1. On Democracy.
So in the introduction, DuBois notes that the original title, however subtle, was Black Reconstruction of Democracy in America. It was shortened by the editor, but the impact democracy had on the book was not lessened in the least. Democracy as DuBois defines it is access to education and political participation and representation. The "problem" of democracy as posed by leaders at the time of Reconstruction is if freed blacks receive the same "democracy" as whites, then the potential to have say in the direction of the country could be in the hands of any person of any color. This, was problematic. Using very Marxist labor language (classes, dictatorships, labor, demands, equality, et cetera) and a stunning arsenal of persuasive rhetoric, DuBois asserts that democracy as we envision it is a farce compared to democracy as it's actually applied. He affects a scolding tone to chastise the "poor white" worker for not joining his cause to that of the freed slave and focusing their joint strength on "capital," the wealthy planter class of the South or the Northern industrialists. Instead, DuBois laments, whites chose to maintain the color caste economic and political systems in place from slavery and failed to position the United States towards economic equality. In his book, democracy is not only a failed ideal, but a literary device. Democracy becomes a character alongside the freed black, the poor white and the planter. Democracy is intended to be a protagonist in the story of Reconstruction, but true events have framed democracy as anathema to what American seemed to really want: inequality and class wars.
2. On politicizing history.
Okay. So Black Reconstruction might have an agenda. It's hard to write a neutral telling of history especially when modern writers have the benefit of hindsight! But in his defense, DuBois did not set out to write a neutral history of Reconstruction. He was taking aim at the Dunning School which dominated the scholarship on Reconstruction at the time. The Dunning School espoused a white supremacist perspective and did nothing to acknowledge that this was the case. So the conclusion that Reconstruction was bad for the South was based on bias. DuBois makes it clear that the field was devoid of other perspectives, so he gets in front of any lean his book takes. Since DuBois is black and writing in the 1930s, one could assume he is going to defend the black and blaspheme the white antebellum way of life. But DuBois examines the impact of Emancipation on all characters, black and white, as well as the implications of "humanity" as this is in flux as well. While the nation reels from the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which freed slaves, granted citizenship and voting rights, respectively, what is to be said of the white worker? Using President Andrew Johnson's (brief) time in the White House as a guide, we see that the identity of white America was just as fragile then too. Kudos to DuBois for showing us how to think and write outside of ourselves.
3. On writing style.
With over 700 pages of long history over the Reconstruction era, DuBois is surprisingly (and refreshingly) short on citations. No doubt, Black Reconstruction is the go-to for history buffs interested in the era, but at the time of its publication, DuBois was using broad, easily verifiable declarative statements to tell his story. Statistics on the number of slaves and non-slaveholding whites at the time of the Civil War, for example, give the scope of DuBois' America. Long quotations from leading politicians of the day are "google-able" and the oratorical excerpts (though lengthy) give the tone and feelings of uncertainty of yesteryear to the modern reader. And let's not neglect how DuBois waxes poetic at the end of each chapter, exploding in a flurry of descriptive words and imagery before capping each sections with a poem. Nice touch.
4. On Race and Class.
So which is the bad guy in this book? Race or class? Antebellum America was pretty delineated: you were either slave or free (which racially, means black or white) and if free, you either owned slaves (Planter class) or did not (poor white class). After Emancipation, DuBois says the nation would have been that much closer to solving the economic inequality issues we continue to see to this day, had the poor white denounced the color caste system and teamed up with the freed black against "capital;" which at the time, is the wealth-holding planter class of the South or the industrialists of the North. DuBois is heavily critical of the need to overpower the planters and industrialists. His own version of propaganda writing is then formulated from telling what "should have" happened and "why" it did not. Had the races joined together against, class, the racial and social upheavals that continue to manifest in the wake of Reconstruction could have been avoided.
5. On Gender.
DuBois speaks more of "mankind" and "men" then of women. This is not the text for how Reconstruction affected or was shaped by women, black or white.
6. On the legacy of Black Reconstruction.
In light of the larger scholarship of Reconstruction-era historiographies, Du Bois is the emphatic source of of the (largely) unbiased, long history of the time. 80 years after it's debut, modern historians are citing this book with surprising frequency, implying that DuBois' take on the era was ahead of his time, and after discounting for his own biases, was spot on for future intellectuals to tap into. It's an incredibly relevant book all these years later.
One day, I'll have my doctorate in economics and I will teach a class on the Economic History of Black America. Trust, this book will be on the reading list.
cheers,
dls
No comments:
Post a Comment