I really enjoy this description of what is inherently white fragility. Whiteness becomes a victim in this circumstance rather than understanding that they're subjecting POCs to another instance of writing that addresses race either carelessly or in a manner that could be improved. However, in this instance criticism is not welcome.

I really enjoy how sure she is of herself. She hasn't internalized the narrative white supremacy often force feeds black folks. She understands her worth and knows the discrimination she faces to be unfair, not based in truth, and a stark contrast to who she actually is.

She's planning her way out of her condition. She finds that to be more important that finding sorrow in it.

Why is the rest of the town afraid of their own porches? Are they afraid of the white people passing through?

Is this reference to the frustration by black men who did not to assimilate into the white world, but rather escape it? Is this in reference to black men not being afforded the same opportunities as white people? I think it's the latter, but it could be both.

Reminds me of conversations had within the black community today regarding the need for black people to go above and beyond for the same recognition to be given that is easily afford by their white counterparts for doing far less.

He became aware of his own blackness and understood his blackness was the juxtaposition of whiteness.

Awareness of ones blackness?

Were his conditions better in Europe?

Is he saying this is asked to him as a black man or a black scholar? It feels like a layered question to ask someone of his stature during a time where the conditions of black Americans were undoubtedly more abhorrent than they are today. Being black would immediately make him a "problem." Being a black scholar would make him more of a "problem." There appears to be a bit of intersectionality at play here.

He seems to be saying that he's just human as his white counterparts. Did he feel the need to state this to encourage white readers at the time to empathize with what he was saying regardless of their assumptions of him based on race alone?

Its not as if nature itself has changed even if humanity diminishes its value. However, what does Emerson define as "less worth"? Does it pertain to what the text has already stated, i.e the over analysis of what he believes should remain simple and mystified by simple appreciation or are there other things that he believes devalues nature? Why is it important to hold nature in high esteem in the first place?

(Might be misunderstanding what he's trying to say)

This seems to answer my question.

Could that color be the projection of mans self concept and/or experiences onto nature?

Is he pointing out what he believes to be the shortcomings of philosophy? Does breaking down nature into smaller components and dissecting them disallow a person from seeing and appreciating the bigger picture?

"Neither does the wisest man extort her secret, and lose his curiosity by finding out all her perfection." This quote seems to provide further insight.

Man oftentimes finds discomfort in the things it is unable to understand or explain. Using ideas that are not concrete, but pair well with what one already knows is easier than having an inexplicable blank space. However, does this not leave room for unreasonable assumptions to be made?

What if someone lives life by their own biases and determines that to be truth? How would that be comparable to nature describing its own design? Is this meant in a general sense i.e commentary about the nature of man?

A rose may present itself as a rose and contain all that a biologist needs to understand its functions and makeup. Man cannot be afforded the same simplistic outlook.