Black & Green Atlantic

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.

In the section of Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift titled “A Voyage to Lilliput,” the main character, Gulliver, becomes shipwrecked on an island inhabited by what appears to be very tiny people, the Lilliputians, whom he estimates are about 6 inches tall. During this time, Gulliver is captured and brought to the emperor, and there is an exchange of culture for both parties. I noticed that Gulliver often compares Lilliputian ways to those with which he is more familiar. For example, he describes one Lilliputian as having “an Austrian Lip and arched Nose” (Swift 24). In another instance, Gulliver describes Lilliputian clothes by saying, “the Fashion of it between the Asiatick and the European” (Swift 25). These are only a few moments of cultural comparisons made by Gulliver.

Gulliver rarely passes judgment on cultural norms in Lilliput, with the exception of commenting on differences between his knowledge of home and this new territory. In fact, he often mentions the existence of laws and social customs in Lilliput, and he praises the work of the Lilliputians. When the Lilliputians mathematically determine how much food is necessary for Gulliver to not starve, he goes so far as to write, “By which, the Reader may conceive an Idea of the Ingenuity of that People” (Swift 37). This hints at the underlying respect that Gulliver seems to have for the people who took him in. However, there are instances where the actions and values of the Lilliputians seem ridiculous enough to be satirical, such as when divisions among citizens arise because of laws regarding the way in which they crack their eggs (Swift 41). 

This makes me wonder if Gulliver’s Travels is mocking the dynamic between Europeans and Native Americans, likening native traditions and customs to over exaggerated, fictional social norms. The fact that Gulliver is so much larger in size than the Lilliputians alone seems to suggest that any power that the Lilliputians believe they have over him is merely an illusion, and Gulliver is just playing along. Thus, although “A Voyage to Lilliput” has a significantly different ending than historical colonialism, it seems to model the European mentality at the time. 

In my opinion, Gulliver’s decision to return home to England showed his commitment not only for Blefuscu, but Lilliput as well. Once the emperor of Lilliput had sent an envoy to the court of Blefuscu demanding his return to Lilliput to be punished as a traitor, the monarch knew he had a tough decision to make. Even so, he decided to offer his protection to Gulliver if he stayed in his service, mainly because he felt indebted to Gulliver because he did a great job at maintaining the peace between the two nations. However, Gulliver made up his mind to venture out on the ocean. This is significant because the monarch certainly would have gave his all to assist him, as evidenced by sending hundreds of workers to prepare his boat and the royal family personally seeing him off. Regardless, he still took the riskier route. Additionally, Gulliver explained that he begged to be excused from the nation and told the emperor that he was resolved to venture once again. Although some would argue that Gulliver mostly viewed this as an opportunity to get back to England and rejoin his family, I think there was more to it than that. Firstly, there is no guarantee that he would make it back to England even with the boat. Secondly, I believe he mainly chose to leave Blefuscu because he genuinely cared about the two kingdoms and wanted to see them flourish. This emphasizes that he did not want to be the cause of a conflict between two powerful empires.

material that we have studied and discussed in this class to pull together a somewhat comprehensible answer about how the Irish as a people “became white.” 

In order to answer this question, one must first define whiteness as to determine in which ways the Irish became white. As I mentioned in class, I have never really attempted to define whiteness as anything other than one of many races that a person can self-identify as, however, the more I read, the more I started to see how the definition of whiteness can be subjective and fluctuating. 

In terms of the 19th century (for the sake of this blog post I am honing in on this time period), whiteness was more so a word associated with and defined as power rather than as a race. In America specifically, white men dominated every aspect of life—familial, social, political, and economical—while people of color were dehumanized to the point where their lack of whiteness alone deemed them inferior. Because of the positioning of the white man in society through the means of this deeply-rooted systemic racism, the only way that immigrants of other races (in this case, the Irish immigrants) were able to make lives for themselves in America was to essentially adopt whiteness in order to position themselves in a place where they are able to gain power and wealth. 

An interesting contrast to the Irish peoples’ racial transformation in America is in David Lloyd’s article when he discusses that even though the Irish lived poor lives in Ireland, they still found fulfillment and contentment in their lives and even resisted any colonizers who tried to improve their society. Despite this contentment, however, famine broke out and caused many Irish families to immigrate to America, which was dominated by a very white, capitalistic society that automatically deemed them unable to succeed. The horrific experiences that the Irish faced during the Irish potato famine were a driving factor which forced the Irish to do whatever they needed in order to make lives for themselves in America, including sacrificing their Irish heritage and identity for that of whiteness. 

There are few things that drive change quite like hunger and famine. Therefore, I think it makes sense why the Irish became white out of a sense of necessity and survival instinct. What I think would be an interesting thing to consider is had the famine not happened, would there still be oppression against Irish-Americans today? Would the lack of famine have caused a lack of immigration and therefore prevented these Irish-Americans from having to adopt whiteness?

