All posts by

Elijah McCoy, Lewis Latimer and Granville Woods: African-American Inventors of the 19th Century — Part 1 — Introduction

I fin­ished the paper. Turned out to be good (thanks to Kim’s edit­ing) and my pre­sen­ta­tion went over pretty well and I only stopped once to look down at my notes. After cram­ming to fin­ish this I felt like I’d stud­ied for an exam I knew it so well.

You’ll notice super­scripts through­out the posts. Those are for the end­notes that were part of the hard copy. I will not be includ­ing that in this; no point in doing that.

Also, if you find this paper and copy it, believe me, there are ways to find you. The Inter­net is a glo­ri­ous and won­der­ful place, and I’m post­ing my paper because I’m proud of it, but that works two ways — me being nice, and you, the reader, play­ing nice too.

And so with­out fur­ther ado.…
Eli­jah McCoy, Lewis Latimer and Granville Woods: African-American Inven­tors of the 19th Cen­tury
African-Americans down through the cen­turies, whether slave or free, impro­vised and cre­ated tools and machines that helped them either in the fields or in the cities of the United States dur­ing the Nine­teenth Cen­tury. As The Col­ored Amer­i­can put it Novem­ber 14, 1903 –

It should be borne in mind that the great indus­trial bur­den in the South fell almost wholly upon the Negro slaves, not only in agri­cul­ture and domes­tic labor, but in mechan­i­cal pur­suits as well: so that through his expe­ri­ences in field and work­shop the Negro laborer was enabled – indeed forced – to devise many an new prac­ti­cal con­trivance for min­i­miz­ing the exact­ness of man­ual labor.“1

On the plan­ta­tions of the South, where African-Americans of many skills and strengths were often grouped together, new tools and machines were cre­ated that helped ease the back-breaking day to day labor. In the cities, mind-numbingly tedious labor, such as the con­struc­tion of shoes, was made sim­ple and quick by inven­tors such as Jan Ernst Matzeliger, who’s shoe last­ing machine rev­o­lu­tion­ized the shoe indus­try, dras­ti­cally cut­ting pro­duc­tion time and man hours.

As early as the late 19th cen­tury African-American inven­tors were begin­ning to be rec­og­nized for their accom­plish­ments. “The oft-repeated accu­sa­tion against the Negro that he is an imi­ta­tor and not an inven­tor does not stand the test when brought under the lime­light of inves­ti­ga­tion,” claimed a reporter in 1908 in the Seat­tle Repub­li­can. Which was true. Accord­ing to the Gov­ern­men­tal Patent Office at that time, it was esti­mated that of the 900,000 total patent rights that had been granted in the his­tory of the office about 1,000 of those came from African-American inven­tors. Henry E. Baker, one of the first Black Patent Exam­in­ers in the U.S. Patent and Trade­mark Office said, “…the records of this office do not dis­tin­guish between inven­tors as to race but only to nation­al­ity (but black inventors)…not only served to raise the stan­dard of the inven­tors mate­ri­ally and socially but (have) greatly aided in increas­ing the facil­i­ties of civ­i­liza­tion.“2

African-Americans, often with­out the ben­e­fits of higher edu­ca­tion, were start­ing to make noted, valu­able con­tri­bu­tions to the Amer­i­can land­scape, even if they as a peo­ple were still not fully accepted as social or intel­lec­tual equals in white Amer­ica. This paper will focus on the back­grounds, work and inven­tions of three influ­en­tial African-American Inven­tors of the 19th Cen­tury inven­tors: Lewis Latimer, Eli­jah McCoy and Granville Woods. It will address their inven­tions, the social and racial cli­mate at the time and how their race impacted their oppor­tu­ni­ties and edu­ca­tions.
Next time, their inventions.

