As another quick aside, I find it intriguing that Foy Chesire is always changing well know books and molding them to fit his purpose. Then he audaciously takes fully authorship of the new novel. Perhaps, in a larger context Beatty is speaking to the constant reusing of things already in existence.

I was reflecting on the book in its entirety and something that struck me as interesting is the fact that he never explicitly says Obama’s name. He is often referred to as that “black dude” (Closure) among other descriptors (all of which make it obvious who Beatty is talking about). What is Beatty trying to get at or accomplish by not saying Obama’s name?

While talking to Marpessa about the daunting possibility of going to jail, the narrator remarks, “Hampton made a good point in court when he said that if Hominy’s ‘servitude’ was tantamount to human bondage, then corporate America better be ready to fight a hell of a class-action lawsuit filed by generations of uncompensated interns”(283). Within the span of one sentence, Beatty addresses his poignant portrayal of modern slavery, while launching a totally separate critique of  internships in America. On a broader scale, while the novel centers around themes of racial inequality, media’s role in the Civil Rights Movement, and segregation, it also critiques seemingly unrelated topics ranging from economic theory, modern philosophy,  and the Pew Research Center. On one level, Beatty often combines seemingly separate themes for comedic affect. More deeply however, by combining almost all aspects of American culture with his overarching critique of race-relations and identity in America, Beatty urges that, wether implicit or explicit, racism permeates all aspects of todays culture. Further, the confusion the reader may feel while dissecting the connections between Beatty’s plentiful allusions reflects the nebulous nature of race and identity in America. In acknowledging race’s complexity, Beatty’s is decidedly not championing a panacea for todays problems, but rather calling the reader to follow the narrator’s lead in unearthing the racial complexities that lie underneath American culture.

On page 273-274, Beatty acknowledges the lack of discussion regarding race in the US. He notices that it has disappeared both as a result of post-Civil Rights movement sentiments, that race isn’t an “issue anymore,” and because of sensitivity regarding race. It’s difficult to have an open conversation if one side refuses to acknowledge the problem or is unsure of how to go about talking about it. But likewise, in order move forward there must be discussion, whether it be right or wrong, so that a comprehensive view of race in the US is developed.

The narrator notes how “before the internet, before the hip-hop, the spoken-word poetry, the Kara Walker silhouettes” white people did not care what black people did (230). The black experience “used to come with lots of bullshit, but at least there was fucking privacy” (230). The narrator states how fashion and slang “didn’t cross over until years after the fact” (230). I think Beatty includes this rant to speak on the cultural appropriation of black culture. It is not something that is obvious to many people and still is a difficult concept to grasp for many people who don’t come from communities of color. I think this form of isolation that the narrator is nostalgic about is also a form of segregation. In order to protect black culture, it had to be unknown to white society and private. It is troubling to me where the line between admiration for black culture and exploitation of it exists. I thought the reference to Kara Walker was also confusing because I saw her as an artist trying to express black and white conceptions of race, gender, sexuality, violence and sexuality. Is breaking into previously white dominated areas like art museums and collections another way you lose your privacy as a black person? Is this the cost of being successful in a white society?  Many things from fashion, dance and music are rooted in black communities but are making it to the mainstream more and more each day. The lack of privacy Beatty notes makes the black experience available to more people that don’t really care to know about it but instead, want to play a role or explore a new fashion trend. I’m interested on what you guys think about this.  

Something our discussion in class made me think about is physical segregation, notably the white line that the narrator paints around “Dickens.” One thing I wanted to point out in particular was Marpessa’s reaction to the white line when she crossed it. She says, ” “soon as we crossed that white line you painted, it was like, you know, when you enter a banging-ass house party and shit’s bumping, and you get that thump in your chest and you be like, if I were to dies right now, I wouldn’t give a fuck. It was like that. Crossing the threshold (203).” This form of segregation is imaginative (the line doesn’t really mean anything), symbolic (the community gives it meaning- denotes Dickens), and physical. In particular, I find it interesting how when we associate meaning to something it takes on a whole other dimension. In reality it is just a white line but for Marpessa and the Dickens community, it becomes so significant and real to them. By crossing that barrier, Marpessa felt a kind of rush, a high. There’s power in what we give power to.

I think its interesting how successful segregation continues to be. In this section of reading, we see the effect the Wheaton school has had on the students performance. They have all become more dedicated. What does this say that it takes segregation to promote unity within minority populations, to increase performance and effort? Do you guys think segregation would take the same course in real life?

It seems like a tiny issue to ignore people in the daily live. It is normal that sometimes you feel dislike any specific group of people. In The Sellout, the narrator was slapped by his grandmother and his parents because this black man claims that he is white (188). Moreover, the black kids are not allowed to receive the education in the white kids’ school (193). What is wrong to be born as a black person? Why shouldn’t people blame them just because they are black? In American society in the past decades, racial discrimination becomes a tense issue when it has relentlessly happened in the society. Paul Beatty said, “When someone whiter than us, blacker than us, Chineser than us, better than us, whatever than us, comes around throwing their equality in our faces, it brings out our need to impress, to behave, to tuck in our shirts, do our homework, show up on time, make our free throws, teach, and prove our self-worth in hopes that we won’t be fired, arrested, or trucked away and shot” (208). This piece of evidence proves that Americans treat the racial issue seriously unlike its appearance just as the non-violent activities. Paul Beatty also compares the racial discrimination to the tension in North Korea (196) which makes the racial issue more serious and it needs more attention from American people to solve it as soon as possible.

