Madeline Apgar

In a passage by Coates on page 104, he goes into great detail about the historical physical destruction of the black body and concludes with the recognition of the societal division it has led to, “It could only be the employment of carriage whips, tongs, iron pokers, handsaws, stones, paperweights, or whatever might be handy to break the black body, the black family, the black community, the black nation. The bodies were pulverized into stock and marked with insurance. And the bodies were an aspiration, lucrative as Indian land, a veranda, a beautiful wife, or a summer home in the mountains. For the men who needed to believe themselves white, the bodies were the key to a social club, and the right to break the bodies was the mark of civilization” (Coates 104). This harrowing interpretation of the slave experience exposes the truth of the objectification of black people, and describes how upper class white society physically beat them down to be predestined for the lower class both literally and perceptually. Coates quotes former Vice President John C. Calhoun, an adamant defendant of slavery, who openly admits the unwillingness of American society to accept black people as equals and condones it, “‘And all the former [white people], the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals’” (Coates 104). Reading these words, having been said by one of our country’s leaders, reveals the reality of the goals of the majority of America’s white population at the time, which was to make the black body out to be a lesser being of less worth, to be refused to associate with the “best” of Americans. Coates describes that white Americans saw themselves as having a right to break the black body, and then stand over and look down on it. This historical quote unveiled the severity of racism at the time of the Civil War. 

1. “For the men who needed to believe themselves white, the bodies were the key to a social club, and the right to break the bodies was the mark of civilization. ‘The two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black,’ said the great South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun. ‘And all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals’” (104). How do you think this idea functions to establish race – and not class or wealth – as a key division in the mid-1800s in this country?

John C. Calhoun’s idea about the divisions of society functions to establish black people as lesser people. He makes it clear that they are to be considered as even less than impoverished white Americans, saying that poor white people should be respected and treated as equals even though they are poor, suggesting that black people regardless of their level of wealth or success are of less worth. This reveals the inhumane nature of John C. Calhoun’s mindset and anyone who thought as he did, as well as showing Calhoun’s view of black people as simply being objects of monetary worth but not human. He makes it sound as if white people are the only people, as if class is only attributed to white people and the class of black people is entirely irrelevant because they are worthless regardless of their status of wealth or place in society. Knowledge of Calhoun’s idea of race conveys the mindset of any member of the Pro-Slavery movement at the time of the Civil War. Of course, there were other major economic and practical reasons why Southern Slave owners did not want to give up their slaves, but any person who disagreed with Calhoun at all would not be able to morally accept the fact that they own another person. This idea solidifies the objectification of black people in the minds of slave owners. 

3. Your choice II: Choose any other passage from our reading for today. Set it up, quote it, and raise a comment or question about it.

“Not long ago I was standing in an airport retrieving a bag from a conveyor belt. I bumped into a young black man and said “My bad.” Without even looking up he said, “You straight.” And in that exchange there was so much of the private rapport that can only exist between two particular strangers of this tribe that we call black. In other words, I was part of a world. And looking, I had friends who too were part of other worlds– the world of Jews or New Yorkers, the world of Native Americans, or a combination of any of these, worlds stitched together like a tapestry. And though I could never, myself, be a native of any of these worlds, I knew that nothing so essentialist as race stood between us” (Coates 119-120).I chose this passage to comment on because I found it to be one particular idea in this book that Coates did not communicate well. I honestly found his example to be ridiculous. The idea that the world– and we could even boil it down to the United States– is full of cultures not formed simply out of race but out of things like communities or religions is an idea that I agree is a beautiful and interesting thing. I mainly had a problem with the example he used, he recounts the situation as though no one from another race or culture or whatever would be able to communicate the same way with that man in his story. Or maybe he was trying to say that the man wouldn’t have communicated with him that way in the first place if Coates wasn’t black. This example presents an idea of exclusivity that isn’t the same beautiful as the shared traditions of Jewish people or the shared way of life of a New Yorker. There are ideas of African-American culture in America that would much better represent the unique aspects of the black community that are there. Sometimes the way Coates talks about these things that don’t necessarily have to do with racism but cultural differences is so exclusive, and he seems to intentionally exclude white people. Everyone everywhere is a part of a culture that is often unique and beautiful, and Coates feels the need to attribute a common culture to all black people and not do the same for the entirety of any other race. Maybe this is justified because black people have been discriminated against based on their race alone, and maybe he sees that as the reason why they have developed a culture that is uniquely and exclusively their own.

