I was interested in the article “On Whiteness and The Racial Imaginary response”. It opened my eyes to thinking about the way authors and I myself as someone who likes to write portrays my characters. I had never really thought about white authors writing about black characters or Hispanic characters before. Now I catch myself thinking about it more. 

The authors of the article argue that authors should not write about the experiences of other people unless they have experienced it themselves or know people who have. If a white author is going to write about something that maybe they have never experienced then they should research it first and make sure they get it right. It’s hard to understand what someone has gone through if you yourself haven’t experienced it. We may feel sympathy for these people but we can’t fully understand unless it happens to us. This is why these authors point out that we must be careful in the way we portray our characters when writing a novel. 

The authors also explain that they want people to have the creative freedom to write about what they want while also being conscious of the material. When you’re writing about nonreal events you do have this creative freedom. We start to get constrained when we go into things that have actually happened. This is why it’s hard to definitively say what authors can and can’t write about because it depends on the topic. But this should open up our eyes into thinking about for example if a white person writes about Asian culture  We have to think about why are they writing about this topic and if they have had any experiences with this culture. If they haven’t then we must know if they did research on it or studied it we have to make sure that authors aren’t getting information wrong and that they aren’t portraying certain groups in only a negative way. This article just changes our perspective in the way we look at books. Yes we do have some creative imagination but at the same time we don’t and we have to make sure we are aware of what we write about in books. 

“On Whiteness and the Racial Imaginary” caught me by surprise. Growing up I was not aware on my Latin-ness. I knew, of course, that I was Puerto Rican, but I did not experience it from an “otherness” point of view (or a third party view as Fanon would label it). As I grew into an adult and became aware of racial injustices throughout history and in the present, I became aware. I became aware of my differences from the world and perspectives of white people, as well as that of black people. In doing so, I also had to recognize my differences from other members of the Latinx community–the community I am a part of. Broken into categories of race and then subcategories, such as:  melanin and residency status. I, too, have privilege. Albeit not as much as a white man in America, but more than the Afro-Latina who was born here, and even moreso that the Mexican woman who escaped the persecution by gang members in her village and worked her ass of to become an American citizen. I am a Puerto Rican (which, as a territory of the US buys me some sort of privilege), I was born and raised here in the US, and my complexion is light– even lighter than my own brother’s. Again, although this does not equate me to a white man here in America, it allows me to move through the world in ways easier than say, my brother. At least when it comes to racial standards. I’ll save the talk of sexism for another day.

What surprised me about “On Whiteness and the Racial Imaginary” was how it called me out on something that was right under my nose, but that I had never stopped to consider before, partly because of that privilege. I don’t think I have ever stopped to consider if a book with a “minority” character had been written by a white author, or what that would even mean. I also assumed that imagination would render it okay, or if an author did enough research maybe they can get it right, but this essay revealed otherwise. This is not to say that white writers should never portray these characters, but as the essay argues, they should ask the reasons behind it, as opposed to how they can go about doing it. I love the argument that our imagination is shaped by our experiences, making it limited. As kids we are taught that our imagination has no bounds and we just learn to believe that. But the argument made here was like a light going on. How can I know what that woman fleeing Mexico even feels or experienced if I never did? And how much of what I THINK I know is not shaped by my own life or by what society projects to be her truth? The same goes for white authors writing for black characters and scenarios. Society, whether they like it or not, has put confines on the writers’ imagination, so that he or she only produces the same tropes that have been read many times before. The writers of this essay also point out how unjust it actually is for white authors to transcend into their black protagonists, as they have an “all-access” pass due to their privilege. Their black counterparts can only begin from a place of being addressed, and even so, it is argued that they cannot write for other black people because their experiences may not be alike either (like myself, for example, with other Latinxs).

A reference to a veil is made in this essay that reminded me of the veil discussed by W.E.B. Du Bois. Although, his veil referred to the double consciousness black people experienced life in, this essay connects the veil to the white authors. In “On Whiteness and the Racial Imaginary” it is said that when white authors get it wrong and are addressed by the black community, they play the victim.

