Focused principally on the 20th and 21st centuries, this course will study the legacies and implications of the massive migration, forced and otherwise, from the African continent to the Caribbean, Latin America, and North America. Topics will range from the creation of racial categories in the contexts of slavery and colonialism to the making of transnational and transracial families to the recent cultural politics of “blackness” with emphasis on the ways that different kinds of archives produce multiple and often conflicting narratives. Students will produce as well as consume history. In addition to scholarly monographs and articles, course material will include film, sound, and fiction.
I’m very excited to be teaching this course, and looking forward to working with you all semester. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the website and read the syllabus. We will use this site extensively for announcements, postings, and virtual conversations. You should feel free to treat it as your own, and post links, images, videos, or anything else of interest to the class.
Follow
** Potential movie spoilers ahead, but to be fair, these are also historically-based pieces
Loving, directed by Jeff Nichols, and The Birth of a Nation, directed by Nate Parker, were an excellent double bill last night at VIFF’s Black History Month curation (although perhaps one better viewed in reverse order). There is far too much to say about either of these films in such a limited medium and space, so I will simply give a (brief) summary of these films and why they might be perfect films to consider in compatibilities with themes of this course and in relation to each other.
The first film in the double bill, Loving, follows the case and outcome of Loving v Virginia, the case that declared anti-miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional. Starring Ruth Negga (with a staggeringly exceptional performance) and Joel Edgerton (with an excellent, if quieter, performance) as Mildred and Richard Loving, this film tracks their ordinary lives far more than simply focussing on their case. The story primarily shifts between the perspective of Mildred and Richard, with particular focus on Mildred and her active attempts to disrupt the system that separated her from her family in order to be with her husband and children.
The second film, The Birth of a Nation, follows the infamous slave uprising lead by Nathaniel Turner that resulted in the death of over 60 plantation-dwelling white people and the death of hundreds of slaves after slave-owners cracked down following this revolt. The film primarily focusses on Nat Turner himself and how he grapples with his faith and his desire for freedom, ultimately finding the two to be compatible.
What both of these films do is present what we have discussed at length in this class — alternative narratives, alternative histories, alternative entries in an archive. To begin, these are films presented at Vancity Theatre in the context of a curation of films for Black History Month assembled by a black woman, Barbara Chirinos. Black History Month is, in itself, a form of alternative archive that has been brought into the mainstream — the active and open celebration of narratives and histories that have been left out of the broader narrative of history. These two films are thus part of an active archival process performed by black folk across the world.
As films themselves, they too focus on stories not always taught in school. Loving chronicles a famous court case, Loving v. Virginia, with a very distinct perspective and focus — that of the Lovings themselves as a quiet, salt-of-the-earth, loving couple and family. We hear not the story of Black American activists and icons, but of Mildred Loving, a black woman who wrote Robert Kennedy and cooperated with the ACLU for her right to live with her husband in the state of her choosing. This is a far quieter story than those we hear. Furthermore, and perhaps something I will focus on more in my final project surrounding these films, this story is a counter-narrative to the concept of white America “giving rights” to Black Americans — this is the active, involved battle of a black woman for her rights.
In this sense, The Birth of a Nation too strives to dismiss the “white people ended slavery” narrative. The Birth of a Nation is the story of Nat Turner told, finally, from the perspective of black folk instead of in the context of white history. The Birth of a Nation is noteworthy in this way — it reclaims a story discussed, often in a negative light, in American history. Instead, this movie focusses on the deliberations and challenges leading up to Nat Turner’s choice to revolt, and how he falls back on his faith to justify his freedom and the freedom of all slaves. Furthermore, the film itself had a wide-release and gave prominent roles to relatively unknown black actors (or actors who had prominent TV careers but little experience in larger films) who delivered tremendous performances. A movie created by, with, and about black folk, The Birth of a Nation stands out as a strong attempt to redefine what is the archive, who tells and selects the stories therein, and what other stories may be left out.
