Brown Girl, Brownstones (Books 3-4)
In the last two books of Brown Girl, Brownstones, we see Selina’s transformation from a young girl to a woman. We start off with a breakfast with Silla, Iris, and Florrie. Toward the end of this breakfast, filled with anger and envious of the other people Iris and Florrie were talking about, Silla swears that she will sell Deighton’s land behind his back. Selina goes to her mother’s workplace to confront her about this but ultimately makes little progress. True to her word, Silla sells the land. However, when she lets Deighton collect the money, Deighton goes on a shopping spree and spends all of the $900 that was received. Months later, the family goes to ‘Gatha Steed’s daughter’s wedding, where Deighton is rejected by the entire community.
Later, Deighton loses use of his arm in an accident at the factory where he works. After the accident, we notice that his attitude has changed. He is lost in his own thoughts most of the time. He has also joined The Peace Movement, which worships a man by the name of “Father Peace.” Selina joins Deighton at the home (or “kingdom”) of the Movement in Harlem, where he is recognized by Father Peace. Deighton eventually leaves home to work at a restaurant of the Peace Movement. Angered by Deighton’s actions, Silla has him deported back to Barbados. It is reported that Deighton is killed (by drowning) on the journey back.
In the year after, Selina resorts to wearing black, Miss Mary dies, and Silla evicts Suggie. Miss Thompson “dares” Selina to go with her mother to a meeting of the Association of Barbadian Homeowners and Businessmen. At this meeting, Selina tells the others there that the Association “stinks.” On her way out, she meets a boy named Clive. She has sex with him that night and forms a relationship with him as well. She eventually wants to run away with Clive and creates an elaborate plan to fake her devotion to the Association, receive its first ever scholarship, and use that money to run away with Clive.
Things take a turn, however, after a dance recital. She goes with her dancing friends to a friend’s (Margaret’s) house. There, in the midst of the celebration, Margaret’s mother calls Selina over and subtly ridicules her for her skin color. Shattered and now with a different view on life, Selina ends her relationship with Clive, rejects the scholarship offered by the Association, tells the truth about her actions at the Association, and decides to go to Barbados.
Let me start off by saying that I lost all respect for Deighton as I was reading this. At first, he is presented as a man who only wants the best for his children. Although he has unrealistic dreams, he seems to be approachable and loves his children. However, he did not have to spend $900 on a shopping spree. He could have easily saved most of the money (to buy a house) and used some of it to buy things he wanted. So, I found the shopping spree absolutely unnecessary. Furthermore, after he loses his arm, he also seems to lose his identity. At the “kingdom” of the Peace Movement, when Selina calls for Deighton, a woman says that there is no “daddy” in the kingdom. In addition, his actions mirror those of the others there, praising Father Peace. Thus, Deighton is not Deighton anymore but rather a follower with no identity whatsoever. He also indirectly disowns his family by leaving home to work at the Peace Movement’s restaurant and may have even killed himself in his return journey.
Though Silla’s actions seem to be geared toward helping the family, I found some of her actions unnecessary as well. She could have respected the fact that Deighton’s land was solely his. However, she chose to betray him and sold the land behind his back. That in itself signaled the downfall of the entire family. She seems to even have regrets for doing so. This is especially noticeable at the wedding when she sees the other women seated with their husbands.
Thus, it can be said that a series of bad (and somewhat irresponsible) decisions by both Deighton and Silla contributed to the downfall of the entire family.
I saw the scene with Margaret’s mother as a turning point in Selina’s life. It is true that she had been growing throughout the book before this instance. However, this is the moment when she truly realizes how cruel the world actually is. Many of the problems she experienced prior were more domestic, family-related problems. However, this is the first time we see something more personal affect Selina, and we see how much it affects her.
One final point I want to briefly talk about is Selina’s relationship with Clive. It seems that their relationship grew more out of each other’s needs than actual love. These needs included that of rebellion as well as that of physical touch. It seems that, for a period of time, both Selina and Clive needed someone for support, and they found that support in each other.
