Race Is An Accessory

It had always troubled me that when I would introduce a friend who is not white, one of the main identifying characteristics are their race, for example, "Joe, my asian friend..."  By identifying Joe solely by his race, every other aspect about him is overshadowed.

I'm interested in understanding race, and after looking at the world from Bob's perspective I've come to see race differently than I did coming into this class.  As an Asian American, I had always tried to suppress my "Asian-ness," an inherent and unchangeable part of who I am.  Younger me would have identified most with the Harrison's.  However, Bob seems to view race as an accessory, a separate object, you can either proudly wear, leave at home, or try to erase completely: "Race was a handicap, sure, I reasoned.  But hell, I didn't have to marry it."  and also on page 15: "The white folks had sure brought their white to work with them  that morning."

Bob has a few encounters where he feels as if race was left at home.  One of which he sat at dinner and shared a normal conversation with a white man.  The other instance was when he gave the two white sailors a ride.  After, he wondered "how it was you could take two white guys from the same place - one would carry his whiteness like a loaded stick... and the other would just simply be white as if he didn't have anything to do with it and let it go at that" (41).

In her introduction, Smith said, "we must first break the silence about race and encourage more people to participate in the dialogue."  Bob's conversation halted with the those two sailors when they fell silent because they were uncomfortable with talking about race.  In Bob's situation here, how could the silence have been broken and the dialogue been able to continue?  Smith also stated that "few people speak a language about race that is not their own."  What could have been different if the boys had tried to speak Bob's language?

How does Bob wear his race throughout the book, and does his perception of what race is change overtime?
Does the weight of the responsibility to break this silence about race fall more heavily on some groups than others?

City of Angels?

In “Twilight,” Mike Davis discusses how the Los Angeles experience has changed. He states that “the only permitted legal activity anymore [is] being in a mall shopping,” that “cruising has been totally eliminated” because of its presumed links to gang violence, and that “it’s illegal to sleep on the beach.” Davis is essentially arguing that the L.A. riots both exposed this city’s virulent racism and stripped away the “Southern California culture” that has been historically used to market the idea of living here. In If He Hollers, Bob’s experience is radically different from Davis’s working-class adolescence. Bob’s a member of the working class, but the fact of his race means that he isn’t privy to the white Angeleno ideal of sun and sand, as well as the other “incredibly important” pleasures and freedoms that Davis describes. It seems like the realities of racial and socioeconomic inequity poked a whole lot of holes in the Boosters’ manufactured image of Los Angeles. But somehow -- despite the various movements that have sprung up in attempts to redefine the Angeleno identity/experience -- their fantasy still persists to some degree in many people’s minds. So I ask: is there a way to reconcile our (and by our, I mean our city’s) diametrically opposed perspectives into one shared narrative? Are our experiences really diametrically opposed or, like the figures in Bob’s dream, are we all victims of the same power structures? Is intellectual/philosophical commonality even something we want to strive for? And, after a history bursting with injustices that have been left to fester in ignorance and erupt in tragedy, is anything about Los Angeles remotely angelic?

The African-American Dream

In my group at the beginning of the day, we discussed the significance of the dreams that Bob has at the beginning of the text. The book opens with a seemingly bizarre and unconnected series of dreams that include Bob buying a dog, the investigation of the murder of Frankie Childs, and Bob being laughed at and embarrassed by two white men. Something interesting about these three dreams is that they almost form a pattern; the investigation is clearly racially motivated and the two white men laughing at Bob are definitely racists, Hines putting the two men in a dominating and powerful position. The outlier is the dream about the dog, which doesn't seem to be about anything at all. I'm interested in whether or not these dreams might form a pattern, or if not, the meaning behind the breaking of the pattern. On page 6, Bob admits that "the only place [he] felt safe was in bed asleep." Maybe the first dream about the dog is representative of some sort of economic power disparity, as Bob does not ask to buy the dog but is pretty aggressively sold it. Maybe the first dream is a counterpoint to the increasingly racist dreams, to show how prejudice rules every aspect of Bob's life, starting even before he's awake. Bob says he wakes up scared, and that he feels safe when he's asleep, but maybe he's just bluffing like he does to his friends; we see Bob censer his thoughts multiple times, so maybe this extends even to censoring his feelings from himself. I believe that understanding more about the symbolism of these dreams will help us characterize Bob; how the prejudice he feels every day affects even his deepest subconscious could help us to know how Bob was formed by prejudice, or how he was formed against it, as well as the deeper conscious of black men in the 40's.

Does the 1st amendment apply to every American?

