Fleming on "Questions of Colour"
Revelator
Posts: 577MI6 Agent
Though Ian Fleming was a devoted reader of The Times Literary Supplement, he only contributed one review to the journal. He was presumably asked to review this particular book because of his familiarity with Jamaica. What follows is a discussion of race and the "colour problem." Though written around the same time as Live and Let Die, this piece has a more progressive tone.
Times Literary Supplement. January 01, 1954.
QUESTIONS OF COLOUR
Fernando Henriques: Family and Colour in Jamaica. With a Preface by Meyer Fortes. Eyre and Spottiswoode. 18s.
There are about 250 million Negroes in the world and one of the great problems of this and future generations lies in promoting their happiness and well-being. Over the centuries, this will only be achieved by an extension of the colour bar so that part of the earth’s surface—perhaps the African continent—becomes a Negro dominion or reserve, or else by progressive removal of the colour bar until, through miscegenation, the entire population of the world is coffee-coloured. In England, until very recently, we barely perceived the problem. The solitary blackamoor was a nursery figure, a pet. In the plural he was a horde of fuzzy-wuzzies to be handled with glass beads or machine-guns.
But suddenly, almost since the war, the picture has changed; or rather our eyes, educated in humanity by the twentieth-century blaze of social enlightenment, see it differently. Suddenly we perceive the Negro as a tragically unhappy man ridden by a sense of inferiority which accompanies him, like a deformity, from the schoolroom to the grave. In our sympathy we lavish education and culture and medicine upon him only to be pained when, with advancement, he reaches for the weapons we once used against him and turns them upon us—weapons of legal and political argument, weapons of “giant powder” and steel. Floundering, we bomb him in one colony and in another invite him to fork-lunches at the Residency. Here he is a tool of Moscow, there he gets the O.B.E. Now he is pacified with a new constitution, then he is threatened with a battleship. Whichever way we attempt to disintegrate the black cloud on the horizon, it still remains larger than a man’s hand and, to those who think about it, just as menacing as if it were shaped like a mushroom.
Mr. Henriques is a social anthropologist and, while he might be indulgent towards these generalizations, in Family and Colour in Jamaica it has been his concern to focus a microscope over a small portion of this black cloud and to provide a detailed field-study of the mesh of colour relationships that exist even in a community as politically advanced and socially enlightened as Jamaica. The result is not only a valuable contribution to social science but a work of general interest, written with intelligence and sympathy.
The author, himself a member of a famous Jamaican family still prominent in the island, is lecturer in social anthology in the University of Leeds. It was thus not difficult for him to return to Jamaica and move among the people with intimacy and yet with eyes wide open. He concentrated on the County of Portland and its capital, Port Antonio, and his minute focus on the habits of and customs of this parish provides some of his most interesting passages of descriptive reporting. But it is his examination of the minutiae of colour relationships within Negro society that brings out the bitter colour warfares that accompany the usual economic class struggles.
“Colour,” he emphasizes, “is evaluated in terms of actual colour, hair formation, features and skin textures,” allowing for infinite combinations all of which have social significance. Thus, a dark person with “good” hair and features ranks above a fairer person with “bad” hair and features, and so on. Families become divided on colour lines, but in other spheres there are even greater frustrations. Choice of a career, promotion, public and private acceptance by others, marriage, in fact all social position is largely determined by colour. Even poverty plays a secondary part. Always there is that dreadful moment, generally at school, when some incident on the playground, some remark overheard in the street, will suddenly bring home to the little black boy that the fair boy will have the advantage of him for the rest of his life. It is no wonder that the conclusions reached by this stimulating and humane author are not encouraging, and the only disappointing feature of the book lies in the absence of some brave and though-provoking suggestions for the future which would stir our minds as well as our hearts.
Comments
condescending in places. I always feel uncomfortable reading
these old antiquated opinions.
Attitude of the 1950s. Casual racism was everywhere, the
Idea that the Black race had to be looked after. Today sounds
condescending, Insulting and, ...... Well Stupid.
Although I don't think We can judge, We are lucky to live in
More enlightened times, or at least we like to think so. Racism
still exists, it only a little more subtle and hidden these days.
One thing that annoys me to no end is the claim that Fleming was a racist. I hear it spouted casually, as if it were a well-established fact.
It bothers me most when I hear it on podcasts. These podcasts (and it's happened on more than one I've listened to) are mostly about the movies, but when talking about the early Bond movies they're almost obligated to talk about the Fleming novels that the movies were based on.
In both instances these podcasters clearly had not read the novels and spouted off things that people who had actually read them would've known to be true or not true. Both also made the claim that Fleming was racist, one even saying that Fleming "did not like black people."
While Fleming's writing on matters of race, and even their speech, such as in Live and Let Die may be cringe-inducing, I hardly think you can call it racist. Bond had respect for Mr Big and his organization.
Much worse were his words on Koreans, in Goldfinger, that doesn't get mentioned as much, people seem to mostly stick to the comments on the African-Americans. That too was a product of the times.
It is very easy for someone to sit here in 2014 and judge someone's views from 1954. It's more difficult to put ourselves in 1954 and see what the entire climate was like back then and be able to say what our own views would be.
Twitter: @FlemingsBond
This would have made him more empathetic and familiar with those he interacted with every day and among the many reasons he enjoyed the island so much. Jamaicans by and large are one of the most hospitable people on the planet. The problem is, despite that familiarity, people of Fleming's background and privilege get used to the idea they are a special breed apart from others - be it race or economic status - and find it difficult to view those as having the same importance in life. Many feel this way in a matter of degrees - some may feel it to be an absolute fact they are more important, and others may feel in may have some validity - but on the other hand, they're social experiences often skew the idea and make it seem the opposite.
Fleming may have been blown back and forth to both sides. Growing up and isolated with his own class and background he may have leaned toward believing in that men of his culture were the ideal, yet as he traveled and then began residing in Jamaica his attitude evolved into a more liberal one towards others outside his class. That's not to say he may have hidden this attitude while socializing with those close to him - it only means he may have felt that way privately.
Regarding his writings on the subject - such as trying to emulate the culture of Harlem in the 1950's, it's obvious he was relying on other sources for his references in regards to dialect, etc.. His own personal experience would have only been with the Jamaican accent and patois with which he gave to Quarrel (though Quarrel was from the Caymans).
So, all in all, it's easy to brand men of Fleming's time racists and in the strict definition of the term, they were. They believed the white race was more advanced on a variety of levels of culture and influence. However, they were - again, a product of their time and upbringing. This does not excuse their attitude. There were contemporaries who were more forward thinking and knew this to be an immoral belief. The trouble was that they were in a very low minority and as such were disregarded.
Growing up reading his novels and knowing only pieces of his life, it was easy to put Fleming on a pedestal. His talent at observation and writing and to entertain as well as the amazing amount of other historical figures he interacted with during his life made it easy to do so. It was only as I matured and learned more of who he really was that I realized that - as with other famous men, they all turn out to have human frailties to one degree or another. His troubled upbringing, personal demons, vices and attitude towards women all brought him down quite a few notches in my opinion of him. However, since we all can be blamed for throwing out the first moral stone a lot, I cannot condemn a person's existence and importance to history based on the fact they had certain failings. We all do questionable things at times or think questionable thoughts and some more than others, but probably one our biggest failings is being hypocritical towards others in this regard.