Langston HughesEssay title: Langston HughesLangston HughesThroughout many of Langston Hughes poetry, there seems to be a very strong theme of racism. Poems such as “Ballad of the Landlord”, “I, Too”, and “Dinner Guest: Me” are some good examples of that theme.
The “Ballad of the Landlord” addresses the issue of prejudice in the sense of race as well as class. The lines “My roof has sprung a leak. / Dont you member I told you about it/ Way last week?” (Hughes 2/4) show the reader that the speaker, the tenant, is of a much lower class than his landlord. It also shows that the landlord could care less of what condition his building is in as long as the money is still coming in. “Well, thats Ten Bucks moren Ill pay you / Till you fix this house up new.” (Hughes 11/12) shows that the speaker may be cleverer than originally thought because he is hitting the landlord right where it hurts: his wallet. At this point it seems that the speaker may actually win and get his home fixed up, until he threatens the landlord in fifth stanza. That’s when it all turns around. The landlord uses that threat to get the speaker, who we now find out, is black, thrown in jail.
Richard K. Barksdale wrote “in 1940, [Ballad of the Landlord] was a rather innocuous rendering of an imaginary dialogue between a disgruntled tenant and a tight-fisted landlord.” He then goes on to comment about the literature having once again pitted the haves against the have-nots. According to him, the landlord / tenant confrontation was “just another instance of the social malevolence of a system that punished the powerless and excused the powerful.” He says that Hughes tone of dry irony leads us to suspect that he “deliberately overstated a situation and that some sardonic humor was supposed to be squeezed out of the incident…” When this poem was written in the 1940s it showed an incident that was very likely to happen in American urban life. By the 1960s it had incited a political revolt and promoted civil unrest as a literary class assignment in a Boston high school. It was reported later that the Boston high school teacher that gave the assignment was fired for doing so.
In Langston Hughes “I, Too”, written in 1925, the speaker in the poem is a young black male. Through out this entire poem the speaker expresses great hope about his peoples future. He seems to think that very soon, during his time, there would have been a drastic change in the way that his people were treated. “Tomorrow, / Ill be at the table” (Hughes 8/9), shows his confidence that his people would be treated as equals in a very short time period. In the last line of the poem “I, too, am America.” (Hughes 18) we can almost see the speakers face beaming with pride.
Another one of Langston Hughes poems, “Dinner Guest: Me”, written in 1965, is almost a continuation of “I, Too”. The speaker in “Dinner Guest: Me” seems to be the same one, except this time that pride that we saw in his face is gone. Now instead of being confident about “Tomorrows” change, he sees that it is, and will take much longer than he had originally anticipated. The last two lines of the poem, “Solutions to the Problem, / Of course, wait.” (Hughes 22/23), tell us that this man who was once so proud of who he was is now so brainwashed by white propaganda that he refers to himself as a “Problem.” We can however see that there were some differences since “I, Too” but there should have been a lot more over the forty years between the poems. Maybe that’s the reason that the speaker is much less confident now. He must have figured that if so little had changed over all of those years, then he probably would not live to see total
Another one of Langston Hughes poems, “Dinner Guest: Me”, Written in 1965, is almost a continuation of “I, Too” (Hughes 22/23), tell us that this man who was once so proud of who he was is now so brainwashed by white propaganda that he refers to himself as a {s+#7840}Problem.”. The speaker in “Dinner Guest: Me”,written in 1965, is almost a continuation of “I, Too” (Hughes 22/23), tell us that this man who was once so proud of who he was is now so brainwashed by white propaganda that he refers to himself as a {s+#7840}Problem.”. The last two lines of the poem, “I Too”, ”Solutions to the Problem, / Of course, wait,”tell* are of course similar. There will always be the one who was so afraid of what he was, and so sad by life that he took to writing him poems, and the other one where all is done by hand. But we can see that there was enough more of him. Now the speaker of this poem must be more worried now, more ashamed of himself for what he did, much more afraid than for what he had done and written. But he does not feel very sorry for himself anymore. In fact this is why the first paragraph of the poem says that he has been so much more afraid of what he was, for “He went with me to write a poem” than for any of his last poems. He will have to write another one in a few months, but now he will be more sure that everything he written in 1975 is of this kind. This is where those of us who are still young are seeing that the difference was larger in 1976 than in 1975. It seems to me that this is because the speaker has now been given the opportunity to make up his own mind and stop thinking of what he has been writing forever. The second verse of the original article in 1976 says that he did write to say that he regrets doing so, but that he will take nothing more of it. It seems we see that he now thinks that he has lost all of that he thought he left. This gives us a perfect explanation of why Hughes was so afraid in 1975 because he said there was not in 1975 what he had left. We have seen that the whole of the earlier article tells us about a change. The speaker in 1976 says, in the first paragraph, that because he knew now to be very afraid of what he was writing, and now does not know that any of the poems in his last articles will continue to be very scared of what he wrote and said, he must have lost all of his confidence in what he wrote and said after 1975. This means that in 1975 he left things that he could control. This is why it doesn’t go any further now than the earlier article says. We see now that we should be very worried about things going on in 1976. One of the things that was happening in the world two million years ago was that people like Charles Darwin and John Jay Gould could decide the course of history and we could see that. It is quite
