The viewlessness of norms tricks us into believing that this is “how things have always been, this is what exists naturally, objectively and logically”. However the Black Radical Tradition has taught me to investigate the mainstream because it does not just occur. There is a reason why certain ideas come into the mainstream while others are sidelined. Being aware of the politics of norms and mainstreams, allow us to see beyond them. This in turn allows us to re-imagine the world, unrestricted by the shackles of the mainstream.

Toni Morrison shows us how every piece of writing is a series of choices. Further extending this idea allows us to see that every action entails a series of choices. Consequently a series of choices supplement a certain way of thinking. If we look at the world as “readers”, uncritically accepting these choices we take the world as it is given to us. However if we view the world as “writers” we can question the legitimacy of these choices.  Furthermore we question the illegitimacy of the “ownership of history”, and thus open the subjectivity of the created narrative. We pose the questions: What creates the mainstream? Why should we follow it? Why are certain people ignored whilst others glorified? This examination allows us to question the viewlessness of norms and the mainstream.

The “Santa Clausization” of Martin Luther King and the ostracization of Malcolm X is an example of the bias of the mainstream.  Martin Luther King has been made into a reductive figure; he is used not as a means to illustrate the issues of the African American community but rather the gains that gloss over the still-continuing structural issues that plague the Black community. He has been appropriated to serve the system that still exploits African Americans and is used as a justification for the linearity of progress, i.e. it strengthens the justification of wait. Instead the fuller picture of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X is lost; the ones that demand for accountability and the transfer of rights now.  Without critically examining the concepts and reduced figures of the mainstream, fallacious justifications such as the inevitability of progress and the virtue of waiting become acceptable.

A mainstream image of Martin Luther King assures us that the Civil Rights Movement resolved most of the issues that plagued the African American community. Furthermore it convinces us that there exists a linear relationship between time and progress. The Civil Rights Movement is used to show that “things will only get better”.  Using Toni Morrison’s lens we can see that this suits the purposes of those who benefit from the current system. It allows the status quo to continue unchallenged.  It illustrates the politics of the mainstream, which claims to be objective and neutral. It is a tool used by the “owners of history” who benefit from current oppressive systems. On the other hand if we examine sidelined figures like Malcolm X or Ella Baker we can see their criticisms that naturally opposed this simplified view of Civil Rights and Martin Luther King. Whether it is Ella Bakers idea of slow organic progress or Malcolm X’s radical sweeping changes, each fight the recommendation to wait, deny the linearity of progress and therefore urge for immediate action.

These figures understood the hegemony of the mainstream and its political origins, allowing them to free themselves from its cage. They thus played the important role of re-imagining the world. The Black Radical Tradition shows us many figures that did this. Whether it is CLR James’ re-situation of the centre of revolution or Malcolm X’s re-construction of identity, these figures opened up possibilities. They showed that the way to re-imagine the world is open for all those who choose to look. There are other ways of being for those who question the way things are, and make demands for the way it should be. The Black Radical Tradition therefore showed me constriction of our knowledge, and the freedom of our unknown.

Norderlands La Frontera argues the need for living in “crossroads” and “confluence” whilst representing this idea in its own form. Anzaldua integrates her language, uses poetry to illustrate this point. Her piece becomes the breaking of the intellectual borderland. In this we can see the structure of the Borderlands La Frontera as a Meta form of resistance, breaking down the conformity and showcasing deviance in writing.

The text vacillates between Spanish and English. This Illustrates her point:

Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself. Until I can accept as legitimate Chicano Texas Spanish, Tex-Mex and all the other languages I speak, I cannot accept the legitimacy of myself. Until I am free to write bilingually and to switch codes without having always to translate, while I still have to speak English or Spanish when I would rather speak Spanglish, and as long as I have to accommodate the English speakers rather than having them accommodate me, my tongue will be illegitimate

Anzaldua demonstrates the oppression that takes place through language. Being caught in her hybrid identity, neither her Spanish nor her English is seen as proper. There is a clear delineation in linguistic borders. Accented English is not real English, nor is “Anglosized” Spanish. From the offset individuals like Anzaldua are caught in the borderland. However her conscious use both languages is rejection of these constructed borders. She does not simply adhere to the English or the Spanish speaker. She allows the “chromosomes [to] cross over”, embracing the ambiguity of her “hybrid identity”. The “tyranny” of language is subverted by her un-translated use of Spanish.  One is not prized over the other, one in fact coexists with the other; becoming borderless.