Towards the end of “Moon and the Mars”, we rstart to see how the Civil War incited civil conflict in diverse communities. In the beginning of the book, we see Irish and Black people coexisting in Five Points. They worked together, lived together, and even danced together as we saw with Auntie Siobhan and Auntie Eunice. But as the Civil War developed through 1862 and 1863, we see the termination of this coexistence. In particular, a lot of Irish men were drafted to fight for the Union. However, as the Irish saw that their people were getting killed or wounded in large numbers, they started questioning their roles in the Civil War. One officer noted that he “did not come out to fight for the n*gger or the abolition of slavery” (Corthron, 475) and another said that he has no encouragement “to fight for a lot of N*gger lovers at home” (Corthron, 476). These two statements demonstrate that although New York was a free state and had diverse neighborhoods, racism was still inescapable and would be used to propel one community over the other when needed.

In class today, we talked about how Irish-Americans started to break away from the Black community and identify more as White Americans. As discussed earlier today, a lot of Irish-Americans used this as a means of social survival. They thought that disassociating themselves with Black people would give them social benefits (more jobs, more political positions, etc). We see that they participated in the idea of “masters and slaves”, where the Irish were once “slaves” in this case (not actual slaves like Black people were) and had a lower social position that other White people. They became “masters” after the Civil War once they decided to use their race (not their ethnicity) to gain social status. This decision that was made in the 1860s has almost been reversed in today’s society. Nowadays, many Americans with Irish ancestry want to claim this part of themselves to show that their ancestors also experienced oppression. They want to disassociate themselves from White people with British ancestry so they do not seem like the “masters” that their ancestors once were. In today’s society it’s almost “cool” to be part of a marginalized group when it was the exact opposite during Theo’s time in Moon and the Mars. It’s interesting to see how such positions have been reversed yet remained the same since the Civil War.

Today in class we discussed multiple historical perspectives on racial identity and the concept of “becoming white”. “Becoming white” is the concept that when people immigrate to America, they lose their old cultural identity and align themselves with the “white standard”. Historically, this was advantageous for immigrants so they could attempt to avoid discrimination from the white ruling class in America. However, it was easier for certain ethnicities to “become white” than others. For example, an Irish immigrant would have a much easier time than a freed slave when trying to blend in with the majority white, American population. This trend of becoming white has led many people to lose their old cultural and ethnic identity, although in modern times there is a resurgence of ancestral cultural identity. For example, many white Americans claim to “be Irish” because they have or believe they have Irish ancestry. A surge in the popularity of Irish culture has also become prevalent in modern America as many people claim Irish ancestry. This leads to a more extensive discussion of racial identity and the concept of race itself. Historically, racial identity has differed across the world. For example, in some parts of the world, you were considered black if you had any African blood even if you were majority white. In other parts of the world, even a small amount of European blood in a majority black person would make them European according to societal standards of the time. In modern times, there are those who believe racial identity is completely subjective and up to the individual, while others believe racial identity is more concrete. The concept of gender identity has some similar points. The common consensus today is that gender identity is not necessarily aligned with sex and is up to the individual person. It is interesting to compare the Western response to gender identity and transgenderism to the concept of “becoming white”. We discussed in class how some European immigrants to America were able to blend into the ruling white class because of their skin tone, even though their original ethnic identity was not “American”. The ability to “whitewash” or remove a cultural or ethnic identity in order to transition to a white American identity was seen as a way to avoid discrimination and gain power, as being a white nonimmigrant meant you would face less discrimination. What is interesting is how this differs from gender and sex changes. Many would argue that we still live in a patriarchal society, and historically society has been patriarchal. Men historically have had more rights and power than women. Despite this, transgender men have not inherited the power or benefits of the patriarchy. In fact, they have received more discrimination and harassment when becoming transgender. It seems that transitioning from identifying as one gender to the other does not come with the same benefits as changing one’s ethnic identity has historically had.

The concept of ‘becoming white’ is an intriguing one. The idea is that Irish immigrants in America were able to gain access to certain privileges and rights by distancing themselves from their Irish heritage and assimilating into the dominant culture. Clearly, America began to reject its thinking that Whiteness was exclusively a person whose family left England to escape religious persecution. Hence, it became more open to allowing other people to be ‘one of them.’ I think there is a very important message in this process: in the American sense, White is European, and Black is African. In other words, the idea of Whiteness is applicable to any individual that has European descent, regardless of ethnicity, language, or culture. Considering that this was even a possibility, I believe the integration of Irish people into the White community reiterates the idea that Europeans are superior to Africans or African descendants. Additionally, I think allowing Irish people to become white was a way to undermine the growing population of Black people in the 19th century in the United States to ensure that their political power was reduced, essentially emphasizing the belief that there is ‘strength in numbers.’ This allowed white Americans to maintain power and privilege over non-white people by creating a hierarchical system. In other words, although there was the inclusion of Irish people into higher society, this cemented that Black people would continue to be at the bottom of the social pyramid. Thus, allowing Irish immigrants to ‘become white’ had the effect of marginalizing and oppressing Black people, while simultaneously maintaining existing power structures.

