Through the Poetic Lens – Andrew Iwahashi

Andrew Iwahashi is a senior majoring in English with a concentration in Technical and Professional Writing. He resides in the Bay Area of California. Andrew was nominated by Professor Melissa Blankenship, who notes that the “level of control in his writing, along with an excellent vocabulary and exceptional analytical skills, aligns him with graduate level work.”  He offers a recent analysis of selected poetry from Langston Hughes and Countee Cullen that examines how their contrasting rhetoric reveals compelling sociocultural insights. Click on the link below to hear Andrew read the final paragraph of his essay, which is available in its entirety beneath the audio file.

Through the Poetic Lens: Personal Perspective, Value, and Action in Resisting Racial Oppression

Throughout history, humanity has dealt with racial oppression through either aggressive defiance or pacifist fortitude and determination. Between the poetry of Langston Hughes and Countee Cullen exists a dividing line, separating two diametrically opposed ways of dealing with racism, segregation, and oppression. While one sees personal value and meaning as being inherently alive, the other sees it as something to reclaim. While one advocates for the personal development and preservation of inner meaning, the other feels reduced to a subhuman level of inadequacy and sees vindictive, violent protest to the death as the last resort. Within each approach is a drastically different relationship with the oppressor. While one sees the persecutor as an inhuman monster, the other sees them as an antagonistic family member that will one day see the light. Through this essay, I will elucidate how these two poets’ individually distinctive use of poetic diction, form, and tone shape the implications of two steeply contrasting approaches in how the African American spirit, under immense pressure, deals with white oppression. Through this analysis, I will also comment on how the contrasting rhetoric of Cullen and Hughes informs us that much depends on either the full acceptance or the subtle discounting of inherent African American culture and value and how that decision can profoundly influence the way white dominance and oppression is resisted.

Langston Hughes’ “I, Too” utilizes an extended metaphor to acknowledge the perseverance of the black race and to combat racism by cultivating a vibrant, independent cultural strength and beauty that necessitates acknowledgement. Hughes acknowledges the presence of the unfortunate realities within segregation and racism yet also speaks of his oppressors in quite intimate and closely associated terms. Referring to himself as the “darker brother”, the speaker infers that he and the African American race of which he is poetically representing are part of the same family, the American family, and that due to the societal pressures of the white “company”, they have been relegated to a place unfit for a bona fide American. Yet despite all the mistreatment, his indomitable lines uphold an undaunted spirit that refuses to allow oppression to diminish his inborn worth. Rather than accepting defeat, Hughes responds to the injustice by deciding to “laugh”, “eat well”, and “grow strong” and that in time, “they’ll see how beautiful I am” (Hughes, lines 5-7, 16). The speaker insists on acceptance and knows that it is something entirely within their reach because of how much he values his intrinsic value.

The poem opens with a powerful, end-stopped, unapologetic declaration, “I, Too, Sing America” (Hughes, line 1). Hearkening back to the famed poem by Walt Whitman, “I Hear America Singing”, the immediate implication and allusion is that though diverse, America is unified, nonetheless. From the onset, Hughes sets the tone for the poem as being one that is not divisive as he boldly champions the idea of camaraderie in a society that is unwilling to fully grasp it. Surveying the rest of the poem, it becomes fully realized that it proceeds in free verse, suggesting the spirit of independence it has to that of fixed, confining traditions.

As mentioned, a critical element of self-perception in this poem is the speaker’s reference to himself as “the darker brother” (Hughes, line 2). Seeing himself not as an adversary to his oppressor but as a “brother”, the speaker has taken a momentous first step. Not viewing himself as an illegitimate outsider, he has already fully embraced his identity and humanity as a part of the American family. Because he sees himself as part of this collective, his response to the racial bullying and persecution he faces is not to lose heart but rather to “grow strong”, “eat well”, and “laugh” (Hughes, lines 5-7). He resolutely endeavors to do everything within his scope and power to become a sought-after participant in shaping and engaging with American society in every way he can. Hughes deepens this sense of optimism as he echoes the line “eat in the kitchen” in line 13 that was originally stated in line 3 yet this time in starkly differing circumstances. In line 3 it referred to him being ordered out to a relegated and segregated spot in the kitchen but in line 13 it is now something “nobody’ll dare say” because at this point “they’ll see how beautiful” he is and will “be ashamed” (Hughes, lines 11-13, 16-17). In these final stanzas, Hughes emphasizes the secondary characteristic of his acceptance: beauty. He sees strength and tenacity coupled with beauty as innately invaluable qualities within his soul and the countless souls of the African American population at large. Despite his infectious optimism, he acknowledges that the blinkered and insular outlook ingrained from years of racism has blurred the truth of his value and blinded the eyes of those affected. However, in his eyes, he does not need to prove or earn his worth, he simply needs to sustain it and refine it until it is finally seen in all its glory. In this poem, the burden lies not on the black man but on the white man to come to his senses and to be awakened out of a stupor induced over hundreds of years of bigotry and constructed racial disparity.

