Clash of Worldviews - Rich Politicians Withhold the Benefit Carrot

Every country on earth has within its borders citizens who hold opposing worldviews. Whether divided by class, religion, social or political ideology, the vast majority of the people of the world carry their own opinions on how the world around them should look. In healthy, functioning democracies the people are able to put a voice to those opinions at the polling place; they then look to leaders to shape policy toward those worldviews.

Among democratic societies, the United States stands alone with its large percentage of people who prefer to see an extremely limited federal government, or none at all. But the story doesn’t end with citizen disapproval of government; there a large number of policymakers, whether elected or appointed or of the lobbying variety, who share these views. This outlook is best exemplified in the rhetoric of right-wing strategist Grover Norquist, who commented early in the George W. Bush administration that he would like to see government shrunk to the size “where we can drown it in the bathtub” (2001, The Nation). Of course, when natural disasters come along the leaders that espouse said views are all too happy to take the forthcoming federal government assistance.

Which brings us to the recent battle in Congress over the extension of unemployment benefits. Republican lawmakers, in lock-step fashion (along with one Democrat) oppose the extension of benefits, despite several economists indicating that unemployment insurance acts as a form of economic stimulus; folks receiving UI benefits have no choice but to spend this money, as it often barely covers basic expenses. The only argument put forth by conservatives in opposition, besides fiscal responsibility, is that UI benefits are a disincentive to work; that the unemployed are somehow lazy and actually enjoy living off the relative pittance this assistance provides. The fiscal argument is ludicrous and hypocritical; where was the fiscal responsibility crowd when they bailed out the banks, or voted to fund wars off the books? The argument that the unemployed don’t want to work when they can collect UI is at best disingenuous and mean-spirited, at worst avarice. Most of the politicians who view the world this way either do not remember what it is like to work hard for a paycheck, or have never worked an honest day in their lives. I find it hard to believe that their constituents are not out in the streets protesting this disdain for the average worker.

Another hypocritical aspect of the conservative opposition to extending UI benefits is that most of the policymakers who have taken this stance proclaim that they are Christians and tout their “family values” credentials at every opportunity. When you consider that the amount of UI benefit a person receives is based on their earning potential when they have a job, unemployment benefits are even more disproportionately necessary for the poor – and likely inadequate. We all know what Jesus had to say about the poor. For those who don’t, see Matthew 25:31-46 (…whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me…).

So the opposing worldviews of smaller (and smaller) government versus government that addresses the needs of its people in times of crisis and doesn’t ask the poorest among us to sacrifice more has created social conflict for time immemorial. It will only continue to grow and fester as the economic hard times continue. In Cultural Anthropology, Haviland, Prins, et al posit that “the culture of a people who experience high rates of malnutrition, violence, crime, delinquency, suicide, emotional disorders and despair, and environmental degradation may be said to be operating less well than that of another people who exhibit few such problems.” Among these issues, one that has already seen a spike since the recession began is suicide (Huffington Post, 7/26/10). When a society has a flimsy social safety net, and the “losers” in that society, those that lose in the competition that is capitalism, fall through the net, what happens to them? Do we just cast them aside? They were promised a shot at the American Dream, but what they are finding is that not everyone can have it, no matter how hard they work. Someone has to clean up after the rest of us. Most of the developed world (or at least the richest countries) provide for the basic needs of its people through some form of social welfare system. Does the leadership who want to do the people’s business and make sure the least of us are not cast aside, have the courage to stand up to the hypocrites and bullies in their midst? Perhaps the more important question is, will the American people demand it?

References

Dreyfuss, R. (2001). Grover Norquist: Field marshal of the Bush plan. Accessed at http://www.thenation.com/article/grover-norquist-field-marshal-bush-plan

Harris, J.D. (2010). Suicide rates up since recession began, debt a way of life for 99ers. Accessed at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/suicide-rates-up-since-re_n_658668.html

Haviland, W. (2008). Cultural anthropology. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

A Scattered Start for Learning: Can Boys Keep Pace with Girls in the Classroom

Girls mature faster than boys. You do not have to do research on education or biology to have heard or read that phrase sometime in the past fifty years. This biological “fact” reads like a slogan with many in the various disciplines associated with human behavior. However, making the leap to the notion that girls start school with an inherent advantage over boys in learning is quite another matter. Yet, in the past fifteen years a mountain of research points to that idea with an emphatic and troublesome regularity.

