IF WE MUST DIE, by Claude McKay

"Green Green (Track Nine), by Goodie Mob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soea0j9QZY4

IF we must die, let it not be like hogs

Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,

While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,

Making their mock at our accursed lot.

If we must die, O let us nobly die,

So that our precious blood may not be shed

In vain; then even the monsters we defy

Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!

O kinsmen! we must meet the common foe!

Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,

And for their thousand blows deal one death-blow!

What though before us lies the open grave?

Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,

Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!

Excerpt from "The Wretched of the Earth"

The youth of Africa should not be oriented toward the stadiums but toward the fields, the fields and the schools. The stadium is not an urban showpiece but a rural space that is cleared, worked, and offered to the nation. The capitalist notion of sports is fundamentally different from that which should exist in an underdeveloped country. The African politician should not be concerned with producing professional sportsmen, but conscious individuals who also practice sports. If sports are not incorporated into the life of the nation, i.e., in the building of the nation, if we produce national sportsmen instead of conscious individuals, then sports will quickly be ruined by professionalism and commercialism. A sport should not be a game or entertainment for the urban bourgeoisie. Our greatest task is to constantly understand what is happening in our own countries. We must not cultivate the spirit of the exceptional or look for the hero, another form of leader. We must elevate the people, expand their minds, equip them, differentiate them, and humanize them. (Frantz Fanon page 137)

Was Jesus Really the Son of God?

"I must confess, that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance, who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist. I must also confess that, though all the learned, for several ages, should have employed themselves in fruitless search upon any subject, it may still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively that the subject must, therefore, pass all human comprehension. Even though we examine all the sources of our knowledge, and conclude them unfit for such a subject, there may still remain a suspicion, that the enumeration is not complete, or the examination is not accurate. But with regard to the present subject, there are some considerations which seem to remove all this accusation of arrogance or suspicion of mistake." (page 39 of "An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding" by David Hume)

"Black Jesus" by Tupac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmNjHV6f8Fw

I first posted this essay as a Facebook note in the summer of 2009. I would be remiss if I did not express my appreciation to all those who contributed to the many spirited conversations. Thank you. :-)

In the Gospels, Jesus consistently refers to himself as the Son of Man. He even places the Holy Ghost above him. “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come” (Matthew 12:32) This verse is essentially repeated in Mark 3:28 and in Luke 12:10.

Interestingly, in the Gospel of John, those verses are noticeably absent. Instead, one will find arguably the most famous verse in the New Testament, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

If Jesus is God’s only son, how can we also be children of God? If Jesus is God’s only son, we would essentially be God’s nieces and nephews. It seems more likely that we are all God’s children, including Jesus. However, unlike the rest of us, Jesus was not born into sin. “…His mother Mary was engaged to be married to Joseph, and before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:18)

Let us not forget the Holy Ghost did not make Jesus entirely unique. John the Baptist also had unusual circumstances surrounding his birth. “…He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)

Jesus asks, "Why call ye me Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46) How can we focus on the divinity of Jesus and his teachings at the same time? Is not a double minded man unstable in all his ways? (James 1:8)

The more time we spend preaching matters of faith as in the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection, there is less time to preach his message; simply, love all as he loved all and being as little children to enter the kingdom of God. Would Jesus want us to worship and praise him on Sunday, or would he want us to perform good deeds, blessing those who wronged us 7 days a week?

Jesus was simply an Apostle of God, a man, and tempted to sin like we all are. Why would we pray to Jesus for strength and guidance, when Jesus prayed to God to be strengthened by the Holy Ghost which gave him the power to perform miracles and to speak the Word of God?

In Revelation 21:7, God said "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; And I will be his God, And he shall be my son." I sincerely believe God was speaking about all of us and not only Jesus.

