Sparkling Gems of Race Knowledge Worth Reading Part 12

There are evils we must strangle, There are enemies we must fight, Cruel foes most fierce and active Keeping back the good and right.

We must all be up and at them Meet them here and meet them there; Brothers, fathers ever active, Women diligent in prayer.

[Ill.u.s.tration: EDWARD SEABROOK, SAVANNAH, GA.

Steams.h.i.+p pilot, Atlantic Coast]

RACE NAME--WHAT SHALL IT BE?

OPINION OF H. C. C. ASTWOOD, CAMBRIDGEPORT, Ma.s.s.

The controversy going on regarding the particular term by which to designate the race is important and of general interest. After reading all that has been said upon the subject up to date, I must conclude that the logic and the facts are with the "Colored American."

The word "Afro-American" is simply an individual fad of recent construction, which has been generally used by some to designate the race without stopping to think that it is really out of place and can have no significance at all as far as the race is concerned in this country. The word "African" or "Negro" may be applied in a general way to the native-born African and his descendants or to the Negro of Africa, because of the intense blackness of color, but the "Afro-American" race does not now nor ever did exist. It is argued that the German-American, the Irish-American, and the Anglo-American are distinctly racial lines, and for that reason the "Afro-American"

must be applied to the race of African descent in America.

The conditions are not the same and the facts are against the argument. Let us a.n.a.lyze the different thousands of German, Irish, French, Dutch, and Italian nationalities who come to our sh.o.r.es annually. They form a distinct nationality within themselves, and as long as they retain their nationality they are German, French, and so on; but as soon as they become naturalized they become German-American, French-American, and so on; but their descendants born here are not German-Americans or French-Americans or Dutch-Americans; they are simply Americans, and nothing more. This is not the condition of the colored race in this country. I am of the opinion that it would be difficult to find a hundred native-born Africans in the United States; hence nationality is extinct. The ten millions of colored people in this country are native-born Americans, who never have had any other nationality, and cannot, therefore, be cla.s.sed as anything else but Americans. If you wish to designate them because of their color, you cannot use a false term. They are not Africans nor Negroes, and there is no such a race as the Afro-American race known in the world. The particular race cannot be known otherwise than the "colored race," or, if you apply the nationality, the "Colored American." I don't think that the matter admits of argument, and the intelligent gathering of colored women who a.s.sembled in Was.h.i.+ngton knew exactly what they were doing and applied the correct term to themselves.

The editor of the "Colored American" is correct in the stand taken, and is supported by the well-thinking colored people of the entire country. The word "Afro-American" grew out of a freak at Chicago, and is only generally used by the "Age" and a few others; and as far as its application is concerned, it can never be acceptable, and will die a natural death, without even a struggle to smother. I am sure that this will elicit a storm of ridicule; but be this as it may, the word "Afro" and the word "Negro" can never be forced upon an American, regardless of his color, without his consent, and I stand ready to maintain my position in the premises based upon sound reason and common sense.

OPINION OF T. M'CANTS STEWART, NEW YORK CITY.

I invariably use the term "Afro-American" to designate our race residing in the United States. No stronger article has come under my eyes than the one which recently appeared from the pen of Prof.

DuBois, showing that our term "Afro-American" can only be adhered to as an ark of refuge from the term "Negro," which is too apt to be written with a small "n" and too frequently with two "g's."

We are seeking by our term to designate a race, not a locality, and therein lies the difficulty. If a person should refer to Lobengula's son as an African, he would be correct, so far as fixing his habitat; but if an inquirer should be as great an interrogation point as Li Hung Chang, and should desire to know more about Lobengula, he would properly ask: "But to which one of the African races does he belong?"

And the answer would be: "He is a Negro." Now if Lobengula should come to reside in the United States, he could be properly called an "Afro-American" (but this is a very indefinite designation), meaning a native of Africa residing in America. To be strictly accurate, we would call him a Negro Afro-American. We have Italo-American, Franco-American, German-American, Russo-American, Spanish-American, but each of the terms covers an individual who is of foreign birth.

These terms are not applied to the children of immigrants; at any rate, these children do not so describe themselves. Even where there is amalgamation between any two of these race varieties, no name is sought to cover the mixture of blood. These children call themselves Americans, and if you press for a blood a.n.a.lysis, you will be told that they are Americans of English and French descent, or some other descent, and if you ask for the name of their race, they will say: "We are Caucasians."