Her writing becomes an example of deviant literature. It consciously disregards the mainstream ethics of writing. The dichotomy of the “rational and “irrational, magic and reality and real and imaginary” is broken through her use of poetry and fiction. Anzaldua explains this point:

 In perceiving conflicting information and points of view, she is subjected to a swamping of her psychological borders. She has discovered that she can’t hold concepts or ideas in rigid boundaries. The borders and walls that are supposed to keep the undesirable ideas out are entrenched habits and patterns of behavior; these habits and patterns are the enemy within. Rigidity means death. Only by remaining flexible is she able to stretch the psyche horizontally and vertically.

The rational is not the only tool one should use, this represents another constructed border. La facultad -“sensing,” a quick perception arrived at without conscious reasoning- is shown to be vital. The idea of logic as being the only way to know is challenged. Anzalduas use of personal and literary forms break the established structure of argumentative pieces. The magical is intertwined with the “real”.  She provides a piece of writing that is “less literal and more psychic”.  It shows us that one no longer needs to dwell on the imposed cold styles, that disregard the various elements of knowledge.

Her use of free verse poetry with varying structure can also be seen as a comment. Her poems at the end of the book serve as a good example. There is no repetition in the placements of the stanzas, indicating a completely free, borderless form. However the poem right after conforms more to a block structure. The sentence “to live in borderland means” is used at the start of every stanza. The difference in the existing borderland and the borderless land is made explicit just by these two poems. There is constraint in the “To live in the borderland poem”, it is rigid, which to her is “death”. It captures the demarcated spirit of the borderland world, it also lists down what it means to exist in this space. The poem preceding it however escapes all “logical” sequence, dwells in the unknown, rejects confining the stanzas into an ordered structure. It therefore becomes “a walk from one culture to the other”, one language to the other or one way of knowing to the other. It does not attempt to know all, but accepts the ambiguity of the hybrid world, deconstructing the borders that have been artificially built up.

Borderlands La Frontera echoes many ideas of intersectional politics. It however takes it one step forward by providing a means of learning, writing and knowing that is distinct from the rigid, demarcated and strictly regulated world we know.

“Neither eagle nor serpent, but both. And like the ocean, neither animal respects borders”

Intersectional politics is not only productive but necessary. Its productivity stems from challenging the narrow conceptualization of discrimination, revealing silences and hidden oppressions. Detractors often point to practical concerns however in the long term there is practical gain from the inculcation of intersectionality.

Discrimination is overly simplified and this is what intersectionality rectifies. Discrimination is seen as a uniform and unidirectional phenomenon. Discrimination is defined through the creation of neat categories (e.g. sexism or racism) where it is assumed that all individuals within these groups face identical discrimination. For example a black woman can either suffer racism or sexism but not a combination of both. Discrimination is therefore demarcated rigidly and all individuals within large categories, irrespective of race, gender, class and sexual orientation apparently share a fundamentally similar oppression.

Intersectionality attacks this fallacy. It highlights the distinctness of oppressions that take place within a single category e.g. sexism against women. Crenshaw uses black women to illustrate the need for intersectionality. She demonstrates this through court cases where black woman are uniquely discriminated. This oppression does not happen to black men or white women. Thus the interplay of race and sex creates hybrid discrimination. Without intersectionality this assumption of identical discrimination goes unchallenged, silencing the most marginalized groups in society. Conversely through intersectionality we can identify power differentials and hierarchies within the oppressed. We become aware of hidden and silenced oppressions that are otherwise made invisible. Challenging currently simplified mainstream discourse allows us to see and address the blind spots within its framework.

Intersectionality also reveals oppression from within the oppressed. Sexism is represented by the white woman, just as racism is by the black man. Race or sex elevates a dominant group above a subgroup (i.e. black women are sidelined by white women and black men). This domination erases the experience of the most marginalized group. For example racism or sexism is exclusively associated with the plight of white women or black men. On the other hand the experience of black women is ignored due to its specificity. The black woman’s struggle does not neatly fit into the classifications of the mainstream, so it is discarded. The white woman does not represent the black woman’s issues, yet she is still seen as the representative of all of womankind. The same parallel can be drawn with the black experience, with men monopolizing representation. This bias illustrates the implicit oppressions that take place. Through intersectionality both race and sex can be invoked simultaneously. This allows us to address “specific” issues of black women and find representation for subgroups. Otherwise they risk being labeled “not really” sexist or racist issues. Therefore intersectionality is a method through which existing paradigms can be challenged.  

