The Haitian People

Somehow we here at the blog have managed to read parts of Leyburn or follow the scholarship of social scientists and historians who are heavily influenced by Leyburn without actually completing his well-known The Haitian People. After finally reading the entire study, one cannot escape how dated it was and incorrect some of its conclusions and predictions were. While perhaps best known for its insistent focus on the theme of a caste nature of Haitian social structure, Leyburn's detailed social history of the 19th century and overview of economics, domestic affairs, politics, Creole, and religion is actually quite researched and occasionally insightful or useful.

However, Leyburn famously did not foresee the reappearance of non-elite noir presidents after Lescot's presidency. And he did not dedicate enough attention to the "middling" sector of Haitian society who were neither the masses (the peasantry) or the elite (educated, urban, wealthy, often light-skinned), the very sector who became so important to Haitian politics after 1946. Perhaps, like Beaulieu, we think Haiti was transitioning from the caste-like social order that may have prevailed in the 19th century (although with so many caveats that calling it caste is probably  misleading) to something else during and after the US Occupation. But fixating too heavily on the color question and lacking enough thorough research on regional and historical social mobility, the "middling" sector that gradually asserted itself in Haitian politics was unforeseen by Leyburn.

For us, Leyburn's view of the Haitian peasant as completely isolated and cut off from the rest of the world contributed to the weaknesses of his analysis. For instance, he ignores the existence and influence of foreigners from other parts of Caribbean and the rest of the world in Haitian towns and the countryside. By insisting on a false view of 19th century Haiti as cut off from the rest of the world, it becomes easier for him to conclude rural Haitians were always resistant to change, new ideas, and complexity. This view is further challeged by the thousands of Haitian migrants who labored in Cuba and the Dominican Republic, often returning with new ideas, consumer spending habits, and ideas of the world which challenged tradition and custom. Leyburn even lets US racial stereotypes of African Americans in the Jim Crow South shape his perception of Haitians, particularly in their alleged submissiveness and acceptance of their plight. This is odd since Leyburn reports contradictory data, such as the use of song and music for political and social critique of politicians. Not to mention Leyburn's omission of the political dimensions of peasant resistance in some caco and piquet movements, which evinces signs of political ideology, awareness, and independent organizing among the peasantry. 

It is a shame, since he was probably one of the least racist American social scientists to write about Haiti in the 1940s yet he could not escape his American background. This is ironic as he asserted US social scientists would be better than Haitian elite scholars for studying Haitian social structure. But in his conclusions on the "ambivalence" experienced by many of the elite, and implied in upwardly mobile Haitians, Leyburn seems to affirm Herskovits and the theory of socialized ambivalence. This may explain part of the reason for the persistence of "caste" in post-occupation Haiti as those of the elite and upwardly mobile remain internally divided, troubled, and disturbed by their contradictory status in the world and must maintain distance from the unlettered masses for psychological, social, and economic reasons. So, despite its flaws and limitations, The Haitian People makes for thought-provoking reading that also exemplifies the transnational aspects of American sociology's approach to race and the "Negro."

Orlando Patterson

I've been reading more authors across the ideological spectrum lately, and I find myself more and more intrigued by the works of Glenn Loury, Orlando Patterson, and even Thomas Sowell. While there's much to disagree with here and there with all of these scholars and commentators, I find Patterson's work interesting in terms of the culturalist and structuralist arguments about race, class, and inequality. Patterson, unlike conservatives, acknowledges the role of structure but argues for studying culture so as to prevent the right from dominating the discussion of culture's role in inequality and social stratification. I still have much to learn and read of Patterson, but this lecture is a good start for getting an idea of where he's coming from.

Rambling Thoughts on the Black Bourgeoisie

I enjoy making fun of the bourgeoisie of all colors. However, Frazier's scathing sociological study of the US black bourgeoisie is so mean-spirited and bitter that the reader can feel his venom. And his savage skewering of Negro colleges, fraternities, and 'society' was a bit too personal at times...Was he rejected by those Jack and Jill types? Also, how does his conclusions hold up today with regard to ongoing arguments about black politics, black nationalism, and the role of class in African American politics? What about the argument that the more wealth an African American person has, the more likely they are to be in favor of black nationalism or racial politics? Surely, Frazier's study of the black bourgeoisie contradicts that theory.

