James Baldwin

After reading Baldwin's book, I find myself thinking about the concept of America as a "melting pot." This phrase is one that I could have easily written on a fill-in-the-blank question in elementary or middle school or drawn a line from word to definition on a the much beloved matching section of a test. But here I take a look at the actual definition and try to figure out what it all means.

Merriam-Webster defines melting pot as "a place (such as a city or country) where different types of people live together and gradually create one community"; "a place where a variety of races cultures or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole." We are taught that the concept is a wonderful thing, that everyone conveniently mixes together as we all attempt to live out the American dream. This definition leads me to recall Baldwin's words about sentimentality, in which he describes the act as "the ostentatious parading of excessive and spurious emotion, is the mark of dishonesty, the inability to feel; the wet eyes of he sentimentalist betray his aversion to experience, his fear of life, and his arid heart" (14). And, more so, this leads me see that what we learn in our early education is, in effect, a giant cover-up. After all, how is one to explain the complexities and intricacies of a broken and damaging system to a child? It is so much easier to gloss over the facts, and, as we are taught to do so at an early age, it's no wonder that the idea that everyone gets an equal change at success still prevails.

 But as Baldwin states, "The American ideal, after all, is that everyone should be as much alike as possible" (65). In this way, the melting pot is crushing, and the act of assimilation is neither possible, reasonable, nor fair.

How does one combat the injustice of American society? In the book, Baldwin tells that many, including his father, turned to religion, but that this too has become skewed, for "religion operates here as a complete and exquisite fantasy revenge" which "provide excellent springboards for sermons thinly coated with spirituality but designed mainly to illustrate the injustice of the white American and anticipate his certain and long overdue punishment" (66). In this way, everything is interconnected, so that even the promise of freedom of religion takes on a different meaning for those looking for answers. We see how this affected Baldwin's father: "He could be chilling in the pulpit and indescribably cruel in his personal life and he was certainly the most bitter man I have ever met; yet it must be said that there was something else in him, buried in him, which lent him his tremendous power and, even, a rather crushing charm . . . he knew that he was black but did not know that he was beautiful" (87). And we see that Baldwin himself would "rather write than preach" (108).

Since it is through Baldwin's own voice that we, as readers, are made aware of this convoluted history, it fits that we must follow in his footsteps and avoid blunting the words that will lead to a true understanding of what exactly America is and what has made the country this way.