A Voice for Independence

Who would have thought that in the year 1963 a black man, Malcolm X, would be interviewed by a panel of white men, Chicago journalists Jim Hurlut, Len O’Connor, Floyd Kalber and Charles McCuen, on a national platform arguing among other things elements of white supremacy, racial tension and historicity of slavery in America? At the time of the interview Malcolm X was currently a member of the Nation of Islam, a religious order from which his newly adopted name originated. In the interview, if it can still be called that, Len O’Connor attempts to uncover Malcolm X’s true identity, an effort which provided sufficient room for a short history lesson of black heritage, or the lack of it, in America through the eyes of a colored lens. It is through the initial interaction of X and O’Connor where the tinge of racial tension is first exposed. Nearly, ten minutes into the examination, O’Connor rhetorically charges X of taking a very moderate position of independence without having any hatred for the whites, using X’s reaction to a recent plane wreck highlighted in a news article to guide the prodding. Implications surrounding the charge of O’Connor are manifest in his further questioning stating that X expressed great gratification for the occurrence of the tragedy. There is a wealth of examples in this interview to account for a swelling distrust blacks share for white supremacy, a generic term used here to describe contentious race relations, societal prejudice and acts of segregation condoned by the federal and state governing agencies of the day. The full interview shadows a voice of liberty which promotes the establishment of racial dignity through freedom, justice and equality for blacks in the United States. The ‘City Desk,’ or the program responsible for hosting the thirty minute interview, provided a platform for this voice of liberty to be heard, a voice which was as reticent then as it was nearly two-hundred years prior.

Turning towards another influential leader, revolutionary and controversial orator who espoused the tenants of liberty and equality inherent in the God-given rights of man, we will find Patrick Henry. No attempts will be made here to reconcile seeming differences between these two pivotal characters in American history, rather an attempt will be made to establish a common theme shared by them, a theme which can be articulated in the spoken and written word of both men. We shall find what is common between Henry and X is found in any revolutionary; a composed and dynamic countenance and controversial rhetoric that are not without consignment to a moral, religious or ethical code. So often perceived by his countrymen as slanderous and contemptuous, noticeable features which are typically construed as criticism of the reigning governmental agency the plight of a revolutionary hinges on some degree of treason. American history has already cast a seemingly unpretentious light on these two leaders and there remains a stunning irony that binds them together which I hope will be recognized without the stigma of social or ethnic bias.

Patrick Henry is revered mostly for his famous words, ‘Give me liberty or give me death!’ delivered in a speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond on March 23, 1775. However, our attention will be drawn another direction earlier in his career. In May, 1765 Henry was elected to the Colonial Assembly in Williamsburg known as the House of Burgesses where he gave the ‘Stamp Act’ speech just ten days after inauguration at the spirited age of twenty-nine. Inexperienced and unacquainted with the form of the House and the members who comprised it,[1] Henry propositioned four Resolutions and Three Conclusions against the Stamp Act which resolved that only colonial assemblies had the right to impose taxes on its constituents which could not be asserted by any other governing body. Viewed as a declaration of economic independence from British Parliament, the Resolutions were received with open scrutiny and disfavor. Incidentally, Benjamin Franklin notoriously aligned himself with the Stamp Act who was at the time a colonial agent in London. In order to provide scope to the controversy we should detail the need for its implementation.

The Stamp Act, recognized as an internal tax, was a method used to augment the cost of the first colonial American war which lasted roughly nine years. The protective agency of British Parliament secured their colonial interests by defeating their opponents overseas in The French and Indian War (1754-1763). With this tremendous effort followed a tremendous debt and Great Britain was searching for a legitimate method for a pecuniary harvest. Until a more palpable measure was found, Parliament found it necessary for the American colonies to oblige. The Stamp Act was met with considerable disapproval by the colonies although it was not the first to be enforced. The Sugar Act, deemed an external tax, was implemented the previous year. Colonial America, operating under British Parliament’s authority, became intimately aware of the implications that surrounded a governing agency capable of fitting them with a progressive economic burden styled in the Stamp Act.

By this time, Patrick Henry’s Resolutions against the Stamp Act was viewed as a treasonous act by a fair portion of his colleagues. The colony of Virginia refused to print the Resolutions in their media. On the day of its delivery, Henry submitted five Resolutions that were met with outrage and violent debate. Henry did not withdraw cowardly from the riotous excursion, for the next day he approached the platform in the House of Burgesses with unyielding resolve and issued an open challenge to his colleagues which culminated in the sore but famous declaration, ‘Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell; and George the Third…may he profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it!’