Moreover, one cannot help but wonder how Frazier responded to the 'domestic colony' argument for the conditions of African-Americans. The Negro bourgeoisie as a dependent, comprador class that exists based on the good will and interests of the white bourgeoisie, playing at being rich in their 'make-believe' world, does suggest a comprador class. Indeed, their conspicuous consumption, which certainly connects them in habits to the white bourgeoisie, is their sole basis as bourgeois class in the first place. Indeed, Frazier hints at possible implications of the African American bourgeoisie for the decolonizing world. Fanon also warned us about the indigenous bourgeoisie after colonialism. Does Frazier's study support the Black America as domestic colony of the US, an argument popular with some of my good leftist friends?

The true tragedy of Frazier's book is his message on the failure of black capitalism as the salve to white supremacy is still under debate. Despite political scientist Lester Spence's critiques of neoliberalism's infiltration of Black America, some of us still believe supporting black businesses and entrepreneurial spirit will save us. And for the fools who think Jim Crow was better for us because of black businesses, even before its dismantling, black businesses in the North were doing better, according to Frazier's data. No, black businesses and capitalism will not save you from white supremacy.

Contemporary Brazilian Negritude and Racial Mixture

    Moraes and Silva’s analysis of the responses of 160 Afro-Brazilians to questions regarding racial mixture, blackness, racial pride, and identity challenges the dominant narrative on racial mixture in Brazil and Latin America. Instead of seeing the emphasis on racial mixture among self-identified pretos or negros as evidence of an internalized oppression or desire to become white, they argue that the acceptance and tolerance of interracial marriage is part of Brazilian national identity and Brazilian negritude. Black Brazilians of lower and middle-class backgrounds by and large recognize ongoing racial discrimination, and express pride in their African origins, but only as black Brazilians. Furthermore, due to the longstanding history of racial mixture, many pretos are also multiracial, leading to many respondents linking racial mixture with Brazilian national identity. Thus, Moraes and Silva argue that Brazilian negritude and a continued emphasis on miscegenation are not mutual exclusive.

    In addition to adding nuance to decades of scholarship on racial mixture that portrayed it as an attempt to attain whiteness or further black oppression, this study highlights class differences in how black Brazilians identify. Working-class black Brazilians, for instance, are more likely to come from a background where relatives urged them to marry a white person, but middle-class respondents were mostly in favor of referring to themselves as negros rather than morenos or pardos, terms which could imply multiracial, or mixed identity. Moreover, both middle and lower class black Brazilians expressed pride in their black identity, but denied any categorical difference between blacks and whites, differing from South African black consciousness or French negritude. Furthermore, many respondents came from multiracial backgrounds but still self-identified as proud blacks, complicating assumptions about black and mixed identities in contemporary Brazil. Similarly, both lower and middle-class Afro-Brazilian respondents identified racial mixture as a solution for tackling racism, largely as a response to the stigmatization of blackness in Brazil. However, working-class respondents were more likely to link racial mixture with whitening while the middle-class connected it to a celebration of negritude.  This supports traditional views of social scientists regarding racial mixture as a thinly veiled attempt to whiten Brazil’s black population, although Moraes and Silva claim it was expressed only by a marginal proportion of working-class blacks. Indeed, they argue that this celebration of negritude and rejection of a white identity by self-identifying as negro is a trend among Afro-Brazilians that nevertheless operates within a broader framework of encouraging racial mixture.

    While nuancing the standard approach to analyzing Brazilian race relations, one must retain a certain degree of skepticism. For instance, should one willingly accept the responses of 160 Afro-Brazilians to a survey regarding race as representative of all of Brazil? The demographics of Rio de Janeiro resemble national total racial proportions, but race and concepts of negritude and racial mixture likely differ from that of Bahia, a northeastern region with a black and brown majority with possibly different class dynamics. In addition, the authors also possess a seemingly hostile attitude regarding “militants” and the presumed style of racial consciousness the authors seem to equate with African-Americans, Caribbean negritude, or South African black consciousness. The inherent value judgments regarding that form of racial consciousness seem contrary to the goals of the authors whose work supposedly resists imposing different forms of racial identity onto African-descended peoples living in other national contexts. They also fail to provide extensive analysis of gender dynamics that impact how male and female Afro-Brazilians navigated the murky waters of race relations in a society where racism runs rampant. Nothing beyond noting one black woman’s grandmother’s desire for her descendants to marry white or black women straightening their hair, or black men cutting their hair short to hide natural hair examines gendered notions of blackness. Thus, how likely is it for a black man to marry a white woman in Brazil, or how are black women perceived by Afro-Brazilian men when such an emphasis on interracial marriage is considered key to combating racism? Even if interracial marriages are accepted by a large majority, the authors do not investigate its impact on relationships among Afro-Brazilians.

