Category: Uncategorized

The Octoroon, in it’s original form, is an attempt to give agency to Zoe, a character that is in-between different races and treated as an other by both of those races. The original ending, which shows her poison herself, serves as a final act of agency where she chooses not to identify as either white or black, but as her own person. She chooses not to marry another man, and thus avoids conforming to a full “white transformation.” But in the English version where she is married, she fully becomes a member of the white family, and thus rejects her eighth-black heritage. This ending is problematic because it turns a story about enforcing one’s agency when one does not fit into a certain category into a story that teaches the audience that conformity to whiteness is the solution to Zoe’s issue of racial identity.

While the English applauded the edited ending because it was “happier,” I believe that this ending is far darker due to the pure ignorance of the viewership. The English audience that watched this version of the Octoroon looked at themselves as supporters of the anti-slavery movement, claiming that the institution of slavery itself was purely American and thus “anti-British.” This happy ending of the Octoroon gives the English an opportunity to exclude themselves from the history of slavery, acting as viewers rather than agents of that system. In actuality, the English were the creators of the system of slavery, and deserve a good majority of the blame for all the atrocities that happened as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. What makes the English audience’s sentiments of the play even more troublesome, however, is the appall they expressed with the original ending. They complained because it was too dark, but there are plenty of Shakespeare plays with endings where the main character or prospective lover of the play dies. Romeo and Juliet specifically has a death that involves Juliet poisoning herself, just like the Octoroon. So, the English most likely did not believe that this ending was too dark, but that giving the black main character agency through her death was a problem that could only be solved by an alternate ending where she embraces her whiteness, and thus better fits in with a higher sense of English culture.

After reading Daphne Brooks’ Bodies in Dissent, I initially couldn’t make the connection between the Irish and the introduction of blackface. However, after our discussion, I not only have a better understanding of that, but a better understanding of Boucicault’s The Octoroon. I knew the Irish were integrating into American culture, thus taking advantage of any opportunity that would ease their transition into “whiteness”, but I didn’t know the full extent of their involvement. Not only was blackface a major success in the U.S, but it transformed the art of theater. And of course this comes shortly after the civil war. After learning about the vast number of Irish participating in the art, I began to question the legitimacy of the hate that was thrown towards them. It was as if the world was too broken up about the fallout of the civil war that they ceased to care about the silly notion of Irish not being “white”. Not to say that the success of blackface allowed the Irish to fully immerse themselves within American society without any hostility.  But White Americans could definitely appreciate a friend to help them mock the blacks. 

 

If you ask me, I would say that the Irish chose the perfect time to capitalize on the vulnerability of the country. Whether it was because they genuinely adored the art form, or because they knew they could benefit from it, the Irish managed to ally themselves with the majority of the US. What better time to integrate yourself within American culture when tensions are high and the focus is on this idea of “Black vs. White”. The timing was almost perfect. 

 

With that being said, now we can begin to question the intent behind Boucicault’s The Octoroon. Even with the many controversial aspects of the play, I was impressed with Boucicault’s ability to produce a play that was both entertaining and accurate at the same time. In my opinion, even when certain scenes seemed to be absurd, they only highlighted the contradicting logic behind the concept of slavery etc. However, the big question is, did he write this play for a love of the art or for profit? I think that regardless of his intent, the bulk of the play would have represented the society during that time. But, as we alluded to in class, motive would seem to affect the way we read the play. I think it would affect his choice in language, character synopsis, etc. This idea can be supported in his altering of the play for different countries/cultures. 

One thing I noticed while reading McCann’s TransAtlantic was the way that Douglass referred to and/or described bodies of different people – specifically, the contrast between how he describes Lily’s body versus how he describes his wife’s body and his own body. Every time Douglass describes Lily, there is an implied grace and beauty in his word choice. He describes her skin as “so very pale”; her wrists as “cool” and “light”; her face “ledged with freckles” and her hair “sandy-colored”. All dainty words. He even describes her was “pretty”, though at the time he did not know that it was Lily he was describing. In contrast, Douglass doesn’t ever describe the way his wife’s body looks. His descriptions of her are limited to her emotional state (such as when he was imagining how excited she would look upon receiving a letter from him) and to what clothing she wore (such as when he describes her red scarf). We, as readers, have no idea what Anna might look like, other than the fact that she is black. Similarly, the only description we get of Douglass is a fleeting moment when he catches himself in the mirror and decides to leave his hair in the more “Negro style”. There are no descriptions of black bodies here; or, at least, not nearly of the same caliber as the descriptions of white bodies. Douglass has moments in the text where he realizes, as time goes on, that in Ireland there seems to be far less care about his skin color. He is surprised every time he realizes it again. I wonder if the lack of description of black bodies is simply because Douglass never felt as though it was appropriate to praise them as beautiful or graceful. Obviously he knew it – this was one of the rights that he was fighting for his people to have. But old habits are hard to break. Is this an intentional choice on McCann’s part, I wonder?

Douglass’s barbells in Transatlantic are clearly a representation of the emotional weight of slavery that he takes with him wherever he travels. But, I think the secrecy of the barbells to the outside world is representative of McCann’s belief that Douglass is prejudiced against the Irish and unwilling to fully unify behind their cause. Douglass is known for stressing self-reliance above many other virtues, so it is not surprising that McCann portrays him as hesitant when Webb and the driver offer to help carry his luggage containing the barbells. This shows that the history of slavery is something Douglass is unwilling to share with any other people, and furthers his sentiment that there is no analogy between the Irish and black systems of oppression.  But McCann’s depiction not only claims Douglass’s inability to connect with the Irish is due to a difference in political systems, but also Douglass’s own prejudices towards the Irish.