We have, by all accounts, a fair and accurate portrayal of a controversial orator at work and an all-American revolutionary at play. Patrick Henry, who was initially dismissed for his unseasoned conjectures and misalignment to favorable party rule within the House of Burgesses, wound up initiating a policy that colonial America would embrace. This adoption inevitably spawned a war for economic independence, the Revolutionary War, the results for which our infancy as a new nation was formed.

Although our nation had eventually won a war for independence and sovereignty from economic subjugation in 1776, she failed to liberate herself from human slavery, a racial inequality that would harbor civil unrest. Nearly two centuries later our nation was met with another radical revolutionary, only this time he fought for racial independence echoing the same doctrines of freedom through justice and liberty from social tyranny. But wait, that war was already fought and won in 1865 with the blood of our brothers in our own nation. With the acceptance of the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862 by Abraham Lincoln human slavery was declared unlawful. From this conjecture we must begin to open both eyes to the historical account which spans an entire century in America. From 1865 to 1965 with the aid of any encyclopedia we can surmise what happens to a nation that was dividedly stripped of its subjugating and lawful enterprise. If anyone looks beyond the glorious transparency of the Proclamation, one will witness a brutal struggle between two races, a sectarian class conflict limiting exclusivity towards anyone who was not a white man, (even white women were lawfully considered second-class citizens) legislative subjugation of blacks, (the Jim Crow Laws) Lynching or the putrid stain of injustice secured by the bloody hands of a mob and segregation, all of which lead inevitably to a conclusion that can be summed up in the form of a question: Was the Emancipation Proclamation used more effectively as a tool to provide racial independence or as divisive creature to secure a more perfect union?

By reviewing a series of debates and interviews we can identify the platform from which Malcolm X operates. As a controversial and provocative orator, X regards legislative reform as ineffective, citing the abuse of governing bodies as credit to this legal impotence. For X, what discrimination his people have suffered crosses over political, economic and social boundaries thereby keeping them in an endless cycle of abject class subjugation and racial poverty. Without the aid of any political influence he abandons any hope of seeking refuge in a system that is overwhelmingly racist, yet he is not disheartened. Malcolm X reaches for a power tool that is most effective to acquire justice.

On March 17, 1963, using the words of ‘Attorney General Robert Kennedy,’ Malcolm X dutifully maintains, ‘that the number one domestic problem in America is the race problem, that it is almost impossible to solve it, that it is almost impossible to give justice to Negroes.’[2] In another interview at UC Berkeley, October 11, 1963 continues to correct inflammatory and pervasive accusations associated with the religious and moral code for which he is consigned: The Nation of Islam (NOI). X responds by deflecting the allegations with a noxious flurry of sobering facts citing incidents of ‘juvenile murder,’ ‘domestic church bombings,’ ‘lynching’ and initiation ‘of aggressive acts of violence,’ to be a pattern of exercises that does not, nor has it ever existed in the behavior of Muslims who follow the messenger of Allah: Elijah Muhammad. X continues to identify a glaring misconception of hypocrisy prevalent in his day; pointing out that the party responsible for over four-hundred years of violence and oppression of a peculiar race in America has been and continues to be the same. What becomes interesting in the ensuing dialogue is X’s manner in which he claims the rights of men. ‘We are within our religious rights to retaliate in self-defense to the maximum degree of our ability’ therein ‘reserving the right to defend ourselves.’ X uses the phrase expressly as Patrick Henry, or any other ‘Founding Father’ will have used it denoting its God-given quality. An inalienable right to them was a natural right to X; the manner in which they claimed them was tangible but no less effective.

What burdened the peoples of these two revolutionaries is oppression by an over-riding governing agency. For Henry this oppression restricted political freedom and the initial means of overcoming this was to employ his legislative authority. For X, this oppression existed generally as inequality stemming from societal prejudice and the most effective means of combating it as an influential leader was to become an ideologue of freedom. Both persons were met with enormous resistance, yet they exercised their intellectual authority as an aggregate to incite social and political reform.

In conclusion, the area covered in this article could almost be considered a disservice to the incredible effort applied by both men as it is ill replete with evidence necessary to properly expose their true historical significance; leaving their valiant heroism to suffer near exploitation. At the very least my hope is that one will envision the invaluable sacrifice which has been made by both persons for a cause greater than themselves. A dynamic posture coupled with their controversial yet powerful oration impacted a message which could not be ignored even by those who failed to align themselves with the principles of independence espoused by these American revolutionaries.

