Goopherd Reflection

In "The Goophered Grapevine" readers find multiple cues of the plantation tradition method of writing. Charles Chesnutt has an obvious stand on the plantation tradition and he culturally enriches readers by bringing narratives from black people of the time. The narrative of an oppressed group tricking the dominant group is both humorous and political. Julius tries to trick the soon to be owner of the plantation but fails. Chesnutt might use this story as political rebellion; however, the ending of the story is problematic because power rests mainly with the plantation owner.

While this story is centered on the theme of post-civil war conflict, I found connections to our current treatment of black men. We have criminalized black men with the War on Drugs and have made it ok to have alarming numbers of black men in prison.  This rhetoric mirrors the "trickster" narrative of Julius' story. The old plantation owner had tricked his slaves not to eat grapes. And today, black people are tricked with the idea of equality when jails have become the new Jim Crow. Many people view racism as individual insults, but academics of color view racism as the sociopolitical institutions that oppress people of color. In the end, the idea that racism is over is a trick to maintain power in the dominant group and to continue the subordination of people based on the color of their skin.

I am curious to know how Chesnutt's audience perceived his work. I feel as if this work was written for a black audience because they would need to understand the tradition of the trickster narrative. Majority of white people in that time would feel as if the ending was unfulfilling because Julius was getting paid for his work. This doesn't make sense because Julius lost more than he earned and is what the author might be trying to get at. For this work to be political, the author had to be subtle on his recreation of the oppression/domination binary. He was strategic in masking his purpose, but I wonder how many people understood what the author was really advocating for.

The continuous plantation tradition writings must have made those in power angry at Chesnutt's writing. He uses the elements of plantation tradition, but at the same time challenges as a strategic manner of critiquing this form of writing. Overall, this was an interesting story with rich historical and social knowledge of post-civil war times in the U.S.