They also cite studies that have shown that black and brown Brazilians, regardless of degrees of mixed racial identity, occupy a similar place socioeconomically, below that of whites. If both black and brown Brazilians are statistically the same based on indicators of wealth and status, perhaps this trend of Brazilian negritude can work to unite both groups of Afro-descended groups against white supremacy without othering or attacking whiteness and its role in Brazilian national identity. Consequently, black and brown Brazilian relations would resemble a common intergroup identity model wherein a broadly shared African origin in a broader context of white supremacy would lead to both groups forming an alliance. Moraes and Silva hint toward this in their data which shows a trend of multiracial Afro-Brazilians to identify as black or negro. However, if the goal of Brazilian negritude is to remain tied to interracial relationships and fluid racial identities, how could an alliance between black and brown Brazil last if members of each group continue to seek relationships with whites? The entire project of national integration and racial mixture as necessary for attaining the goal of racial democracy automatically limits the longevity of an alliance between blacks and pardos who, if they keep mixing with whites, would gradually have more and more reason to resist redistributive policies or a specific black identity.

This post is a brief commentary and review of the following article:

Moraes et al. 2012. "The multiple dimensions of racial mixture in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil". Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35: 382-399.

Black Gentrification, Black Solidarity and Race in Chicago

The Contradictions of Black Gentrification as Black Solidarity

Mary Pattillo argues in Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City that black solidarity is practiced in the process of black gentrification of North Kenwood-Oakland, a Chicago historically black neighborhood known for its poverty. She asserts that despite the divergent class interests of the recent influx of black middle-class homeowners and the working-class residents, black solidarity is still the predominant factor in political action due to the primacy of race as a unifying factor of in the lives of black Americans and her belief that this dialogue on race between newcomers and the poor is the process of solidarity. Michael Hanchard and Stokely Carmichael, however, would criticize her view on black solidarity as practiced in this southside Chicago community. Both Hanchard and Carmichael would counter, due to black gentrification’s contradictory results for the working-class and poor that reproduces classism, white supremacy, and singular notions of blackness, the black solidarity practiced in this case is not real solidarity that can produce social change. Where Hanchard and Carmichael disagree is in the role of race as a key component of African American political action, since Carmichael’s nationalist position emphasizes organizing among blacks before joining coalitions while Hanchard notes the inevitable disunity and contradictions that arise from focusing entirely on racial identity as a unifying force due to the multiple identities an individual possesses simultaneously.