My recollection of learning experiences and those of the boys and girls around me at school age is markedly different from that which this research bears out. Admittedly, it has been thirty-three years since I was last in elementary school, and the educational climate was quite different; gender roles, despite a burgeoning women’s movement in the early to mid nineteen seventies, had not evolved much since the time that our parents attended school in the fifties and before. Boys had a built-in advantage in the classroom which dates to the section of our history when girls either weren’t allowed or rarely attended school. Even in the nineteen-seventies, boys were more likely to be chosen by the teacher to answer questions put to the class; that fact alone manifested itself in demoralizing a good portion of a generation of girls, pigeon-holing them into conventional, gender-specific, “female” careers, if they desired a career at all after these early learning experiences.
While it is true that during my generation’s time in school, girls tended to be, in general, better and more eager readers than boys, boys did well enough to zoom past girls in math and science and mostly keep pace in other areas. When you factor in the advantage most boys had in enjoyment and success in areas such as physical education, any advantage girls may have had in reading and English was largely negated. Of course, some girls were able to overcome the gender-bias obstacles to chart a course to academic achievement; the valedictorian and salutatorian of my senior class were girls, and one of them eventually became a commercial airline pilot. Exceptions to conventional understandings aside, boys continued to benefit from gender-bias in the classroom throughout the seventies and eighties.

Fast-forward thirty-plus years. A generation of focus on helping girls to achieve on a level with boys has turned the tables; boys have now fallen behind girls in virtually every discipline, and girls are now even with the boys in math and science. The advent of hyperkinetic video games and other forms of entertainment and media stimuli, coupled with mass consumption of junk food, among other factors, have apparently changed the playing field when it comes to raising children, learning and education. A friend told me about a book titled “Raising Cain” (now a documentary with the same name) and in this revelatory volume author Michael Thompson provides insights on the emotional development of boys from pre-school to college and how school environments can put boys at a learning disadvantage. Thompson posits that most boys have difficulty expressing themselves in ways beyond violent or aggressive behavior; that they have many of the same feelings and emotional needs as girls but their peers and society in general make them feel as if they must stifle these emotions and “be a man.” Thompson views the struggles of boys in school and at home as a two-pronged problem; boys, unlike girls, do not develop an emotional vocabulary to express their feelings in ways that will help them succeed in school when issues arise; and due to biological differences, boys are often eighteen months to two years behind girls in developing the cognitive proficiency necessary to meet expectations in reading, writing and verbal skills. For the average boy in the first grade, school could feel like a running race starting on the curve of a track’s oval, with the girls on the inner edge and the boys on the outer edge. But how do we create a situation where there is a staggered start for the children, so all have a chance to keep pace? And would the solutions be pedagogically ethical?

Recent scientific research and studies in educational performance point to the turning tide of gender role reversal in the classroom environment. In a recent column in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof shares data that is stark in its contrast to just fifteen years before. He cites a report from the Center on Education Policy that shows boys lag behind in reading in every single state; the average high school grade point average is 3.09 for girls, 2.86 for boys; and in federal writing tests, “32 percent of girls are considered proficient or better, for boys the figure is 16 percent” (NY Times, 2010, Mar 27). In her book “The War Against Boys”, Christina Hoff Sommers states that “girls now outnumber boys in student government, in honor societies, in school newspapers, even in debating clubs” (2000, pp. 24-25). In Britain, studies found not only parental indifference and family break-ups as reasons for boys slipping behind, but more importantly they are often “held back by a peer culture which encourages low aspirations and holds intellectual endeavor in contempt” (Mail online, 2008, 31 Jan). These findings echo much of what Thompson discusses in “Raising Cain” in that both parents and educators often dismiss troublesome boy behavior with the “boys will be boys” mantra. Interestingly, as long ago as nineteen-sixty, researchers referenced “differences in patterns of motivation, perceptions, and cognitive structuring so striking that the data for boys and girls were interpreted separately (Perkins, Univ. of Maryland, 1965). However, the most revealing findings come from the scientific community, in biological differences not previously discussed in the purview of educational development. In a 2006 article in Newsweek titled “The Trouble with Boys”, Peg Tyre reports that male brain chemistry may be at the core of developmental gender differences. Tyre states: “Sometime in the first trimester, a boy fetus begins producing male sex hormones that bathe his brain in testosterone for the rest of his gestation” (2006, Jan 30). This is a complete game-changer in terms of both emotional and cognitive development. Tyre goes on to cite new studies showing that prenatal exposure to male sex hormones directly affects the way children of both sexes play; and that hormones can influence learning throughout life, with a Dutch study finding that when males were given female hormones, their spatial skills dropped but their verbal skills improved.

