When I have to restrain myself

Republished with a few changes from my blog for the counterculture oral history project.

Have you ever been sitting in a class, listening to a teacher and just wishing everyone in the room could be making the same epic connection as you?

I had one of those experiences last week. We were reading a book called Ragtime by E.L. Doctorow. It was written in 1974, so just at the end of the time our counterculture documentary wraps up. We were talking about this character Younger Brother, who puts on blackface and hangs out with this gang of black radicals who are threatening to blow up J.P. Morgan’s art gallery in about 1913. Now, this didn’t actually happen, but in our discussion we were talking about what Doctorow was trying to say about whites who were involved in black radical causes and whether they are real or posers. And that just took me into a land of counterculture thoughts.

In my seat I was jumping up and down, biting my tongue to keep from blathering on and on about how the dynamic between African Americans and whites in the counterculture era is one of the most interesting things that comes out in our script and in all the interviews we have.

The section about Project 500 has probably some of the most obvious examples of this. One of our Caucasian interviewees told a story that I think really sums it up in a unique way. She talks about how she was proud of her non-materialistic leanings, of not living in a fancy place, because she wanted to be outside the materialistic norm. And she talks about how confused she was by African Americans who were demanding better housing when she was so proud of the drafty conditions.

Clarence Shelley, one of our interviewees, summed it up the difference between the causes students were interested in really well:

“The Vietnam war, for example, was not a black issue at first. Black students’ concerns were much more personal. They wanted reactions and safeguards against violence, against police brutality, against students having demonstrations and sit-ins. If the issue didn’t deal with a racial problem it didn’t mean as much to them. Whereas the white kids were concerned about things like free speech. About, well, the war was a big one. The uses of recreational drugs, all that stuff. Whereas the black students’ concerns had much more to do with how they were treated, how they were accepted.”

Most of the other examples hit on the same themes as above. Sometimes it is African Americans explaining why they thought the hippie movement was pointless, an exercise of affluent white students. Sometimes they are white students sharing their confusion about why their efforts to be involved with the civil rights movement were rejected or dismissed by black students.

So what was Doctorow saying about this issue in American culture? Was he affirming whites who put on blackface (metaphorically) and were involved in the civil rights movement or was he pointing out how easily they could leave the movement and not have to face any consequences in their daily lives?

Personally, I think Doctorow is affirming the efforts of anyone who takes part in trying to right racial injustice in America, whether they are the victims or not. Younger Brother doesn't strike me as undermined. I don't think he is jokingly participating in Coalhouse's little band. He seems to genuinely believe in the cause and be willing to sacrifice. He literally puts on the blackface and goes to the extreme for his belief in the rights of Coalhouse.

Now whether Doctorow is affirming the use of violence in the struggle for justice is the topic for another blog post, because you could fill books on the issue!