Racism within Race

It is easy to see that the racism reflected in this short story goes deeper than that of white vs black. Within the African American race, distinctions were being made between light and dark. Racism is not necessarily a set theory, it changes and evolves; it has no single, permanently fixed set of characteristics. Rather than be opposed to the ideas of stereotyping and making distinctions based on color, the African American characters who dominate this story seem to be focused on creating and backing racism within their own race. The Blue Vein society, for example, is supposed to be for the social advancement of the race, yet those members within, some former slaves themselves, all seem to be white enough for their veins to be seen through their skin. Mr. Ryder is immersed in the idea of the whiteness of the woman he is interested in. In fact, he sets her apart from the others as the “palest woman he expected at the ball.” When the wife of Mr. Ryder’s youth appears, he must contend with the idea that she is very dark and very old, and accepting her will definitely not raise him socially. He can stay at the top of the social ladder by hiding the truth and marrying a beautiful, “pale” respectable woman in the Blue Veins, or reveal his secret and be linked to a little ugly woman from his all but forgotten past that is considered among the lowest in his race. Liza Jane would never have been considered appropriate to be introduced and accepted by the Blue Veins because of her dark skin color and the fact that she was formerly a plantation worker. It is obvious that Mr. Ryder struggles whether or not to reveal his secret to the Blue Veins because he did not know if they would be able to accept the fact that he was married to his ugly black woman. By showing the characteristics of the low that resided even with himself, his sympathy for the woman in his story, and the language that he accepts to tell it, he is able to persuade the Blue Veins to support him. It is as if he is issuing a challenge, a challenge for the Blue Veins to be learned and have an understanding of racial history and draw strength from that learning, rather than discriminate because of it.

Huck's Development

I think that Huck does develop morally over the novel in some ways. When we first encounter him he doesn't seem to have a lot of moral direction. He borrows (pun intended) his moral attitudes from others. This is common, children grow up looking to others, specifically those parental figures in their lives, for guidance; to know what is right and what is wrong they must be corrected and taught. His father believes that he is owed by the world, and that he should do whatsoever it is that benefits himself, no matter how it affects others. When Huck's father teaches him that stealing is really just "borrowing" the things which one desires, Huck takes on this moral rule for himself, and feels no guilt in applying it to his life. This form of adapting to other's belief of what is rigthand what is wrong continues throughout the novel. When Huck is being "sivilized" by Miss Watson, she teaches him the laws of behavior that are socially and religiously acceptable. Huck adapts to this system of belief, as seen when he feels guilty for disobeying the laws of the land in not turning in Jim; in fact he comes very close to turning Jim over to the authorities many times. Huck also steals the money which belongs to Mary Jane and the other orphans from the king and duke. He says, 'I felt so ornery and low down and mean, that I says to myself... I'll hive that money for them or bust" (226). His guilt motivates him to do what he knows is right, instead of what is best for him. This is the first time that we see Huck questioning the moral belief system that he has been fed by Miss Watson, who says it is wrong to steal, and his father, who would have either taken the gold for himself or stayed out of the duke/king's way to insure his own profit. Another instance of this questioning is when Huck writes the letter to Miss Watson to inform her of Jim's whereabouts. He feels good about coming clean, but he cannot shake the feeling that it is ultimately the wrong decision. He cannot decide between the laws and religion, and what he feels is his moral obligation to his friend Jim. Huck does not turn in his friend, ultimately deciding that he would rather go to hell. This decision is a turning point for Huck, a huge step toward moral independance. But we never see him lean on his own beliefs fully. He relies upon his father's system of what is right until someone with a higher sense of conviction corrects him. He then picks and chooses the parts of religion which suit him and still tends to fall back upon his father's teachings until Tom's convictions convince him otherwise. Huck says of the things which he took, "I called it borrowing, because that was what pap always called it; but Tom said it warn't borrowing, it was stealing" (279). From this point on, Huck refers to the action as stealing, not borrowing. But there is still no guilt because a higher authority, namely Tom, has declared it "right" (279) to steal in the name of a prisoner. Huck does not make this distinction himself, but he does choose to trust and follow Tom's system and discard his father's. In the end it is unclear where Huck is going. He could be headed back to Miss Watson, to continue his "sivilization," but I like to think that he will "light out for the Territory ahead of the rest" (320), and continue to develop his own moral system by "borrowing" parts he finds helpful from those around him.