Intersectionality is often seen as divisive politics, however if movements can learn to adapt to the needs of those who are most discriminated, it ferments greater growth. Exposing the atrocities a discriminated group commits may reify the stereotypes perpetuated about it. For example Kimberle Crenshaw uses The Color Purple to display the fears black men have about reinforcing racial stereotypes and causing harm to anti-racist movements. These concerns of practicality however are shortsighted. Long term evolution of movements requires dissent. Only by accounting for criticisms can movements achieve true representative powers and eventually move their fight towards actual emancipation. Similarly a feminist movement with an intersectional approach would garner more support. Disillusioned women who do not identify with white feminist movements would likely support the movement if their grievances are heard. Short sighted critics may raise concerns of division, but in the longer run, accounting for the grievances for a whole base of disenfranchised groups only increases the support base and consequently the power of social movements.

Practicality however requires answers to tough question; Is there a hierarchy of oppressions? If not how does one prioritize issues? What issue comes first and how does a movement identify the most important issue? The complexity of the real world means that more problems exist than solutions. In this case where does a political movement or an institution start when trying to deal with the question of intersectionality. The difficulty of answering these questions maybe the reason intersectionality is criticized on practical grounds, but this indicates a lack of motivation, rather than an impossibility to find the answers.

Achieving true liberation is difficult but only by posing questions can we find the answers.

This essay will connect Bob Dylans Hurricane (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpZvg_FjL3Q) to “A report from occupied territory” by James Baldwin.

Hurricane can serve two purposes when hearing it in light of James Baldwins “Occupied Territory”, it can serve as another example of an African American man going through institutional racism and its harrowing repercussions. It also illustrates the underlying assumption of the African American being violent, as well as the tacit support of society. Baldwin points to the many injustices that are committed by racist institutions, such as presumed guilt, torture, wrongful arrest and conviction. Hurricane plays on the same themes, with Rubin Carter wrongfully convicted for a crime he didn’t commit.

Both Dylan and Baldwin illustrate the stereotype and subsequent expectation of crime with the African American. The identity of the African American is once again tied with negative characteristics; lying, stealing and murdering are made synonymous with blackness. The underlying assumption in the institutional racist acts is that it is likely a black man has committed the crime, because he is inherently violent and prone to crime. We see this negation of identity in both pieces and the creation of this expectation in all society, pervading even Black communities.

In Hurricane we see the manifestation of this expectation:

To the white folks who watched he was a revolutionary bum

 And to the black folks he was just a crazy nigger

 No one doubted that he pulled the trigger

Similarly Baldwin alludes to the “Bad nigger”, who the police supposedly clean the streets of. However these archetypes are created by the police, who charge innocent individuals; by segregation, which robs the African American community from quality education and jobs. Systematic causes are entirely ignored in the expression of these racist expectations. This institutional discrimination is what Dylan and Baldwin want to expose. Similarly Baldwin’s trip to Washington also illustrates this point, where the question is implicitly posed:

Do you think any of those unemployed, unemployable Negroes who are going to be on the streets all summer will cause us any trouble?

Through these examples we can see the expectation that pervades society; it is what causes police officers, judges and juries to maliciously indict the African American. This expectation also causes both “black and white folks” to believe that those wrongly blamed have likely committed this crime. Baldwin and Dylan shed light not only on police brutality and biased trials but also on the false expectations that underpin these atrocities. The Harlem Six, Rubin Carter and the African American community face these discriminations because the African American identity in the eyes of America still is still linked to crime and violence. Dylan and Baldwin try to subvert this expectation.

Additionally Dylan more explicitly points to the silence of those around the victim. The police feed words into the mouth of Bradley by asking:

Think it might-a been that fighter that you saw runnin’ that night?

Similarly

The D.A. said he was the one who did the deed

And the all-white jury agreed

We can see the ubiquity of this expectation yet there is a hesitation that exists, an encouraging disbelief. Despite this doubt there is still silence by all those around the wrongly convicted. Instead of acting on this doubt, they facilitate the atrocities. Dylan points at the complicity of society, an idea Baldwin does not make explicit. Therefore we can take Hurricane as an extension of the charges that Baldwin levies. Perhaps the reason Baldwin does not go further is due to his race. Baldwin is reviewing a white author’s book, but it is possible that the intense scrutiny and repression against black civil rights leaders forced a lighter tone on his part. Dylan on the other hand is allowed the leeway to freely critique all who stand silently. The same level of measure is not required for Dylan, as is for Baldwin, which is why Hurricane can serve as a necessary extension of “A report from occupied territories”.

