A Thin White Line Runs Through It
By: Chiara Atoyebi
Tags: Bipoc, Civil Rights, Healing, Human Rights

Photo by Jacky Zeng on Unsplash

A Thin White Line Runs Through It

When analyzing the ways in which the various writers in this unit chose to persuade their audiences successfully, we must first take into consideration the period in history in which it was written, and who it was written for. For example, in My Bondage and My Freedom, Fredrick Douglass is in the unique position of being one of the first learned slaves out of servitude that was able to aptly articulate the injustices he had experienced. However, his very recent proximity to freedom, made him not only a novelty, but also less of a threat. Gratitude, fear, and naivete made him more inclined to allow the white abolitionists he associated with to control the narrative to freedom.

This was evidenced by the tone of his writing. Douglass still possessed a hopeful language that ensued a trust in and of whites, but, was peppered with enough detailed imagery of his life in bondage to rouse the repulsion of those who were against slavery. Fredrick being both cordial and congenial was due in part to his limited experience with sharing relational space with whites and vice versa.

However, in order for Douglass to cross both the physical and psychological borders needed to persuade whites to help in his endeavors, he had to speak in a language they could easily digest. That was one of civility and servitude. He was instructed to be what whites had expected to see. Douglass writes,” It was said to me, ’Better have a little of the plantation manner of speech than not, ’tis not best that you seem too learned. (1077) This was not new to Douglass because in order to cross the borders with whites, and keep them as allies, he was encouraged to play this particular role over and over again. The role of the downtrodden slave. This became increasingly difficult as he became more educated. Douglass states, “I could not always obey, for I was now reading and thinking. New views of the subject were presented to my mind. It did not entirely satisfy me to narrate wrongs; I felt like denouncing them.” (1077) As a powerful orator and biographer of slavery Douglass did a lot to persuade whites of the injustices of slavery through his personal transformation and congeniality.

Photo by MJ Tangonan on Unsplash

Yet as history progresses, and white supremacy still abounds; the effects of colonization on the American Indian generated a visceral reaction. The thin white line of assimilation rendered the American Indian and their culture nearly extinct. The greater cause of cognitive dissonance is knowing that the only validation of your existence is to play up the relationship to whiteness either by blood or by proximity. Whatever the relation, the only way to persuade is to persist or to pander. To assimilate and assume a role or narrative. In the same way that Douglass needed to not seem too educated, the Indian should remain a racially ambiguous mystic demanding nothing and accepting of all. Alexie writes,

“There must be redemption, of course, and sins must be forgiven. For this we need children. A white child and an Indian child, gender not important, should express deep affection in a childlike way. In the Great American Indian novel, when it is finally written, all of the white people will be Indians and all of the Indians will be ghosts. (427)

Alexie employs imagery of the basic extinction of his people and culture due to the colonization of whites. He also reminds whites that the people that have been relegated to the reservation with a wanton disregard and bad food, carry the blood of their white ancestors which they need to acknowledge and not try to dilute and erase. Alexie speaks of the borders that are crossed on his psyche based on how he sees himself; and how he is viewed in America. The language he uses brings a clarity to the situation that could usher in more compassion. It is straightforward but keeps a relative emotional distance as a pathos.

Yet for Malcolm X and Wendy Rose their pathos stems from the desire to denounce the dominant culture and embrace their ethnic heritage. They both use more incendiary language in order to appeal to their bases and persuade change in society. Echoing Alexie, Rose writes about the value of Indian life and what she feels it means in society. Rose writes:

“Is it in cold hard cash? The kind that dusts the insides of men’s’ pockets laying silver-polished surface along the cloth? Or in bills? Papering wallets of they that go about threading the night with dark words. Or checks? Paper Promises that weight the same as words spoken once between the grown grass of our history and the hidden water in the clouds.” (21)

Rose is contemplating the value that is place on Indian life. This language is more confrontational but necessary in order to extend a point. Her audience, like Malcolm X’s audience, appeals to her people. This allows both speakers to speak more honestly and aggressively. They can cross the lines of civility because they are further from slavery and emboldened. Also, both cultures give license to being more forthcoming. Malcolm X had a distrust of whites and did not mince his words when placing blame where he thought it was necessary. This is in deep contrast to Fredrick Douglass’ approach although they shared the same ideals. Where Douglass and Alexie left room for negotiation, less was true of Malcolm and Rose. He even felt that liberals were full of hypocrisy as well. Malcolm asserts, “Snakes couldn’t have turned on me faster than a liberal. Yes, I will pull off that liberal’s halo that he spends so much efforts cultivating!” (271)

Here Malcolm sets up a wall. This wall states that, we have a problem, and nothing can be done about it essentially except the white man denouncing the system he set up and both sides go to their corner. Unfortunately, due to white integration that produced children from the onset, it is both physically and spiritually impossible.

Lastly, for the non-white academic that desires to forge her own path because she is straddling two worlds, Gloria Anzaldua, decides to make a menudo of the situation. In her own sobering and insightful language, she is the most persuasive and honest. She is completely herself and she is representative of the many masks she has to wear in order to excel and exist in society. Anzaldua writes, “We are going to have to control your tongue.” (1585) It is interesting that How to Tame A Wild Tongue could be asked of all the writers. How do you tell the truth quietly and unmessily? You can’t. It is impossible to appease all groups. However, the truth is always a unifier even if the language appears to be adversarial on the surface. The truth is due to colonization we are all connected and simply trying to salvage a homeland that is in essence no one’s birthright if not the birthright of all.

Works Cited

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzog editors. “The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present.” 2nd. Edition., Bedford/St. Martins, 2001.

Alexie, Sherman. “13/16 and Crazy Horse Speaks.” The Business of Fancydancing: Stories and Poems. Hanging Loose Press, 1992.

Rose, Wendy. “Three Thousand Dollar Death Song.” Lost Copper. Malkim Museum Press, 1992.

X, Malcolm, and Alex Haley. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Grove Press, 1965. Print.