After reading a bit from Dubois and Washington, where do you come down on their disagreements regarding the best way to educate African-Americans in the post-civil War U.S.? Does their debate have any relevance today (for African-Americans or other marginalized groups)?
Post World War II Booker T Washington seems to advocate that Blacks, at that time, should have surrendered somewhat to the whites. They should concede political power, give up the fight towards civil rights, and close down higher-education institutions. He thinks that through this and hard work in business settings the Blacks in the South will obtain greater respect. Instead of higher education he advocates for the common school and industrial training.
ReplyDeleteWhere Washington advocates a “bottom-up” philosophy of starting at the bottom (common schools and industrial training) Du Bois advocates the “trickle-down” effect, that a few highly educated men can teach the rest. Du Bois thinks that respect cannot be gained through giving in. Blacks will gain respect through increased educational opportunities and increased rights. Without universities to teach Blacks graduates cannot go on to help the rest of the race gain status. He astutely notes, “If white people need colleges to furnish teachers, ministers, lawyers, and doctors, do black people need nothing of the sort?” He believes that racial justice can only be accomplished by colleges. Colleges should provide teachers to educate the masses and break down racial barriers.
I agree with Du Bois that nothing can be accomplished without education. To have increased general education there must be teachers and to have teachers there must be institutes of higher education. I believe that with education comes respect for self and ideals to change society for the better, which will give motivation as well as the skills necessary to achieve equality.
Correction: Post Civil War...
ReplyDeleteThe biggest disagreement between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois about educating African-Americans in the post Civil War U.S. is about the kind of education that should be given. Washington felt that the way towards an equal society was to pursue business and earn strong financial footholds. He felt that once business power was achieved, social equality would follow. This meant not focusing on higher education and developing practical skills for labor and business.
ReplyDeleteDu Bois on the other hand, felt that without education social equality would never come. He advocated for the creation of more colleges and normal school for the increased education of teachers. Once there was a larger pool of well-educated teachers, they would go to schools at lower steps in the educational system to make sure that all African-Americans had a chance to break free of the societal systems that had held them for so long.
I feel like this debate is still relevant today and is seen in the form of Affirmative Action. Du Bois would have been pro-AA, feeling that by giving opportunities to minorities that may not have had them before, progress can be achieved. I feel like Washington would have been against the policy, instead believing that by working hard enough and showing enough merit, opportunities afford themselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe way it seems to have broken down is this: Washington seemed to be taking a much more pragmatic approach (much like Jefferson and Mann...A pattern emerges!) toward education of southern African Americans, one which he was evidentially able to sway the white overlords of the south to support. He was advocating the education of a workforce, not of an intellectual class, something the white people could get behind, as they desperately needed labor. However, (if I may extrapolate from our limited reading) it seems to me tat Washington thought it most important to not force change, and to let it come gradually by showing the white people in power that the black community could be flexible in its demands and civil in its dialogue (even if the white community couldn't).
ReplyDeleteDubois pointed out that what Washington was saying amounted to little more than the white people's "party line" at the time (which is a valid point). He pursued basic rights much more ardently and with much more immediacy than Washington, saying that capitulation to the white people's views was as damaging if not more to the black community as a whole than what the whites themselves were doing.
This sort of debate is still relevant, though today, I think there is no single, central "White landed Southern" population to point the finger at. Societal expectations as a whole are now what inhibit any and all marginalized groups from achieving in equal numbers to any mainstream group, as well as subtle and not-so-subtle actions by representatives of the mainstream, like state and local governments.
I think that there is a strong case for both sides of the argument today; while I don't think that anyone should have to "wait it out" to attain their personal rights, history has shown that the path to change is a long and hard one, and one that can only be changed in increments (a statement that can be applied to both human rights movements and the progression of our American mode of education).
EDIT: Also, like Jefferson, Dubois made the point that there was a minimum of education necessary for a functional citizenry, and that the talented few should be allowed (and encouraged) to explore the higher levels of education.
