THE PROBLEMS OF LEADERSHIP.
[In all the tangles of our awakening race consciousness there are
perhaps none more knotty than the tangles relating to leadership.
Leadership among Negro Americans, as among other people, means the
direction of a group’s activities, whether by precept, example or
compulsion. But, in our case, there is involved a strikingly new
element. Should the leading of our group in any sense be the product of
our group’s consciousness or of a consciousness originating from outside
that group? What the new Negro thinks on the problem of “outside
interference” in the leadership of his group is expressed in the first
and sixth editorials of this chapter, one of which appeared in _The
Voice_ and the other in _The Negro World_.
“A Tender Point” formulates one part of the problem of leadership which
is seldom touched upon by Negro Americans who characteristically avoid
any public presentation of a thing about which they will talk
interminably in private; namely, the claim advanced, explicitly and
implicitly, by Negroids of mixed blood to be considered the natural
leaders of Negro activities on the ground of some alleged “superiority”
inherent in their white blood.
“The Descent of Du Bois” was written at the request of Major Loving of
the Intelligence Department of the Army at the time when Dr. Du Bois,
the editor of _The Crisis_, was being preened for a desk captaincy at
Washington. Major Loving solicited a summary of the situation from me as
one of those “radicals” qualified to furnish such a summary. This he
incorporated in his report to his superiors in Washington, and this I
published a week later in _The Voice_ of July 25, 1918, as an editorial
without changing a single word. I was informed by Major Loving that this
editorial was one of the main causes of the government’s change of
intention as regards the Du Bois captaincy. Since that time Dr. Du
Bois’s white friends have been fervidly ignoring the occurrence and the
consequent collapse of his leadership. “When the Blind Lead” was written
as a reminder to the souls of black folks that “while it is as easy as
eggs for a leader to fall off the fence, it is devilishly difficult to
boost him up again.” “Just Crabs” was a delightful inspiration in the
course of defending, not Mr. Garvey personally, but the principles of
the New Negro Manhood Movement, a portion of which had been incorporated
by him and his followers of the U.N.I.A. and A.C. L. It was the opening
gun of the defense, of which some other salvos were given in the serial
satire of The Crab Barrel—which I have been kind enough to omit from
this record. This controversy also gave rise to the three first
editorials of chapter 6.]
_Our Professional “Friends”_
This country of ours has produced many curious lines of endeavor, not
the least curious of which is the business known as “being the Negro’s
friend.” It was first invented by politicians, but was taken up later by
“good” men, six-per-cent philanthropists, millionaire believers in
“industrial education,” benevolent newspapers like the _Evening Post_,
and a host of smaller fry of the “superior race.” Just at this time the
business is being worked to death, and we wish to contribute our mite
toward the killing-by showing what it means.
The first great “friend” of the Negro was the Southern politician, Henry
Clay, who, in the first half of the nineteenth century organized the
American Colonization Society. This society befriended the “free men of
color” by raising funds to ship them away to Liberia, which was accepted
by many free Negroes as a high proof of the white man’s “friendship.”
But Frederick Douglass, William Still, James McCune Smith, Martin R.
Delaney, and other wide-awake Negroes were able to show (by transcripts
of its proceedings) that its real purpose was to get rid of the free
Negroes because, so long as they continued to live here, their freedom
was an inducement to the slaves to run away from slavery, and their
accomplishments demonstrated to all white people that the Negro
(contrary to the claims of the slave-holders) was capable of a higher
human destiny than that of being chattels—and this was helping to make
American slavery odious in the eyes of the civilized world.
