Malcolm X and Booker T. Washington: Two Drastically Different Thinkers with an Incredible Work Ethic

                 "Up From Slavery" and "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" both share first person narratives of black civil rights activists---more importantly, the stories highlight two figures with different approaches to achieving justice. Despite their differing ideologies, both Booker T. Washington and Malcolm X had to adapt to the American system in a major way: by adopting relentless work ethics. Here, I argue that Malcolm X had a more humanitarian, community-driven notion of hard-work, while Booker T. Washington worked hard to promote individuality for other black Americans. These contrasting motives meant Malcolm and Washington had notably different impacts on the Civil Rights scene.

                Malcolm X's autobiography distinguishes between his "private" and "public" persona. Publicly, he was not afraid of intimidating white America (which can't be said about Booker T. Washington), and as a result many thinkers of the time were unwilling to debate him (preface). Malcolm X gained notoriety among various communities (both black and white) for his "straight-to-the-point" mentality, which made sense given the circumstances he grew up in. Since his birth, the Ku Klux Klan tried to oust Malcolm X from his hometown of Omaha. Additionally, his father was a staunch support of Marcus Garvey and the "Back to Africa" movement, a system which "stressed becoming independent of the white man" (16). Thus, Malcolm's public hatred for the actions of white people seems to have stemmed from his early life.

Malcolm X

                    However, his "private" persona offers another interesting story---one that entails the life experiences which created Detroit Red and led to el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz. This name-shift was an innate effect of Malcolm X's conversion to Islam, and more specifically his relation to Elijah Muhammad. Especially after being put in jail, Malcolm X's changing demeanor and ideologies demonstrated his humanity; he was willing to accept his imperfections and work to change them by interacting with others (e.g. other inmates, religious leaders, etc.) He was not afraid to display how malleable his perspectives were while incarcerated. The best example of this is likely Malcolm's unstable relationship with his brother, Reginald. Reginald grew up with Malcom in Detroit, but upon educating himself on the teaching of Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm lost faith in his sibling. He was taught by the church of Islam to think of his brother as a cretin who had no moral restraint (ironically the same man who introduced Malcolm to Islam), and held this belief for quite some time. Malcolm later regrets this behavior, though, and says the following: "after Elijah Muhammad himself was later accused as a very immoral man, I came to believe that it wasn't a divine chastisement upon Reginald, but the pain he felt when his own family totally rejected him for Elijah Muhammad, and this hurt made Reginald turn insanely upon Elijah Muhammad" (124). Clearly, Malcolm X's personal narrative is one of empathy and personal growth, as he fully admits to his development as a thinker not coming naturally. Ultimately, his story was focused on interactions with others and communicating to find ways to retaliate against injustices

                    In contrast, Booker T. Washington chose to basically ignore the post-abolition racism in America. His story was that of rigid individualism, and he didn't mention his humanity in writing too much; rather, he viewed life as a series of obstacles which must be overcome to achieve "greatness". Success was linked to intellect for Washington, and thus his main goal since childhood---as detailed in "Up From Slavery---was to receive a solid education.  He describes what it was like to get freed from a plantation, and the sort of directionless future his family looked upon, but doesn't dwell on the systemic injustice too much. He simply works away, in order to gain increments of small wages that could help make his life better (child labor). This perspective is held by Washington for multiple decades of his life, and he never changed it, even when others tried to make him re-consider his beliefs (like Malcolm X did).

                   For Washington, the motivation to work hard was obvious: he didn't want to end up uneducated and deformed like coal miners (38-43). Even though white Americans had a much easier life path than him, Booker T. Washington insisted upon focusing on just making the best of what his environment provided to him; if he worked hard enough and focused on himself, no matter how unfair his life was, he'd be bound to find success. For example, to gain admission to a selective boarding school, Washington had to constantly clean the building, purely relying on the fact that some higher-up would be impressed by this and let him enroll. A powerful statement in his autobiography is that "sweeping of [the classroom] was [his] college examination", and I think this best represents Washington's mindset (53). Booker T. Washington never really changed his views to accomodate to his surroundings (like Malcolm X did), rather he worked hard enough so that his surroundings would accept his views.

