Pride and Prejudice

Photo by Benedikt Geyer on Unsplash

Introduction

This is a continuation of my work on black history and political thought. Following The Souls of Black Folk, I read Up from Slavery by Booker T. Washington. Admittedly, I did not delve into the secondary literature on Du Bois and Washington but, I approached the book thinking that the two were as different as oil and water. I vaguely recalled from the Civil Rights course I did at university that they were often juxtaposed based on the differences in their upbringing and points of view about civil and political rights. Upon reading Souls and Up from Slavery, I drew to the conclusion that they were both pragmatists but had different worldviews, which influenced how they related to the issues of the day – civil rights, racism and social mobility – and the approaches they took. Hence, Du Bois was one of the founders of the NAACP while Washington built the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute. Yes, Washington actually built Tuskegee from the ground up – one brick at a time.

Du Bois and Washington

The inspiration for the title, apart from the obvious (Jane Austen), comes from the fact that several times in the book when Washington approached donors / philanthropists, he would often say that their support would be instrumental in the advancement of the (black) race. And, when you read the book and uncover his mind and motives, you realise that this wasn’t just a spiel. He was truly committed to the cause of black advancement, and believed his methods worked and could lead to economic and social development and, ultimately, civil and political rights. Consequently, I would argue that both Du Bois and Washington demonstrated race pride.

For Du Bois

... there is no true American music but the wild sweet melodies of the Negro slave; the American fairy tales and folklore are Indian and African; and, all in all, we black men seem the sole oasis of simple faith and reverence in a dusty desert of dollars and smartness.

However, both authors were acutely aware of the disadvantages of being born in their skin. They and people like them had to operate under laws, morals and ideologies that were not of their own making, and in a world that was largely unforgiving and prone to fault finding. As Du Bois explained

But alas! while sociologists gleefully count his bastards and his prostitutes, the very soul of the toiling, sweating black man is darkened by the shadow of a vast despair. Men call the shadow prejudice, and learnedly explain it as the natural defence of culture against barbarism, learning against ignorance, purity against crime, the “higher” against the “lower” races.

In effect, "that dead-weight of social degradation” was perceived and weaponised as biologically determined cultural differences masking the reality of white, American hegemony, namely as Washington explained

...no white American ever thinks that any other race is wholly civilized until he wears the white man’s clothes, eats the white man’s food, speaks the white man’s language, and professes the white man’s religion...

To which he also added:

The Negro boy has obstacles, discouragements, and temptations to battle with that are little known to those not situated as he is. When a white boy undertakes a task, it is taken for granted that he will succeed. On the other hand, people are usually surprised if the Negro boy does not fail. In a word, the Negro youth starts out with the presumption against him...

Thus, to Du Bois, the essence of prejudice is

...that personal disrespect and mockery, the ridicule and systematic humiliation, the distortion of fact and wanton license of fancy, the cynical ignoring of the better and the boisterous welcoming of the worse, the all-pervading desire to inculcate disdain for everything black, from Toussaint to the devil...

Likewise, both authors had similar ideas about the scale and multifaceted nature of the work to be accomplished in the aftermath of the Emancipation Declaration. In characterising the black psyche in the post-Civil War era, Du Bois concluded:

For the first time [the Negro] sought to analyze the burden he bore upon his back, that dead-weight of social degradation partially masked behind a half-named Negro problem. He felt his poverty; without a cent, without a home, without land, tools, or savings, he had entered into competition with rich, landed, skilled neighbors.

From his experience prior to and in the aftermath of the abolition of slavery in the South, Washington observed that, once the deed was done, the initial excitement ceded to a sense of dread as the former slaves realised the enormous responsibilities they had inherited:

In a few hours the great questions with which the Anglo-Saxon race had been grappling for centuries had been thrown upon these people to be solved. These were the questions of a home, a living, the rearing of children, education, citizenship, and the establishment and support of churches

Was it any wonder that within a few hours the wild rejoicing ceased and a feeling of deep gloom seemed to pervade the slave quarters?

Consequently, pride and prejudice are two themes that typify some of the forces that were operating on Washington’s attitudes, beliefs and actions. As an autobiography, Up From Slavery is an intimate look at his journey from child slave to headteacher at one of the foremost Black educational institutions of the time. For his detractors, Washington is best known for the Atlanta Compromise – a speech he gave at the Atlanta Exposition of September 18, 1895 – which, in some quarters, was regarded as tantamount to treachery against the Black race in America. Du Bois was one of his contemporaries who opposed the speech although not with the same level of anger and jealousy as those whom he regarded as “radicals”. For apologists, a category that perhaps I belong to, Washington was a pragmatist who recognized that laws alone do not change hearts and minds. In this regard, unfortunately, he has been vindicated in recent times.