"Poem about My Rights" by June Jordan

"Retrospect for Life" by Common feat. Lauryn Hill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmDybzfNBG0

Even tonight and I need to take a walk and clear

my head about this poem about why I can’t

go out without changing my clothes my shoes

my body posture my gender identity my age

my status as a woman alone in the evening/

alone on the streets/alone not being the point/

the point being that I can’t do what I want

to do with my own body because I am the wrong

sex the wrong age the wrong skin and

suppose it was not here in the city but down on the beach/

or far into the woods and I wanted to go

there by myself thinking about God/or thinking

about children or thinking about the world/all of it

disclosed by the stars and the silence:

I could not go and I could not think and I could not

stay there

alone

as I need to be

alone because I can’t do what I want to do with my own

body and

who in the hell set things up

like this

and in France they say if the guy penetrates

but does not ejaculate then he did not rape me

and if after stabbing him if after screams if

after begging the bastard and if even after smashing

a hammer to his head if even after that if he

and his buddies fuck me after that

then I consented and there was

no rape because finally you understand finally

they fucked me over because I was wrong I was

wrong again to be me being me where I was/wrong

to be who I am

which is exactly like South Africa

penetrating into Namibia penetrating into

Angola and does that mean I mean how do you know if

Pretoria ejaculates what will the evidence look like the

proof of the monster jackboot ejaculation on Blackland

and if

after Namibia and if after Angola and if after Zimbabwe

and if after all of my kinsmen and women resist even to

self-immolation of the villages and if after that

we lose nevertheless what will the big boys say will they

claim my consent:

Do You Follow Me: We are the wrong people of

the wrong skin on the wrong continent and what

in the hell is everybody being reasonable about

and according to the Times this week

back in 1966 the C.I.A. decided that they had this problem

and the problem was a man named Nkrumah so they

killed him and before that it was Patrice Lumumba

and before that it was my father on the campus

of my Ivy League school and my father afraid

to walk into the cafeteria because he said he

was wrong the wrong age the wrong skin the wrong

gender identity and he was paying my tuition and

before that

it was my father saying I was wrong saying that

I should have been a boy because he wanted one/a

boy and that I should have been lighter skinned and

that I should have had straighter hair and that

I should not be so boy crazy but instead I should

just be one/a boy and before that

it was my mother pleading plastic surgery for

my nose and braces for my teeth and telling me

to let the books loose to let them loose in other

words

I am very familiar with the problems of the C.I.A.

and the problems of South Africa and the problems

of Exxon Corporation and the problems of white

America in general and the problems of the teachers

and the preachers and the F.B.I. and the social

workers and my particular Mom and Dad/I am very

familiar with the problems because the problems

turn out to be

me

I am the history of rape

I am the history of the rejection of who I am

I am the history of the terrorized incarceration of

myself

I am the history of battery assault and limitless

armies against whatever I want to do with my mind

and my body and my soul and

whether it’s about walking out at night

or whether it’s about the love that I feel or

whether it’s about the sanctity of my vagina or

the sanctity of my national boundaries

or the sanctity of my leaders or the sanctity

of each and every desire

that I know from my personal and idiosyncratic

and indisputably single and singular heart

I have been raped

be-

cause I have been wrong the wrong sex the wrong age

the wrong skin the wrong nose the wrong hair the

wrong need the wrong dream the wrong geographic

the wrong sartorial I

I have been the meaning of rape

I have been the problem everyone seeks to

eliminate by forced

penetration with or without the evidence of slime and/

but let this be unmistakable this poem

is not consent I do not consent

to my mother to my father to the teachers to

the F.B.I. to South Africa to Bedford-Stuy

to Park Avenue to American Airlines to the hardon

idlers on the corners to the sneaky creeps in

cars

I am not wrong: Wrong is not my name

My name is my own my own my own

and I can’t tell you who the hell set things up like this

but I can tell you that from now on my resistance

my simple and daily and nightly self-determination

may very well cost you your life

On King Solomon and T.S. Eliot

"Inshallah" by Goodie Mob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFWrJMTSCpo

Time and Place

In a moment of utter bewilderment and confusion, T.S. Eliot writes:

The experience of a poem is the experience both of a moment and of a lifetime. It is very much like our intenser experiences of other human beings. There is a first, or an early moment which is unique, of shock and surprise, even of terror…a moment which can never be forgotten, but which is never repeated integrally and yet which would become destitute of significance if it did not survive in a larger whole of experience; which survives inside a deeper and calmer feeling… (Eliot xii)

For Eliot, poetry was cosmic. Eliot immersed himself in literature, art, and reading for the express purpose of creating the perfect poem. Facing a metaphorical Mount Everest, without the proper tools necessary to complete such an arduous journey, Eliot did what people often do; he looked to a spiritual text for guidance: for some inkling that he was not completely overwhelmed. He sought out supposedly the wisest person who ever lived – King Solomon; and in doing so, Eliot took what is today now a trite cliché, “time and place”, and created beauty - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.

