|
|
|
Book Review
| The House I
Live In: Race in the American Century. By Robert J. Norrell.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. xx, 379 pp. $35.00, ISBN
0-19-507345-2.)
|
| Touching on
intellectual, political, economic, social, and cultural trends in
less than three hundred fifty pages, The House I Live In
provides an insightful, if somewhat unconvincing, survey of American
race relations over the past century and a half. The narrative is
engaging, with considerable attention devoted to popular culture and
apt, vivid vignettes at the start of chapters. Robert J. Norrell's
historical characters are sketched with the deft brushstrokes of a
skilled historian confident of his ability to attract the attention
of nonacademic readers while not losing the regard of academics.
Although this study is limited mainly to black-white relations
rather than the broader topic his title implies, Norrell achieves
his stated intention to "offer a broad view of the quest for equal
rights for African Americans and connect those efforts to big,
evolving structural realities of the twentieth century" (p. xii).
His overview will influence future scholarship even as specialists
pounce on his isolated errors (such as the repeated misspelling of
my name in the notes and bibliographical essay) as well as question
his tendentious and often unpersuasive interpretations. |
1 |
|
Norrell sets out to explain how "racial
competition for economic opportunity, political power, and the use
of physical space" has served as a continuing counterbalance to the
American "creed of democratic values—liberty, democracy, and
equality" (pp. xii, xiii). Norrell's fuller interpretive framework,
influenced by Max Weber, concedes the importance of economic and
political factors, but the central theme of The House I Live
In is the gradual transformation of prevailing notions of the
American democratic creed. He suggests that the ability of a few
leaders to affirm widely shared understandings of this creed while
also broadening its scope to include African Americans accounts for
the progress that has occurred in American race relations. Norrell
argues that Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address achieved "a
fundamental change in what Americans would believe thereafter" (p.
13), although he acknowledges that Lincoln's reformulation of
Jeffersonian egalitarianism did not thwart white supremacy during
the late nineteenth century. |
2 |
|
Norrell's account gives scant attention to
the internal dynamics of African American politics during this
period. African American civil rights proponents such as Frederick
Douglass and Ida B. Wells are mentioned in passing, while Booker T.
Washington is depicted as the intellectual leader who spurred the
emergence of an effective black challenge to white supremacy.
According to Norrell, Washington succeeded because of his insistence
that African Americans were simply another ethnic group rather than
a distinctive racial one and his "faith that democratic values, as
defined by Abraham Lincoln, provided the ideological foundation most
likely to enable black uplift" (pp. 63–64). Rather than an
accommodationist, Washington was a remarkably prescient leader who
anticipated "virtually all of the naacp's [National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People] later successful protest agenda"
(p. 64). Norrell argues that in contrast to the elitism and racial
romanticism of the "black ethnic nationalist" W. E. B. Du Bois,
"Washington's strategy more nearly encompassed the ambitions of all
African Americans" (p. 64). Historians have long been aware that
Washington was multifaceted as well as duplicitous, but the Tuskegee
principal's posthumous influence was less evident in the naacp and
subsequent civil rights groups than in Marcus Garvey's Universal
Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), which Norrell dismisses as
"the strongest example of black ethnic nationalism" (p. 93). |
3 |
|
Norrell's account of black-white relations
during the period after World War II displays a similar tendency to
downplay the importance of black leaders who questioned whether
white Americans' democratic ideals reliably shaped American racial
realities. Frank Sinatra's 1945 song and film promoting tolerance
provides Norrell's title and central theme, but it is misleading for
Norrell to devote more attention to Sinatra than to Paul Robeson,
the key figure in the American Crusade Against Lynching, who is
introduced lamely as "the black opera singer known also for his
radical politics" (pp. 145–46). During the 1950s, Martin Luther King
Jr., emerged as a seminal black leader "who would shape the
ideological understandings of American race relations for the
remainder of the twentieth century." But Norrell is clearly hostile
to the radical currents in black political thought that would,
during the last half of the 1960s, separate King and other black
activists from Lincolnian democratic values. He sees King as
abandoning "'American' ideology" (p. 251) by advocating wealth
redistribution, while the black leaders who rose to prominence after
King's death are broadly painted as black (or ethnic) nationalists.
Norrell describes the Black Panther Party as a murderous
group—without evidence he claims "the Panthers killed more police
than they themselves lost" (p. 262)—formed in 1967 (actually 1966)
by the "petty criminal" Huey Newton. Black mayors and other elected
officials are broadly depicted as "black nationalist politicians"
who "sometimes promoted black solidarity through explicitly racial
appeals" (p. 273). |
4 |
|
Norrell is probably correct to see the
shared democratic ideals of America as one explanation for the
decline of the Jim Crow system, but Lincolnian democratic values
have coexisted with the Jim Crow system and with the massive
rightward shift of white political allegiance that has occurred
during the past four decades. Moreover, the African American
radicalism Norrell dismisses provides a compelling analysis of the
persistence of black poverty, de facto segregation, and enduring
racial inequities after the era of civil rights reforms. Although he
seeks to explain what "Americans did right to overcome our legacy of
racial exploitation," his own dour assessment of contemporary race
relations reveals the limitations of American democratic ideology as
a force for progress in race relations: "It was a sad reality that,
as far as Americans had moved in overcoming the fundamental problems
of race by the end of the twentieth century, they seemed to have
reached the limits of their values. The disagreement over the
meaning of equality appeared to have exposed a tragic flaw in the
American character, the inability to settle finally on a path to a
just and equitable society" (p. 329). |
5 |
| Clayborne
Carson |
Stanford
University Stanford,
California | |
Content in the
History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use
only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in
the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or
in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part
without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|