Carmichael, who sees the primary problem of black America as the double reality of being poor and black and any political program for blacks must acknowledge this duality, which black nationalism does as envisioned by Carmichael. Although he would admire and respect the black middle-class’s feelings of obligation to the black poor and the belief in a linked fate that predominates among blacks of all classes, since black unity across class is necessary to build political and economic power within black communities, Carmichael opposes the capitalist system which creates and reproduces the unequal social conditions that constitute racism. His economic philosophy of black nationalism embraces cooperatives under community control rather than black bourgeoisie, which participates in the white-dominated capitalist system. The black gentrification also works against the economic interests of the black poor, represented by the renters who rely on some form of public assistance to live in the North Kenwood-Oakland area.¹ Moreover, not all homeowners share the same economic background. The older residents who have acquired homes lack the higher income of professional, black gentry who cause property values to rise, hurting retirees and older folks without the means to pay their rising property taxes.² Thus, even those with stable incomes and who own their homes find their economic foothold challenged as a result of black gentrification, which contradicts Carmichael’s belief that real black economic nationalism would provide businesses and wealth through cooperative means. For Carmichael, black power economically means, “We want to see the cooperative concept applied in business and banking...The society we seek to build among black people, then, is not a capitalist one.”³ The persistence of economic injustice and absence of cooperative businesses, housing, and rising property values, in addition to measures taken by the black upper-classes to limit accessibility to public housing demonstrate the lack of real black solidarity. The poverty of blacks, who comprise a majority in this Chicago neighborhood, must be addressed to be a move toward solidarity. The larger issue of poverty remains unaddressed, despite the four mechanisms that supposedly protect the interests of poor blacks. The four mechanisms Pattillo describe that result from mixed-income communities theoretically combat poverty by doing the following: 1. establishing social networks across class that could lead to employment or education, or other resources, 2. improve social control by bringing order, strong management and eventually overall safety, 3. provide a model of upward mobility for the poor, and 4. bring increased political and economic attention to the neighborhood.⁴ But the results of black middlemen fighting poverty have not improved the conditions for most poor blacks. By clinging to a unity that privileges race over class without recognizing the intersection of poverty and race, the poor and longtime blacks of the neighborhood suffer since these aforementioned social mechanisms have served the anti-egalitarian interests of white capitalists and politicians.

Carmichael would also criticize the practice of black solidarity in North Kenwood-Oakland for its attempts to impose cultural assimilation on lower-class residents. Black gentrification paradoxically supports the imposition of middle-class white values. If one perceives Patillo’s characterization of black solidarity as just an updated version of DuBois’s Talented Tenth theory due to her belief in the power of black middlemen, then the increasing class differentiation of the neighborhood perpetuates elitism and middle-class values as the normative for social behavior. Those who cannot act in accordance with white middle-class values as practiced by the black middle-class bear the brunt of black elites’ attempts to criminalize their behavior and attacks on behavioral patterns, dress, and hairstyles. One finds evidence of the black elites’ battles with the working-class and poor by complaining about their barbecues on their front lawns and public spaces, their littering, lack of attention to middle-class standards of house decorum and how they repair cars in the street.⁵ Carmichael proposed black nationalism based on democratic practices and cooperative economics to reject the assumptions of white supremacy inherent in assimilation. Carmichael’s example of black children sent to white schools, or blacks moving into white neighborhoods as part of this underlying assumption of integration, which perpetuates whiteness as superior and blackness as inferior.⁶ In North Kenwood-Oakland, a perverse form develops that, though blacks are returning to the ghettos, they continue to accept white middle-class expectations of social behavior and morality, something that takes the form of pernicious actions against the poor. For example, new residents support screening of tenants of public housing, which culminated in a ban on anyone with a criminal record. This excludes an enormous amount of the working-class and poor since approximately 55% of black men in Chicago have criminal records and would not be allowed to live with relatives in the area.⁷ Clearly, the black middle-class’s claims to leadership in racial uplift are grounded in, as Patillo herself indicates, white middle-class notions of respectability: patriarchal family relations, sexual conservatism, financial sobriety, reserved comportment and intellectual achievement.⁸ These values reflect a class bias against lower-class blacks, who are gradually eliminated from public space as the eradication of high rise housing, screening of tenants, rising property values, and heightened policing by University of Chicago police limit the numbers of opportunities of using public space and living in the area.⁹

Hanchard, on the other hand, would defend his critique of black gentrification and its reliance on race as unifying factor by challenging the assumption of race as a singular identity. As the class distinctions and battles linked to class rage between the black upper-class and the working-class, both sides reassert the primacy of race as a factor in unity. However, as Hanchard demonstrates, using race as sole criterion for political action and organizing inevitably excludes some blacks, thereby ignoring the huge differences and multiple identities every individual balances.¹⁰ Black nationalism, for instance, is limited by its reliance on race as the sole identity for those perceived as black in society, thus ignoring the role of gender, sexuality, class and multiracial individuals whose oppression survives in masculinist, heteronormative organizations. Pan-Africanism also failed for the similar reason of assuming a monolithic blackness that ignored the unique experiences of peoples of African descent throughout the world which vary according to nationality, ethnicity, culture, and lived experience.¹¹ As Hanchard himself elucidates, “By asking not “what are black people” but instead, “what tends to happen to people defined as black that does not happen with the same relative frequency to other people in a given society,”¹² one can develop a better basis for political action and solidarity that challenges sexism, heternormativity, racism, poverty, and attacks on the environment. For Hanchard, the only way black politics can make long-lasting social change is to avoid racial essentialism, which imposes a totalization of identity that ignores the multiplicity of lived experience of those designated as black. Chicago’s example of black gentrification displays this by the persistence of class oppression and poverty.

