“Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others” Easily the most striking thing in the history of the American Negro since 1876 is the ascendancy of Mr. Booker T. Washington. It began at the time when war memories and ideals were rapidly passing; a day of astonishing commercial development was dawning; a sense of doubt and hesitation overtook the freedmen’s sons,—then it was that his leading began. Mr. Washington came, with a simple definite programme, at the psychological moment when the nation was a little ashamed of having bestowed so much sentiment on Negroes, and was concentrating its energies on Dollars. His programme of industrial education, conciliation of the South, and submission and silence as to civil and political rights, was not wholly original; … But Mr. Washington first indissolubly linked these things; he put enthusiasm, unlimited energy, and perfect faith into his programme, and changed it from a by-path into a veritable Way of Life. … To gain the sympathy and cooperation of the various elements comprising the white South was Mr. Washington's first task; and this, at the time Tuskegee was founded, seemed, for a black man, well-nigh impossible. And yet ten years later it was done in the word spoken at Atlanta: “In all things purely social we can be as separate as the five fingers, and yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” This “Atlanta Compromise” is by all odds the most notable thing in Mr. Washington’s career. The South interpreted it in different ways: the radicals received it as a complete surrender of the demand for civil and political equality; the conservatives, as a generously conceived working basis for mutual understanding. So both approved it, and to-day its author is certainly the most distinguished Southerner since Jefferson Davis, and the one with the largest personal following. … Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission; but adjustment at such a peculiar time as to make his programme unique. This is an age of unusual economic development, and Mr. Washington’s programme naturally takes an economic cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life. … Mr. Washington’s programme practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races. Again, in our own land, the reaction from the sentiment of war time has given impetus to race-prejudice against Negroes, and Mr. Washington withdraws many of the high demands of Negroes as men and American citizens. In other periods of intensified prejudice all the Negro’s tendency to self-assertion has been called forth; at this period a policy of submission is advocated. In the history of nearly all other races and peoples the doctrine preached at such crises has been that manly self-respect is worth more than lands and houses, and that a people who voluntarily surrender such respect, or cease striving for it, are not worth civilizing. In answer to this, it has been claimed that the Negro can survive only through submission. Mr. Washington distinctly asks that black people give up, at least for the present, three things,—

was d.e.b dubois criticising washinton?

asked anonymously

2 months ago

11 views

0

0

1 answer

Yes, W.E.B. Du Bois was indeed critiquing Booker T. Washington's approach to racial issues in the excerpt you've provided. In the passage, Du Bois discusses Washington's philosophy, which emphasized industrial education, economic self-reliance, and a strategy of accommodation to white supremacy and segregation (often referred to as the "Atlanta Compromise").

Du Bois contrasts Washington's program of submission and economic focus with a more assertive stance advocating for civil and political rights, which he believed were essential for the advancement and dignity of African Americans. He argues that Washington's acceptance of the alleged inferiority of Black people and his call for submission were problematic. Du Bois suggests that self-respect and the pursuit of civil rights are crucial, even in the face of adversity, and implies that surrendering these principles could lead to the stagnation and degradation of the Black community.

Overall, Du Bois's criticism highlights a fundamental disagreement between the two leaders on how best to achieve progress for African Americans in the post-Reconstruction era. Washington favored a pragmatic, conciliatory approach, while Du Bois advocated for a more direct confrontation of racial injustices and a demand for civil rights. This divergence in beliefs is part of the broader historical context of differing strategies within the African American civil rights movement during that time.

answered by GPT-4o mini

0

0

Ask a New Question or answer this question.