In my opinion, I believe that Booker T Washington was a Uncle Tom. The reason is because I felt as though his plan of education was to kept the black man down . Also I think that he wanted to please the white man so by creating a plan where blacks only received "common schooling" and receive enough education to get them through life is a way where it looked like he thought about the black man but in actuality he really didn't. His whole ideology of educating through working is another way how his education plan show that blacks were not going to prosper. For the fact that he did not want blacks to pay attention to political things is crazy, so this means he just did not want them to be able to exercise their human rights. Also how were blacks suppose to be able to achieve higher status in society if all they knew was working in the garden and having common knowledge? Oh yeah according to Booker T, they weren't. I felt like his plan suppressed black people as much as any other education plan that was around at that time. And I am glad that Du Bois and other African Americans saw the foolishness in his plan.
ReplyDeleteDu Bois on the other hand felt as though equality would only be achieve by educating African Americans and not just on the common level but higher up. He felt as though with blacks achieving higher education they would gain more respect with in society and people would take blacks more seriously. I agree with Du Bois because in todays society people achieve the respect they desire through the proper education and they way our society now handles powers is through having the most educated people on top, well thats how I see it. The reason why we respect the people we do is because they have received the proper education. Do you think people would respect Obama as much if he wasn't an educated black man? Also with Du Bois I can kind of see how he wanted to think that if there were blacks receiving higher education than it would encourage more blacks to obtain any sort of education. Kind of a role model effect. Motivation was the key, in his eyes.
Justice, Equality, and Respect will only come through educating everyone with the same educating techniques, etcs. That was Du Bois thinking and I agree.
Post civil war, in terms of education, I would have to agree with Dubois arguments. Washington advocated for the submission and silencing of the race to civil and political rights; hindsight we know that action and effort is exactly what got the African American race to gain many civil and political rights. Washington believed in an industrial school system that assimilated all colored people into mainstream society.As Jake said, he felt starting at the bottom and working your way up to Ultimate Assimilation of the race. One the other hand there were a couple of points that Washington made that I agreed with. One point that Washington makes is that African Americans can either be 1/3 ignorance and crime or 1/3 intelligence and pride and I think people need to understand this. People of a society work with the tools that are available to them; if you do not equip the African American race with knowledge they may be ignorant. Education has a different meaning to Dubois who believed that industrial schooling was not the final answer to the education of freedmen but that this type of school trapped African American men and women in physical labor positions. Education should seek culture and character as Dubois says and to produce informed citizens. Dubois tends to see the African American race as more powerful, in my opinion. He doesn’t ask African Americans to change their efforts but sort of asks white folks, more importantly southerners, why they want ‘half-trained minds and shallow thinking’ in their civilization.
ReplyDeleteAlexis Green Says ...
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the thoughts and opinions of Washington and Dubois a lot of different surface between the two great leaders.
When looking at Washington's view of education the focus is put more on how African Americans can thrive in the post civil war society with the whites. Washington felt that African Americans could succeed in this somewhat 'new world' if they could level up to whites in the political aspect of society and social status. He believed blacks would become 'equal' if they did what the whites did. By voting and being able to hold intelligent conversations, while having various opinions, they would be given the respect and attention that they'd deserve. Once whites could see through their color and understand that blacks can be politically correct, change can occur. It is as if Washington steered away from education in the classroom and focused more on education in the 'real world'. He used more of a social learning technique (monkey see monkey do). Education in Washington's eyes, in my opinion, does have a lot of merit in today's world. If a person can get that one connection to a better job, education, or career then they are set and might not have to work as hard as the next person who goes to classes everyday and learns the textbook materials.
In Contrast however, DuBois believes highly in schools system and classroom learning. In 'Of the Training of Black Men' DuBois discussion is mostly about schools and what African Americans are learning in the classroom. Also, the teachers are a big focus because you want the students to have intelligent educators. DuBois strongly believes that providing schools gives African Americans an out, or a way to be different than average. African American school systems are important to the growth and respect towards blacks. Also, recognizing their potential to be great and prove the whites wrong. DuBois is definitely about creating respect and your own mind in the classroom with others around you reaching for the same goal. Education starts with you and only you decide how you succeed, others do not decide for you.