Getting Nervous About “Lost”, Too, But Not Too Nervous

lost-final-season

If you’ve read this blog for any period of time you know that I’ve loved, and then hated, and then loved “Lost”. It started out with a (lit­eral) bang and then went down­hill for awhile and then came back up and then kinda mud­dled around and then really hit its stride a sea­son or two ago. And we’re com­ing down to the end on May 23 with a 2 1/2 hour series finale that pro­ducer Damon Lin­de­lof has already said won’t answer every ques­tion out there. But it will answer some and I guess that’s what matters.

What will it answer and how will it answer it is the big ques­tion though. Will we ever be told why no chil­dren could be born on the island? Will we ever know who built the statue that Jacob lived inside of? Will we be told who even­tu­ally fin­ished the don­key wheel project started so long ago by Jacob’s brother, the Man in Black? Will it be explained what was wrong with Sayid before he com­mit­ted hari kari with the bomb in the sub­ma­rine? And where is Daniel Fara­day? I want him back one more time.

There’s a lot to answer, and judg­ing from last week’s episode focus­ing on the rela­tion­ship of Jacob and his brother, the showrun­ners are in no hurry to get to the fin­ish line that they set out for them­selves two sea­sons ago. Yeah, we got the answer from sea­son two on who the bod­ies were in the cave, but that deserved a whole hour ded­i­cated to one sim­ple question?

I don’t think that the peo­ple who make the show are going to end it as some hal­lu­ci­na­tion in Hurley’s crazy head or a dream that Aaron started hav­ing before he was born or fast for­ward­ing five to 10, or more, years into the future and see­ing whomever took over for Jacob down­ing another air­liner or crash­ing a cruise ship or some­thing. I just want a sat­is­fy­ing end­ing, not every­thing has to be explained and I know that every­thing won’t be explained (like how that plane was able to drop a food ship­ment on the island if nor­mal peo­ple aren’t really able to travel to the island) but I want cer­tain peo­ple to live (mainly Hur­ley) and for their sto­ries to end with sat­is­fy­ing end­ings. Not much to ask.

Also, I’m going to see the Times Talks Live:Lost on May 20 where New York Times enter­tain­ment edi­tor Lorne Manly is going to be talk­ing live with pro­duc­ers Carl­ton Cuse and Lin­de­lof. I’m sure they won’t give any­thing away (the finale is only 3 days later) but I bet they’ll hint at some­thing. Maybe I’ll tweet it — that would be fun.

And what show will I watch after this is all over with? Maybe The Walk­ing Dead.

Getting a Little Nervous About Iron Man 2.…

iron_man

I freak­ing loved Iron Man. Looooved it. Loved it so much I saw it twice and now own it on Blu-Ray and watch it about once a month. It’s a great film, and John Favreau did a great job of helm­ing a pos­si­bly career-sinking film1. It’s cool and smart and con­fi­dent and funny and smart and Robert Downey Jr., who a few years ago I would have writ­ten off as Cory Haim-in-the-present mate­r­ial, soars as Tony Stark. And hav­ing any­body else play Stark2 would have been weird in hindsight.

And I really love that movie. I truly do.

And now Iron Man 2 is com­ing up this Fri­day. And I couldn’t be more ner­vous about it.

I’m wor­ried it’s just gonna be ter­ri­ble. I think my rea­son­ing is that the first time around there wasn’t so much focus on who the bad guys are, and I think that the peo­ple play­ing the bad guys are bad choices. The Bat­man fran­chise started to die when the films focused more on the bad guys than on Bat­man. Mickey Rourke? Really? He looks ter­ri­ble. And silly. And Scar­lett Johans­son? Man, she’s so one-note actress (like Natalie Port­man) it’s not even funny.

Maybe it’s the prod­uct tie-ins (I’ve seen about 25 in the past cou­ple of days) or the bad guys in the movie. I don’t know. Just have a strange feel­ing about this one. Maybe it’ll be dif­fer­ent once I see it, and I’ll see it, but we’ll see.