One is immediately struck by the ingeniousness of this approach. Just as there is a time and place for everything, Solomon also recognizes the importance of duality: he writes, “A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. (Proverbs 11:1) Although we cannot exactly be sure what specifically compelled Eliot to write The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, one would think we can infer Eliot was distraught and overcome with emotions at the very least. He writes, “There will be time, there will be time/ To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;/ There will be time to murder and create”. Let us compare this to Solomon who writes: “A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up. (Ecclesiastes 3:3)

Those two passages appear to be two sides of the same coin. As Eliot contemplates love, which in its purest form is an act of creation – when people make love and create life through the birth of a child, Eliot is simultaneously vexed by thoughts of despair, even murderous thoughts. One wonders if this is the false abomination Solomon was referring to. Can life be separated from death? Should love and hate equally coexist? What really is the difference between murder and creation when they seem to be so inextricably linked? For instance, in Eliot’s time, it was very common for women to die in childbirth. So the birth of a child literally meant the death of the mother. Nothing in life is free. Everything has a price – a life for a life. That cost is paid in blood: the blood of the mother for her blood, her seed, her child.

It seems fitting that Eliot chose to appropriate the writings of Solomon for his purposes. Solomon was the greatest mind of his time. Kings and queens traveled great distances to learn from him, to hear his wisdom, to simply spend time with his greatness. Conversely, Eliot is one of American’s greatest minds. Professors and students travel great distances and spend much time in order to read the work of Eliot. Just as there is a time to run, a time to work, a time to sleep, there is also a time simply for thinking and reflection. Fortunately, the work of Eliot, and specifically The Love Song of J. Alfred provides us with this opportunity.

On Ellison's"Invisible Man" and Joyce's "Araby"

"Blue in Green" by Miles Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoPL7BExSQU

Coming of Age: A Critical Look at Point of View

Perspective is everything; perspective is nothing. The four Gospels of the Bible illustrate the contradictory nature of that statement. Four men tell the same story of Jesus, but from their personal perspective. Although the authors of the Gospels probably shared relatively equal time with Jesus, their particular perspectives paint paramount pictures of confusion in the most pertinent issue fundamental to Christianity: was Jesus divine? In the final Gospel of John, the perspective, or to be more clear, the point of view of John causes a dramatic shift in the portrayal of Jesus in regards to his divinity, in direct comparison to the other 3 Gospels. Simply, it is amazing such an important idea, the divinity of Jesus, perishes or flourishes because of something seemingly so trivial, point of view. This raises peculiar questions, perhaps beyond the scope and mental faculties of our esteemed Founding Fathers, who were sadly morally stumped by peculiar institutions; do all point of views hold equal validity? If one is deluded by ignorance, or one is mired in naiveté, is such a person’s point of view relevant, or even trustworthy? Or is it maybe – the blind leading the blind – the stumbling block being foolishness? In Ralph Ellison’s Battle Royal, and in James Joyce’s Araby, both authors struggle to answer these questions about point of view, and in doing so, further the character development of their protagonists. In the midst of this character development, and because of the literary device point of view, Ellison and Joyce creates sexual coming of age stories for a young man and a young boy.

At the beginning of Battle Royal, Ellison lays the groundwork for point of view being the keystone of character development for later in the story. He does this by writing the story from the perspective of a young man naively esteeming his grandfather. The nameless narrator is also a young man straddling a thin line: betwixt the chasm of precocious youth: and yet, by no means an esteemed elder worthy of reverence and respect. His youth and inexperience becomes apparent as he learns revealing and troubling information about his grandfather. Furthermore, this knowledge puts him into a brief state of confusion when he states:

I could never be sure of what he meant. Grandfather had been a quiet old man who never made any trouble, yet on his deathbed he had called himself a traitor and a spy, and he had spoken of his meekness as a dangerous activity. It became a constant puzzle which lay unanswered in the back of my mind. (Ellison 16)

Ellison brilliantly uses point of view to illustrate a vivid picture of the narrator, and provides critical character development before his coming of age. The beginning of this coming of age is before the start of the Battle Royal. While still trying to understand the revelations of his grandfather, he is shocked to the core when the narrator states:

Then we were pushed into place. I almost wet my pants. A sea of faces, some hostile, some amused, ringed around us, and in the center, facing us, stood a magnificent blonde – stark naked. There was dead silence. (Ellison 19)

It is very interesting that the narrator almost wets his pants. Once again, Ellison uses point of view to further the sexual coming of age. Naturally, the idea of wetting one’s pants connotes images of childhood. Ellison juxtaposes the image of childhood with that of manhood in an ingenious and eye-opening light. When faced with his first “man like” situation, if you will, in the presence of a beautiful naked woman, the narrator quickly reverts to a child like nature. This is only possible because Ellison earlier establishes the narrator’s point of view with his grandfather and it allows him to further develop the narrator’s character.