Though discussed briefly, Beatty does talk about how blackness is measured in Dickens. His sentiment, which is as follows, “everyone in Dickens, regardless of race, was black and you determined someone’s degree of blackness not by skin color but by whether they said “For all intents and purposes” or “For all intensive purposes” (164),” is contextually based after Sheila Clark accused a white boy of stealing on her “balls.” Beatty points out the “white” boy is actually latino. This got me thinking about how race is used in the novel. As noted with Charisma, she believes she is black and must be reminded when her mom comes to town of her Mexican heritage. What does it mean to be black? What does it mean to be white? Are these constructions fluid or fixed? Can a black person be white? and a white black? Is Beatty’s comment about who is black relevant and applicable in Bowdoin’s community and on a larger scale, American society? How does this hinder us from seeing other as equally relevant?

When Charisma and the narrator are talking at the school, she comments on how, ever since the sign “priority seating for whites” has been displayed on Marpessa’s bus, the bus has been safe and the people have been exceptionally friendly. When they see the sign, “people grouse at first, but the racism takes them back. Makes them humble” (163). The narrator then gets the notion in his head that in order to bring back Dickens, they need segregation. When reading this, I was confused on the idea. Why would segregation make the bus a safer place? I know Charisma noted that it makes people humble, but what about it makes people humble? Isn’t it segregation that made people rise up and fight for their rights?

Something I found particularly interesting from this reading was Marpessa’s assertion that white people fear having their “piece of the American Dream” stolen by a black person. This notion made me think about the current political climate. The way Marpessa describes the American Dream here seems to be in alignment with a lot of what is said today that helped Trump get elected: a major reason that a lot of Trump supporters want to tighten the reins on immigration as well as bring jobs back to America is because they think that opportunities that are rightfully theirs are being taken away. In this sense, they too fear their piece of the American Dream is being stolen from them by someone they view as less deserving. This view is also completely opposite from what we read from MLK, who said that no one’s American Dream can truly be attained without everyone’s being attained. Whose version do you all agree with more? Why?

The narrator notes how “offendedness” is not a real emotion and does not know how one should react when this word is pronounced in a “clear and sober voice” (130). Beatty mocking people that say they are offended shows how many social interactions surrounding race are caught up euphemisms and not easily translatable to discussion. Instead of noting pain or overt racism, offended just notes something wrong has been said. Marpessa calls the narrator a “race pervert” for his  comments and notes that on his own time he cross dresses as a white man. This alludes to how “traitors” of their own communities are always seen as wanting to be white. If the narrator is willing to organize a segregated bus and not see how the term “offended” is logical, he must be a traitor to his own race. In this way, the narrator embodies the “sellout” or “coon” image  he already has with the black intellectuals. I think Beatty highlights this moment to show how even within communities of color, one’s identity and authenticity is constantly being challenged and called into question.

On page 167, the narrator’s father states that “you can’t force integration boy. People who want to integrate will integrate.”  This reminds me of a contrast shown in my comp gov class between de facto and de justo states- de facto states uphold certain democratic values on paper, while de justo states support the constitutional promises through active investment. In the context of the book, this questions how effective the Civil Rights movement really was- did it just accomplish de facto changes but fail to enact societal mindset regarding race?

Something I found ironic as I was reading about Hominy is that fact that the most freeing he has every felt has been acquired by his becoming (or accepting?- i don’t know) his role as a slave. What is the statement Beatty is making with Hominy (which sounds like Harmony)? Push back on me if you disagree, but I’m willing to assert that Beatty is making a comment about black peoples perception of themselves in America. Perhaps Hominy feels so free because he recognized what he is in the world/ how the world views him.

I thought one of the funniest moments in the book so far is when Foy Cheshire presents his reworked version of Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn”. In addition to altering the plot line, Foy changes the novel’s title to “The Pejorative-Free Adventures and Intellectual and Spiritual Journeys of African-American Jim and His Young Protégé, White Brother Huckleberry Finn, as They Go in Search of the Lost Black Family Unit”. I feel as though there is so much to unpack both in this title and in the fact that Foy felt the need to make these changes. For example, the emphasis on race and Foy’s need to comment on the race of each character, even within the title, is quite unusual and I think tells a lot about Foy’s character. What did you all think of this?

I have to say reading this book has been quite a roller coster. Paul Beatty’s satire is amazing- I find that the messages that underline his stories are so much more powerful because of how he delivers them.

One prime example that sticks out to me is in the beginning of the book is when the woman says “some of my best friends are monkeys.” The comparison of black people to animals allows one to step back and assess how ridiculously racist and ignorant the real statement of “some of my best friends are black” sounds. The way he dug out his point was flawless. He has clearly establishes and gets the point across that many black people have tried to argue but that has generally fallen on death ears.  Not only does the statement take on a fetishist tone, it also reveals the blatant justification people feel like they have because someone they know is black and are somehow in touched with what it means to be black in America.

This is just one of the many points in the books where the implicit message has so seamlessly be stitched out from the story.

The narrator talks about how the town of Dickens vanished quietly. There was never a story in the newspaper or anything about the matter announced. One day, it just simply was not there anymore. No one seemed to care about the occurrence and some were relieved that they no longer needed to be identified as a “Dickensian”. The narrator describes Dickens’s disappearance as a “blatant conspiracy by the surrounding, increasingly affluent, two-car-garage communities to keep their property values up and blood pressure down” (57). The way the matter quietly slipped away made me wonder, what else is not being talked about? Media controls so much of what we learn, so when a matter is blatantly hushed, we have to consider the things we aren’t hearing.

I also was very confused on the last line of this reading when Hominy tells the narrator that he has “to stop seeing us as individuals” because in doing so he is not “seeing the plantation for the niggers” (80). It seems to me that this is foreshadowing the narrator’s later decision to become the owner of slaves, but I don’t quite see the connection. What do you think he means by a plantation specifically FOR black people, and how could this lead the narrator to adopt a slave-owner mentality?