Category: Uncategorized

In class this past week, we discussed Frederick Douglass’ views on the Irish plight in comparison to that of American slaves. From what I ascertained, the main question was whether Douglass should’ve have sympathized with and aligned more with the Irish struggles. Although some may say he should have, I would say that he has no obligation to Ireland, just as they have no obligation to American slaves. He came to  Ireland for a purpose, which was to escape possible capture and to promote his book and the anti-slavery cause. Further, from the Transatlantic book, it was apparent that he was still processing his own trauma from slavery. For example, when he was getting  measurements done at the tailor, it says that he “flinched a moment when the tape was put around his neck” and he had “never been measured by a white man before” (56). Also when discussing temperance and his reasons for not drinking, he states that he “did not want to lose control” and that there was “too much of the master in it” (58). It is clear from these examples that he is going through enough of his own mental turmoil to adopt more external trauma. Even beyond his internal struggles, it is clear to me and was clear to Douglass and that the struggles between the Black and Irish in America were not equivalent. The Irish were never oppressed for characteristics they couldn’t change. For the most part, you can not really tell if someone is Irish on just by their physical appearance, which isolates them from a whole realm of discrimination that Black people face. They are able to change their identity when it suits them, which is exactly what happened when they came to America. The widespread  anti-slavery sentiment did not fully carry over when they realized that Black people were their competition, not their brothers and sister in the fight against oppressive forces. Jenkins discusses this phenomenon thoroughly in “Beyond the Pale”, where he stated that the vast majority of Irish Americans were actively pro-slavery or at least firmly tolerant of it. They heavily desired to assimilate into American society and would do whatever it took to not end up destitute like how they were in Ireland. If the Irish emigrants are so willing to hold Black people in disregard then why should Douglass be willing to be a savior to them?

I found Alien/Nation In Dahomey very interesting because it set the foundation for Black people to have control over telling their own stories, something that has just become a major topic in recent years. During the early 20th century, Black people usually were only represented in theatre through minstrelsy, which was a hugely dehumanizing depiction of Black people and racial stereotypes. However, this was one of the first major musicals to feature an all-black cast that actually showed them having power, intelligence, and the ability to rise up against their European oppressors. For example, the musical’s African imagery competes with conventional representations of an ‘uncivilized’ frontier and threatens to revise how the continent is traditionally thought to be: hopeless and idiotic. An interesting point about this is that the musical did not exclusively focus on African Americans and their legacy in America. Instead, it implemented more of a Pan-African message and urged Black people to unite, as shown by the musical playing several songs that emphasize the notions of romance, wealth, inheritance, and genealogical reclamation. Another example of this is the musical’s assertion that all ‘dahkeys’ are linked to a royal line and aim to live extravagantly in their ancestral castle (265). This is significant because it highlights the immense cultural diversity of Africa and the importance of Black history before slavery. Also, it showed that the British Empire was not invincible, and its authority could be challenged. Ultimately, knowing their history and coming together as one led to them gaining the confidence to overcome their colonial empires, fading into a new era of black self-rule. All in all, the show not only reinforced the beautiful and creative artistic capabilities Black people possess, but also highlighted the importance of recognizing the humanity and dignity of Black people by showing they are more powerful than what society tells them they are.

Daniel O’Connell and the Committee of the Repeal of the Irish Association contrasts the broken relationship between Black people and Irish-Americans seen at the end of Moon and the Mars. The Civil War and the years leading to it caused both communities to place their own needs above the other’s. Many Irish-American men resented fighting for the Union because they believed that they were fighting in a war that had nothing to do with them. This resent bled into their relationships with Black people, as they blamed them for stolen job opportunities and lost lives because of the war. Furthermore, there were Irish-Americans who owned slaves in the South which is a larger contrast to the relationship seen in the North. Yet O’Connell speaks to both audiences in his essay to push his message more personally than he could with other groups. He states “It was not in Ireland you learned this cruelty” (1), arguing that they have pushed further and further away from their cultural roots. It is also a reminder to them of where their ancestors came from, which is a humbling message for them.

