I just had some leftover statements from our discussion in class today some might find interesting. Before writing I'd just like to point out that both W.E.B Du Bois and Booker T. Washington are both worthy of praise and my opinion of their beliefs changes NOTHING in regards to what they represent.
In class I believe we were too specific, not approaching the "debate" from a broader context which could yield greater results. First, we have to classify Du Bois and Washington into two categories, active and passive, respectively. Now lets present an analogy of how they compare to modern day figures, Du Bois is similar to Malcolm X whereas Washington relates to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Remember, this is a generalization. For those who are unfamiliar with Malcolm X, he was a black nationalist who, for lack of a better term, believed African Americans should use force to gain civil rights. Of course, most of us already know who Dr. King was, the peaceful demonstrator and brilliant orator comparable to Henry David Thoreau or Mahatma Gandhi. Now looking at the individual philosophies of Du Bois and Washington, it is evident both have similar traits to their modern counterparts.
No, Du Bois was not a violent revolutionary nor was Washington an organizer of sit-ins but the attributes of comparison between the men are hard to ignore. I offer this thought because it is important to look at the success of the more modern figures. Malcolm X eventually dropped his campaign of "black power" and if I am correct, became a devout Muslim. Dr. King, however, was successful in organizing a famous civil rights movement and it arguably the most famous African American in American history. Therefore, Dr. King's words of peace and nonviolent resistance proved superior over the more hostile actions of X. The lesson here is people will listen to logical argumentation and peaceful resistance, not active violence. If you agree with my analogy then it can be inferred that Washington's approach towards civil rights was more enlightened, more likely to succeed. Du Bois' ideas were not violent yet they were too forceful, such would not be appealing to the white populace.
Even though Washington's surge for civil rights is more effective, I personally would argue in a more DU Bois style if faced with a related issue in today's society (Yes I know I was in the "Du Bois group" for the class discussion). Du Bois' stance had more in common with how I argue and or get things done. I still do admire King, Thoreau, and Gandhi for their determination it is simply the way they promote their beliefs where I differ. Of course, it is the individual's opinion concerning who pinpoints their views best and Du Bois and Washington are only two of many people.
Those are some very valid points. It is a natural law that greater force will inevitably encounter greater resistance. However, being not a patient man, I would lean more toward Du Bois' method. I don't think I could be rational and peaceful in the midst of the atrocities that these people have had to face.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. But change and time are discordant. They are both constant entities yet neither seems to exist harmoniously with the other. Those who are patient and can wait for the few moments in time when change is right will be rewarded handsomely. I, like you, cannot always wait for such moments. We want change NOW, not a few days or a millennium later. Sometimes in the midst of imperfect moments we have to put patience aside to attempt justice. I do, and often.
ReplyDeleteA wonderful posting, Jeremy, and a good follow up discussion here. I agree with you that sometimes change and time are discordant -- sometimes change is inevitable. I also think, and this is a bit off the subject, that time is not a constant entity. It seems to expand and contract depending on the state of mind of the person experiencing it. I wonder how waiting felt to the slaves or the freed humans who had nothing to eat and no way to make a living. I think that would try my patience, too. Looking forward to reading more of your posts.
ReplyDelete