Head posters will write a summary and interpretation of at least one of this week’s readings:
- W.E.B. DuBois, Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880 (New York, 1935, 1962, 1992), Chapters 1-4.
- Thavolia Glymph, Out of the House of Bondage: The Transformation of the Plantation Household (New York, 2008), Chapter 6.
- Barbara Fields, “Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America,” New Left Review, 1/181 (May-June 1990).
- (optional/supplementary) Eric Foner, “The Meaning of Freedom in Age of Emancipation,” The Journal of American History 81, no. 2 (1994): 435–460.
PRIMARY SOURCE:
The center of Dubois’s analysis is a newly freed labor force, made up of formerly enslaved African Americans longing for the opportunity of a genuine and true democracy in the era of Reconstruction. By outlining a broad picture of American economic and social classes he dives deeply into the racialized nature of worker’s relationship. “The Black workers of America bent at the bottom of a growing pyramid of commerce and industry; became the cause of new political demands and alignments, of new dreams of power and visions of empire.” He asserts that the process of racialization is a necessary precondition of the broader economic system which serves to further the exploitation of all laborers, while simultaneously consolidating the domination of the ruling elite. What makes the Black laboring classes unique is that they have to contend with issues of race and class.
Dubois concludes that the political power of the laboring classes has been diluted by ethnic and racial antagonisms. These antagonisms prevent the ability of workers to seize power during a pivotal turning point of political and class struggle, specifically the period after the civil war where the southern aristocratic class ceases to exist “Disaster of war decimated the planters; from 1870 on the planter class merged their blood so completely with the rising poor whites that they disappeared as a separate aristocracy.”
He suggests that the exploitation of the Black proletariat is intertwined with the conditions of the white working class and provides a visionary attempt at challenging those conditions through working-class solidarity utilizing a General Strike. In doing so both parties have the potential of making significant social and political gains. “The emancipation of man is the emancipation of labor and the emancipation of labor is the freeing of that basic majority of workers.”
The contradiction in the social relationship between whites and Blacks is that the institution of slavery devalued all forms of labor, including white labor. “Labor in conjunction and competition with free labor tended to reduce all labor toward slavery.” Although slavery devalued all forms of labor, white hopes and ambitions relied on the belief that they too one day would assume the role of the ruling elite. In response, white fear of market competition and aversion to the country’s Black population played an impediment in experimenting with the socially transformative potential of solidarity offered up by this unique moment in history. This impediment proved to offer long-lasting consequences in the condition of all working both the white and black laboring classes.
How do racial and ethnic antagonism divide workers now?
Do you think there was ever a real moment for class solidarity during reconstruction across racial lines?
Do you think the failures of reconstruction negatively affect working-class life in the contemporary moment?
I agree with Chris’s interpretation of Du Bois’s argument on the rise of racial ideology, and how its accompanying divisions caused crucial opportunities for working class solidarity to be missed. I think that Barbara Field’s piece drew a particularly enlightening connection with *Black Reconstruction* in that it traces the historical development of racial ideology in the US and how racialization came to be a force on its own that reinforces ruling class domination and the capitalist system itself. In my reading of these two pieces especially, I drew a different conclusion about whether racialization was a precondition of the rise of capitalism, I instead think that it rose dynamically and in conjunction with the growing embeddedness of slavery as a system.
I found this observation of Du Bois’s to be particularly surprising: “In the earlier history of the South, free Negroes had the right to vote. Indeed, so far as the letter of the law was concerned, there was not a single Southern colony in which a black man who owned the requisite amount of property, and complied with other conditions, did not at some period have the legal right to vote.” (p.6) It was only when slavery of kidnapped Africans and West Indians grew to be a system central to the maintenance and expansion of “The Cotton Kingdom” that racial ideologies started to become deeply entrenched and systematized, and the colonies had to actively disenfranchise free black people. As Du Bois pointed out, extending Republican ideals and rights to free black people was an existential threat to that system. I was surprised by this because I had believed racial ideology was a feature from 1619, when the first African slaves arrived in Virginia. This was even more striking for me when I read *Slavery, Race, and Ideology in the United States of America,* in which Fields writes, “Indeed, African slaves during the years between 1619 and 1661 enjoyed rights that, in the nineteenth century, not even free black people could claim. Simple practicality decided the matter. Until slavery became systematic, there was no need for a systematic slave code.” (p.104) It’s important to consider the use of English indentured servitude as the main labor force, treated with immense cruelty and subjugation to discipline its laborers, up until it was evident to landowners that this labor pool could not be sustained for the various reasons of impracticality that Fields describes. In order to sustain a grossly immoral and unjust system of perpetual, generational slavery, humanity could not be granted to African slaves, especially in the face of the glaring incompatibility with the ideology of Republicanism, which Du Bois paid special attention to. That ideological void had to be filled for slavery and nascent capitalism’s survival and eventual explosion. And as Chris strongly argues, racialization became a hugely effective cudgel to prevent working class unity and revolution against the larger system of exploitation that was developing in capitalism.
