historical study

W.E.B. DuBois was born 2 years after slavery was abolished, and died two years before the wide ranging civil rights acts of 1965 were enacted. During this century, America was transformed from a largely rural nation whose economy depended on agricultural production (not the least of which was the cotton grown in the south by slaves) to an urban nation with the world's largest economy, built on industrial production. Throughout most of this transformation, DuBois was the loudest and clearest voice proclaiming the injustices suffered by the nation's Blacks.

DuBois voice took many forms. He was the nation's leading Black Sociologist, Political Scientist and Hstorian scholar for most of his life. He was among the giants, regardless of race, in each of these fields. This alone would have been remarkable, even had he not had to struggle against the burden of racism every step of the way. What makes DuBois' life truly amazing (an over used word, which is fully justified here) is that in addition to his academic leadership, DuBois was a newspaper columnist, speaker, and founded dozens of popular mass organizations (most famously, the NAACP). He was quite literally the mentor of virtually every leading Black scholar, lawyer, business man, politician, etc. that followed.

Surprisingly, given the transformation of the rest of society, DuBois retained his leadership role in the country as his many competitors and detractors faded--Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, and Walter White, among others.

Lewis has produced a masterful biography of this complex, vastly under rated man. Lewis keeps his writing interesting, as he traces the twists and turns DuBois was forced to follow in his battle against racism. He began with a traditional middle class, elite (which DuBois dubbed "the talented tenth") analysis which urged the white power structure to recognize that elite blacks were as crucial to the nation's future as were the elite of the white population. He ended as a communist, victim of McCarthy, having given up all hope of democratic change, living in exile in Ghana, where he was finally accorded the unstinting respect he was denied during the first 90 years of his life in America.

Lewis gives DuBois final years short shrift. Lewis seems to agree with most of the contemporary civil rights leaders, who thought DuBois had simply lost his marbles in his dotage. Lewis therefore skims over the last two decades of DuBois life in a few all too brief pages.

I beg to differ. I believe that DuBois' thinking was an entirely accurate reflection of the frustrations he had encountered. As Lewis hints at, but fails to explore, DuBois tried every conceivable means of combating America's deep seated racism. He was rejected at every turn. Despite apparent victories, many would have said that the plight of Blacks at the end of DuBois' long life was not very much improved over their plight at the beginning of his life. The white controlled governments, universities, financial instutions, and political parties had not embraced the black elite, and the black masses had yet to see any benefit from the legal victories won by Thurgood Marshall and the Inc, Fund in the late 50's.

Lewis quotes DuBois aunt as chastizing DuBois for his attacks on Booker T. Washington as a quisling--DuBois may have grown up facing racism, but he did not have the whip marks of slavery on his back that Washington had suffered. Similarly, those who criticize DuBois for his emrace of communism had not suffered the frustrations of almost a century of struggle during which everything in America had changed--except its racism.

As DuBois lay dying, virtually his last words were to the President of Ghana, apologizing for not living long enough to "finish" his work.

I know of no one who was more reviled during his lifetime that better deserves the masterful biography Lewis has given us, and given to the ages.

Everyone should not only read Lewis, but should go back and re-read some of DuBois own works. DuBois could not be given a higher honor, and deserves no less.

I agree with Schmerguls, above, that David Levering Lewis' vol. II of DuBois has too many typographical errors; the endnotes are a nightmare; and that it needs a bibliography. But the book is more than a flawed book about a flawed man. It is readable, in general; Lewis could have skipped some of the big words in favor of words that ordinary readers could understand without a dictionary simultaneously open. Lewis uses colorful, precise verbs in many cases and succeeds in bringing characters to life in one word descriptions. He humanizes DuBois by discussing his friendships and by examples (through verbs and description ) of DuBois's autocratic manner. If this biography does not deserve a Pulitzer, I am curious what biography Schmerguls would consider worthy? The Oakland reviewer, above, is more on the mark in that this is a thoroughly researched and keenly insightful recounting of the life of a towering figure. I, too, sorely miss a bibliography. And the last quarter of the book is indeed full of typographical errors which a careful copy editor should have caught. One hopes that there will be a revision someday with all corrections made. Still, this is a wonderful history of the times and of an amazing (though "flawed," like the rest of us) figure in American history. DuBois certainly provoked solid thought at a time when mainstream America was unsure that Negroes could think. I have heard David Levering Lewis speak on C-Span. He writes better than he speaks because he says "Uh-uh" too much as he searches for those big words. But I'm so grateful that his work on DuBois came to fruition in my lifetime so that I could read it.

It seems odd that Lewis's biography of W. E. B. DuBois should be felt to be entitled to two Pulitzer prizes. The author disapproves at least on the surface of some of DuBois's more outrageous positions, but yet Lewis's biases show thru, and one gets the idea that in general if Lewis had not had the benefit of what has happened in regard to Communism in the past 15 years Lewis would be even more approving of DuBois's opinions than he now indicates. As others have mentioned, it is disconcerting to have a book from a major publisher have so many typographical errors. One would think they could have been easily avoided. And the endnotes are a nightmare. Instead of footnotes there are page notes in the back, with no discernible system: some indicate sources, but I found them very user-unfriendly. There is no bibliography as such, and overall I thought the book poorly edited. But the book tells a story of interest, especially during the period from 1945 to 1963.