Around 1967, Gwendolyn Brooks became more political in her writing. She wanted to show the experiences and mistreatment of black Americans. In “of De Witt Williams on his way to Lincoln Cemetery” Brooks describes the passing of a black boy. She described a very simple individual, who participated in quite average pastimes: “Drive him past the Pool Hall. Drive him past the Show….Don’t forget the Dance Halls—Warwick and Savoy, Where he picked his women, where He drank his liquid joy.” This showed that this average black man was no different than the average white man: “He was nothing but a plain black boy.” Despite being quite similar, the black boy has to live in more impoverished and crime ridden areas, which resulted in his life and aspirations being cut short. In the second poem, “The Boy Died in My Alley” Brooks elaborates on that boy. This poem feels more personal and is more detailed, but is still addressing the same issue. She still writes that it is a simple boy who had his life needlessly cut short: “I have known this boy before, who ornaments my alley. I never saw his face at all. I never saw his futurefall. But I have known this Boy.” She may have not known the boy personally, but she knew the boy, because the boy was all of them. The boy represented all the black Americans who are victim to mistreatment and negligence. This time she describes the area that they are all stuck living in: “The Shot that killed him yes I heard as I heard the Thousand shots before; careening tinnily down the nights across my years and arteries.” The black Americans are stuck in these bad neighborhoods because the government has chosen to neglect them, and they cannot escape because they are stuck in poverty because of the lack of equal opportunity. This poem evokes more emotion because of the more detailed account of the situation, but I still prefer the first one. I prefer “of De Witt Williams on his way to Lincoln Cemetery” because it feels more elegant, through its simplicity. It also requires more thought and there are more possible interpretations. You cannot just read this poem, but instead you have to dwell on it. I feel like you can get away with just reading “The Boy Died in My Alley.”

Langston Hughes wrote, that a young black poet said, “I want to be a poet—not a Negro poet.” He continues, explaining that, “this is the mountain standing in the way of any true Negro art in America—this urge within the race toward whiteness, the desire to pour racial individuality into the mold of American standardization, and to be as little Negro and as much American as possible.” During this time black people were in quite a tough spot, especially the black artists. Countee Cullen wrote, “What awful brain compels His awful hand. Yet do I marvel at this curious thing: To make a poet black, and bid him sing!” In order for black artists to find success they need recognition, and to get recognition in this time meant to please white people. In order to please white people the poetry, music, art, etc. needed to be white. Black people give up their individuality, to mimic something so that their career would find a little more success in the white world. I argue that they should embrace their black culture, and the artists should do all they can to show it to the world. They should not submit to the system and strip themselves of individuality, but rather fight that system through their art form. But it easy to say this from where I am sitting right now, as I am not living in their shoes. They were struggling and perhaps the best way to get any recognition is to attempt to be more white. But I argue that this is not accomplishing anything. By living this way, they are not getting any recognition at all. They are then getting recognition as a white artist, something they are not. There is no passion in this. Hughes wrote, “He played that sad raggy tune like a musical fool. Sweet Blues! Coming from a black man’s soul.” Art without passion is nothing; it is garbage. While making an imitation without soul may make a few bucks or give you a brief spotlight, it will be soon forgotten. This can even be related to artists today, where racial issues are largely ironed out. Today the absolute best musicians, creating the most intellectual listening experiences, playing with passion to the highest caliber, get little to no recognition. Instead the pop musicians, with very little talent get all the fame and money. This is because it generally appeals to the masses. The masses are very simple people, people who do not care about the art find pop music, rap, etc. sufficient. So the high level musicians are faced with a choice: give up their passion for fame and money, or pursue that passion. The thing is that these pop songs are very temporary, and forgotten quickly. High class, passionate music endures for much longer. I am personally familiar with musicianship, but I imagine the other arts suffer a similar issue. That black artists have to be white for recognition. The decision has to made as to weather to give up soul and diversity for the sake of temporary fame and an easy dollar, or if passion should be pursued, despite having to live the tough life of an artist, in order to contribute something true and great to society, even if it is not fully appreciated right now.

Fredrick Douglass began explaining his experience under Mr. Covey. Mr. Covey showed him the hypocrisy of Christian slaveholders. This was Douglass’ first time working in a field so he makes many mistakes and is generally struggling. Mr. Covey provides many lashes in response, as he does to many of his slaves. This is what gave him his reputation as, “the slavebreaker.” He also began to preform slave-breeding, despite considering himself a Christian. He would work his slaves from sunrise to sunset and work them to exhaustion. When the slaves did not meet his high expectations, he would deal out many lashings and beatings. Despite all this he was still able to convince himself that he was a Christian and was doing it under God. Douglass would spend his Sundays, his off-days, contemplating suicide or murdering his master. He also began to question God and even his existence.

