Welcome to your online discussion of A Lesson Before Dying!
Together with members of your book group, you’ll be reading A Lesson Before Dying over the next several weeks. Although you're not required to take notes while you read, it would be wise to keep track of important events and characters for your own clarification. You are, however, expected to participate regularly and thoughtfully in an online discussion of SEVEN essential questions.
Here's how it works:
Divide your book roughly in half. You need to have read and blogged about these halves by the due dates below.
There are two kinds of posts in this discussion: response and comment.
Response = direct response to the essential questions
Comment = comment on someone else’s posted response or comment
- Post at least THREE responses for each half of your book (SIX overall). Try to address to a variety of essential questions over the course of your blogging.
- One of your six responses can be a “free-response" post.
- Post at least THREE comments for each half of your book (SIX overall).
Due dates:
- Post your first set of responses and comments by Thursday, May 16.
- Post your second set of responses and comments by Wednesday, May 29.
Essential Questions:
- Why is it difficult to see our own privilege & prejudice?
- Does everyone experience some form of privilege and prejudice? If so, how?
- How do we overcome the adverse effects of privilege and prejudice?
- In what ways are privilege & prejudice related?
- How do we become prejudiced?
- In what ways does this book refute the notion of the “single story”?
- How does the story (setting, characters, plot, etc.) reflect or illuminate the current state of race / gender relations in our country? Have we made any progress as a society?
** Free-response option: Address another issue/episode/or passage in the book that you find
significant for any reason.
Assessment: To earn maximum credit, post thoughtful responses that are at least a few sentences in length—and carefully proofread! Do not misspell characters' or authors’ names! Also, be sure to include specific references to the text (either details or short quotations). Page numbers, too, are always helpful.
I think people become prejudiced because of personal experience and the way that they were treated. For example Matthew Antoine, Grant's old teacher, grew up in a time where the darker someone was, the more invaluable they were to society. But once Antoine became a teacher and there were kids darker than him and he took ihis anger out on them to make himself feel better. He felt like he was superior due to being lighter skinned. He even went as far as admitting to Grant that he hated him for his dark skin. It's like what the saying says: The bullied become the bullies.
ReplyDeleteI agree with for for the most part. It works nicely as one of the reasons, and although it may not be the strongest reason, it still shows through a lot in this book. It works well for Jefferson and Mr. Antoine especially, but Mr. Antoine's former students, who were mentioned and not that important of character, were not prejudiced because of their own personal experience; they were prejudiced because because of someone else's personal experiences.
DeleteMarens post
DeleteThis story "refutes the notion" of a single story by showing us all aspect of Jefferson and his situation. As the readers we got to hear his version of what happened, got to meet the woman that raised him, and got to see the police and other people against him. If we just heard the story that the police gave about that night, we would have automatically thought that Jefferson was guilty from the start. But since we got to see Jefferson's side too, we sympathize with him.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the defense in the court room perfectly captured the meaning of what a single story really is. The defense told the jury to look out at Jefferson's aunt and think of how much he meant to her. He asked them how they think she'd feel if the boy she had raised was put to death. The reason why I say that this captures what a single story is, is because he is making everyone think beyond the single story. He's making all of the jury think about what's actually behind the individual who has his life in their hands . (Page 8, chapter 1)
This is a really thoughtful response to the question. I like how you looked deeply into how the perspective of the book causes bias in our perspective. I agree that if we had seen the story purely through the perspective of white people, such as the jury and the sheriff, we would have a vastly different perspective of the story. However, I don't think that we would have automatically come to the same belief about Jefferson as the jury. After all, we have different biases than they do, so instead of nearly instantly judging him as guilty, we would have thought deeper into the case.
DeleteI do agree with your point about the defense, and it is well thought-out. Overall, nice job.
Marens post
Delete(Response to question seven.)
ReplyDelete"A Lesson Before Dying" takes place in the 1940's so there are obviously different ideals. At this time it was still a white dominated world with segregated public buildings and Jim Crow laws. As well as this, Grant teaches in a school on a plantation. The resources at his school are very limited and it's hard to learn in that environment. Society has changed a bit from this time period. Since the Civil Rights movement in the 1970's, our way of thinking has changed drastically. We abolished slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. A huge majority of people support everyone regardless of their race unlike eighty years ago. For the most part everyone is treated pretty close to equal.
