Du Bois Book

I spoke to Phil some last night and I am very excited that we believe we can get our book done by March; we talked about what publishers to go with and how we could present it to schools and college faculties across the country. Our work, as noted before, is a reader: W.E.B. Du Bois and Religion: A Brief History with Documents (Forward by Edward J. Blum).  Co-edited with Phillip Luke Sinitiere, this is a collection of primary sources that reflect Du Bois’s thoughts on faith, spirituality, and the political implications of religion.  Documents include those that address religion from a sociological perspective, religious artwork, and spiritual fiction, among others.  This collection also includes a timeline of Du Bois’s life, bibliography, and study questions. One document that I intend on drafting an essay around looks at his political nature. Being a black intellectual, Du Bois grew frustrated that the American plight did not include the blacks. Thus, he like so many learned individuals, sought and admired the greatness of the Soviets, especially under the leadership of Josef Stalin.

In his eulogy drafted shortly after Stalin’s death, Du Bois praises a man who brought faith, confidence, and respectability to a proud nation. Du Bois, as did FDR, highly respected Stalin. I have long found that history books have been kind to Stalin; he killed more people than Hitler, he brought an end to freedom for many living in Eastern Europe, and he challenged the ideology of America until his death; it was his ideological challenge that most interested Du Bois. By the death of Stalin, DuBois had lost faith in American democracy. He claimed that it had failed the American negro….There was no faith in democracy or capitalism. The following document is one that I have used in my class before; it is a powerful piece. I got excited reflecting on Du Bois while editing and writing about this document for our book today.

Josef Stalin was a great man; few other men of the twentieth century approach his stature. He was simple, calm and courageous. He seldom lost his poise; pondered his problems slowly, made his decisions clearly and firmly; never yielded to ostentation nor coyly refrained from holding his rightful place with dignity. He was the son of a serf, but stood calmly before the great without hesitation or nerves. But also — and this was the highest proof of his greatness — he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.

Stalin was not a man of conventional learning; he was much more than that; he was a man who thought deeply, read understandingly and listened to wisdom, no matter whence it came. He was attacked and slandered as few men of power have been; yet he seldom lost his courtesy and balance; nor did he let attack drive him from his convictions nor induce him to surrender positions which he knew were correct. As one of the despised minorities of man, he first set Russia on the road to conquer race prejudice and make one nation out of its 140 groups without destroying their individuality.

His judgement of men was profound. He early saw through the flamboyance and exhibitionism of Trotsky, who fooled the world, and especially America. The whole ill-bread and insulting attitude of liberals in the U.S. today began with our naive acceptance of Trotsky’s magnificent lying propaganda, which he carried around the world. Against it, Stalin stood like a rock and moved neither right nor left, as he continued to advance toward a real socialism instead of the sham Trotsky offered.

Three great decisions faced Stalin in power and he met them magnificently; first, the problem of the peasants, then the West European attack, and last the Second World War. The poor Russian peasant was the lowest victim of tsarism, capitalism and the Orthodox Church. He surrendered the Little White Father easily; he turned less readily but perceptibly from his icons; but his kulaks clung tenaciously to capitalism and were near wrecking the revolution when Stalin risked a second revolution and drove out the rural bloodsuckers.

Then came intervention, the continuing threat of attack by all nations, halted by the Depression, only to be re-opened by Hitlerism. It was Stalin who steered the Soviet Union between Scylla and Charybdis; Western Europe and the US were willing to betray her to fascism, and then had to beg her aid in the Second World War. A lesser man than Stalin would have demanded vengeance for Munich, but he had the wisdom to ask only justice for his fatherland. This Roosevelt granted but Churchill held back. The British Empire proposed first to save itself in Africa and southern Europe, while Hitler smashed the Soviets.

The Second Front dawdled, but Stalin pressed unfalteringly ahead. He risked the utter ruin of socialism in order to smash the dictatorship of Hitler and Mussolini. After Stalingrad the Western World did not know whether to weep or applaud. The cost of victory to the Soviet Union was frightful. To this day the outside world has no dream of the hurt, the loss and the sacrifices. For his calm, stern leadership here, if nowhere else, arises the deep worship of Stalin by the people of all the Russias.

Then came the problem of Peace. Hard as this was to Europe and America, it was far harder to Stalin and the Soviets. The conventional rulers of the world hated and feared them and would have been only too willing to see the utter failure of this attempt at socialism. At the same time the fear of Japan and Asia was also real. Diplomacy therefore took hold and Stalin was picked as the victim. He was called in conference with British Imperialism represented by its trained and well-fed aristocracy; and with the vast wealth and potential power of America represented by its most liberal leader in half a century.

Here Stalin showed his real greatness. He neither cringed nor strutted. He never presumed, he never surrendered. He gained the friendship of Roosevelt and the respect of Churchill. He asked neither adulation nor vengeance. He was reasonable and conciliatory. But on what he deemed essential, he was inflexible. He was willing to resurrect the League of Nations, which had insulted the Soviets. He was willing to fight Japan, even though Japan was then no menace to the Soviet Union, and might be death to the British Empire and to American trade. But on two points Stalin was adamant: Clemenceau’s “Cordon Sanitaire” must be returned to the Soviets, whence it had been stolen as a threat. The Balkans were not to be left helpless before Western exploitation for the benefit of land monopoly. The workers and peasants there must have their say.

Such was the man who lies dead, still the butt of noisy jackals and the illbred men of some parts of the distempered West. In life he suffered under continuous and studied insult; he was forced to make bitter decisions on his own lone responsibility. His reward comes as the common man stands in solemn acclaim.

W.E.B DuBois, March 16, 1953.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Du Bois Book

  1. I am still amazed at how my teachers gave Stalin so little attention in my youth. And, I am not sure I would know this about Du Bois if I did not read it here. I do see his perspective.

  2. I am not surprised by Du Bois’ comment about Stalin. He was a huge anti-Semite, as was Stalin. His judgement of peoples character was pretty bad. How about the evil of his suggestion the Chinese submit to the Japs as saviours? Du Bois was as immature as Gandhi in calling Hitler “friend”. Neither were serious intellects, should we be surprised. The legion of slobbering Mahatma Gandhi fans forget he suggested Jewish submission to Hitler as salvation. The man played himself as an intellect but in fact was a terrible judge of character and a stupendous fraud. I’ll let go the illiteracy in pronouncing his own name. I dont think he knew better, and wouldnt admit it. When he heard of the purges of Jews by Stalin his responses were arrogant, naive and I think exposed his stupidity of world conflicts. Or stubbornness of the delusional, if you are feeling kind. A conflicted man at best, quite frankly , a traitor to his country. There is little to salvage of the man that doesnt make him sound the fool. I think he was hell bent on hating anything Western even when he disagreed with the other side. When you read of what he said about his own child when it was born, it explains much of the likely mental disorder he may have battled with and could be used to excuse his “position” on conflicts around the world. To a degree , of course.

  3. Denton: “I am not surprised by Du Bois’ comment about Stalin. He was a huge anti-Semite, as was Stalin.”

    This is an interesting comment as it relates to Du Bois; I have gone through countless sources via archival work and have not come across any viable evidence; if you do not mind, will you share your source? This would be of great use to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s