DuBois’s notion that every race has its contribution to the world struck me. Dubois argues this to directly counter Hegel, who as we all know is no fan of Africa or its descendants. Hegel, just as a refresher, was the philosopher who declared that the African diaspora is filled with children - undeveloped, naïve, almost-peoples - and that neither the continent nor its people have contributed to the history of the world. Nor could they, he expounded, because they lack the capacity.DuBoise, however, takes this argument and flips it on Hegel. As the child has its season in the cycle of life, so must the fully developed adult. That Africa* is still in the developmental stages is fine - perhaps the timing is not ideal to intellectuals such as DuBois - but even if Africa is still in its growing season, its matured future is implied.
I’ve decided that this can be taken a couple different ways. We can rejoice in Africa’s bright future, but we can also look into the length of its so-called infant state. Why is it taking Africa so long to develop and contribute to the world? Think about it for a minute, because this prolonged state of ‘childhood’ might not necessarily be a completely negative thing: what is one contributing factor to humans’, hippos’, flamingos’, gorillas’, and turtles’ awesomeness? It’s their incredible lifespan compared to other animals (okay, so maybe the examples are a little skewed since most of these animals are borderline endangered… does that say something about us? Eh, who cares. We’ve got the powers of medical science on our side! Right?). What I’m trying to say is the fact that the average human lives to be 50+ years old gives it great advantages. Although it takes a while to develop inside and outside the womb, once a human reaches maturity their impact level is great. S/he is self-aware, can reflect on her/his environment, and make changes/developments as needed within and without her/himself.
We take pity on children who grow up too fast. What’s even worse, and this is grossly stereotypical, people nowadays negatively view women who age too fast, whose beauty peaks earlier than others and whose wrinkles set in proportionately just as early. Since we’re talking in the realm of race, think on the physical aging differences between white folks, ‘black don’t crack’ folks (oh yes, I did), and the various Asian ethnicities.
All this to ask my question: Will Africa’s impact be larger than those we’ve seen of other races thus far? Since Africa has taken a longer time to charge its battery, won’t the laser beam be stronger than those who charged for a while and got trigger-happy a litter earlier?**
* African peoples will henceforth be implied along with this term.
** fancy clipart action making sense now??
EDIT: In the original post, I confused Herder and Hegel. If Herder's name comes up and I missed it in the edited-version, please excuse me. It should be Hegel.
I’m not sure that I would argue that “Africa’s” impact will be larger than those of the other races based on Du Bois' statement. I think that he chose to make this argument in order to put down Hegel’s limited view of blacks and their role within society. In doing so, he found a loop hole in Hegel’s logic which illuminated a fallacy within his logic relative to blacks. If all races/nations have to contribute something to society, then Africa must also have a contribution. The other nations contributed the following:
ReplyDeleteEnglish nation = constitutional liberty and commercial freedom
German nation = science and philosophy
Romance nations = literature and art
Africa = ?
But, Du Bois then goes on to say, “I will not say that the Negro race has as yet given no message to the world…however, the fact still remains that the full, complete Negro message of the whole Negro race has not as yet been given to the world.” What is necessary for this message to be realized? – “The development of these race groups, not as individuals, but as races” (112). I cannot say that blacks have not contributed anything of significance to society. Rather, I would argue that many, many contributions have been offered (think about the history/roots of music here in Memphis!), but unfortunately, those contributions have simply been ignored , overlooked, or stolen/transformed by the dominate, mainstream sectors of society which in the United States have traditionally been in the hands of upper class, white, men. In order for these contributions to be fully realized, those offering them must be first acknowledged as active forces present within our society. This is not only restrictive to blacks but to all minority groups who have faced varying degrees of oppression. All of these groups have made and will continue to make contributions to society, we just have make it our goal to ensure that everyone is given the chance to be seen and heard.
Mallory, I think one of the biggest issues in Hegel's argument, aside from those you already pointed out, is that it fails to recognize the value of the cultural, historical, and social complexity of the African populations that he was describing. In this since, Du Bois took aligns this notion of potential with a very euro-centric understanding of progression. Yes, technologically speaking, Africa was not as advanced. The absence of a strict class divide prevented the artistic proliferation associated with periods like the Renaissance. That being said, there is something nonetheless advanced about the pre-colonial African societies--there metaphysical, epistemological, and ontological frameworks are simply different than those found in Europe. This difference does not make them any less advanced. Although Du Bois was ready to align himself politically with Africa, he still placed the onus of Black progress on African-Americans, occluding the possibility for other Black populations to participate in this maturation. What does this say about Du Bois' own prejudices?
ReplyDelete