There goes an Italo-American. He is an Italian (born in Italy) who now resides in America. That is the limit of this term. If two or more distinct races were inhabiting Italy, that would be a very indefinite term; but as only one race covers that land, the term is definite.

There goes an Afro-American. When such a man is pointed out he should be a native of Africa residing in America; but the term as applied to him does not convey conclusive information to the scientist. He desires to know something more definite; and if the person is of black complexion and woolly hair, we say that he is a Negro Afro-American.

No escape from this logic. But if one should say, "I am not a Negro; I have the blood of both races in my veins. What will you call me?" I answer: "Why, you are an American." If you push me for a scientific term to fix your blood relations.h.i.+p to other American race varieties, and if you spring from the blood of a black and the blood of a white person, I would call you a "Negro-American," since your blood is a mixture of that of those Africans called Negroes and that of the white Americans; but if, like the great Bishop Payne, the blood of three races (including the Indian) courses through your veins, then you are a Negro Indo-American.

It is difficult for us to get a scientific name. We are a mixed-blooded animal; we have no distinct race, no race name. The only people who have any right to establish race names and define them are the ethnologists. They have the human race divided into several distinct cla.s.ses. If there is no houseroom in any cla.s.s for the man of several different bloods, then we must get a new name. But certain principles must guide us. We cannot escape them without incurring the censure of such scientific minds as Prof. DuBois.

While I agree with Prof. DuBois that our term "Afro-American" lacks precision and is somewhat high sounding, yet I prefer it, because it rids us of the word "n.i.g.g.e.r," and it has within itself an element of dignity and solidity which helps to promote aspiration in ourselves and to command respectful mention from others. And I think that the name is growing in use. I find it in a late standard dictionary and I notice that public speakers and writers in our best American publications are using it. But, although I rejoice in the fact, I cannot stand against the logic of the scholar who argues that the term cannot be defended upon scientific principles.

OPINION OF P. BUTLER THOMPKINS, NEW YORK.

In the last edition of the "Age" Prof. DuBois argues at considerable length why we should be called "Negroes," and not "Afro-Americans." I read his article with much interest, because the Professor advanced the best reasons why we should be called "Afro-Americans." He admits that the term "colored" is a misnomer, and therefore meaningless.

The term "Negro" was not broad enough even to include all the inhabitants of Africa. All three of the great races were, from days immemorial, represented in Africa; but these were not then, nor are they now, known as "Negroes," but "Africans," subdivided into families and tribes. Those families that were known as true Negroes dwell between the Tropic of Cancer on the north and the equator on the south, and between the Nile (extremely north) and the Atlantic Ocean.

These were divided into three cla.s.ses--viz., true "Negroes,"

"Negroids," and the "Negrillos." What say we of that other part of the great Hamitic family not known as "Negroes?" Were all of the slaves deported to America from that particular territory? If not, can we say that they were all Negroes? Nay, but they were all Africans.

The Professor next hastens into the middle of his subject. "Where does 'Afro-American' come in?" he asks; and then replies: "Awkwardly." In reply, let me say that nothing is "awkward" that is right; the user may be awkward. Says he: "It may not be so objectionable when applied to some national gathering." We have in America one great national gathering of Afro-Americans numbering some ten million or more. The Professor knows very well that it is not fair to argue from the general to the particular. The "Old Auntie in Hackensack" is not the subject. She is a member of the Afro-American family. Children generally take the name of their parents by birth or by adoption.

Don't refuse to call a thing by its right name because it is "awkward," for the name is not "awkward," but the tongue that handles it. We have a similar case in G.o.d's Word. The Gileadites took the pa.s.sage of Jordan and adopted a distinct watchword by which everyone of their number could be known. The Ephraimites, who desired to pa.s.s over the river, were required to say the word "s.h.i.+bboleth," which, if said properly, would signify that they were Gileadites. The Ephraimites could not p.r.o.nounce it correctly, so they could not pa.s.s over, but were slain. This word "s.h.i.+bboleth" was "awkward" to the Ephraimites; but not to the Gileadites, because they had trained themselves to say it. So must we train ourselves to say the right name, "Afro-American."

In the second place, the Professor objects to the appellation "Afro-American" because, says he: "The adjectives 'Irish' or 'German'

or 'Swedish,' which are sometimes used to designate certain cla.s.ses, refer always to race rather than to country, and never to either of the great world divisions." This may be true in a sense, but we beg to offer an alternative. There were many of us brought from those families or tribes in Africa which were not known as "Negroes," for the Negroes, as we have shown, were only a remnant of the great African, or Hamitic, race.