It is apparent that there was an imbalance of free speech in America.  In the 1940's, only white people had the opportunity to exercise their first amendment rights, while people of color were coerced into keeping quiet when they wanted to speak.  In this white-dominated culture, questioning those who held power translated to making the already tough situation tougher.  There are countless examples of this injustice in just the first 6 chapters of Chester Himes' If He Hollers Let Him Go.  On numerous occasions, Bob finds himself boiling over with rage after suffering verbal or physical abuse by white guards, shipyard workers, supervisors, drivers, or day-to-day people, yet he is forced to control himself out of a fear of what "trouble" he could face.  He confronts this infringement on his free speech constantly, as he experiences his "usual once-a-day urge to tell them to take their leaderman job and shove it," (pg. 26) or when he stops himself from "bust[ing] him [Kelly] right on the side of his scrawny red neck." (pg. 22) The one time he does combat the abuse of one southern white women's disparaging remarks (pg. 27), he loses his promotion and faces being drafted to fight in the war while she gets off scot-free.  Similarly, when the narrator in Ellison's "Battle Royal" mentions "social equality", the white townsmen rebuke his words, mentioning to him that he has "got to know your place at all times."

Fast forward 75+ years, there is still a blatant racially-motivated injustice over free speech in America.  Movements like Black Lives Matter are publicly berated for demanding equality and figures like Colin Kaepernick are castigated and threatened for silently protesting.  How can we, a country that lives by the self-appointed label "the land of the free", think that we are a country for everyone?  How can the amendments unite and represent all Americans when not everyone is given the opportunity to exercise all their supposed constitutional rights?  Is there such thing as contemporary free speech in the United States?  If not, will there ever be?

On page 259 Sammy is talking about how he thinks he has reached a point where he has power and is beginning to seem somewhat satisfied with his career and position of power.  On 259 Sammy says that because of his possessions he feels "patriotic."  Sammy relates his power, control and ownership of material things to patriotism because he is proud of the country that has allowed him to take advantage of people and be successful at the expense of others.  The actual dictionary definition of patriotism is "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty" which is different than the way Sammy thinks and feels about patriotism.  What is patriotic about the way Sammy thinks about patriotism and how does this relate to the way he uses and treats other characters (mostly women) in the book?  We see Sammy constantly using other people as stepping stones and landmarks towards his ultimate success.  Is this in any way related to stereotypical American dream?  Relating back to last weeks discussion, do we perceive Sammy in a different moral light than before?

Power to the Woman

       Today in class we discussed the role of women in What Makes Sammy Run?. What does the passage that Colleen pointed out the passage on page 270-271, "He had wanted the devotion of Rosalie Goldbaum, he had wanted the companionship of Kit, he had wanted the domesticity of Ruth Mintz and the glamour of Rita Royce, and he had thought he was getting the drop on all of them (and something more, something indispensable) in Laurette Harrington," say about Sammy's relationships with these women?   Does Sammy's wanting of the women depict them as objects that he can strive to obtain in order to satisfy his own desires?  Or does the fact that he wants them show that the women have something that Sammy doesn't thereby giving them more power?  What are the relationships between these characters?
       Why though does Sammy consider Laurette a completely different type of woman?  It seems like the reason he is intoxicated by the idea of her is because she is always out of his reach, doesn't put up with his bullshit, and gives him access to the power of her father and her status.  Doesn't Kit also humble him when she stands up to him: "And now that I have will you get the hell out of my office and let me work?"?  Kit's aloofness though, doesn't make Sammy fall in love with her the same was Laurette's does.  Rita Royce also gives him status, but he doesn't fall in love with her either. Why?
        What about the other less central women in the book?  When Julian tells Al how Sammy stole his story Girl Steals Boy he is extremely distraught.  His suffering though doesn't seem to be about the money or the fame or the fact that Sammy stole his story, but about the fact that it was affecting his relationship with his wife, Blanche.  He didn't confront the situation or confide in Al until Blanche threatened to leave him.  What does that say about Blanche's power as a woman?  What about Billie or Sammy's mom?
       How are the different ways women are portrayed in the novel similar or different?  What is the relationship between the women and/or the relationship between women and men?

In Day of the Locust, Nathaniel West portrayed Faye, who was the focus of Tod's attention and therefore one of the key figures of the book, as a living representation of Los Angeles. Budd Schulberg writes Sammy Glick as the epitome of the entrepreneurial American self-promoter in the wake of the Gilded Age. However, he specifically ends up as a screenwriter in Hollywood. How does Sammy's character reflect Schulberg's assessment of Los Angeles?Sammy's essential characteristics, such as rapid change, brash confidence, and recycling of existing content, could be interpreted as alluding to the "character" of Hollywood. However, within the narrative Sammy is sidestepping the usual track of a screenwriter, which undermines the possibility of him being representative of the average screenwriter or citizen, as Faye was representative of the aspiring actors. Furthermore, how do the elements of Hollywood that align with Sammy's character integrate with Schulberg's literal characterization of Los Angeles? What Makes Sammy Run contains critique of Los Angeles, but is Sammy a part of that?