In my view of both leaders, who are on totally different sides of the spectrum, they hold very reliable and note worthy differences in their ideas of African American education. I don't see a lot of their viewpoints in today's society because there is a lot more in life to accomplish than just political power as well as continuing in higher education. I don't believe that marginalized groups are forced to pick and choose between two options. There are is a lot more to take into consideration than there was back then.
The clash in philosophies between Washington and DuBois set a precedent that to this day is still being perpetuated. Washington was essentially telling a humiliated, dejected, and struggling people that they had to turn the other cheek. When turning the other cheek, the aggressor immediately benefits and that is why Washington received much acclaim from the white community of the time. Beyond just getting off the hook though, I think the common working class white man of the time felt reassured by the idea that blacks were essentially getting the same treatment that they were by the rulling class industrialists and bankers. Washington was selling the “pick yourself up by the bootstraps and just work” mantra. From the perspective of a working black man of the time, I can see why this would be a hard sell. It took several generations of abuse and oppression to get where they were, why should they wait several generations to have what’s rightfully theirs? Why shouldn’t the men responsible fix a man-made problem?
ReplyDeleteThe choice comes down to how one personally views themselves in the context of history. It is a problem that modern immigrants also face. Should they spend their whole lives complaining about being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, at not having been fortunate enough to have the opportunities that US citizens do? When does history and causality end and personal responsibility begin? To some extent, some people will always have had a head start on you and much more opportunities, and thus it’s something not worth dwelling on. For this reason I believe Washington had the right idea. Letting everyone reach their equilibrium is a more sensible policy than making sweeping generalizations and favoring any one group or another.
As far as role models and achieving “critical mass” of the top people, this is something that I believe can’t be drafted in a social policy. It is something that happens on its own and happens naturally. Exceptionally successful people are subject to their individual circumstances and motivations. I can only agree with Washington, however, when the base needs of people are met. For this reason I believe WEB was more important in his time. If you don’t have basic human rights, you’re not a human and can’t be expected to achieve a reasonably comfortable living.
Washington and Dubois took two interesting approaches to educating African-Americans following the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteWashington seemed to focus less on higher levels of education and more towards displaying the African-Americans could keep up with the white race. I felt like he was saying that blacks should try to integrate and level the social field by proving that black was only skin-deep... that they were people capable of conversing and working next to a white man.
Dubois seemed to focus more on the education system for establishing equality. What I got out of Dubois, was that he believed the way to bring African-Americans to the same level as the white man was to actually get them into the classrooms. He desired for African-Americans to capture education to the highest degree (thus higher education). He thought that by getting the higher level of education, blacks would be able to show that they are no different than whites... that they were capable of attaining knowledge to succeed in the real world. Essentially Dubois thought status and political change would come with educational growth for the African-American population.
Personally, I think they both had interesting ideas about how to level the playing field. I agree that getting an education (especially higher education) would make a significant impact on how African-Americans would be seen. I feel as though higher education would allow them to be knowledgeable of their area of study, but more importantly, I feel that they would be much more aware of politics and society as compared to just being able to converse with a white person. I think the white race would almost be forced to accept African-Americans as intellectuals if they were just as capable in the classroom and in the workforce as anyone else.
I think this does have relevance today. Most parents who come from poorer countries always want their kids to do something... get an education and work hard so that they will be successful in society.
To me, Washington and Dubois differ distinctly on how they view education and the learning process. Whereas Washington has a very laid back attitude towards learning where motivation is key, Dubois puts emphasis on rules and the typical classroom learning style. I agree with Alexis who said that Washington has more of a social learning technique, which can be applied better to the society we live in today. Although good grades and being able to memorize facts and formulas might lead to great knowledge, I do not think that it necessarily translates to a successful person, neither professionally nor personally. Instead, we need to move beyond the textbook and regular classroom setting, and I believe that Washington had an understanding for that.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that I believe in Washington’s approach to learning in general, I see problems with it as it was applied at the time. In a society that lacked structure and equality, it is not easy to find motivation to want to learn, especially not if you come from a place where you for a very long time has been suppressed and looked down on. Therefore, I see great value in Dubois much more systematical approach, where everyone was included. Believing in equality as the core of education is paramount to his argument, and I believe that he makes a good point, especially in a society that looked very different then the one of today. If equality wasn’t an issue, I would have liked Washington’s approach more, since I believe motivation and inner drive is essential to succeeding in anything you do.
