Washington and DuBois

I think that Washington is far more conservative and DuBois is a militant. Washington's proposal that African-Americans should just work the fields because, "No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tiling a field as in writing a poem." He believed that the key to becoming a first class citizen was not too just demand the vote but educate themselves first and be nice to the white man and once the two sides developed a healthy relationship involving a lot of "bucket casting," the blacks would just get the vote. He urged his followers to simply " deport himself modestly in regard to political claims depending upon the slow but sure influences that proceed from the possession of property, intelligence and high character for full recognition of his political right."

DuBois on the other hand, well, he just straight up does not agree with Mr. Washington on anything. He is defiantly more militant. Militant means "vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause" and the cause DuBois so surely supported was that of civic equality. The main focus of which is the right to vote and proper education for the youth. At the end of "The Souls of Black Folks" DuBois speaks this impassioned statement, "By every civilized and peaceful method we must strive for the rights which the world accords to men, clinging unwaveringly to those great words which the sons of the Fathers would fain forget,'We hold these truths......'" We all it know it from there. DuBois believed that getting the vote should be the first and foremost concern. He seems way more progressive in a stereotypical manor.

To me it seems like DuBois doesn't have as much of a plan as Washington. The two different takes on the situation remind me of my friend Heidi and I when we talk about political government things. I am Washington and she is DuBois. I'm always like, "Just work and be good and obey the law and pay your taxes and thats how things will change eventually." and Heidi is like, "FIGHT THE POWER!" and, "What, Kailie, you think one day 'they' (I have to admit sometimes I don't know who they is) will just hand you big old award for working hard your whole life." She's way more aggressive than I am, I feel like she thinks the government changing is its own reward, while I think working hard is its own reward. Heidi would defiantly call me conservative and herself proudly a militant.

If that last paragraph didn't give away the answer to whose plan I would get behind I'll go ahead and say it here, Booker T. all the way. Well, maybe not all the way, but I understand what he is saying about just getting the natural rhythm of life down and then start making demands. I agree with Washington when he writes, "It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities."

I do think that the upbringing of these two men contributed to their beliefs on how one should rise to power. I think Washington's upbringing as a slave may have made him a little more practical. Also having first hand experience in the South he maybe knew what was the most important issues pressing the former slaves. And in his defense there may have been bigger fish to fry than the vote. He was in no means against empowering his people as we can see in this excerpt, "There is no defense or security for any of us except in the highest intelligence and development of all, If anywhere there are efforts tending to curtail the fullest growth of the Negro, let these efforts be turned into stimulating, encouraging, and making him the most useful and intelligent citizen." To me Washington's first hand experience on the subject probably lead him to have a better idea of what should be done in the little picture, if you will. He knew what should be performed daily to get them on track. I tend to think conservative approaches are usually taken better by those in power as opposed to militant.

DuBois was raised in the North and from a young age was praised academically. To DuBois demanding something high and lofty (such as the voting right?) probably seemed like the only thing to do. He figured once that was taken care of everyday life would fall into place. Perhaps he had a sense of entitlement, which Washington lacked. It seems as though DuBois take on thing was almost opposite of Washington's work from the ground up plan. I think being raised in the North taught him what could be achieved in ones lifetime and then when he moved to the South and suffered injustices he decided to fight.

I agree with DuBois when he writes about how the white population responded to Washington's ideas. DuBois writes, "It startled the nation to hear a Negro advocating such a program me after many decades of bitter complaint;" and then when he continues not the next page with, "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." I think that's part of why maybe Washington's plan appealed to me more. It seems like people wouldn't be so quick to write it off.

For example, you know that "Slut Walk" that happens in cities every so often to speak out against how that one dude got off on rape chargers for saying that the girl he rapped was asking for it based on how she was dressed. It also takes on a lot more issues about stuff. Awesome cause in my opinion. Light should be brought to this issue, but I can't help but feel like by calling it "Slut Walk" people will automatically dismiss it because the title has the word slut in it. Sometimes militance seems almost like too shocking or radical and the point (albeit a shocking or radical one) ends up getting lost.