Like Carmichael, Hanchard would also criticize the class-based assault on social behavior of the black poor. Due to competing notions of what constitutes blackness, both the afrostocracy and urban poor express their individual notions of blackness and their other identities in various ways. The lower-classes may express themselves through talking in Ebonics more often, barbecuing in front lawns, and dressing more casually than black gentry, and the homeowners should not dictate what comprises proper blackness for others. Moreover, Hanchard’s theory of black politics emphasizes coalitions, since, “The creation of political community necessarily entails more than recognizing a problem or phenomena, such as racism. It encompasses the combination of ideas, peoples, and practices mobilized in response to a set of circumstances that involves other political communities, peoples, and institutions.”¹³ Without real coalitions that connect those at the bottom of the income scale to others outside of the neighborhood, beyond neighboring black middle-class residents, the ability of the black community to affect societal change by achieving redistributive economic policies is severely limited. Pattillo’s text does not elucidate how black gentrification will connect poor and working-class blacks to broad coalitions that share the same goals of economic and social justice. In fact, the black homeowners seem more concerned with protecting their investments than economic redistribution, though they also wish to dismantle racism. Unfortunately, their economic interests tie them with white elites in Chicago’s economic and political spheres, therefore they are unable to provide less fortunate blacks with a broad coalition that must include poor whites and others who share the same goal. Even Carmichael also agrees that the best type of coalition to develop and fundamentally change the nature of American politics is a coalition between the poor blacks and poor whites.¹⁴ As a consequence, the notion of a singular blackness that ignores the salience of class, gender and other identities limits the effectiveness of using race as sole criterion for a political community.

Another detrimental flaw of the political community built through black gentrification and using race as primary source for political action is the loss of politicizing social spheres. Hanchard identifies a source of black political action in its emphasis on politicizing social spaces due to the formal exclusion of blacks from politics after Reconstruction.¹⁵ For example, during the Civil Rights Movement, blacks politicized the social arena through sit-ins at lunch counters, boycotts, and music, effectively polarizing the nation to aid the attempts to end segregation through formal political practices, such as the black vote in the North. The current practice of black politicking lacks this social dimension since formal politics takes precedence through black middle-class relations with white developers and politicians in Chicago’s city politics. This loss of politicization of social spaces excludes lower-class blacks from the black coalition’s ability to enact social change for multiple reasons. First, low income residents are silenced in community meetings or outnumbered by black middle-class, who can afford to devote more of their time to neighborhood associations.¹⁶ Those less fortunate individuals without the time and funds to attend neighborhood meetings consequently lose one of their spaces to address their own socioeconomic needs. The black gentry also contradict the aims of racial uplift by their dominance of relations to whites in the political and economic systems, since they work with these formal spaces of politics in a way that hurts the interests of working-class residents in housing, economics, and policing. Their ability to express themselves and act in their own interests in neighborhood meetings and on the street is limited by attempts to curtail their individuality and behavior, which are seen as causes of poverty to some of the black middle-class.

For most blacks, the persistence of racism makes race one of unifying factors in black politics. However, as both Carmichael and Hanchard would concur, black political action that emphasizes race ignores prioritizing the class interests of the poor that transcend race. Black gentrification of North Kenwood-Oakland has failed to bring redistributive economic justice and build a stronger, black community built on cooperative economics, preferred by Carmichael’s characterization of black nationalism. Hanchard criticizes black political theory that emphasizes solely race without acknowledging the multiple identities and problems facing blacks. By clinging to a notion of race-based solidarity that neglects the divergent class interests of blacks, the people of North Kenwood-Oakland actually perpetuate social inequities that occurred as a result of racism. Although it is tempting to privilege race as the key factor of black politics due to the preservation of racism in America, Hanchard correctly notes that black political organizers should focus on “what tends to happen to people defined as black that does not happen with the same relative frequency to other people in a given society.”¹⁷ Black nationalist Carmichael would only agree in that black solidarity as practiced by the people of North Kenwood-Oakland is limited by ignoring the class-based oppression of blacks, which can occur under blacks or whites, regardless of who is gentrifying the neighborhood.