The breaking of this silence is what enables the widespread repudiation of the stereotypes that exist for the African American community.  The redefinition of the African American identity is still an ongoing process. One which is unfortunately still tainted by these racist notions, however the silence must be broken.   

This essay will explore the similarities and differences in the analysis of the “house nigger” or the “privileged class”, in the words of Malcolm X and C.L.R. James respectively. Both Malcolm and James explain the same phenomena but arrive at different implications. James reasons that the privileged class fosters the leaders of the revolution. On the other hand Malcolm holds the house nigger, his expression for the privileged class, to be a detractor of the revolution.

James highlights the extent to which the privileged class aped their masters; the French:

Dressed in cast-off silks and brocades, they gave balls in which, like trained monkeys, they danced minuets and quadrilles, and bowed and curtseyed in the fashion of Versailles.

Malcolm similarly illustrates this point:

He identified the master’s house as his own. If the master said, “We have a fine house here,” the house Negro would say, “Yes, our house is a fine house.” Whenever the master said, “We,” he said, “We.”

The class they describe lives comfortably and wishes to emulate the white class. They blind themselves to the oppression that the field niggers face. Instead they herald the vast improvements that the white man has brought.  They do not empathize with the less fortunate, more overtly oppressed classes, and instead wish to become like the oppressor.

But in this class, James also sees potential. Their unique position allows them education, awareness and inevitably the tools needed to lead a revolution. C.L.R James states:

But a few of these used their position to cultivate themselves, to gain a little; education, to learn all they could. The leaders of a revolution are usually those who have been able to profit by the cultural advantages of the system they are attacking, and the San Domingo revolution was no exception to this rule

Here we see the utility of the privileged class, amongst them some eventually become self aware, leading them to become the perfect leaders of the revolution. They use the skills they acquired through their special position to the detriment of those that oppress their people.

Malcolm however sees this class as completely harmful for the revolutionary cause because they derail the revolution by trying to pacify the masses. He views the actions of the “big six” as indirect attempts by the Kennedy administration to control the African American revolution. He sees traces of the “old Negro” who begs for his civil rights. The revolutionary field Negro would understand that they already have human rights. They instead need to hold Uncle Sam accountable for trying to deprive them of what is fundamentally theirs. Integrationist approaches, according to Malcolm X, fall into the trap of begging for rights. This pathway, he reasons, comes from the leadership of the privileged, who have colluded with the oppressors. In this way all revolutionary zeal is sapped from the movement.   

The question that is raised by an inter-textual reading is; If the privileged class can truly be revolutionary? C.L.R James would argue it is inevitably revolutionary, while Malcolm X would show their pacifist nature.  

Malcolm, a high school dropout who took to the streets, hustling, had his personal renaissance in prison. C.L.R James on the other hand was certified as a teacher and worked for The Guardian. Malcolm is the leader from the streets, from the field. One who did not need doctoral degrees. C.L.R James and Toussaint, a leader he holds in high regard, illustrate that privilege does not lock you in apathy and betrayal.  They are the leaders who abandon privilege. Both leaders can co-exist in this world, there is revolution in everybody.   

Western Feminism is systematically shown to have imperialist tendencies through the many problematic practices that Mohanty lays out. The premise of Mohanty’s argument can be laid down in the homogenization and simplification of third world women, local nuances and complexities. She states:

What is problematical, then, about this kind of use of “women” as a group, as a stable category of analysis, is that it assumes an ahistorical, universal unity between women based on a generalized notion of their subordination. Instead of analytically demonstrating the production of women as socio-economic political groups within particular local contexts, this move limits the definition of the female subject to gender identity, completely bypassing social class and ethnic identities

This wide and strictly segmented analysis is what Mohanty has contentions with; Western Feminists do not ground their work in the “women” (i.e. the real material subjects) and instead focus on the “Woman” (i.e. a cultural and ideological composite other).

We will focus on these two criticisms and further this analysis to illustrate how neglecting these factors can lead to an implicit simplification of colonization.

The variety of the colonization mission presented many different programs, systems and levels of exploitation around the world. The causes of differences are many and just a few examples include the complexities that arose out of what country was colonizing which country, and in what time period. It is safe to say the complexity in the variations and histories of the colonized are vast.

