I found the most striking aspect of Colum Mccann’s Transatlantic to be the difficult and occasionally tense interactions between Douglass and the Irish, despite the perceived similarities of each marginalized group’s struggles. Despite Douglass’s desire to go to Ireland to spread his message with the Irish, who are similarly oppressed by the English, he quickly notices the horrors of Ireland, with streets full of beggars and filth, and his first reaction is “The Irish had little or no order about themselves” (44). This shows that despite Douglass’s attempt to interact with the Irish, especially Daniel O’Connell, he still feels a certain unease with his time in Ireland, showing that a great deal still separates the two peoples. Struck by the shantiness of the people and reckless nature of the children he passes in the street, he recognizes the failures of his visions of “rotundas, colonnades, [and] quiet chapels on the street corners,” illustrating that even Douglass feels a sense of otherness in the Irish, creating issues of prejudice for the transatlantic world which they try to occupy and interact within (46). Although the episode with the dead baby shows that Douglass displays sympathy for the poor and starving Irish, he is still somewhat repulsed by their living conditions, showing his distance from the Irish and trouble with comprehending the issues the Irish are dealing with. Despite the pleasantries exchanged between Douglass and the Irish people he encounters, their tensions and views show that the geographic separation of the two peoples allow each to view the other as a sort of “other,” despite their shared oppression and endured prejudices.
Several of the Irish people whom Douglass encounters also shows this same sort of prejudice, as McCann suggests that perhaps these groups truly are as far apart as the Atlantic is wide. When the small children in the streets start to play with Douglass’s hair and ask if he is from Africa, they hold him up as a sort of entertainment, not paying any attention to his status. Even when the local papers try to celebrate Douglass and his accomplishments, his race is constantly brought up, showing their difficulty with a black man showing such displays of intelligence and power. Called “leonine… feral, an elegant panther… [and] the Dark Dandy,” Douglass mostly receives praise which passes through a racial lens, as if his race is the only reason for his success (59). When they introduce him as the “black O’Connell,” the Irish clearly show his lower status in their own eyes; crying out against the injustice of all slavery, Douglass still experiences pushback from the crowd for not explicitly mentioning the tyranny of the British (64). Webb is the worst culprit of this prejudice, consistently making subtle jabs at Douglass on account of his race and “otherness” and looking down upon him during his visit. Webb intentionally calling Douglass “Old boy” regularly clearly shows both his lack of respect for Douglass and his prejudices, echoing deeper negative sentiments which Douglass experiences throughout the text. In spite of the shared experiences of the two groups, Transatlantic shows the potential for putting these two groups together and how they may not always coincide, regardless of their oppressions and hard experiences.
I think you all make excellent points. Thank you. I just want to emphasize, as Abby does below, that Douglass was with primarily Protestant, Anglo-Irish people while he was in Ireland and perhaps his experience with them skews his image of the rest of Ireland. The class (and racial ??) differences in Ireland are for Douglass incomprehensible. He views the Irish people as a monolithic group and equates the troubles of the lower classes as self-inflicted. It seems that Douglass does not understand how “white” people can be subjugated to prohibitive measures that prevent them from succeeding and flourishing.
You bring up a really interesting idea about this dual “othering” of the Irish and Douglass. I think it is worthwhile to think about when “othering becomes problematic. While our goal in this course is to think about the black and Irish experiences alongside each other and recognize the ways they communicated, we must be wary of falling into the trap of over equating their struggles. Just as the Irish were not held as slaves by the British, African-Americans were not starving on the streets, begging for food. These struggles are noticeably different. Alexis brought up the idea of “superiority” in her response. The question is whether either side sees themselves as superior to the other. While Webb may see himself as superior to Douglass, I don’t think the average Irishman feels the exact same way. Nor am I convinced the Douglass sees himself as anything more than different than the Irish. My opinions on this are not complete; yet I want to argue that not all othering is bad and, sometimes, we need to do a little othering to make sure we fully understand the experiences of others.
I wonder if the marking of Douglass’ race isn’t so much crediting his race for his success, but demonstrating surprise that he succeeded despite his race — like the man that remarks at Douglass’ abilities as an orator. Though he is delivering praise, it is couched in marvel and surprise that a black man could possibly be so eloquent, thereby making Douglass “a credit to his race” (60). Another element of prejudice and “othering” that seems to pop up is the Catholic/ Protestant antagonism. I wonder if Douglass’ impressions of the Irish people and the famine are influenced and formed by his mainly Anglo-Irish hosts throughout the narrative. Would his perspective be less firm if he had more interaction with the typically Catholic Irish laborers and small farmers?
I think that many of our blog posts this week have focused on the idea of labeling the “other.” You made a very interesting point about how Douglass is also guilty of labeling the Irish as the “other.” This leads me to question what motivates one to “other” a group other than their own. While everyone “other”s people, no one likes to be “other”-ed. It seems to me as though people tend to categorize people in the “other” when they do not want to be associated with them. In “other”-ing, one receives a sense of superiority. It is almost as if they are looking down upon the group that does not live the same way as them.