Reflections on DuSable to Obama: Chicago’s Black Metropolis

The 2010, WTTW-Channel 11 (otherwise known as Chicago PBS) documentary DuSable to Obama: Chicago’s Black Metropolis endeavors to present over two centuries of African-American history in Chicago, from the settling of the Afro-French trader Jean Baptiste Point du Sable at the mouth of the Chicago River around 1790, to the presidential victory speech of Barack Obama in November, 2008, at Grant Park. Needless to say, this is an ambitious task. At a length of exactly two hours and sixteen minutes, the documentary succeeds in packaging black-Chicago history for its public audience, but it also falls prey to problems associated with deciding when to adhere to dominant narratives and when to create a new narrative by introducing stories that are local and unexpected.

A certain degree of loyalty to the national narrative is important. For example, it is always enlightening to remember that figures with a major national impact, such as Ida B. Wells, Emmett Till, Fred Hampton, Langston Hughes, and perhaps Robert Sengstacke Abbott (founder of the oft-cited black newspaper, The Chicago Defender), were once based here in the city. Likewise, a certain degree of local character is extremely important. In this respect, the documentary succeeds in profiling several black institutions—namely, the Provident Hospital, an institution for the practice of black medical professionals, and the Quinn Chapel A.M.E, described as the longest-standing African-American congregation in the city. Speaking generally, this tension between national narrative and local character is not unique to DuSable to Obama. Rather, it is a struggle that is somewhat inherent to all historical interpretations, especially those regarding histories of minority groups.

In thinking about the objectives of DuSable to Obama, I am reminded of an incident that occurred when the legal scholar Michelle Alexander published her controversial work on the prison industrial complex, The New Jim Crow, in the year 2010. After publication, a Seattle University sociology student, Joseph D. Osel, openly criticized the text as whitewashing African-American history. Among other things, Osel was most upset that Alexander wrote her book without mentioning such prominent black figures as Malcolm X, George Jackson, Frantz Fanon, Richard Wright, Angela Davis, and others. For Osel, African-American history was canonical. It was something that existed as an established constellation of names, proceeding through time. In this sense, to omit these names was to demonstrate an ignorance of the discipline, while simultaneously committing a blasphemy against it. I introduce this scenario only to suggest some of the tensions associated with producing a black history of Chicago. Not only are there dominant national and metropolitan narratives with which to contend, but there is also a dominant African-American narrative. All of these traditions are vying for attention in the documentary.

Professional historians will do well to remember that DuSable to Obama is a tool for public education, packaged in a medium that is inherently limited by its narrative format. The linear nature of the film, progressing through history from the frontier settlement of DuSable to the climactic election of Obama, will likely carry some problematic assumptions for historians. Among these assumptions is the implication that footage will be divided evenly across the entire history of Chicago. Of course, this is not the case. Within the first twenty-five minutes of the film, we are already up to the Columbian Exposition of 1893, having traveled the first century in less than one-fifth of the length of the movie.

Another assumption is the idea that African-Americans throughout the history of Chicago were engaged in a unified struggle for progress, one with landmarks that can be picked out and presented in clear succession. While a protracted, race-based narrative of progress is not necessarily untrue, it will often be problematic as a frame for interpreting the past, as it precludes the participation of individuals who were African-American, but who did not necessarily contribute to this narrative in a way that is immediately obvious.

Within this African-American narrative, there is perhaps no figure more incumbent than the reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and, at times, the documentary can feel like a build toward his inevitable arrival. Speaking more generally, the last forty years of Chicago history are portrayed with an enormous emphasis on individual political figures. Some critics—though likely not Osel—will rightly interpret this as “Great Man” history in an African-American context. In moving from the black mayor Harold Washington, to the black senator Carol Moseley Braun, to the black president Barack Obama, there is hardly any room for figures who were not politicians. Some canonical figures that are mentioned in the film, such as the Civil Rights activist Rosa Parks, remain imprisoned by the limitations of the dominant narrative. In the film—as she is in the national consciousness—Parks is an old, tired woman who paved the way for Dr. King by refusing to stand on a bus. Only the dominant, African-American narrative is sufficient to explain why this passing mention of Parks is even necessary in a documentary about Chicago.