By detaching the histories, politics and economics from their analysis, alongside the imposition of strictly gendered sexual-political explanations, which operates in identity binaries, western feminism simplifies the phenomena of colonization. Western feminism creates neat boxes of homogenized women in the third world who suffer in the hands of oppressive men, religions and even past colonial practices, but in the tacitly represented uniform third world. The pervasiveness of colonization’s impact alongside the multiplicity of its manifestations is entirely ignored by western feminism. This plays a role in mainstream discourse as it ignores the nuances and devastation of differing colonial practices by ignoring local complexities that arose from differing colonial repercussions. The impression that a reader of western feminism may get is that the consequences of colonization are also homogenous, that it can be traced along vast territories, just like the “oppression” of the veil or Islam on the “homogenous” third world woman. Ignoring history and context means that the impacts of colonization is reduced to stereotypical qualities, without the important qualification being made that they are color blind to the multiple shades of red that was spilt during colonization.

The demarcation of neat categories with a prioritization for non-contexualised gender politics also absolves much blame from colonial impositions. Mohanty cites the change in marriage ritual of the Bemba in Women of Africa because this is evidence for her of a western feminists explanation of change in the “structure of the marriage contract” rather than the “political implications of its effects”. This is a good example of direct colonial interference in the lives of women, which in current western feminism merits exploration and assigns potential fault with the colonizer. However many impacts and legacies that are not a result of direct interference but nonetheless can be assigned to the vast economic and political effects of colonization, will not be given due weight because of the neglect of localized intersectional factors. The macro-lens with which western feminism views the world will glance past the culpability of wider colonial practices that heavily influence current day economies, politics and societies, which in turn impacts the position of women.

Mohanty stresses on the need for contextual analysis based on heterogeneity of women and the conditions of the land from where they are from. Without this there will be a continuation of the impunity that imperialism and colonization faces in today’s ahistorical analysis. Mohanty shows us how western feminism is imperialist to third class women, but such discourse can also be imperialist to third class histories.

Cabrals understanding of cultural resistance is nuanced and inclusive. It accounts for various intricacies such as class, race and heterogeneous groups. He however recommends a counter intuitive action to his analysis; the selection of popular culture as the primary basis of the national liberation struggle, he states:

“…the liberation movement must, on the cultural level just as on the political level, base its action in popular culture, whatever may be the diversity of levels of cultures in the country”

This assertion rooted in practicality would not be problematic if Cabral in the very next paragraph did not emphasize the need to create a national framework where all kinds of cultures and peoples can be preserved, specifically:

“In order for culture to play the important role which falls to it in the framework of the liberation movement, the movement must be able to preserve the positive cultural values of every well defined social group, of every category, and to achieve the confluence of these values in the service of the struggle, giving it a new dimension–the national dimension”

In the initial quote Cabral discounts the need to account for diversity in creating popular culture; this empowers majority culture, whilst relegating minority cultures. History has shown us countless examples of the tyranny of the majority, in this case the imposition and domination of the popular culture against the sub-culture. Cabrals recommendation of creating the diversity-blind popular culture ignores the treatment of the Sunni-male, white American and communist towards the Shia-Female, African American and revisionist. The fact that inclusivity comes after the creation of the movement means that there is much room for exploitation and suppression. Even the example Cabral cites

 “the first phase of the liberation movement–can be planned efficiently only on the basis of the culture of the rural and urban working masses, including the nationalist (revolutionary) “petite bourgeoisie” who have been re-Africanized  or who are ready for cultural reconversion”

This caters to class-geographical groups i.e. rural-urban/ working class-bourgeoisie. Multiple identities are ignored, e.g. linguistic, religious, ethnic and gender. By creating a narrow, national, popular culture Cabral opens the door for a closed group that would claim to represent the voices of an entire mosaic of people. Furthermore it also provides the popular culture the opportunity to impose its will onto the minority sub-cultures. An abstract diverse national-framework seems like an afterthought and a rhetorical ploy, especially when contrasted with the specific and practical, popular culture. One could further postulate that it is a form of pacification of other groups; delaying urgent questions that require immediate answers to when after liberation is achieved.