1. In the first section of Part II, Coates describes the way he learned about Prince Jones’s death and the circumstances surrounding it. Choose one of the following ways for approaching this section and write 5-8 sentences in response.
   1. Option 1: Prince Jones was a college friend, but after his killing Coates says he was “the superlative of all my fears” (81). Make at least one text-to-text connection to explain how Jones becomes emblematic of Coates’ fears. Which fears?

In this section, Coates reveals many of his fears and especially those that were added or simply heightened in the welcoming of his son into the world. But Coates’ most profound fear was leaving Samori without a father. As fatherlessness is one of the biggest issues facing black Americans today, Coates greatly feared Samori becoming a victim of this tragedy. That he would, as Prince was, be “not killed by a single officer so much as he was murdered by his country and all the fears that have marked it from birth” (Coates 78). In an elaborately detailed view of what the police could take away from black people unjustly, Coates writes:

“And the plunder was not just of Prince alone. Think of all the tuitions for Montessori and music lessons. Think of the gasoline expended, the treads worn carting him to football games, basketball tournaments, and Little League. Think of the time spent regulating sleepovers. Think of the surprise birthday parties, the daycare, and the reference checks on babysitters. Think of World Book and Childcraft. Think of checks written for family photos. Think of credit cards charged for vacations. Think of soccer balls, science kits, chemistry sets, racetracks, and model trains. Think of all the embraces, all the private jokes, customs, greetings, names, dreams, all the shared knowledge and capacity of a black family injected into that vessel of flesh and bone. And think of how that vessel was taken, shattered on the concrete, and all its holy contents, all that had gone into him, sent flowing back into the earth. Think of your mother, who had no father. And your grandmother, who was abandoned by her father. And your grandfather, who was left behind by his father. And think of how Prince’s daughter was now drafted into those solemn ranks and deprived of her birthright- that vessel which was her father, which brimmed with twenty-five years of love and was the investment of her grandparents and was to be her legacy.” (Coates 81 and 82)

This passage is so long but it completely encompasses the capacity of what killing a man, a father can take away from a family. Coates describes how he wouldn’t want any of the love, time, work, energy, money he puts into his son to be exterminated in a single moment in an act of ignorance. I find it strange how Coates is so disheartened by all of the plunder of material wealth that was invested into the life of Prince Jones. It is as if he disagrees with the notion that these things still had value and purpose in Prince’s life even though it was cut short so tragically and suddenly. It is as if he’s saying that all of those things were spent for nothing, which I would disagree with. In conclusion, Coates is terrified of the possibility that everything he has put into Samori and will put into him, will go to waste in a single moment, the way that it occurred with Prince Jones. 

4. Offer ONE SIGNIFICANT PASSAGE you will be prepared to read and offer as a vehicle for class discussion. Quote the passage and write a few sentences explaining WHY you chose it and WHAT you’d like us to discuss in it.

“I was out of sync with the city. I kept thinking about how southern Manhattan had always been Ground Zero for us. They auctioned our bodies down there, in that same devastated, and rightly named, financial district. And there was once a burial ground for the auctioned there. They built a department store over part of it and then tried to erect a government building over another part. Only a community of right-thinking black people stopped them. I had not formed any of this into a coherent theory. But I did know that Bin Laden was not the first man to bring terror to that section of the city. I never forgot that. Neither should you.” (Coates 86-87). 

I chose this passage because Coates talks about something I never knew or thought about. I have never thought about the city of Manhattan and been reminded of the historically racist and inhumane actions of auctioning off slaves or burying them there. This passage heightened my curiosity to the point of researching the Manhattan Slave Market and it is definitely a well-known fact about the city to its inhabitants. There, at one time, was a slave market on the corner of Pearl Street and Wall Street in New York City where black bodies would be sold.