Since that time the dismal farce of “friendship” has been played many
times, by politicians, millionaires and their editorial adherents, who
have been profuse in giving good advice to the Negro people. They have
advised them to “go slow,” that “Rome was not built in a day,” and that
“half a loaf is better than no bread,” that “respect could not be
demanded,” and, in a thousand different ways have advised them that if
they would only follow the counsels of “the good white people” who
really had their interests at heart, instead of following their own
counsels (as the Irish and the Jews do), all would yet be well. Many
Negroes who have a wish-bone where their back-bone ought to be have been
doing this. It was as a representative of this class that Mitchell’s
man, Mr. Fred R. Moore, the editor of _The Age_, spoke, when in July he
gave utterance to the owlish reflection that,
The Negro race is afflicted with many individuals whose wagging
tongues are apt to lead them into indiscreet utterances that reflect
upon the whole race. … The unruly tongues should not be allowed to
alienate public sympathy from the cause of the oppressed.
It was as a fairly good representative of the class of “good white
friends of the colored people” that Miss Mary White Ovington, the
chairman of the New York Branch of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, sent to _The Voice_ the following bossy
and dictatorial note:
My dear Mr. Harrison,
I don’t see any reason for another organization, or another
paper. If you printed straight socialism it might be different.
Yours truly,
MARY W. OVINGTON.
These “good white people” must really forgive us for insisting that we
are not children, and that, while we want all the friends we can get, we
need no benevolent dictators. It is we, and not they, who must shape
Negro policies. If they want to help in carrying them out we will
appreciate their help.
Just now the white people even in the South—have felt the pressure of
the new Negro’s manhood demands, in spite of the fact that
backward-looking Negroes like _The Age_’s editor condemn the inflexible
spirit of these demands. All over the South, the white papers, scared by
the exodus of Negro laborers who are tired of begging for justice
overdue, are saying that we are right, and friendlier legislation has
begun to appear on Southern statute books. Mr. Mencken and other
Southern writers are saying that the Negro is demanding, and that the
South had better accede to his just demands, as it is only a matter of
time when he will be in position to enforce them. One should think,
then, that those who have been parading as our professional friends
would be in the van of this manhood movement. But the movement seems to
have left them in the rear. Now, that we are demanding the whole loaf,
they are begging for half, and are angry at us for going further than
they think “nice.”
It was the N.A.A.C.P. which was urging us to compromise our manhood by
begging eagerly for “Jim Crow” training camps. And the same group is
asking, in the November _Crisis_, that we put a collective
power-of-attorney into their hand and leave it to them to shape our
national destiny. The N.A.A.C.P. has done much good work for
Negroes—splendid work—in fighting lynching and segregation. For that we
owe it more gratitude and good will than we owe to the entire Republican
party for the last sixty years of its existence. But we cannot, even in
this case, abdicate our right to shape more radical policies for
ourselves. It was the realization of the need for a more radical policy
than that of the N.A.A.C.P. that called into being the Liberty League of
Negro Americans. And the N.A.A.C.P., as mother, must forgive its
offspring for forging farther ahead.
Then, there is the case of the New York _Evening Post_, of which
Mr. Villard is owner. This paper was known far and wide as “a friend to
Negroes.” But its friendship has given way to indifference and worse. In
the good old days every lynching received editorial condemnation. But
the three great lynchings this year which preceded East St. Louis found
no editorial of condemnation in the _Post_. It was more than luke-warm
then. But, alack and alas! As soon as the Negro soldiers in Houston,
goaded to retaliation by gross indignities, did some shooting on their
own account, the _Evening Post_, which had no condemnation of the
conduct of the lynchers, joined the chorus of those who were screaming
for “punishment” and death. Here is its brief editorial on August 25th:
As no provocation could justify the crimes committed by mutinous Negro
soldiers at Houston, Texas, so no condemnation of their conduct can be
too severe. It may be that the local authorities were not wholly
blameless, and that the commanding officers were at fault in not
foreseeing the trouble and taking steps to guard against it. But
nothing can really palliate the offence of the soldiers. They were
false to their uniform; they were false to their race. In one sense,
this is the most deplorable aspect of the whole riotous outbreak. It
will play straight into the hands of men like Senator Vardaman who
have been saying that it was dangerous to draft colored men into the
army. And the feeling against having colored troops encamped in the
South will be intensified. The grievous harm which they might do to
their own people should have been all along in the minds of the
colored soldiers, and made them doubly circumspect. They were under
special obligation, in addition to their military oath, to conduct
themselves so as not to bring reproach upon the Negroes as a whole, of
whom they were in a sort representative. Their criminal outrage will
tend to make people forget the good work done by other Negro soldiers.