“Their whiteness has veiled them from their own power to wound.”

This veil is not a consciousness of oneself that comes from the perception of others. Instead, it is a veil of privilege, making white writers “unknowing” of the damage they caused and allowing them to be the victim.

This essay has provided me with a perspective that I will not easily shake and I look forward to utilizing it into my readings of literature going forward.

Zora Neale Hurston in her work “How it Feels to be Colored Me” argues that white people are missing out on the joy that comes with being black. She flips Du Bois’ and Fenon’s arguments that black people are always reacting to a prior restriction of blackness compared to whiteness where blacks are subjected to white power and are called out in social spaces. Hurston simply states that white people are missing out. She describes an experience she had going to a jazz club with a white companion where she connected to the music in a way her white companion wasn’t able to. She believes that because white people have to tiptoe around issues of race and black people simply live it that makes black people freer. 

Hurston enjoys the drama and attention she gets by being black. She says that she gets “twice as much praise or twice as much blame” for anything she does compared to a white person. She holds the center stage and behaves as if she is performing for the world. Her perspective is that she has nothing to lose and everything to gain because “the game of keeping what one has is never as exciting as getting.” She views herself as the underdog with room to grow and do amazing things that white people can’t experience because they are simply trying to maintain their power. 

However, Hurston doesn’t believe that white people having power is absolute she thinks that trying to keep this power causes anxiety and makes white people fearful of blacks gaining power. This relates to Fenon who says that white supremacy was born because white people were threatened and wanted to protect their privilege. Hurston feels bad for the white man who is so threatened but the black man and has such anxiety about trying to maintain supremacy that he never actually enjoys being in power. She says that white people are worrying if they measure up to black people even in the most intimate settings like their bed or while they are eating. She states that “no dark ghost thrust it’s leg against mine in bed” emphasizing the greatest fear of white men, that black men will come and steal their women because white people cannot measure up sexually to black people. This constant state of anxiety and fear that Hurston paints the white man in makes the black experience seem superior. While black people are living rent-free in the minds of whites, their supposed oppressors, they are able to achieve more, create bigger spectacles, and exercise their power over white people because they can only grow from where they are now. 

The discussion of race has been going on for many lifetimes, this discussion seems to have no end and is explored by countless. One thing for certain is that it has an impact on our lives, society, and the world as a whole. This impact is delved into and explored in “On Whiteness and The Racial Imaginary” and “A Fouculadian(Genealogical) Reading of Whiteness”. 

“Where writers go wrong in imagining the lives of others”(Rankine & Beth). This was the first line that greeted my eyes upon reading the text. A discussion had already started forming inside of my head, a discussion about race and how it impacts our everyday actions. I knew this time it was going to be about how race impacts our writing and writers as well. “On Whiteness and The Racial Imaginary” discusses “whiteness” and how it affects writers’ mentalities as well as the writings created by them. This idea of being able to understand other races and cultures simply because we have heard or seen their experiences is questioned and criticized. This idea does not seem right to Rankine and does not seem logical either. She further discusses why by speaking about how colored characters are being written by these white writers who have limits on the obstacles they face daily due to their privilege. This privilege limits the writers especially when they take the view of a colored person or portray them in their writings. Their “creativity/imagination” is built of their own experiences. They cannot properly portray or even begin to imagine the hardships and backlash that those who are colored have to face. They feel as if they are “transcendent” because they have tried to understand how colored people are and to think they have a grasp of that understanding but they simply don’t and can’t. As Rankine says “So to say, as a white writer, that I have a right to write about whoever I want, including writing from the point of view of characters of color—that I have a right of access and that my creativity and artistry is harmed if I am told I cannot do so—is to make a mistake”(Rankine & Loffreda). We are all human and have our own limits, we are not everyone and cannot understand everyone. This is a truth that must be accepted whether we like it or not. White writers and colored writers will always have different limitations and different understandings. One cannot fully understand the other as their mindsets are completely different. The way the white writer goes to the store will be very different from the way the colored writer goes to the store. This experience alone will create differences in the perspective that will be portrayed in their writing. This is the point that Rankine is getting at and although hers is more writing-focused these differences in fact do influence the world around us. 

