From Tateh to Baron Ashkenazy
Leaving behind the socialist movement was an important moment for Tateh. At the beginning of the book, he was disdainful of the rich, scorning at the white houses. However, after taking part in the strike, he realized that even if workers could win strikes, they would still live in poverty, still no more than slaves to the companies and machines. Though this could be construed as giving up and giving in to the capitalist owners, Tateh did the right thing by leaving socialism. His love for his daughter was his motivation throughout the book, and all he wanted to do was to make a good living for her. Turning to capitalism gave her the best outcome. However, by changing his entire way of viewing the world, he also needed to change his name to Baron Ashkenazy. This seemingly small change leaves a big mark: Baron Ashkenazy is a new character, not a continuation of one. The old Tateh has died, and he is left in an intermediate stage of Tateh/ Baron Ashkenazy.
After deciding he no longer wanted to be a socialist, Tateh/Baron Ashkenazy got into mass-producing flipbooks. In class, one of the discussions we had was whether or not mass-producing flipbooks was a sell-out of him. I believe it is important to look at this in terms of the two different characters. In terms of Tateh, yes, this was a sell-out. He originally made personal flip-books for his daughter skating, and selling it for a profit seemed absurd and contrary to all of his ideals, especially since the flipbooks started off as a personalized gift for his daughter. However, for Baron Ashkenazy, this was the next step for him. He finally renunciation his old life by following his new ideals and starting a new life, becoming rich and allowing his daughter to grow up comfortably. This move was not a sell-out and he now became fully Baron Ashkenazy.
In terms of changing personas, there is one other character who has also done this: Houdini. Superficially, it seems they are rather the same; Houdini and Baron Ashkenazy are both artistic immigrants that changed their names and lifestyles. However, they are quite different in how they have changed. Baron Ashkenazy has renounced his heritage: he doesn’t have any ties to his old life. Mameh is dead by the end of the story, and even Tateh’s little belongings were left behind in his last factory job. However, Houdini's mother still connects Houdini to his previous life and persona. This connection causes him to be unable to make a clear distinction between his new and old life and makes him feel insecure, never sure who he really is. This is the reason why he is so critical of his career and why he idealizes Father’s trip to Antarctica.
Thank you for reading this blog post! Please comment if you prefer Tateh or Baron Ashkenazy, and any other thoughts you may have on my blog post!
I can definitely see the argument in favor of Tateh/Baron as a "sellout," in that he literally turns his back on the strike in Lawrence (where he had been donating his artistic talents to designing protest signs and posters) and enters the realm of artistic commerce, literally selling (out?) his original invention of the flip-book for mass-production (in a factory?) and profit. But it's not clear that this development represents a renunciation of socialist ideals, and he still identifies as a "Jewish socialist" at the end of the novel (with "the Baron" as a character he performs in public, whose name both hides and reveals his Jewish identity through the word "Ashkenazy," which he seems to assume most Americans won't understand). If he is disillusioned by the strike, it is because the owners of the mills have so much more power than the unions--the police are their army, bolstered by private "detectives" like the Pinkertons, and the nonviolent strikers are literally getting beaten in the street. Elsewhere they're getting shot to death. Tateh makes a calculation about what is best for his child and himself, and he feels outgunned in this moment. He still believes in socialist ideals, but he is no longer willing to risk his life for the cause.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like Baron a bit more than Tateh, contrary to popular belief. I think during his strikes he was really trying to make a difference which I applaud. However, I don't see why he is a sellout as his main goal this entire time was to make a better life for his daughter, which was part of his motivation for fighting for socialism in the first place. I also think that with the money he makes he has set himself up for an opportunity to fight for socialism in a more effective way than just protesting. We don't know if he actually does fight for socialism past the end of the book, but it's possible. Nice post!
ReplyDeleteI think he may be a sellout for renouncing his heritage, but by benefitting of off capitalism, not at all. I agree that turning to capitalism gave Tateh and the little girl the best outcome, and on top of that, he could probably fight for socialism far more effectively as a rich man (the more money the better, although it is kinda counterintuitive). I suppose by renouncing his heritage, he's just trying to give the best shot for himself as a movie producer, and his true intentions may not be to completely switch up and forget his past, but instead to give himself the best chance in his new job. Either way, he at least deserves the money, as he's simply made a good product and is clearly quite creative. I prefer Baron more because he has more money and can fight more effectively with it. Great post!
ReplyDeleteNice job! I think this persona of the Baron Ashkenazy captures the ambiguity of Tateh's decisions really well. You could argue that he's "selling out" his true heritage by warping it into this sort of exotic caricature, or you could say he's being resourceful, taking advantage of traits for which he would be discriminated against and wielding them to his advantage. Either way, I don't think he's a character with easy answers!
ReplyDelete