From: SHAWGI TELL Subject: Plural But Equal Review of Harold Cruse, PLURAL BUT EQUAL (William Morrow, 1987) Reviewed By: David G. Lewis Illinois State University February 24th, 1995 Harold Cruse writes this book from several different perspectives. Initially he takes the perspective of a black historian. He starts the book off by discussing the Blair Education Bill which was introduced in 1880. This bill was the forerunner to the landmark decision case Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas 1954. Like many other black authors Cruse takes his reader back to the very beginning of the civil rights movement. He shows the reader that whites were deceptive and conniving in their dealings with blacks from the very beginning and that established a pattern in which whites have not departed from to this day. The Blair bill was proposed to spend large sums of federal money on public school education. The reason behind this bill was that too many Southernors, both black and white, were illiterate. Cruse points out that at the inception of this bill, both blacks and whites in the North and South, Republicans and Democrats alike thought he bill would be a good idea. Many blacks were somewhat skeptical because they realized that this bill would have allowed segregated public schools. This however was viewed as the lessor of the evils. This bill was eventually killed in the House of Representatives because whites feared the repercussions of educating blacks. Cruse clearly points out that the white elite will sacrifice poor whites by the millions (as in the education of poor Southern whites) in order to maintain economic dominance over blacks. Harold Cruse takes a very different perspective in that he questions the very success of the so called civil rights movement and the objective of the movement's leaders. He points out that in 1896 the Supreme Court of America ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that separate but equal was constitutional. This ruling stood for fifty-eight years officially, until the Brown decision of 1954. I couldn't agree with Cruse more in his questioning of the effectiveness of the civil rights movement. He looks at the often ignored consequences of the Brown ruling on the black community. During the aftermath of the Brown decision, untold numbers of black schoolteachers, principals, and administrators from the formerly segregated schools were rendered jobless. What Cruse implies in this section but doesn't come right out and say, is that blacks should have taken a more militant stance on the issue. There is nothing civil about your rights when they have been denied for over a hundred years. Cruse moves that the United States government only conceded certain issues when it was convenient to do so. The example that he used to prove his point was the Bakke decision of 1978. The irony of this is that a male from the majority (whites) used a law that was originally passed to protect the rights of the minority (blacks) for his own benefit. Cruse then takes a more radical perspective by stating that Jewish people had a hidden agenda during the civil rights movement when they helped blacks. He makes the statement that many modern day black leaders have made concerning the Jewish communities self serving interest in the black community. Blacks should be striving toward economic empowerment according to Cruse. I agree with that statement 100%. If you look at other minority groups that have made significant strives in this country, you will see that these groups based their success on economic empowerment. Cruse uses Jesse Jackson's PUSH organization as an example of the direction that blacks should be taking in order to achieve this goal. Jackson got corporate America to invest in black communities. This in turn helps the community without giving a handout. Also Cruse stresses along with economic empowerment blacks need to form their own political party because neither the Republican party nor the Democratic party has the best interest of blacks at heart. He takes the stance that pluralism is alright. Cruse acknowledges what should be very obvious to Americans. We live in a society separated by race. So why not make it official? Blacks don't need to be of the school of thought which says you have to assimilate into the majority. Why not officially recognize the plurality for what it is? This is the basic theme of the book hence the title PLURAL BUT EQUAL. I agree with Cruse that blacks need to strive towards economic empowerment, however I disagree with the notion that blacks need to form their own political party. I don't think that blacks would come together to form one single party, there are too many idealogical, differences to suggest such a union. This would be as absurd as suggesting that all whites could or would belong to one political party. David G. Lewis Illinois State University dglewis@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education V600A8E6@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU