I really enjoyed reading the poetry of Langston Hughes. Not only because his poems were beautifully written, but also because they employed a powerful political message. His poems got me thinking about the idea of art being used for propaganda. Especially concerning his "Theme for English B", I realized that art can also be used to further a social cause. Like the title of this section states, 'The Quest for Racial Equality', I think that even something as simple as a poem can make a big impact.
One thing that really stood out to me was that Hughes poetry didn't seem to radiate with anger towards white people. He seemed to long for equality for both races more than anything.
Looking at line 31, Hughes writes:
"You are white-
yet a part of me, as I am a part of you.
That's American.
Sometimes perhaps you don't want to be a part of me.
Nor do I often want to be a part of you.
But we are, that's true!"
I admire him greatly for his beautiful writing style, but more for his attitude. He had a desperate desire to be free from racial discrimination, but his life wasn't colored by hate, just by a desire for change for the better.
It really seems to contrast with the message of Malcolm X. His writing from Grass Roots on page 106 made me feel really uncomfortable. He writes:
"We have this in common: We have a common oppressor, a common exploiter, and a common discriminator. But once we all realize that we have a common enemy-on the basis of what we have in common. And what we have foremost in common is that enemy-the white man."
It seems like Malcolm X has the reverse attitude of Hughes. Now, I am in no way trying to discount the extreme injustices that African Americans faced at the hands of white people. However, I do think that the writings of these two men are just so drastically different in their outlook on life and the problems they were facing at the time. I think that the old phrase "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" really applies here. It seems to me that more people would be willing to listen and understand someone like Langston Hughes. His message seemed so much more positive and definitely less threatening. And while I completley understand that Malcolm X had a very good reason to be angry, I don't see why he would think violence was the answer to his problems. It was violence and discrimination and hatred that caused the problems in the first place.
I understand what you mean about Hughes. It doesn't seem as though he writes with hatred. He simply states the facts of the social life around him. He doesn't write to belittle another person for their actions. You are also right about Malcolm X. He was an extremist during his times, but his motions for violence against the white race were answered by many. Though he and Martin Luther King were working toward the same goals, they worked from different angles as you have pointed out in comparing Malcolm X to Hughes. You are really on to something. After all people responded much better to King than Malcolm X, so it makes sense that you see Hughes as a better messenger.
ReplyDelete