I found it interesting how this knowledge causes Coates to look at the situation of September 11th in a much different light than I’ve heard the majority think of it. What I would like to discuss is whether or not it seems that Coates is suggesting that industrial America is trying to cover up the darkness of Manhattan’s history by building “a department store over part of it and then tried to erect a government building over another part” (Coates 87). That fact within itself can be used as a metaphor by Coates to say that America and it’s government have been built on the oppression of black people as our government buildings are sitting on top of their buried bodies. Coates goes as far to say that Manhattan was “Ground Zero” for the African-American race. “Ground Zero” is a term used in reference to the ruins of the World Trade Center site. Therefore, it can be assumed that Coates is saying that Manhattan is also the site of the ruins of the African race, or at least their freedom. This informative section by Coates raises the question of what other important dark histories lie under the foundation of America and are yet to be discovered. 

1. The Mecca: Why does Coates refer to Howard University as his Mecca? What does he mean by “the crossroads of the black diaspora” (40)? In your explanation, be sure to include a quote from Coates.

In this section, Coates is alluding to many different religions; Islam, Christianity, Judiasm; and their most sacred territories in this world. He refers to the Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the holiest city of Islam as it was the birthplace of Muhammad and the direction in which any Islamic should pray. He refers to Israel, a holy land of historical sanctuary from enemies and the nation of God. Most significantly, Coates is using the terms in reference to his beloved college, Howard University. He talks about his blissful memories of being there and seeing so many different black people, “[…] I saw everything I knew of my black self multiplied out into seemingly endless variations” (Coates 40). Another thing about Mecca is that it is a well-known tradition that every Islamic person must make the journey to Mecca at least once in their lifetime. Coates refers to Howard University as ” the crossroads of the black diaspora” (Coates 40) which suggests that every black person has made their way to Howard University at least once in their lifetime. It suggests that it is a pitstop African-Americans should make before dispersing themselves across America. Toni Morrison, whom Coates mentions along with many other historically famous black people, attended Howard University before moving onto Cornell University and her promising future in writing. To sum it all up, Howard University is Coates’ Mecca, as well as the Mecca of pretty much every other successful black person. The social aspect of Howard University is sacred ground for black people according to Coates, “[…] crafted to capture and concentrate the dark energy of all African peoples and directly into the student body” (Coates 40). 

2. Coates writes of his “working theory” (46) and “imagining history to be a unified narrative” (47). Why might this have been important for Coates? What did he find or realize in his investigation? In your response, be sure to provide textual evidence from Coates. Note: we’re exploring together; it’s ok not to have all the answers, the right answer, etc.

Coate’s “working theory” is derived from Chancellor Williams’s Destruction of Black Civilization about the “multi-millennial European plunder” and the history of black royalty. The historical luxury and power that black people originated from in Nubian culture and Ancient Egypt, seemed to confort Coates. His “working theory then held all black people as kings in exile” (Coates 46), which conveys that the history of black origins that he delved into revealed that black people were once a “leading” people in the world until they were ripped away from their culture and their nation was destroyed. Coates claims that he still is able to see the beauty that originated from this time of royalty and through the diaspora. In his research, Coates learned with the goal of developing and internalizing a “unified narrative, free of debate, which, once uncovered, would simply verify everything I had always suspected” (Coates 47). There would be no more guarding or hiding of the truth in history. Historically significant people or groups who did bad things would be recognized for those bad things just as much as they are recognized for the good they did, “the smokescreen would lift” (Coates 47). Coates hoped for a historical narrative of truth that could not be argued, that everyone could agree on and accept. This connects to today’s ideas of exposing the wrongs of historical figures and cancel culture.   

3. Your burning question: Help us examine some specific part of Coates’ text by offering a Quotation, providing a 3-4 sentence Comment on it, and asking a Question that follows from the quote and/or comment.

