CLASS OPENER (10/04/12

CLASS OPENER

    Each and every one of us has at least heard small whispers about the Harlem Renaissance and some of the men and women who became famous during its more significant years.  The entire period of history is spoken of using phrases such as "rebirth", "a time of inspiration", and "a cultural upswing".  The musical genre of jazz was invented and gained significant momentum, businesses and the United States economy were thriving to say the least and life seemed excellent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2p_5XoP1Fg

However, there were secretive practices lurking beneath the shadows such as speakeasies and bootlegging.  Even in McKay's novel Home to Harlem we see the struggles of the working class and the self-destructive practices that exist in Harlem.  On the surface the Harlem Renaissance celebrated a revitalization of culture, tradition, and self-identity; but when one takes a closer perspective, there were negative practices going on that affected citizens of Harlem in a bad way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXaFOdfd1R4

When confronted by these two contrasting historical analyses of the Harlem Renaissance and the 1920s as a whole, which do you think is the more "holistic" or "appropriate" approach to studying the Harlem Renaissance?  If neither fits this description, what would be a "holistic" or "appropriate" approach to studying the Harlem Renaissance?