In Souls, Du Bois conceded that Washington was from an earlier age – a world experiencing rapid commercial development and racial tensions, which was fertile ground for a “programme of industrial education, conciliation of the South, and submission and silence as to civil and political rights”. He went on to argue that this was but one form of leadership, which had replaced an earlier and more rebellious streak. In his view, Washington’s leadership was outdated and needed to give way to a new turn. This new turn would be the stewardship of the moral, intellectual and political destinies of the Black race by an intelligentsia. At the idea of an intelligentsia, I am reminded of the Bolsheviks and, without going into detail about their failed experiment, there is evidence that leadership by a vanguard of educated elites can be just as problematic and brings to mind the idea of enlightened despotism. There are other contemporary examples, namely in Africa, that I will address later.

First Impressions

Initially, I was slightly dismissive of Up From Slavery because Washington’s point of view sometimes came across as naive and rose-tinted. For example, he made passing references to the violence and lynchings of the day, but they were never massive preoccupations of his. Equally, he could be accused of being a little sycophantic (and paternalistic) because of the way he revered great men (and women) who were also predominantly White. The entire book is littered with the names of prominent men and women that had helped him and/or influenced his life in various ways.

Yet, when you take a step back and consider the two themes mentioned above, it is easier to rationalise and understand his views and behavior. For starters, he had a personal brand and the brand of a fledgling institution to build and sustain - one that needed constant financial support. It was precisely because his views were conciliatory that he was frequently offered a platform to address thousands in the North and South. Those speaking engagements generated publicity, an important springboard for raising financing and winning minds. Secondly, and crucially, he had a vision. And in order to sell his vision and win support, it was important to find ways to unite rather than divide people. Aside from the racial tensions, there was also the North-South divide, which had precipitated the Civil War. These prejudices and bitterness were carried forward, and perhaps amplified, in the aftermath of the war.

In his infinite pragmatism, Washington recognised that the fortunes of the Black race were intertwined with those of the White race:

The laws of changeless justice bind Oppressor with oppressed; And close as sin and suffering joined We march to fate abreast.

Nearly sixteen millions of hands will aid you in pulling the load upward, or they will pull against you the load downward. We shall constitute one-third and more of the ignorance and crime of the South, or one-third its intelligence and progress; we shall contribute one-third to the business and industrial prosperity of the South, or we shall prove a veritable body of death, stagnating, depressing, retarding every effort to advance the body politic.

In another lifetime, Washington would have made a successful career as a life coach and motivational speaker. His personal struggles and ability to overcome them through sheer force of will are bound to astound and amaze you. What’s admirable is that he took every opportunity, even setbacks, as a teachable moment. Personally, what best exemplifies Washington’s character is the journey he made from Malden, West Virginia to the Hampton Institute in Virginia as a young man of 16. It inspired me to do this visualisation.

According to Google Maps, his journey using the multi-modal means we have today (not to mention better roads and other infrastructure) is equivalent to a 24hr journey on public transport, 6-7hr in a car, 3hr by plane, 131-132h by foot, and 37-39hr by bike. Therefore, the length of the journey and the risks he took are not to be sniffed at. Moreover, he was resourceful in overcoming several challenges en route and had to cope with the uncertainty of having no means to sustain himself financially IF (and massive one at that!) he was able to gain admission. You don’t have to like Washington (or his philosophy) but you certainly should respect him. This was a person who knew his own mind and did not impose limits on what he could do / accomplish. Even when he chose not to agitate for the ballot, he recognised that it was an eventuality if the work was done (slow and prodigious) to lay the foundations:

Every persecuted individual and race should get much consolation out of the great human law, which is universal and eternal, that merit, no matter under what skin found, is, in the long run, recognized and rewarded.

When Du Bois accused Washington of conforming to the view of the day that the Black race were inferior, I believe that this is an oversimplification. I had previously asserted that the two agreed in their assessment of the scale of the work ahead. To reiterate, Du Bois believed:

To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships.

Likewise, Washington described the coming of freedom as

...suddenly turning a youth of ten or twelve years out into the world to provide for himself.