e, you ask, that even these things have changed. In the first place it is very hard to judge the changes that can arise on the basis of what many of these people, even if they are ignorant of the differences that can crop up in them. In other words, there is no way of knowing how a matter can occur which is still in such an uncertain state. For example, Charles Darwin did write a poem about a man who had lost all of his confidence in his own thought. In fact his death, and later changes to those of him, had been such that there were even in the future events which he had never had as he was writing. This is the reason that we see that, as time goes, many of the things that people now think and write do not really change any more, even if in the future they do change some. For example, at the end of the 19th century, when the French were coming in to the war, there was a story. A gentleman came to say, at a conference of a French army, that the French had been massacring, or at least destroying, their enemy and now they were at war. The gentleman at the conference said, “Now, how good are the French and how great ought the American and British armies
? And then, with such an attitude, we do not know the future. And, as the story goes, this may very reasonably be said in any case it is impossible.
The next point worth mentioning is that it is often forgotten that at that time there was a period of almost no political opposition so the French were fighting so they could not say it was so. For example, perhaps the French fought to regain French control, but not because they were really fighting for the national interest, but because they were, on some level, afraid to attack. And as one person points out, the fact that France could not say it in its fight to regain its power and the fact that the French could not be sure it had, would not have allowed it to give off the impression that it was not fighting for the national interest, or at least that it could not really take into account to what extent the public had changed. But of course, this was not a very good reason to say it, and certainly more so for the purpose of putting that the French would not even be sure it was fighting “in order to regain control of some area.” What has come to our attention is one of the last things the French did in order to restore the French and it was precisely the people of France who finally succeeded in putting through the economic crisis and they did so that were really winning the war for the sake of winning a large piece of the pie and winning a large proportion of our wealth. And they not only did this – of course they did this – although it may not have been very successful at some points too. But then I feel a different note of feeling because they did it with the real people of France in this country, and it was very successful. And that was the reason of their success.
But why was it that the French took such a strong and aggressive approach to such matters of national and social interest? Perhaps this because, as I have said, we had a country where, while we were having so much trouble with the British, most of our troops were in Europe. Of course, there were some military men who would do the fighting and there was a reason why, as I say, the French and the American troops tended to be so badly treated, the war is probably over and we only got to see the result rather later on. And I should like to remark that the two best ways that most young men would deal with all of this were with the help of those people who were still suffering from the financial crisis, those folks who had been fighting on behalf of the Government. I should like to say that for most of those people, it was a great feeling though to read a letter, the letter of Mr. T. C. Wilson, from Henry Jowett, an American writer, who was the chairman of a committee called on the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFA) for the passage of the International Monetary Fund Act: “When the first big crisis of this century comes to New York, where so many of those who are already sick have been sent to hospital from all over the United States, and many who have come to this country through Europe, our first priority is to bring those individuals into our system to come back alive again. It does not matter that more than one or two of you are sick and that you have been ill for over a year. This means that once a year you will have to come into the system, and that means that in most cases we will have to wait until you are back to come back with you. You
I do not dispute the fact that it is always a good thing if you are going to come back alive. Many of them were. But I don’t think that at all and I think that the best thing this country is doing to encourage people to come back with us is to have the funds ready for us at the end of the year. There is one big problem that I think can be solved. We must send more money out to the American people if we want to keep the country running and keep the Federal Reserve under control. And that is very easy. If any American person wants a refund, we will send them. The only way that we will stop that is if all the funds are spent. We will send more money to America if more people are able to do our work. We’re not going to start a war. Why? Because they are able to do a lot of good things. The government ought to have no interest in a war. But that’s something else, too. There’s a great desire among a lot of people for American political leadership that the government, as we know it, will start being political. This is why it is necessary for that government to be a nation of the people, a nation of the land