A thought about man love

In our last class session we started to discuss man love in Banjo. Unfortunately class ended and we didn't really finish that discussion. I wanted to only mention that in Stephen's article she states "new ways of representing masculine intimacy uncorrupted by male conflicts over women." This is perhaps the reason Latnah's affair with Banjo had to end. It seems that in order for Ray and Banjo to fully develop their relationship there is no room for women, because women are a source of argument and confusion for women and require attention (the kind Banjo is willing to give to Ray). Just a quick thought...

Francophone African Literature

Stephen D. called my attention to this NY Times article that relates to some of our recent discussions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/books/review/12ZANGANE.html?emc=eta1
Thanks Stephen!

1929 Books Reviews of Banjo

In class, someone mentioned that they were curious about the reaction to Banjo at the time it was published. Here are links to two book reviews written in response to the book at the time. I realize that these reviews don't necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the African American community (or any other community, for that matter) as a whole, but they are still interesting to take a look at.

Review of Banjo in the Milwaukee Journal, May 11th, 1929.

Review of Banjo in the Pittsburgh Press, May 18th, 1929.

Tam

Hey Guys,

Been thinking a lot about Latnah and the position of women in general in Banjo. Anyway, Latnah seemed to really demand discussion as she is the subject of the book's terminal conversation. Or she is the entrance to a conversation about women in general, maybe. I started looking over this final paragraph of speech (by Banjo) and noted a few remarkable abnormalities. First: Banjo replies to Ray's question about including Latnah in their journey, "Don't get soft ovah any one wimmens, pardner." (The italics are mine). What are we to make of this incongruous pluralization? Banjo has intimated in previous chapters that all women are the same to him, is this simply an instance of that misogyny made grammatically manifest? Is it possible that Latnah means nothing more to Banjo than any other woman might? Skipping ahead to the third sentence in what is purported to be Banjo's (!) dialogue we get: "A woman is a conjunction." Lets forget about the semantic weight of that line for a second and just focus on the dialect McKay uses: that's not how Banjo talks. Ever. And McKay makes obvious this discrepancy by juxtaposing wimmens and woman in the same paragraph. That word alone is enough to signal that something has gone seriously awry in Banjo's speech patterning, but then that word is metaphorized as a conjunction. As a piece of grammar! Banjo doesn't say shit like that. Ray might, though I can't recall an instance in which he has. The narrator (whatever polyglot of voices and characters that actually is) might as well, since grammar and words are presumably the narrator's business, but this feels almost like a new voice, one that is suddenly as concerned with the physical stuff of making novels as the characters that stuff is used to portray. One, in fact, that equates the two: "A woman is a conjunction." Or maybe it's the same voice that wrote "A story without a plot". Ultimately it's probably futile to attempt assigning this voice to anyone; the significant thing is that I don't see how it could possibly be the voice of Banjo we've become accustomed to. So what's going on? What is happening to speech and to agency as the book ends? What is invading Banjo's voice? And we've got to remember that it still is Banjo's voice. I don't mean to take this statement away from him, just to note that something has changed very quickly and strangely.

Also, what is being said in that line "A woman is a conjunction."? Moments after Banjo has grammatically stripped Latnah of any individuality is this new voice restoring some of it? Is Latnah, being mixed race, being as James called her (I think) "the book's phantom architecture", the conjunction actually being discussed in this sentence? Is Banjo unconsciously thinking about Latnah since she is, after all, the catalyst of this discourse on women and male partnership? Is this the voice of Banjo's unconscious that talks about women as conjunctions? What the fuck?


Also just noticed that the copy of the book that like everyone except Erica has is red, white and blue (as are the flags of the U.S., England and France) and that the title Banjo is filled with red and white horizontal stripes (like the U.S. flag, but not like Britain and France). Significant? Obviously not a choice made by McKay, but perhaps by a publisher and authorized by him. Regardless, it can be interesting to think about the information we (unwittingly?) receive from a book's packaging.

Ok. Sorry. I'm done.

Jess

Yayy!! I Finally Got It!! Banjo And A Long Way From Home

This Is Not A Test: Andrew-Luke Here

Having read Banjo and A Long Way From Home, the questions that I am about to raise have to deal with identity. The identity of McKay as he saw himself in relation to the world, the identity as to how others viewed McKay, and thirdly how McKay's characters would view McKay.