After the rigid investigation which the War Department has ordered,
the men found guilty should receive the severest punishment. As for
the general army policy affecting colored troops, we are glad to see
that Secretary Baker appears to intend no change in his recent orders.
We ourselves cannot forget that while the question of whether the
_Post’s_ editor would get a diplomatic appointment (like some other
editors) was under consideration during the first year of Woodrow
Wilson’s first administration, the _Post_ pretended to believe that the
President didn’t know of the segregation practiced in the government
departments. The N.A.A.C.P., whose letter sent out at the time is now
before us, pretended to the same effect.
After viewing these expressions of frightful friendliness in our own
times, we have reached the conclusion that the time has come when we
should insist on being our own best friends. We may make mistakes, of
course, but we ought to be allowed to make our own mistakes—as other
people are allowed to do. If friendship is to mean compulsory compromise
foisted on us by kindly white people, or by cultured Negroes whose ideal
is the imitation of the urbane acquiescence of these white friends, then
we had better learn to look a gift horse in the mouth whenever we get
the chance. —November, 1917.
_Shillady Resigns_
Mr. John R. Shillady, ex-secretary of the N.A.A.C.P., states in his
letter of resignation that “I am less confident than heretofore of the
speedy success of the association’s full program and of the probability
of overcoming within a reasonable period the forces opposed to Negro
equality by the means and methods which are within the association’s
power to employ.” In this one sentence Mr. Shillady, the worker on the
inside, puts in suave and serenely diplomatic phrase the truth which
people on the outside have long ago perceived, namely, that the
N.A.A.C.P. makes a joke of itself when it affects to think that lynching
and the other evils which beset the Negro in the South can be abolished
by simple publicity. The great weakness of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People has been and is that, whereas it aims
to secure certain results by affecting the minds of white people and
making them friendly to it, it has no control over these minds and has
absolutely no answer to the question, “What steps do you propose to take
if these minds at which you are aiming remain unaffected? What do you
propose to do to secure life and liberty for the Negro if the white
Southerner persists, as he has persisted for sixty years, in refusing to
grant guarantees of life and liberty?” The N.A.A.C.P. has done some good
and worth-while work as an organization of protest. But the times call
for something more effective than protests addressed to the other
fellow’s consciousness. What is needed at present is more of the
mobilizing of the Negro’s political power, pocketbook power and
intellectual power (which are absolutely within the Negro’s own control)
to do for the Negro the things which the Negro needs to have done
without depending upon or waiting for the co-operative action of white
people. This co-operative action, whenever it does come, is a boon that
no Negro, intelligent or unintelligent, affects to despise. But no Negro
of clear vision, whether he be a leader or not, can afford to predicate
the progress of the Negro upon such co-operative action, because it may
not come.
Mr. Shillady may have seen these things. It is high time that all
Negroes see these things whether their white professional friends see
them or not. —July, 1920.
_Our White Friends_
In the good old days when the black man’s highest value in the white
man’s eye was that of an object of benevolence especially provided by
the Divine mind for calling out those tender out-pourings of charity
which were so dear to the self-satisfied Caucasian—in those days the
white men who fraternized with black people could do so as their guides,
philosophers and friends without incurring any hostility on the part of
black folk. Today, however, the white man who mixes with the black
brother is having a hard time of it. Somehow Ham’s offspring no longer
feels proud of being “taken up” by the progeny of Japhet. And when the
white man insists on mixing in with him the colored brother will persist
in attributing ulterior motives.