---

[1] A message written backside on Patrick Henry’s copy of the Stamp Act, furnished by William Wirt Henry

[2] City Desk, March 17, 1963, interview of Malcolm X

Anthony Bourdain’s Incessant Love Affair

Bourdain apparently is a man who has an impassioned relationship with food, an idea that is patently obvious for two reasons. Notice first the manner in which he explains his relationship with food. Bourdain’s rate of compositional speed leaves him dazzling in a category all his own. Whether he is sampling vatapa and forofa at the beloved ‘Sorriso da Dadà’ or sharing chops beachfront with carioca while enjoying little fried cakes with cachaca served in coconuts by women wearing white skirts with traditional headdress, we are left with an eclectic montage of savory explicits, if I could qualify the noun. Wondering through the streets of Bahia with Bourdain leaves you feeling emotionally involved with his dining experiences in ‘cobble-stoned Colonial neighborhoods’ or on beaches situated between ‘eighteenth-century lighthouses and open-aired restaurants on a bluff at the other end.’ Usually there is a noticeable experience that trumps all the rest in any given location leaving you satisfied and happy you went along, much like the feeling found at Barra, and everyone knows it can’t be as blissful all of the time, but one is hopeful.

Despite the delicious wonder charmed on every page by this fluent necromancer of the printed word we are sometimes stunned by his sharp criticism and biting wit which inevitably ends up charging the reader with as much pomp as a self-righteous vicar; our palates are crystallized with Bourdain’s words and we become instant food snobs. Nestled some where between each escalating rendezvous we find that Bourdain does in fact have a shelf for words used to express his disdain like ‘insipid California rolls.’ What!? I don’t even have to reach for a dictionary to know what he means. Whenever he uses the adjectives touristy and chewy we know to look out for places like that. Another clear indication of a less than desirable experience can hang on the noticeable expression of a friend,

‘Taka’s face, previously filled with enthusiasm as he discussed the films of Werner Herzog, went slack as he laid eyes on the limp graying tuna,’[1]

Whether it is Bourdain’s expressive disdain for terrible Sushi and gnawing use of perilous adjectives or the way he captures the moment of ‘paradise’ we can appreciate the marvelous relationship with food by the way he explains it.

This leads us to the second detail highlighting this intimate relationship that can be summed up with a question. What does Bourdain love more, eating the food or writing about it? A fairly presumptuous question indeed but one I feel is critical to understanding the man’s work because without this incessant love affair with food Bourdain is a fish out of water. I will go as far as stating on the one hand that he could write about eating an MRE (a Meal Ready-to-Eat) in the trenches amidst a war with all its misery and ungodly quarters familiar to any veteran and Bourdain could make money in the process, but the moment you take the MRE away the white flag goes up. In other words, Bourdain could be writing about his experience in a soup kitchen under a bridge in lower Manhattan and we would love him for it, but as soon as the tray of food is removed his adjectives would become brass and fall to the floor, the expressions on the patrons beside him would wind up on the canvas of the pandering caricature artist outside the front doors and his ink would dry up like gravy on a lapel right before the nap on thanksgiving day.

For me, it is this romantic relationship Bourdain shares with his food that draws readers into the dynamic; Bourdain’s work is completely infused with his passion and it remains the envy of some, especially those who 'live to eat.’

‘Bottom’s up!’

---

[1] Anthony Bourdain, The Nasty Bits, Brazilian Beach-Blanket Bingo, p. 222

Motivation

Justified in her stance motivation appears worthy, encouraging one to overcome the odds. She has a tendency to draw out the best effort within her class, a sort of extra energy that is brought on to enhance the outcome of the product. One can find it readily in monetary incentive; others may find it in something more virtuous such as bravery or integrity encapsulating the spirit within. Whatever the reason, whatever shape it may hold the end which crystallizes the reason as to why we do things is the same: motivation.

Motivation has varying degrees of consistency often operating in a very simple fashion which can be easily understood by passive observers. Most would understand the motivation behind why Johnny finished his homework Thursday evening instead of letting it go to the weekend; for if it was not completed by Friday then he would not have been able to attend the weekend canoe trip with his friends, thus his guardians are instilling in him a sense of priority which should afford him a better work ethic. Yet there is another consistency which becomes less noticeable to the casual observer and indeed may appear more subtle. Angie failed to complete her homework by Friday thereby ruining her chances to go on the canoe trip that weekend. Seen as a form of negligence on Angie’s part by others, this in fact dismissed any opportunity for Johnny to see and spend time with a girl who has little to no interest in him and delays any un-welcomed free time till the following occasion arises outside of school. This break also affords Angie the opportunity to spend time with her favorite aunt on Saturday night who has recently taken special interest in Angie’s effort at learning to play the violin. So, we can see that on the surface sometimes the motivation to do or avoid certain circumstances in life can be simple or complex but no less meaningful.

Motivation can also be considered amoral and will compel people to do some things they would not normally do. Adding to this, there is potential for certain persons to exact a form of persuasion upon others by offering to them a choice between what seems to be the lesser of two evils. Thus, motivation becomes a diabolical tool used to coerce or manipulate others. Bribery and blackmail are very persuasive forms of enticing someone. Sadly, in most cases regarding these incidents there is either an agreement of questionable behavior by all parties or, as in the case of bribery, it would be much easier for them to just comply with the monetary incentives rather than suffer the less attractive alternative thereby degrading the moral integrity of that individual even more.

On the straight and narrow, motivation can be construed in a more optimistic light; it would be negligent not to mention the inspirational methods at which motivation can be applied. First place is captured by sheer motivation giving the forerunner a sense of accomplishment and a conceptual goal to achieve. Narrowing in on the drive, one can harness his full potential by tapping into a power within himself that cannot be registered on computers or monitoring devices offering only a sleek sense of elusiveness befuddling even the harshest critic in terms of a fluctuating scale that is subject to a history of development outshining their esteemed competitor to a level of mundanity. Motivation is the fuel that drives the will to power, a tour de force.

So often, motivation appears as a phantom in the light of humanity, something that is beheld as a shadow of the individual but never deemed likely a legitimate representation of him. This portrayal offers only a candid suggestion alluding to the metaphysical import of his might.

Mark Twain: The Envy of Genius

I will have to admit, for a guy who's been dead for over 100 years, he still knows how to turn heads. The author first caught my attention in elementary school when I was required to read segments of 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' a book which I've recently found to have been banned from public schools, a strike for which this society will hold any person who fails to maintain political correctness, dead or alive; that damned human race. Others may be heartened to learn that his legendary status continues to thrive in the Theatre if not in the minds of young impressionable students. Presented by the Bohemian Theatre Ensemble in 2010, the Tony-Award Winning musical 'Big River' ran 1,000 performances on Broadway. Not a bad follow-up to a series of at least 35 film adaptations that spans over 60 years from the 1930's on up through the turn of the following century. One begins to wonder just how suffused this man's work really is with the American culture today.

In my mind, Mark Twain's 'The Mysterious Stranger,' a work posthumously published and not without controversy in 1916, stands as a testimony to the long celebrated literary figure's nostalgic motif that has been stuffed in the back of the collective American subconscious. That is, many have heard of the author by name only and so he remains the politically incorrect writer identified as the man standing next to Einstein in a historical line-up. Upon closer examination of 'The Mysterious Stranger' the author's persona begins to move and take form. One hasn't to read much of the story to realize that Twain is not just a gifted writer but a captivating force that draws you into another world that he created, an illustratively magical world that unlocks the mysteriousness of the stranger. Thumbing the pages, one loses himself in a lucid account of familiar characters hewn together in a timeless landscape revealing, quite beautifully, his mastery of the English language, a criticism for which Twain, to his credit, never outgrew.

Continuing, Twain develops in the characters a stunning array of complexity and wonder offering, amidst a balanced and amusing cast, a pair who diametrically compliment one another. Shadowed behind the interaction of these characters we uncover Twain's brilliant cynicism that is so often accused of tainting the condition of mankind. A character whose actions are dictated by uncompromising adherence to a set of ethics or morals, usually determined by an active and superfluous force i.e. popular opinion, religious order or societal prejudice etc., find themselves prey to a series of occurrences which challenge their position. Twain provides this noticeable tension typically in a manner that is palpable and poignant often engaging the reader to shoulder this weight and in some insipid way we end up sympathizing with the villain, or worse. In this work we find evidence of a humble philosopher vying the plight of cause and effect. Twain’s ability to cast light on the apparent struggles inherent in the human condition is questioned through the perspective of the ‘mysterious stranger.’