The turning point in Fredrick Douglass’ life was when he decided to fight back, when Mr. Covey went to beat him. Fredrick Douglass won the fight, giving himself a new sense of being. He felt more confident, felt his manhood, and felt a little freer. After this point Mr. Covey did not touch him again. After his lease was over with Mr. Covey, he was hired to Mr. Freeland, who Douglass said was, “the best master I ever had, till I became my own master. While working under him, Douglass started a Sabbath school, which he enjoyed greatly. He was hired by Mr. Freeland for a second year, after a very smooth first year. But this second year he began planning an escape because he wants to be free like Mr. Freeland.

Despite being treated well this time around, this was still not enough for Douglass. He wanted to be a human being, and much more so when he is being treated a little more like one. When he was being beaten by Covey he was contemplating suicide and murder, neither of which will result in freedom. But as soon as he fought back he felt like a man again, that all changed. He was set straight again, and found hope again. Even when he was under Mr. Freeman and being treated well, he realized that this is still not right. This was more of a stepping stone toward freedom; it was more of a taste of freedom. Although he was still Christian and even enjoyed teaching the Sabbath school, he found hope in all this through him self, and specifically his manhood. When he was being beat, he was not allowed any self-esteem. When he fought back he gained some, then when he was treated fairly he gained some more, and he got to teach the Sabbath school making him feel even more importance. He found hope in himself, rather than the slaveholders’ Christianity, and through this gained confidence which allowed him to work towards freedom.

The Birthmark by: Nathaniel Hawthorne, was a short story with scientist, who left his studies and experiments behind to marry a beautiful woman. The scientist’s name was Aylmer, and the wife’s name was Georgiana. Georgiana is very beautiful and is close to perfect, but on her face there is a birthmark. Many believed it to be charming and that it does not take away from her beauty. But Aylmer became obsessed with removing it. He thought that it defiles her beauty. Eventually Georgiana agreed to risk her life in order to remove the birthmark, so they move to Aylmer’s laboratory. Aylmer displays all his various creations and experiments to Georgina, some of which are ruined by her presence, like the fast growing flower that withered when she touched it. Aylmer had a lust for perfection and was willing to do anything to achieve it, the issue was that he has always fallen short of perfection. This is because true perfection is impossible. He became obsessed, and convinced himself that birthmark was not merely cosmetic and on the surface, instead he believed that it penetrated deep into her heart and soul. So rather than using a potion he already had to remove cosmetic imperfections, he decided he needed to create a potion that removed all of the birthmark that was deep inside her as well. She drank it and the birthmark disappeared in her sleep, but when she awoke she died.

While I do see the feminist point of view of this story, I interpreted it differently. I thought that the story showed that the lust for perfection will ruin us as well as our relationships. We want ourselves and those who we value to be the best we/they can. This is good, but is detrimental if we try to force ourselves or others to do things that are outside of what is possible for them/us. Georgiana was as close to perfect physical beauty that she could possibly reach, but Aylmer had a lust for perfection and forced her to go further, despite the fact that she already hit her limit and was unable to go any farther. The result of this lust for perfection was her death, which symbolically can be the death of a relationship or confidence in yourself.

While I personally did not read this story as a feminist one, I think it still supports the feminist point of view. I do not believe the overall message was to support sexism, so I do not think that the story can be used to refute Nina Baym’s argument. There is also plenty of passages in the story that would support support her point of view. Like the face that it could be interpreted as Aylmer setting an unreasonable standard for Georgina’s beauty, and viewing her as disposable. He was willing to take the risk of her dying, simply to enhance her physical beauty.

In Nature, by Ralph Waldo Emerson, we are told that the way we view nature is wrong. We try to understand nature only through scientific theories or history that has been passed down to us. Instead we should directly immerse ourselves in nature, separate from old theories and create a new description of nature. Emerson explains that adults view nature at face value. We see the infinite stars in the sky and the various landscapes all around us often, but do not think much of it all. Instead we should view through the eyes of a child. A child appreciates nature for what it is, while the adult exploits it for selfish desires. The adult views farms by its property lines and its human ownership, while the child sees the entire landscape. We see the stars and view them as accessible because we can see them, but in reality they are inaccessible because of their distance from us. To see nature as it truly is, we must find solitude. We must not only separate ourselves from friends and our homes, but separate ourselves from society. This is because society is what makes us abide to old theories and histories, instead we need to progress and realize something new.

Emerson became the “transparent eyeball.” He was finally able to see nature without the lens of society. He found peace: “all mean egotism vanishes.” He finally became one with nature: “I am nothing. I see all.” In this instant he was no longer an adult restricted by society, but instead became a human which is a part of nature. Here he also goes a step further and says, “The currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God.” He truly felt 100% in tune with nature, but this portion stood out to me. During this time would saying, “I am part or particle of God” be considered blasphemy? Despite this blasphemy he was not shamed, and was still a Christian. I am able to partly connect with him becoming a “transparent eyeball” through all the experiences I’ve had hiking. While hiking I am separated from all the things of the societal world, and am instead immersed in the natural world.