What is the cause of this difference? The answer will be found only by
one who refuses to wear the parochial blinkers of Anglo-Saxon
civilization and sees that the relations of the white and black race
have changed and are changing all over the world. Such an observer would
note that the most significant fact of the growing race consciousness is
to be found in the inevitable second half of the word. It isn’t because
these darker people are motivated by race that their present state of
mind constitutes a danger to Caucasian overlordship. It is because they
have developed consciousness, intelligence, understanding. They have
learned that the white brother is perfectly willing to love them—“in
their place.” They have learned that that place is one in which they are
not to develop brains and initiative, but must furnish the brawn and
muscle whereby the white man’s brain and initiative can take eternally
the products of their brawn and muscle. There are today many white men
who will befriend the Negro, who will give their dollars to his comfort
and welfare, so long as the idea of what constitutes that comfort and
welfare comes entirely from the white man’s mind. Examples like those of
Dr. Spingarn and Mr. E. D. Morel are numerous.
And not for nothing does the black man balk at the white man’s “mixing
in.” For there are spies everywhere and the _agent provocateur_ is
abroad in the land. From Chicago comes the news by way of the Associated
Press (white) that Dr. Jonas, who has always insisted in sticking his
nose into the Negro peoples’ affairs as their guide, philosopher and
friend, has been forced to confess that he is a government agent,
presumably paid for things which the government would later suppress.
Dr. Jonas is reported to have said that he is connected with the British
secret service; but since the second year of the European war it has
been rather difficult for us poor devils to tell where the American
government ended and the British government began, especially in these
matters. In any case, we have Dr. Jonas’ confession, and all the silly
Negroes who listened approvingly to the senseless allegations made by
Messrs. Jonas, Gabriel and others of a standing army of 4,000,000 in
Abyssinia and of Japanese-Abyssinian diplomatic relations and
intentions, must feel now very foolish about the final result.
How natural it was that Jonas, the white leader, should have gone scot
free, while Redding and his other Negro dupes are held! How natural that
Jonas should be the one to positively identify Redding as the slayer of
the Negro policeman! And so, once again, that section of the Negro race
that will not follow except where a white man leads will have to pay
that stern penalty whereby Dame Experience teaches her dunces. Under the
present circumstances we, the Negroes of the Western world, do pledge
our allegiance to leaders of our own race, selected by our own group and
supported financially and otherwise exclusively by us. Their leadership
may be wise or otherwise; they may make mistakes here and there;
nevertheless, such sins as they may commit will be our sins, and all the
glory that they may achieve will be our glory. We prefer it so. It may
be worth the while of the white men who desire to be “Our Professional
Friends” to take note of this preference.
_A Tender Point_
When the convention of turtles assembled on the Grand Banks of
Newfoundland it was found absolutely impossible to get a tortoise
elected as leader. All turtles, conservative and radical, agreed that a
land and water creature, who was half one thing and half another, was
not an ideal choice for leader of a group which lived exclusively in the
water. Whenever a leader of the Irish has to be selected by the Irish it
is an Irishman who is selected. No Irishman would be inclined to dispute
the fact that other men, even Englishmen like John Stuart Mill and the
late Keir Hardie, could feel the woes of Ireland as profoundly as any
Irishman. But they prefer to live up to the principle of “Safety First.”
These two illustrations are to be taken as a prelude to an important
point which is not often discussed in the Negro press because all of
us—black, brown and parti-colored—fear to offend each other. That point
concerns the biological breed of persons who should be selected by
Negroes as leaders of their race. We risk the offense this time because
efficiency in matters of racial leadership, as in other matters, should
not be too tender to these points of prejudice when they stand in the
way of desirable results. For two centuries in America we, the
descendants of the black Negroes of Africa, have been told by white men
that we cannot and will not amount to anything except in so far as we
first accept the bar sinister of their mixing with us. Always when white
people had to select a leader for Negroes they would select some one who
had in his veins the blood of the selectors. In the good old days when
slavery was in flower, it was those whom Denmark Vesey of Charleston
described as “house niggers” who got the master’s cast-off clothes, the
better scraps of food and culture which fell from the white man’s table,
who were looked upon as the Talented Tenth of the Negro race. The
opportunities of self-improvement, in so far as they lay within the hand
of the white race, were accorded exclusively to this class of people who
were the left-handed progeny of the white masters.