Questions:
1. What kind of role do you think the moral stain of slavery played in the system’s eventual abolition? How did Republican ideology factor into the historical development of slavery and racism?
2. What does Barbara Fields mean when she says “Ideologies are real, but it does not follow that they are scientifically accurate”? What are the implications of this argument for dismantling racial ideology and hierarchy?
I appreciate Chris’ solid analysis of Dubois. He dials in well on this argument that class structure in America, even between the white workers and the white capitalist, are forged though their relationship to slavery.
The argument that slavery and the racial caste system it required meant that white workers saw themselves as being more akin to the capitalist, with the belief that they may one day own land or become economically successful, rather than the slave with whom the capitalist is forcing them to compete, is not new to me. What Dubois brought to light for me is how this played out politically in the North as well, with the abolitionist movement and the free land movement effectively functioning as two separate, competing labor movements. Dubois’ descriptions of how this dynamic guided the Civil War, especially as the US spread Westward. Additionally, that the South recognize that slavery was doomed so shortly after the war started is a powerful and provocative argument. The South’s changing utilization of slaves throughout the war demonstrated how little they understood how deeply slavery altered the social and political dynamic to that point, and how the war quickly made it clear.
I’ve been thinking about Dubois arguments in the context of how Reconstruction set the tone for labor in the 20th century. Had there been lasting cross-racial solidarity, how might labor agitation, as well as the New Deal, looked differently? Would labor have forced more concessions from capital?
Dubois argues that the the institution of slavery had been irreparably damaged by the war from the start. Do you interpret this as meaning that had the South maintained its independence, slavery would have nevertheless been ended?
The center of Dubois’s analysis is a newly freed labor force, made up of formerly enslaved African Americans longing for the opportunity of a genuine and true democracy in the era of Reconstruction. By outlining a broad picture of American economic and social classes he dives deeply into the racialized nature of worker’s relationship. “The Black workers of America bent at the bottom of a growing pyramid of commerce and industry; became the cause of new political demands and alignments, of new dreams of power and visions of empire.” He asserts that the process of racialization is a necessary precondition of the broader economic system which serves to further the exploitation of all laborers, while simultaneously consolidating the domination of the ruling elite. What makes the Black laboring classes unique is that they have to contend with issues of race and class.
Dubois concludes that the political power of the laboring classes has been diluted by ethnic and racial antagonisms. These antagonisms prevent the ability of workers to seize power during a pivotal turning point of political and class struggle, specifically the period after the civil war where the southern aristocratic class ceases to exist “Disaster of war decimated the planters; from 1870 on the planter class merged their blood so completely with the rising poor whites that they disappeared as a separate aristocracy.”
He suggests that the exploitation of the Black proletariat is intertwined with the conditions of the white working class and provides a visionary attempt at challenging those conditions through working-class solidarity utilizing a General Strike. In doing so both parties have the potential of making significant social and political gains. “The emancipation of man is the emancipation of labor and the emancipation of labor is the freeing of that basic majority of workers.”
The contradiction in the social relationship between whites and Blacks is that the institution of slavery devalued all forms of labor, including white labor. “Labor in conjunction and competition with free labor tended to reduce all labor toward slavery.” Although slavery devalued all forms of labor, white hopes and ambitions relied on the belief that they too one day would assume the role of the ruling elite. In response, white fear of market competition and aversion to the country’s Black population played an impediment in experimenting with the socially transformative potential of solidarity offered up by this unique moment in history. This impediment proved to offer long-lasting consequences in the condition of all working both the white and black laboring classes.
How do racial and ethnic antagonism divide workers now?
Do you think there was ever a real moment for class solidarity during reconstruction across racial lines?
Do you think the failures of reconstruction negatively affect working-class life in the contemporary moment?
