Gates and Benjamin: authenticity does not mean representation.

Gates' outline Phyllis Wheatley's publishing process and its outcome (including future opinions of her race) raised an important question for me.

In summary, Phyllis was a female slave who couldn't get her poetry published. After attending an "oral examination" (in which she was questioned about Milton, the pope, the Greeks, and Latin), she received an "[a]ttestation" to her work from "the most respectable characters in Boston" [who were white] (7-8). This letter of authenticity persuaded publishers to accept her work, because it was rare for a Black person to be not only well-educated but also talented at commanding language. Seventeenth century Europeans, according to Gates, could view "the African 'species of men'" as "related" to white men if they could  "master 'the arts and sciences'" (8).

It would seem that examples like this would increase as more Black writers gained authenticity. If there was a claim from the white community that when Black people mastered literature the two races would be on more common ground, then where was the evidence? Why did Black literature only become a "commodity" to be traded for "humanity" (9)?

I retraced a part of Benjamin's essay to find some answers. Authenticity brings about the term 'aura' which has do with an artwork's "uniqueness" and closeness to humanity (1236). Phyllis' poetry contained these qualities. The aura would have been especially strong with white audiences who are 'distanced' from Black culture.

Both authenticity and aura are "never entirely separated" from "ritual function" (1236-7). I'm having issues pinning down a substitute for the ritualistic foundation here, and I know it's where my answer lies.

"Kant...claims that 'so fundamental is the difference between [the black and white] races of man...it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color'" (10). This and opinions like it prevented a shift towards equality in the dawning of African-American authentic literary representation. They still had "no history" which meant to some that they had "no humanity" (11).

Maybe the "ritualistic basis" which Benjamin refers to is similar, in this case, to the foundation of assumptions about race. Regardless of claims about relations existing between races based on their mastery of the arts and sciences, these deep-rooted racist assumptions of the white populations overpowered the aura and authenticity of Black literature.

Are African-Americans being represented while racist assumptions prevail? Can one never represent more than their individual self if they are implicitly and constantly assumed to be inferior based on an aspect they cannot control?