There are similarities to today however, one being the importance of educating teachers to guide the students forward. I believe it is hard to find motivation to want to learn new things without an inspiring authority to look up to, and the fact that Dubois encouraged the teacher profession speaks well of his understand for education.
Dubois’ disagreement with Washington seems to boil down to an opinion about the best way the African American population can excel in a white-dominated society. Education plays a role in both Dubois’ vision and Washington vision, but for both men, it ultimately is part of a larger plan to augment the social standing of the black population. This is the end goal for both Washington and Dubois.
ReplyDeleteIn Washington’s eyes, the road to African American prosperity involved much of the “American Dream”: pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, hard work, obedience and eventual success. His view seems wildly idealistic as he seems to believe that it was entirely possible for both blacks and whites to forget their prejudices and cultural history in the name of economic development. Just as he calls on his fellow African Americans to accept their white neighbors, he calls on the white population to accept the black population. He envisions a win-win situation. This said, there is a tone of white superiority in his speech. He implies that ultimately it is the white man that allows for the growth of the African American population. It’s as if Washington is asking for the whites to give African Americans a chance. Ultimately, Washington is advocating for cooperation on the part of African Americans so that they may integrate into white society and in the end succeed through avenues of the white culture.
Meanwhile, Dubois emphasizes African American assimilation and success through self assertion and self-made avenues. He shows how African Americans had begun to find their own identity, separate from that of the white culture. He sites the African Church and the use of the term “people of color” rather than “negroes” to show how the African American culture had already begun differentiating themselves from the norm set by white culture. Dubois advocates African American success through African American means, not African American success through Caucasian means. Overall, it seems that Dubois believes in claiming ones right to intellectual growth while Washington believes in complying with the social rules that are in place (however much degrading they are) in order to gain the opportunity for intellectual growth and ultimate prosperity.
Both methodologies make sense to me as they have been used in the past to gain cultural prosperity. Washington’s outlook seems more political and strategized, yet slow-going and submissive, while Dubois’ outlook is one of a social activism, bold and unrelenting. I think Dubois’ methodology produces more results and is the better way of the two to gain political prosperity.
Washington and Dubois both had very different views of what role education should play on the improvement of African American life. For Washington the emphasis should be on their ability to contribute to society as a powerful workforce. In line with that education should be to promote the industrial competence of African Americans. Dubois on the other hand wanted education to fuel the demand for equality by making well educated African American leaders. This says a lot about how they approached social change. Washington knew that social change can be very slow and that force can backfire when used for social change. For him it was like "here we have some progress, let's use what we've got now to better our participation in society. In doing this equality will come to us." Dubois however saw the gain of opportunity as a chance to go for equal rights. The wait has already been long and this was an opportunity to go all the way.
ReplyDeletePersonally I fall somewhere between the two for both education of African Americans in the post-Civil War time and on their views of social change. With the education I think the priority would be to get as many African-Americans as possible up to the educational level demanded of workers in the current time. Having everyone capable of contributing to the workforce is crucial at this moment of change to provide for the stability of the people. That said it is equally important that African Americans with academic aspirations in this time have the chance to obtain higher education. To contribute fully to society they must be capable of contributing to all aspect not just the industrial machine but also the scholarly contributions or to science or law. As for the nature of social change, the aspect of their debate that I think has the most lasting relevance, I find myself agreeing with parts of each again. For me, after hearing that DADT was to be repealed my initial thought was "great! Now let's get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act." I was ready for more progress, but I am in agreement with Washington in that I think it takes proving yourself with the rights that you have. In that sense I always knew it would be equality in the right to die for our country before much else. Still if you don't keep some of that fire alive, if you don't have someone taking issues to court, if you don't have people waving flags and reminding the public of injustice, without these things, it is easy for a minority to be swept aside in favor of other policies.
