Ohio History Journal

ESSAY AND COMMENT                                                213

 

sued, however, when the ruling class was so divided and inept or so com-

mitted to the use of sporadic, unsuccessful force that it was unable to re-

spond creatively to the challenges in time to produce peaceful reform.

The new youth class, if indeed it can be defined as such, presents a chal-

lenge to society to put into practice the best of its social, political, and re-

ligious ideals. Nevertheless, the youth class itself faces formidable tests.

Youth always has been present in society, and it customarily has passed on

into middle age only to accept and defend the status quo. Can the con-

cerned young people of the youth class of the present win democratic re-

forms that will benefit the youth of unborn generations? Can they bring

to fruition in society at large the ideals of peace, honesty, equality, freedom,

and justice which they champion and which, after all, they have borrowed,

from the dreams of past generations? In short, now that the youth class like

the child in Hans Christian Andersen's The Emperor's New Clothes has

been willing to say to its elders "The Emperor has no clothes on," will it

be able to make him (society) some suitable ones and convince him to

wear them?

DONALD E. PITZER

Indiana State University, Evansville

 

On Negro History

 

Negro history has lately become fashionable in the United States. The

"true Negro," however, is still absent from our history books. White preju-

dice has been part of our history writing without our realizing it. We have

omitted the Negro from our story because we did not know much about

him, and we were not aware of our mistreatment of him. This lack of

knowledge was an integral part of our prejudice that this is a white man's

country.

A few historians, a few school boards and teachers, nevertheless, have had

the grace to do something to change course. Textbooks are being "revised."

But tile trouble is the revisions are not at all as thorough as they ought to

ble, and some day will be. Revisionists think of their job largely in terms of

putting more Negroes into historical narratives. For example, Crispus At-

tucks, a "Negro" who fell in the Boston Massacre, is now famous. We put

Negroes in the battle of New Orleans, the battle of Lake Erie, and even in

the Ohio Indian wars (on the Indians' side) and think our job is done. It

isn't.

It is not so much the Crispus Attuckses who have been left out of history

as it is that Negro life in general has been omitted. For example, there are

scores of history books about Ohio relating many, many pleases of her story

--the Indian wars, the statehood movement, canals, Civil War, railroads,

et al., but the Negro was largely excluded from equal participation in such

events. He was forbidden by law from voting, from being a soldier in the

• 1
 

214                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

militia, from going to white men's schools, from going to white men's poor

houses, from taking a part in dozens of other "normal" things. The fact that

the Negro was fully conscious of these discriminations is not told. That he

organized societies, held meetings, and drew up petitions to protest these

abuses is not told. The white reaction to their activities is not told.

Consider the Underground Railroad, that pre-Civil War institution by

which fugitive slaves found their way to "freedom." Consider how many

white folks and white stations in Ohio were alleged to exist to help the

slave on his way to Canada. But consider what is not said about the fugitive:

that he must not stop or stay in Ohio (he was not wanted) ; that it was the

free Negroes in Ohio who were alerted to provide help, much more than it

was the whites; that Negroes took the risks of helping Negroes in the face

of "law enforcement"; yes, that Negroes even financed the "panting" fugi-

tive.

Consider again the facts of Emancipation of the slaves during the Civil

War. Lincoln is called the "Great Emancipator"; the war is said to have

been fought, in part, to free the slave. But what is not told? It is not said

what Lincoln did in order to make Emancipation acceptable to northerners

who feared the Freedmen might migrate North. It is not said that the moti-

vation for millions of northern whites favoring Emancipation was to punish

the South for starting the war. Rebels must suffer financial loss. Slave own-

ers must be deprived of their property rights and be forced to keep the

Negroes in the South--and in a free condition. Emancipation was an act of

war, along with attack by armies and guns and devastation.

Who can ever realize what the newspapers have done to the Negro for

over one hundred years of "reporting" in thousands of Ohio cities and

towns? Even the news was "segregated." If a lawbreaker were white, he was

sometimes referred to by name and title, but never by color. If he were

black, he was called "colored," "negro," "darkey," "nigger," "Sambo,"

"Pompey," and so forth. There were two categories of delinquents and

criminals: "people" and Negroes; and it was the Negro who was accused of

or convicted of being drunk, boisterous, stealing chickens, and other "Ne-

gro" offenses. As white people read this "news" the feeling was created and

affirmed time and time again that the Negro was less law-abiding than the

white, or at least got caught oftener.

These examples are but a few of the thousands that can be cited. We

white historians have helped create the legend that the Negro is a second-

class citizen. We have left the true Negro out of the story we have told to

many generations of white children. Let us realize what this has done to our

Negro fellow citizens and do our best to write history of the American

people based on a wider frame of reference, instead of constricted by preju-

dice.

RANDOLPH C. DOWNES

University of Toledo

(The editor welcomes essays and comments on topics of current or historical

interest to appear in this section of Ohio History.)

• 2