Anti-War on Pragmatic Grounds

Du Bois on War and Violence

Lee A. McBride III The College of Wooster

Abstract: W.E.B. Du Bois abhorred war, yet he was no pacifist. He writes that war is worse than hell, yet called for a “closing of ranks” - a position that has often been heralded as a paragon of black patriotism - during the two World Wars. On the one hand, he finds war objectionable, on the other hand, he is calling for Negroes to shed their blood abroad for a country that scorns them at home. Thus, at first glance, it appears that Du Bois is either holding inconsistent views or demonstrating an ambivalent/indecisive character. In this paper, I consider (i) Du Bois’s general abhorrence of war, (ii) Du Bois’s suspicion towards the non-violence movement, and (iii) the pragmatic considerations which govern such views. I argue that Du Bois’s position on war is prudent and commendable on pragmatic grounds.

It is no secret that W.E.B. Du Bois abhorred war and violence and was not shy in voicing his disdain. In Dusk of Dawn, he writes, “I think war is worse than hell, and that it seldom or never forwards the advance of the world” (302). Yet, Du Bois would not subscribe to the tenets of either the non-violence movement or the pacifist movement. While holding Mahatma Gandhi in high regard, Du Bois showed great suspicion toward Martin Luther King, Jr. and the non- violence movement in the United States. Moreover, he called for Black men to close ranks with their estranged White brethren during the two World Wars. Du Bois, who found war “worse than hell,” called for American Negroes to fight and shed their blood in distant lands for a country that openly scorned them at home. What shall we make of all of this? At first glance, it appears that Du Bois is either holding inconsistent views or demonstrating an ambivalent, indecisive character. In what follows, I consider (i) Du Bois’s general abhorrence of war, (ii) Du

Bois’s suspicion toward the non-violence movement, and (iii) the pragmatic considerations which govern such views. I argue that Du Bois’s position on war is prudent and commendable on pragmatic grounds.

1 War as Colonial Aggrandizement

Du Bois (1868-1963) was born in the shadows of the American Civil War, he lived through two World Wars, and, as a Black man in the United States, suffered the constant threat of physical violence in his own country. So, I believe it is safe to say that Du Bois was no stranger to war and violence. But this biographical information does not provide much insight into his abhorrence of war and violence.

In a collection of essays entitled Darkwater (1920), Du Bois draws our attention to the connection between economics, colonialism, and war. He writes, “It is colonial aggrandizement which explains, and alone adequately explains, the [first] World War” (Darkwater 65). As history bears out, armed fleets streamed out of the ports of the European powers – from the 15th century to the 18th century – intent on subjugating new lands for their respective homelands.

European men sought land, natural resources, and cheap labor. These items were found and exploited in Africa, Asia, and the Americas and centuries of prosperity ensued in Europe. This, of course, had lasting social and economic effects on these exploited lands and cultures. Hence,

Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English are still spoken in the Americas; English, French, and

Dutch in Africa, Asia, and Australia.

Du Bois argues that the first “World War was primarily the jealous and avaricious struggle for the largest share in exploiting darker races” (Darkwater 72). According to Du Bois, the initial dispute between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Serbian Empire provided a pretext for various European empires to enter into battle for the strength and prosperity provided by colonialism. The deeper conflict, according to Du Bois, was whether the Allied Powers

(Russia, France, and Britain) or the Central Powers (Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Turkey)

2 would control the exploitation of the darker races (Darkwater 72). Thus, colonial aggrandizement is revealed as the implicit motivation for the First World War

Understood in this way, war is depicted as a highly questionable endeavor. Du Bois maintains that most wars are driven by avaricious and pecuniary interests, rather than noble, altruistic, or egalitarian motives. On this view, war only benefits the strong and victorious.

Rather than liberating all people from poverty and tyranny, war has tended to establish or fortify the wealth and power of a few European nations and perpetuate the unabashed exploitation of particular subjugated peoples around the globe – especially, the darker peoples of the world.

Seeing war in this light, Du Bois finds war despicable. Neither the savagery nor loss of life could be justified for such causes. Resources which could be employed to better the situation of humankind are senselessly compromised in the interminable preparation for war.

From this, one might infer that Du Bois must be a strict pacifist. But that is not the case.

Du Bois openly condoned war on a few occasions, but only in what was perceived to be the most pressing of situations. If not pacifism, one might assume that Du Bois would stand behind the

Non-violence movement in the United States. That, too, would be a false assumption. Du Bois was neither a pacifist nor a supporter of the non-violence movement in the United States.

The Non-Violence Movement

Du Bois was aware that non-violent protest and civil disobedience had created vast social change in India. While he shows great respect for Mahatma Gandhi and his accomplishments,

Du Bois was quite skeptical that non-violent protest and civil disobedience could be an effectual mode of social change in the United States. In 1943, Du Bois wrote a short piece entitled

“Doubts Gandhi Plan.” Therein he says that the fasting of “a little brown man in India” was

3 world news only because fasting, prayer, sacrifice, and self-torture had been bred into the very bone of India for more than three thousand years (409). Du Bois suggests that such acts in the

United States would be regarded as “a joke or a bit of insanity” (409). He writes, “Our cultural patterns in the East and West differ so vastly, that what is sense in one world may be nonsense in the other. We cannot then blindly copy methods without thought and consideration” (409).