The book was an enjoyable read. I liked the character development, and I felt some of the emotions conveyed by the story. I was awed by Selina’s transformation from a ten-year-old girl at the beginning to a twenty-something year-old woman at the end, and I also appreciated how the author touched upon many of the major challenges that a girl like her would face during that time period.
“From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration”
The article, “From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration,” discusses the often-understated role of transnational ties in migration. The long-held view on immigration holds that immigrants undergo a process of incorporation into the countries they migrate to. However, a newer concept views immigrants as “transmigrants,” whose lives depend on international connections and whose identities are shaped by these transnational connections. The article states that the current immigration debate here in the U.S. is one that focuses on limiting the transnational loyalties of immigrants. It describes this view as “myopic” (48).
The authors state that immigrants live transnational lives because of: (1) changing forms of capital that lead to deteriorating conditions and a non-secure existence, (2) racism leading to insecurity of these immigrants, and/or (3) growing loyalties to the home and host countries because of “nation-building projects” (56). Thus, it appears that immigrants may lead transnational lives because incorporation is just not possible. Leaders imagine their countries to be de-territorialized in the sense that emigrants will continue to support their home countries even while living abroad. This is in contrast to a common notion of nation building that holds that people owe their loyalties only to the country they live in, whether or not it is their home country.
Transnational ties (e.g. through extended family networks) seem to provide support to immigrants, in both social and economic situations. There were examples of transnational businesses that grew from these ties. These ties also helped in maintaining or elevating an immigrant’s status at home. Transmigrants also play a role in the politics of their home countries as seen in the struggle against the dictatorships in Haiti.
However, the authors also state that the importance of these ties have largely been ignored in past studies. This is in addition to the assertions that the current immigration debate centers on defending “against the undocumented” (59) and is about confining immigrant loyalties to the United States.
I always thought that it was a generally accepted notion that immigrants maintained ties to their home countries. It seems logical that they would maintain some ties to their native culture. However, after reading this article, it seems that this is not the case. It seems that this phenomenon was denied by many and was accompanied by many attempts at reversal. This stems from the idea that the inhabitants of a nation-state should have one and only one loyalty: to the nation-state itself. However, this seems to present a question:
Would the leaders (or hegemonic forces) of such a state prefer to promote transnational ties (and thus potentially create alliances) with other countries? Or would they rather promote incorporation into the state and promote unity within the state itself?
It seems that a nation-state must strike a balance between the two options: to both promote a certain degree of incorporation as well as transnational ties.
However, it seems that leaning toward incorporation creates an appearance of ignorance to an objective observer. For example, in the third anecdote that the authors provide, public officials ignored the fact that transmigrant children best socialize in an interconnected social space. So, it appears that these higher officials either failed to realize this idea or purposefully ignored the importance of interconnectedness.
In general, I found this article very interesting. I was especially fascinated by the following:
“Haitians of peasant backgrounds…have developed a rhetoric in the form of songs sent through audio cassettes within which tensions and fissures within transnational households and kin networks are communicated” (55).
It was interesting to see how audio recordings and songs were used to communicate between people living in different countries.
A Quick Bonus
So, I actually read (or attempted to read) “Black is the Color of the Cosmos.” This is mainly because I got the email after I finished reading the article. I will admit that this article was a relatively difficult read, and it took a lot more brain power than it should have. But, since I read it, I will briefly recount what I grabbed from the article.
What I saw was a discussion of the word “diaspora.” Why do we use the term? What’s so important about it? It usually refers to a set of commonality among a group of scattered people; however, there are differences in what commonalities are perceived. There was also a discussion on whether the concept was worth holding on to because Africa is seen less and less as “the point of entanglement” (417) of these people. There was also a discussion about the true commonalities of the black diaspora. Should they be “grouped” according to their African roots or “divided” along previous colonial regimes?