No question that we've come a long way since the 1940's. But I think many would take issue with your last sentence, especially with regard to our criminal justice system. There's abundant evidence to show that minorities, mostly blacks, suffer harsher punishment than whites for similar crimes.
DeleteMarens post
Delete(Question 2)
ReplyDeleteI believe that everyone experiences some form of prejudice, whether it is their own or they're a victim of someone else's. For instance, Jefferson is victim of the prejudice of the court, ruling him guilty despite it being fairly clear that he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Wiggins experiences prejudice as well through people expecting him to act dumber than he is to meet their standards for how a coloured man should behave.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, Matthew Antoine takes out his inherited prejudice for people with dark skin on others, including Wiggins when he was a child. Reverend Ambrose also some prejudice, albeit to a lesser degree, for Wiggins because of him abandoning his faith.
This is me
Delete(Question 3)
ReplyDeleteI believe that in order to overcome prejudice, we must first recognize that it exists, and that we can't just roll over and take it. This is beginning to happen with Jefferson, as we see after Wiggins gives him a notebook. We see his focus on him being a hog lessen, and he cooperates with Miss Emma more. He's still resigned and sullen about his impending execution, but less so. Wiggins also starts to change, recognizing that giving up on changing people's views is the same as accepting them as his own, but still doesn't change much in his actions.
This is a good point. But in addition to this, I believe that realizing the prejudice exists is just one of the first steps to overcoming prejudice. It definitely works though. As you mentioned, it's beginning to happen with Jefferson, and although I didn't really make this connection while I was reading, but now that I've seen your point I agree with this. If realizing the prejudice exists is just one of the first steps to overcoming prejudice, then the next step could possibly finding a voice to alert people of what's happening. The voice could be the person prejudiced or someone else who isn't, but knows enough.
DeleteI know from experience that identifying a problem is the first way to solve it. i think if I remember correctly, Verna Myers talked about this in her TED Talk. The one flaw I've found with this point is the fact that there will still be people in the world that are prejudice against others even after they realize that they are. For example, Mr. Antoine, Grants old teacher. He came out and admitted that he hated Grant because he was darker than him. He still strongly disliked Grant after the fact.
DeleteGood example. That would suggest that it's not enough to recognize our implicit / inherited bias; we have to retrain our minds as well—which is why Myers displays photos of accomplished black men—a form of visual reconditioning.
Delete(Question 7)
ReplyDeleteA Lesson Before Dying takes place in a time when society is very different from our own. Coloured people are still seen as inferior, and are unfairly discriminated against. For example, as we see through Wiggins's conversations with the sheriff, they are expected to be deferential to whites, him going so far as to say, "to show too much intelligence would have been an insult to them." (page 47) In addition to this,
Wiggins mentions that the books that he uses are handed down from the white schools, and the superintendent doesn't seem to care particularly much about the conditions that he's teaching in, showing that he can discriminate against black children without fear of punishment, a sharp contrast to today. Today, discrimination is much less prevalent, and people would not get away with half of what they do in this book. However, while coloured people might no longer face some of the issues in this book, they still suffer from discrimination. In conclusion, this shows how far our society has come since the time period of this book, but it also shows how much farther we still need to improve.
I agree with this, and also think society is very different today because it is years later now. But another way it is different is that this book does not take place in a setting that is still the same today. The setting this story takes place in has most likely changed drastically. This setting in the book plays into showing how much society has changed as well
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to question 7:
ReplyDeleteSince this story, A Lesson Before Dying, takes place in the late 1940's, it is in a very different society from where we live now. There is a lot more prejudice then then there is today. Jefferson, one of the characters, shows how much society is different now. The intense amount of racism towards this character because of something people think he did illuminates the fact that the racism in this country has gotten better. Question seven also asks if we have made any progress as a society regarding racism, and comparing this book and what's happening in it to today, I'd say we have. Even though there is still racism today, it is a lot less than in this book. Even in the very first chapter the differences between then and today are shown: "Let us for a moment say he was not. What justice would there be to take this life? Justice, gentlemen? Why, I would just as soon put a hog in the electric chair," This quote from page 8 shows the difference between now and then. This way of insulting someone of trial would probably never happen in a trial today.
