I think it's generally a good sign when the author is able to elicit powerful moral debates over the actions of one imaginary character based on yet another imaginary character. Looks like Doctorow knows his stuff. My personal reactions to Mr. Coalhouse Walker changed throughout the progress of the narrative.
Initially, I was intrigued by this polite cultured black man who would continually show up at the Family's home every Sunday and leave without complaint upon his near inevitable rejection. I admired his persistence or maybe even stubbornness and wished him the best of luck on his endeavor. Personally, I would never be able to keep that up. One summer, I promised myself I would keep myself in shape by getting up at 6:30 every morning and go for a 2 mile run. On the third day of this regimen, I decided that it was too humid and stayed indoors instead. Rather pathetic, I know. Hey, I don't like humidity. Anyway, I think it's probably safe to assume that everyone reading the book up until his terrorist attack on the firehouse was rooting for Coalhouse in his quest to win Sarah back, and was morally outraged by the slight done to him by the Emerald Isle Volunteer Firehouse. However, it was at this point that people's opinions began to change. Should Coalhouse have shrugged it off with a mental sigh of frustration? After all, this sort of incident was not at all uncommon during that time period. The Harlem lawyer confirmed it--he said he knew it sucked and was unfair, but Coalhouse wasn't physically hurt and should just forget about it.
Clearly, Coalhouse didn't think this way and he made the questionable move of blowing up the Emerald Isle Firehouse (and unintentionally ruining the rest of Houdini's show). When I read this, I was immediately reminded of Mr. Sutton's "Rules of Respectability". Until that point, Coalhouse had acted perfectly respectable, dealing only in official complaints and firm but polite requests. Then, he switched to physical violence and acts of terror. According to the Rules, that kind of thing loses all public support because it immediately categorizes him as "rough" and unacceptable by society.
In class, a lot of people, agreed that while his situation was certainly undesirable and they felt sympathy for him, his killing of people (some innocent and some not) is completely unforgivable. While I can see the logic of their argument, I am still on Coalhouse's side and hope that he successfully gets through this ordeal with his car and his life. Whenever I am wrongfully accused, I get incredibly indignant, and someone has yet to poop in my car so I can only imagine what Coalhouse must have felt. I can't wait to see how this ends.
It's true that Coalhouse abandons the "strategy" of respectability, but he does so because he realizes, with harsh clarity, that despite all his respectability, he is still treated as a second-class citizen before the law (in fact, his car and attire *attracts* the resentment of the racist firemen--unlike the local blacks, who "know their place"). While we're all (from our thoroughly respectable armchairs) hesitant to *endorse* terrorist violence, I too balk at merely tsk-tsking and affirming that he really has no reasonable right to *expect* justice, and he should merely swallow his pride and "stay in his place." (And the reader who sympathizes with Coalhouse has a representative in the book, in contrast to Father's disapproval--Younger Brother.)
ReplyDeleteI just wrote a blog on Coalhouse, and from my point of view, Coalhouse definitely is a tragic figure in the novel. He is such a respectable man, and I genuinely enjoyed reading about him. Only when his car is vandalized and he is harassed by the firemen do we later see his darker and more violent side.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't help thinking of Mr. Sutton's Rules of Resepctability when reading about Coalhouse's terrorist attacks because they fit in so well. Whether he was right or wrong in his crimes, I am still having a hard time to judge (even after we finished the book). It definitely is right to say that Coalhouse was being unfairly treated. On the other hand, doesn't he make blacks look bad by committing such terrorist attacks for having his car vandalized and being harassed? These sorts of crimes probably would have just made blacks look like even bigger monsters in the eyes of whites.
My conclusion: It definitely isn't fair that Coalhouse was being mistreated. If I had to give a piece of advice to Coalhouse, it would have been to find some other method of protest to get his message out. Violence, to me, doesn't do anything but exacerbate the problem further.
And the "making blacks look bad" is precisely the argument employed by Booker T. Washington in his scene with Coalhouse. But why should Coalhouse represent anyone other than himself and his personal grievance against the fire department? Does Younger Brother make "white people look bad" when he joins up with Coalhouse? Does Timothy McVeigh make "white people look bad" when he bombs a federal building? Did the guy in Tempe make "whites look bad" when he shot up the Giffords event? These are deliberately disingenuous questions I'm asking--but they reveal the extent to which Coalhouse's actions will always be associated with his racial identity, and that's part of the problem. One aspect of white privilege is the ability to act solely on your own behalf, or to deliberately define when and how you are acting on behalf of others.
ReplyDelete