Bibliography

Stokely Carmichael, “What We Want,” September 22, 1966.

Michael Hanchard, “The Contours of Black Political Thought: An Introduction and Perspective,” Political Theory, 38, No. 4 (2010).

Mary Patillo, Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).

1 Mary Pattillo, Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007): 14.

2 Ibid.

3 Stokely Carmichael, “What We Want”: 6-7.

4 Mary Pattillo, Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007): 109.

5 Ibid., 15.

6 Stokely Carmichael, “What We Want”: 4.

7 Mary Pattillo, Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007): 282.

8 Ibid., 104.

9 Ibid., 286.

10 Michael Hanchard, “The Contours of Black Political Thought: An Introduction and Perspective,” 524.

11 Ibid., 527.

12 Ibid., 529.

13 Ibid, 525.

14 Stokely Carmichael, “What We Want”: 6.

15 Michael Hanchard, “The Contours of Black Political Thought: An Introduction and Perspective,” 520.

16 Mary Pattillo, Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007): 15.

17 Michael Hanchard, “The Contours of Black Political Thought: An Introduction and Perspective,” 529.

Comments on The Souls of Black Folk

Du Bois's great work, The Souls of Black Folk, is quite an interesting read. Like most books written by blacks in the 19th-early 20th century, it uses the language of that era and shares the Western world's general dismissals of African and 'uncultured' African-Americans. Since DuBois was far more progressive than Booker T. Washington and advocated a more radical approach to combating Jim Crow and American racism instead of accommodation, and because Du Bois adroitly pointed out the triple paradox of Booker T. Washington's philosophy of submission, I still love and respect this Haitian brotha (his father was a Haitian mulatto). The triple paradox is posted below. How could blacks do anything that Booker T. Washington claims without the political rights, higher education, and overt resistance to entrenched institutionalized and personal racism?

1. He is striving nobly to make Negro artisans, businessmen and property-owners; but it is utterly impossible, under modern competitive methods, for workingmen and property-owners to defend their rights and exist without the right of suffrage.
2. He insists on thrift and self-respect, but at the same time counsels a silent submission to civic inferiority such as is bound to sap the manhood of any race in the long run.
3. He advocates common-school and industrial training, and depreciates institutions of higher learning; but neither the Negro common-schools, nor Tuskegee itself, could remain open a day were it not for teachers trained in Negro colleges, or trained by their graduates.

DuBois would later redeem himself and learn to appreciate more of African history and cultures later on in the 1940s when he published his Africa and the World. In addition to his constant references to the 'savagery' of African negroes and the re-enslaved blacks of the post-Reconstruction South, he also seems to fail to appreciate the importance and revolutionary impact of the Haitian Revolution. In Souls of Black Folk, he refers to one of the most revolutionary periods in history as a 'Terror' and, inadvertently or not, undermines its importance and legitimacy.

Moreover, there are periods in which he appears to support the institution of slavery by arguing for it's civilizing effect on Africans and the belilef that American slavery, immoral and destructive, was still relatively benign compared to other forms of slavery in the Americas and the rest of the world. What difference does that make? American slavery may have taken fewer lives than slavery in, say, 19th century Cuba, Brazil, and the Caribbean, but that obviously doesn't justify slavery in the United States. There are other occasions where Du Bois continually refers to the 'savagery' of African-Americans, inherited from their African ancestors, demonstrating that Du Bois, like Booker T. Washington and most African-American leaders and intellectuals of that era, were at least ambivalent if not supportive of European imperialism in Africa.

On the other hand, Du Bois uses most of the chapters to analyze reasons for African-American poverty in the Black Belt (region of the South where the majority of the population is black), focusing on the county of Dougherty, GA. He goes out of his way to explain the vices of Black Americans and the problem of the color line (he refers to it many times as "The Veil") as a product of both color prejudice and Jim Crow from the white majority and faults of African-Americans themselves, so as to avoid completely "blaming the white man" for all of the problems facing black folks. Of course, in reality almost all the problems facing blacks in the South are due to the white man. In the beginning of the book (really, all of it) Du Bois explains how Reconstruction failed to give the Negro his 40 acres and a mule and provide education. He examines the Freedmen's Bureau and the positive aspects of Reconstruction in terms of building common schools and sending teachers, etc.

