Dear Ms. Wilkerson,
At the beginning of The Warmth of Other Suns you describe finding pictures of your mother in a drawer, explaining the questions that went through your mind. In particular, I'm intrigued by your question: "was it a braver thing to stay, or was it a braver thing to go?" I've always struggled with this question. It's certainly made more complicated by the blatant racism and extreme danger that African Americans experienced in the south, but I think it can be asked of all travel. When someone is struggling and needs a change, couldn't you ask the same question? Is traveling simply a way to run away from problems instead of facing them? It seems to be a fine line.
However, as I said, The Warmth of Other Suns highlights a unique set of circumstances. I see the bravery in staying, in not allowing yourself to be forced out of your home, and in trying to change impossible circumstances. But I'm not always sure that staying is as much brave as it is a disregard for personal safety--or, at the very least, recognition that standing your ground is more important than personal safety. This idea applies to other travel situations as well; if someone is struggling with mental health and problems being in a certain place, is staying not potentially dangerous? In The Warmth of Other Suns, leaving seems equally brave; it's hard to start over and abandon life-long friends and communities, even if in search of a safer, happier, healthier, and more prosperous life.
There is such a fine distinction between leaving and running away, and ultimately, it comes down to too many factors. I think you can rarely tell what the true motivation is. Is travel more about the destination or about leaving the current location? Is it just a way to start over without having to face past pain and failure? Or can it be complete happiness with the here and now, yet a decision to leave your comfort zone despite having nothing to run away from? I've chosen both paths--to stay and to leave--when I've struggled at different times. I'm still not sure which is braver.
Best,
Devon
Dear Devon,
ReplyDeleteThe question you ask is a good one: is exodus an act of bravery or cowardice? Immediately, the Pershing brothers come to mind. Robert wanted to leave Jim Crow for California, and Madison wanted to stay. Robert's ambition would not allow him to remain under the invisible hand of white supremacy - unable to buy his own suits, forced to say "sir," stuck playing second fiddle to white doctors who lacked his skill. Madison's pride wouldn't let him leave. Running away would mean Jim Crow had won, and Madison wasn't going to give the rascals that. He felt a loyalty to Monroe, to Louisiana, to the legacy of his proud parents, who had spent their lives inscribing dignity in the minds of colored youth of the rural South. Robert felt loyal to his family, himself, and he saw before him an opportunity to make something of himself - to prove himself - to rise up, and even to rise above the stratosphere of the South and prove that Jim Crow was a hoax. Madison knew it. The people of Monroe, whom Madison served, needed to know it. The army, the West, the North needed to know it. Robert needed to be the one to prove it to them.
The Great Migration was a diverse undertaking, and its participants left the South for diverse reasons. There are certain eras in history that demand immense bravery. The modern American South was (and is) certainly one of them. Everyone who survived Jim Crow - whether by escape or by "stooping to conquer," as Pershing put it - should be remembered for his or her resilience.
Warmly,
Isabel Wilkerson