Is Macon Effective?
Throughout the book we have seen Macon argue for black rights and denounce white people, but has he been effective? In the beginning of the book he was super radical, and seemed to believe that everything he did had a profound impact. In reality, he was just a kid blowing up police cars, and robbing people in his taxi. People either didn't seem to care too much, or if they did care about what he was doing they didn't connect his actions with the larger race argument that he was trying to make.
However, when Macon gets media attention and is invited onto talk shows, his friends advise him to be less radical. After all, the way that Macon tends to argue is to just throw an alternate reality into peoples' faces as a proposition. Sometimes he goes over the top (like when he's on the Rise and Shine New York show) and people think he's crazy. Deeming Macon as crazy is an easy way to shrug off his arguments, which is why his friends want him to be more subdued. When Macon presents his ideas in a calm, sophisticated manner people take him more seriously and he gets more support. We can see an example of this when he is on the Joe Francis show and he answers a call from a civil rights worker who is denouncing his argument. Macon doesn't start going off on the guy, but instead answers slowly, deliberately, and non-confrontationally. He realized that "he couldn't allow his outrage and his need to be unique paint the entire history of white engagement in the struggle as bull****."
I think that Macon is much more effective in arguing his points when presents his views in a more composed, less radical way. We can certainly see instances of when his radical ideas were too much for people, like at the Black Student Union meeting where he suggested that they not invite speakers but get guns and kill cops instead. What do you guys think? Is Macon's radicalness central to his character and effectiveness, or does he do better when he is more moderate?
However, when Macon gets media attention and is invited onto talk shows, his friends advise him to be less radical. After all, the way that Macon tends to argue is to just throw an alternate reality into peoples' faces as a proposition. Sometimes he goes over the top (like when he's on the Rise and Shine New York show) and people think he's crazy. Deeming Macon as crazy is an easy way to shrug off his arguments, which is why his friends want him to be more subdued. When Macon presents his ideas in a calm, sophisticated manner people take him more seriously and he gets more support. We can see an example of this when he is on the Joe Francis show and he answers a call from a civil rights worker who is denouncing his argument. Macon doesn't start going off on the guy, but instead answers slowly, deliberately, and non-confrontationally. He realized that "he couldn't allow his outrage and his need to be unique paint the entire history of white engagement in the struggle as bull****."
I think that Macon is much more effective in arguing his points when presents his views in a more composed, less radical way. We can certainly see instances of when his radical ideas were too much for people, like at the Black Student Union meeting where he suggested that they not invite speakers but get guns and kill cops instead. What do you guys think? Is Macon's radicalness central to his character and effectiveness, or does he do better when he is more moderate?
You raise some good points. Macon's more radical side often makes his arguments less attractive to ordinary people, but his radicalism is part of the reason he could potentially be heroic. He makes us think about whether his ideas are actually too wild or whether we've just become too complacent. Even though we do often see him being judged as crazy, if he weren't crazy, he wouldn't have gotten the attention in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI think the concept of Macon as a hero is inextricably tied to chaos and radicalism. When he makes his first press conference outside the jail, he says that his goal is to shake things up, sentiments later echoed when he proposes the Day of Apology. However, his chaotic nature as a hero proves to be his undoing as well. The Race Traitor Project is lackadaisically organized, and Macon does not think about long-term consequences. Ultimately, the Day of Apology's biggest failure is that Macon was too radical and moved too fast, failing to get through to people and sparking a riot instead.
ReplyDeleteGood post and good point, I agree that Macon could've been much more effective as an activist if he had been calmer and more composed. But I think that's the point of Macon's character. As I write about in my blogpost, I think Mansbach wrote Macon as a character who has agreeable belief but such extreme action that in the end, he just isn't an agreeable character. The "trap" I note in my post title is the fact that his beliefs and disses draw the reader in until they are appalled by the actions he take.
ReplyDelete