In the section about Coate’s “working theory”, he makes many statements that I find troubling. When discussing the history of black royalty he shares that, “when the Dutch ambassador tried to humiliate her by refusing her a seat, [Queen] Nzinga had shown her power by ordering one of her advisers to all fours to make a human chair of her body. That was the kind of power I sought, and the story of our own royalty became for me a weapon” (Coates 45). Throughout the whole book Coates is condemning white people before their historical tendency to “break the black body”, as he should, but that is especially why I find these statements to be evidence of hypocrisy. Coates demonizes societal hierarchies, and is yet praising a historical high class individual for using her status and power to subject someone she deems less than herself to act as a chair, an object, so that she can sit. Plunder of the body, if you will. I write about this to simply make sense of it to myself, and I still can’t say that I have developed a good understanding of what Coates really means. Later on, Coates concludes this section by proposing the question, “had any people, anywhere, ever been as sprawling and beautiful before?” (Coates 46). This question raises the idea of comparison among peoples which is the race as the child of racism that Coates talks about earlier. Coates’ question is clearly one with goodhearted and sentimental intentions, one that conveys his connection to “his people”. However, Coates is also conveying the idea that different types of people can be attributed with greater beauty than other people, which in a way contradicts ideas of equality. All of this causes me to question Coates’ intentions in writing this book. Is it advocating for equality or the condemnation of race? Coates doesn’t seem to propose any hopeful solutions, so is this work simply written to shine a light upon how racism has impacted him through his experiences and the conclusions he has come to as a result? As a white woman reading this book, I don’t feel like I am the intended audience, and I have a hard time contradicting anything Coates states because I can’t speak from the perspective of a black person. This makes it difficult for me to respond to this writing with anything but empathy while trying to ignore my underlying speculation about the truth behind some of Coates’ claims. Although this book wasn’t written for me, it is enlightening to hear how many black people have felt the weight of the historical oppression of their people and how they make sense of it. 

• We read Bain’s chapter “Learning how to embrace failure.” Let’s begin by emphasizing the learning part: as you look back over the past 8 weeks, what would you say you’ve been learning about yourself? Make a connection from Bain to yourself (text-self) or to your Project 1 Goals (text-text) or to your work on Project 2, or even to your work in other classes.

Over the course of the semester so far, I have begun to notice my habits within my mindset, my learning, and my belief in myself. I have discovered areas in which I succumb to the fixed mindset, which is pretty much any situation where an understanding of something does not come relatively easy to me. In statistics, I will occasionally get an answer wrong over and over, and I only reluctantly will attempt to improve whatever strategy I am implementing. In this class, when I am getting writer’s block or can’t think of a certain word, I will often just stop and give up or procrastinate. I have discovered similar patterns across all of my courses, and am working to combat them with an attempt at Bain’s “self-efficacy”. As I made my goal to declare a major, I knew what I had to do was explore and research my major options as well as examine myself to discover a future that would fit me and satisfy me. I have been able to do research due to the requirements of Project 2, but I’ve also been able to discuss the Pre-Law focus with my friend who is a part of it right now. Everytime she has talked about her classes and the content she is learning about, I think to myself  “Man, I would love to be in that class”. This fact is what is truly convincing me that Political Science and Law are the route I want to take within the next four years. 

• Review your early posts on Carol Dweck’s “growth mindset.” How might you connect Dweck’s description of growth mindset to Bain’s emphasis on the value of failure?

In my earlier posts on Carol Dweck’s “growth mindset”, I reviewed Dweck’s emphasis on her phrase “not yet” and the significant impact it can have on a student’s learning mindset. As Dweck offered, this type of praise from educators teaches students that learning and growth are a process and we should value progress just as much as we value success, as it can make students hardy and resilient learners. Similarly, Bain’s emphasis on the value of failure advocates for failure being a part of the learning process, “people who become highly creative and productive learn to acknowledge their failures, even to embrace them, and to explore and learn from them” (Bain 100). Failing means that you were unsuccessful in doing something the way it was meant to be done, understanding something the way it was meant to be understood, or seeing something the way it was meant to be seen. Therefore, overcoming failure forces you to try harder or use a different strategy  or look at the problem with a different perspective

1. When did you choose to pursue your focus on political science and why?

2. What made you want to continue your education and career in America? (rather than Libya or Egypt)

3. What does the senior thesis/ 4-year research project entail?

4. Can you think of any courses you took throughout your education, that- at a glance- had nothing to do with your major, but still allowed you to be more knowledgeable which helped you in the long run?

5. How important do you think that understanding history and tradition are in understanding politics and law? Why?
6. According to the course catalog, the Pre-Law emphasis focuses on creative problem solving, which would likely become instrumental in being a lawyer in formulating arguments and persuading juries. Is mastery of this skill ultimately learnable, based on your experience with law students? What do some law students have the hardest time learning or mastering?

