around fantasizing about radios and famous people, he must endure each day with the burden of his race's solitude. That is interesting to me because in a different part of the chapter, Wright writes that African Americans have been turned into the image the whites project onto them. It seems like the reaction to such oppression would have far more variation than that. Wright's suffering bores into his existence, completely consuming him. Others would likely be absorbed by the ignorant, smiling character, becoming nothing more than a shell of a human being; these individuals would feel nothing. Both scenarios would be utter torture. However, I think Wright is correct; America was not ready for the transition. I don't think it's ready now, in 2009, either. Much of what he said in that passage holds true today, though generally to a far lesser extent.

Change

I am unsure of whether or not the change at the end of part one is positive or not.

Wright is finally moving away from the South. He is one of the few who is able to escape the treacherous environment of the South, but in doing so he abandons the only life he has ever known. The factor of the unknown is what could potentially make this a negative change. There are no promises of whether or not life will improve as he moves north, and unless he is able to quickly befriend someone, he will be unaware of the customs of that environment. If he makes the mistake of addressing a white man as any other person when it is not typical to do so, he could still be risking everything. Wright is also temporarily leaving his mother, which although he has done so before, could compound on his sense of being lost. However, if life in the North really turns out to be how he imagines it, then it is obviously a positive change. Ultimately, Wright is just taking a gamble.

Subservience

As much as it goes against my core beliefs, I'd have to say that there are instances in which one must accept a subservient position. Richard Wright, as a black man in the South, would have to conform to the world the white people constructed for him lest he endanger himself and his associates. It has been proven that such powerful things as racism can be overcome, but not for one single man. Wright can see all around him people just wanted to fall in line and obey. Harrison is perfectly willing to fight for $5 even if it means he's a puppet to his white coworkers. Griggs encouraged Wright to ask as the ignorant, complaisant black man the white people envisioned him to be. Without a single ally on his side, Wright would have no hope in overthrowing the conglomerate force of Jim Crow, even if only for a brief moment that he could obtain a glimpse of opportunity. He is given a choice: he could either be content being a second-class citizen and try to work his way up from there (a la Booker T. Washington), he could leave the South, or he could die.

Even outside of the 1920's South there are instances in which subservience is necessary, but only when there is clearly an intellectual barrier. As a student, I am subservient to my teacher simply because I do not know as much about the subject as he or she does. However, today that subservience is (*cough yeah right cough*) never based on anything other than merits or experience assuming that all had equal opportunity.