                                                                   Booker T. Washington

                    When we reflect upon great African-American social and political figures, we're inclined to divide them based on their disagreements. This method is useful, because it's important to note how Malcolm X and Booker T. Washington's agenda for black people differed. Washington obviously lived in a different time, when he still had to appeal to white people to even get published, and thus his views may seem a bit simplistic/unrealistic. He focused much more on the prosperity of the individual black American, and how they could be successful through hard work, while Malcolm X brought attention to systemic injustics and the perpetual cruelty of white people. Nowadays, we may groan at this sort of Washington "meritocracy", because obviously just working hard didn't stop the plight of black people, but I think it's vital to put the thinkers in the context of their time. Both Malcolm X and Booker T. Washington had incredible work ethics and challenged social norms (it was still incredibly rare for a post-abolition black man to receive a formal education like Booker T. Washington did). As such, both figures are deserving of being looked up to as influential people.

Source links:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Up_From_Slavery/xN45ZsUMgKEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/malcom-x.pdf

               

                

Down By the Riverside: Richard Wright's Criticism of Obedience/Complacency and Promotion of Unity

             Richard Wright's "Down by The Riverside" illustrates, in tragic detail, the continuous cycle of false hope plaguing a black man who had the misfortune of acting in self-defense. Mann, the conveniently named protagonist, is pinned against nature throughout the story's plotline (hence Man[n] vs. Nature), and this environment drastically shapes his behavior. Particularly, Wright describes the flooded setting that forces Mann into a state of cognitive dissonance; his moral code is strong, but he knows he must also act against it to protect himself and his family. On one hand, Mann does not want to steal a boat, let alone kill anybody, but he also realizes he and his loved ones would die if not for him committing these necessary "sins". Thus, Wright brilliantly builds suspense by developing a character who is forced to worsen their situation each page-turn---even so, the reader still considers Mann's survival a positive product of this worsened situation, at least until the story's climax. To me, "Down by The Riverside's" conclusion establishes the devastating common fate of many black people during one of America's most racist periods, and thus makes situations like Manns' seem rightfully hopeless (even when he saved multiple white families from the flood, his altruistic actions ultimately led to his death because he was forced to kill Mr. Heartfield in self-defense very early on in the story). However, I also get the sense the Richard Wright wants to unite his readers against the racist atrocities in America by creating such an emotionally invigorating piece of work. The last scene of Mann desperately scanning around him for signs of help while he gets dragged out of a black-run cafe (I think it was a cafe? It's not very clear) to get executed, specifically, aims to motivate "Down by The Riverside's" readers to be less complacent in the growing civil rights movement.

                Up until his death, Mann submits to all the things that white men order him to do. Even when his pregnant wife had just passed away at the Red Cross, Mann had no time to grieve before a white man asked, and essentially forced him, to join the flood rescue efforts. This compliance is a form of self-preservation for the protagonist, who realizes that responding "no" to the white characters' requests would most likely lead to a much worse fate than saying "yes". However, once Mann realizes and fully accepts that he will be killed for fighting back against Heartfield (i.e. "They goin t kill me", pg. 97), there is no longer a need for him to worry about self-preservation. When dragged out to his execution tent by two white soldiers, he decides to run "Right thu them trees!", as "He would die before he would let [the soldiers] kill him" (pg. 102). Despite the soldiers claiming Mann "shouldntve run" after brutally shooting him as he fled, the protagonist probably had more control over his autonomy in this final scene than he had at any point prior when a white character was telling him what to do. If Mann was going to die anyways (which Wright heavily implies by adding a repeating sense of false hope in "Down by The Riverside"), he at least died on his terms. This notion could be applicable in the grand scheme of the civil rights movement as well, where taking action against American racism often seemed to be terrifying and impossible. Wright implies that continuously complying to racist norms would never lead to any social progression; rather, it is necessary to retaliate and protest in order for America to no longer function under the terms set by racist white people.