This week in class, we talked about what it meant to be an Irish-American back then and what it means today. In the 1850s and 1860s, more people were connected with their European roots and O’Connell’s reading stresses the “Irish” part more than the “American” part. While they are assimilating to American society, he reminds them that the “Declaration of Independence applies to all races” (O’Connell, pg. 2). This statement challenges their current perspectives on Black people’s place in American society by placing them as equals. O’Connell emphasizes that they learned these ideas in the US, and have incorrect interpretations of them at that. This piece was written when Irish-Americans were straying away from Black people. But O’Connell paints them as hypocrites in this essay to show the evils of slavery and their parts in it. Overall, I think it is an effective abolitionist piece since he discusses their cultural values directly and reminds Irish-Americans of their true identities.

Our conversation in class on Wednesday about Douglass and the existence of a “hierarchy of struggle” in his work made me think about a theme we often discuss in another English class of mine—public vs. private life. In that class, we often think of public life as how one presents themselves in a political setting, and private life as how they present themselves internally or in a domestic setting. I think this framework really applies for understanding McCann’s portrayal of Douglass. He feels the weight of that contrast between public and private, especially as it relates to his support of the Irish people.

Three passages stood out to me with regard to Douglass’s conception of his public and private life. The first, which we discussed in class, depicts Douglass’s thought process as he is asked about “wage slavery” and Irish oppression after a lecture. He hesitates for a “long silence,” fully considering the weight of his words before he speaks. “He had to be judicious, he knew. There were newspaper reporters scribbling down every word. It would lead back to Britain and America” (65). Even early in his trip to Ireland, he feels the weight of American and English eyes on him. His words are not entirely his own—they belong, at least in part, to the abolitionist cause. By the end of the excerpt we read, Douglass makes up his mind about how to address Irish oppression in his public speaking: “There was only so much he could take upon himself. He had to look to what mattered. … The Irish were poor, but not enslaved” (85). Though this is literally true, ignoring the Irish cause seems insensitive after all he witnessed in his trip to Ireland. We are witnessing Douglass’ attempt to align his public speaking, which focused almost exclusively on slavery, with his private thoughts on the matter. Though he seems genuinely troubled by what he saw in Ireland, he has to “look to what mattered” to make sense of the great suffering in front of him. In this passage, Douglass’ public caution becomes private.

Finally, McCann’s narrative touches on the public vs. private life by highlighting Douglass’s private writing routine, which he imagined to involve using barbells made of the chains of slavery to exercise before he writes. On pg. 81-82, Douglass uses the barbells, then writes a letter to his wife Anna. But, even before he writes, he thinks of the letter’s disposal. “Anna might cherish hearing the letters read to her for an evening or two, but soon enough they would be burned. It gladdened him, really, that the letters would become smoke: it was so much of what happened to one’s own history” (82). Even locked alone in his room, Douglass is thankful for the public vs. private distinction. His letters to his wife would be burned and thus eternally relegated to the private sphere. The public—which includes everyone from his abolitionist colleagues to his previous masters—cannot see everything.

As we talked about in class, many students before have questioned how Johnathan Swift’s satirical novel “Gulliver’s Travels” relates to this course. Despite its fantasy setting and unrealistic characters, the final part of “Gulliver’s Travels,” “A Voyage to the Country of the Houyhnhnms,” proves to be the most applicable and relevant of them all.  

Upon arriving in the country of the Houyhnhnms, Gulliver quickly discovers that of the two species in the country—the Yahoos (who resemble humans) and the Houyhnhnms (who are horses)—the Houyhnhnms deem themselves to be superior and powerful species while the Yahoos are deemed inferior and forced to be subservient due to their natural lack of intellectual capabilities as well as their naturally-possessed physical ones. 

Due to Gulliver’s appearance alone, the mighty Houyhnhnms initially call and associate him with the Yahoos. Noticing the Yahoos’ subservient and inferior role in this society, Gullier begins to do everything in his power to not be associated as one of them so that during his entire stay in the country of the Houyhnhnms, he is not relegated to a lowly position of servitude as all of the other Yahoos are. 