In the book Out of the House of Bondage: The Transformation of the Plantation Household, the author Thavolia Glymth gives insights of the various transformations southern households had before and after the Civil War, during 1866 to 1880’s. In the first few pages, Glymth highlights the struggle free black women had with maintaining the home and work life as free women. The contribution of black women and children played an integral part of the household and shaped how the household will survive (page 173). The mention of part time work in the field which paid more than working in the house as maids made many black women leave the household and work on their land. Another point that the author makes is that many black women decided to divide their time to contribute to the household by making and selling goods to white women, such as butter. Although the pay was low, it provided to the family at the time to survive. Glymth also provided a short synopsis of a few households’ names from southern elite families who struggled to adjust to having black slaves be free and losing their wealth due to the war is reminiscent of what white people went through at the time. White women/mistresses of the household who owned plantations were the ones who struggled the most more from having their pride hurt rather than having to sell their clothes, their skills to black women, and the pride that they cannot control them any longer. While Glymth provided the mistresses point of view of what they went through, men rarely engaged in the household issues the wives had because they were more interested in keeping control in the political arena. Once the men became involved in the household issues, situations ended up turning violent for the black women, or were forced to just accept that they cannot change their mindset of a freed black man or women.
For me this reading was more of storytelling of various points of view rather than a persuasive essay of the struggles black and white women had to survive after the civil war. It is an interesting read in that it provided various perspectives of what black freed women struggled with after the war, the struggles that white women had due to their inability to accept freed black women demands of a fair pay. Two main points stood out to me though, one is pay disparity during these times, such as when black freed women requested an amount, white women did not pay but had to in the long run accept that they could not control black women. Even when they had white maids, the pay was more than what they would have paid a black freed woman. The same pay disparity still exists today with white women making $0.79 more than black women at $0.62 (link to pay disparity) The second point that stood out to me was that it is apparent from the evidence Thavolia Glymth provided was that white women did everything in their power to keep control of black women even when they knew that they could no longer. By trying to keep traditions alive or the idea that they “needed” a maid to help them with their everyday chores is just entitlement in part of keeping black freed people under control. These same entitlements are seen today in various forms such as calling the cops on black women when they feel they don’t belong in an apartment, park, or store. I am and will not be persuaded at all that white women after the civil war needed sympathy. I understand the need to keep customs and traditions, but at the expense of keeping other people as maids and/or slaves does not make pity those who have lost their wealth.
Questions that arose during this reading are: How can women, especially women of color continue to advocate themselves for pay parity? By when will women of color be paid equally to white men and women? What must we do as women of color to advocate for ourselves to be paid equally?
Maria made some great points in her response to the Thavolia Glymth. The piece brilliantly told the stories of a few former plantation owners who struggled to hold on to power even as the main source of their economic domination escaped their grasp, that being the free labor of African slaves. More importantly to me, this piece outlined the specific class interests of the different actors involved; such as the interests of aristocratic white women to avoid doing backbreaking household labor themselves, as well as the interests of aristocratic white men to maintain a patriarchal hold over their household. About the issues of pay disparity, it is interesting to think about how this framework of unequal pay still persists today, though I was thinking about how we’ve kept intact a wage labor system that offers us little ownership over the conditions of our work. To me it seemed like freedmen and women were able to make huge gains in the years following the Civil War, but were still made to toil under their white bosses. Glymth describes a plateau of rates of pay for black domestic workers in the 1880’s as well as the costs they were meant to incur themselves for things like soap (not unlike the way many school districts treat their teachers.) My point is that under a capitalist system, and especially in the United States with our class and racial hierarchies, as long as power relations between those of the owner class and worker class remain more or less unchanged, then there will always be methods of exploitation one class will assert over the other. Reconstruction showed us a glimpse of what the South could look like if these dynamics were made *more* equal, only to be squashed by the Jim Crow laws years later.
