Booker T Washington Vs Dubois

The period after the Civil War was a time of great tribulations for African Americans. Despite the fact that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 14th Amendment gave all former slaves citizenship and equal rights, black people found themselves left destitute and their rights eroded by hostile whites. Jim Crow laws created an oppressive environment for African Americans, and as a result of the racial disparity, civil rights leaders emerged to the forefront of American history, paving the way for the Civil Rights Movement of the twentieth century. Among these civil rights advocates were Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois, whose ideologies sharply contrast with each other. While both fought for social equality, their methodologies

caused strife between the two prominent leaders of the Civil Rights Movement.
Both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois were highly committed to achieving social equality for their fellow African Americans. Born in the same era, the two men shared a childhood as different as their ideologies. Washington was born into slavery and spent the first part of his life working on a Virginian plantation. When slaves were freed in 1863 with the passage of the 13th Amendment, Washington found himself faced with the struggle to earn a living as well as to get an education. His life was one hardship after another as he attempts to reach the top. Du Bois, on the other hand, was fortunate to be born in Massachusetts as a free black and was educated at the local public school. His first experience with discrimination was when “one girl, a tall newcomer, refused [his] card…without a glance” (886). Du Bois realizes that he was different from others within his class. He envied all “the dazzling opportunities” that he could not have and yearns to “wrest [it] from them” (887). Washington’s and Du Bois’s experiences as children reveals itself as adults in the two’s ideologies towards the advancement of African Americans. In Washington’s Up from Slavery, he spoke of putting aside the fight for equality in favor of self-help, racial solidarity, accommodation and economic advancement. He argues that in order to gain equal footing, black people must first gain some economic stability, either it be in “agriculture, mechanics, in commerce, in domestic service” or in the professions (690). Nothing in life is simply handed over and it is “at the bottom of life we must begin” (691). Du Bois disagrees with Washington’s subservient attitude towards social equality. In The Souls of Black Folk, he stated that “the nation has not yet found peace from its sins, the freedman has not yet found in freedom his promised land” (888). Therefore, it is up to them to fight for it. Du Bois advocated political actions and argues that there are certain rights that are inherent to everybody as stated in the Constitution. He asserts that these rights are not meant to be worked for as Washington had proposed. Washington’s and Du Bois’s ideologies polarized the African American community as they dispute over whose plans best served as a platform for the social advancement of black people.
To determine whether Booker T.

Washington or W.E.B. Du Bois offered a better plan for racial equality, one must look at several factors. In today’s modern time, many will be quick to claim that Du Bois offered the better plan of the two. His ideologies best reflect the mindset of the modern American people and are seen in the various movements today such as the Black Lives Matter movement. Nevertheless, modern ideas are irrelevant to the period in which Washington and Du Bois lived. The twenty-first century is unlike the nineteenth and twentieth century in its circumstances and conditions. Therefore, when deciding on which of the two methodologies best serve as a platform for the advancement of African Americans, one major factor to look at is the time in which these methodologies were proposed. Washington and Du Bois lived in the Jim Crow era-a period of racial oppression and disenfranchisement of black people. White people treated blacks as inferior beings and any attempt to change the status quo would have been met with hostility. Washington, unlike Du Bois, grew up as a slave and knew the deeply embedded racism within the white people of the time. He knew that black political agitation would lead nowhere and instead settled for a compromise- one that would lead to the eventual advancement of black people. In his book, Washington asked for everyone to “cast down [their] buckets” and help one another (690). He stated that “the wisest among [his] race understand

that agitation of questions of social equality is the extremest folly, and that progress is the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to [them] must be the result of severe and constant struggle” (692). Unlike Du Bois, Washington realized that social equality will take time. He understood that white people will not simply allow for black people to advance when there are no benefits to them. From his childhood, he understood that nothing can be achieved if one does not work for it, and that same can concept be applied to civil rights. A second factor one must take in when looking at the two distinct methodologies is the immediate needs of the time. After the slaves were freed, many found themselves with nowhere to go, “the great responsibility of being free, of having charge of themselves…it was very much like suddenly turning a youth of ten or twelve years out into the world to provide for himself” (682). Many former slaves left their old lives with little skills and hardly any knowledge of how to survive in a world in which they are responsible for their lives and that of their family. Washington understood the dilemma and knew that before social equality, African Americans must first gain some sort of economic stability. He created the Tuskegee Institute to teach black people vocational skills that they can apply in real life. He claims:
“the masses of us are to live by the production 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 occupation of life…no race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem” (691).
This is unlike Du Bois, who looks down on vocational schools and believed that before anything else, black people must first gain their rights. He maintains that civil rights were the only way to achieve equality and Washington’s conciliatory approach would only lead to black people’s continued treatment as second class citizens. He failed to take in account that humans require certain needs to be met before anything else and that is the need for shelter and food. If those needs are not met, everything else is pointless. Therefore, Washington, who offers the means to meet these needs, proposed a better plan for the social advancement of African Americans. After all, he is not advocating forsaking social equality, he is simply fighting for equality in the long term.
While Washington’s ideology and methodology for the racial equality best fit the period to which it was offered, one must not be quick to disregard Du Bois’s plans for racial justice.

The scholar was a leader in his own rights in his belief of immediate equality and contention that in waiting for Civil Rights as Washington has proposed, African Americans will face further disenfranchisement, “the legal creation of a distinct status of civil inferiority,” and “the steady withdrawal of aid from institutions for higher training” (897). Du Bois’s method for social equality would be later seen in the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks who fought for changes in the political system for the rights of African Americans. Nonetheless, Du Bois’s ideology was simply not applicable during the period for which it was proposed simply due to the fact that there were certain needs that were more prominent. Washington realizes this and proposed a plan that would helped the people who found themselves destitute due to their lack of knowledge and

skills.
Booker T. Washington and W.E.B Du Bois are prominent Civil Rights leaders who fought for the social equality of their fellow African Americans during a period in which their rights as freedmen were eroded. The two offered distinct methodologies for achieving civil rights in their books Up from Slavery and The Souls of Black Folk. While Washington pragmatist who favored a more accommodating approach, Du Bois believes in taking action and fighting for the rights that he felt were inherent in all human beings. The two’s differences come down to economics and politics. By taking in consideration of the time period as well as the immediate needs of the former slaves, it can be argued that Washington proposes a better platform for the achievement of racial equality.