I had the opportunity to watch I Am Not Your Negro, an American documentary film direct by Raoul Peck based on James Baldwin’s unfinished manuscript/ witness of the racial tensions in United States from late 1800s to present. I have watched and read several documentaries about civil rights leaders on Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. in the past, but this was my first time viewing it from the perspective of Baldwin who witnessed and struggled with our civil rights leaders. The documentary vividly depicts the brutality experienced with the NYPD (New York Police Department) and with the racially segregated busses and schools. The documentary brilliantly illustrates the parallel of the racial tensions that are still prominent today, such as the shooting of Trayvon Martin, and the over-representation of young Black males deemed as “criminals” in our criminal justice system. Peck demonstrates the brutality, segregation, and the resistance that is often perceived as history and past when in fact we are living witnesses and participants of this history- these inequities are still prominent today, but we yet need to confront and recognize it.
And a little context about Baldwin…in his teenage years he realized that he was gay and when he was in his 20s he could no longer stand the American prejudice against Blacks and decided to leave the United States at the age of 24 to Paris, France to write from a outsider-within perspective of America’s racial tensions. He does not want to be perceived as your “typical negro,” or hence the title of the documentary I Am Not Your Negro, which symbolizes the additional layer of being black and gay in America, the interlocking systems of oppression. Baldwin returned back to the United States in 1957 while the Civil Rights Act was being debated in Congress. He interviewed Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Medgar Evers, which allowed him to write texts that expresses about the abrasive dark realities of the racial tensions between the North and the South.
To end this post, there were two quotes that stood out to me from the documentary that I want to share with the class to do some reflecting on: “The Black man is stripped of his very fundamental rights, but the idea of being gay and Black is completely inconceivable and not plausible at all, being gay has no right for the Black man.” Another quote is: “the white man who resists and demands for equal rights is perceived as a hero, but the Black man who asks for the exact same freedom and rights is perceived as a criminal.”
I got the opportunity to watch ‘I Am Not Your Negro’ last night, a documentary directed by Raoul Peck, based heavily on the writings of James Baldwin, in his book that was never completed, ‘Remember This House’. The movie traces (un-chronologically) the work of James Baldwin focusing on the death of his three famous friends, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King. The film was extremely eye opening and thought provoking.
In my opinion, it succeeds, most noticeably, in drawing attention to the more subtle forms of racism that took place off the streets, in the homes of ordinary white people. The entertainment industry used film and television as a form of propaganda against black people, to perpetuate stereotypes that they were ‘lazy’, ‘savage’, and ‘animalistic’. The documentary uses these movie clips (from the 1930s, up until the late 1960s), to serve as an extra layer of analysis. The short clips shown from these movies denote to their audiences the idea of the white hero in contrast to the black or indigenous savage. One particularly poignant clip was from ‘They Won’t Forget’ (1927), in which a black janitor is accused of raping a white woman. Baldwin states that the actor was one of the very few people on television he saw that reminded him of his father, so when his character is portrayed as weak and terrified, begging for the mercy of a white man, the image engrained itself in the mind of a young and impressionable Baldwin. Himself, and the rest of the population were not only told that black people were weaker and inferior, they were presented with these ideas in times of leisure.
Giving focus to these movies that were part of mainstream cinema for upwards of 30 years is a vital way in which this documentary excels. All too often history has focused on the implications of the few explicitly racist movies as examples of race propaganda, most notably The Birth of a Nation. By focusing on the popularity of numerous, more subtly racist movies, we can learn how the entertainment industry created extremely damaging stereotypes of black people, that shaped their place in society. This reinforces the standout message that the Baldwin presents in his work: the ‘negro’ was a notion that was created and perpetuated by the white man, to serve his own physic and political needs. This notion of the ‘negro’ has continued to exist today (despite claims that we are living in a post racial society), and Baldwin argues that this is a result of white ignorance. America’s sense of reality has been distorted by the entertainment industry, creating a reality in which black people are inferior or dangerous, thus their treatment in society is justified. He states, white people are ‘caught in a lie of a pretended humanism’, and this failure of the American way of life is reinforced in society’s refusal to admit it.