Question

“Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others” Easily the most striking thing in the history of the American Negro since 1876 is the ascendancy of Mr. Booker T. Washington. It began at the time when war memories and ideals were rapidly passing; a day of astonishing commercial development was dawning; a sense of doubt and hesitation overtook the freedmen’s sons,—then it was that his leading began. Mr. Washington came, with a simple definite programme, at the psychological moment when the nation was a little ashamed of having bestowed so much sentiment on Negroes, and was concentrating its energies on Dollars. His programme of industrial education, conciliation of the South, and submission and silence as to civil and political rights, was not wholly original; … But Mr. Washington first indissolubly linked these things; he put enthusiasm, unlimited energy, and perfect faith into his programme, and changed it from a by-path into a veritable Way of Life. … To gain the sympathy and cooperation of the various elements comprising the white South was Mr. Washington's first task; and this, at the time Tuskegee was founded, seemed, for a black man, well-nigh impossible. And yet ten years later it was done in the word spoken at Atlanta: “In all things purely social we can be as separate as the five fingers, and yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” This “Atlanta Compromise” is by all odds the most notable thing in Mr. Washington’s career. The South interpreted it in different ways: the radicals received it as a complete surrender of the demand for civil and political equality; the conservatives, as a generously conceived working basis for mutual understanding. So both approved it, and to-day its author is certainly the most distinguished Southerner since Jefferson Davis, and the one with the largest personal following. … Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission; but adjustment at such a peculiar time as to make his programme unique. This is an age of unusual economic development, and Mr. Washington’s programme naturally takes an economic cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life. … Mr. Washington’s programme practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races. Again, in our own land, the reaction from the sentiment of war time has given impetus to race-prejudice against Negroes, and Mr. Washington withdraws many of the high demands of Negroes as men and American citizens. In other periods of intensified prejudice all the Negro’s tendency to self-assertion has been called forth; at this period a policy of submission is advocated. In the history of nearly all other races and peoples the doctrine preached at such crises has been that manly self-respect is worth more than lands and houses, and that a people who voluntarily surrender such respect, or cease striving for it, are not worth civilizing. In answer to this, it has been claimed that the Negro can survive only through submission. Mr. Washington distinctly asks that black people give up, at least for the present, three things,—

was d.e.b dubois criticising washinton?

1 answer

Yes, W.E.B. Du Bois was indeed critiquing Booker T. Washington's approach to racial issues in the excerpt you've provided. In the passage, Du Bois discusses Washington's philosophy, which emphasized industrial education, economic self-reliance, and a strategy of accommodation to white supremacy and segregation (often referred to as the "Atlanta Compromise").

Du Bois contrasts Washington's program of submission and economic focus with a more assertive stance advocating for civil and political rights, which he believed were essential for the advancement and dignity of African Americans. He argues that Washington's acceptance of the alleged inferiority of Black people and his call for submission were problematic. Du Bois suggests that self-respect and the pursuit of civil rights are crucial, even in the face of adversity, and implies that surrendering these principles could lead to the stagnation and degradation of the Black community.

Overall, Du Bois's criticism highlights a fundamental disagreement between the two leaders on how best to achieve progress for African Americans in the post-Reconstruction era. Washington favored a pragmatic, conciliatory approach, while Du Bois advocated for a more direct confrontation of racial injustices and a demand for civil rights. This divergence in beliefs is part of the broader historical context of differing strategies within the African American civil rights movement during that time.

Ask a New Question or answer this question.

was d.e.b dubois criticising washinton?

GPT-4o mini · Answer

Yes, W.E.B. Du Bois was indeed critiquing Booker T. Washington's approach to racial issues in the excerpt you've provided. In the passage, Du Bois discusses Washington's philosophy, which emphasized industrial education, economic self-reliance, and a strategy of accommodation to white supremacy and segregation (often referred to as the "Atlanta Compromise").

Du Bois contrasts Washington's program of submission and economic focus with a more assertive stance advocating for civil and political rights, which he believed were essential for the advancement and dignity of African Americans. He argues that Washington's acceptance of the alleged inferiority of Black people and his call for submission were problematic. Du Bois suggests that self-respect and the pursuit of civil rights are crucial, even in the face of adversity, and implies that surrendering these principles could lead to the stagnation and degradation of the Black community.

Overall, Du Bois's criticism highlights a fundamental disagreement between the two leaders on how best to achieve progress for African Americans in the post-Reconstruction era. Washington favored a pragmatic, conciliatory approach, while Du Bois advocated for a more direct confrontation of racial injustices and a demand for civil rights. This divergence in beliefs is part of the broader historical context of differing strategies within the African American civil rights movement during that time.