I am the stone that the builder refused;
I am the visual,
The inspiration,
That made lady sing the blues.
I'm the spark that makes your idea bright,
The same spark
That lights the dark
So that you can know your left from your right.
I am the ballot in your box ,
The bullet in the gun,
The inner glow that lets you know
To call your brother son,
The story that just begun,
The promise of what's to come,
And Imma remain a soldier till the war is won.
I am the visual,
The inspiration,
That made lady sing the blues.
I'm the spark that makes your idea bright,
The same spark
That lights the dark
So that you can know your left from your right.
I am the ballot in your box ,
The bullet in the gun,
The inner glow that lets you know
To call your brother son,
The story that just begun,
The promise of what's to come,
And Imma remain a soldier till the war is won.
It's not hard to see how The Boondocks is in many ways similar to Paul Beatty's The White Boy Shuffle. Both serve as contemporary commentaries on African-American life, from the more general -- Gunnar hated "fried chicken even before I knew I was supposed to like it" (35) while Huey becomes sick from watching too much BET ("Riley Wuz Here") -- to the uncharacteristically specific -- the LA riots for Gunnar and the ballad of Latarian Milton (or, his parody name for the show, Lamilton Taeshawn ["Smokin' with Cigarettes"]). But, the two stories' protagonists have very different responses to the difficulties that still persist for African-Americans today, as can be seen merely from the show's opening theme.
It's not hard to see the builder's refusal (racism) in Gunnar's life. His own father beats him, saying, "You are not a Kaufman. I refuse to let you embarass me" (137). The poetry class at BU can't let him be just a poet: "Well, it's really you. I thought that if I mentioned a black poet, I wouldn't be taken seriously by the rest of the class" (179). And while both Huey and Gunnar aren't exactly the visual of abject poverty that could be conjured (Huey lives in white suburban Woodcrest and Gunnar is the model of success with his poetry books and basketball victories), they still come together to be a spark to action. Their main differences can be defined by this action. Gunnar uses his fame and power to convince black people everywhere to kill themselves in defiance of the white man. Huey, on the other hand, was cut off from African-American society when the Freemans moved from Chicago to suburbia, and his efforts tend to amount to little, like in "The Block is Hot" where he only musters white people who sympathize with his ideals but won't actually do anything to come protest.
Yet, despite Gunnar's obvious advantage in raising forces to do his bidding, as far as aiding African-Americans goes, Huey is a much more compelling character. Unlike Gunnar, he still believes "the promise of what's to come," and fights for it. Gunnar sits around daring the government to kill him. He won't even match the efforts of those he convinces to commit suicide; the government will have to do that job for him. There's no willingness to commit to anything; Gunnar has just become too apathetic to do anything beyond what he immediately needs to in order to keep himself and his family alive to their death by A-bomb. In his defense, he says, "So it's useless for an enemy to challenge you, right? ... Might as well kill myself, right? Why give you the satisfaction" (226). But the problem with that statement is that he very clearly is challenging the government, is giving them the satisfaction because he refuses to actually stand up for what he believes in like he's convinced everyone else to and kill himself. Huey, on the other hand, puts himself on the front lines, calling in weird, random blackmail threats to save unjustly imprisoned black people ("The Passion of Reverend Ruckus"). In fact, the only reason Huey doesn't go to the jail himself to bust the man out is he couldn't get a ride there; he even acknowledges that he would probably die in the process, but says that the cause is worth it. In comparison, Gunnar seems like he's given up even trying to make a statement and won't even commit suicide for fear it would make too big a wave.
I definitely agree that there are similar sensibilities (and sense of humor) on display in the Boondocks (the comic strip and the animated show) and Beatty's novel. And the caveat that neither Huey nor Gunnar have obvious complaints about their own personal situations is important (i.e. neither is poor, or subject to blatant forms of racist oppression; both have "advantages" and "opportunities"). Huey, even via his name, is a kind of throwback to a Black Power consciousness, and the joke is (in part) that as such his activism seems anachronistic in his context. Gunnar is in some ways a more radical character, as he comes to see no hope in any kind of organized action at all. Does this make him more "contemporary"? Is the idea of radical organizing and political activism mostly dead among young people today? Does Huey *just* seem like a cartoon? I would hope not. But in both cases, it's kind of hard to pin down the authors vis-a-vis these characters.
ReplyDelete