Passages that stood out in Opportunity by Charles Johnson were both “Gandhi” and “Better Human Relationships.” The whole purpose of magazines and intellectual works like Opportunity, The Crisis, Survey Graphic was to not only show that negroes have talent and history but to take a shot at changing their image and being accepted as people. In Objectivity and Social Change,  the commission which studied the root of the Chicago race riots concluded that “the Chicago Defender had stirred up bitterness of its black readers against whites, and that the Chicago Tribune had ‘served hatred for the Negroes with the breakfast of Chicago’s white population.’ The commission also concluded that ignorance fueled that hatred: it found that white Americans knew very little about black Americans, and their perception of African Americans were largely shaped by images ‘that cause the Negro to appear only as a criminal or a fool.’ The commission advised that if similar violence was to be avoided in the future, better understanding and attitudes between black Americans and white Americans were necessary, and it argued that the press had to play a major role in promoting these changes.” (Objectivity and Social Change, 59) Johnson felt that having “inflammatory text” in writing would fuel the race tensions and thus cause more violence, where DuBois felt that one could not remain cool and collected while fellow brothers and sisters were getting “lynched, murdered, starved.” (Social Change and Objectivity, 61)

Johnson liked using facts and using less provocative imagery. DuBois felt there was a need for a call to action. He spoke his mind and used inflammatory imagery. He felt that nothing would be accomplished if he had done otherwise. I believe that Gandhi was mentioned in Johnsons’ Opportunity because he essentially fought off oppression and gain freedom without the use of violence. He had set the precedent to MLK Jr’s nonviolence campaign during the Civil Rights Movement and had shown the world that colored (albeit Indian instead of Black) can fend for themselves, be their own people, and  make history too. Given that Johnson wanted a more conservative approach he valued peaceful cooperation because the root of the rift is that the two peoples were essentially divided, and forcing people to like each other given with the use of force just isn’t going to happen. Here was an opportunity to overcome oppression without the use of violence. Not only does Gandhi break the stereotype of having to use force to force out oppression, he breaks the stereotype of what people think of as a world leader. He was a figure of medium height, he was not tall. He was excessively thin versus normal weight. And he was pale brown. The characteristics that made Gandhi different from other world leaders inspired many more world leaders including aforementioned MLK Jr. and Nelson Mandela. And a final distinction between Gandhi and other world leaders: Nonviolence was embedded within Gandhi. Given that he was Hindu he believed that nonviolence had to start from the soul or one’s religion. He made it clear (although it was already known) that the black struggle against whites in America wasn’t only exclusive to blacks living in America, there had been black against white problems in South Africa, Indians against British in India, there was a group struggle against an oppressor force all over the world.

A picture of Mohandas Gandhi

When Gandhi was in South Africa, he realized that colonizers “be it French, Belgian, Dutch, Spanish, English, Italian, Portuguese, or American – that brutality, pillage, death, sudden assassination, incendiarism was used as the only method of communication and understanding between them and other peoples who have committed the inexpiable crime of not belonging to the same race.” (Gandhi, Opportunity, 41) Human history has been riddled with conflict and violence, whether it is race-related, religion-related, or politically related. And Gandhi (and Mr. Johnson) are trying to break this cycle of violent behavior to solve our problems. Since when do civilians benefit from war? They hardly ever do. It is only their leaders who potentially profit the most (if they win, of course). Does using violence to solve violence ever work?

Caroline Norment in “Better Human Relationships” asserts that inter-human conflicts exists due to “Humanity, striving for place in the sun, has formed habits of selfishness, acquisitiveness and self-protection. Naturally enough, groups have formed which are antagonistic to other groups which are even slightly dissimilar.”(43) When you think of what it means to be a human, you might think we are intelligent beings, being able to reason and understand consequences for actions. We think of being friendly, or humane, open to new experiences, but yet it is said that is ‘human nature’ to have fights with one another. Do we really fight wars for survival or do we fight wars for status and belonging? When we’re in fear it’s us or them because they are not like us, and we tend to think that they are inferior to us, or even, them existing threatens our existence. We call ourselves friendly and welcoming but also don’t mind resorting to violent tendencies when we feel threatened. To be human is to be a hypocrite, we are welcoming but we form groups to isolate ourselves from others, we fight and kill each other but yet we are not animals, will we ever learn that violence leads to more violence?

Works cited:

Carroll, E. Anne, “Objectivity and Social Change: Essays and News Stories in Opportunity.” Word, Image, and the New Negro pg. 59, 61

Maran, Rene, “Gandhi.” Opportunity Magazine pg. 40-41

Norment, G. Caroline, “Better Human Relationships.” Opportunity Magazine pg. 43