1. In his autobiography, McKay on page 67 of the second course packet describes that he "won over most of the Negro intelligentsia in Paris, excepting the leading journalist..." From what I gather I believe that he is talking about Dr. Alain Locke and if it is Dr. Locke, why does McKay clearly not like him and respect him as a writer, and as a man?


2. McKay on page 66 in the same course packet is speaking with one of the Harlem Negroid Elite when she states: " The people in Home to Harlem are our low-down Negroes and we respectable Negroes ought to be proud that we are not like them and be grateful to you for giving us a real picture of Negroes whose lives we know little about on the inside." McKay's response, " I felt completely vindicated." (66).

A:
Why does McKay feel at all "vindicated" as this female elite stated McKay was just doing what Whites did all the time when writing about Negroes. Do you feel McKay truly believed that he actually felt vindicated.

B:
How would Banjo react what would he say and what would he do to McKay for making this statement if he had the opportunity to?

3. On pages 60-61 in the course packet, Le Corse and McKay's interactions come across as downright troubling. The issue of commidification once again manifests itself, and also the interaction between the Occidental (Le Corse) vs. the Oriental.

A.
Where does McKay fit into the aforementioned category his struggle indicates that of the Orient, but his social circle would indicate the former.

B.
Le Corse states: "I don't like degenerates. Of course, if rich people want to indulge a fantasy, I arrange privately for them, for rich people can afford to be fantastic. But I have no use for plain poor people being fantastic unless they are making money by it."

What then is Le Corse's interest in McKay other than on the strength of his friend vouching for McKay? Why is McKay different from a Senegalese because he is American, why does Le Corse refer to Senegalese as "savages and stupid" (60).

C.
Is Le Corse trying to convince McKay that he is nothing like the Senegalese and that he himself is not like the Spaniards and Portuguese? Or is it because like McKay discovered when seeing Ivan Opfer's accurate non-romantic-non-sycophantic artistic depiction of reality as he saw it and what Le Corse new himself to be?

Does Le Corse realize that he can protect his Wife and Children from the family business in running Mancebias (brothels, bawdy houses) but ultimately he cannot protect himself from who he truly is and his fear of himself?

My Thoughts

Banjo

1. Banjo is as much a commentary on capitalism, colonialism and class as it is about race.  Do you find the discussions Ray, Banjo and the other characters in the novel have about these issues to be a natural part of the narrative?  Or are there times when the intense conversations feel more like the author forcing his views on the reader than they are a part of an organic outgrowth of the narrative?

2. There are moments when Banjo freely floats from one place to the next without concerning himself with the greater affairs of the world around him and then there are times when he seems profound in his understanding of the world around him.  How do you see him?  Is he the lucky fool or is there a complexity to his ways?  Is there a wisdom in him that allows him to be free of the world in a way some of the other characters seem incapable of being?  Perhaps, there is a bit of the Dual-Consciousness DuBois spoke of in Banjo that allows him to smile and party and live to the fullest, while at the same time fully understanding the nature of the hostile world around him.  What do you think?

3.  In many ways, this story has a Socialist leaning.  There seems to be no love for Capitalism.  Time and time again the author's voice declares that it's not the voices of the higher classes that should be listened to, but rather it is the voices of the masses that matter.  When the ship with the dollar sign comes into port, the author lets us know that it is not welcome.  The reader does not seem to be given a chance to make up his or her mind regarding the world Banjo lives in.  How do you feel about this?  Would you like more room to maneuver as a reader?  Perhaps, if the author's voice wasn't so strong and or so intertwined with Ray's, the reader could be allowed more space to interpret the world of Marseilles and the world outside of Marseilles.  Or are you fine with the spaces you have been given as a reader along with the commentaries being offered up to you by the author?  If you loved capitalism and the free market, would it be possible to enjoy this book?

4. McKay touches on almost every aspect of what it meant to be a black man in the world Banjo exists in.  And not just an African-American black man, but a black man from all the parts of the world that interacted with the White world.  He goes into great detail about the relationships people of color have with the whites as well as the relationships they have with one another.   Did his rendering of this Black diaspora deepen your understanding of the characters and of their world?  Or did you find it to be information that, though interesting, did not seem to be necessary for the progression (if you found progression) of the narrative.  If you could cut away parts of the narrative, would these renderings be cut away or would you choose other parts of the story?  If so, what parts and why?