UPDATE - The reviews are in and they aren’t that great. Com­pared to the 92% that the first Iron Man film got among the top crit­ics on RT, IM2 has got­ten a rous­ing 66%. One of my favorite authors, Cory Doc­torow tweeted “Iron Man 2: the stu­pid, it burns. Wait for DVD, watch in Ital­ian, pre­tend it’s opera.” I kinda feel bad for John Favreau, who’s a great direc­tor, but I’m sure he’s laugh­ing all the way to the bank since IM2 brought in, in the open­ing week­end, $128,122,480. Typ­i­cal Hol­ly­wood. We’ll see, after word of mouth, what the dropoff will be.

  1. Just ask Bryan Singer of Super­man Returns fame. []
  2. Nicholas Cage and Tom Cruise were inter­ested in play­ing Stark. []

Why Avatar Was Revolutionary and the Studios Just Don’t Understand Why

avatar

Ever since Jame’s Cameron’s Avatar hit movie the­aters last year peo­ple have been oohing and ahhing at the tech­nol­ogy that was employed to make the very-true-to-life planet of Pan­dora seem real. His use of 3-D tech­nol­ogy and the abil­ity to cre­ate pho­to­re­al­is­tic computer-generated char­ac­ters out of pix­els was cool and ahead of its time and cost a whole lot of money to make…and it shows. The film *looks* great and it’s enjoy­able and all, but I’m glad it didn’t win the Best Pic­ture Oscar. That would have been like giv­ing Star Wars the Best Pic­ture for hav­ing really awe­some spe­cial effects.

And every­one said that Avatar would be a game changer, the meme was com­ing down the pipe even before the movie was released and the whole under­stand­ing of why it would be the game-changer-to-be was because of the pho­to­re­al­is­tic char­ac­ters. But for some rea­son that whole angle of the film has been lost in the cloud that it was in 3-D.

Glo­ri­ous 3-D! Plants and ani­mals and those Huey heli­copter look­ing VTOLs and float­ing moun­tains and all. All of it in 3-D. And like I said ear­lier, the film looks great.

So now other stu­dios have latched onto that break­ing new tech­nol­ogy from the 1950’s also and films all over the place are about to be released in 3-D, whether you want them to be or not. Clash of the Titans was filmed in stan­dard 2-D, but after Avatar splashed big Warner Bros. went back and made Titans into 3-D to sat­isfy this unquench­able desire for Perseus and the Kraken and Medusa’s head to be in 3-D. The remake of Piranha is going to be in 3-D and even more films are com­ing out in that cut­ting edge 20th Cen­tury technology.

But butts in the seats in the­aters have been declin­ing for the past sev­eral years since HD has been intro­duced into the home the­ater mar­ket. The big stu­dios have been ask­ing them­selves what could bring peo­ple back to the the­ater and they think they’ve found it, for now.

Going back to the game changer — I don’t see why the stu­dios haven’t fig­ured out yet why Avatar is really such a big deal, because it’s fairly obvi­ous. Maybe it’s because of legal issues that would be involved in the mak­ing of film, but the log­i­cal end to what Avatar has brought us is film­mak­ers being able to have any actor or actress, liv­ing or dead, in their film. George C. Scott as Robert E. Lee in a Rid­ley Scott pic­ture? Done. Jimmy Stew­art and Jim Car­rey finally together in a com­edy after all this time? Doable. Grace Kelly back to play Julia Roberts’ mother? Not impos­si­ble. All it takes is a bunch of LEDs on a stand-in actor’s head and we can paint Char­lie Chap­lin in a new com­edy from the Far­relly broth­ers. He could eat poop or some­thing and then do a funny dance.

Voice tal­ent could be big then and actors that never got work before could (secretly) put block­busters on their resumes. Like I said, legal issues abound, since the fam­i­lies of these peo­ple might dis­agree with allow­ing their loved ones to return from the grave to be res­ur­rected again on the big screen, but every­one in Hol­ly­wood has a price, right?

So 3-D? It’s a fad again. Hol­ly­wood should look to the real future — har­vest­ing dead actors for profit.