Emily Dickinson

When reading “The name- of it- is ‘Autumn’” I thought a lot about what we did in class on Wed and where, in my mind, I add the punctuation This really does help me organize Dickinson’s writing and develop a reading of the text. The first two lines are sentences of their own in my mind, but they go together as if in a stanza of their own because the second line describes the subject, “Autumn,” introduced in the first. The next three lines continue this description of the subject and its color, making the color alive and real, not only describing the color but making a metaphor of the subject and blood. Then in the seventh line begins another metaphor of the blood. The winds (which in the other poem we discussed on Wed were associated with will and revolution) turns over a basin filled with blood and the blood “sprinkles” as rain. The basin and blood are acting the part of nature to bring rain, a substance needed to survive. Blood is also needed to survive but in “sprinkling” like rain, it means that life has been lost. The last stanza shows the effects of the blood being spilt. The blood falls upon lady’s bonnets, which I took to mean that the war affects the home and hearth in violent ways although not many women saw the front lines of battle or had to face oncoming enemy on the battlefield. The women are confronted by the battles from “far” away and the blood, pain and loss affects them by staining their lives and homes. The blood not only sprinkles upon them, but gathers around them in puddles. The effects of war do not just end with the end of war. The loss of husbands, children, and fathers affected the homestead long after news of the death of a loved one reached the family. The sadness and pain gathers, and the people lost to the war slowly drift away.

Beat! Beat! Drums!

Civil War historian Mark Neely claims that: "what…does not appear [in Whitman’s writing] is the Emancipation Proclamation....There would never be much trace of the proclamation in Whitman's works because he did not much care about it. For him the Civil War was not a war of liberation. It was a war for Union. Whitman was a mystical nationalist. And his big mistake was to depict Abraham Lincoln as a mystical nationalist too."

Just as the drum rhythm affects the poem and all of the people mentioned in it, the Civil War would affect everyone and everything that it touched in the United States. Whitman is trying to call everyone's attention to the war, and pay attention, to see the war for what it really is. Of course, no one can just ignore the war, it even awakens the sleeping and reverberates in the ears of the dead. The drums are enthusiastic supporters of the war, who encourage the population to be excited about the war and to join in the war efforts. All of the people hear this war cry and many respond positively, getting caught up in the excitement of the moment. The sounds "scatter the congregation" (which is not a positive image) and disturb the bridegroom, the farmer, the city traffic, the sleepers, the talkers, the singers, and the lawyers. All these people hear the war cry, but the timid, the old, the children, and the mothers do not react positively to the call. The poet exhorts the drums and bugles to drown their dissenting voices. The poet exhorts the drums and bugles to drown their dissenting voices. He uses words such as "scatter", "beseeching," "entreaties," and "prayer" to describe the actions and feelings of these characters. I see this as Whitman being very sarcastic, taking the voice of the war supporters and showing the flaws in their enthusiasm.

The poet is showing to his reader the spontaneous reaction of the Northern people directly following the South’s attack on Fort Sumter, and his analysis of it.The drumbeat is a symbol of war and it creates highly passionate, ardent responses from the townspeople described. The imagery brought to mind by this fast paced enthusiastic movement is that of a town, dancing and cheering their way to sign up for a war which has drawn them in by deceitful means, by the pressure of the drumbeats. Whitman is also communicating to the drums, which I see as those enthusiasts of the war, that war tears apart nations, not builds them. War leaves "no happiness" and is a "wild", "shrill", "fierce", and "terrible" entity. The war, Whitman tells us in the first
stanza, takes away things which it does not replace. The congregations are scattered, the scholar is taken from his study, peace and happiness are taken from the farmer and newlyweds, respectfully. The drumbeat is a symbol of war and it creates highly passionate, even extremist responses This is a beautiful poem which decries a torn nation and speaks a message of peace and the emptiness of war that holds true not only to its own era but also to future generations.

I think that Whitman is addressing unity here, the false unity that the war promises. The townspeople are unified in their efforts in the war, but it is NOT implied that their efforts are worthwhile or good in any way. In fact, the people are torn from the good things in their life, deceived by the musical tone of the drums into believing the promise of unity through destruction . Whitman is pointing this out and showing that war is not the best way to look for unity, since it tears apart the very people wishing to create peace.