5.  Why do you think McKay wrote this book?  What do you think he was trying to do with this narrative?  I agree with what many said during the last class.  That this book is a work of love.  Many of the conversations in this book are conversations I have heard in my own life (as a person of color) among friends and family members.  It seems that over the years so much has not changed.  People of Color still speak about the use of the word "nigger".  They still discuss the differences between Africans and West-Indians and African-Americans.  They still speak of the need to BE BLACK AND PROUD in our artistic endeavors instead of "simply" being ARTISTIC.  They still argue over the questions of race relations.  So for me, McKay wrote this book to make the conversations Black people have amongst ourselves into something larger.  Perhaps, he wanted to open up these communal talks we have amongst ourselves. He wanted to allow us to see the connections our lives have with the lives of others around us, others of different colors, who in many ways do differ from us, but also, who in many ways share the same stories as us.  These are stories having to do with being men and women lost and mixed-up into the milieu of a world of commerce and industry.  That is just my take.  What is yours?

Sean

Banjo - Claude McKay

1- One of the things that stood out to me while reading this text was seemingly the absence of a high concern or a high level of consciousness for race relations, at least, in comparison to a lot of the other material we’ve read so far. McKay presents his characters as simply living in Marseilles but not necessarily facing the issues of race. Aside from the minor altercations with police officers there does not seem to be any major issues with race. The first relevant race issue (racism) that present itself in the text occurs in Ch 6 (Meeting-Up) when the Blacks and Italians get into a brawl. As the chapter progresses we learn of the bar keepers struggle with his beliefs in Marcus Garvey’s Back to Africa movement and the grandeur of American Progress. Why is there little focus on race? Why does McKay not place great emphasis on the struggle that is definitely recurrent during the 20’s into his book? Is this book even about race?


2- While all of the characters are very similar to each other, some of them differ greatly. When introduced to Ray, the reader gets the idea of a man who is perhaps formally educated and shares a different view about the world and has a higher level of consciousness when it comes to race relations. Taloufa, a Nigerian, holds a strong belief in Marcus Garvey and the “Back to Africa” movement. Banjo is seemingly less concerned with politics and moreso with music and forming an orchestra. McKay uses all of the men in the “group” to "contribute" something different to their overall outlook on life. What is the importance of this? Why bring in all of these different factors (characters)? What is McKay saying about the society we live in, if anything at all? How do the characters each contribute in one way or another?

3- Music and wine (alcohol) seem to be the only driving factors for many of the characters in Banjo. It presumably brings out the height of their contentment. Aside from Banjo, aspiring to put together a black orchestra, have these other men lost touch with reality and simply live day-to-day content in dreaming and getting “sweetly soft?” Are they settling for what Marseilles has to offer because they believe there is nothing more for them?

Alcohol seems to be the central factor that always ties and brings these men together in gathering. Do they simply enjoy the alcohol because it is an escape from what their life really is or does it truly bring about satisfaction for them?

4- There seems to be a great play of and around the word “primitivism.” Many connotations surrounding it are found in the text. The music that is played by the men brings about this earthy, deeply rooted feeling from those listening to it. We read that, “…no matter what the name may be, Negroes are never so beautiful and magical as when they do that gorgeous sublimation of the primitive African sex feeling. In its thousand varied patterns, depending so much on individual rhythm, so little on formal movement, this dance is the key to the African rhythm of life… (105).” What is the importance of this? The references that continually give into the idea of “primitiveness” is continually found throughout the book. Is McKay feeding into the idea of it or does he have another reason for presenting the text the way he does? Are the stereotypes damaging or do they serve another purpose?

Banjo

A) What are the implications of McKay's use of dialect? How does it influence the plot? How does it affect the reader?

B) How do the detailed descriptions of music and dance found repeatedly throughout the novel shed light on the characters therein?

C) How are women depicted in Banjo? What do the characters of Banjo and Latnah suggest about women?

McKay's Banjo

Hey all so here are some questions to think about for Class tomorrow.

A. What do you think of the statement of "BANJO A Story Without a Plot?" Does McKays statement relate at all to the situation of Ex patriots? I found it a parallel to what was happening in Europe, where we have all these men and women living their lives and they all form one story but their is no plot.

B. What do you think of Banjo's presentation? In the beginning of the story we have him traversing the landscape as out of luck man, but we are told that at a point he had money and would give to those who asked it of him (hence the return by the train hoppers of buying him a meal.). Is their a significance of showing a character who is not living the high life in France?

