-
Essay / 4 July - 906
The essay “Uses of Diaspora” by literary theorist Brent Hayes Edwards critically demonstrates the different uses of the term African diaspora by exposing the historical, cultural and political aspect of the term. Edwards clearly states his need to "exude a historical and politicized sense of diaspora" in his own work by "focusing on black cultural politics in the interwar period, particularly in the Harlem Renaissance and Francophone activity before Negritude in France and West Africa” ( Edwards 45). The author first begins his essay by continuing researcher Caching Toloyan's call for a "return to the diaspora" because it "risks becoming a category of great promiscuity that is considered to include all adjacent phenomena to which it is related but which differs from it in different ways. it's constructive. But also evokes the “confusion of multiple terms floating in recent works” (45). Edwards argues that "an intellectual history of the term is necessary" because diaspora is specifically conjectured in black scientific discourse (46), creating confusion for the reader. Edwards succeeds in pointing out to the reader the different aspects and uses of the diaspora by comparing various historians. 1950s, such as: Joseph Harris, George Shepperson and St. Clair Drake. His methodology reflects a confusion, not in the content of the essay but particularly in the essay as a whole. The structure of the essay seems to invoke a sense of understanding as it speaks specifically to specific areas of the diaspora and delves into articulation, which helps the reader understand the historical content. However, his arguments can take a circular form due to the fact that he agrees and disagrees with some scholars and historians who are middle of paper......people who contributed to the diaspora but who fail to carry out its mandate. own argument. Furthermore, it interacts with the work of the historian, which leads to misunderstanding his point. To conclude, in Brent Hayes Edwards' essay, The Uses of Diaspora, demonstrates clear information regarding the intellectual history of the diaspora. Edwards did an excellent job of including exclusive individuals who contributed to the diaspora and contributed to history. However, in some areas he did not implement transparent agreement or disagreement with scholars and historians, as he stated in his essay. The content of his essay is informative, but the compiled information may distract the reader from focusing on the real purpose of this essay. In other words, the historians and scholars he included in his essay received more audience than his particular contribution to the essay..