When the driver offers to load Douglass’s luggage onto the carriage, Douglass describes him as a “small man, sparely built, with the emaciated face of a serious drinker.” While Douglass’s statement does contain a touch of sympathy for the plight of Irish hunger, it also clearly contains prejudice for the Irish stereotype of drunkenness. I believe that Douglass thought the lack of connection between the Irish and black populations was mainly due to a difference in the social and political systems of their respective countries, but one cannot ignore that Douglass was an advocate for temperance and clearly looked down upon people who drink exorbitant amounts. The way McCann portrays Douglass implies that he believes Douglass thinks the sharing of the barbells with the Irish would taint their symbolism of slavery due to his skewed image of the Irish as a drunken people who brought themselves down to an oppressed state.

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. 

In part IV we get a look inside the Houyhnhnms society. We begin to see Gulliver is no longer hesitant, rather he longs to be a part of their society. Of course, the Houyhnhnms see him as a yahoo (a rude, noisy, or violent person), and they insist that Gulliver leaves them. This suggests that the Houyhnhnms are innately complete opposites of Gulliver. Aside from physical characteristics, even after Gulliver tries to adopt their ideals and practices, the Houyhnhnms never accept him as one of their own and always view him as a yahoo. This implies that something “innate” about the Houyhnhnms is decent, calm and controlled. Either that or they just simply hate Gulliver. This concept helps speak towards the Irish and their transition into “whiteness”.  White European Americans viewed White Irish Americans as lesser, even though physically there was no difference, which means that internally they believed that something about them was different. However, this idea works better with the story of Gulliver because we are discussing societies that are actually different species (Lilliputians, Houyhnhms, Europeans), and not just because of the social hierarchy of race. 

In class we discussed how Gulliver saw the society of these “magical horses” as perfect, and challenged whether an utopian society could exist without any action towards it. The Houyhnhnms were very intelligent and sat around all day and discussed, but didn’t actually do anything, yet their society was “perfect”. I would argue that the idea of a Utopia worked for the Houyhnhnms because they all shared a common desire and understanding. And although there were different animals a part of the society, they still fit within the structure of the society. If the society is already perfect, then I think it can remain perfect without any physical contribution. I think Gulliver is forced to leave because he threatened their society as an outsider who brought, not only a physical difference, but different views, beliefs and ideals. They always saw Gulliver negatively, therefore, he could not be apart of their society. Ironically, them kicking Gulliver out is a step in them taking action and maintaining their perfection.

Swift clearly shows Gulliver as a symbol of the oppressed, who is held captive, ordered around, and threatened with severe punishment, despite his gargantuan size compared with the small Lilliputians; yet, I believe his writing of the events in the book signify a sort of egocentrism seen in both imperialism and the role of oppressors upon foreign lands.  The use of shifting perspective, with Gulliver’s perception by others of a giant, a miniature person, and even a savage Yahoo, illustrates this varying of roles, as Gulliver is able to see reflections of his own English society is different aspects of each culture he encounters.   Gulliver’s varying states of subjugation, held as a giant captive in the land of Lilliput and enduring judgment as a Yahoo from the Houyhnhnms, illustrate him as a victim of the imperialist practices which his native England enacts upon other nations, such as Ireland.  These episodes display Gulliver clearly as a racialized “other,” most notably by the Houyhnhnms, as he, first believing his own ways of life the most proper and according to logic, must become indoctrinated by each culture’s traditions.  Despite feeding him and trying to educate him, the Lilliputians’ militarization of Gulliver show a clear parallel to oppressive imperialist practices, as he is used by the small people because of his size to destroy the military of the Blefuscudians, despite his confessing to them that he will not be merely a utility to enslave another people.  Likewise, the Houyhnhnms also first judge him to be no more than a Yahoo, so they also begin to educate Gulliver into their culture, which he quickly adapts to and becomes obsessed with, despite his exile from their land because of his race.  This sort of prejudiced expulsion, despite his clear passion for reason and logic, echoes the British and their genocidal tactics against native peoples, including forced removal from their homeland.

On the other hand, Gulliver’s reluctance to believe each of his new environments echoes the views of a travelling conqueror, contrasting his own customs and practices which he sees to be the universal norm with the apparently strange and otherworldly ways of the Lilliputians and Houyhnhnms, despite his eventual acceptance and obsession with the latter.  His encounter with the Yahoos specifically shows this darker side of the narrator, criticizing their savage nature and culture, especially when compared with his own love of reason and the Houyhnhnms’ entire civilization built towards the end of fully using their own reason and intellect to create a sort of perfect society.  Gulliver’s attraction to the ways of the Houyhnhnms show this imperialist mindset, as he convenes with the Houyhnhnms to discuss how to solve the apparent problem of the Yahoo’s existence.  Even his writing of the book implies a superiority of the author, compelling the reader to listen to him and follow his example because he has done these things and written about them.  Instead of muddying the metaphor of the text, the variability of Gulliver’s significance to the foreign lands illustrates each side of the English oppression of Ireland, with Gulliver both enacting harsh tactics and prejudices upon others, as well as being  a victim to the same types of treatments from his hosts.