The most fascinating and relevant part of this voyage is the disdain that Gulliver begins to experience for both the Yahoos and all humans after spending such an ample amount of time with the Houyhnhnms. This disdain remains so severe that even when Gulliver returns to England after many months, he despises his own wife and family and prefers the company of his horse, showing how the influence of the Houyhnhnms was so profound on Gulliver that he ended up internalizing their idea of Yahoo/human inferiority.

This idea of hating and dehumanizing a person to the point of inferiority solely based on their appearance is a concept very relevant to our course because it displays one of the most prominent dangers of colonialism. History has shown the dangers of this concept time and time again through the destruction of entire cultures solely because of other human beings believed to be superior to them solely because of their appearance. 

The dehumanization of people based on their appearance is a relevant theme to all of the readings that we have read in this class in regards to American history. Much like the Houyhnhnms did to the Yahoos, white people utilized appearance in order to dehumanize black people into a role of servitude. Upon his return to England, the ridiculousness of Gulliver’s hatred for his own kind is a reflection of the ridiculousness of hating another human being solely because of their appearance. Given all of our previous readings, it is very clear how relevant this commentary is to this class. 

Despite the fact that a lot of Gulliver’s Travels is abstract and bizarre, beneath those layers is a satire that contains many comparisons to today’s society. One instance in which this is clear is the description of the Lilliput society, which is a legion of miniature humans, measuring six inches tall. There are many oddities within the Lilliputian government, one example being their selection of officials according to their skills at rope-dancing. This is bizarre to Gulliver, but perfectly logical to the Lilliputians, which could be a commentary on society’s tendency to value meaningless things, such as skin color or material possessions. Smith continues his commentary on materialism through the Lilliputians’ inventory of Gulliver’s possessions, which they take very seriously despite the fact that he does not have many significant possessions. Regardless of the aspects of Lilliput that may seem arbitrary or ridiculous, there are aspects worth admiring, many of which are lacking in today’s society. 

In his description of the Lilliputian crime and punishment system, Gulliver explains the logic behind their assignment of value to crimes, all of which have moral explanations. The Lilliputians view fraud as a more serious crime than theft and frequently punish it with death because “care and vigilance, with a very common understanding, may preserve a man’s goods from thieves, but honesty has no defense against superior cunning,” and “the honest dealer is always undone, and the knave gets the advantage” (Smith 44). It is possible that this is Smith expressing admiration for societies that greatly value honesty and trust, and that he notices a lack of those qualities in real life. Smith also seems to admire societies that value community over the individual, which is seen in the way children are raised. By raising children in public nurseries, they are shielded from the selfish tendencies of their parents, which could possibly help them better serve society.

As I was reading “A Voyage to Lilliput,” I was struck by Gulliver’s easy acceptance of the world around him. The fact that he was surrounded by thousands of six-inch tall people did not seem to surprise him; he was merely curious about their way of life. However, this “go with the flow” attitude made more sense when I considered the story as an allegory for Jonathan Swift’s political feelings. The notes describing who each character was theorized to represent oriented me toward that interpretation. And in considering Gulliver’s travels as an indicator of Swift’s political feelings, I was struck by his initial approval turned uneasiness toward the monarch of Lilliput. At the beginning of the voyage (in chapter II), Gulliver takes great pains to describe the emperor of Lilliput, with a tone of admiration. Gulliver notes his fashionable helmet and his fair way of financing his empire (25-27). He seems impressed by the lengths they go to make Gulliver comfortable, feeding him six oxen, forty sheep, and more every morning. However, as he begins to understand the inner workings of the Lilliputian court, his perspective changes.