The language in these articles was a little difficult to understand, but from what I understood Washington and Dubois had completely opposite views of education. I agree with Julia, and I don't believe I have a better way of saying it. It seemed that Washington supported the "bottom up" method and Dubois supported a "trickle down" method. It seemed like they both believed that education was necessary for people to be productive members of society, but their definitions of what it mean to be a productive member of society was different. Washington believed in education as a means to mold African Americans into the ideal blue-collar worker and that anything more was unnecessary. His statement "No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a
ReplyDeletefield as in writing a poem" shows his take on education. Dubois definitely believed that there was much more to education and had a more proactive stance on it. I admire Dubois's passion and the level of importance he placed on education. But, as Dubois admitted, it was much more difficult than just saying how the system should be. I think that I am also somewhere in the middle between both ideologies. Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer; we need the blue-collar, technical workers. But, education should be a way for people to obtain whatever they want in life. The answer isn't just black and white (no pun intended). Their debate is definitely relevant to today, especially when today's constant debate is the ideal system of education and how to integrate every member of society.
I probably fall between Dubois and Washington. As evident, Dubois wanted to achieve a maximum level of education potential, instead of being content with fundamentals. Washington felt that all one needed to succeed were the fundamentals and a strong work ethic. My ideals are a combination of both Dubious and Washington. I believe Washington is correct in his thinking that you do not need too much more than the basics to be successful, but where I differ is that I don’t think it should be a race geared attitude. I understand that during World War II there was a strong correlation between class status and ethnicity, but I believe that class status should not be the determining factor, but instead merit should be. In that simple case, I do believe that Washington’s ideals of achieving maximum potential and receive the best education. I recognize that I am advocating a system similar to Plato’s World of the Metals except I do recognize that there should be education on all platforms, just too differing degrees.
ReplyDeleteTheir argument is very much relevant to today. Masses have been displaced from their jobs and are seeking a ‘new’ niche in society just like after the Civil War, all the newly freed slaves were jobless and homeless, without too many marketable traits. A Dubois point of view would be to education the next generation just enough that they can be a knowledge workforce that would not be belittled by going back to manual labor. A Washington scholar might advocate the need for an increase in education to compete for 21st century jobs that require a ‘highly’ educated populace. In reality, this seems to be a constant Freud between differing mindsets, though sometimes it’s masked through appropriations battles.
I also wanted to agree with Mr. Murphy when he states that Dubois reminds me a lot like Jefferson’s Agrarian Philosophers.
Sarah Riddick says...
ReplyDeleteAfter last week's reading in Rury, I really expected to clearly favor DuBois' plan over Washington's, but I hoped to be convinced otherwise or at least balance the two a bit. Upon reading the words of Washington, however, I felt profoundly disturbed. "No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem" (2). This to me reads as almost insulting because it seems to suggest that the African American population has some bourgeois attitude regarding labor. This, to me, is asinine. Surely, any person of a certain level of personal pride, of familial or community responsibility, etc. understands that while arduous, labor is a prosperous and necessary means of work. That said, a man will much more willingly do this work on his own terms rather than by force and abuse.
Now, I cannot completely disagree with Washington's stance towards this industrial, "let's get our hands dirty and be grateful first and foremost" tactic. I see here a lot of contemporary damage control happening and a very valiant effort to begin to build a bridge among to violently warring communities that must now suddenly get along. DuBois notes:
It startled the nation to hear a Negro advocating such a programme after many decades of bitter complaint; it startled and won the applause of the South, it interested and won the admiration of the North; and after a confused murmur of protest, it silenced if it did not convert the Negroes themselves.
To gain the sympathy and coöperation of the various elements comprising the white South was Mr. Washington’s first task (3.2).
