BOOK REVIEW: THE STRANGE CAREER OF JIM CROW, VANN C. WOODWARD
Image source: Wikimedia commons
Paper Type: Book Review
Paper Format: MLA
Pages: 6 pages
The Strange Career of Jim Crow: A Review
Reading America’s history of racism, one might falsely believe that the North American states were more progressive in their perceptions about race despite tolerating a few racist notions, especially when they consider the events at the beginning of the 20th Century (Leach 432). Indeed, in the late 1800s and the early 1920s, the situation in the South was unbearable for Black people. Consequently, those who could manage to relocate migrated to the North in search of freedom to escape the increased brutality of Southern states. In The Strange Career of Jim Crow, the author blames the impersonal factors and the politics in Northern American states for the brutalities of racism in the South, albeit with a little bias.
Woodward reveals that the North had a big influence on the South's racist politics and that, without this influence, racial problems in the South would not have been as bad as they were (Woodward 1). The author, starting with the end of the Civil War, reveals how black people gained much progress in the South before the white supremacists reversed the progress. The South, according to Woodward, has never had a stable "economic and industrial organization, its system of politics, and its social arrangements” (Woodward 2). Because of this, the southern states by themselves could not have orchestrated and institutionalized the complex racist tactics that America witnessed, especially at the beginning of the 20th Century. The North, on the other hand, could have managed this due to its relatively stable politics. Moreover, the author says that politicians in the South were not as united in thought as their northern counterparts to come up with such complex systems. Therefore, this hints to the significant influence of the Nothern states on the South’s politics and racism.
Woodward also discusses the Jim Crow Laws, from which the book draws its title. These segregationist laws were first passed by the Southern states and eventually adopted in North (Woodward). The policies called for the establishment of “separate but equal” social spaces for Black and White people (Riegel 17). As a result, schools, public transport, toilets, restaurants, and other common facilities were labeled exclusively for either black or white individuals. On paper, the main aim of the laws was to promote everyone's equality but under separate environments depending on their color: Blacks and Whites would receive similar resources but in different environments. However, despite the concept of separate but equal, Black people’s facilities were both few and of poor quality. The author states that there was no logic behind the separationist stance and that people who passed them thought that it was just the right thing to do.
In the 1950 and 1960s, black people's movements increased the calls to abandon such systems. However, it was until late in the1970s that the laws changed. Even before the 1900s, however, black people opposed the laws individually or in small groups through public disobedience and riots, which often resulted in their imprisonment or lynchings.
Interestingly, however, not all Blacks were against segregationist policies per se. Indeed, earlier in the 1900s, certain black empowerment organizations arose to call for black people’s emancipation through cooperation with Whites. For example, Booker T. Washington, together with other members of the National Negro Business League, advanced the notion that black people should not seek freedom as a gift, but that they should attain freedom by proving that they are worth it. Washington’s ideas, however, grew unpopular among the black communities after strong opposition by radical figures. One of Washington’s strongest opposers was W.E.B Dubois, who increased calls for more volatile recourses to black people’s oppression.
Although the notion of "freedom through cooperation" arguably died with Booker T. Washington, the call for a separatist society among blacks continued, especially with the growth of Black supremacist movements. In the 1920s, Marcus Garvey advocated for the concept of Black Supremacy. Garvey called for black people to establish separate economic and social systems that were supposed to outperform the White people’s systems. Despite registering success at first, the ambitious projects of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League collapsed due to government frustrations, corruption, and poor planning. The Muslim Brotherhood was also another organization that championed for separatist notions and grew in popularity from the 1930s to the 1950s. Through its leaders, Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, the organization propagated the idea of Black superiority and supported the growth of an exclusively black economy and religion. Therefore, the separatist notions were not only a product of the South or the white supremacists as many people tend to think but also of the black people themselves.
According to Woodward, racism in the South grew due to tough economic conditions rather than a carefully planned attempt by Southern Whites to stifle Blacks. The late 1800s experienced numerous economic upheavals, and naturally, the white Southerners looked for a scapegoat. According to the author, the treatment of black people in the South also worsened due to Nothern politics. Also, Woodward implies that racism in the North, at least in the late 1800s, appeared subtle as compared to the South because of the differences in the economic systems. Notably, the agricultural economy of the South demanded more manual laborers as compared to the industries in the North. The industrial and political systems of the North, therefore, encouraged slave mistreatments in the South while the North retained the false notion of social progressiveness.