In the third place the Professor objects to the term "Afro-American"

because, says he: "This name would seek to separate us from our kindred in the land of our fathers." This kind of reasoning is what we call _reductio ad absurdum_, for just the reverse of what he says is true. To say "Afro-American" is to reunite us to our forefathers, both by blood and language. It tells, whence we came and where we are.

There is no other term in language, thought, or reason that fits in and at the same time covers the ground so completely as "Afro-American." "Let us be Negroes, let us be one in blood," says he.

We can't be what we are not. How can we be one in blood when our blood has been crossed a thousand times?

But we all can be Afro-Americans, because we all were of Africa and now are of America. In other words, our forefathers were Africans by birth and became Americans by adoption. We are Africans by descent and Americans both by birth and adoption. This addition, Africans plus Americans, equals Afro-Americans. We conclude, therefore, that the term "Negro," although honorable and significant, is too narrow to be adopted as a national appellation. We need a name that will include every man that came from Africa, regardless of the section or territory from which he came, and that name is "African." We want a name that will include every American citizen who has a drop of Negro blood in his or her veins, let them be as white as snow or as black as soot, and that name is "Afro-American."

THE NATION'S DUTY TO THE NEGRO.

BY BISHOP PETTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

THE NEGRO AS A SLAVE.

In order to define the duty of the nation to the Negro we must first notice the relations.h.i.+p existing between the Negro and the nation. For two hundred and seventy-six years we have inhabited this country, and, whether as slaves or as freemen, I say here, without fear of successful contradiction, that we have done more to enhance the wealth of this country, in proportion to our numbers, than any other race in America. The Negro as a slave was docile and obedient. He was harmless to his master--yea, one white woman was not afraid to live alone on her farm with a hundred Negro men as her servants. They frequently did so, and were never harmed, notwithstanding the number of Negroes who have been lynched since under the accusation of unbecoming conduct. In other words, he made a good slave, if such a thing as a good slave be possible.

THE NEGRO AS A COMMON LABORER.

As for this great Southland, the largest portion of her wealth is but the product of the black man's labor. Cotton is the chief staple of America, and when to this we add sugar and iron we have the heft of Southern wealth--and the brawny hand of the Negro produces at least three-fourths of these commodities. It was his hand chiefly that felled the mighty forest of this Southland; it was his hand that dug out and laid these railroads, taking away the old stagecoach and making pleasant and rapid transit possible; it was his shoulder that carried the mortar hod to erect these palatial cities; it was the sweat from the Negro's brow that has made Georgia the Empire State of the South; it was Negro labor that made it possible for the Exposition to be held in Atlanta. Go where you will, from Was.h.i.+ngton to the gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Ohio River, and almost every acre of land and object of interest you behold bears the impress of Negro labor, industry, and skill. Looking from your car window on either side most of the beautiful farms that you see were cleared and are tilled by the Negro; and most of the beautiful residences you have pa.s.sed were built, painted, and kept in order by Negroes. All of those beautiful, flowered lawns show Negro industry. The glittering iron rails which led you on lightning express to this city were laid by Negro hands after he had tunneled the mountains, leveled the hills, and filled the hollows. And if those iron rails were made South and the Negro did not forge them, it was because the boss had an acute attack of colorphobia and gave the job to some nondecitizenized, ready-to-work emigrant.

Some people used to say that the Negro was lazy, and that if freed he would perish. I have traveled all over this country and through many others, and I have seen thousands of tramps, but I have as yet met but one first-cla.s.s Negro tramp, and he was in London; therefore I concluded that he had strayed from his race, and had learned the trade from the white people. I have also learned that at the great national tramp convention recently held in New York not a single Negro was present. True it is that we find too many idle Negroes in the towns and cities "holding up the corners." Well, Dr. Price once said that the Negro had to work so hard in the hot sun during slavery that a great many of them promised themselves that if ever they got free they would take a good rest. The Doctor concluded that this idle cla.s.s were making good their promise. But the true cause of this apparent idleness lies far back of this. It arises partially out of the very distressing condition of the cotton planters of the South. The Negroes have been so industrious for the last decade that they have overflooded the cotton markets of the world, and consequently so reduced the price of this staple that the landlords are not disposed to feed hirelings through the winter, and the colored people, who have been fed from the stores under the mortgage system, getting all their food on time at two prices, and paying for the same in cotton in the fall at half price, find themselves in the end in debt and greatly discouraged. Hence thousands of would-be industrious young men float into the cities and towns looking for jobs, in order to clothe themselves for the winter. They find every position occupied, and float on as apparent idlers.