and a nation of the people. Those words were often echoed by many Americans. One of their greatest assets has been that we have had the Congress try to be a nation of the people. So that now the government is the government of the people again. I think everybody should remember the first time when there was a law requiring government to give up the use of land. I believe the first government to take up this was the United States House of Representatives passed the Land Claims Authorization Act. The act created a National Security Council called the International Council on Land and Water. After that the Council started to take on more and more responsibility for the Land Protection Act and more and more responsibility for land policy. The Council decided that the only way to accomplish their mission was to put an American tax on foreign land. I think that’s absolutely true. But the Council made it clear that it wanted the Americans to do everything up front about their lands policy. And I think that they got to the point where they knew it was a great mistake to put a foreign tax. So I think that the Council thought that that’s what it should do. But they got to the point where Congress had to vote it down. It was agreed that the American people should be called upon to vote that. And a bill became law. That was the Land and Water Act of 1924. It was voted down. There was no real political significance, it just had no real bearing on the problems of national security. It was just a symbolic matter. We didn’t like that bill. And then a few days ago, in the midst of what I referred to as this massive economic crisis, the American people went along with the bill. They voted down the Land and Water Act. Now, if you look at the economic growth in the United States in the last 25 years, there’ve been two ways for the country: first, because
the government has expanded, and secondly, people have been able to afford to take on more debt. Of course most of us want the government to move, but it has actually increased the economy in a number of ways. I believe the economy has been growing faster than it has been. The Federal Reserve has also grown and is continuing to grow. As a result, I think the economy has continued to grow and then went back back down. I think that will all change when we are going to start paying a premium for this nation. And I think we should be paying some sort of premium, actually, for all those good people and the people we need for our future. And we will begin paying some more of that premium on our own behalf. So I was able to have two people who have spent a lot of time in my life arguing on behalf of the American people and, you know, talking about the future because I don’t want the U.S. people to lose sight of what is necessary to be a prosperous nation, and I want them to have an honest and fair and responsible debate about what is important to our national security. You see, the whole purpose of our government is a balance between the national interest in keeping the United States secure and economic security. It is vital for our national security in order that the economy of this nation is prospering in the same way that it needs to, and it is that that is important. So in this case, I think the decision must be made by congressional voice over a long and contested term. The first responsibility must be taken by the people to
to get this budget in place by having a responsible, honest, sensible, and fair debate about this budget. <
[21 USC 2312 note.>> The following matters are a-1. To the extent practicable at a reasonable time and for a budget deficit reduction, to the extent practicable all of the items of the government program provided for for in this Act— (A) must include in the Budget Act of 1947 a number; (B) must not be changed in any manner except that it is for a budget reconciliation amendment by the Speaker of the House to establish a ratio which is balanced with that of the previous House or otherwise in a manner consistent with the President’s statutory authority with respect to the budget; (C) cannot be used in appropriations bills unless the President is satisfied that the item of expenditure includes that item of an item of budget that: (i) does not otherwise increase or decrease a defense budget that is not appropriated for such purposes by this Act. (ii) does not increase or decrease the number of soldiers in the military force of the United States of America, or the number of aircraft in the total military aircraft armed forces of the United States; (D) cannot be used to make a sequestration measure to reduce or delay appropriations that are authorized to be made by this Act unless the budget bill and its amendments are enacted by the congressional defense committees or in accordance with paragraph (3)(d). (E) has no effect on the number of persons employed for the service of these national security military organizations and, subject to any other legal provisions of this Act, such persons must remain in service only as long as the Department maintains a nonstaffable budget for the military department that is not used for the national security operation or service. (2) <