Furthermore, despite the economic hardships that hit America, industries in the North made more profit as compared to the South and, therefore, could manage to pay Black people higher salaries and wages. The situation in the South was different: agricultural earnings there were dwindling in an increasingly volatile economy. Furthermore, industry owners in the North bought agricultural goods from the South at low bargains. Consequently, the farm owners were frustrated by the low come and the fact that they could no longer use cheap slave labor. This desperation made the South more ruthless to black people. Southern farmers, therefore, could not offer a good pay for laborers and had to resort to brutality to force people to labor in farms.
Woodward also looks at the role of the federal government in promoting racial hatred in the South through legislations that people thought were progressive. The writer implies that the federal government never acted in good faith. In his words, Black people have never been the “central theme’ or basic determinant of Southern history” (Woodward 1). All the actions that the federal government performed that seemed to give Black people freedom, therefore, were simply the consequences of negotiations with the South and were never meant to promote the interest of black people. The post-civil war declarations that gave freedom Blacks, for instance, was more of a punishment to the South for their “rudeness” rather than an appreciation of Black people’s need for freedom.
Indeed, Woodward's claim makes sense when one considers the inconsistencies in the late 19th-century legislations. For instance, while awarding black people freedom for their help in the war, Black prisoners were not accorded these freedoms. They would continue to perform hard labor in Southern farms, which was akin to the North telling the South that it could take away all its laborers but then leaving a few of these laborers to remind them of what they had in the past when they exercised discipline. It also explains why the North readily traded the black people’s freedom in the “Great Compromise” (Ling). After all, Black people did not matter to the Northern politicians and were just tools of the bargain in the transactions with the South.
Moreover, once migrations to the North increased, the Northern states started to feel uncomfortable with the growing black people's presence. Consequently, Northern states quickly and more efficiently adopted the segregationist policies in almost all institutions, including schools, hospitals, and transport sectors. Even with the brutality of the South, segregation policies were not as efficient as they were in the North. The North, therefore, was not as considerate of Black people's plight even though it was the preferable place for a black person to live.
Although Woodward’s book provides an exciting perspective of race relations in America and gives a detailed analysis of a person who was there when memories of these events were still fresh, the book has many failings. Primary among these is the writer’s tone that seems to excuse racism and the shallowness of some details.
To begin with, the author seems to modify the book’s tone to appeal to non-violent resistance movements instead of stating the facts as they are. The writer portrays White racists as innocent beings whose behaviors are more of a result of manipulation by the system than internal greed and cruelty. By failing to rebuke racist notions openly, the author fails to emphasize enough the evils of racism. Without giving them the negative emphasis that they deserve, Woodward projects slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, and other ills as annoyances rather than brutalities. Indeed, Martin Luther King referred to Woodward’s work as the “Bible of the Civil Rights Movement”; this should be disturbing to anyone who knows the realities of racism (Hackney 31). King’s methods, for the most part, were inadequate and, except for the fact that they called for the abolition of separatist law, they were not any different from Booker T. Washington's proposition that Black people should earn their rights from being docile and hardworking. Therefore, this book is partisan and does not accurately represent the standpoint of racist oppressors.
Secondly, although the book has a reading list at the end, its lack of footnotes and bibliography excludes much information. The author seems to assume that readers have initial knowledge of American history and, therefore, casually mentions certain events. For example, the part discussing residential segregation in particular towns is a bit shallow. Considering that housing rules vary depending on states and towns (Woodward 77), even if there is no need to discuss these in detail, the author should provide external resources for the curious reader.
In conclusion, The Strange Career of Jim Crow is an informative book that exposes the reader to a new perspective of American Racism. By focusing on the segregationist policies of the 20th Century, the author argues that historians have misinterpreted the southern states at the sources of systematic racism. However, the book also shows deficiencies of logic and provides shallow details in some instances.
Works Cited
Hackney, Sheldon. "C. Vann Woodward, Dissenter." Historically Speaking 10.1 (2009): 31-34.
Leach, Colin Wayne. "Against the Notion of a 'New Racism.'" Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 15.6 (2005): 432-445.
Ling, Ma. "Great Compromise: Revisited John Mill's Thought on Free Press." The Northern Forum. No. 3. 2003.
Riegel, Stephen J. "Persistent Career of Jim Crow: Lower Federal Courts and the Separate But Equal Doctrine, 1865-1896." Am. J. Legal Hist. 28, (1984): 17.
Woodward, Comer Vann, and William S. McFeely. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Oxford University Press, USA, 2002.
No comments:
Post a Comment