The narrator’s child like state does not last for long. He so intently focuses on this naked woman, that he even notices the sweat around her nipples. He compares her breasts to the domes of East Indian temples. Moreover, his point of view definitely expands; it goes from that of a child to that of a man with startling alacrity. Because of point of view, Ellison is able to reveal the darker nature of the narrator and allows for further development of his character. The narrator says:

I wanted at one and the same time to run from the room, to sink through the floor, or go to her and cover her from my eyes and the eyes of the others with my body; to feel the soft thighs, to caress her and destroy her, to love her and murder her, to hide from her, and yet to stroke where below the small American flag tattooed upon her belly her thighs formed a capital V. (Ellison 19)

This passage completes the narrator’s sexual coming of age. Although previously akin to an innocent child, and almost wetting his pants, the narrator accepts the thinking of a man; he imagines touching the woman sexually, as most men would, but he also thinks to murder her as well. That thought is disturbing. However, armed with a mutable point of view, Ellison effortlessly illuminates the progression and character development of his protagonist.

The differences in the physical descriptions of women in Battle Royal and Araby are interesting: to say the least. If you will, allow me to mentally draw you a picture. Halle Berry. Angelina Jolie.

The narrator of Battle Royal highlights the sweat on nipples in a highly sexual manner; the narrator of Araby is much more conservative in his descriptions of Mangan’s sister. He writes:

She was waiting for us, her figure defined by the light from the half opened door. Her brother always teased her before he obeyed and I stood by the railings looking at her. Her dress swung as she moved her body and the soft rope of her hair tossed from side to side. (Joyce 22)

Joyce uses the point of view of a young boy to demonstrate the innocence and sincerity of youth. The narrator of Araby continually thinks of Mangan’s sister and he barely has control of himself, evidenced by his heart palpitations. He says, “When she came out in the doorstep my heart leaped. I ran to the hall, seized my books and followed her.” (Joyce 22) His lack of control grows into a kind of state of confusion. He then pines:

I thought little of the future. I did not know whether I would ever speak to her or not or, if I spoke to her, how I could tell her of my confused adoration. But my body was like a harp and her words and gestures were like fingers running upon the wires. (Joyce 23)

The sexual coming of age for the narrator in Araby is much less pronounced than in Battle Royal. It seems that Mangan’s sister is simply his first crush. He has strong feelings for her and he obviously admires her. Joyce uses the point of view of a love stricken boy to highlight this point. He simply cannot get her out of his head; as he follows her in the real world she follows him in the ethereal dream world of his mind. He says, “Her image accompanied me even in places the most hostile to romance.” (Joyce 22) Later, he says:

Her name sprang to my lips at moments in stranger prayers and praises which I myself did not understand. My eyes were often full of tears (I could not tell why) and at times a flood from my heart seemed to pour itself out into my bosom. (Joyce 23)

Joyce demonstrates how profound an effect Mangan’s sister has on the narrator. This is more evident because of the point of view Joyce utilizes. Not only did Joyce use the point of view of simply a boy watching a beautiful woman, Joyce even shows how he felt almost stalked by Mangan’s sister in his mind. It makes for quite a perspective.

While the narrator of Battle Royal spirals into darkness, reminiscent of Dante’s Inferno, the narrator of Araby fortunately stays in the light; he only wants the purple stuff [read drink]. Because the narrator of Araby is a young boy, and not a young man like in Battle Royal, the narrator of Araby is exponentially more innocent and more pure in his mental images of women. This is mainly where Joyce and Ellison differ in their uses of point of view, in terms of illustrating sexual thoughts. Also, the narrator of Araby perpetually has the point of view of a boy, while the point of view shifts from child, to young man, to man, in Battle Royal.

