Friday 7 March 2008

Stealing

Explain Wright's moral dilemma concerning stealing. Is he justified in what he does?
~
He has never considered stealing before because he didn't think that stealing was an effective way to get anything. He views stealing as behaviour that makes blacks seem less equal to whites, because it's something whites can despise about blacks and so he also doesn't want to act as if he is inferior. However, after the incident at the eye people, he decides he has to leave the South or else he knows he'll slip up and get killed. However, he needs money. He isn't making enough money on his own. After his moral barriers break down a little after he smuggles liquor like everyone else, he finally does decide to take part in doing some illegal selling of tickets to get enough money to leave. I think he is justified in what he does. Getting killed and/or remaining miserable helps nobody, least of all him. Compunctions against stealing are all well and good when one isn't struggling for one's very existence. I think it's commendable that Wright held out as long as he did. I don't know that I would have. And since the white people were apparently practically encouraging blacks to steal, it might be what they deserve.

Wednesday 5 March 2008

Live in the South

What does Griggs mean by ‘learn how to live in the south’?
~
He means that Wright has to learn how to act around whites- as if he is inferior. That Wright has to be subservient to them and not protest and not ask questions or act as if he were equal to whites. That the south is like that and if Wright doesn't learn to live in the south, then bad things will happen. He says this because Wright is having trouble acting the way he is supposed to. Griggs is concerned for him- knowing that if Wright doesn't 'learn to live in the south' by not suppressing his own equality, then he could get beaten or worse.

Speech, justified?

Is Wright justified in refusing to say the speech?
~
Yes. If he had wanted to continue with his education, go to college, etc., then refusing would not have been justified. The principal's speech might not have been what Wright wanted to say, but it was only a ninth-grade graduation speech that wouldn't have been remembered. I don't think anyone involved would have particularly cared after a year or so. So it would have been silly not to say a speech that didn't matter for a goal that did. However, Wright is perfectly fine with not teaching, not going to college, not continuing with his education. Because he doesn't care and doesn't want to continue living down south, the speech doesn't matter- nor does what the principal thinks of him. Sticking up for what he thinks he should say is justified, because there would be no reason to capitulate. So, yes, he is justified.

Monday 3 March 2008

Uncle Tom

His Uncle Tom takes something he said the wrong way and goes to beat him for it. Wright doesn't understand what he said that was so wrong. He is angry because he feels that his Uncle Tom has no right to beat him. Tom has had no say in how Wright was brought up, has not cared for him before and is basically just a stranger to him. What happens is similar to what Wright said before, in chapter 1 I think, that 'only a father has the right to beat a child'. He doesn't know Tom, doesn't think Tom cares for him and doesn't like Tom and so refuses to be taught how to behave from someone he doesn't even know, for something he doesn't think is even an issue.