                Right after Mann is publicly accused for his "crimes" (which were self-defense and boat theft he hadn't even done), he not only focuses on taking action himself (by plotting to run away and make his death messier for everyone involved), but also on what the crowd around him does. He scans the faces of the people in the black-run cafe where soldiers were running in to grab and "trial" him, and the scene became clear: Mann "knew that [the black people in the cafe] would not and could not help him, even as he in times past had not helped other black men being taken by the white folks to their death". This feeling of helplessness elucidates another aspect of Ricard Wright's argument, which is that obedience disrupts the unity that can protect people against a common evil. Mann notes that he wasn't receiving help because of the systemic issues preventing black people from protesting the unfair killing of other black people; it was simply too risky to speak out against white soldiers. This fear made it impossible for Mann to get a fair treatment and proper trial, and thus he had an undeserved death with no one to help him.

                The conclusion of "Down by The Riverside" was Richard Wright's way of stating that obedience would not be beneficial to the civil rights movement. Instead, he emphasized how a sense of non-complacency and protest could lead to increased unity, which could help fight against the norms of racist America. By exposing the horror of a southern flood near a racist Red Cross Hospital, Wright managed to deliver a broader message about what the civil rights movement should focus on so that situations like Manns' would be less prevalent.

The Split: How Slavery Forced Black Americans Into Living a Double Life

             Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is associated with the end of a bloody Civil War and subsequently the institution of slavery---11 seceding states were introduced back into the union with the idea that equality would reign supreme between them. However, this supposed "blank slate" for former-slaves did nothing to prevent the continual exploitation and struggle of black Americans. Notably, no restitution was provided to the people who had, for centuries, been prevented from freely utilizing all the advantages of the white American man (i.e. voting, owning property, rights to autonomy, etc.). Thus, black Americans were forced to squeeze into any crevice of western society that accepted them (a niche, perhaps). The Blue Vein Society in Charles Waddell Chesnut's "The Wife of His Youth" probably best exemplify this phenomenon.

          For argument's sake, I'll assume that there were two niches that former-slaves most often had to choose between: assimilation into white culture, or into black communities that would more readily accept them. The contrast is evident here, as choosing to assimilate into white America was often a fruitless endeavor; white supremacists were going to treat black people horrifically regardless of their actions. The Blue Vein Society was thus a strange mix between these two niches (it was a community that readily accepted certain black people, but that also promoted racist white beliefs), and so the organization seems very counter-intuitive to the current-day reader. The Blue Veins' ideals conflicted with the prosperity and well-being of its own members, as it promoted a physical characteristic and lineage which none of them could achieve. Although not explicitly stated, this issue is Mr. Ryder's (the protagonist's) primary concern by the story's climax. He must come to grips with the fact that he was idolizing an unachievable version of himself.

        Slavery is undoubtedly the heaviest chain restraining Mr. Ryder from achieving "whiteness". In a sense, he deals with a form of cognitive dissonance. His definition of "proper" involves marrying pale-skinned women like Molly Dixon with formal vernaculars, yet Eliza Jane is the opposite embodiment of this. It's obvious that the protagonist knows this fact, because he feels the need to gain approval from his lighter-skinned peers that he is making the right decision by rekindling a relationship with "the wife of his youth." Because of the strong relations he formed as a young adult (and perhaps a sense of morality), Mr. Ryder realizes the impossibility in not "acknowledging" his first wife. It's unclear whether the protagonist is happy about re-meeting his former spouse, but he knows that reforming their connection is inevitable.

        Evidently, Eliza Jane is Chesnut's attempt at a metaphor for slavery's repercussions---an institution so strong that even when shattered it left bits and pieces scattered in the lives of black Americans after the Civil War. "The Wife of His Youth" doesn't imply that it was impossible for freed slaves to form a revised identity in response to the changing world, but rather that it is illogical to assume that slavery's repercussions will forever remain hidden. Eventually, as Eliza Jane (a metaphor for slavery's repercussions) kept searching, she found her way into Mr. Ryder's life. Thus, African-Americans' course of recovery from slavery is not a linear process. Chesnut sees it more as a search for integration into a racist society, with constant interruptions from what remains of the institution of slavery.