Murder vs. Manslaughter

         After much discussion of the book Native Son in class and much reading and thought outside of class, I think it is important that the differentiation between what Bigger's crime versus Mary Dalton was and what the public perceived it to be. Distinguishing each can have a huge affect on how the reader sees Bigger and his actions, and ultimately change whether he is a sympathetic character or not. Most people who read the novel understand that when Bigger killed Mary it was wholly in the moment, yet it was not a crime of passion. Yes, his emotions (namely fear) took hold of him, but at the same time he did not understand that what he was doing was killing her. He was so utterly distracted by the threatening presence of Mrs. Dalton that he was therefore incapable of noticing the Mary was dying under the pillow beside him, making this manslaughter by modern terms. However, these readers (including us) continually refer to this as a straight murder. Even the readers who are intended to understand Bigger and maybe even sympathize with him speak out against him whenever this "murder" is mentioned.

        So what does that mean for us? We are influenced by the way Bigger saw the situation. His pride in breaking free of the nothingness his life had been so far caused him to view the predicament as being his fault (which it was) but having been done purposefully. He warped his memory to convince himself that something in him was protesting his situation. Therefore, I find myself and my peers referring to the incident incorrectly as murder. Fixing it in our minds that he purposefully took the life of another human being makes him look a heck of a lot more deserving of his fate than if we analyze the situation and remember that the whole thing was an accident. I find that I root for Bigger much more strongly when I remember that he had no choice. However, that sympathy and understanding turns to pity when I see how he struggles to take control of the only situation he can by convincing himself that he was unequivocally guilty.

          This brings us to the next reason that this difference is so important: Manslaughter implies that he had no choice and was destined for doom, while the cold-blooded murder Bigger is accused of can only be the result of free will.  The truth of the situation, (that this was an accident), supports the theme of literary naturalism in this book because if Bigger did not make the choice on his own to murder this girl and therefore determine his future, he must have been destined for the electric chair form the very beginning, as his mother told him. Thus, understanding and sympathy towards Bigger's situation grow further, as we realize that he was forced to commit murder by someone; we assume it was the social forces and racial inequalities, and is therefore far from self-butchering and merely an example of the toll these factors can have on a person's psyche.

          A call for distinction could definitely be sent to Wright's critics as well.  Burton Rascoe of American Mercury asserts that because Bigger is obviously a model of millions of black Americans and he uses murder and violence to settle his scores with whites, that Wright must be calling for these masses to rise up and act similarly. David L Cohn makes a similar claim. These two must not have read carefully enough, because when responding to the novel both spoke of the supposed murder as being purposeful, thus giving Bigger free will and turning him from the not-so-innocent pawn of larger forces into a bloodthirsty maniac who many people would support imposing the death penalty upon.

        Lastly, to touch on the unfairness and impossibility of Bigger's predicament one last time, I would like to point out that had this man been either of a different race or more modern time, he would have certainly been given the benefit of the distinction between murder and manslaughter. He would have been given a chance to say tell a jury that it was an accident (although....
a) he might not do so because of his warped memory (not even a direct choice-- Bigger is willless)
b) this situation would not have occured if either case were true
 Just saying, today the difference between sentences can be as broad as 8 years in prison and a fine versus the death penalty. It is just sad that no one, not even Mr. Max who actually knew the truth, and especially not Bigger himself, bothered to refer to this incident as an accident: manslaughter, not murder.

Protest Poems and Petty Populations

"Theme for English B" by Langston Hughes

            The other poems that we read by Steptoe and Durem were pretty straightforward protest poems; they disliked the idea of white poets or any poets for that matter ignoring the suffering of black people or trying to cast it in a lighter tone. They did it in such a way that it appeared that they were protesting in a violent way--the language was harsh and clipped, and it sounded as if they were yelling. In my opinion, while "Theme for English B" does not follow the same pattern as these two, or in fact most protest poems, it retains aspect of a protest, but without the attitude. The character speaking obviously has some quibbles in regards to the perceived equality of his white writing instructor and himself by the white population. Especially towards the end of the poem, these come out. He states "You are white--  /  but a part of me, as I am a part of you.  /  That's American." I interpreted this line to mean that he takes issue with the idea that is held by most of white America; that he and his instructor are in separate worlds and in no way comparable. Thus, here he is replacing this notion with a new one: we are both Americans and make up part of the population. We share many qualities and are therefore part of each other. Another part of the poem in which protest is evident is in the penultimate line, "[You are] slightly more free." In this case the speaker is merely stating the truth of the current ramifications of racial division. Again, this blunt representation of their varying statuses is a form of protest in that he is not being at all submissive to the norm, but rather speaking out truthfully. Therefore, I consider this poem to be a form of nonviolent protesting when compared to "To the Pale Poets" or "Three Legged Chair" because it represents the calm but persistent attitude of nonviolent protests during the civil rights movement.
     

           Interestingly, though, while the nonviolent protests of the past were more effective in making people with stubborn mindsets realize their wrongdoing than those that merely affirmed stereotypes, for me the more moving poems were those that smacked you in the face with images of living in poverty. However, I hope that the speaker's English instructor is enlightened enough to appreciate that the truth of how the speaker was feeling came out in the assignment (as was supposed to happen) rather than writing it off as insubordination.