The question of whether it is insulting to call Fredrick Douglas the Black O’Connell is an interesting one. The issue of race is clearly present, even though Ireland’s economic problems aren’t necessarily racially driven. However most, if not all, of America’s issues are driven by some sense of racial superiority (Civil War, Mexican-American War, etc.), so it makes sense why Douglass could never overcome the biases towards him. We’ve discussed how race is a “made up” social construct that we as humans use to differentiate and identify ourselves, and in the McCann & Jenkins articles we see how even internationally race precedes other social issues.
Nevertheless, Fredrick Douglass was not the first black man to visit Ireland, nor was he the only black person they had ever seen. Yet the color of his skin seems to belittle his intelligence. Despite his scholarly advantage over the people of Ireland, even the poor see him as “other”. With that being said, there is no doubt that the Irish people recognized him as a highly intelligent, well versed individual, and to even mention him with O’Connell is an honor, however, I see calling him the Black O’Connell as a backhanded compliment at best. There is obviously a level of respect and admiration intended behind the comment, and there is even a sense of the Irish trying to relate to black Americans. But the fact that he had to be the “Black” O’Connell and not the “Next” O’Connell (or something along those lines), supports the idea of racial inequality.
Jason Williams (basketball player) would be a great modern day example of this sort of backhanded compliment. Williams, being white, was nicknamed “White Chocolate” because he was so good at playing the sport that he could be mistaken for a black basketball player. There was a large amount of respect intended behind the name, but it disregards his skill as a basketball player first. He was identified by his skin color before he was identified as a good basketball player. The same could be said about Douglass.
While I do believe there is some good intention behind this nickname, its misinterpretation as a backhanded compliment or even an insult of sorts highlights the difficulty of the Irish to truly connect with Douglass because of his distance across the Atlantic, despite their shared senses of oppression. This mention of him as the “black O’Connell” illustrates the deep conflicts within both groups to try to define both themselves and others, complicated by the fact that they have trouble establishing an identity or assimilating into a group. The Irish don’t know what to make of Douglass at first, despite his similar experiences, so they can only define him according to their own terms and practices, even if that means defining him as the racialized “other” form of one of their own. This brief episode hints toward larger issues at play in this excerpt of “Transatlantic,” that despite the exchange of goods, bodies, and ideas, groups on each side of the ocean still can experience tension and not fully commune, even if both have been similarly put down by some oppressive majority culture.
Douglass being referenced as “The Black O’Connell” especially stood out to me because this title was always italicized in the text. I think this further supports your point that this is more of a back-handed comment, as I read the italics to add a tone of surprise and sarcasm. In Transatlantic, the Irish are surprised at the eloquence of Douglass’ speech. They ask him where in Africa he is from and pay attention when he wears a suit. All of this adds to the problematic nature of “The Black O’Connell” because they highlight the context of the title as their focus on Douglass’ appearance in comparison to O’Connell, rather than his ability as a speaker.
I previously viewed “Black O’Connell” in a more positive light. I recognized it as a sign of respect and an honor to be considered in the same light as a national hero like O’Connell. Jason Williams is a greta example though for changing my thinking here. It is often hard to compare Jason Williams to other players because, as you note, a large part of his appeal was that he was an amazing white player who “played like a black player.” Thus, you couldn’t exactly tell where his talent ended and the spectacle took over. I see this as harmful. Another post mentioned that “Douglass could never just be Douglass.” I think your idea points toward that. When we move from “great speaker” to “great black speaker,” something is taken away and the accolades granted to the speaker seem to be diminished. Thus, even if calling Douglass the “Black O’Connell” was not intended to be an insult, the result is that Douglass’ individual accomplishments are diminished, which says something about the way the word “black” operates in society.
This is something that I too found to be problematic and wrote about in my own post. I think, however, that we failed to address why the Irish were calling Douglass “The Black O’Connell.” Perhaps it is because it was a cultural reference point. This term positions Douglass within the Irish culture and relates him to a prominent figure that everyone would have heard of. It may have just been a helpful shorthanded way that they could communicate to someone his works and importance. This does not explain, however, the importance of listing his race alongside calling him an “O’Connell.” In listing his race, they are labeling him as the “other.” Black O’Connell puts him in a weird state of in-between, he is both given connections to and differentiated from the Irish. I am not entirely sure what this says about the Irish and their labeling, but I would be interested to further discuss this in class.