Because Ellison deliberately shifts the point of view, he adds a special emphasis on its supreme significance. Simply, the narrator of Battle Royal only grows and develops because he changed his point of view. These changes are essential to an understanding of the narrator. Had Ellison kept the point of view constant, we would not see the dark changes of the narrator. Conversely, Joyce kept the point view the same fundamentally; he simply showed more of the inner recesses of the narrator’s mind through his imagined stalking of Mangan’s sister.

In conclusion, both Ellison and Joyce brilliantly utilize the literary device point of view in order to shine much needed light on their respective protagonists. The consummate preacher and scholar, Martin Luther King Jr. borrows this literary device as well, he writes:

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition. (King 143)

Deuces.

Bibliography/Works Cited

“Invisible Man”, Ralph Ellison

“Dubliners”, James Joyce

“I Have A Dream: Writings & Speeches That Changed The World”, foreword by Coretta Scott King, edited by James M. Washington

Excerpts from "Intercourse" by Andrea Dworkin

"Where there is no sense of unity, the women of the family become corrupt; and with the corruption of its women, society is plunged into chaos." - The Bhagavad Gita 1:41

Experience is chosen for us, then, imposed on us, especially in intercourse, and so is its meaning. We are allowed to have intercourse on the terms men determine, according to the rules men make. We do not have to have an orgasm; that terrible burden is on them. 134

I have never written for a cowardly or passive or stupid reader, the precise characteristics of most reviewers-overeducated but functionally illiterate, members of a gang, a pack, who do their drive-by shootings in print and experience what they call "the street" at cocktail parties. vii

We are poorer than men in money and so we have to barter sex or sell it outright (which is why they keep us poorer in money). We are poorer than men in psychological well-being because for us self-esteem depends on the approval – frequently expressed through sexual desire – of those who have and exercise power over us. 127

I doubt if it is possible to feel real affection for anybody who is in every respect one’s inferior. 170

She seized his hair, hurled him to the ground, and placing her foot on his head, exclaimed: “Tremble, great enemy. You now lie under the foot of a woman.” (St. Margaret speaking to Lucifer) 93
When those who dominate you get you to take the initiative in your own human destruction, you have lost more than any oppressed people yet has ever gotten back. 143

Truth is harder to bear than ignorance, and so ignorance is valued more - also because the status quo depends on it; but love depends on self-knowledge, and self-knowledge depends on being able to bear the truth. 50

The illegal fuck, for instance, keeps the prostitute incarcerated in a ghetto hellhole of sexual subservience while the legal fuck keeps the wife used, controlled, sexually subservient, in the home. 167

The immorality of women is stressed: a woman would rather be convicted of any moral outrage – lying, cruelty, dissoluteness – in the presence of a man she wants than to be seen in an ugly dress. 15

The experience of fucking changes people, so that they are lost to human hope. The pain of having been exposed, so naked, leads to hiding, self-protection, building barricades, emotional and physical alienation or violent retaliation against anyone who gets to close. 21

She learned from them the way a genius learns: she did not repeat them in form or in content; she invented new form, new content, a revolutionary resistance. 95

For the two people, touching each other naked, absolutely naked, and skinless absolutely skinless, is life itself; and when the touching stops, when the intercourse stops, when one person is no longer naked, it is as if the skin of the other had in fact been torn off. 32

Being naked does unnerve the men: it is an ordeal; and being looked at is nearly a terror. The men seem to distract themselves from their own nakedness by looking at women in an abstracting or fetishizing way; the voyeurism, the displaced excitement (displaced to the mind), puts the physical reality of their own nakedness into a dimension of numbed abstraction. 33

It is often pathetic, not noble, because the consequences to a human life of sex desired and had are often pathetic, reducing the person to pathos. Being marked by sexuality means that experience has effects – that one is marked where one has been touched, and the mark stays; that one is not new, nor is one plastic and rubber, a blow-up doll for sex. 40

There is indelible sorrow, perhaps a distinctly human incapacity to heal, because some kinds of pain do not lessen in the human heart. 42

Physical beauty is passing. A transitory possession. But beauty of the mind and richness of the spirit and tenderness of the heart – and I have all those things – aren’t taken away, but grow! Increase with years! How strange that I should be called a destitute woman! When I have all of these treasures locked in my heart. 44

Remarkably, it is not the man who is considered possessed in intercourse, even he (his penis) is buried inside another human being; and his penis is surrounded by strong muscles that contract like a fist shutting tight and release with a force that pushes hard on the tender thing, always so vulnerable no matter how hard. 64

