Observer [James N. Still] to Frederick Douglass, March 4, 1853
Letter from Observer.
MR. EDITOR:—Your very interesting and jocose Brooklyn Correspondent, in his article of Feb. 4th, raises, or makes “a lady of color” raise, a very important question for the consideration of the “BLACKS.” But it is done in such a way as to render it doubtful whether the contestants of the point at issue will give the public the benefit of their discussion. We may, therefore, with propriety, invite your correspondent to an interview on the subject, he being the only responsible endorser present on the occasion. When “a modern Esau, Esau of Brooklyn, Esau from under the Heights,” (says Ethiop,) “wished to know why the blacks have not had a course of lectures for their benefit this winter,” and he makes “a lady of color” reply, “the whites have lectures—attend them.” Replies Ethiop, “have a care, lady, or this Esau will say some harsh things; do you not know that the lectures gotten up for the whites are not adapted to, not tend to benefit the blacks; they need special teachings;” and, continues he, “away with your fastidious and hair-splitting notions about special teachings.” Why have we not had a course of lectures for the benefit of the “blacks,” neither Ethiop nor “a lady of color” assumes the responsibility of answering; though the inference is, that necessity did not call for it. The question Esau asks is an important one, when we recollect that there are thirty thousand “blacks” within attending distance of the heights; and among them a number of learned public teachers and writers, whose walls are decorated with State diplomas of merit. It is a question that demands an answer. I presume that “Ethiop,” being of such a “mild and easy temper,” has an aversion to assuming responsibilities, or engaging in hazardous undertakings. But the conclusion to be drawn from his remarks, are, that “the lectures gotten up for the whites, are adapted and tend to benefit the blacks,” which he more directly makes a lady of color affirm, by thrusting her between himself and this warfaring man-this modern Esau-who, we presume, exists only in his apprehensive imagination. We protest against this modern gallantry, that would provoke a contest, and thrust between himself and the consequences a lady of color. However, he is cunning enough to leave “a lady of color” as inaccessible as himself-as there are so many, it would be difficult to learn which one to hold responsible, or which one it is behind whom this modern “John Tyler” has taken refuge.—Not “old John Tyler of Virginia, once accidental President of the United States,” who made his wife mother “a dirty brattling, which he would not father;” but a modern John Tyler, of Brooklyn Heights. However, in the absence of “a lady of color,” we must hold Ethiop responsible for all paper bearing his signature. We shall assume, then, that “the lectures gotten up for the whites are not adapted to, nor tend to benefit the blacks.” They are not adapted, or the blacks don’t desire improvement-for they do not attend them. The fact is, they are not adapted, and therefore are not attractive.—We need, my dear Ethiop, (for one so mild and easy must be very dear,) lecturers of our own, and a literature of our own. We will except on the sciences or professions, those governed by established and acknowledged rules. But on the various popular subjects of discussion, we need the subjects applied to our circumstances and conditions. Take for example “The Peoples’ Course,” in New
York City, gotten up with the view of reaching the masses, or poorer classes; and I am generous enough to believe that those who were instrumental in getting them up, had in their view the blacks as well as the poor whites. All were to be admitted who would pay twelve and-a-half cents. Notwithstanding that, have they not utterly failed in reaching the classes intended to be reached and “benefitted?” Those who have attended could not fail to observe that fact.—And why? Because the subjects have mostly been beyond the comprehension of the illiterate “blacks” or whites—not within the scope of their investigations and thoughts. Most of the lecturers have been men of the highest literary and scientific attainments, introducing subjects couched in language that none but those conversant with language—such as teachers and writers could, understand. They did not, therefore, apply to a people, many of whose only schooling had been the rice swamp or the sugar plantation—whose first anxieties are, how they shall feed and clothe themselves.—The most acceptable and best things said, and by the greatest man, perhaps, was “Parker’s Eulogy on the Character and Influence of the Anglo-Saxon.” The conclusions to be drawn from that lecture, are, unquestionable superiority of the Anglo-Saxon over all other races of mankind. Admit it to be true, what is the effect under the circumstances, but to make our enemies austere and vicious, while it disheartens and depresses “the blacks?” But did whatever of bravery or greatness relating to the “blacks” receive their turn to be enumerated and eulogized, then I should not complain. But no, they do not. But all of our lecturers, and the literature of the country, are either neutral, or misrepresent us-we are always made to occupy an inferior position from the picture in the child’s first lesson in the primer of the “negro is from Africa afar, throughout in all its features. How contented he sits and smokes his cigar.” At other times, he is leading General somebody’s horse; and this General somebody the white boy learns is his ancestor, and that is the position to which he must aspire. But what are the commendable and peculiar traits that render the Anglo-Saxon above his fellows? It is this destructive, “exterminating” character; he is, says Rev. Theodore Parker, “evasive, exterminative, exclusive.” “The tendency of the race is to exterminate all other races wherever they go;” these are their predominating traits, and for these they claim superiority. As much superior, I suppose, as the tiger is from his ferocity superior to the lamb for its docility; while one contribute to clothe mankind, (with wool cotton,) the other is roaming about seeking whom he may devour. These traits are all great ones when they tell the story. But a French writer gives rather a different definition of the character of the Anglo-Saxons. Says he, “they are a marauding, piractical race-going about robbing mankind of their territory, and other people of their liberties.” Mr. Parker’s language is, “they are evasive, exterminative, exclusive;” he says for this they are commendable; but the Frenchman, looking at it out of other eyes than Anglo-Saxon, classes them with pirates.
But this letter is already too long. I cannot believe that the lectures gotten up by the whites are what we need; and I do think, furthermore, that it is a discredit to the thirty thousand blacks, that they have not had a course of lectures for “their benefit this winter.”
OBSERVER.