Friday, November 17th, 2017...2:18 amdixonk


Jump to Comments


Hutchinson makes a good point that needs to be understood, that simply writing in this time period does not make one a modernist writer.  What I am understanding when reading this is that the writer must fill the genre that is being pushed forward and continue to make advancements to open up the world to what could be in black culture and in the United States.


He notes that the major text when he first started writing and studying about the Harlem Renaissance was six years old, and another scholar would advance the writing on this time period later, however Nathan Huggins’s Harlem Renaissance maintained to be the most influential on Hutchinson.


Hutchinson says that there is an “idea of the Harlem Renaissance as a little movement that was killed by the Depression”, and that there is a misunderstanding between what titles the era should go by.  He brings up briefly the Harlem nightclub culture died in because of the Depression and the end of Prohibition, but while influential, the nightclub culture should not define the era.

I would add: How would you define modernism versus modernity in your own words?


  •   Professor Seiler
    November 21st, 2017 at 3:09 am

    Kienan–What do you make of GH’s response to the questionnaire offering a kind of mini-history of early HR scholarship?

  • Kienan, is I think the point about the “idea of the Harlem Renaissance as a little movement that was killed by the Depression” is extremely interesting. I think it’s interesting because I never thought about how the Depression actually did kill the Harlem Renaissance.

Leave a Reply