A Marxist Approach to Coffee for The Road Short Story by Alex La Guma

Coffee for the road was published on 1964 narrated by an East Indian South African woman. Occurred in
South Africa during apartheid system of government where Black people are publicly discriminated and it
was written by Alex La guma, an South African novelist, Leader of South African Coloured People’s
Organization (SACPO). It caused controversies when it first published. Coffee for the road was a product
of his past. So were his writings. In fact, his life explains the orientation and meaning of his creative
writings. Politics dominated his life. He was born, grew up and died in a political environment. The
injustices that La Guma experienced from whites from childhood onwards were another source of his
revolutionary ideas. For example, at the age of six or seven, he became a victim of racial discrimination
by whites. La Guma was deeply affected by being the victim of racial discrimination.

An Indian woman and her children driving through the Karroo on a long tiring adventure to Cape Town.
The strain of driving, and the absence of social courtesies for blacks to give rest en route, is portrayed
clearly by La Guma: The story depicts the theme of Marxism looks at the economic and social structures
of a society and the draws attention to the struggles between the classes. A Marxist might believe that
people are born as creations of economical or social positions.

The glaring differentiations are assembled there before us with the undeniable clarification for their
reality. The closeness to another sensational story is obvious here: the vigorously pregnant Mary being
gotten some distance from each inn until the infant Jesus was conceived in a straightforward trough. The
thing that matters is that La Guma's story there is no alleviation for the lady and her child. However, it is
the formal sanctioning and the drawing of critical implying that is at the stylish focal point of these two
stories and furthermore we can see the racial isolation in view of their race: the hotels were for whites
only” and “only whites lived in these towns and everybody else lived in tumbledown mud houses in the
locations beyond” These descriptions make the apartheid system in South Africa clear : Apartheid cruelly
and forcibly separated people, and had a fearsome state apparatus to punish those who disagreed. Another
reason why apartheid was seen as much worse than segregation, was that apartheid was introduced in a
period when other countries were moving away from racist policies cruelly and forcibly separated
people, and had a fearsome state apparatus to punish those who disagreed. Another reason why apartheid
was seen as much worse than segregation, was that apartheid was introduced in a period when other
countries were moving away from racist policies. The predominant accentuation on the story’s setting and
the consistent snags of the excursion show how the politically sanctioned racial segregation framework
disparages the characters’ cultural personality. The authors centered depiction around the earth portends
how the way to South Africa can turn into the desert of imbalance
The representative fruitlessness of the scene can't be missed. The travellers pass a “group of crumbling
huts, like scattered , broken cubes; and in hollow near the road” they see “a bank of naked ,dusty, brown
children’. They see three black men trudging “in single file along the roadside, looking ahead into some
unknown future, wrapped in tattered dusty blankets, obvious of the heat, their heads shaded by ruins of
felt hats. This highlights the inequality of the apartheid regime: its show the undeveloped racially
segregation areas for white and black people, black people were evicted from properties that were in areas
designated as “white only” and forced to move into segregated low township with several social problem.

But finally, they have to stop at a white town 'Just some place in the Karoo' in Order to refi ll their
coffee flask. Ignoring a 'foot- square hole where non-whites were served', the Indian mother simply
walks into a café on the white side. The description of the white woman behind the counter is done
with spectacular relish: La Guma’s story treats apartheid with ease. It does not have to be foregrounded
because it has become a part and parcel of the daily lives of the people that writers do not struggle or
conjecture situations in other to portray this great inequality.

The very picture of a female ogre! Her response to the Indian woman's request for coffee is equally
dramatic: The marks that are likewise referenced, as Koolies, Kaffirs and Hottentots are the barefaced
racial separation of the Whites among those minorities’ individuals and we can also see a linguistic
discrimination in this paragraph. This occurs when the mother stops for coffee at a whites-only café; if
you were black, you had to stand outside to be served. It highlights how white people were made to feel
inferior. Black people in this story focused on inter-black inequalities, much more than on black-white
differences. Discontent about inter-black differences most often focused on differences in access to
treatment.
The reaction of the Indian woman is courageously abrupt, unpremeditated and marvelously
appropriate in its equity: The story describes her as “a tightly wound spring” and it mentions that she
“snapped” when her kids were asking for meatballs. Another symbolic feature in the story that makes the
theme clear is the sign that says “WHITES ONLY” on the café: this sends out a clear message that the
story is all about the racism that was a part of the apartheid regime

Now, it may be ideal to: leave to the creative mind of the peruser what har m was delivered on the
white woman by the flask. Yet, La Guma won't leave anything to creative mind : the “ Coffee”
becomes the central cause of the conflict. Out of European attitudes of prejudice and discrimination
against Africans, The white woman at the counter of the café deprives the need of the mother for the
coffe. The deprived warmth of the coffee then contribute to the wrath of the mother that leads her to
hurtle the thermos flask at the white eoman. Her wrath mainly translates her courage.

Victory or retribution? It is bound to be one of the two, spectacularly drawn. Indeed, retribution
follows. The Indian woman does not get far for there is a road-block ahead: alternative path that
emphasized telling and hearing the truth rather than punishment or retribution.
We see the travellers for the last time as they are escorted back to town, a police car in front and
behind, for whatever retribution is to follow: 'You make trouble here then you got to pay for it.'
Everything in La Guma's Story points to spectacle: the complete exteriority of everything: the
dramatic contrasts all over the story, We see the travellers for the last time as they are escorted back
to town, a police car in front and behind, for whatever retribution is to follow: 'You make trouble
here then you got to pay for it.' Alex La Guma was not conservative in his representation of the agency
of the White police in the white of hapless black citizens. the police is presented in the story as a
hindrance to free movement which should be a fundamental human right. However, with various
curfews and pass laws imposed by the apartheid government, it is not unusual to see the police
stopping a coloured citizen to know about their movement and even ask for their pass. This is
presented in the story as a casual event which hints on its high frequency of occurrences and the last
sentence portrays Zaida’s want on the coffee again, just shows that regardless of how they try to fit in,
they will never get what they need and the fairness they required.

Everything in La Guma's story points to spectacle: the complete exteriority of everything: the
dramatic contrasts all over the story, the lack of specificity of place and character so that we have
spectacular ritual instantly turned into symbol, with instant meaning (no interpretation here is
necessary: seeing is meaning), and the intensifying device of hyphenated adjectives. Is it germane to
ask whether there ever can be such unaccountably terrible people as the white woman in the story,
such unaccountably dignified women as the Indian woman, such barren landscape, such utter
desolation? Where is causality? Such questions are irrelevant. Subtlety is avoided: what is intended
is spectacular demonstration at all costs. What matters is what is seen. Thinking is secondary to
seeing. Subtlety is secondary to obviousness. What is finally left and what is deeply etched in our
minds is the spectacular contest between the powerless and the powerful. Most of the time the
contest ends in horror and tragedy for the powerless. Sometimes there are victories, but they are
always proportionally secondary to the massively demonstrated horror that has gone before.

In conclusion,