With that being said I would like to follow into the article “A Fouculadian(Genealogical) Reading of Whiteness” written by George Yance. This article continues the discussion of whiteness that was started by Rankine. The argument in this text is different compared to that of “On Whiteness and The Racial Imaginary”. Yancey focuses on whiteness and its structure, his aim is to” examine whiteness as the embodiment and production of specific truth claims, claims that are inextricably linked to a (white) regime of truth and modalities of power” (Yancey). From this line alone we see his perspective on whiteness and we are delving into his mind a bit. We can clearly see the effect that whiteness has on both his research questions and writing. This article supports and reflects the argument that was being made by Rankine. The argument that this “whiteness” and racial divide affects writers writing as well as perspective. This difference in experiences can cause a difference in the writings of authors as we see here with George and various others that we have read this term. I am more then sure that if this was a white writer’s research, the aim overall argument and wording of the text would be different. George even uses a fictional character, Pecola Breedlove, to display the effect that whiteness has on writings. He makes the claim that this character sees herself as worthless due to this whiteness and how “colored people” are seen as inferior. This impact while wrong is prevalent in our world even today and George makes sure to remind us of this. 

Despite these texts being older and not recent, we can clearly see how the past and the present are still being affected by this whiteness. This whiteness is prevalent in our world today and all of us can clearly see this not only in the readings for our class but also within our own world currently.

I’ve just had a chance to read and comment on the first blog posts of the term. I’m really happy with all of your work–literally everyone turned in thoughtful, carefully considered prose–and I enjoyed getting a fuller sense of your thoughts on the readings and our class discussions. A couple of general notes and some shout-outs are in order.

To highlight some issues that many students had in one way or another:

• titles: makes sure to give a descriptive title, even an eye-catching or clever or funny one. Just calling it “blog post #1” doesn’t tell us much about your argument. Also, just put the title in the tile bar and then start writing in the body: no need to repeat it.
• don’t summarize, analyze: many of you gave really rich summaries of what X or Y thinker was doing. But we readers want more! Assume we know the basic arguments. What we need is for you to point out something we didn’t see in the argument, some assumption or thread or metaphor that we hadn’t noticed. Once you point it out to us, it changes our reading of Fanon or Hurston forever. Or at least that’s the goal…
• be bold: try to say something a little “weird” in your analysis. We all know that Emerson loves nature, that Hurston celebrates herself, that Du Bois feels confined within the “veil”; so move beyond these basics and find something we hadn’t thought of. The posts I’ll shout out in a minute do this very nicely and are good examples.
• tags: you can use the TAG function in WordPress to categorize your work. Use the author’s name or even a theme in your post (like “gender” or “subjectivity” or “racism”)

Shout-outs: I could point out excellent things that every single student did, but I’d like to call attention to three writers this time who did something special:

• Julian wrote about Hurston’s debt to the Romantic-era poet Whitman. He emphasizes an affinity between Hurston and queer writing, noting that Hurston has a flair for performance and self-celebration that leverages her conspicuousness as a black woman while refusing to be confined within a stereotype.
• Tyler also engaged Hurston but linked her writing to the very different account of “racialization” by Fanon: he puts the writers in tension, revealing some of the tensions within African-American thought about the “fact” of blackness, as Fanon puts it.
• Naydeen, like Julian, emphasizes Hurston’s orientation towards performance and art, contrasting this assertion of blackness with Du Bois’s focus on the kinds of measurable “merit-based” competition that characterizes the dominant (read: white) culture and economy.

Note that these are not cookie cutters to be imitated; they’re just good examples of how to be a little “weird” in your writing in the best sense, pointing us readers to see something new in a given text.