Something that struck me while reading Black Citymakers was the tension between some black leaders’ self-centered goals and the impact of their actions on the black community. Edward Brown and Andrew Stevens, for example, provided an important financial service to black Philadelphians by starting the Brown & Stevens and Cosmopolitan banks. Ultimately, however, the endeavor hurt both Stevens and Brown and the black community because of the founders’ efforts to gain wealth. We see a similar phenomenon throughout Hunter’s book when he describes the failure of black political leaders to advocate for the black community in order to retain political power (i.e. the Phyllis Wheatley Community Center debacle, PAAC and its failure to acknowledge housing concerns). Black Citymakers provides evidence for the claim that when some elite blacks gain positions of power, their efforts to serve the greater black community are marred by their self-centered individual aspirations. Indeed, it seemed to me that the only instance that Hunter included in Black Citymakers of black leadership truly dedicated to serving the needs of the black community was that of Dukes and Lipscomb.

Furthermore, Morris’s portrayal of Booker T. Washington in A Scholar Denied provides greater support for this observation. According to Morris, Washington used his position of influence to bolster white prejudice and oppression of the black community while gaining fame and prestige for himself.

This pattern raises questions for me about the feasibility of Du Bois’s plan to use the skills, intellect and resources of the “Talented Tenth” to improve conditions for the black community. Does this pattern of black elite behavior weaken Du Bois’s argument for a “Talented Tenth?” If so, what might this suggest about the prospects for change in black communities? Using Lipscomb and Dukes’s example of effective black leadership in Philadelphia, one might conclude that grassroots movements led by individuals in the community in question may be the most dedicated to serving the greater black community. However, Lipscomb and Dukes lacked resources and access that elite blacks had, which at times hindered the progress of their movement; indeed, they needed support of white voters to finally defeat the Crosstown Highway project. There seems to be a dilemma for black movements in Philadelphia – elite black leaders have resources but may have ulterior motives that ultimately harm the black community, while leaders of grassroots movements are dedicated to positive change but may not have the ideal means and opportunities for achieving this change. I wonder what others think about this conflict I observed – do you agree that this dilemma exists? What evidence exists outside of these two books that supports or weakens this argument? Can we use these examples of failure by elite black leadership to critique Du Bois’s “Talented Tenth?”