In “Raising Cain”, Thompson illuminates three scenarios that best illustrate the emotional development divide that lies at the heart of boys underachieving in school, and hint at both pedagogical and parental solutions. The documentary contains a scene where all the children are given a writing assignment that, it could be argued, is a tad female-centric. When some of the boys in class attempt to craft stories with violent or aggressive imagery, the teacher prevents them from doing so on the basis that the themes are disturbing to many of their classmates. This leads to a failure on the part of some of the boys to express themselves and secure a passing grade; they simply shut down and tune out. A scene from the book describes an informal group therapy session involving Mr. Thompson’s co-author Dr. Dan Kindlon and several average seventh-grade boys gathered to discuss teasing. The boys, all of whom attain decent grades and are generally well-liked by classmates, are rendered speechless when Dr. Kindlon delicately attempts to engender responses to the question, “when has teasing gone too far?” A third scenario, also from the book, depicts Mrs. Alvarez’s kindergarten class, representing nine girls and six boys and their varying states of readiness as Mrs. Alvarez prepares for story time. In contrast to the girls and one of the boys, five of the six boys cannot master the seemingly simple task of sitting still long enough for Mrs. Alvarez to begin reading. These examples best demonstrate the crux of the problem of boys’ developmental and emotional needs and how societal constructs can do severe damage to boys’ progress in school – and life.

Solutions are almost as varied as the individuals involved. Thompson theorizes that solutions are essentially meaningless until the larger issue of the emotional needs of boys is addressed. Thompson believes that the development of “emotional literacy”, a concrete method for boys to recognize their emotions and develop the oral, aural and spatial skills necessary to effectively communicate their feelings and express themselves in meaningful and productive ways, is paramount in tackling this predicament. Thompson sees the first step in this process as “convincing skeptical parents and educators that boys suffer deeply as a result of the destructive emotional training our culture imposes upon them, that many of them are in crisis, and that all of them need help.” If we accept that a paradigm shift in how we view the emotional development of boys is necessary before we undertake solutions to leveling the educational playing field, what of the pedagogical perspective? What are the practical steps to helping boys achieve equality with girls in educational development? Since reading skills seem to be the primary driver for measuring success, perhaps Kristof’s idea of introducing more “lowbrow, adventure or even gross-out books that disproportionately appeal to boys” (NY Times, 2010, Mar 27) is a strong candidate for implementation. This approach might be helpful in the aforementioned classroom from the Raising Cain documentary, where it was ultimately decided that the boys could write stories involving death and destruction only if the “bad guys” were the only ones to die. An approach to classroom dynamics that is gaining steam in the educational community is gender-specific classrooms. The 2006 Newsweek article highlights a middle school in Pueblo, Colorado that has randomly grouped fifty sixth graders into single-sex classrooms, with what, on the surface, should be considered encouraging results. The boys are less organized than the girls in chemistry, for example, but the boys are often “willing to go beyond what the lab asks them to do” (2006, Jan 30). Still another pedagogical model worthy of attention is “classrooms with movement.” The same Newsweek article shows how Kelley King, principal at Douglas Elementary in Boulder, Colorado, incorporated fast-moving lessons into the curriculum; examples included breaking the children up into small groups to act out characters in the books they read, thus addressing, among other things, the inability of the boys to sit still for lessons. This segues nicely into one more solution worth mentioning, that of spontaneous, unstructured play. Far too many children in our society have no idea how to play without rules and formal structures dictating their every activity. Many is the day one can visit their Facebook page to find parents lamenting the long weekend days filled with soccer and softball games from morning to night. Scientific research points to unstructured play representing a key developmental component for boys and girls; this could be addressed both in schools, through more recess time, and with parents by encouraging them to relent from their obsession with mapping out each moment of their children’s lives.

Many puzzling questions spring from the research. If boys have always had a biologically developmental disadvantage, why haven’t they always been behind girls in educational measurements, and not just the last fifteen years? Is it pedagogically ethical to provide distinct learning models for boys and girls? When has teasing gone too far? Our horrific experience with school shootings and hazing point to the dire need to address the emotional makeup of boys as a vital first step in the inventory of solutions. Single-sex classrooms seem an efficacious answer to the achievement gap; the results from the Colorado school show that the girls-only class had the highest test results, followed by boys-only and the co-ed classes last. However, this country’s experience with separate but equal shows us that it is rarely, if ever, equal. And that pesky question of why the gap between boys and girls was practically the reverse twenty-five to thirty years ago, brings to mind many factors that could be considered, such as the disproportionate amount of time that today’s boys spend playing video games. Perhaps it is instructive to look beyond our borders for answers, to an educational system that routinely finishes at the top of world rankings, that of Finland. The Finnish schools have one outstanding feature that would seem counterintuitive to success; students spend less time in the classroom than any country in the developed world. In addition, a BBC News report found that Finnish children start school only at the age of seven. This delay alone would virtually eliminate the biological head-start that scientific research has found girls have over boys starting at the age of five. The report states “the idea is that before that age they learn best when they are playing and by the time they finally get to school they are keen to start learning” (BBC, 2010, 7 Apr). Wow, more time moving and less time sitting. Now that is something that boys could really get used to!

References
Bernard, S. (2006). Are boys falling behind girls in academic achievement? Edutopia – The George Lucas Educational Foundation. Accessed at: http://www.edutopia.org/are-boys-falling-behind-girls-academic-achievement
Bleuer, J. (2002). Are boys falling behind in academics? ERIC Digest. Accessed at: http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/boys1.html
Burridge, T. (2010, 7 Apr). Why do Finland’s schools get the best results? BBC News online. Accessed at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8601207.stm
Clark, L. (2008). Working-class white British boys falling behind everyone else at school. Mail online. Accessed at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511615/Working-class-white-British-boys-falling-school.html
Holly, J. (2010). Classroom strategies to get boys reading. Getting boys to read.com. Accessed at: http://www.gettingboystoread.com/content/classroom-strategies-get-boys-reading
Kindlon, D. and Thompson, M. (2000). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. New York. Random House.
Kristof, N. (2010). The boys have fallen behind. New York Times online. Accessed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28kristof.html?src=me&ref=homepage
Perkins, H. (1965). Classroom behavior and underachievement. American educational research association. Accessed at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1162063
Steffen, A. (2004). Finland. The world’s best school system? World changing. Accessed at: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001779.html
Tyre, P. (2006). The trouble with boys. Newsweek online. Accessed at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/47522

Death of a Salesman: Willy Loman and the Mythological American Dream

For nearly half a century Willy Loman, the central character in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, has enjoyed the status of cultural icon. This is quite remarkable considering that most cultural icons are heroes, or at least viewed in a more positive light than Willy Loman. He is a caricature; a cautionary tale for those who would have blind faith in the so-called American Dream. Some of us, like Willy’s son Biff, view the Dream as myth. The sense of entitlement on display in “Salesman” is something that many people have discovered to be folly, particularly in the face of the country’s deep economic woes. I would go as far as to say that the collective national obsession with the American Dream is not just mythological, but also pathological.

To understand why the character of Willy Loman and his fictional family have attained cultural icon status, it is instructive to look at the dramatic and literary elements at work in “Salesman.” From the beginning, Miller establishes thematic motifs; the opening flute music evokes the father Willy barely knew (he manufactured and sold flutes). This represents not only the father who abandoned Willy at a young age but also the career that Willy chose, ostensibly to emulate his father, who he felt was successful and lived the American Dream but also betrayed him. Willy is constantly in conflict with holding on to the dream and feeling glimpses of where it all went wrong for him personally. Another recurring theme is the continuous and seamless daydream sequences, where Willy imagines and often attempts to re-write history to suit his delusions. There are so many signs that should tell him that he is holding on too tight to the dream; he even has to be told repeatedly that he is fired before it sinks in. And Linda’s unconditional love at times seems to buffer his ego, though she does attempt to convince him to take a non-traveling position, hoping against hope that this will bring him back to reality.

Perhaps one of the most interesting examples of symbolism that I found was Biff’s penchant for thievery, and how Willy’s condoning his actions represents his bitterness at not being able to achieve The Dream; if you can’t earn it, take it. At one point, Willy orders Charley’s son Bernard to give Biff the answers to a test. Another more subtle symbolism involves The Woman. One could make the case that she represents the emptiness, indeed the shallowness of Willy’s aspirations. She has no name and we are given no background for her. She is a pawn in his game, yet he doesn’t even know how to use her in a way that would be advantageous. The vegetable garden represents Willy’s need to find some measure of success that he can pass on to his progeny and the type of work that could have brought him success had he followed his interests and inclinations.

