Booker T. Washington's approach to addressing discrimination was rooted in a philosophy of vocational training and self-help. He believed that African Americans should prioritize economic self-sufficiency and personal development through industrial education. Washington argued that by acquiring practical skills and demonstrating their value to society, African Americans would gradually earn the respect of white society and, consequently, their civil rights. He famously articulated this perspective in his 1895 Atlanta Compromise speech, contending that "casting down your bucket where you are" was essential for African Americans to build a foundation for progress. Therefore, Washington’s strategy emphasized patience, hard work, and the gradual accumulation of respect and social capital, as he believed that true equality would come as a byproduct of individual improvement and social acceptance.
In contrast, W. E. B. Du Bois vehemently opposed Washington's stance, advocating for immediate civil rights and higher education. Du Bois believed that African Americans should actively fight against discrimination and demand their rights as full citizens. He argued that the "Talented Tenth"—the most educated and capable African Americans—should lead the movement for civil rights. According to Du Bois, relying solely on vocational training would reinforce societal stereotypes of inferiority and maintain the status quo of racial oppression. He articulated this view in his 1903 work, "The Souls of Black Folk," where he famously stated, "The problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line," emphasizing that the struggle against racial discrimination was crucial for achieving true equality. Thus, Du Bois's approach focused on political activism, higher education, and the importance of challenging systemic inequalities directly.
Despite their differing methods, both Washington and Du Bois shared a common goal: the improvement of the social and economic status of African Americans. However, their paths diverged significantly in terms of urgency and approach. Washington's method was often criticized for being too accommodating to white supremacy, as he seemed to suggest that African Americans should accept segregation and inequality in the short term in exchange for economic gains. Du Bois, on the other hand, viewed complacency as a potential threat to the progress of African Americans. He called for a more confrontational stance, arguing that any delay in demanding full civil rights could perpetuate the cycle of oppression. Consequently, while both leaders aimed for the uplift of the African American community, Washington’s gradualist philosophy contrasted sharply with Du Bois’s urgent demand for immediate action and civil rights, highlighting two distinct philosophies within the broader struggle for equality.