Both authors were also preoccupied with the general indebtedness of their people, which Du Bois largely blamed on the exploitative nature of the cotton economy in the South mixed with a degree of frivolity and conspicuous consumption. Similarly, Washington spoke out against posturing and a penchant for buying fancy things like a “store hat”. Therefore, Washington did not think that Black people were racially inferior except that backwardness, owing to centuries of social degradation (Du Bois’ words not mine), was a condition of being for most of the Black community at the time and compounded by a mindset that was only superficially wedded to the idea of progress and civilisation. 

However, you would be mistaken if you thought he simply wanted his people to integrate and assimilate the values of the dominant group. Given his preoccupation with doing one’s best and finding the best methods, including for the betterment of society, I have inferred that Washington would have expected Black people to not only get a seat at the table but they should aspire to build the table, and chairs too. The word “best” appears 42 times in his autobiography almost equal to the 48 mentions in Du Bois’ Souls. Clearly, both men were more alike than they thought although, for Washington, this march towards progress would be a whole group affair rather than led by the privileged few.

It is hard to imagine a younger and angrier version of Washington who had bitterness towards White people, which is something that he alluded to. I would have liked for him to have given more lines to his earlier self and having to navigate his feelings of anger and frustration. On the other hand, it is easier to infer how he matured overtime and developed a new perspective because of his experiences. He learnt to put aside personal grievances in favor of seeing and working towards the big picture, which is reflected in his personal sacrifices for the greater good. Did he have a saviour complex?

Washington does not come across as egotistical from my reading. He recognised there was work to be done and, fortuitously, built relationships with influential people and proved himself to be capable and trustworthy, which opened doors to more and greater opportunities. That is not to say he did not have a mind of his own. Nevertheless, like the chicken and egg, it is hard to disentangle the personal (private will) and the social (e.g. satisficing) where his behaviour is concerned. Although, in the book, he claimed

....from my early childhood I have had a desire to do something to make the world better, and then to be able to speak to the world about that thing...

Barriers to self-improvement

Booker T. Washington on family background and self-improvement by Car-window Sociologist

I would now like to address two foundational concepts, which reflect my interpretation of who Washington was and what he represents and could easily be assimilated into the pride and prejudice paradigm. The first concept(s) relates to his positioning on the nature versus nurture divide. To illustrate his point of view, I created the posters above based on quotes taken from Up From Slavery. The second, and related, concept is the idea that his attitudes and behaviours are indicative of a person with an internal locus of control:

I have begun everything with the idea that I could succeed, and I never had much patience with the multitudes of people who are always ready to explain why one cannot succeed

This could be an exaggeration, but his deeds do reflect a singularity of focus and drive that is characteristic of someone with an internal locus of control. In this regard, I have assumed that he was inclined to take nature over nurture without abandoning the idea that people can learn new behaviours and change their attitudes by following good examples (i.e. studying great men). Consequently, I would describe Washington as an early proponent of libertarian paternalism. For example. Tuskegee in its earliest incarnation was an experiment in nudging. He transformed a student body that was initially apathetic, often hostile, towards manual labour into architects, engineers, builders, carpenters, mattress makers, and the list goes on:

But gradually, by patience and hard work, we brought order out of chaos, just as will be true of any problem if we stick to it with patience and wisdom and earnest effort

This philosophy of nudging is even more pronounced in the gospel of the toothbrush:

It has been interesting to note the effect that the use of the toothbrush has had in bringing about a higher degree of civilization among the students. With few exceptions, I have noticed that, if we can get a student to the point where, when the first or second toothbrush disappears, he of his own motion buys another, I have not been disappointed in the future of that individual

Washington’s supposed elevation of manual labour above book-learning is seen as a flaw and criticised by the likes of Du Bois. Firstly, I do not think that Washington was an opponent of higher academic learning. He simply questioned whether the educational standards of the day, especially the preoccupation with a classical education, were fit for purpose. Instead what he saw was a system that produced black caricatures

...with a high hat, imitation gold eyeglasses, a showy walking-stick, kid gloves, fancy boots, and what not— in a word, a man who was determined to live by his wits.

Secondly, he believed that genuine progress in education and other intellectual pursuits would come once the foundation was laid. That foundation was industrial development. If you think about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, he was basically arguing that baser needs related to food, warmth and security should be prioritised above all other needs. In contrast, Du Bois believed that

...manly self-respect is worth more than lands and houses, and that a people who voluntarily surrender such respect, or cease striving for it, are not worth civilizing.