C. I found myself thinking of Banjo as a metaphor for the Ex Patriots themselves. His life style was not the best having to live off panhandling and such but he enjoyed the freedom to play and live life care free. Similarly some Ex Patriots came to Europe to learn a new life style usually leaving comfort or some form of indenture to either society or others. Now in Europe they are able to explore a freer life, without the full pressure of constant racism and difficulty of living in the states. Is Banjo's situation an example of this, where he lived with wealth and one time he now simply lives?

Eddie.

Walrond writing Cause of America

We discussed if Warlond was really an ex-patriot, as he was not from America truly but wrote about experiences. I had a thought that he did not so much write about America but wrote because of America, his motivation and direction flowing from the states.

Though he did not always paint a flattering picture of it he did seem to turn to it for direction and comparison.

This is my thought and was wondering what others think.

Eric Walrond

In "Harlem," Walrond compares Harlem, "the black capital of the universe", to the "primitive rhythms of the African jungle" (36). How do you think the culture, the styles, the business of "hot stuff", the "Houses of tolerance", and the cabarets of "Rawlins' Paradise" compare, or don't compare, to the African jungle? Is this actually representative of the "primitive" culture that made black culture popular in the 1920's?

The idea of nationality vs. nationlessness is a recurrent theme we will encounter throughout the course. But, as Walrond depicts, the idea of "home" is quite elusive: in "White Man, What Now?" he catalogs the various kinds of prejudices he encounters on his travels within the Caribbean, and in "The Negro in London" he compares the prejudices the black man may encounter abroad; How do the prejudices vary within the West Indies to England (to America, even). How are they similar? And as a follow-up, why is the "Negro artist" viewed differently than the seamen and other black immigrants that settle in England?

This idea of nationlessness can either create a divide or be a unifying force amongst black immigrants (whether in the Caribbean, America, or in Europe), and as exemplified in "Harlem," black culture is culled from a variety of influences, so how do the immigrants from varying backgrounds establish a divided or a unified culture?

And, for good measure (and for the postcolonial lovers), in both "The Negro in London" and "On England",  Walrond mentions how the British power seems to elicit a sense of pride in the mother country and bring about a sense of nationhood in its colonial rule over Barbadoes (amongst other islands), why do the British instill ideas of national pride in the West Indies, yet look upon a black immigrant with "cold indifference" (49). What might be the reason for the Brits to create a national identity in colonizing the West Indies, to declare a loud proclamation of national existence which does not actually exist (52)? Is it simply to make the inhabitants more "English" than "African" as Walrond exclaims in "White Man, What Now?" (47). What risks does it pose for the West Indians to blindly follow the culture of the English as opposed to creating their own sense of culture or connect back to African culture?  

Responding to Eric Walrond

“Harlem”

If Harlem is considered to be the “black capital of the universe” (36) by writers such as Langston Hughes and Eric Walrond, are they making such assessment at the expense of other people outside of Harlem?

How is Walrond's view of Harlem different from Montmartre?

Do you think Jim Rawlins is a sell-out for preferring to cater only to “white patrons” (38)?

On “White Man, What Now?,” “The Negro in London” and “On England.”

My problem with Waldron is that I do not know how to categorize him. In his short essays, he deals with fragmented identity, cultural displacement, otherness and hybridity, which are tenets of the postcolonial field. Is there a difference between African-American and Third World writers who write abroad? Should Waldron be cast as a “Harlemite,” even if he is dealing with the Empire?

Walrond writes: “It is indeed a paradox that London, the capital of the largest Negro Empire in the world—the cradle of English liberty, Justice and fair-play—the city to which Fredrick Douglass fled as a fugitive from slavery—should be so extremely inexpert in the matter of interracial relations. But in this respect London may be easily compared with New York twenty years before the big migration which resulted in the establishment of Harlem” (50). I do not agree with this statement because, historically, one cannot compare London with New York. Africans and Caribbean natives go to London for educational, economic and social opportunities to better their lives and to escape from political prosecution. African-Americans went to London during Walrond’s time because they want a place where they could feel or be seen as equals to the white man. But according to the quote, Africans and Caribbean were never seen as their equals in the eye of Englishmen. Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Discuss?

Walrond describes “A gentleman [as] [a]nybody who is well-dressed. . . . [o]ne who is not intentionally rude” (52). Does that apply to blacks?