I agree with a lot of the points you brought up. The contrast between society in A Lesson Before Dying and the present is rather stark, and several events would likely have never happened in our present society. Today, as you said, Jefferson's trial would likely have panned out differently, and Wiggins's behavior would also probably be different, given that a lot of his actions are based off of the bias and discrimination that he receives. Most people have gotten a lot more civil in regards to minorities, and I'd agree that our society has improved a lot, but still has room for improvement.
DeleteI definitely agree with what you've said. Although, we do live in Maine and there doesn't seem to be THAT much diversity. Since there isn't much diversity, one could argue that we don't really get to see firsthand what happens in today's society with the minority. If you went to Detroit on the other hand or another populated place, it might be more clear.
DeleteGood point. It's useful to maintain awareness of our own setting and culture, which affects how we perceive social conditions. If you're interested in another perspective, I highly recommend "Just Mercy" by Bryan Stevenson, which gives us a startling view of criminal justice (or injustice) in Alabama.
DeleteResponse to question 6:
ReplyDeleteThis book refutes the notion of the “single story” a few different times. One of the times is in the trial in chapter one. Jefferson isn't actually guilty of the crimes they accused him of, he only stole money because he thought it would be a good idea given what he had witnessed. The people given voices against Jefferson all came to the conclusion that he was guilty. This could have been because those people had a "single story" idea about people like Jefferson. But we got to see exactly what happened, thus showing how the single story the jury had from the police officers was false. Miss Emma doesn't have a 'single story about Jefferson because she knew him, so she can prove to herself that the single story isn't true. The quote, "Brother shot you. It wasn't me. They made me come with them. You got to tell the law that, Mr. Gropé. You hear me, Mr. Gropé?"(page 6) was Jefferson talking to Mr. Gropé's dead body. If this and the rest of the page hadn't been shown, it might have been hard to not have a single story about Jefferson.
I agree with what you've said here. I was thinking, does our society teach us single stories? We learn about historical events from one perspective. For example, we learn of the American Revolutionary War from the Americans point of view but not the British's point of view. Granted this could be because we have more Americans in America to teach.
DeleteExcellent point, especially in relation to the writing of history. Who controls the narrative? Always a good question to ask.
DeleteResponse to question 2:
ReplyDeleteI believe that mostly everyone experiences some form of privilege or prejudice at one point or another, even if it is just in small amounts. For example, Jefferson is prejudiced because of his skin color, and this prejudice is not in small amounts at all. In fact, it probably is what added to reasons for the jury to accuse him of the crimes he didn't commit. Grant's old teacher, Matthew Antoine is privileged because of the fact that he has lighter skin than his students. And his students are prejudiced because they have darker skin. Grant Wiggins is also prejudiced because people expect less of him because of his race.
I agree with the majority of your points, but I have to disagree about Jefferson being extremely prejudiced. He is prejudiced, but I would say that he is more a victim of other's prejudice than his own. After the trial, he becomes more internally prejudiced, seeing himself as a hog, but that is a result of the actions of his defendant. His defendant and the rest of the court are certainly prejudiced, resulting, as you said, in them accusing him of the crime. However, this does not make Jefferson particularly prejudiced, other than the amount that is primarily directed at himself and anyone who tries to make him see that he's not a hog.
DeleteResponse is by Willa
DeleteResponse to Question 1: Like previously stated, I believe prejudice is something that one learns while growing up. It's hard to accept the fact that we are wrong and it's hard to own up to our mistakes. Put yourself in the shoes of a white person in the 1940's. You were raised to believe that you're better than someone but all of a sudden someone comes up to you and says that they are equal and you don't have the power over them anymore. Someone in that situation would not be focusing on how they've been wronging people but they would be focusing on their loss of authority. In my opinion, most people in this time period probably recognized that what was happening was wrong but I don't think they wanted to relinquish their power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about what the people in that time period believed. They learned their prejudice while growing up and then refused to change it even after they realized that it was wrong. However, I wouldn’t say that all of their power is gone when someone says that they’re equal; after all, the white person still has all of their privileges, and they can still cause trouble for the coloured person by speaking to another white person in a position of power, such as the police, for instance. Just asserting your equality to one person doesn’t automatically mean that their power over will be gone and they’ll start treating you fairly.