Cabral throughout his piece is aware of class dynamics and sycophants- who may disguise themselves in the fervor of liberation. This perhaps signals that for Cabral a cultural liberation may transcend identity. Re-Africanization may mean unparalleled co-operation which moves beyond individual and group interests. He posits that culture is the underlying cause of varying levels of resistance/co-operation to the colonizer by members of the same ascendant class (e.g. the bourgeoisie). Culture makes a bourgeoisie work for liberation, despite it being against his self-interest. Does that mean that a cultural awakening would constitute a greater consciousness just as it would for an awakened proletariat? Cabrals Marxist roots are well known, so perhaps this is a hint of that influence. There is a strong emphasis on class throughout his analysis. A cultural awakening might have prevented exploitation or marginalization due to its higher consciousness. The weakness in this analysis however is the consistent inclusion of the bourgeoisie in the liberation struggle; class is second to cultural awakening?

If this theory does not hold, why then does Cabral ignore the potential tyranny of the majority that may result from a popular culture? Does he see the identity of African as so powerful that it would fuse all cultures into one overarching national culture? Is this why the term “Africanized” is used? However what can be established is that this tension in is not resolved in the text. Cabral attempts to reconcile this issue with the incorporation of a national framework but he fails to truly flesh it out, especially with this framework coming after the creation of the liberation movement. What stops the popular culture from dominating the minority, ignoring it all together? What stops the change from being cosmetic? What prevents the masters from simply changing the color of their skin?

Cabral potentially falls for the same pitfalls that he warns against, i.e. the liberation must not be anti-colonial. It is likely that in the struggle against the colonizer, unrepresented sub-groups would be supportive due to anti-colonial sentiments, as opposed to cultural. This is because the primary liberation movement would not grant the same cultural space to the smaller sub-cultures, meaning the major incentive to support the movement would be to oust the colonizer.  In fact a sign that even those people would be culturally awakened would be if they questioned the lack of representation in the popular and national culture. Belief in the equality and power of one’s own culture in relation to all cultures and subsequent rejection of subservience would mean that no sub-culture would allow itself to be sidelined. How then does Cabral expect culturally awakened people to step aside for the creation of a popular culture? If they do so are they still culturally awakened? Have they not allowed their people to become sidelined in the first instance of the liberation fight?

In an ideal world Cabral would be present, to respond. In a beautiful world Cabral would have the answer.

This number seems to haunt us.

In our initial journey to the Soviet Union amidst the S.S. Patoria were a group of 3^rd class passengers. At the grumbling of a young Bulgarian boy I felt compelled to complain of the tasteless food that was being served to us. The steward’s response was heartless, infuriating but most of all expected- indicative of the problem.

His thoughtless response, that “we were, after all, third class passengers”, prickled all “third class” ears.

In this moment I felt two opposite forces raging inside me; two clashing instincts, fighting to take charge.

The first was submissive; it rationalized the steward’s words. It played on my expectations, this is as it is. This is how it was, and for a long time this is how it will be. One day perhaps things may change, but today is not the time. The sun sets and rises, one has to wait till it appears again. This voice was familiar but I could not tell where it came from; it felt safe, like the voice of a teacher, an elder, a master.

The other voice was red hot and trembling with rage. It was powerful and emotional; it could not accept what was said. It spread out in all corners of my mind, ringing bells and sticking knives. I could not help but feel its urgency; it wanted the steward to make amends now. Instant relegation to a patient silent third can no longer be the fate that the world holds for us.It was tired of the third class, third world and a perpetual third place.

I saw the myriad of pamphlets, posters and images of my red destination. They circled the recess of my mind then an image emerged to elevate the second voice. The image contained an Indian and a Russian, hand In hand, with their flags, looking across each other entirely in sync; two sides of the same coin. They were different but completely alike. The Indian was not third, the Russian was not first, it was no longer a math equation. They were friends- comrades- with the potential to build lasting friendships with all people, tearing the numbers that were tagged over their faces. This poster was symbolic of a third way. The Indian man in the poster was confident in his own brown skin; he did not expect nor accept third class anymore, just as I could not in this instant.

 “Are we third class passengers, not human beings?”

The silence encouraged me to push further, to be more forceful.

“After all we are third class, as if we were not human beings?”

These words broke the shackles my Indian companions still suffered from, the expectation and acceptance of third place. We were materially, psychologically and politically always relegated to bronze, urged to quicken the pace to catch up, so that eventually we too would win gold in this race against time. We had to emphatically reject this notion, even if it was simply telling the steward off for assuming third class passengers cannot have genuine grievances, just because they are third class.

 My Indian compatriots chose not to support my decision, and herein lies our greatest hurdle; our passivity in our everyday. The intertwined Indian and the Soviet stand defiant with their nations behind them, looking to change their tomorrow, today. It is when we abandon the expectations of our third class treatment, attack the very idea that it is acceptable, will we find our third way.