Maybe 3.5 stars.
This is a collection of essays by, and interviews with, Ralph Ellison from the mid 20th century discussing race, culture, and the arts. They range from literary reviews of Faulkner, Wright, and Crane, to film reviews, to discussion of Jazz artists such as Charlie Parker, Mahalia Jackson, Charlie Christian, and Jimmy Rushing. It’s easy to see how this book could have inspired similar collections of cultural critiques by James Baldwin (which I have to admit are generally more trenchant, provocative, and entertaining).
Apparently before he pivoted to writing, Ellison was planning for a career as a musician, so he had quite a bit of experience and insight in the realm of music in general, and jazz in particular.
Many of these essays are worthwhile. I imagine that they would have been even more powerful during the time they were written, but it seems—as is the case for many artistic geniuses—Ellison’s gifts may not have been fully appreciated during his own time.
I highlighted quite a bit of material in this book, but here are a few passages that are worth saving:
Re how creativity is more important than racial identity:
“For no group within the United States achieves anything without asserting its claims against the counterclaims of other groups.
“Thus as Americans we have accepted this conscious and ceaseless struggle as a condition of our freedom, and we are aware that each of our victories increases the area of freedom for all Americans, regardless of color. When we finally achieve the right of full participation in American life, what we make of it will depend upon our sense of cultural values, and our creative use of freedom, not upon our racial identification. I see no reason why the heritage of world culture—which represents a continuum—should be confused with the notion of race. […]”The demands of state policy are apt to be more influential than morality. I would like to see a qualified Negro as President of the United States. But I suspect that even if this were today possible, the necessities of the office would shape his actions far more than his racial identity.”
[p 271-2]
Re the portrayal of Black people in cinema:
“We are recalling all this not so much as a means of indicting Hollywood as by way of placing Intruder in the Dust, and such recent films as Home of the Brave, Lost Boundaries and Pinky, in perspective. To direct an attack upon Hollywood would indeed be to confuse portrayal with action, image with reality. In the beginning was not the shadow, but the act, and the province of Hollywood is not action, but illusion. Actually, the anti-Negro images of the films were (and are) acceptable because of the existence throughout the United States of an audience obsessed with an inner psychological need to view Negroes as less than men. Thus, psychologically and ethically, these negative images constitute justifications for all those acts, legal, emotional, economic and political, which we label Jim Crow. The anti-Negro image is thus a ritual object of which Hollywood is not the creator, but the manipulator. Its role has been that of justifying the widely held myth of Negro unhumanness and inferiority by offering entertaining rituals through which that myth could be reaffirmed.”
[p276]
Re how white America has used social science as an excuse to disenfranchise Black people:
“Since its inception, American social science has been closely bound with American Negro destiny. Even before the Civil War the Southern ruling class had inspired a pseudo-scientific literature attempting to prove the Negro inhuman and thus beyond any moral objections to human slavery. Sociology did not become closely concerned with the Negro, however, until after Emancipation gave the slaves the status—on paper at least—of nominal citizens. And if the end of the slave system created for this science the pragmatic problem of adjusting our society to include the new citizens, the compromise between the Northern and Southern ruling classes created the moral problem which Myrdal terms the American Dilemma.
“This was a period, the 1870s, wherein scientific method, with its supposed objectivity and neutrality to values, was thought to be the answer to all problems. There is no better example of the confusion and opportunism springing from this false assumption than the relation of American social science to the Negro problem. And let us make no easy distinctions here between Northern and Southern social scientists; both groups used their graphs, charts and other paraphernalia to prove the Negro's biological, psychological, intellectual and moral inferiority; one group to justify the South's exploitation of Negroes and the other to justify the North's refusal to do anything basic about it.
“Here was a science whose role, beneath its illusionary non-concern with values, was to reconcile the practical morality of American capitalism with the ideal morality of the American Creed.”
[p 305]