Langston Hughes blog

Langston Hughes criticizes in this poem the inequality of the American Dream. He criticizes the alleged racism, imperialism, and nativism that has kept blacks, aboriginals and immigrants from reaching success when they immigrating to this country. The poem shows “the other side of the story” as far as American success goes. It mentions white immigrants, form Ireland and Poland and other lands, and how they are discriminated against, even thought their ultimate goal is to be a successful American. This is contrasted with the success of English American Protestants, especially wealthy ones, and the greater amount of acceptance they are given in this country. The poem is read from the eyes of poverty-stricken minorities, and it criticizes not necessarily the American Dream, but it’s failure to be equally applied to all.

I do not necessarily agree with Hughes’ criticism of the inequality of the American Dream. A productive society has a sense of structure and order. Hughes seems to yearn for a nation that lacks order, and is full of complete equality, i.e. a socialist state. He also criticizes things that are simple facts of nature; the dog-eat-dog nature of this country is a great example of such a thing. In nature, animals devour to survive. A realistic worldview would reveal the horror of the world we live in, and would show to Langston the impossibility of complete economic equality. I do agree with his criticism of poor working conditions, but he must realize that nature has it’s own hierarchy; Hughes cannot simply supplant this hierarchy. While Lagnston demands a pluralistic society, he never looks at the viewpoints of such men as Booker T. Washington, who believe that different groups can work perfectly amongst themselves. If Mexican, Oriental, Middle-Eastern, and European immigrants, as well as African-Americans and aboriginals are discriminated against, they ought to unify amongst themselves. As for the poor, they deserve to be treated right, but it would be foolish to expect a prosperous society with complete social equality. Socialist states were, and today are, surely not as prosperous as nations with free, competitive markets. In conclusion, I say that Hughes is correct in his demand for respect of groups in society, and different ethnic groups do deserve opportunity. However, he must bear in mind the dangers of Marxist economic principles.