Both of these pieces have some really interesting aspects to them. They really show how complex identify can be.
In piece A by Valerie Smith, she highlights the importance and relevance of the simple yet powerful gesture between a father and son. Smith goes to unpack the underlying details behind this gesture, which reveal it to be a representation of subordination and control even with physical separation between the parties. The use of “white master” in her piece immediately made me think of slavery. This also really showed me how the father-lover’s gesture did have themes of an unequal and unfair dynamics between the mother and child vs the father. Her interpretation and word choice connects to the bigger theme of the influence of racial dynamics and power structures have on individuals, communities and society as a whole.
For piece B I had to re read the lines a few times to get more of what Sundquist was saying. I think he offers a really interesting perspective on the narration. His perspective really shows the psychological complexities for someone who is white passing but is African American. Sundquist highlights the way internal conflict can lead to an unreliable narrator who battles with being detached or feeling intense emotional involvement. This reminded me about how we started talking about the unreliable narrator and Sundquist’s point only further helped that argument.
I found both of these pieces really interesting and enjoyed reading what these authors had to say. It helped me to go back and think more critically about the work I was reading.
I agree. The word “master” also initially made me think of slavery and how this interaction definitely has the tone of subordination. Briget’s post makes a great point on this interaction that I think you would find interesting! We discuss (her in her post and myself in my comment there) what we think this interaction could mean besides just an act of domination over the individual being given the gold coin necklace.
I agree with you, in piece A by Valerie Smith, using the term “white master,” Smith effectively draws parallels to the legacy of slavery, highlighting how these established power imbalances continue to manifest in subtle, everyday actions. This not only shows the persistent influence of racial hierarchies but also emphasizes the deep psychological impact these dynamics have on family relationships and individual identities.
I personally struggle to understand how the father is controlling. I feel like the father’s financial support allowed for the narrator to have more boundless possibilities academically and artistically. In some ways I think this is freeing, if anything. An Ivy League education and a grand piano at his disposal could, in theory, open many doors. I don’t know if I’m buying the master narrative but I also can’t dismiss the thought that Valerie Smith probably knows what she’s talking about.
Your interpretation is something I agree with. The phrase of “white master” Valerie Smith utilized also made me think of slavery which others agreed with. It relates to the broader matter of how society and certain individuals are influenced by racial dynamics and power structures.