It seems thus that Washington had the difficult task of acting as a voice in the middle of two very agitated communities and he made some smart political moves in terms of gaining the support of the Whites while, all in all, not necessarily rocking the boat too much. In the latter regard, I admire DuBois for his advocacy of higher education for the African American community. I absolutely agree and believe that there should be no start date other than today for a person who wishes to seek education. However, I think DuBois himself was isolated from the community because of his starkly different background and, politically speaking, his stance may have suffered because it was too radical for his contemporaries. In a world where political games bear no weight, I favor DuBois, but I can see the merit and purpose behind each proposal.
I am inclined to agree with Ryan M. that Washington’s approach to southern educational reform paralleled that of Jefferson and Mann; given the social and political climate of the time, it was necessary for him to approach reform practically and realistically. However, I’m not sure if he was advocating the education of a workforce in lieu of an intellectual class. Though he did state that, “the masses of us are to live by the productions of our hands, and fail to keep in mind that we shall prosper in proportion as we learn to dignify and glorify common labour and put brains and skill into the common occupations of life,” I think this was mostly to encourage powerful white southern males to support reform in an effort to retain their former workforce (though the conditions would be quite different, obviously). Washington is not forceful about educational reform, but instead simply states, “We shall constitute one-third and more of the ignorance and crime of the South, or one-third its intelligence and progress.”
ReplyDeleteDubois, on the other hand, does not want to wait for change and attacks Washington, declaring that he made unnecessary compromises in his address and that these compromises and half-truths have hurt the southern black population more than they have helped.
I find both arguments have merit, while one is more socially active, and the other more politically aware.
ReplyDeleteWashington creates a plan that takes into account the political and social times in which he's in. While it's not progressive, it allows the social evolution necessary to implement the freedom and equality that is deserved. By building the foundation for the black populace, they will be able to build upon that foundation and secure higher education and political power. Inherent in his argument is the idea that power is derived from economic success, and that in order to achieve the freedoms desired, the black community must be economically viable and integral in white society. However, while I believe the process needed to be gradually, I think Washington conceded too much to the white way of thinking and needed to focus on what the freed blacks not only needed but deserved.
DuBois on the other hand believes that education is necessary to win that equality, and being complacent is a recipe for unending oppression. While I admire his tenacity and his ideals, I do not believe that it would have been possible to implement his education plan during that period in history. But he truly understood that activism was necessary to implement social revolution and grant the basic freedoms promised to the American people in the Constitution to the black community. In order to make this a reality, I believe that this social revolution needed to be quiet in its strength in order to avoid being crushed in its infancy.
I think everyone can see that both men very much wanted a better situation for African Americans and that both had interesting points that have merit.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest difference I see is the vehicle each wanted to use.
Washington wanted to go about things slower and have the change be more of a process. I don't think this is because he felt that African Americans were not ready for change, but instead that the "White Man" wasn't. Like it was said in class- the newly freed people were not really in a great position to demand things, even if they were wholly deserved.
And DuBois wanted it all and he wanted it now. . .or then. And I agree that, among many other things, a fair education was due to the freed slaves. I just think its a matter of two plans that were devised to achieve the same goal.
Thats all personal choices aside (buying and shutting down newspapers).
Miranda Webster
ReplyDeleteI think the differences and the conflicts between Washington and DuBois are absolutely still present today. DuBois's idea of what an education should be, and what it should accomplish, are definitely more in line with what I believe. I think that, particularly in our MODERN society, making demands is necessary for change. Let me really quickly support this so I don't sound too outrageously radical: I don't believe that any society can achieve equality if the oppressed party does not speak out. Washington suggests that African Americans should not ask for equality, but rather ask for help. During his time, the white population saw themselves as superior in intelligence and worth. I don't believe asking for help would elicit anything other than a teacher-student or parent-child response, a response that would widen the gap between two races that have absolutely potential to be completely equal. I think Washington set up many of the problems we have now in society, with the "White Savior" and the complex behind that. DuBois was making demands, and while they may have not seemed realistic for his time period, I agree that it was better to ask for what was fair and just than to take baby steps that might eventually only get you half way there.