“If you know whence you came, there is really no limit to where you can go.”
-
“If you know whence you came, there is really no limit to where you can go.”. While reading James Baldwin’s letter, this one line resonated with me the most. Baldwin recognizes the hardships that his nephew will face (challenges he himself has experienced) and emphasizes the importance of understanding one’s culture and history. By knowing your roots, you can stay grounded in history to be able to face the present and shape the future. A person’s history, whether filled with struggle or comfort, can bring a sense of belonging and pride to an individual. Baldwin telling his nephew of all the hardships that he and his family have faced will allow him to know that he is not alone and will always have his family there for support. Therefore, a message such as “If you know whence you came, there is really no limit to where you can go.”, offers hope, a sense of belonging and resilience in the face of adversity.
Why does Yancy stress the innocence of the boy’s finger in Fanon, and how does this innocence relate to Baldwin’s letter?
Yancy and Fanon both bring up this concept of innocence, in one case with the imagery of the boy’s finger and in the other, the countrymen. The boy’s finger points out of curiosity and fear. It symbolises the larger naivety of the society at large, of the ignorance that persists. Fear comes from the unknown, followed by avoidance, which leads to misunderstanding. However, at the root of it all is ignorance; the unwillingness to learn and face reality. It is often easier to cling to what you think you know, instead of making the effort to learn, grow, and change your behaviour. In the case of the countrymen, who are also a sort of representation of this same innocence, seem unaware and unwilling to have their preconceived notions altered. This innocence allows them to maintain a sense of superiority, perpetuated by their refusal to be complicit.
-
I think you make a really good point about ignorance and its dangers in this context. I think that the most significant inhibitor to social change might actually be fear, which you mention as well. As Baldwin writes in his letter, "people find it very difficult to act on what they know (...) the danger, in the minds of most white Americans is the loss of their identity." As Yancy explains through the work of Sarah Ahmed and others, white people have not had to think about their whiteness. Whiteness is "invisible," and addressing their privilege would be a threat to a white person's comfortable position as the default, or the normative existence. The unwillingness to look critically at whiteness, or to allow others to do so, perpetuating whiteness as the default, is what inhibits real systemic change.