Du Bois was not enamored with Martin Luther King, Jr. and his application of non- violent civil disobedience.1 He, very simply, did not think that the same tactics employed by

Gandhi in India would work for American Negroes in the United States – especially, not in the

South. Du Bois writes, “No normal human being of trained intelligence is going to fight a man who will not fight back” (“Will the Great Gandhi Live Again?” 359). But, when dealing with wild beasts or savage men, the same methods do not seem prudent. To quote Du Bois, “To yield to the rush of the tiger is death, nothing less” (359).

Du Bois was not only concerned that the United States (or the South) was not properly conditioned for non-violent civil disobedience. He also questioned the leadership and planning of this non-violence movement. Take, for example, the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama

(“Crusader Without Violence” 361). Noting that hundreds of Negroes had suffered and lost their jobs due the Montgomery strike, Du Bois asks, “What program have King and his followers to offset this?” (“Crusader Without Violence” 362). In contrast, Du Bois points out that in addition to submitting in a nonviolent manner, Gandhi “followed a positive program to offset his negative refusal to use violence,” which included an economic program to oppose the exploitation of

Indian labor (362).

1 Du Bois died in 1963, just before the civil rights march on Washington. Perhaps his estimation of King would have been more favorable, if he had lived a few more years.

4 I believe that it is instructive to notice that Du Bois is not rejecting non-violence without rhyme or reason. Rather, Du Bois shows that he was concerned with very practical concerns.

He did not believe that American Negroes were disciplined and ready for systematic non-violent lawbreaking. And, perhaps more importantly, he was not convinced that non-violent civil disobedience was a good policy which would accomplish the ends of the American Negro. Du

Bois, at the time, held that agitation and publicity were the most promising methods of acheiving

Negro uplift (“Doubts Gandhi Plan” 410).

War and Democracy

As was mentioned previously, Du Bois found war despicable. Du Bois was, in principle, opposed to war, yet he condoned the two World Wars (Dusk of Dawn 252). If fact, Du Bois called for Black Americans to join their White countrymen in warding off the ominous threats that loomed on the horizon. In 1918, Du Bois writes:

That which the German power represents today spells death to the aspirations of

Negroes and all darker races for equality, freedom and democracy. Let us not

hesitate. Let us, while this war lasts, forget our special grievances and close our

ranks shoulder to shoulder with our own white fellow citizens and the allied

nations that are fighting for democracy (Dusk of Dawn 253-254).

Du Bois, here, shows a deep concern for the potential of the United States and conceptions of democracy and liberty for which it stood. This, of course, is ironic, since Negroes in the United

States were treated quite poorly at the time. While Negroes were denied many of the basic rights afforded to mature White male citizens, Du Bois thought it imperative to fight and toil in order to defend the prospect of democracy. He writes, “Our country is at war. The war is critical,

5 dangerous and world-wide. If this is our country, then this is our war. We must fight it with every ounce of blood and treasure” (Dusk of Dawn 254).

Du Bois’s willingness to go to war is surprising, especially considering his outspokenness against war and violence. Has he contradicted himself? Is he holding contrary or inconsistent propositions? I believe that Du Bois’s position is neither muddled nor inconsistent. As you will recall, I argued previously that Du Bois finds war despicable because it tends to be motivated by the greed and avarice of colonial aggrandizement. War, in such cases, intends to expand the wealth and power of a particular nation or empire. It would offer no relief to the exploitation of subjugated colonies. War, here, is not meant to liberate the darker peoples of the world. But what if war is motivated by the impulse to defend and preserve democracy? What if war is motivated by a concern for liberty, equality, and democracy? Du Bois writes, “when America entered the war I believed we would in reality fight for democracy including colored folk and not merely for war investments” (Dusk of Dawn 253). It seems that Du Bois was willing to condone war in cases where war is waged for a noble purpose (e.g., to stave off a pernicious threat to the democratic ideal) and offered the potential for the liberation of subjugated peoples.

That is not to say that Du Bois was untroubled by the violence of the World Wars. He did voice regret in having to resort to violence.2 Nevertheless, Du Bois supported the United

States’s involvement in the two World Wars, since he believed that they provided the opportunity for the darker peoples of the world to participate in a more democratic way of life.

In 1940, prior to the United States entry into World War II, Du Bois writes:

We may sadly admit today that the First World War did not bring us democracy.

Nor will the second. In neither war have we been cowards nor slackers. In

2 “I did not realize the full horror of war and its wide impotence as a method of social reform. Perhaps, despite words, I was thinking narrowly of the interest of my group and was willing to let the world go to hell, if the black man went free” (Dusk of Dawn 255).

6 neither war have we surrendered nor will we surrender our free right to think. We

close ranks again but only, now as then, to fight for democracy and democracy

not only for white folk but for yellow, brown, and black (“Closing Ranks Again”

Du Bois clearly and resolutely declares his willingness to close ranks once again in order to defend democracy and offer democracy to the subjugated peoples of the world.