I would like to ask the class whether they feel the entertainment industry today is representative of black people. It is easy to list TV shows that reflect a white, middle class way of life (Modern Family, Girls, Friends), but how many shows truly depict and represent African American communities? In what ways does the lack of representation impact African American communities (socially, politically, culturally)?
Sterilization, Marriage, and the Law.
As I spoke about in our discussion group Tuesday, I was adequately familiar with Supreme Court Case Loving v The Common Wealth of Virginia prior to watching the film. I had built certain expectations about how I thought it would turn out and as someone who is fascinated with court cases in general and the philosophy of law I found the movie left me personally unsatisfied. (It was a great film, but if you were expecting a courtroom drama like I was, my advice would be to leave those expectations at home)
I had hoped for more references to historical foundations of anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia than the movie had initially provided. Anti-miscegenation laws in America were heavily linked to eugenics, classifying many cases such as these: scientific and legal racism. In America eugenicists and white supremacists were so overly concerned about anglo purity some went as far as enshrining anti-miscegenation into state statutes in order to preserve the purity of anglo racial stocks.
From what I could remember of the movie there were maybe 2-3 solid references to “negative” eugenics. (When the Lovings were informed that their children may be used as an example against them in court and when the defendant quoted a statement from a previous judge about peoples being put on earth on different continents for the reason that god intended for races not to mix.) I was left unsatisfied because the message of scientific racism (enmeshed in legal understandings of race) was not translated (out-rightly) well in this film.
Rather than writing more on the movie that most of us has seen I figure this might be a place to share with you some US laws and acts from the past three centuries that I personally find interesting and are in ways connected to the Lovings case.
Interesting related cases on eugenics or miscegenation in Virginia:
Loving v Virginia (1967)
Naim v Naim (1955)
Buck v Bell (1927)
Racial Integrity Act of 1924, also referred to as the Sterilization Act
Other interesting US cases, acts or orders that are concerned with racialization:
Pace v Alabama (1883)
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
Asian Exclusion Act (1924)
Brown v Board of Education (1954)
McLaughlin v Florida (1964)
Arizona SB 1070 (2010)
Exec Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (2017) (Status of this Order has been Halted) (2017)
Has anyone seen “13th” on Netflix? It’s kind of an advertising piece (Black Lives Matters movement) but it’s really well done in how it discusses race and criminalization in America.
Last night I watched I Am Not Your Negro, which is a fantastic documentary/biography about James Baldwin, a Black man who moved back to America after having been inspired by a young Black girl who was mocked on her way to school. In the documentary, it was clear that Baldwin felt a need to bring justice to the Black community, and to advocate more for equal rights.
The most striking aspect of this documentary was the use of ‘in between’ scenes. In between the old footages of famous Black leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, there were clips taken from situations that we encounter in the present day — videos of Black individuals at the mercy of brutal police officers, and videos of African Americans standing up for their rights.
This technique was super effective.
The difference is because most of us are aware of the struggles Black Americans had to face in the past, but it is so easy to feel like things are better now. Usually books and movies explore the struggles of the past, and then add a small section at the end about how racism is still alive today. This movie did it differently. Peck (the director) brilliantly told the story of James Baldwin, while flashing back and forth between scenes of the past and of the present. Peck did not need to provide an explanation — in fact, the lack of narration during those scenes made its impact even more powerful. The message was clear: racism, discrimination and its impact from the past still exists today, and we need to do something about it.
I highly recommend I Am Not Your Negro (hence the reason why this blog post is essentially a glowing review of the movie)! And for those of you who have seen it, what was your takeaway from the movie, and what parts did you think were especially effective?