As for the point about feeling sympathy for the white mistresses, I definitely felt a sense of schadenfreude with the plantation owner’s wives in having to make ends meet without slave labor. I didn’t really get a sense that we were meant to feel sympathy for them, especially when Glymth told stories of Sarah Palmer Williams trying to sell her old dresses to the “fastidious ladies of color” and being told her dresses were “both old fashioned.” Sick burn. What I got from this was real life examples of the ways that freed black women were able to vie for social power in this changing Southern culture, and something as small as being discriminating over the types of dresses you’ll buy shows that the rules were quickly changing. I completely see Maria’s point though about white women calling the police on black people as a new form of social control. I think this is but one way that white people are still able to wield authoritative power over people of color, as we saw a few months ago when Amy Cooper attempted to call the police on the nicest birdwatcher you could ever meet for the supposed sin of asking her to leash her dog. Making connections between the past and the present really shows us exactly what has changed in society and what has not. That a man like Christian Cooper could make a good life for himself in ever costly NYC, but also remain vulnerable to potential police violence because he angered the wrong white woman while attempting to enjoy his hobby.
Questions:
Is class and racial hierarchy inevitable in a capitalist system that gives few owning power when most are made to labor? Is economic equality possible under wage labor?
What are everyday examples of the changing power dynamics within capitalism, similar to the examples Glymth gave of white mistresses attempting to sell their dresses to newly freed black women, that exist today?
Chris provides a well-structured summary of DuBois’s history and analysis of slave labor and the Civil War. It is true that much of DuBois’ argument describes the ways in which slave labor undercuts all forms of labor, and that while the white working class is not economically privileged they benefit from being able to see a path to riches that aids to entice them to support the continuation of slavery. But what is very interesting to me is the way in which DuBois describes the trajectory of the war. From a war purely about preventing the south from seceding to the north realizing that in order to win they must support the abolition of slavery and the reluctance with which the government moved forward in that reality. DuBois’s detailed examination of this shift discredits the pat version of this story told in early childhood education. That Lincoln was a leader of and for freedom instead of just a man afraid to lose his country. The early examination of the immense political power held by slave owners offers an obvious reason for this. The South was both the political and economic engine of the country and this engine was powered by slavery. Without that, what would America look like? DuBois quotes Frederick Douglass saying, “The South was fighting to take slavery out of the union, and the North fighting to keep it in the union.”
I found it sort of darkly hilarious in chapter 4, to read about northern politicians and leaders accidentally discovering that social welfare policy would benefit a populace. Like Carl Shurz’s conclusion that Freedmen’s Colonies with better conditions were more efficient. But it is still glaringly obvious that at no point during or immediately after the war was there an effort to integrate free men and women into white society. Their colonies and labor were still kept separate with strict regulations. In the conclusion, DuBois states, “It was the price of the disaster of war, and it was a price that few Americans at first dreamed of paying or wanted to pay,” which I think sums up his point nicely, that the war was not the answer to anyone’s prayers and that the future was more murky than clear.
Questions:
How does the decimation of the planter class and the anger of the poor white working-class come together to form the cruelty of racism in the south after the war, through reconstruction, through Jim Crow, and into today as mentioned at the end of chapter 3, The Planter?
How does the emergence of a new class of workers (freed slaves) change the labor landscape? Does it accelerate the labor movement? Stall it? Does organized labor become more important as a way to continue racial discrimination in light of abolition?
Maria rightly states that white women who previously owned slaves were hurt by emancipation. Where initially, in Glymph’s work, I found it difficult to sympathize with their plight, it became clear very quickly that my bias against slaveowners was in some ways, premature. While acknowledging that the pre-war South was based on an abhorrent and, ultimately unsustainable model, it is important to realize the role the North’s capitalism, through it’s exploitation of the South’s resources, made in impossible for planters to make a living without employing the cheapest labor possible, and perpetuated, and profited from, slavery. As such, I find it difficult to blame the whites hurt by emancipation for their misery entirely. People must be judged on an individual basis and this extends even to slavers.
I found Fields’ essay started out rather unfair and mean-spirited towards those with whom she disagrees. She also made several blanket statements without proof that I found lazy. That said, I was compelled by the meat of her argument that economics, and not an inherent racism, led to slavery. It is an argument that supports Glymph’s fine work of showing how emancipation affected everyone directly tied to Southern plantations after the defeat of the Confederacy.
What avenues could early skilled unionists have taken to maintain their trades and prevent wage decreases had they embraced unskilled wage workers, immigrants, and blacks instead of resorting to racism and exclusion?
Male planters, both before and after emancipation, are treated almost universally with scorn in all of this week’s readings, where there is a more nuanced approach to others. Is this fair?
The Dubois chapters give such a clear picture and are entirely convincing. It is a fascinating piece of work and the most complete thing we read this week. How much was written about emancipation and slavery before him?