1. Boyer discusses several tensions in what are often heated discussions of what a college curriculum should entail. Identify one central tension Boyer discusses and describe some of the pros/cons and values behind it. How would you enter the debate, right now? Support your response with a quote from Boyer and at least 4 sentences of explanation.

One of the tensions that commonly arises within discussions of what a college curriculum should look like is a focus of vocational education rather than liberal education. Many argue that the sole purpose of a college education is to meet the requirements of most employment opportunities and there would be much fewer students if this were not the case, “over a third of the undergraduates at public institutions and slightly fewer of those at private ones say that if college did not increase their prospects for employment they would drop out” (Boyer 218). Therefore, employers are looking for applicants with skills and wisdom that cannot be learned or taught on the job. They are looking for smart, knowledgeable employees that will not have to be micromanaged or have their hand held through every learning experience. One of the main arguments of vocational education is that employers want their workers to have learned everything they are going to need to do on the job, all the skills and basic training, in vocational school so that the employers don’t have to do much training. However, this vocational education doesn’t consider the “what” or the “how” or the “why” of the practice and doesn’t account for how the particular profession has changed over time and might change as things progress. Enriching this profession would allow the student to understand what they are doing in a broader sense, understand why they are doing it and learn how they can use their skills to adapt to changes in whatever field they are pursuing. 

2. What is Boyer’s “Enriched Major” idea, and how does he imagine it as a response to a key tension? Support your response with a quote and at least 3 sentences of explanation.

Boyer’s concept “The Enriched Major” intertwines the goals of a liberal education and those of a vocational or specialized education. While some people fear that a liberal education will not allow someone to be successful in launching a student into one particular career, other people are concerned that a education too focused on the goal of a career will not allow the student to learn broadly enough about what the career entails and leave them narrow-minded and unable to excel. The “enriched major” addresses both of these grievances by combining the goals of specialized education and a liberal arts education into an educational experience guided by an enriched major in which a student can study broadly while also focusing on cultivating a deep understanding of one specific major that they plan to pursue as a career. As Boyer explains, “through such a curriculum the student can move from depth to breadth as departments put the specialty in larger context” (Boyer 223), which suggests that the directors of these departments will see to it that students learn about their specialty in many contexts including a historical and traditional one as well as socially, economically, ethically and morally. This contextualization also includes learning about your specialization from the perspective of students focused on other disciplines and maybe being able to observe how each of the types of work you are hoping to do could potentially, or does, affect each other. This also suggests that, if a specialty cannot, for whatever reason, be contextualized in this way, it belongs in a trade school as the goal of a college education is liberal learning. 

3. “Essential questions.” Boyer lists three things a major has to address, through its coursework, in order to be considered “enriched.” Start looking around the UNE website or course catalog of at least two majors you’re considering. Do they seem to be enriched in the way Boyer describes? Provide evidence.

Political Science

Based on the course description and the curriculum requirements, I believe that it is safe to say that the Political Science major at UNE is an enriched major. While this major offers four different future-career-related focuses, Pre-Law, General Concentration, Environmental Politics, and Global Politics, it still emphasizes the implementation of liberal learning principles within the curriculum, “the political science major emphasizes the development of skills in effective writing and speaking, as well as creative problem solving — some of the most useful skills in a wide variety of careers in the public, non-profit and private sectors” (Course Catalog). While this major is very rigorously focused on matters of political science, it is a major that requires very few credit requirements (42-46), which opens the opportunity for exploratory learning in open elective courses and provide a student with a multi-faceted perspective on their major which, I believe, enriches it that much more. 

Marine Affairs

The Marine Affairs major is a very specific focus within itself and specifically to UNE, as it is something that can be studied up close and personal as a career. The course requirements explicitly mention courses such as “Science in Society”, “Environmental Economics” and “General Chemistry I” that all fit Boyer’s criteria for the “enriched major”. The variety of courses as well as a special focus on the major as a career collectively cultivate an enriched major, “suitable for students who are concerned about the marine environment, and are interested in careers in ecosystem and human health interactions, ocean management and political decision making, and marine sustainability science and policies” (Course Catalog).