Du Bois goes on to elucidate how the Compromise of 1877, government mismanagement prior to that, and the South's institutionalization of sharecropping, Jim Crow segregation, and relinquishing blacks of suffrage and political rights created the terrible living conditions for blacks immediately after the departure of federal armies. Although Reconstruction was a step in the right direction in terms of providing some African-Americans with land and education, establishing schools and whatnot, but the federal government's willingness to abandon the freed population while it was still vulnerable to white reversals of the Reconstruction constitutional amendments left blacks between the Devil and the deep blue sea. Soon they couldn't vote, it was nearly impossible for them to purchase their own land, they were exploiting by the landowners and Northern merchants and carpetbaggers who migrated South after the Civil War, and blacks were forced into patronage relationships with 'respectable, upper-class whites who would provide them employment as tenant farmers and vouch for them in cases involving other whites.

This period also included the beginning of mass incarceration for blacks (regardless of their innocence, their labor was exploited in chain gangs as another source of cheap labor for Southern states) who fought these customs and laws. Exemplified by vagrancy laws and the stereotypes of lazy black slaves, any African-American who didn't work or appear to have employment (usually employment from a white landowner or businessman) they could be arrested and forced to work on public works or agriculture for the state (like the pre-French Revolutionary practice of corvee, which required French peasants to dedicate some period every year to working on public projects, etc. for the 1st estate.

Du Bois gained first-hand experience of the lives of southern blacks through his travels and work as a teacher at Negro schools in Georgia. Born in Massachusetts and highly educated, Bu Bois occasionally takes time to show off his classical education (use of Latin, references to Greek mythology and erudite literary allusions and metaphors) and uses this to measure the level of 'civilization' he saw whilst in the South. Though I agree with Du Bois about the importance of college-educated blacks and some aspects of the Talented Tenth theory, his definition of education is very Eurocentric and patriarchal (women are not worthy of higher education, it would appear). Nevertheless, as he astutely observes, Booker T. Washington is wrong (Washington is right about blacks not needing to know Greek and Latin, though) about blacks not pursuing higher education if they're capable and have the option since these talented blacks (the so-called Talented Tenth of ministers, doctors, lawyers, businessman and teachers, especially teachers) will become the teachers at Negro common schools and colleges such as Tuskeegee, Washington's famous school established to teach African-Americans agricultural and mechanical labor. However, Du Bois, due to his incredibly high education (he studied at Harvard and abroad in Europe) is unrealistic and his classical education does seem out of touch of reality for most Americans in general in the early 20th century (who could afford to study at Harvard, learn Latin and Greek, and multiple other languages in that era?)

However, I must point out some flaws with Du Bois's Talented Tenth theory. Although middle class and professional African-Americans undoubtedly play a vital role in black communities and help uplift the remaining 9/10ths because of their skills, services, and influence in the community, but to believe that all 'talented' blacks would do such a thing is naive. Many will ignore or distance themselves from poor and lower-class blacks and live in their own neighborhood aristocracies, which Du Bois observed himself in Northern cities and some Southern cities. Indeed, while describing Southern urban blacks, Du Bois points out how the Talented Tenth often lived apart from other blacks. For example, a lower-class white neighborhood may divide the prosperous and poor black communities or the Talented Tenth tend to live in cities while the majority of the black population at the time (1903, before the Great Migration in the 20s and 30s) resided in rural areas and would only come into contact with Talented Tenth only through the substandard Negro common schools in the country. Furthermore, the idea of the Talented Tenth saving the black majority is elitist and denies the importance of subaltern leadership developing from the bottom. Lower class and upper class blacks should obviously cooperate as they did during the Civil Rights Movement but to argue that everything should occur under the Talented Tenth's 'civilizing' effects and influences seems undemocratic and very dangerous.