Out of this grew a certain attitude on their part towards the rest of
the Negro people which, unfortunately, has not yet been outgrown. In
Washington, Boston, Charleston, New York and Chicago these proponents of
the lily-white idea are prone to erect around their sacred personalities
a high wall of caste, based on the ground of color. And the black
Negroes have heretofore worshipped at the altars erected on these walls.
One sees this in the Baptist, Methodist and Episcopal churches, at the
various conventions and in fraternal organizations. Black people
themselves seem to hold the degrading view that a man who is but half a
Negro is twice as worthy of their respect and support as one who is
entirely black. We have seen in the social life of some of the places
mentioned how women, undeniably black and undeniably beautiful, have
been shunned and ostracised at public functions by men who should be
presumed to know better. We have read the fervid jeremiads of “colored”
men who, when addressing the whites on behalf of some privilege which
they wished to share with them, would be, in words, as black as the ace
of spades, but, when it came to mixing with “their kind,” they were
professional lily-whites, and we have often had to point out to them
that there is no color prejudice in America—except among “colored”
people. Those who may be inclined to be angry at the broaching of this
subject are respectfully requested to ponder that pungent fact.
In this matter white people, even in America, are inclined to be more
liberal than colored people. If a white man has no race prejudice, it
will be found that he doesn’t care how black is the Negro friend that he
takes to his home and his bosom. Even these white people who pick
leaders for Negroes have begun in these latter years to give formal and
official expression to this principle. Thus it was that when the
trustees of Tuskegee had to elect a head of Tuskegee and a putative
leader of the Negroes of America to succeed the late Dr. Washington,
they argued that it was now necessary to select as leader for the Negro
people a man who could not be mistaken by any one for anything other
than a Negro. Therefore, Mr. Emmett Scott was passed over and Dr. Robert
R. Morton was selected. We are not approving here the results of that
selection, but merely holding up to Negroes the principle by which it
was governed.
So long as we ourselves acquiesce in the selection of leaders on the
ground of their unlikeness to our racial type, just so long will we be
met by the invincible argument that white blood is necessary to make a
Negro worth while. Every Negro who has respect for himself and for his
race will feel, when contemplating such examples as Toussaint
Louverture, Phyllis Wheatley, Paul Laurence Dunbar and Samuel Ringgold
Ward, the thrill of pride that differs in quality and intensity from the
feeling which he experiences when contemplating other examples of great
Negroes who are not entirely black. For it is impossible in such cases
for the white men to argue that they owed their greatness of their
prominence to the blood of the white race which was mingled in their
veins. It is a legitimate thrill of pride, for it gives us a hope nobler
than the hope of amalgamation whereby, in order to become men, we must
lose our racial identity. It is a subject for sober and serious
reflection, and it is hoped that sober and serious reflection will be
given to it.
_The Descent of Du Bois_
In a recent bulletin of the War Department it was declared that
“justifiable grievances” were producing and had produced “not
disloyalty, but an amount of unrest and bitterness which even the best
efforts of their leaders may not be able always to guide.” This is the
simple truth. The essence of the present situation lies in the fact that
the people whom our white masters have “recognized” as our leaders
(without taking the trouble to consult us) and those who, by our own
selection, had actually attained to leadership among us are being
revaluated and, in most cases, rejected.
The most striking instance from the latter class is Dr. W. E. Du Bois,
the editor of the _Crisis_. Du Bois’s case is the more significant
because his former services to his race have been undoubtedly of a high
and courageous sort. Moreover, the act by which he has brought upon
himself the stormy outburst of disapproval from his race is one which of
itself, would seem to merit no such stern condemnation. To properly
gauge the value and merit of this disapproval one must view it in the
light of its attendant circumstances and of the situation in which it
arose.
