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?
Regarding the music I get the sense that they are dancing for themselves, and not just performing for "the man." They are doing what comes natural and I think they are sharing their pain and struggles through the music and the wine. I don't think any of them feel content. They are displaced and yet they have each other. They are not allowing outside influences exploit their lot in life.
ReplyDeleteThis will echo some of what we talked about yesterday in class, but I really liked your questions, Fendja.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't really get to talk about question 4, so I'll respond to that, but with a twist.
I find this notion of "primitivism," as you also seem to, problematic. But what was particularly noteworhty about the passage you listed from 105 were the words "individual" and also the phrase "little formal movement." Primitivism, maybe to the narrator, seems to represent not just an African association (and, as we've discussed, a false one), but a retreat to the individual as the top of the cultural hierarchy.
Where Garvey, Du Bois, or even the word "race" represent, for some, the pinnacle and purpose of literature (hyper-social awareness), McKay's infatuation with the episodic, temporary individual is more indicative of, yes, a primitive mindset, not in the sense that it is African, but in the sense that it decentralizes and destabilizes macro-social notions. It's not a primitive mindset that veers towards Africa, but maybe one that veers towards societies with less structure and dominance, less central cultural power. It's almost advocacy for liberal humanism and a political voice for apolitical people.
We can argue about whether that's a good or bad thing, particularly because in the early part of the 20th century, the push WAS needed to emancipate and pull up the race. McKay's novel probably didn't help the movement, but I think now we can appreciate its primitive and individualistic (pleasure-obsessed) mindset more now than anyone could've then. I think as historical and geographic documentation (stereotypical and wrongheaded, perhaps), its of some really great worth too.