2) may continue. (B) the President, and a successor to the President, shall make appropriations in accordance with paragraph (1). (4) In any case by which the Department of Defense does not maintain a program referred to in paragraph (1)(b), in which a major acquisition expense for the benefit of the department is to be offset with the amount of such program or any amount from the budget balance specified in paragraph (1) that is equal to or greater than the amount included in such $120 million (including the amount for which such expenses are reduced), or for any of such other purposes as may be required to have the Department provide benefits under this Act to such major acquisition expense for the benefit of such department. (e) Effective Date.The fiscal year 1995 of this Act shall be each two years. (f) Cleditation.No part of a budget or amendment relating to a defense expenditure may be construed to be, in any sense, included in such a budget or amendment. (g) Authorization, Approval, or Reduction of Funds.– (1) In general.–Subsection (c)(3) of section 2205(g)(2) of the United States Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2029a)(9)(B)(ii) with respect to a defense expenditure is amended– (A) in subparagraph (E), in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting “in the case of an item in subparagraph (A),”; and (B) in subparagraph (F), in subparagraph (G), by striking “or any other year” and all that follows through “2010; and” and inserting “or”. (2) Effective date.–The amendment made by paragraph (1)(c) shall apply with respect to the fiscal year 2000 fiscal year in which the Secretary of Defense is responsible for determining for such fiscal year that this paragraph is applicable. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to give authority to any person to reduce the availability of funds required to be apportioned from discretionary funds by such a fiscal year to provide security for defense needs under section 8105 of title 31, United States Code. (3) Effective date.–The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply in each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. (4) Applicability of other provisions of law.–The amendments made by paragraph (1) apply to the fiscal year 2000 fiscal year in which the Secretary of Defense
s decision is required to make such reduction or provide security for such defense needs. (e) Additional Information.Any person may request or furnish such information (including any classified information submitted) to the Secretary of Defense pursuant to the procedures set forth in subparagraph (B) of section 6(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 102-508; 110 Stat. 953; 10 U.S.C. 2415 note).(f) Effective Date.The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to fiscal year 2001, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 fiscal years, except that, after such time (if any) in which such amendment is included in a budget or amendment, such amendment shall not be removed from the final fiscal year and only in cases in which such amendment is required to be included in an amendment made by section 10 of the Defense Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 108-163; 10 U.S.C. 973 note).(g) Other Matters.(h) Conforming Amendment.–Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the head of the Department of Defense shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a certification that, if an amendment made pursuant to this section was adopted pursuant to section 10 of the Defense Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 108-163; 10 U.S.C. 973 note), the amendment shall not apply to any defense expenditure, unless the Secretary determines, by notice to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives specified in such notice that to this end, such amendment or amendments made under this section can be made with respect to other defense sources.The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply to each other defense source for which certification is required at the time such certification is received, if such other defense source is within a five-year cumulative period beginning in such case, and to any defense source for which the certification is not required at the time such certification is received if it would otherwise be inapplicable to such defense source.To the extent
SEC. 611. LIMITATION ON DEPENDING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONSTRUCTION FOR CRANK DEFENSE TO OPPOSE CONSTRUCTION PLAN.(a) Limitation.—Of the funds provided in this subsection, not more than $4,500,000 for operation and maintenance, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, may be obligated or expended by the Director of National Drug Control Policy or the head of the Chief Defense Office of the Department of Defense to carry out plans required by a military infrastructure investment plan approved or modified by the Secretary of Defense under section 15(a)(22) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 113-291; 120 Stat. 1434(d)) for the construction of military infrastructure and facilities in the United States for the cost of such military infrastructure and facilities. For purposes of such subsection, the term “military infrastructure” means military assets or related administrative, scientific, or other means of defense.
(b) Elements.–The plan included in such plan in fiscal year 2014 shall—
(1) be developed in consultation with the Secretary of Defense on an equal-value basis; and
(2) provide for the assessment and improvement of such plan and any corrective or other program elements necessary or desirable to carry out such plan.
(c) Funding.–Funds made available in any such fiscal year shall be obligated and expended only where the Secretary determines that—
(1) necessary and desirable corrective and other programs (including programs relating to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), military capabilities acquisition, and counterintelligence and intelligence-gathering activities, shall–
(A) be subject to full review and review by the appropriate congressional committees; and
(B) meet the conditions for making such corrective and other program elements required under applicable law.
(d) Definitions.–In this section.The reference in subsection (b) to an activity under section 10 of the Defense Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 108-163; 10 U.S.C. 973 note) as “aid on defense” is intended to avoid the word “defense” in the definition of the term, and the term refers to the defense expenditure of the person with the obligation in connection with such expenditure.
SEC. 612. PREVENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ADMINISTRATOR AND AGENCY INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERACTIONS OF AN OFFICERS IN CONNECTION WITH UNITED STATES CONTRACTORS.Section 12(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 2310; 10 U.S.