Dr. Du Bois first palpably sinned in his editorial “Close Ranks” in the
July number of the _Crisis_. But this offense (apart from the trend and
general tenor of the brief editorial) lies in a single sentence: “Let
us, while this war lasts, _forget our special grievances_ and close our
ranks, shoulder to shoulder with our white fellow-citizens and the
allied nations that are fighting for democracy.” From the latter part of
the sentence there is no dissent, so far as we know. The offense lies in
that part of the sentence which ends with the italicized words. It is
felt by all his critics, that Du Bois, of all Negroes, knows best that
our “special grievances” which the War Department Bulletin describes as
“justifiable” consist of lynching, segregation and disfranchisement, and
that the Negroes of America can not preserve either their lives, their
manhood or their vote (which is their political life and liberties) with
these things in existence. The doctor’s critics feel that America can
not use the Negro people to any good effect unless they have life,
liberty and manhood assured and guaranteed to them. Therefore, instead
of the war for democracy making these things less necessary, it makes
them more so.
“But,” it may be asked, “why should not these few words be taken merely
as a slip of the pen or a venial error in logic? Why all this hubbub?”
It is because the so-called leaders of the first-mentioned class have
already established an unsavory reputation by advocating this same
surrender of life, liberty and manhood, masking their cowardice behind
the pillars of war-time sacrifice? Du Bois’s statement, then, is
believed to mark his entrance into that class, and is accepted as a
“surrender” of the principles which brought him into prominence—and
which alone kept him there.
Later, when it was learned that Du Bois was being preened for a berth in
the War Department as a captain-assistant (adjutant) to Major Spingarn,
the words used by him in the editorial acquired a darker and more
sinister significance. The two things fitted too well together as motive
and self-interest.
For these reasons Du Bois is regarded much in the same way as a knight
in the middle ages who had had his armor stripped from him, his arms
reversed and his spurs hacked off. This ruins him as an influential
person among Negroes at this time, alike whether he becomes a captain or
remains an editor.
But the case has its roots much farther back than the editorial in
July’s _Crisis_. Some time ago when it was learned that the _Crisis_ was
being investigated by the government for an alleged seditious utterance
a great clamor went up, although the expression of it was not open.
Negroes who dared to express their thoughts seemed to think the action
tantamount to a declaration that protests against lynching, segregation
and disfranchisement were outlawed by the government. But nothing was
clearly understood until the conference of editors was called under the
assumed auspices of Emmet Scott and Major Spingarn. Then it began to
appear that these editors had not been called without a purpose. The
desperate ambiguity of the language which they used in their report (in
the War Department Bulletin), coupled with the fact that not one of
them, upon his return would tell the people anything of the proceedings
of the conference—all this made the Negroes feel less and less
confidence in them and their leadership; made them (as leaders) less
effective instruments for the influential control of the race’s state of
mind.
Now Du Bois was one of the most prominent of those editors “who were
called.” The responsibility, therefore, for a course of counsel which
stresses the servile virtues of acquiescence and subservience falls
squarely on his shoulders. The offer of a captaincy and Du Bois’s
flirtation with that offer following on the heels of these things
seemed, even in the eyes of his associate members of the N.A.A.C.P.
to afford clear proof of that which was only a suspicion before, viz:
that the racial resolution of the leaders had been tampered with, and
that Du Bois had been privy to something of the sort. The connection
between the successive acts of the drama (May, June, July) was too
clear to admit of any interpretation other than that of deliberate,
cold blooded, purposive planning. And the connection with Spingarn
seemed to suggest that personal friendships and public faith were not
good working team-mates.
For the sake of the larger usefulness of Dr. Du Bois we hope he will be
able to show that he can remain as editor of the _Crisis_; but we fear
that it will require a good deal of explaining. For, our leaders, like
Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. —July, 1918.