In Countee Cullen’s “If We Must Die”, a noticeably different spirit is exhibited. To Cullen, value and meaning as a person are intangible qualities to be reclaimed and proven. During a time of gratuitous violence and atrocity towards black Americans, Cullen’s stance arises from a backdrop of desperation to salvage humanity out of a reality that has comprehensively deprived them of it. Using apostrophic speech, the speaker addresses arguably the entire subjugated black race and urges them to not die “like hogs” (Cullen, line 1). The association he creates with domesticated animals places the focus on a reality that belittles their humanity, demeaning them to an animal, prey-like status. He sees their plight as being akin to growing up only to be killed senselessly. Afraid that their victimhood will permanently strip them of their dignity and independence, he seeks to forcibly reassert their humanity.

Written in Shakespearean sonnet form, the poem ironically adheres to the control and structure of preestablished poetic form, alluding to the fact that as a people they are under the will and authoritarian vice of white constructs and are thus severely constrained in their options. In lines 5-8, we see the line “If we must die” repeated for the second time, emphasizing the fact that he has numbly accepted death as something inevitable, a fate that they are destined for (Cullen, line 5). Cullen says that a noble death will shift the situation in a way that will cause their death to not be “in vain” once the “monsters” will be forced to “honor” them in death (Cullen, Lines 7-8). However, this line suggest that “honor” must come from their oppressors, not from within their own intrinsic selves, and that their persecutors still retain the ability to deem the value of the lives they take. Within these lines is a dichotomous difference between the self-possessed spirit in “I, Too”. Despite the desire to fight back and die a noble martyr, the diction of this poem almost unknowingly engenders an unintentional relinquishment of power over to their oppressors in an indirectly subversive manner.

In addition to their desire to “nobly die”, the speaker proposes that they should fight back to deliver “one death-blow” in an act of ultimate retribution and vindication (Cullen, lines 5, 11). In basic terms, the speaker believes that the only solution left is for violence to be resisted with violence. There is a crucial difference in the diction in this poem when referencing the relationship of the black collective with that of their oppressors. Cullen exclusively labels the oppressed group as “kinsmen” while he refers to their tormentors as the “common foe” (Cullen, line 9). While Hughes refers to both black and white man alike as members of the same family, Cullen establishes an unmistakable boundary between ally and foe. The divisive rhetoric of his poem, though in many ways understandable given the extent of atrocity they were forced to undergo, is nonetheless in overt contrast to Hughes’ sentiments in “I, Too”.

The differences between Hughes’ and Cullen’s poems predominantly hinge on the manner in which each author and by association, the speaker, view themselves and their oppressors. Contrasting perception and perspective is everything in these poems because with the reality of navigating a hostile, racist world being overwhelmingly comparable if not exactly the same in both cases, outlook makes all the difference. As a general rule, racism is not selective, it does not pick and choose which member of the black race to oppress, rather it simply acts out pervasively and without reason or justification. Despite being subjected to the same racial inequality as Cullen, Hughes has chosen to firmly hold on to his humanity as a rightful citizen of America while Cullen feel he has lost it and now grimly seeks to claw his way out from the degraded level of a dehumanized, slaughtered animal. Naturally, Cullen is one who views the white man as someone to exact revenge on. Conversely, Hughes sees them as misguided and malleable to change in the long run. Their routes toward belonging and acceptance move in contrasting directions from each other, so while Hughes begins by celebrating his innate value, Cullen starts out devoid of it yet urgently seeks to attain it. And while Cullen sees value as something to fight for through forcible violence and demanding resistance, Hughes sees it as something to protect and nurture until one day it is more powerful and strong than any force inclined to subvert it. Aside from the content itself, the form that each poet employs to drive their points home plays a reinforcing role in a telling and corroborative capacity. Cullen’s selection of Shakespearean sonnet form reveals his desire to fight like with like, returning the gesture in a manner not native to himself. In contrast, Hughes’ “I, Too” glides along effortlessly in free verse, invoking a sense of unwavering single-mindedness toward complete independence from seeking meaning and validation from the prevailing powers at be. Hughes sees the future as something to be reinvented, but Cullen sees it as something to salvage and seize. Though it would not be of surprise to find out that Cullen and Hughes at times crossed paths in agreement on how to handle racism, it is fair to say that these two poems within their own parameters, depict a spectrum of two extremes. And to this day, society continues to find themselves vacillating between these two extremes. Through the ages, from the Civil Rights Era until our current time, the debate presses onward, whether to fight back in vehement protest or to work tenaciously toward enriching and celebrating the black community as a culture full of commendable and treasured contributions to humanity and the world. Hughes and Cullen remind us that the discussion on the defiance of racial injustice has occupied the hearts and minds of this nation for years and will continue to remain with us for years to come until genuine unity finally becomes a dream fully realized.

Works Cited

Cullen, Countee “If We Must Die” The Penguin Anthology of Twentieth-Century American Poetry, by Rita Dove, Penguin Books, 2011.

Hughes, Langston “I, Too” The Penguin Anthology of Twentieth-Century American Poetry, by Rita Dove, Penguin Books, 2011.