Jasmine,
I agree with you that I am Not Your Negro effectively links James Baldwin’s work and message to continuing issues of race and class today. I think what this film shows is that Baldwin’s words still ring true today because institutional racism is still extremely prevalent. I would go so far as to argue that by putting images of the civil rights movement and Baldwin’s public appearances side by side with contemporary images of things like Black Lives Matter, protests, and photos of black men who were victims of police violence (Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, and others), pushes the audience to ask if any meaningful, systemic changes have been made at all. By this I do not mean how laws have changed, but how ways of thinking have changed. How do dominant ways of thinking (subconsciously or consciously) perpetuate racial hierarchies and oppress minorities? How do these ways of thinking reinforce class disparities and cause harm?
My biggest takeaway from this film was that self-reflection and education are critical for changing institutional racism and dominant ways of thinking. For me, as white person who was raised in an upper-class, liberal, predominately white community, I think it is super important to be exposed to films like this, the work of thinkers like Fanon, and to be challenged by others (especially those beyond my communities) and myself to go beyond simply supporting minorities that have been systemically oppressed and silenced, and instead learn how to be an involved ally, empower others, actively seek out perspectives and actions that challenge the status quo, and check my privilege.
Soul On Ice : Past Present & Future
Wow talk about a great film. From a produced by an amateur that had no prior film experience. Damon Kwame Mason brings out a whole new perspective of what it means to be a minority not just in the sport of hockey but in the everyday world. Kwame doesn’t just talk about the past, he brings in current day players and talks about how we can move forward, and learn from those of our past. Soul on Ice is a film designed to bring awareness to the historical and current struggles of the African American community on the ice. The documentary followed a few hockey players, one of whom’s story stood out to me more than the rest. It was of a young African American who, since he was little, wanted to play hockey. He was eventually drafted after an injury that could have ended his career, however it was not this part of the story that caused me to think. It was what he said about his upbringing; as a young African American hockey player he was constantly told that he shouldn’t play hockey: “You’re black, you should play football or basketball.” To hear this consistently as a young teenager can do lasting damage and can very easily increase racial dichotomy between African Americans and other races in sports. The young hockey player, however, overcame these barriers and eventually made it to his goal.A quote that really stuck out to me in the movie was “adversity is life Buckly’s, it doesn’t taste great, but if you can get through it you will be stronger in the end”. During the Q & A after the film he was asked by someone in the audience about the players that didn’t make it in the game and what was there story, and his answer which shocked me was “they let it get to them, they got distracted by the hate and they lost their opportunity the minute they got distracted”.
The story of America is the story of the race relations within it. This is the underlying theme of ‘I am Not Your Negro’, a documentary film directed by Raoul Peck based on the unfinished manuscript Remember This House by essayist and social critic James Baldwin. Bringing Baldwin’s memoirs, reflections and observations on race relations to life through the voice of Samuel L. Jackson, Peck crafts a film that is simultaneously profound, baffling and heart wrenching: a work that confronts the oft-repressed reality of racial disparities that exist in the ‘land of the brave and the free.’ The documentary footage of lynching mobs, KKK demonstrations, political protests, police brutality and other watershed moments, engage one viscerally in Peck’s narrative of American history, leaving the audience with plenty to reflect on. In this piece I engage with three aspects of the film: select James Baldwin quotes, the racialized construction of space over time, and the symbolism of the cinematography. This film is a must-see, especially for those who doubt or question the urgency and/or real life implications of institutionalized discrimination that exists in the United States.
Archival footage of James Baldwin’s speeches in front of judges, on talk shows and at rallies, highlight some of his most insightful quotes that illuminate the consequences and realities of being black in America. Among these is the quote “my countrymen are my enemies”. This encapsulates the tragedy of black and white relations in the United States, as it describes how the enemies of the American people are not outsiders in distant lands, but rather their neighbours who differ only in skin colour. This emphasizes how pervasive the American racial divide is, pushing a visible wedge between fellow country people.