DeleteFree response question: Religion was arguably one of the most brought up topics within "A Lesson Before Dying." I think that having both a religious person and a secular person in Jefferson's life was the reason why he opened up towards the end of his life. For example, Grant pointed out that Jefferson's actions affect his godmother and thats when he started to change. He started to eat food during visits, actually talk to his visitors, and keep a notebook all because of Grant. But Reverend Ambrose forced Jefferson to look at the "bigger picture." What I mean by this is that he started to think about where he would go after death. It seems that the thought of him maybe going to heaven comforted him. After all, the unknown can be scary. So having answers to questions can be comforting.
ReplyDeleteYour idea for a free response question is really good, as religion is a large part of A Lesson Before Dying, but I would argue that Wiggins was the one who forced Jefferson to look at the bigger picture. After all, as you said, Wiggins was the one to show that Jefferson that his actions didn't just affect himself: they hurt those who cared about him and were trying to help him. The reverend helped soothe Jefferson's worries about what would happen during and after his execution, building off of what Wiggins had done for Jefferson, but I wouldn't call that helping him to see the bigger picture.
DeleteResponse to question 2: I believe that everyone experiences some form of privilege or prejudice. Someone will always have it worse than another person and someone will always be more well off than another. For example, Grant grew up on the plantation with many people who left and then died through accidents or gang violence. Grant is still on the plantation and teaching, reluctantly may I add, but at least he's still alive unlike all of his childhood friends. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Paul. Paul is more privileged than anyone on the plantation because he's a deputy. Even though Paul is better off than some other people, he's still under the sheriff who reminds him of that all the time. One of the times you can see this is when Grant went to the prison to bring Jefferson the radio. The sheriff, with Paul in the room, said, "The deputy can't give you permission to bring things in here. I do." Then later in the text it says, "I looked at Paul. He nodded and smiles. He probably would have said something encouraging if the sheriff had not been there." (Page 177) This shows that the sheriff intimidated Paul and made him feel small.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority of what you said. It's impossible to create a perfect and balanced society, so there will always be someone who is more privileged and that will cause prejudice. However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your comments about the sheriff intimidating Paul, unless you're trying to imply that the sheriff is prejudiced against Paul. I would like to add that Paul's privilege of being white and a deputy likely causes some prejudice against him from people of colour, who frequently have to deal with racist, powerful people.
Delete(Question 4)
ReplyDeleteI believe that privilege and prejudice are related in a variety of ways. One way is that prejudice appears to frequently stem from privilege. For instance, the majority of the privileged people we see in A Lesson Before Dying are prejudiced in some way. The sherif and superintendent are both white, making them extremely privileged in that time period, and we see them both act in a prejudiced manner towards Wiggins and other blacks. Of course, there are exceptions to this, such as Paul, who seems sympathetic to Jefferson's plight, and many people in our society today are privileged but are not particularly prejudiced.
Lack of privilege can also lead to prejudice, as we see from Wiggins, who isn't particularly privileged, but the circumstances surrounding his youth and the schooling he received caused him to become prejudiced towards other people of color, in that he sees no reason to try and help them break free of racist stereotypes that he succumbs to. We see this through his reluctance to try help Jefferson, as he believed Jefferson to be a lost cause as soon as Miss Emma asked Wiggins to help him.
I can see what you're saying about Grant thinking Jefferson was a lost cause. But do you think it was because of his race specifically or just his lack of education?
DeleteThat's a great question! Since lack of education in this case is inextricably linked to race, I wonder if it's both. In any case, both Grant & Jefferson demonstrate internalized racism.