Resources for Liberation

It appears that Du Bois is willing to go to great lengths to further democracy. He writes,

“Democracy is a method of realizing the broadest measure of justice to all human beings”

(Darkwater 153-154). Democracy, in this sense, is not only about heeding the cries of the poor and disenfranchised. It is not just about equal opportunity to work and amass wealth. The main end of democracy, according to Du Bois, is the liberation of “the possibilities of mankind for the development of a higher and broader and more varied human culture” (“The Revelation of Saint

Orgne the Damned” 154). Hence Du Bois believed it was necessary for Negroes to throw their full support behind the war effort because the defeat of democracy would undermine the struggle for liberation.

But, we must not forget that World War I and World War II were special cases for Du

Bois. In principle, Du Bois abhorred war and violence. And one of the reasons for this abhorrence rests upon Du Bois’s commitment to the notion of democratic liberation. Over and over again Du Bois would grow frustrated with the tendency to commit considerable resources along the path to war, and so few along the path to liberation and peace. At the end of his life,

Du Bois writes, “The United States … apparently believes that war is the only way to settle

7 present disputes and difficulties. For this reason it is spending fantastic sums of money, and wasting wealth and energy on the preparation for war, which is nothing less than criminal”

(Autobiography 419). Du Bois had noticed that, when we dump endless amounts of our limited resources into the war machine, “[w]e have withdrawn our efforts toward the education of children, the war on disease, and the raising of the standards of living” (Autobiography 420).

Education stands at the center of this. Du Bois believed that we must train better children for the future (Darkwater 216). The problem is that we are not willing to spend enough money on the education of our children. In 1917, the United States spent 96 billion dollars for war.

That same year, the U.S. spent 915 million dollars on education. Ten times more money was spent for the preparation for war than for education of children (“Will the Great Gandhi Live

Again” 359). Du Bois argues that if we really want war to cease, then we must “educate the children of this generation at a cost no whit less and if necessary a hundred times as great as the cost of the Great War” (Darkwater 217).

The larger point here is that the preparation of war tends to consume too many of our resources. This tendency shows itself as pernicious when we consider that these resources could be deployed to fight ignorance, disease, and poverty home and abroad. The time, effort, and money we devote to war could be re-allocated to liberate our children and the children to come, expanding the possibilities for humankind.

Conclusion

I have thus far argued that Du Bois despised war and violence for several reasons. First, because war has often been motivated by something comparable to colonial aggrandizement, which has no intention of liberating the subjugated peoples of the world. Second, because

8 resources which could be used to liberate people from ignorance, disease, and poverty are spent on war and war preparation. I have also argued that Du Bois was neither a pacifist nor a supporter of the non-violence movement. In the latter case, Du Bois was leery of the non- violence movement, its logistics, and its ability to attain its goals. In the former case, Du Bois condoned the United States entry into the two World Wars, for it was imperative to defend and preserve democracy.

It is true: Du Bois disparages war in one breath, then calls for Negro Americans to close ranks and fight in another. On the face of it, this does seem inconsistent or muddleheaded. But, what I have tried to show is that, in each case, Du Bois provides a rational justification for his judgment. Of course, Du Bois does not adhere to non-overrideable principles which hold universally (e.g., refrain from war in all cases). Du Bois is much more of a pragmatist, recognizing universally valid prima facie principles which should generally be adhered to, but which may be overridden by another principle in cases of moral or political perplexity (e.g., refrain from war, except in extenuating circumstances).3 Du Bois’s engagement with issues of war and violence evince a commitment to fallibilism, contextualism, and experimental inquiry, all of which are basic tenets of pragmatism. On these grounds, I argue that Du Bois’s position on war and violence, rather than being inconsistent or muddleheaded, is prudent and commendable on pragmatic grounds.

3 See Pojman, “The Case Against Moral Relativism,” p. 177.

9 Works Cited

Du Bois, W.E.B., “Closing Ranks Again,” W.E.B. Du Bois: A Reader, ed. David Levering Lewis. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1995, pp. 739-741.

-----, “Crusader Without Violence,” W.E.B. Du Bois: A Reader, ed. David Levering Lewis. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1995, pp. 361-362.

-----, Darkwater: Voices from within the Veil. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2003.

-----, “Doubts Gandhi Plan,” W.E.B. Du Bois: A Reader, ed. David Levering Lewis. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1995, pp. 409-410.

-----, Dusk of Dawn: An Essay toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2002.

-----, The Autobiography of W.E.B. Du Bois: A Soliloquy on Viewing My Life from the Last Decade of Its First Century. New York: International Publishers, 1968.

-----, “The Revelation of Saint Orgne the Damned,” The Education of Black People, ed. Hebert Aptheker. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973, 2001, pp. 135-162.

-----, “Will the Great Gandhi Live Again,” W.E.B. Du Bois: A Reader, ed. David Levering Lewis. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1995, pp. 358-360.

Pojman, Louis, “The Case Against Moral Relativism,” The Moral Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 160-185.