In the article written by Barbara Fields titled “Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America “ the author breaks down how ideology assumptions impacts the lives of an entire
class of humanity. In this case Black society. From the start of her article she points out
a reference made to an idiotic assumption presented Jimmy the Greek which at the time was considered to be a well –known popular news caster of the sports arena. His absurd remark that Black athletes are bred to have longer thighs than white athletes dates back to slavery time had many people shaking their heads, whereas those that thought as narrow minded as the sports caster probably agreed whole heartedly with his analogy. Ofcourse there is no scientific belief that proves his theory, but he himself believed it to be true, and his belief cost him a pretty important position in the field as a sports caster. Perhaps continuing to work behind the cameras, but no longer in your face ridiculous absurd commentaries.
The only truth to this unjust type of behavior of blatant racism, is that goes way back to the king cotton save era. The convenience of creating constant lies and a variety of unfounded truth to
destroy, oppress, and remain power over a group of people is very disheartening. Today, we witness the same racism and prejudices continuing across cities where Black men have to alter
their attire (no hoodies) or their opinions (Central Park) when something is not correct.
Miss. Fields article was very enlightening, and her opinions are very direct, and if I am allowed to say “ in your face” . As cited in W.E.B Dubois essay (pg 7) , there is absolutely no way that Blacks could have been happier during the ordeals of the slave era. That’s the absurdist assumption ever!
I think as the first African American who earned a doctorate degree at Harvard University, W.E.B. Du Bois contributed greatly to both academia and the Black community. In his dissertation thesis the Reconstruction era, Du Bois shed light on the role of Blacks in economic and political transformation. Du Bois has a Marxist outlook to analyze the American proletariat, elite, exploitation, and that highlights the significance of commodified labor, slavery. His analysis is rooted in exposing white hypocrisy.
I agree with Chris’ interpretation of DuBoi’s “Black Reconstruction in America”. Chris tied together the chapters really wonderfully and pointed out the central theme of racialization as as the foundation for an economic system that devalues labor in general, while putting especial pressure on Black individuals who had to contend with race and class, as well as the daily conditions of slavery (being treated as property). While poor white folks labor was being devalued, the clung to the hope of climbing the ladder and one day exploiting labor themselves. (“The true system,” according to honest Abe, p18.) Chris also mentions fear (of competition) holding white folks back from experimenting in solidarity. It took a year before emancipation actually happened for an actual “union approved” statement against slavery. (That’s what shocked me while I was reading this: it took way too long for the union to take up the cause against slavery. If the union and slavery could co-exist, then it would have, which is a horrible thought. Slavery and freed slaves were treated like pawns and only taken up because the North had to acknowledge the strategic benefits of doing so.)
Questions:
-The general strike highlights the power of taking your time and labor elsewhere. Have we seen this strategy employed recently? Has it been successful or not?
-What is the curse of Cannan and how did planters use it to diminish slaves’ perceived capabilities and humanity?
I think that Chris is correct in his analysis on the Douglass essay on slave labor and how it impacted the social classes of the dominant society. The dominant society did not want the free slaves to be independent because they would have another group to compete with for jobs (cheaper labor) , or to truly want them to have the right to vote (owners could use their slaves as leverage to vote). But most importantly, liberating the slaves would interfere with the quality of life for the people in the South.
The opulence and the wealth that the elite in the South were used to was being threatened and, if they didn’t have a workforce in order to continue producing for them (although Douglass did state that there were expenses in order to feed, clothe their slaves) it would alter their way of life. Douglass stated “Black labor became the foundation stone not only of the Southern social structure, but of Northern manufacture and commerce, of the English factory system, of European commerce of buying and selling on a world-wide scale; new cities were build on the results of black labor a new labor problem, involving all white labor, arose both in Europe and America”. Slavery in US contributed economically to all parts of the world and if that stopped, it would create a chain reaction. The free labor that the dominant society wanted to keep at no costs was the same one the dominant society was saying was hurting the white labor.
In one part of his essay that I found interesting, was when he said that “there were native-born Americans, largely of English descent , who were property holders and employers..” these were the white laborers who looked forward to the time that they could accumulate capital and become independent, then the immigrants who came with their old world values and incorporated it into American culture and then he discusses the “free Negroes”. What I found interesting in that he classified native-born Americans as people of English descent, but he doesn’t classify the “free Negroes” as being American when they were native born just as the English were. It’s obvious that we are black, African American, whatever you want to call it, but people do not see us as being “Americans” even if our family has been here for generations and to this day, we are still treated as outsiders in this society.
