Author: Victor

While reading Sean Wilentz’s “American Slavery and ‘the Relentless Unforeseen’,” I felt enthralled by the idea that, because the history of past events is written as something inevitable, we underestimate the frightening nature of those events as they happened during those times. It was something I had never deeply thought about before because, as Wilentz implied, people like me who had not read this before would initially regard history as a record of inevitable events. Consequently, this idea conflicts with Hannah Jones’s claim that Black people always knew that their efforts would contribute to the ideals of freedom and equality in America. While it is true that Blacks have fought for their rights and ultimately succeeded in history, there was no guarantee during the time of those events that they could have succeeded. This weakens Jones’s idea that racial inequality and the Blacks’ indignation at said inequality was the crux of American freedom and equality. 

At the beginning of the article, Wilentz described how despite the popular moral indignation at slavery during the seventeenth century, it was not strong enough to encourage political action against. This raises doubt for the concept that “Blacks succeeding at their rebellion against slavery was an inevitability,” as Jones would suggest in “The 1619 Project.” One could certainly interpret the definition of the concept as, “the rebellion against slavery would have succeeded one day, just not now.” In this case, the concept could be treated as an opinion or belief rather than some sort of inevitability or “truth” of history. In light of this, it is interesting to see how the works of Hannah Jones and Sean Wilentz interact with each other; Although they both talk about the concept of slavery and what happened during the times when slavery had been utilized, they contradict each other in how they approach the subject of slavery and its historical impact.

I am also surprised and interested in the amount of descriptive detail that Wilentz provides in his article. For example, I was never aware of how even during the early stages of slavery in the Anglo-American world, there had been actual moral uproar against slavery. Before reading this, I had assumed that the populace during those times would have mostly endorsed slavery since the slaves during those times could be treated as “subhuman.”  In his article, Wilentz also touches upon the modern and pessimistic view that the nation of the United States is rooted in the cruel and proliferating slavery that besmirches the American ideals of freedom and equality amongst all people. Wilentz conflicts with this view by talking about how the modern populace seems to know too little or none at all that the United States was also rooted in the actual conflict against slavery because it contradicted the ideals of freedom that encouraged the American Revolution. Through his descriptive details and analysis of U.S. history in relation to slavery, Wilentz has been able to present a sort of objective and complete view of the interactions between slavery and America as well as the rest of the world.

Throughout Hannah Jones’s “The 1619 Project,” she has emphasized the idea that the efforts of African-Americans were what created and achieved the ideals of freedom and equality as the indisputable truth of American history. In her piece, Jones discussed the many things that African-Americans had contributed to most of America’s great successes and triumphs, including their contribution of cotton that accounted for “half of America’s exports and 66 percent of the world’s supply” back when cotton was considered to be the nation’s most valuable good.  This may relate to more recent immigrants, as they contribute to the diversity and prosperity of America by making a living there.

Through her use of “we” and “us,” Jones indicates that Black Americans were the ones who perfected democracy and allowed the rest of America’s citizens to prosper. In this case, it is not possible for the “we” and “us” to include every individual person with equality, because Jones’s words imply that it was not the white people who perfected democracy or contributed to America’s success, it was solely the Black Americans. In a sense, this seems to be a reasonable claim to make since white slave owners in the past mostly left labor to Black Americans and it seems that it was only when Black slaves rebelled that Americans became fully conscious of the concept of human rights for the first time. 

At the very core of the nation of the U.S.A., I don’t believe it to be an evil, unjust, and racist society. This is because determining evil is a subjective matter that pertains to the individual’s beliefs and moral principles. While most people today would agree that slavery was evil, it can’t be denied that slavery was useful and efficient for those with the authority to utilize it. In this case, it could be argued from said authority’s point of view that they have the right to utilize slavery and believe it’s not evil. However, that is not to say that slavery wasn’t unjust to the victims of slavery; it was the opposite for them. Given the subjective nature of evil, it can’t be said that the United States is inherently evil at its very foundation. As for whether or not the U.S.A. is a racist society, I would say that it’s not. I would even say that as a whole, the structure of the U.S.A.’s society supports a diverse and anti-racist climate. It is because of this diverse climate that the U.S.A. is able to progress so far as a nation by accepting all manner of techniques and belief systems from other nations, creating a melting pot of races that intermingle with one another for the sake of their freedoms and prosperity. While it is true that there are some areas in the U.S. where racism does occur, they cannot be said to be indicative of American society as a whole. As an Asian person living in America, I don’t act racist against other people as it would not benefit me in any way and would prevent me from making beneficial and enjoyable relationships with other people.

When I first read the chapter, “Aguantando” in Junot Diaz’s “Drown,” I felt a sense of sympathy for Yunior who has never seen his father for most of his life. I would not be able to imagine what my life would have been like if my father was not present in my own life. My father was a person who taught me how to diligently do my academic work and taught me to always persevere and improve my flaws. In Yunior’s case, it’s unfortunate that his father had not returned to the family as promised, as though he was neglecting the family. When I read this portion of the text, I felt convinced that the father was neither a decent father or even a good husband as he had left his wife to expect his return, only to be met with crushing disappointment. In this sense, it is not strange for everyone in the family to feel displeasure when the father sends a letter to them, again promising that he would return to bring them over the United States. Considering the information given to the reader about the father and his relationship to the family in this chapter, it can be said that the father’s absence had such a large influence on the children’s growth that, by the time he actually would bring them to the United States, they had grown to be critical of their father. However, despite their low expectations for their father, they imagine how the father would one day return to their barrio and would revitalize his relationship with the family. This is interesting in the sense that, although the siblings are disappointed by the father’s absence, they still wait and have some sort of respect for him in the hopes that everything will turn out to be ok once he returns.
The next chapter, “Drown,” presents an interesting perspective on homosexuality via Yunior’s narration and his relationship with Beto. In the chapter, Yunior’s relationship with Beto began as a trusting relationship between two friends. It would seem that Yunior gave more credence to Beto than to his own father, who he regarded as “a real asshole.” This was shown when Yunior keeps shoplifting with Beto, ignoring his father’s warning about getting caught and getting tossed away like a “bad piece of meat.” As the relationship continues, it becomes evident that the relationship is gradually changing in ways that Yunior is uncomfortable with. At one point, when the two were watching a porn movie in Beto’s house, Beto had begun to touch Yunior in a sexual manner. This causes Yunior to leave the house in panic as he attempts to understand what just happened. At this point, it’s interesting how despite the fact that he does not want to become pato, or gay, Yunior greatly valued his friendship with Beto and so kept in contact with him despite the incident.
“Boyfriend” is a chapter that presents an unknown narrator. It is likely that the narrator is Rafa, given that both share a history of having relationships with multiple women. However, the narrator could also be Yunior at some point in his life because like this chapter’s narrator, Yunior had also reflected on his past relationship with a woman. A possible reason why the narrator this time is unknown may be that the author wants to draw attention to how the narrator possesses characteristics reminiscent of both Yunior and Rafa. It’s interesting to learn of the possibility that at some point, Yunior or Rafa had a relationship similar to the Boyfriend and Girlfriend described in the story.