‘Well, I will tell you and you must understand if you can. You belong to a singular race. Every man is a suffering-machine and a happy-machine. Two functions work together harmoniously, with a fine and delicate precision, on a give-and-take principle. For every happiness turned out in one department the other stands ready to modify it with a sorrow or a pain – maybe a dozen. In most cases the man’s life is about equally divided between happiness and unhappiness. When this is not the case the unhappiness predominates- always; never the other. Sometimes a man’s make and disposition are such that his misery-machine is able to do nearly all the business. Such a man goes through life almost ignorant of what happiness is. Everything he touches, everything he does, brings a misfortune upon him. You have seen such people? To that kind of a person life is not an advantage, is it? It is only a disaster. Sometimes for an hour’s happiness a man’s machinery makes him pay years of misery. Don’t you know that? It happens every now and then.’[1]

Reading further, we understand the mysterious stranger to argue the mechanics of man to be utterly foolish because they are built on the small trivialities of vanity, feelings and ambition. The mysterious stranger argues that man lacks intelligence and provides fair examples to aid his conclusion inevitably ending with their short-sightedness, yet another product of the human condition. Since man cannot see into the future he will never know good fortune from ill. An interesting concept indeed when one stops to consider the gravity of this sort of circumstance, which he did. By now in case you have been wondering, the character of the mysterious stranger is an angel, actually, as some of the preceding thoughts imply. From this vantage, Twain is able to address some of the quandaries that mystifies himself, like the agency of what becomes of a man after he has lived here on this earth, especially when his position is full of misery.

“I have changed Nikilaus’s life; and this has changed Lisa’s. If I had not done this, Nikolaus would save Lisa, then he would catch cold from his drenching; one of your race’s fantastic and desolating scarlet fevers would follow, with pathetic after-effects; for forty-six years he would lie in his bed a paralytic log, deaf, blind, and praying night and day for the blessed relief of death. Shall I change his life back?”[2]

Of course, this condition is off-set rationally by the angel. What is comprehensible and sound is not always apparent to these creatures who possess only Moral Sense. What is gained from pre-mature death in this condition could be understood in this manner, consider the fate of another,

“What you are thinking is strictly human-like, that is to say, foolish. The woman is advantaged. Die when she might, she would go to heaven. By this prompt death she gets twenty-nine years more of heaven than she is entitled to, and escapes twenty-nine years of misery here.”[3]

The meddling only continues as a contrast. Another character, Ficsher, is affected positively from this experience. Instead of being riddled with trouble and die at an early age, Fischer now ‘lives to be ninety, and have a pretty prosperous and comfortable life of it, as a human lives go.’[4] We can’t help but feel relieved for Fischer to some degree. It seems that up until this point the mysterious stranger has an insufferable maniacal streak that should not let up; as famous as Twain’s wit is, we must also account for its endurance. Maybe Twain's wit deserves more credit on account of his religious skepticism where it embraces cause-and-effect because Fischer’s post mortal state left him far from the ‘pearly gates.’

Finally, we are faced squarely with Twain’s nostalgic motif, well, perhaps just a reflection of it; one that is mysterious because it is lucid and unfamiliar and hides in back of the American subconscious. To say that we have broadened our scope of Twain’s intrigues and nuances within his work would be considered a grave misunderstanding. However, it would be incorrect to state that his critical analytical thought is charming. Make no mistake Twain could find some pretty incredible things to say about controversial issues, even through some of the most innocent characters,

‘Mark Twain spoke his mind about slavery and race relations “in the mouth and in the mind of an illiterate 11-year-old boy. Jim is one of the greatest human creations in all of literature. And so is Huck. But Huck is more than that. Huck is the source of the modern American writer, of which Hemingway is an example. Huckleberry Finn … inspired the modern American novel.’ — Herman Wouk[5]

What I find interesting about Twain is the manner in which he approached his own biographical narrative. Evidently, he allowed his memory, the published works, to be sown in the field of American culture for some time. It was allowed room to grow and flourish for decades in the minds and hearts of readers to the extent that it had a legitimate chance to weather the changing climates of social, political and religious struggles. America has been imbued with the reckonings of his literary genius for more than five generations, an admission which Twain modestly acknowledges,

“My books are water; those of the great geniuses is wine. Everybody drinks water."[6]

And now we are here at the threshold of one man’s utterance from the grave. Celebrating the 100^th year of his departure from this life, we stand face-to-face with a man who was patient enough to satisfy the enduring curiosity of others with his own pen.

The ‘Autobiography of Mark Twain’ will be released as a three volume series beginning with the first release in 2010 and the words will be relished by some like a glass of vintage wine, one sip at a time.

---

[1] Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, Harper, VII, p. 83

[2] Ibid. p. 91

[3] Ibid. p. 111

[4] Ibid. p. 112

[5] Harper Studio, Praise for Mark Twain, www.theharperstudio.com

[6] Mark Twain's Notebooks & Journals, Volume 3: 1883-1891