Delete(Question 1)
ReplyDeleteI believe that its hard to see our privilege because it's just that: privilege. When we're granted some extra benefit, we usually are oblivious to it, unless it's shoved into our face that it is an extra privilege that someone else may not have. This is similar to the way that we are frequently unaware of our prejudice, however, with prejudice, it is likely more common that we don't want to see it. People don't generally want to acknowledge their flaws, preferring to be seen as their best self. And in the 1940s, this was easy for white people. You could get away with treating black people as worse, because that was how you were raised and that was how everyone acted. If you were given the privilege of not being one of them, you had no reason to see or change your prejudice, since you weren't being affected by it and anyone whose opinion you might care about either encouraged it or didn't care.
I agree with what you're saying but I do wonder, what went through the minds of white people who liked black people? For instance, Paul. Paul seemed to be pretty friendly with Grant and he also took a liking to Jefferson. How come he didn't feel the same way as some other people did about blacks?
DeleteAnother great question! You make me want to go back to the text to investigate this distinction. What do you think?
Delete(Question 6)
ReplyDeleteA Lesson Before Dying refutes the notion of a single story by going into detail and showing multiple perspectives about the characters. For instance, we get to see Jefferson's crimes through the lens of the defendant, the prosecutor, and Jefferson himself. If we only had one of those perspectives it would be easy to say that Jefferson was a terrible person, or was an idiot. But since we saw those perspectives, we can get a better idea of what Jefferson did or didn't do, and what kind of person he was. However, the jury only saw the 'single story,' that Jefferson was a black man who had been at the scene of a shooting of a white man.
We also see the refutation of a single story through Paul, one of the few white people who seem sympathetic to Jefferson. He is essentially a refutation of our perceived view of whites in the south during that era: uniformly distant, if not discriminatory towards people of colour. However, Paul tries to be friendly towards both Wiggins and Jefferson, and seems to be friendly with the prisoners he guards as well. Wiggins says that he "looked pretty decent" (70), in contrast with the other deputy who treated him and Miss Emma poorly, who wasn't decent. From the moment that Paul met Wiggins and Miss Emma, he showed them respect and treated them as equals, a sharp contrast the majority of whites in the book and our perspective of whites in that era.
I agree with your examples here. I wonder how all of us would have perceived Jefferson if we hadn't heard his version of the story. We probably would of categorized him as a criminal. I almost wonder if part of the reason why people in this time period were so prejudice is because they were only hearing the single story. Obviously not for the jury at the case because they heard Jefferson's story. But I bet there are cases out there.
DeleteResponse to Question 1:
ReplyDeleteWhy is it difficult to see our own privilege & prejudice?
In this book, I feel like it is shown that it is difficult to see our own privilege and prejudice because it had become normal in the time this book takes place. Since this book takes place in the 1940s, everything is clearly different than today because of all the social and technological advancements that have been made. It is clear that the white or whited people in this story clearly grew up learning that they were better than the black people, and that they deserved better things. They thought this because it was a normal thing at the time.
Response to Question 4:
ReplyDeleteA Lesson Before Dying shows how privilege and prejudice are related in a few different ways. The superintendent that comes to inspect Grant's class is white, and in the time this book is set in it means that he has privileges. Other white people, or people that aren't completely black in this book also have privileges. These people also have prejudice, but some less than others. Having both privilege and prejudice is one of the ways privilege and prejudice are connected in this book. Another way is that the privileges, or rather the last of privileges, caused some of the prejudice.
The first chapter of A Lesson Before Dying opens up with a concern for me. How can there be justice in a society dominated by whites. In Jefferson’s trial, the judge is white, the lawyers are white, and the jury is white. Jefferson receives a trial not by his peers, but by those unlike him. Jefferson’s attorney pleads for Jefferson’s innocence by appealing to white prejudices. But the trial takes away Jeffersons legal rights. - Barrett
ReplyDeleteDr. Morgan (the super intendant) goes to Grants school for an inspection. He checks the naughty children's teeth and asks has them say Bible verses. Grant thinks there is similarity between Dr. Morgan’s inspection and a slave Masters. Dr. Morgan lectures the class about good nutrition, hygiene, and physical labor. Grant complains to the superintendent that most of the school’s books are hand-me-downs from white schools. This annoys the superintendent, who says that white schools struggle too. Before leaving, Dr. Morgan suggests that Grant put the children to work in the fields to earn money. -Barrett
ReplyDelete