If there is no other figurative language in this entire piece, this is all that is necessary: “I've got to get some seeds. I've got to get some seeds, right away. Nothing's planted. I don't have a thing in the ground.” The last sentence, in particular, represents so much; all the hopes and dreams he has for Biff and Happy; all that he hasn’t accomplished in his life and career, which are one and the same; and the faint hope that he holds that he is still a great salesman, from which his family and friends, by reaching out with love, are trying their mightiest to steer him away. Of course, thoughts of purchasing a house in the country and gardening are his glimpses into the life that could have been, if he had let go of The Dream and followed his heart.

The tone of the play is one of hopelessness, with occasional, ever so slight glimpses at the possibility of happier outcomes. Alas, these glimpses are not long for the world. There is a constantly building feeling of dread, until the inevitable is revealed in the suicide accoutrement and attempts, culminating with the long-anticipated outcome.

Many of the thoughts and emotions are “hammered home” in “Salesman.” There is a consistency to the diction; we feel and hear the frustration from Willy as well as his family, over and over, and all characters are the same in this way. The one exception could be Linda, who at times seems to try and fight through the malaise, admonishing her sons for abandoning their father and almost always attempting to buoy his spirits. There is most certainly a colloquial quality to the diction; however, it is more a product of the era in which the film is set than the place. For example, both men and women referred to as “pal” or the neighbor Charley called “Uncle” when he is actually a friend of the family.

Willy Loman is in conflict primarily with society. He has been sold a bill of goods called The American Dream and he doesn’t even realize how destructive it can be, particularly for those who can’t measure up, who can’t “keep up with the Jones’.” This is his quest from the outset, to make the material gains that will prove his worthiness as a man, a husband, a father. But it will always be just out of this reach. His internal conflict is one between the salesman he is convinced he is destined to be, the mercurial plodder his wife and sons cannot fathom; and the more serene, perhaps even creative Willy that longs to live in the country and plant vegetables.

The setting in a rough and tumble sales environment is uniquely North American. Sure, there are salesman all over the world, but none quite like the ones that operate on this continent. Type-A personalities are often involved in sales, and in this story they are exemplified in Howard (Willy’s boss) and to a lesser extent Happy. Despite his passive-aggressive behavior, Willy is not a Type-A personality and is not built for the cut-throat world of sales.

The primary form of criticism that should be applied here is Archetypal and Mythological Criticism. Willy and his family surround themselves with the creature comforts expected of them in our culture. Willy and Linda’s generation made it through the depression, and they are the first to enjoy the fruits of the consumerist society that emerged following World War Two. Even their choices in activities and leisure are borne from the lifestyle that so many at the time wanted because it was ubiquitously marketed to them; Biff and Happy playing football; the boys eating at the chop house; Happy’s conquests of women. All of this feeds into the myth of the American Dream. You are heroic if you achieve and come out on top; you are John Wayne. Those who cannot keep pace, like Willy and Biff, are consumed by thoughts of where it all went wrong, and can spiral into madness if they cannot accept and be at peace with an alternative.

Deconstructionist Criticism is a secondary form of criticism that should be considered. Many view “Salesman” as an examination of the destructive nature of capitalism. When you consider that Miller wrote this play at the cusp of the era of McCarthyism, it is no wonder he came under great scrutiny from “red-baiters.” With the McCarthyites, or today’s tea-baggers, if you were against unfettered capitalism you were automatically a commie or socialist. I believe that Biff represents the gray area; an alternative to the dog-eat-dog of the American Dream. Biff simply wanted to find a peaceful place within the zeitgeist. He was not choosing a different ideology, but rather a way to fit his own talents and abilities, his heart and soul, into the framework of society. He was choosing the path of the rugged individualist; something that should be lauded in this culture but was rare at the time and if you really think about it, is still rare. Our society has a follower mentality, and this is manifest in our continuing acceptance of the crushing specter of unregulated capitalism to hold sway, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary.

The phenomenon of “The Secret” is an example of why belief in the American Dream is pathological. Self-help programs like “The Secret” trumpet the notion that if you want material success bad enough, all you need to do is have a positive attitude; wish for it and it will come to you. The folly in this line of thinking should be self-evident. However, it is only very recently that sociologists have addressed the idea that perhaps over-optimism and positive thinking is troubling, even dangerous. From cancer treatment to investing in the stock market, the belief that if you have a positive countenance all will be well is endemic in our culture. Perhaps the name William – Willy, or Will is symbolic. Willy was practically “willing” himself and his sons to success. His optimism turned to grim determination in the face of reality, yet he could not get a grip on that reality, and it cost him his sanity and ultimately his life. Today, in tough economic times, many people are taking stock in their lives and choosing a path for themselves that better fits their personalities and capabilities; to put the brakes on this runaway freight train that is American life. It is too bad that the non-fictitious Biffs of that era could not live long enough to see that their lifestyle choices were healthy. And for the rest of us, the lesson is that a little dose of reality along with your optimism goes a long way.