I am interested in discussing the part of Moon and the Mars during 1859 when Theo finds out that Ciaran and other members of her Irish family are working for businesses that fund and support slavery. Ciaran said he had been working for the Spanish company, but it was actually the Portuguese company— and he had known and kept it secret that their business was in slavery. Cathleen and Aileen had been sewing clothes that would be worn by slaves, but quit their jobs once they discovered the purpose of the business. Theo spends some time away from her Irish family, but eventually goes back to them after learning of their regret and remorse. 

This made me think of that buzz-phrase you hear all over the internet lately: “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” No matter what you choose to consume, you are still living in an exploitative system that relies on paying workers less than the value of their labor in order to make a profit. I have also heard a similar rhetoric applied when it comes to jobs, as students discuss their potential career paths and how to discern what type of work to do. You can “sell out” your morals and make more money, or you can choose a more “ethical” job that will likely pay less but contribute more positively to your community. There are many discussions about whether it is each individual’s responsibility to choose not to work for an immoral company, or if the agency lies on those in charge of the company’s intentions and policies.

To bring it back to the novel, Cathleen and Aileen face the struggle of living in poverty, and the higher paying jobs are ones that actively support the illegal slave trade. For them, the choice is clear as soon as they realize what type of work they are doing, and they quit. But Ciaran knows for much longer, and continues to do the job because of the money. He only quits because he is forced to by the rest of his family, although he does show signs of shame over his decision. I am curious what the decision of Cathleen and Aileen would be if they didn’t have Theo in their family, and if she didn’t stop seeing them because of it. Would their morals have led them to quit, or would they continue the job because they need the money?

In Moon and the Mars, I found the discussion of “Pinkster” interesting as it seemed to correlate with Roach’s discussion surrogation and genealogies of performance. Pinkster or Pinksteren in Dutch was originally a religious holiday to celebrate Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles 50 days after Easter. It was then adopted by enslaved Africans who made it a holiday to reunite with their loved ones and celebrate. It was often the only time of year where enslaved people would get a slave-owner sanctioned break from work so it definitely meant much to them. In some ways it still remained similar to the Dutch celebration while in others the African Americans made it their own. For the Dutch, it was a time to take off work, go to church, and visit family and friends. while  African Americans kept those aspects but added more festivities into the mix. In the book, we can see Theo’s black side of the family keeping with the Dutch by inviting family, friends, and neighbors over, not working, and attending their A.M.E. Zion church, while also going to a Carnival and celebrating their ceremonial black king, King Charles, who was crowned amongst the slaves. While looking into the holiday on my own, I also found that it combined elements from both Africans and Europeans like drinking, games, music, and dance. It was also a way for them to retain West-African traditions with their style of dance and the complex rhythms of the drummers and clappers.

This example of surrogation differs from some of Roach’s examples in the sense that there was no overt intent to erase its Dutch origins, and both cultures were able to come together and celebrate. Although the event did become more associated with African-American culture, it was because the Dutch shifted their focus to newer American holidays and had no desire maintain some kind of dominion over Pinkster. They let it evolve and become displaced but conversely, the African Americans respected the original tradition and maintained some of its cultural integrity.

In terms of all of the material that we have read so far this semester, Moon and the Mars has, without a doubt, been the best and the most palatable. Through the lens of a young child slowly growing up in mid-1800s Manhattan, I was given the opportunity to experience a perspective so different from that which I lived and experienced in my own childhood. 

The historical fiction genre has always been one of my favorites ever since my childhood. When I finished reading my first historical fiction book (The Book Thief by Markus Zusak), I was not only shocked by how much I enjoyed it, but how much I was able to learn in the midst of my reading. Without even realizing it, I was subconsciously learning so much about what life was like for a German girl at the start of World War II. 

Besides its enjoyability, the historical fiction genre is also extremely important to how we learn and gain perspective about historical events. While we may each have our own perspectives and opinions about history, it is important to make a detailed attempt to learn and gather a variety of perspectives from different people coming from all walks of life, especially those different from our own, during that historical period. Due to the fact that many of these people are dead now, this is exactly what historical fiction helps us to do. 

The amount of research that goes into publishing within the historical fiction genre became extremely apparent to me as I read Kia Corthron’s postscript detailing the factual and fictional elements of the novel. The amount of detail that goes into this research in order to create a realistic world with realistic characters that we are able to learn from is both impressive and awe-inspiring. If anything, it only adds to the impressiveness as well as the validity of this genre as a whole. 
Moon and the Mars has opened my eyes to a life lived that I had never considered before, and I feel myself to be all the more full by reading it.