One other cause of the seeming laziness on the part of the Negro is that, as a rule, the cruel sentiment of the country has closed the doors of every machine shop, cotton mill, and similar factories to all persons of color. Again, almost every cla.s.s of labor which once was done by hand is now being turned off by the crank of invention. The old-fas.h.i.+oned washboard has been turned into a steam laundry and the old spinning wheel has given place to the American cotton mills. The same is true along all lines of common labor. The Negro, however, either by contact or in the schools of theory, has learned something about applied science, and as his old trades have been elevated and dignified by machinery, he would like to be elevated with them. The washerwoman would like now to enter the steam laundry, since it has captured her business; the blacksmith would like to enter the foundry, where they are now molding the plowshares he once made with his hammer; and where the Negro is capable of following his old trade to a more elevated station we believe it the duty of the nation to allow him to do so. While we entertain no feelings against foreigners, we believe these to be the birth-right of American citizens, and therefore appeal to the sentiment of this nation and ask that every door to foundries, factories, and machine shops of every kind be opened alike to Negroes and whites. We ask that you give us a bench, an anvil, or a loom by the side of our white brother, with equal wages; then, if we do not prove to be as skillful workmen as they, after a fair trial, turn us away. This is the duty of the nation to the Negro. I have always been a protectionist, but if every cotton mill is to be run by immigrants from across the sea, while our sons and daughters, who are black and poor, but to the manner born--true and patriotic American citizens--are to be refused employment in the factories of this country, I would advise the Negroes to vote for whatever party may represent low tariff or free trade for all fabricated material.

THE NEGRO AS A SOLDIER.

From the days of Was.h.i.+ngton to the days of Grant there was scarcely a decisive battle fought upon American soil in which the Negro did not partic.i.p.ate in the defense of the stars and stripes. Though much of his heroism has been forgotten because it was not published and commented upon in American history, yet a few great men, such as Gens.

Lee, Jackson, Sherman, and Grant, have been generous enough to hand down to us in their private diaries the valuable service rendered the government by these black soldiers on the b.l.o.o.d.y field of battle.

Especially in the late war did the government learn to recognize the Spartanlike heroism of the Negro. He was always ready to charge and the last man to retreat. He was the first to lift his hand and shed his blood when the colonies were attacked by the British in Boston; and Gen. Sherman, in his "History of the War," says that the last man wounded in the late rebellion was a Negro, and the last man who fired a gun to close the unfortunate war was a Negro, upon the banks of the Rio Grande. Hence the Negro has a record that any race might envy.

THE NEGRO AS A CITIZEN.

As a citizen, the Negro is peaceable, una.s.suming, and friendly toward all races. He has studied to know his duty as a const.i.tuent of the government, and does all in his power to perform the same. He is always looking and praying for better times, but he never organizes a labor union and goes out on a strike to make times better.

He is rapidly gaining wealth and intelligence. He is making every effort to keep pace with the advancing tide of Christian civilization, and the census of this country shows that he is making progress on every line. Remember, too, that the most of these men were born slaves and started out with nothing, not even good advice, but with all odds--even their color, their previous condition, and public sentiment--against them. Remember also that only one Negro out of a thousand has had as yet an equal chance in the race of life, for freedom of body, with every avenue leading toward the heights of unqualified freedom of will and of purpose closed, and he left standing uncovered and exposed to the worst elements of a superior race, is worse (if anything can be worse) than slavery. And yet, with all that, the Negro has proven to be equal to all occasions as a citizen, and, with superior zeal to any race, he has seized every opportunity and entered every door of usefulness that opened to him.

Come walk with me through these halls and let us see his higher life and aims. See the walls bedecked with pictures of Negro homes and other real estate that would compare very favorably with a majority of the homes of the white men of this country; and this is not a fair exhibit of the progress of the race, for not one-thousandth part of the Negro wealth is on exhibition here. You find him an inventor, a painter, a sculptor, and no mean artist. He can make tools, invent machinery, and knows how to use them. He understands the sciences, and can apply them in the daily vocations of life. He has made an earnest effort to prepare himself for the responsibilities of citizens.h.i.+p.