Ishmael Reed's "Flight to Canada" - an analysis

Angry. Hostile. Misunderstood. Dark. Literary critics have used these and other pejoratives to describe the work of Ishmael Reed. For one to understand the full breadth of the man and his legacy, one must also consider descriptors such as: satirical, complexity, experience, peculiar, painstaking. Looking at his body of work, it seems as if Reed is on a relentless mission to break convention when it comes to literary traditions. It is rare to discover an artist with such contempt for authoritarian structures who can still manage to see their work maintain a degree of accessibility. Yet there he is, recognized among the best of the Post-modern literary figures and respected by colleagues and critics alike. In the ironic frivolity of Reed’s poem “Flight to Canada” we find the winning combination of accessibility and radical free form.

One of the most interesting aspects of this poem is that Reed incorporates in the narrative a method of travel (airplane) that did not exist in the time and place of the story. Or did it? Some people seem to think that because the poem (which opens the novel of the same name) references air travel, that perhaps the novel is not supposed to be set in the civil war era after all. This appears to be a severe misrepresentation. There is not much room for doubt that the novel takes place in the antebellum south, if for no other reason than that the principal characters are referred to as slaves. Perhaps because Reed has chosen to place Quickskill in another time in the poem, this fools some into thinking that this is his intention for the entire story. Is this some sort of literary dog whistle, meant for those who can decode its meaning? Or is it simply another example of Reed’s use of non-traditional literary forms to communicate an experience that few could understand? Or are these questions essentially asking the same thing? Reed is well-known for using anachronisms; but what purpose does it serve? One is left with more questions than answers when studying Reed’s work, which is the mark of a great artist.

Some of the language used is borrowed from another time. “What it was” is a term used in 1970’s Blaxploitation films; reference is made to getting an “agent” which in context is very much a 20^th Century term; even Saskatchewan did not join Canada until 1905. Reed uses this technique to great effect in all his work. In this piece, he jumps back and forth between the Civil War era and the present. The juxtaposition of the language and references of the modern era with those of the Civil War era gives the piece an almost subversive quality; given the consensus surrounding the analysis and criticism of Reed’s canon, this is probably the desired effect.

While Reed mostly shuns metaphor and simile in Flight to Canada, hyperbole and personification abound. An example of personification: “Last visit I slept in Your bed and sampled your cellar. Had your prime Quadroon give me She-Bear.” Hyperbole examples are creative: “Beats craning your neck after the North Star” and “Passengers came up and shook my hand and within 10 min. I had signed up for 3 anti-slavery lectures.” Given Reed’s penchant for composing his own “language” or writing his own laws of literature, or at least foregoing literary traditions to communicate the unique African-American experience, perhaps the metaphors are disguised.

The poem is also chock full of irony. With Reed’s well-known disdain for verbal niceties as it relates to race relations in the United States, one could say that the poem is almost entirely ironic. “Did you have a nice trip, Massa?” “It’s cold up here but least nobody is collaring hobbling gagging handcuffing yoking chaining and thumbscrewing.” “That was rat poison I left in your Old Crow.” Reed clearly has no qualms about portraying the pain of the slave experience through unabashed ironic language, including delight in pulling one over on the The Man.

It would not be a stretch to say that Reed is contemptuous of white America and his characters would certainly be no different in that regard; therefore, a sarcastic, even celebratory tone is not unexpected, particularly in this piece. Quickskill’s delight in having escaped the clutches of his Massa is apparent throughout; champagne with his fellow passengers, rat poison in Massa’s Old Crow, “safe in the arms of Canada”, he is clearly triumphant, and who could blame him? It is in this celebratory mood that the sarcasm rears; “I knowed you wouldn’t mind”, “Did you have a nice trip, Massa?”, “Remind me to get an agent”, “I borrowed your cotton money to pay for my ticket.”

Despite the fact that much of the time Ishmael Reed’s efforts feel like one big inside joke, I enjoy it immensely. It is challenging and requires research to uncover meaning more than any poet I have encountered. It illuminates with force the African-American condition. His combination of colloquialisms and razor wit spares no American institution and makes Ishmael Reed truly an artist making his own literary rules – or at least breaking some of them.