Baldwin also explained that he did not affiliate himself with any Christian congregation, because “they obviously didn’t live by a core tenet of Christianity: love one another”. This is a powerful statement, underscoring the hypocrisy of religious regimes in the United States. That is to say, some people are deemed more Christian than others, evidenced by the killing and beating of black Christians by White Christians. Baldwin problematizes this, explaining that religion is only another avenue used for discrimination along coloured lines in the country. He builds on this by stating that the most divided “hour in the country is high noon on a Sunday”, where church processions are divided across the nation into white and black congregations.
At one point in the movie, the screen faded to black and the theatre was filled with silence. Lasting only a few seconds, this brief pause from the jarring images that had been on display up to that point provided the audience with a few moments to let the messages sink in. Following this respite was what I found to be Baldwin’s most memorable monologue, presented on the Dick Cavett talk show in 1968. Sitting opposite Baldwin was Dr. Weiss of Harvard University, who urged black Americans to put their past behind them and to stop thinking about the world in terms of race. Weiss argued that viewing the world through such a lens will only further cement racial lines, trapping individuals in viewing their failures and/or lack of opportunities as a result of their skin colour. Essentially, Dr. Weiss advocated for a post-racial America, one that he believed would be free of learned helplessness based on skin colour. I find that this is a common perspective and reaction to racial activism. It is rooted in an idealistic view of America, where people ‘don’t see colour’. But this perspective effectually erases the turbulent histories of different people and the ongoing realities of racial inequalities that are embedded in the American system. In response to this, Baldwin responded in an analytical and logical manner. He explained that he doesn’t know whether real estate lobbies are against black people…but he does know that they keep black people in the ghettos. He doesn’t know whether the education system is racist, but he does know the content (and lack thereof) that exists in the textbooks and the within the walls of his childrens’ schools. Baldwin explains that this is the evidence of racial inequalities in America. He concludes that asking black communities to move past these truths into some idealized state of America where they do not matter, is simply impossible…because the reality is that they do matter.
The movie also depicts the formation of racialized spaces: segregated bus seating, segregated Church processions, segregated schooling, segregated entrances to clubs and bars and kindred separation based on race. It becomes clear that racism was in-part institutionalized by the creation of these tangible physical divides, which seemingly brought to life the perceived differences between races. This re-iterates a core theme of our course, namely, spatial inequality. These black-white barriers echo similar discriminatory practices that we have discussed with regards to slavery and plantation organization. For example, we explored how slave ships were physical embodiments of racist agenda, serving as vessels of death and disease. Similarly, the propagation of racism through spatial inequality can be seen in Canadian history. Specifically, the segregation and forced assimilation of Indigenous people, first through the Residential School System and later in the Reserve System, invoke the same kind of racist physical organization practices.
Another aspect of the film that was captivating, was the cinematography. Specifically, whenever there were camera shots of various contemporary settings, whether rural America or downtown New York, the camera panned just above the ground. That is to say, the cameras never focused on what was happening on the ground, but instead directed the audience upward, at trees and skylines. I believe that this was intentionally done in order to symbolize the ‘out of touch, out of mind’ mentality that many individuals ascribe to with regards to matters of race. Instead of confronting the harsh realities of what has been going on and what continues to go on on American soil, individuals look away, embracing the mantra of ‘ignorance is bliss’. I believe that these out-of frame shots were intentionally dispersed throughout the film to create a powerful contrast with the documentary footage of racially fuelled violence – speaking to the duality of America: one half of the narrative characterized by racial divide, the other narrative as leader of the ‘free world’.
The words of James Baldwin, the examination of space and how it materializes racist regimes, and the symbolic camera work in ‘I am Not Your Negro’, make it an uncomfortably mesmerizing film. Raoul Peck captures the zeitgeist of American history, reminding us of its brutality and cautioning us about the perils of discrimination moving forward. An insightful and brutally honest depiction of American reality, ‘I am Not Your Negro’ is a movie that compels us to not give up in our search for racial equality.