Intercourse may not cause women’s orgasm or even have much of a correlation with it – indeed, we rarely find intercourse and orgasm in the same place at the same time – but intercourse and women’s inequality are like Siamese twins, always in the same place at the same time pissing in the same pot. 128

We take oaths to truth all right, on the holy penis before entry. In so doing, we give up the most important dimension of what it means to be human: the search for the meaning of our real experience, including the sheer invention of that meaning – called creativity when men do it. If the questions make the holy penis unhappy, who could survive what the answers might do? 134

Male dominance does best, after all, when men do not generally speaking, fuck themselves to death by fucking whatever moves. Restraint is a key to power. 158

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

"They Don't Care About Us" - Michael Jackson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJL6nfu__Q&feature=fvst

An isolated individual can resist understanding an issue, but the group, the village, grasps it with disconcerting speed. Of course if we choose to use a language comprehensible only to law and economic graduates it will be easy to prove that the masses need to have their life run for them. But if we speak in plain language, if we are not obsessed with a perverse determination to confuse the issues and exclude the people, then it will be clear that the masses comprehend all the finer points and every artifice. Resorting to technical language means you are determined to treat the masses as uninitiated. Such language is a poor front for the lecturer's intent to deceive the people, and leave them on the sidelines. Language's endeavor to confuse is a mask behind which looms an even greater undertaking to dispossess. The intention is to strip the people of their possessions as well as their sovereignty. You can explain anything to the people provided you really want them to understand. And if you think they can be dispensed with, that on the contrary they would be more a nuisance to the smooth running of the many private and limited companies whose aim to push them further into misery, then there is no more to be said. (page 131 of "The Wretched of the Earth" by Frantz Fanon)

Marxist criticism of "Fences"

“Look for the deepest meanings in the least elevated places. Be more radical than anyone has ever been about the unknown, because what has never been asked is probably what we most need to know.” – Catharine MacKinnon

Fences: Private Property

Introducing On Society and Social Change, Neil J. Smelser writes:

Every intellectual period, Lewis Feuer has observed, has an anthology of Marx and Engels appropriate to itself. He might well have generalized the point: whatever the nature of any person’s concern with the human being and his social and cultural condition, he may read many parts of Karl Marx’s works with interest and profit.

These are incredibly lofty words of praise, words which ring true and astutely observant of history. The work of Karl Marx has been appropriated countless times: from W.E.B. Dubois, to Che Guevara, to Martin Luther King Jr., and to Angela Davis, some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century; they were all deeply influenced by the writings of Marx. There is a Marxist contribution, certainly a Marxist explanation for, almost every facet of individual and social life imaginable – human nature, economics, religion, politics, philosophy, and social stratification, to name merely a few. One could describe Marx as an “extreme generalist”: his works so diverse in scope, he simultaneously plays the role of economist, sociologist, political scientist, historian, philosopher, prophet, moralist, revolutionist, journalist, and agitator.¹ In a word, Marx wore many hats. Marx tackles such a wide range of issues, it raises the question, how can anyone be a Marxist critic, focusing on a miniscule spectrum of the human condition: when Marx critically approaches the human condition, with a vigor and passion unmatched in his times? So is the Marxist critic contradictory to the very nature of Marx? Indeed. Those who claim to be Marxist critics are undeniably the antithetical adversary of Marx. The narrow-minded work and analysis of Marxist critics prove that statement to be true. Because of the unique relationship between Troy and Cory and the prevalent idea of property in Fences, by August Wilson, one would think Fenceslends itself easily to the discourse of Marxist criticism. It does. However, the work of Marxist critics of Fences is embarrassingly myopic, and apparently blind to the fundamental ideas of Marx.