_When the Blind Lead_
In the February issue of the _Crisis_ its editor begins a brief
editorial on “Leadership,” with the touching reminder that “Many a good
cause has been killed by suspected leadership.” How strikingly do these
words bring back to us Negroes those dark days of 1918! At that time the
editor of the _Crisis_ was offering certain unique formulas of
leadership that somehow didn’t “take.” His “Close Ranks” editorial and
the subsequent slump in the stock of his leadership have again
illustrated the truth long since expressed in Latin: “Descensus Averni
facilis; sed revocare gradus,—hoc opus est,” which, being translated,
might mean that, while it’s as easy as eggs for a leader to fall off the
fence, it is devilishly difficult to boost him up again. In September,
1918, one could boldly say, “The _Crisis_ says, first your Country, then
your Rights!” Today, when the Negro people everywhere are responding to
Mr. Michael Coulsen’s sentiment that “it’s Race, not Country, first,” we
find the “leader” of 1918 in the position described by Lowell in these
words: “A moultin’ fallen cherubim, ef he should see ye’d snicker,
Thinkin’ he warn’t a suckemstance.”
How fast time flies!
But the gist of Dr. Du Bois’s editorial is the moral downfall of another
great leader. “Woodrow Wilson, in following a great ideal of world
unity, forgot all his pledges to the German people, forgot all his large
words to Russia, did not hesitate to betray Gompers and his unions, _and
never at any single moment meant to include in his democracy twelve
million of his fellow Americans, whom he categorically promised `more
than mere grudging justice,’ and then allowed 350 of them to be lynched
during his Presidency._ Under such leadership what cause could succeed?”
He notes that out of the World War, with the Allies triumphant, have
come Britain’s brutal domination of the seas, her conquest of Persia,
Arabia and Egypt, and her tremendous tyranny imposed on two-thirds of
Africa.
But we saw these things, as early as 1917, to be the necessary
consequences of the Allies’ success, when the editor of the _Crisis_ was
telling his race: “You are not fighting simply for Europe; you are
fighting for the world.” Was Dr. Du Bois so blind then that he couldn’t
see them? And if he was, is he any less blind today? In 1918 the
lynchings were still going on while Dr. Du Bois was solemnly advising us
to “forget our grievances.” Any one who insisted then on putting such
grievances as lynchings, disfranchisement and segregation in the
fore-ground was described by the _Crisis_’ editor as seeking “to turn
his country’s tragic predicament to his own personal gain.” At that time
he either believed or pretended to believe every one of the empty words
that flowed from Woodrow Wilson’s lips, and on the basis of this belief
he was willing to act as a brilliant bellwether to the rest of the
flock. Unfortunately, the flock refused to follow the lost leader.
“If the blind lead the blind they will both fall into the ditch.” But in
this case those being led were not quite so blind as those who wanted to
lead them by way of captaincies in the army. Which was why some
captaincies were not forthcoming. The test of vision in a leader is the
ability to foresee the immediate future, the necessary consequences of a
course of conduct and the dependable sentiments of those whom he assumes
to lead. In all these things Dr. Du Bois has failed; and neither his
ungrateful attack on Emmett Scott nor his belated discovery of Wilsonian
hypocrisy will, we fear, enable him to climb back into the saddle of
race leadership. This is a pity, because he has rendered good service in
his day. But that day is past. The magazine which he edits still remains
as a splendid example of Negro journalism. But the personal primacy of
its editor has departed, never to return. Other times, other men; other
men, other manners.
Even the Negro people are now insisting that their leaders shall in
thought and moral stamina keep ahead of, and not behind, them,
“It takes a mind like Willum’s [fact!] ez big as all outdoors
To find out thet it looks like rain arter it fairly pours.”
The people’s spiritual appetite has changed and they are no longer
enamoured of “brilliant” leaders, whose chorus is:
“A marciful Providence fashioned us holler
O’purpose that we might our principles swaller;
It can hold any quantity on ’em—the belly can—
An’ bring ’em up ready fer use like the pelican.”
And this is a change which we commend to the kindly consideration of all
those good white friends who are out selecting Negro “leaders.” It is a
fact which, when carefully considered, will save them thousands of
dollars in “overhead expense.” The Negro leaders of the future will be
expected not only to begin straight, take a moral vacation, and then go
straight again. They will be expected to go straight all the time; to
stand by us in war as well as in peace; not to blow hot and cold with
the same mouth, but “to stand four-square to all the winds that blow.”