Perhaps the biggest weakness of the documentary, from the perspective of a professional historian, is how often it tends toward an attitude of contributionism. While there are some very unexpected and interesting stories addressed during the film—such as that of John C. Robinson, the Chicago-resident turned one-man Ethiopian Air Force in 1935—the film often feels like a greatest hits of Chicago history, reminding the audience that African-Americans were present at all of the canonical moments in the metropolitan narrative: the operation of the Underground Railroad, the Chicago Fire, the Columbian Exposition, both of the Great Wars, and, finally, the Civil Rights Movement.

Although this tendency towards contributionism may frustrate professional historians, it remains an extremely important message for present-day Chicagoans. In 2002, the journalist Erik Larson published his bestselling nonfiction novel, Devil in the White City, without mentioning any aspects of black history in relation to the 1893 fair. So, as long as mainstream writers continue to ignore the participation of black individuals at pivotal moments of America history—and continue to vindicate the enduring title of Ida B. Well’s pamphlet “The Reason Why the Colored American is not in the World’s Columbian Exposition”—then there will remain reasons to produce media that reminds the public of this fact.

I want to conclude these reflections by encouraging some further discussion about Jean Baptiste Point DuSable. It seems to me that only in a starkly racialized world does it matter whether DuSable was the founder of Chicago, as the documentary puts forth, or just the first European settler who lived in the geographic region that would become Chicago years later. Perhaps this is only a minor distinction, but Fort Dearborn was not built until three years after DuSable left the Chicago River for St. Charles, Missouri. This makes me wonder, what are the implications of calling someone the founder of a place that did not technically exist until after he or she left? More importantly, what does it matter who founded Chicago? What is really at stake?

The WTTW-Channel 11 documentary, DuSable to Obama: Chicago’s Black Metropolis, can be streamed online in its entirety at http://video.wttw.com/video/1522918184/.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Reflections on DuSable to Obama: Chicago’s Black Metropolis

  1. It’s good to see someone write about this documentary and I’ve seen it twice. I think it’s a largely successful effort but you make a good point that the standardized Black history narrative explains a lot of the shallow mentions of people such as Rosa Parks who is oddly in Black Chicago history. My other problem is that once you get to the end of the Civil Rights movement it turns into a celebratory parade of politicians (which in its on way is acceptable since I wonder how many younger people know about those people); there is sparse content. It goes: Harold Washington, two unsuccessful campaigns for president (Jackson and Moseley Braun), and then Barack Obama. I’m left wondering about the Chicago that a good number of Black people experienced in the 1980s and 1990s particularly housing (“the projects”).

    As for Du Sable it’s a stretch to call him the founder of Chicago but reasonable to call him a “settler” (though all that means for me is a non-Indigenous resident in a colonized land). I think it does matter though that he is a settler who WAS NOT European, who has been vaguely praised in Chicago history. I find even more interesting how little is know about him, the rumors that he was potentially of Haitian descent, and what he means for Chicago history. I think having history in a place as a founder or settler gives contemporary people, no matter how faulty or legitimate, a feeling of belonging and place. To say that a Black man was “the founder of Chicago” means that, in this city, Black people are not foreigners but have a claim to ownership.

  2. Courtney. Great points! I actually forgot about the failed campaign for Jackson during the “parade of politicians” at the end. You are so right about the world that Black people experienced in the 1980s and 1990s. Somehow, while the stories of these politicians sets a good example, it does not exactly explain the complexity of Black Chicago. The housing projects, as you noted, are not mentioned at all. Michael Jordan was not mentioned, which is interesting because he was such a global superstar–more widely known that many of the figures that were featured in the documentary. Thanks for your comments on DuSable as well. Your thoughts are very helpful.

  3. Courtney. Great points! I actually forgot about the failed campaign for Jackson during the “parade of politicians” at the end. You are so right about the world that Black people experienced in the 1980s and 1990s. Somehow, while the stories of these politicians sets a good example, it does not exactly explain the complexity of Black Chicago. The housing projects, as you noted, are not mentioned at all. Michael Jordan was not mentioned, which is interesting because he was such a global superstar–more widely known that many of the figures that were featured in the documentary. Thanks for your comments on DuSable as well. Your thoughts are very helpful.

    • Michael Jordan, of course! How could I (and they) leave that part out. He’s was super famous,talented and part of the golden age of basketball.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s