Now that we've all finished The Spanish Gypsy (all of us right!), I'd like to continue our discussion about race and identity in Eliot's poem.
1) Given the ease with which Silva is brought in as a Gypsy brother (merely by taking an oath and wearing a badge), what do you make of the earlier claims of pure "blood" of the gypsy? Of course, related to this is what you make of the complete failure of this "conversion" and the terms of that failure. But, I'm curious how you read the take on race and identity in the poem as a whole. Does the poem embrace the 'essential' or 'permanent' or 'natural' character of racial categories? Does it critique this idea?
2) What do you make of the conflict between desire and race/family? Are there any individuals in this poem or is everyone somehow a site of the collective?
3) What do you think of the final stanza of the poem with the two figures looking at each other without being able to distinguish the individual from the darkness.
These are just a few of the topics I'd like to discuss
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I believe the racial boundaries still exist and are fixed within each group. Although the Gypsies accepted Don Silva into their group, Zarca knew and still referred to him as a Spaniard. The Gypsies were willing to accept Don Silva into their group out of respect for their Queen; however he was never one of them. Don Silva was only able to be a Gypsy though his badge just as Fedalma portrayed being a Spaniard Duchess through her garments. But, I am still questioning how pure blood was the Gypsy race if a person could join by only pledging an oath to the king. And it was clear that they have been through this process before because of their procedures. Furthermore, I did see a “Clark Kent” moment in the poem when Don Silva rips off is badge and declares he is a Spaniard and no longer a Gypsy. I noticed that only Fedalma, Don Silva and Juan are the only characters that get to choose. Yet Juan is the only individual in the entire poem. He never takes on a race. He is able to wonder freely between the Moors, Jews, Spaniards and Gypsies. Fedalma will always represent the Gypsies and Don Silva will always be apart of Spain. They were not freed from their identities or race. They did not have choices to make.
In addition, I saw the ending as Eliot making the world one race with darkness. There was no more war or religion to separate Don Silva and Fedalma, there was only darkness. Thus they were one because they could not find no beginning or end with each other. In a way it sort of reverted back to the beginning of the poem where Eliot was mocking the boundaries with in nature because nature can not have boundaries and thus she made nature free and open at the end of the poem
This is going to be the weirdest blog ever, but I cannot help it. I am not directly addressing one of the questions because I am frustrated with this poem. Not just this poem, but all that I have come to understand so far in this class. By the end of The Merry Zingara, I thought I understood what ‘gypsy’ meant. With only a few exceptions, ‘gypsiness’ is a fluid notion. Even the idea of an ‘other’ is a fluid notion. It can be based on how a person looks, who they hang out with, where they are from, how they dress, how they act—really cultural aspects. If a gypsy did not want to be a gypsy, he or she could in a sense “be cleansed” or even ‘become white’. In some cases it was their own choice. However, in The Spanish Gypsy, things change. Now, you are a gypsy if you are born gypsy. It is in your blood, there is no ‘cure’…you cannot change who you are. It just confuses me. Although I know there will probably be no real answer, I wish I knew what it was. The race question…is it biological…is it cultural…?? Am I supposed to simply view all these different takes on the issue and form my own opinion? I know all of these things about the other, but I also know nothing. It is interesting, but what does it mean? Maybe the blood idea is right. Maybe if you are born a gypsy, it is in your blood and you could not escape it if you wanted to. This would make the idea of ‘becoming white’ false. You can look white, and act white, and be accepted…but not really. You’ll never really be accepted? I don’t know. Will we ever come to a conclusion? I guess what I am trying to ask is, if we keep reading different views on the other, will we find an answer…or is it unanswerable? Is it just one of those things? Why search for something when we know there is no answer? Maybe I am way off.
I feel like Silva's acceptance and rejection of the gypsy title is Eliot's way of suggesting that race is somehow inherent in us- throughout the poem, there is this idea of "escape" from race, but it never works. Fedalma cannot escape her gypsy ancestry and Silva cannot reject his Spanish roots. I felt this way about the "The Mill..." as well- there is always an idea that you cannot simply "join" a race (and I think gypsies are, to a point, racialized in Eliot, to the extent that they are constantly seen as a separate group).
That said, I also feel like, through the conversion narrative and the ending, that Eliot is putting pressure on the idea that race separates us somehow. Despite their "racial" differences, Fedalma and Silva will always be "together," "true to a higher allegiance, higher than our love." So there is a certain conformity of being human and being bound together by naturally human traits, such as love, while also having the individual aspect of needing to "be yourself." This is also kind of shown in the gypsies departing- they are still gypsies but they are no longer bound to the tribe. So Eliot seems to suggest that individuality can be found only through a sort of conformity.
I agree with Andrea that Don Silva is only a gypsy through his badge and that Fedalma is only a Spaniard through her garments. But if we want to think in terms of Butler, then those things make them a gypsy or a Spaniard because by wearing those items they are 'performing' that race. If gypsies are such a 'melting pot' race and their ancestry is ambiguous then can't Don Silva be both a Spaniard and a gypsy? The notion of gypsy as a race is harder to discuss than Irishness vs. Englishness because the boundaries are either too vague or too easily breached, whereas in Irishness we had the clear set borders of a region and a heritage.
The end of the poem is interesting. Not being able to distinguish the individual from the darkness illustrates, to me, two things. The first is that appearances are needed to distinguish one from the other. The second is that either one could be the 'dark other'.
Race is a construct. That's what I can conclude not just from this poem, but from so many others that we have read. The question I have is whether or not race is choice? It seems to be. In The Octoroon, Zoe choose her blackness even though others see her as white. Maggie chooses to join the gypsies when she runs away. Wearing a badge and taking an oath doesn't change biology or the notion of blood purity. I'm curious if race is really this fluid. Is race what I call myself or what others call me? Silva taking the oath and the badge makes him a Gypsy, but does it guarantee that others will see the transformation in his race. I know we're supposed to be answering question in this blog, but I find myself more confused about race after the Gypsy section, probably because I never thought of the Gypsies as a race to begin with. I think Eliot ending the poem with the darkness because he wants the idea of race to be clouded.
Post a Comment