In the eyes of Marx, the relationship of Troy and Cory is akin to the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat: Troy being the bourgeoisie and Cory being the proletariat. For Marx, this relationship is by definition, the personification of oppression. He writes:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. (Marx 33)

Despite Cory’s high academic achievement in high school, and the interest of college football coaches, Cory can do nothing to please his father. And after the culmination of a lifetime of suppressed emotions, all Cory can feel is the oppression of his father. In a stirring scene, he shouts, “You ain’t never gave me nothing! You ain’t never done nothing but hold me back. Afraid I was gonna be better than you. All you ever did was try and make me scared of you.” (Wilson 86) Are not those words the unexpressed thoughts of the proletariat class? Undoubtedly, Marx would say yes: for the oppressor and oppressed stand in constant opposition to one another.²

To further highlight the unique relationship of Troy and Cory, let us recall a conversation earlier in Fences. Troy says, “Your first chore is to help me with this fence on Saturday. Everything else come after that. Now get that saw and cut them boards.” (Wilson 31) Notice, glaringly absent is the word please or the slightest hint of respect from Troy for Cory. Troy simply commands, as a master commands a slave. A connection to Marxism is readily apparent. Marx writes:

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least continue its slavish existence. (Marx 19)

These “certain conditions” are the iron fist in which Troy rules his household. There is no room for questions; there no time for football practice.³ Cory must obey the commands of his father explicitly, just as the proletariat is forced into submission by the bourgeoisie into a “slavish existence.”

As noted earlier, Fences lends itself easily to Marxism because of the ubiquitous nature of property. Troy continually strives to own his own property. He says, “See now…I’m gonna tell you what I’m gonna do. I’m gonna take and build me a fence around what belongs to me. And then I want you to stay on the other side.” (Wilson 77) Private property has an interesting place in Marxism. Its existence greatly troubles Marx. He writes, “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property.” (Marx 22) However, Marx’s disdain for private property was only when it was in the hands of the bourgeoisie.⁴ Although Troy is the bourgeoisie in relation to his son Cory, in relation to society he is undeniably the proletariat. As such, Troy has the endearing support of Marx. Marx writes:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying daily. (Marx 23)

Troy is “the small peasant” and his property is “self-acquired” and “self earned”. From this viewpoint, Troy represents everything Marx wants for the proletariat: their own private property.

(I didn’t have time to write a conclusion because it had to be turned in by 12:00 exactly.)

Bibliography/Works Cited

“Fences”, August Wilson

“The Communist Manifesto”, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

“On Society and Social Change”, Karl Marx

"Truth is harder to bear than ignorance, and so ignorance is valued more - also because the status quo depends on it; but love depends on self-knowledge, and self-knowledge depends on being able to bear the truth." - Andrea Dworkin

Ya'll Scared - Outkast feat. Goodie Mob
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq3h3YSEKS8

"Each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity." - Frantz Fanon

I will post an essay every Friday. These essays are NOT copyrighted. So high school and college students are welcome to steal them and pass them off as their own. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized his thesis and "borrowed" the title of his "I Have a Dream Speech". All inspiration comes from the same place; moral of the story, plagiarism is highly overrated.

The Mis-Education of America

Back in fall of 2009, over the course of a month, 3 people who do not know each other told me to read "The Fire Next Time" by James Baldwin. So I did. I wrote this the next day.

As college students, we are entering the final stages of our education. We are in the greatest time of our lives while our country, America, is in its greatest turmoil. It is indeed the best of times and the worst of times. This turmoil is not the recession, terrorism, or healthcare. This turmoil is ignorance. America is drowning in a deep, dark, and devastating sea of ignorance. College students must serve as lifeguards rescuing America from the murky waters of ignorance, which are stifling the breath of our nation: liberty.

Education is the primary weapon against ignorance. Sadly, the current healthcare debate has revealed ignorance is a weapon of mass destruction in the mental arsenal of many Americans. We continually hear older people say they want their country back. It is time young people move our country forward.

We must do this by asking the questions which need to be asked. How are politicians, Democrat and Republican, accepting money from health insurance companies making America a better republic? How does blowing up children and maiming innocent people in Afghanistan make us safer in America?

What our parents, politicians, and business leaders do is their responsibility. What we do is our responsibility. It is our responsibility to be the light America sorely needs. America is dying a slow painful death, but this death is not because we are an evil country. It is because we are a spineless country, unwilling to fight for what is right and for what is true.

Our grandparents fought on the frontlines of the Civil Rights Movement. Our parents fought against the immorality and unrighteousness of the Vietnam War. What cause shall we fight for in our generation? What cause are YOU willing to die for? Those questions are not to be taken lightly.

So let us forget everything our parents, teachers, and religious leaders taught us as children. Let us give serious and assiduous thought to liberty, democracy, and capitalism based on our own experiences. Based on those experiences, we will come to know what is right and what is true. Once we collectively have this truth, we must fight for it. The alternative is death.