In the American heartland, Chicago's esteemed Goodman Theater has mounted on its stage The Black Star Line, a play by Charles Smith which offers an overstuffed, untutored view of Marcus Garvey's Back-to-Africa Movement in the 1920s. It is, at best, a pedestrian piece of dramatic execution, an episodic series of scenes driven by a much-too-wordy text that takes itself more seriously than the subject, arbitrarily manipulating facts to reconstruct African American history into a disingenuous docu-drama that never achieves dramatic cohesion. Thus it implodes, rather than explodes, with new revelations to validate its pretense of representing an enlightened point of view. Were it not for Garvey's significance to black struggle in America, the play could easily be dismissed, avoiding the risk of too much protestation that might dignify the work and bring, perhaps, unworthy attention to an undistinguished and totally uninspired narrative. Marcus Garvey's messianic mission to create a homeland for the 400 million black people in Africa was a monumental challenge to the European colonialization of Africa and the oppression of blacks in a racist social system of American apartheid. The strength and unwavering audacity of his uncompromising opposition to white supremacy was viewed by most whites in America as a threat to white privilege, and caused alarm among assimilationist blacks, who viewed the separatist movement as an obstruction of their efforts to achieve a new social order through integration. Responding to pressure from France and England, the United States government unleashed J. Edgar Hoover and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to pursue means--any means necessary--to dismantle Garvey's organization, the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Planting seeds of conspiracy to undermine the leadership of black organizations would become an obsession for Hoover throughout his career, including his harassment of Martin Luther King, Jr., years later. While it is generally accepted, in the spirit of artistic freedom, that an author should be allowed to have the creative license to reinterpret history from his personal point of reference, the manufacturing of lies is wholly unacceptable. It is imperative that the author aspires to raise his inquiry to at least the level of the historical event, as opposed to bringing history down to the knee-jerk level of personal experience, trivializing the collective experience of African Americans with uninformed distortions. And what could be a greater distortion of facts than to insinuate that the Garvey Movement was compromised by petty thievery within the organization, deceptively ignoring the true fact that Garvey had been left exposed to Hoover's indictment of mail fraud when he was unable to produce a boat purchased with UNIA funds solicited by mail because the ship broker, a certain Mr. Silverstein, had absconded with the $25,000 down payment. Much of what is documented in the play as fact, speciously orchestrated to give the illusion of truth, deals with issues peripheral to the higher aspirations of the Garvey Movement. Rather than identifying the nationalist issues that captured the imagination of more than 2 million African Americans who had been dues-paying members in the UNIA (not to be confused with revisiting the cliched sociology of the downtrodden Negro), the author chose to graft the petty issues of his personal concerns onto Garvey, creating a racial soap opera that assigns critical roles of influence on the demise of the movement to black preoccupation with hair-straightener pomades and skin-lightener creams. The Black Star Line belongs to a tradition in the American theater, from minstrelsy through the plays of Eugene O'Neill, which routinely subordinates black roles to stereotypic characterizations that correspond with inferior or crudely developed sensibilities--immersed in violence, sexual aggression, and self-deprecation--that preserves for whites a comfortable sense of superiority. …
Read full abstract