James Baldwin's No Name In The Street

James Baldwin was one of the most prolific African American writers of the 1960s and 1970s. With Baldwin being a “racial integrationist,” many of his works maintain a strong focus on themes of cultural identity and racial equality (Birmingham). In his autobiographical No Name in the Street (1972), Baldwin describes identitarian differences which serve to separate African Americans from everybody else. Part of what makes No Name in the Street noteworthy is the fact that it is nonfiction, narrated by Baldwin himself. Instead of simply taking the perspective of a sympathizer unaffected by racial hardship, Baldwin places himself in the context of his own existence, exposing and analyzing a potpourri of events that serve to define the lives of African

Americans. Baldwin never digressing far from his personal experience increases not only his credibility, but his relatability. Specifically, Baldwin uses pathos to try to positively change the identity of African Americans, suggesting that “blacks and whites” should have equal social statuses. Pathos is the most meaningful literary device for Baldwin due to the fact that it not only makes his writing relatable, but transforms it from being mere statement to emphatic, impactful messages.
Baldwin discussing his delivery of “the bloody suit” to a former childhood friend is one
of his earliest, yet most powerful passages. This visit came about after Baldwin’s friend had read
a newspaper article in which Baldwin declared he would never again wear the same suit he wore
to Martin Luther King’s funeral ever again.

Baldwin describes his friend as being
“just another post-office worker… He could not afford to have suits in his closet which he didn’t wear, he couldn’t afford to throw suits away… And I was astounded that my friend would defend this particular racist folly… for his job at the post office” (13-19).
In describing his friend’s current life situation, with respect to both finances and work, Baldwin
provides insight on his friend’s inclination to try to live a peaceful life. This sort of life brings little to no political involvement, but Baldwin seems to stress the idea that this inherently does nothing to improve any African American’s situation. Baldwin’s friend is not advocating the “racist folly,” per se, but in accepting it, he is implicitly supporting it. Baldwin uses pathos in demonstrating that his friend is accepting the system out of fear for losing his job and consequentially ending up in a worse, more difficult situation. At first glance, it would almost seem that his friend is trapped and has no way of improving his life. It is more than just this though. Baldwin’s friend does not even show any motivation to strive for racial equality. He has, in a sense, submitted to the system and is content with

it.
The appeal here is not directed towards whites, but towards other African Americans. Even with Baldwin understanding his social identity and wanting to change it – advocating that a higher status can be attained – this feeling is not universal, not even among his own race. Baldwin goes on to write, “that bloody suit was their suit, after all, it had been bought for them, it had even been bought by them: they had created Martin, he had not created them, and the blood in which the fabric was stiffening was theirs” (21). In saying this, Baldwin further emphasizes the idea that
Accepting the suit implies that his friend is reinforcing. In doing this, . What Baldwin accomplishes with the use of (words/phrases) is appealing to (reader’s emotion) by creating (an image/metaphor) of (something the reader sympathizes with/relates to)

As a comparative example to the unequal status of races in the United States, Baldwin acknowledges the situation of les miserables (Algerians) in France, pointing out differences.

Baldwin notes that they lead poverty-stricken, bare bones lives. With “four or five or six to a room, and they slept in shifts, they were treated like dirt, and they scraped such sustenance as they could off the filthy, unyielding Paris stones… they were not at home in Paris, no more at home than I” (24). Clearly, the racism and unfair treatment towards blacks are present in both France and the United States. The key difference though, Baldwin emphasizes, is personal willpower. He writes, “One day they were going home, and they knew exactly where home was. They, thus, held something within them which they would never surrender to France. But on my side of the ocean, or so it seemed to me then, we had surrendered everything, or had had everything taken away, and there was no place for us to go: we were home” (24). Les

miserables
maintain at least some degree of freedom and hope in the form of a sort of welcoming sanctuary that they can escape to and live comfortably in. Even though their lives in France are probably of a lower tangible standard than blacks in the United States (take Baldwin’s postal worker friend, for instance), les miserables still have more freedom. The Algerians live together, work together, and survive together. As such, there is a sense of collectivity among them that cannot be found in the United States. This, argues Baldwin, is what makes les miserables overall a collectively stronger group. Extrapolating from this, if the blacks in the United States acted the same way, they would have a lot more power and influence.
Baldwin’s response to the interviewer’s question, “What is the definition of a black man, and his power?”. Baldwin’s response,
I was darkened long ago by the sun; but that’s not what makes me “black.” It’s the role I play in the world. It’s the world’s perspective, which says to me not “black” but “nigger”; and the whole question, in the end, if you are black, can be summed up this way: getting to the point where you’re not called “nigger.”
is reminiscent of the long, eloquent sentences seen throughout No Name in the Street. Baldwin is not making a simple statement like “white men hold more power than black men,” but is rather explaining what it means to be “black.” There is a personal element to Baldwin’s answer that serves to differentiate it from a general, mechanical reply. This is what makes Baldwin’s writing unique; it is not the topic, but the way he addresses it, that makes it stand out. From Baldwin’s perspective, one would expect it to be difficult to get to the point of not being called nigger, for the simple reason that they are the racial minority in terms of both numbers and power.
Final passage
Conclusion. Baldwin himself said that