To which, Washington would probably ask: what is respect? He preferred to deal in tangibles rather than intangibles:

The actual sight of a first-class house that a Negro has built is ten times more potent than pages of discussion about a house that he ought to build, or perhaps could build...

Moreover, Washington was about finding common currency with the world around you. Through hard work and doing something that is valued and valuable, one can broker relationships based on respect, trust, and even admiration:

The individual who can do something that the world wants done will, in the end, make his way regardless of his race.

In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants.

This is a far more positive outlook compared to the would-be Black savant in Du Bois’ musings who

...was confronted by the paradox that the knowledge his people needed was a twice-told tale to his white neighbors, while the knowledge which would teach the white world was Greek to his own flesh and blood.

In an obvious catch-22, Du Bois acknowledges there are limits to higher learning, which is substantiated through a fictitious story of young John. This is the tragedy of a young man who leaves his community, carrying their hopes and dreams with him, to study. After years of self-inflicted exile, he returns home, a little wary, depressed and embittered, to teach and help the next generation. Through a series of unfortunate events, he ends up killing his White namesake, the son of a Judge, whom he caught trying to molest his younger sister. Despite the promise of his beginnings, the story ends with John facing a mob with a “coiling twisted rope”, which foreshadows a lynching. This was a clear indictment against the United States for suppressing and killing Black talent. However, it is also implied that book learning is to blame for John’s disillusionment and moodiness. Thus, years of pent-up anger and frustration was finally unleashed in fit of rage, provoked mind you by the actions of White John.

What if John had chosen not to return home? What if he had chosen to go into a trade instead? We could also speculate that without the trigger, the attempted rape against his sister, John would have continued living an uneventful, uninspired life, or perhaps the opposite.

But John's life ended under tragic circumstances despite (or perhaps because of) his education.

Last words

I am reminded of a song I used to sing as child in Sierra Leone, which had the following lines:

For learning is better than silver and gold.

I can only speculate that this was passed down from colonial times as I haven’t found any references to its origins from searching Google. Effectively, while our countries were being plundered of their silver, gold and other precious metals, we were told that education is a panacea for all ills. Don’t get me wrong, given my two degrees, I am quite fond of learning as you can probably imagine. Nevertheless, I also agree with Washington that we should redefine education and what constitutes success. History has vindicated his position many times over. In particular, if Washington had lived longer (like Du Bois), would he have had any relationship with African intellectuals and political reformers in the 20th Century?

In 1901, Washington did not approve of Black Americans emigrating to Africa. He believed that they were in a much better position than their African brethren and, controversially, asserted that this one of the benefits of slavery. He was obviously speaking from a purely economic standpoint and opposed slavery on moral grounds. That being said, and as far I am concerned, this view is untenable. It is also quite jarring how often I have seen arguments such as this being used in the present day to juxtapose Black lives in Africa versus the West. It begs the question; could Africa have developed differently?

Consequently, I find Washington’s assessment of the Negro Problem at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century quite prescient and certainly applicable to the period immediately following decolonisation:

Our greatest danger is that in the great leap from slavery to freedom we may overlook the fact that the masses of us are to live by the productions of our hands, and fail to keep in mind that we shall prosper in proportion as we learn to dignify and glorify common labour and put brains and skill into the common occupations of life; shall prosper in proportion as we learn to draw the line between the superficial and the substantial, the ornamental gewgaws of life and the useful. No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem.

What would have happened if post-colonial leadership had been more inclusive rather than led by a small band of intellectuals? What if development narratives were less ideological? I look forward to learning more about African history before and in the aftermath of decolonisation from the perspectives of the people who were involved in the struggle against colonialism, and in remaking Africa, including Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso.

To close, the next instalment in the series will be a general survey of the state of educational attainment (and other proxies for socioeconomic mobility) in the UK, US and some African countries. This will largely consist of statistics and visualisations. Following this, I will read and write a review of another book. The next person on my list is Frederick Douglass. Given Du Bois' claim that there were three stages of Black political and civil leadership, I would like to get a perspective on the pre-Civil War era and the abolitionist movement. Speaking of leadership, I want to end with a quote from Washington on leading others:

Let them once understand that you are unselfishly interested in them, and you can lead them to any extent.