As for other interesting things in the book? I was touched by the death of Du Bois' infant son, vividly described in one of the later chapters of the text. I also appreciated his praise for Negro spirituals as the foundation of American music and the importance of the Negro in American folk music. His chapter on Negro religion and African influences on the African-American Christianity also emphasize the significance of the Church in Black America, which essentially provides moral education, a community center, and religious salvation. Like an expert sociologist, Du Bois' time in Dougherty County and the various inhabitants he encountered are flawlessly analyzed.

He explains how the sharecropping system forced most of the black inhabitants into debt because they were required to grow cotton and would often get their supplies and food for exorbitant amounts from the whites and Russian Jews who immigrated to the South (they purchased land and operated stores where blacks were sold seed, food, etc. at high prices and would only accept cotton as payment after the harvest. Of course this prevented most African-American farmers from growing their own food and diversifying their crops, which meant the fall in the price of cotton in 1898 and other fluctuations in the price of cotton sent many a black family spiraling into debt. And of course there were many instances of whites cheating blacks out of pay, using the threat of lynching and the police to intimidate blacks, and the white government's underfunding of black schools and exploitation of black workers usually required their children to also toil in the field instead of staying in school.

So the combination of the aforementioned factors explain the low living standards of blacks, not intellecual inferiority or laziness, as many whites of the time believed. The few that could purchase land or pursue a profession in the cities, did as soon as possible. But the system was designed to limit success for African-Americans in every conceivable way, which according to Du Bois inculcated feelings of doubt, humiliation, and despair among African Americans which contribute to criminality, laziness (why would poor black farmers in debt work harder when they'll still be in debt slavery?) and in some cases, radicalism. Interestingly, Du Bois argues that the Negro in the North was more radical than those of the South due to their anger from being forced to leave their homes and relatives due to white prejudice and the fact that they had greater access to education and political rights. Southern blacks, on the other hand, tended to choose hypocritical compromise, best exemplified by Booker T. Washington and devotees of his 1895 Atlanta Compromise Speech. Northern blacks, such as Ida B. Wells and Du Bois worked on anti-lynching campaigns, helped establish the NAACP, etc. Now I don't entirely agree with Du Bois's assertion though.

His theory of double consciousness for Black Americans is excellent though. Blacks have to live as Negroes and Americans. They're incessantly perceived as inferior and facing closed doors of opportunity for being black, and always looking at themselves through the eyes of others. Blacks internalize the contempt and perceptions of others for them through this double consciousness. As Du Bois explains, "The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife, this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self...He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and and American without being spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face." I agree one hundred percent with this as one of the main themes of African-American identity and history, this struggle to be accepted without losing one's African heritage. Indeed, African-Americans best exemplify the American 'spirit' of liberty since they have experienced the worst in the process of pursuing life, liberty and happiness throughout American history.

I must also add his chapter on Alexander Crummell to the list of interesting and positive parts of the book. I had never heard of this important figure in African-American religious history and his encounter with the racist Episcopalian bishop of Philadelphia in the antebellum period is priceless. Sent to Philadelphia to start another church among that city's black population, Bishop Onderdonk tells him, "I will receive you into this diocese on one condition: no Negro priest can sit in my church convention, and no Negro church must ask for representation there." Crummell refuses to accept those conditions and starts works at a chapel in New York instead. This is truly an admirable move on the part of Crummell, who refused to accommodate racism from his own denomination.

In conclusion, Du Bois's oft-cited 'masterpiece' is a nuanced affair and contains many of the intellectual flaws associated with academic racism and the age of European imperialism in Africa and Asia. His skills as a sociologist and historian are displayed in every chapter as he writes on the economic, social, religious, and historical obstacles to black achievement in the United States   in the early 20th century. However, as I stated before, I found him too Eurocentric, elitist, and too willing to place blame on African-Americans for the terrible social conditions in which they live. Resistance has always been a cornerstone of African-Americans and I don't particularly agree with his characterization of Southern blacks as submissive and compromising, although many were. All in all, Du Bois wrote a fascinating collection of essays on African Americans that correctly predicted that the problem of the 20th century would be the color line. The Negro problem played an undeniable role in nearly every circumstance imaginable in US foreign policy with Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, domestic social and economic policies, the Civil Rights Movement, and defining the supposed essence of American nationhood, freedom.