I really appreciated and agreed with Chris’s analysis of Du Bois. It is definitely true that the power of laborers has been diluted due to racial and ethnic antagonisms. Throughout American labor history, you can see this dynamic play out as true solidarity between working people has been stunted by bigotry and racial animus. Recent scholars such as David Roediger have expanded on Du Bois’s ideas through works such as “The Wages of Whiteness” (1990).
One very important aspect of “Black Reconstruction” is Du Bois’s discussion of the general strike. I had never really thought of Emancipation in this way before and I really appreciated how Du Bois’s contribution to the historiography has centered Black agency during this period. Often, especially in general education courses on American history, Emancipation is portrayed as something that happened “to” slaves rather than it being the direct result of actions by slaves. Reframing our discussion on Emancipation requires that we center Black agency in this struggle both for its liberationist power and as a general contribution to the centering of working peoples’ agency in history.
I also really enjoyed reading being able to read Du Bois for the first time. He is a scholar cited heavily in many books and articles that I’ve read; however, I have never had the opportunity to read his original work. I found it very fascinating how Du Bois was able to merge rigorous scholarship with a truly enjoyable prose style. I think many modern academics could learn a thing or two from his ability to synthesize such things.
Questions:
1. How can the “psychological wage” of whiteness be seen today in the labor movement? Where do you see attempts to overcome this?
2. Can a broad, multi-racial working class coalition orchestrate a general strike today?
First off, I was enthralled with DuBois’ writing. He effortlessly weaves historical sources and analysis, and does so with a refreshing clarity. Essentially, as Chris and Hollis have noted, he reframes civil war history and specifically emancipation as primarily a labor action, and the impetus for a development of new labor relations. He also notes that in the time he wrote this book, the AFL still allowed its member unions to discriminate against black workers and segregate the labor movement. He discusses different practices of society-building in the wake of enslaved people’s self-liberation, and notes the temporary success of general order 15, which granted self-determination, in addition to 40 acres and a mule, as opposed to imposed wage-labor systems in other areas. It turns out, allowing people to participate in society gives them a vested interest in preserving it.
DuBois also centers discussions of power throughout his book, and optimistically attests that it is attainable by exploited classes. He spends much of the first few chapters focusing on the American conception of freedom, where the goal of any laborer is to attain enough capital to no longer sell their labor, and then eventually to be able to purchase labor from others. DuBois systematically refutes the notion of an American Dream based on exploitation, and the desire to exploit as a demonstration or goal of freedom, and redefines it as people taking their destiny into their own hands, hopefully through collective action. Power systems respond to this struggle. At least throughout my childhood education, we’ve learned about civil rights as something that has been gifted by those in power, rather than earned by the oppressed. This book is a refreshing counter-history.
In Barbara Fields’ essay, she speaks about the development of an ideology of race. How did the ideology, as expressed through the lived experience in the South, change in the aftermath of the Civil War? How did this ideology change labor dynamics throughout the end of the 19th century and early 20th century?
What constraints did Northern politics place on Reconstruction in the South? Do any of these political constraints have a contemporary similarity?
W.E.B. DuBois has always been a leading voice in black’s plight in America. DuBois knew that blacks in America were never going to get their fair share after slavery. America has been conditioned to systemically keep blacks at the very bottom and to keep the elite on top. Blacks have always been laborers where it was for “free” in America or it was for mere pennies. Dubois eloquently described how this county used captolism to keep blacks in a field where they could never progress to the white elite wealth with is so relevant in these modern times. I agree with my classmate Chris .
My questions are:
1. How would our founding black father’s feel today knowing that they correctly predicted a continued systemic institution that continues to keep blacks at the very bottom?
2. Do the elite pretend not see that privilege over hundred of years has created the perfect environment to keep them on the top?
W.E.B. DuBois has always been a leading figure in the black’s plight in America. This county is conditioned through systemic racism to keep black’s at the very body and keep the elite at the very top. As I have heard Black’s built this country for free through slavery and when “freed” they were still building this country without the perks of the elite. Capitalism is what keeps the elite at the very top. Chris captured the reading eloquently and I feel sometimes America tries to forget that Black’s were not brought this country with the advantages of the white race particularly the white racist elites.
My questions is
1. How would our black founding father’s feel know they for sore black’s being at the bottom is till relevant to today?