The first doubt we see in Gulliver’s mind appears when describing the rope-dancing. Gulliver writes: “ … for by contending to excel themselves and their Fellows, they strain so far, that there is hardly one of them who hath not received a Fall, and some of them two or three” (32). Evidently, the lengths one goes to prove himself to the emperor are extreme, and Gulliver begins to wonder if they are too extreme. But Gulliver does not seriously doubt the monarch’s power until his own loyalty is questioned. He believes that he has acted entirely justly—even when he is forced to pee on the royal estate to put out a fire—so the emperor’s distrust turns him away. However, Swift makes it plain that this is not a personal distaste for this particular emperor of Lilliput. Rather, it is an inevitable outcome of a too-powerful monarch. When Gulliver first disobeys the emperor, he notes that “Of so little weight are the greatest Services to Princes, when put into the Ballance with a Refusal to gratify their passions” (44). By the end of his voyage to Lilliput, it is clear that Gulliver finds fault in princes, i.e. those with royal authority, as a whole. This implies that Jonathan Swift is dubious of complete royal power; even the best royals, even the clever emperor of Lilliput, can be easily swayed by dubious ministers or their own self-indulgence.

“A Voyage to Lilliput” demonstrates one of the main themes that we saw in Moon and the Mars: coexistence as a tool for survival. In “A Voyage to Lilliput”, Gulliver must learn how to live like a Lilliputian to avoid being killed (which might be impossible for people who are less than 6 inches tall, but they were able to capture him and take him to their capital city). Even though Gulliver has an enormous physical advantage on the Lilliputians given his size, he still takes efforts to learn about their culture to survive. He says “I made a great progress in learning their language” (Swift, Chapter 1) so he can try and get the emperor to liberate him. Once he is liberated, he starts to learn more about Lilliput and respects its people. Gulliver could have easily destroyed the city for capturing him as revenge and taken more efforts to return to England. However, he decides to discover the city and does it very carefully as to not destroy anything. He says he “walked with the utmost circumspection” (Swift, Chapter 2) which demonstrates that he now respects the people that once bound him up. He is learning to coexist in a society that is very different from Bristol because at this point, it is all he has. It is very similar to what we saw in Five Points in Moon and the Mars. For many Irish immigrants, they learned to coexist with Black people because they lived in the same neighborhoods, worked the same jobs, and shared many other aspects of life. Once this coexistence was disrupted with the building of Central Park and the Civil War, chaos ensued between the Irish and Black people. Once Gulliver loses the respect of the Lilliputians, he has to escape. Both works show us that coexistence is used as a survival tool to avoid civil conflict. When this coexistence dies, then each side tends to protect themselves even if it means attacking other people.

The whole process of the Irish becoming white in the United States sheds much light on how race is a fictional and fluid concept that was used to oppress certain groups in the name of advancing capitalism. There are many similarities between the oppression of the Irish and Africans but also many key differences, which allowed them to transform from the persecuted into the privileged. One key difference is the circumstance that brought them to America. The wave of Irish immigration in the 19th century was primarily due to the famine, while African immigration was primarily due to the transatlantic slave trade. Although both were very unfortunate circumstances, one was voluntary while the other was not. This already set the Irish up for greater freedom and potential to progress. In addition, according to the Lloyd reading, the Irish were discriminated against essentially because they refused to subscribe to capitalism and were content with being poor. It also did not help that they were Irish. The Africans on the other hand were not given a choice in the matter and were just assumed to be hopeless and always in “need” of white guidance. It is clear from this that race was never about inherent physical differences, but a tactic for controlling the labor supply and maintaining the current economic order. Once the Irish made themselves useful to this order, they began to move up the totem pole and gain status in society at the expense of their Black counterparts. Ironically, they didn’t have to change who they were fundamentally but just redirect their “mob” mentality elsewhere. The only thing standing in the way of their social mobility was themselves. Because of this, I argue that the Irish did not “become” white, but were always white and finally just chose to accept the space for them that was always there. In contrast, many Black people greatly desired to be a part of this capitalist system but were denied the opportunity to do so to ensure that there would always be a group at the bottom to handle all the menial work. The Irish never had any allegiance or loyalty to Black people because they were not struggling for the same reasons. All the degrading comparisons in the media that likened the Irish to Black people were done to bully them into fully transitioning into White Americanhood. Ultimately, they did what they had to do to thrive and that meant not just distancing themselves from Black people but also taking a lead role in their oppression.