—1920.
_Just Crabs_
Once upon a time a Greedy Person went rummaging along the lagoon with a
basket and a stick in quest of Crabs, which he needed for the Home
Market. (Now, this was in the Beginning of Things, Best Beloved.) These
were Land Crabs—which, you know, are more luscious than Sea Crabs, being
more Primitive and more full of meat. He dug into their holes with his
stick, routed them out, packed them on their backs in his basket and
took them home. Several trips he made with his basket and his stick, and
all the Crabs which he caught were dumped into a huge barrel. (But this
time he didn’t pack them on their backs.) And all the creatures stood
around and watched. For this Greedy Person had put no cover on the
barrel. (But this was in the Beginning of Things.)
He knew Crab Nature, and was not at all worried about his Crabs. For as
soon as any one Crab began to climb up on the side of the barrel to work
his way toward the top the other Crabs would reach up, grab him by the
legs, and down he would come, kerplunk! “If we can’t get up,” they would
say—“if we can’t get up, you shan’t get up, either. We’ll pull you down.
Besides, you should wait until the barrel bursts. There are Kind Friends
on the Outside who will burst, the barrel if we only wait, and then,
when the Great Day dawns, we will all be Emancipated and there’ll be no
need for Climbing. Come down, you fool!” (Because this was in the
Beginning of Things, Best Beloved.) So the Greedy Person could always
get as many Crabs as he needed for the Home Market, because they all
depended on him for their food.
And all the creatures stood around and laughed. For this was very funny
in the Beginning of Things. And all the creatures said that the Reason
for this kink in Crab Nature was that when the Creator was giving out
heads he didn’t have enough to go around, so the poor Crabs didn’t get
any.
And the Greedy Person thanked his lucky stars that Crabs had been made
in that Peculiar way, since it made it unnecessary to put a cover on his
barrel or to waste his precious time a-watching of them. (Now, all this
happened long ago, Best Beloved, in the very Beginning of Things.)
---
The above is the first of our Just-So Stories—with no apologies to
Rudyard Kipling or any one else. We print it here because, just at this
time the Crabs are at work in Harlem, and there is a tremendous clashing
of claws as the Pull ’Em Down program goes forward. It’s a great game,
to be sure, but it doesn’t seem to get them or us anywhere. The new day
that has dawned for the Negroes of Harlem is a day of business
accomplishment. People are going into business, saving their money and
collectively putting it into enterprises which will mean roofs over
their heads and an economic future for themselves and their little ones.
But the Subsidized Sixth are sure that this is all wrong and that we
have no right to move an inch until the Socialist millennium dawns, when
we will all get “out of the barrel” together. It does not seem to have
occurred to them that making an imperfect heaven now does not unfit any
one for enjoying the perfect paradise which they promise us—if it ever
comes. Truly it is said of them that “the power over a man’s subsistence
is the power over his will”—and over his “scientific radicalism,” too.
But we remember having translated this long ago into the less showy
English of “Show me whose bread you eat, and I’ll tell you whose songs
you’ll sing.” Surely this applies to radicals overnight as well as to
ordinary folk. And if not, why not?
But when the reek of the poison gas propaganda has cleared away and the
smoke of the barrage has lifted it will be found that “White Men’s
Niggers” is a phrase that need not be restricted to old-line politicians
and editors. Criticism pungent and insistent is due to every man in
public life and to every movement which bids for public support. But the
cowardly insinuator who from the safe shelter of nameless charges
launches his poisoned arrows at other people’s reputation is a
contemptible character to have on any side of any movement. He is
generally a liar who fears that he will be called to account for his
lies if he should venture to name his foe. No man with the truth to tell
indulges in this pastime of the skulker and the skunk. Let us, by all
means, have clear, hard-hitting criticism, but none of this foul filth
which lowers the thing that throws it. In the name of common sense and
common decency, quit being Just Crabs.