Blog Post 1 - Sam Douds
In
his piece Of the Culture of White Folk, author W.E.B. Dubois develops a
compelling argument for as to why wars start that ultimately falls flat when
confronted with examples of modern conflicts and a critical rhetorical eye.
In
what feels like the crescendo of his article, Dubois essentially argues that
wars start as White nations vie for a greater portion of “darker peoples” to
exploit. Dubois suggests that World War I is the product of White nations
employing this greedy habit against one another. However, to suggest that
states simply go to war for purposes of exploitation ignores an entire human
history’s worth of examples that contradict this assertion. Greek historian
Thucydides might counter Dubois’s argument with his own theory which alleges that
states go to war over “fear, honor, and interest.” In the more modern sense, we
might translate Thucydides’s words to mean something like needs, values, and
wants. Exploitation, the opportunity to take advantage of a population can
certainly be an interest and, in some scenarios, when nations face imminent
destruction, a need. But exploitation is not a value. I argue that the United
States largely goes to war over values. Our Constitution is predicated on
values, even if we do not always live up to them. It is worth noting that
W.E.B. Dubois may be inclined to disagree with me about America’s adherence to
values as Black man having faced a lifetime of discrimination at the hands of
American democracy. Regardless, Dubois’s argument would carry more weight if it
were less exclusive. Nations/states can go to war in an attempt to exploit
another nation/state, but do not always do so.
If
I were to ignore Thucydides and simply attempt to adjust Dubois’s argument to
be slightly more inclusive, I might borrow from someone like Paulo Freire.
Freire suggests that conflict stems from the salience of oppression. Perhaps it
is not an attempt by White nations to exploit darker ones, but instead
oppressor class nations attempting to exercise power over nations of the oppressed
class. In changing the terminology, Dubois’s argument is buttressed against
modern examples of conflict such as the standoff between the Ukraine and Russia. Although, Dubois
would likely argue that Russia wants to invade the Ukraine in an effort to gain
a tactical advantage in their pursuit of warm-water ports in the Middle East.
Warm water ports in places like Syria which is of course inhabited by people of
color. Whether or not this is a sound argument becomes incredibly subjective as
the reader is asked to extrapolate as to the intentions and future actions of
Russia.
From
a rhetorical perspective, Dubois also includes a second argument within his
larger piece that feels distracting and unnecessary. Late in his piece Dubois
states “[t]he cause of war is preparation for war.” This quote fits nicely into
my historical knowledge of the causes of World War I. From a young age, we have
been informed that World War I started because of M.A.I.N. (militarism,
alliances, imperialism, and nationalism). But, this assertion again implies a
degree of exclusivity that is inappropriate both for the historical situation
which he is describing and his own argument. If the cause of war is preparation
for war, then why must we waste time delving into a history of racially
motivated exploitation? It also represents an unfortunately circular line of
reasoning. Yes, in order to have war one must be prepare for it but something
must incite the preparation and perhaps this is the true cause of war. (581 words)
Sam, I thought it was interesting that you brought up some of the other potential causes of war and why states/nations may go to war. From the points you brought up, it led me to think , if Du Bois wasn't just arguing that states/nations will go to war to seek/continue the exploitations of "dark-skinned" people, but rather if he was referring to how these states/nations are willing to go to war. Obviously we've seen just how much war can cost, especially with the large funding that goes into the United States' military and I think that Du Bois was arguing that because of those expenses, states/nations will seek out people to exploit in order to move forward with plans of war and have a means of paying for a "great defense." This goes into your very last line that maybe the cause of war is the thing that incites the preparation of war, but perhaps those two things might be intrinsically connected to each other? Can we really separate it? Could the aspects of M.A.I.N and American values be rooted in the exploitation of black and brown people around the world. Could the motivations from white superiority be tied to those aspects? I like how you mentioned the how Du Bois' identity affected his writings, especially because I do think his experience being a Black man during this time largely affected his views and attitudes towards war and democracy in the United States. But I really thought your response brought a new perspective to the way Du Bois approached war due to his experience with World War I. I just wanted to give some questions to think about since I think Du Bois is also trying to argue that much of where we are today and continue going today are tied with some of the systemic issues tied to race and exploitation.
ReplyDeleteGabby, thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response. I am going to try to respond to each one of your questions individually while also acknowledging that the conversation about war, its causes, and its connection to exploitation is far from over.
Delete"Can we really separate it?" (Exploitation and the causes/preparation for war, I think)
(I am going to try to use the Thucydidies framework to respond.) So this is a great point especially when conflict is motivated by an interest or need to exploit another group. When this is case, exploitation and causation are largely inseparable because the cause of the preparation for war is an explicit desire to exploite others. However, when conflicts are motivated by values, then exploitation can be a by-product of the conflict but is not synonymous with its cause.
"Could the aspects of M.A.I.N and American values be rooted in the exploitation of black and brown people around the world? Could the motivations from white superiority be tied to those aspects?"
Failing to acknowledge the connection between the concepts within M.A.I.N. and the exploitation of Black/Brown people would make me a dishonest author and a failed liberal arts student. Nationalism and Imperialism in particular have a history of intimate links to the exploitation of minorities. As far as American values goes, I think we might have a more productive conversation talking about how, at times, we have manifested American values in a perverted fashion. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, equality, etc., exist regardless of race and are rooted in political philosophy, religion, and human nature. The actions of this nation at various times has done a severe disservice to the values that we hold dear. The United States has an definite and unescapable past of exploiting Black/Brown people that must acknowledged. Today, we must also work to make the this nation more equal because of that history. A discussion of White superiority starts to stray away from our main point but can certainly be connected to the historical and continued exploitation of Black and Brown communities.
Overall this is such a fascinating argument as you blend the ideas of Dubois and Freire. The idea that war tends to be a mix of both of those ideas. As you pointy out Dubois believes that war is simply motivated by exploitation, while Freire would say it is more about oppression in terms of creating power. I like the distinction you make how their ideas are similar and yet different in there meaning, and Freiere's tends to be a broader definition. I would agree more with the latter saying that the role of war is not to exploit, that there does seem to be a deeper meaning and in this case I agree with the expansion of power that drives a nation to conquer. But once a nation is conquered it usually leads to that exploitation, so even though I agree saying that is not the causes, exploitation ends up being an effect of war in many regards both theorists are correct.
ReplyDeleteMichael, thank you for your response. I agree with you in saying that both authors have valuable things to say about the causes of war. I think, to your point, exploitation is often not necessarily a cause of war but is certainly a natural by-product. I think it is also interesting to consider that Freire and Dubois actually would likely have had similar arguments, except that Freire likely would have based his distinctions between nations on class and Dubois based his on race. Considering Dubois was American and Freire was not, I wonder how this reflects on American culture and its socio-political atmosphere.
Delete