If We Must Die

Central to “If We Must Die” is McKay’s vague, allegorical language. Though it is easy to read the poem as a response to the race riots of 1919 and the general struggle of African Americans against a racist country, McKay was adamant that the poem is not about a particular race or instance of injustice; instead, he claimed the poem concerns all injustice and oppression. This makes sense considering the unspecified “we” in the poem who struggle against the vague “they.” Because of this lack of specificity, the poem became somewhat of a rallying cry for oppressed groups throughout the 20th century.

As Robert A. Lee argues, however, if a reader ignores this poem’s historical context so that it applies to anything, it risks losing the poem’s value (Lee, Robert A. “On Claude McKay’s ‘If We Must Die.’” CLA Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, Dec. 1974, pp. 216-21. JSTOR). Lee says that neglecting the poem’s commentary on the racial tension between white and Black Americans allows denial of “the urgency of the racial situation with which the poem is directly concerned; [it presupposes] slackness in the language of [the] poem” (221). The issue of whether readers should see the poem as a comment on an issue of its time or whether the author’s intent matters most is a common problem in literary criticism. In the 20th century’s New Criticism (a form of literary criticism), critics called this the intentional fallacy, meaning interpretation of a creative work cannot depend on the author’s original intention; instead, New Critics believed the text must speak for itself.

This interpretative approach becomes tricky with a poem like this because the poem itself indicates no historical context, even while such context was crucial to its conception. This is where it is useful to look at the poem from other perspectives, such as from a historical perspective. If viewing the poem historically, as Lee views it, the reader can appreciate McKay’s original context and understand the most likely inspiration for the poem’s message. McKay lived in Harlem. He witnessed the race riots. He was African American. He was an advocate for social change. His poetry was often about race, and this poem addresses a situation mirroring the one African Americans found themselves in at the time. All this considered, it is almost impossible to remove the poem from a specific situation.

Regarding the poem itself and not its context, one must look at it metaphorically. The hogs of the poem are oppressed, and the dogs are oppressors. In the beginning of the poem, the hogs are “[h]unted and penned” (Line 2), meaning they live in a world where they have no freedom. The speaker begs his people to fight back, saying, “If we must die, O let us nobly die” (Line 5). He follows that line with the idea that the hogs’ blood must not be shed in vain, which means he finds value in fighting back. The speaker doesn’t just think fighting back is justified; he thinks fighting back will open opportunities for change. Through the passion and the fight of the hogs, the dogs “[s]hall be constrained to honor us” (Line 8). This is a reversal of the beginning of the poem where the dogs hunted and constrained the hogs. Now, the dogs are constrained by their respect for the hogs. This means the speaker believes that by fighting back, the hogs will show the dogs that they are worth respecting.

The end of the sonnet pushes this image further forward as the speaker calls the dogs cowards and calls the hogs men. The hogs have evolved throughout the poem, ultimately metamorphosing into humans while the dogs have become more animalistic. Here, the speaker argues for the nobleness of the struggle of the oppressed, echoing the earlier line where he refers to the hogs’ blood as “precious” (Line 6). Traditionally, hogs were animals for consumption or sacrifice, but here the hogs are honored and sacred. McKay is arguing for the sacred nature of the oppressed.

Finally, the poem suggests the outcome of this battle is inevitable and that even though the hogs struggle now, they will be the victor of the fight. In the last line, the hogs continue to fight back even though they are “[p]ressed to the wall, dying” (Line 14). Along with the speaker saying the hogs have the ability to deliver “one death-blow” (Line 11) for “their” (Line 11) thousand blows, the conclusion of the sonnet shows who truly has the power in this situation. Even though the dogs chase and lock up the hogs, the hogs will eventually turn the tide and win life and respect. The progression of the hogs and dogs as well as the movement from oppression to battle, to victory gives this poem a hopeful and uplifting mood, which aligns with the tone of determination.