Viewing page 13 of 23

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

200 THE CRISIS

phrases indicative of the fact that, not being able to win the greater battle, they are going to get what they can out of the defeat. Among the accessible remains are charity and offices. To get charity and offices the influence of white folks is necessary. This influence can best be gained by a cheerful, sunny attitude. It is, therefore, common among us to see a man who has not the slightest faith in the white race, or in the eventual triumph of justice among men, turn from his frank counsels of despair made to us to "Good-morning, sir! Yes, sir; all is well! If we folks do our duty, sir, we know you'll do yours, sir! Thank you, sir," and he pockets his substantial check, remarking, "Optimism pays!"
  On the other hand, there is the colored pessimist. He is in reality no pessimist at all. He is an optimist. He believes in men, white and black. He believes in justice. He says firmly: "The world that has conquered slavery and despotism can conquer war and race prejudice." He insists that the key to this victory is the Truth. He, therefore, insists on the Truth, that the Truth may make us free. He finds himself greeted by frowns and shrugs. His hearers are made uncomfortable by lynching statistics and figures; they shrink at the burden black folk bear; they wince at accusations of prejudice and injustice, and when at last he demands not alms but a friend, they shriek, "Social equality," and scamper away, warning the world against this anarchistic pessimist. But he's no pessimist. He is so optimistic that he even believes in these runaways and runs after them with the Truth.

LEE.

In a recent review of Mr. Thomas Nelson Page's life of Robert E. Lee in the New York Times we find the following sentence: "Of all the figures in history, it is he (Lee) who most nearly approaches Washington; in fact, there is little or nothing to choose between them except the fact that Lee failed."
  This statement is worth noting because it expresses a sentiment not uncommon to-day. Here are two generals, both well born, scrupulously honorable, brave and efficient. The only difference between them is that one was victorious, while the other was obliged in the end to surrender. One won, the other lost; that is all.
  In Memorial Hall, at Harvard University, are the names of the college graduates who fell in battle for the cause of the Union. Again and again has come the demand that with these names there be placed the names of the graduates who fell defending the Confederacy. Both were brave youths, the argument goes, both fought unselfishly. Why not give honor to both, since they only differed in that one lost and the other won in battle?
  Now, what is the significance of this doctrine which many Americans believe should be preached in literature and history and on the walls of a noble building erected in memory of the heroic dead? This, that if the youths who go forth into the world, fight honorably; if they bear defeat bravely, it makes no difference what side they take in the battle. They may fight for the right of the individual to control the natural resources of the earth, to destroy the forests, to impoverish the land, or they may fight for the conservation of such resources; no matter, so that they fight well. Like Washington, their choice may be to lead the army of republicanism, or like Lee, they may choose to lead the aristocracy to battle for the right of one man to hold another as his chattel; the wisdom of their choice is of no importance; "there is little or nothing to choose between the two;" both are singularly alike, both are worthy of equal praise.
  At this time of year, when we celebrate the birthdays of our two most famous Americans, let us denounce this philosophy in no uncertain terms. The choice that a man makes is his life. The present crisis faces every youthful spirit, and life for him is a failure or a success as he chooses "the good or evil side;" the side of spiritual, human progress, or the side of material, brutal enslavement. No sentiment can keep alive for long the names of those, however, honorable, who chose to fight with the forces of darkness. If they live, they live in opprobrium. Washington lives and Lincoln lives because each, at the crisis of his life, chose the side of progress and civilization. Lincoln saw the "irrepressible conflict" and stood for freedom; otherwise he would be as great a nonentity as his rival, Stephen A. Douglas. Washington lives because he believed that taxation without representation was tyranny; otherwise he would have been forgotten like - but who remembers the name of one of the gentlemen who drew their swords for King George?

HOMES.
The injustice toward colored people who want decent living conditions is almost unbelievable unless one comes face to face with the facts. The New York Times, which spares few opportunities to treat black folk unjustly, says in an editorial:
  "It is becoming necessary in the upper resident part of New York for the property owners in neighborhoods to enter into agreements to prohibit the occupancy of their dwellings by Negroes. This departure is not due to race prejudice or hatred for the Negro but for the protection of the neighborhood values against designing or ugly white men."
  Not a word for the colored family seeking a decent home; but if that family live in the slums and purlieus and let the surroundings teach their children crime and prostitution, then the holy horror of the Times and its ilk!  If black folk rush for decent homes at exorbitant rents is there sense or decency in trying to stop this by frantic appeals to race prejudice? In other and perfectly parallel cases the property owner suffers the inevitable without thought of appeal to human hatred. If property in Fifth Avenue becomes more valuable for business than for dwellings then the dwellings must go. If people indulge in senseless prejudice against their
[[image]]
A NEGRO HOME IN TEXAS