McNair Research Journal - University of St. Thomas

Humanities and Social Sciences
The Importance of Satire
Reginald Evans
University of St. Thomas - Department of English
Abstract:
Research on the satire employed by three contemporary African American
writers, Amiri Baraka, Ishmael Reed, and Percival Everett. The research looks
at how and why Baraka, Reed, and Everett use and are attracted to satire.
The research reviews Baraka’s The Dutchman, Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo, and
Everett’s Erasure.
Keywords: satire, Amiri Baraka, Ishmael Reed, Percival Everett, Dutchman,
Mumbo Jumbo, Erasure
“…all Art is propaganda and ever must be, despite the wailing of the
purists. I stand in utter shamelessness and say that whatever art I have for
writing has been used always for propaganda for gaining the right of black
folk to love and enjoy.”
“Criteria of Negro Art” by W.E.B Du Bois, October 1926
Satire has no absolute definition, and many scholars have different understandings
of what and how satire should be used. However, a good general
definition for satire can be taken from the Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary, which states that satire is “a literary work holding up human
vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.” It goes on to say that satire uses
“trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm…to expose and discredit vice or folly.”
According to A Companion to Satire: Ancient and Modern, edited by
Ruben Quintero, there are certain criteria that satire must follow in order
for the work to be truly considered satire. One of the characteristics of
satire is that the “immutably divine or demonic cannot be made satiric,
except through a humanizing or a thoroughly iconoclastic perspective.”
This means that the subject of satire must be able to be reprimanded and
its actions must be changeable.
Satire can also be a “vehicle for assuming a critical posture of a less powerful
but contentious underdog” (Quintero). This is important to note especially
in terms of African American satire. African Americans are usually
not perceived to hold power within America; it is because of this perceived
power differential that African American writers who would like to
critique those who are in power need to find a covert means of doing so.
Given all the qualities of satire, it appears that satire would be one of the
best tools in covertly undermining the present power structure. Satire
allows African American writers to politically and/or morally disagree with
those in power without much fear of retaliation. A prime example of
African Americans satirically critiquing those who are over them would be
that of African American slaves in the Antebellum South. For example,
if the masters had any evidence of the slaves downplaying them, then
most likely, the slaves would have been severely punished, if not killed.
Therefore, the slaves had to devise covert means of releasing frustrations
and critiques toward those in authority. This imbalance of power between
blacks and whites did not end with slavery, it continued on throughout
the course of American history, through the implementation of Jim Crow,
separate but equal laws, voting complications, and redlining. With all that
being said, it seems evident that contemporary African American writers
use and are attracted to satire because it affords them the opportunity to
critique the status quo and those who hold power, such as publishers, with
a relative sense of safety.
The primary focus of this research is to take a closer look into contemporary
African American satire, 1960 until present. This research will assess
University of St. Thomas McNair Research Journal
Reginald Evans
The Importance of Satire
how many contemporary African American artists, namely fictional
writers, have used satire as a vehicle to provide social commentary on
various ills of society (i.e., the unconscious belief in the United States
that Western culture and its ideology is superior to other cultures). The
research will show how satire can be used as a subversive political tool
for African American writers and why contemporary African American
writers utilize satire.
The questions that this research project seeks to answer are: Why do
contemporary African American writers choose to use satire as a literary
means to illustrate the ills of society or a specific person? What are the
aspects of satire that appear to be attractive to contemporary African
American writers? How does satire function for African American writers
in the subversive critiques of the status quo?
My hypothesis is contemporary African American writers use and are
attracted to satire because it affords them the opportunity to critique the
status quo and those who hold power (i.e., book publishers) with a
relative sense of safety. I also hypothesize that satire is alluring to African
American writers because of the aspect of humor that satire includes
and the cover that humor provides the writers’ works. African American
writers see the resemblance that satire has with signifyin’, a historically
African American way of play, further explaining the attraction that
contemporary writers hold for satire.
Amiri Baraka was originally born LeRoi Jones and as LeRoi Jones, Baraka
was married to a Jewish woman named Hettie Cohen, whom he would
divorce in 1965 and in 1966 he married Sylvia Robinson; this was around
the same time that Jones changed his name to Amiri Baraka. In Dutchman,
Baraka critiques the very lifestyle that he previously attempted to
mimic, that being the lifestyle of the “black, middle-class integrationist”
(Davidson). Baraka derides black integrationists and himself during that
stage in his life for attempting to assimilate into white American culture.
Dutchman begins with Clay, a black male, sitting alone on the subway.
He peers out the window and makes eye contact with Lula, a white
female, who is standing on the platform. Lula boards the subway train
and sits next to Clay. Clay and Lula begin flirting, but the flirting turns
into Lulu chiding Clay for Clay’s efforts to assimilate. The play closes with
Clay growing angry at Lula and threatening her; however, Lula murders
Clay. Thus, Clay is a symbol of the black integrationist while Lula
symbolizes the white culture into which the black middle class wishes to
become a part (Davidson). The efforts of assimilation can be seen during
the dialogue between Lula and Clay where she criticizes him by asking:
“And why’re you wearing a jacket and tie like that? Did your people ever
burn witches or start revolutions over the price of tea?” (1952). Lula
condemns Clay for attempting to appear as if he shares the same history
as white America, and then goes on to point out that he comes from a
completely different history: “Your grandfather was a slave, he didn’t go to
Harvard” (1952). Through Lula, Baraka reminds the black integrationists
that they are not a part of the same history of the mainstream, white
America and that they are in fact apart from this history. Also Lula’s words
remind the black integrationists that the same people that they are attempting
to assimilate as held their fathers in bondage (Davidson). Baraka
then critiques the integrationists for seemingly forgetting their unique history
as well as America’s violence against blacks. He then goes on, through
the character of Lula, to mimic the forgetfulness of the integrationists:
“And that you are free of your own history. And I am free of my history.
We’ll pretend that we are both anonymous beauties…” (1953). Lula is
reminding Clay of the differences between the histories of blacks and
9