What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
I definitely thought it was interesting that this week introduced us to our first really powerful femal figure in the course, Ida B. Wells-Barnett. While there are others like Susan B. Anthony and Helen Hunt Jackson who have had definite impacts on the events we have read about, Wells definitely has had a more tangible impact with her ability to bring up both racial issues in lynching and women issues in the lack of education to the public forum. Her discourse will eventually lead to a much larger female impact in this course once we begin to discuss female suffrage and the 19th amendment.
What stood out to me this week was the regression in status African Americans in the south experienced after 1877. After being made citizens and being allowed to vote, and in some cases like South Carolina's a majority of the elected state legislature becoming African American, laws began to be introduced that effectively took away these rights. With the removal of federal troops from the south that resulted from the election of 1876, states like Mississippi and South Carolina introduced grandfather clauses and poll taxes that inhibited African Americans from voting. Voters that had been enfranchised were now disenfranchised, and for the most part it stayed this way until well into the 20th century. I wonder if the contrasting views of W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington ended up hurting the overall movement for black advancement because of the lack of agreement between the two, or did their different approaches help the movement by providing multiple paths for advancement?
The thing that stood out the most this week was the amount of support that blacks received from Northerners. Individuals like Andrew Carnegie gave a huge amount of support to Booker T. Washington in particular. It's likely that institutions like Tuskegee Institute would not have been able to stay afloat without Northerners' patronage. Did this patronage come from a genuine desire to improve the lives of blacks or did people simply want to garner good will for themselves by supporting a noble cause?
One thing I found interesting in this week’s lecture was the discussion of Ida B Wells and her contribution not only to the advancement of African Americans, but also to the women’s suffrage movement. While Booker T Washington and WEB Du Bois had good ideas on how to improve the status of African Americans in society, Wells recognized that before they could improve their status, it was crucial to be able to protect themselves and not fear persecution from people viewing an educated African American population as a threat. Her crusade against lynching and advocating for suffrage made her a very interesting character in history, and sets the stage for important future campaigns for basic human rights.
The thing that stood out to me this week was the contrasting views of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois. I find it hard to completely agree with either person's views because they had very different beliefs in how to go about black advancement. In a way, Washington seemed more reasonable because blacks are not going to be completely accepted all of a sudden. It takes time and Washington saw this, but I think he was forgetting about those crucial rights that blacks deserved. Did these conflicting views on black advancement cause the blacks to separate into groups based on who they agreed with, and did these opposing views hurt the movement in any way?
After reading the primary source of Booker T. Washington's speech, I found his ideas very debatable. In a way I thought he was still advocating for black subservience to white southerners. He seemed to be trying to convince them that blacks were necessary in the south just to perform certain jobs, not vote or have any substantial say in politics. Although he seemed to have a good goal in mind to help get African Americans in the south jobs, I felt he could have promoted access to a higher education and more civil rights like W. E. B. DuBois. My question from the reading and lecture was did Booker T. Washington have any internal motives for his actions, such as power or wealth?
What I found particularly interesting this week from the reading was Booker T. Washington’s idea of somewhat giving up on blacks’ rights for a time to focus on teaching labor skills. Although I don’t believe it was wrong to be wanting to teach these skills for the time period, I agree with W.E.B. Du Bois on the fact that forgetting about the bigger picture all together of their rights as citizens, such as the right to vote, was in fact a detrimental aspect of his views. The question that occurred to me was why were so many African Americans willing to give up the fight for certain rights for a period of time, forfeiting what so many had previously fought for?
What I found most interesting in this week’s readings was how two contrasting ideas could both hold some truth to them. Personally, I thought that both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois held valid opinions on how the African Americans were supposed to regain status in American culture. Booker T. Washington’s idea of creating a massive, skilled technical workforce with skills for many jobs suggested that a large number of blacks would be able to gain a respectable living. W.E.B. Du Bois’ contrasting opinion that the liberal arts were more important in creating their future leaders meant that more blacks would be advanced and in higher levels of society. These two ideas would have really worked well implemented together, but Washington generally had more funding and approval from wealthy white businessmen. Why didn't the two men try to come to a compromise so as to strengthen their influence and power?
Comparing Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois's opinions, I agree more with Du Bois. It is true that industrial education would benefit the Blacks, for it provided training in technical skills. However, how could Blacks protect themselves and their hard work if they don't have the right to vote? The societal and political structure needs to be changed. Moreover, in his address, Booker T. Washington said that "so in the future, in our humble way, we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defense of yours..." I found it problematic, because it put the Blacks in an inferior position compared to Whites. It almost sounded like Blacks are born to serve the Whites.
It was interesting seeing two vastly different theories concerning the advancement pf blacks in society. In certain ways, Du Bois and Washington's theories were practically opposites. Du Bois advocated blacks using their intellect to succeed and getting a proper higher education. Washington seemed to think that blacks could only succeed through vocational education. I feel that Du bois's theory was more ambitious, and perhaps not feasible for that time period, whereas Washington's was more practical and realistic for that era. I believe that through Washington's efforts, the nation has progressed to where DuBois's theory has become a reality. We learned about the responses that Washington's theory received. My question is how was Du Bois's theory received by influential leaders and politicians, considering its more ambitious nature?
I thought the debate about the best strategy regarding black advancement was very interesting. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Ida B. Wells' ideas on the best ways to African American elevation in America questioned what change needed to be implemented first. Booker T. Washington said industrial education in order to make African American's even more indispensable to the economy; however, W.E.B. Du Bois argued other positions that required higher education needed to be filled too like teachers and editors. Ida B. Wells declared industrial as well as liberal education fine, but a bigger problem is the senseless lynching occurring do to fear of economic competition among races. All of their strategies, to make good workers, to make good leaders, and to make better citizens by demanding respect amongst all, come together and show us that black advancement could not just rely on one factor, that many things would need to change in order for African American's to achieve elevation in this unjust society.
If you consider the Civil Rights Movement (well, around 1948-1965; who knows when the era actually concludes) as the answer to the Du Bois vs. Washington debate, I think the answer is clear: Du Bois was right in his philosophy. Higher education and quest for civil rights was more important than technical skills.
The most common question asked in reflection of this mid 20th century era is this: were the lawyers, clergymen, and policy-makers the figures who championed the Civil Rights Movement; or were the students, bus-boycotters, and homemakers the true heroes? Well, the answer to THAT question is ambiguous, I suppose, with a wealth of evidence supporting either side. But consider the following: The Niagara Movement was a forerunner to the NAACP, who were the intellectual leaders and synergists of the Civil Rights Movement; the students who followed Stokely Carmichael and Ella Baker were STUDENTS who were on their path to organic intellectualism; and were the busy-boycotters and sit-in participants really "skilled" workers? In most cases, I think it's an "emphatic No", to use Du Bois' terminology, because ultimately these men and women who occupied the lower class labor force in the 20th century did not attend college. Du Bois' stress of higher education and advancement of civil rights through education and intellectualism ultimately outweighed the need for technical skills.
On the other side of the coin, is it possible to measure just how influential the technical skilled, artisanal workers encouraged by Booker T. Washington were on the Civil Rights Movement? In what ways was the flux of technical drawers and brick-layers a contribution to setting the stage for the intellectuals in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s? Was A. Philip Randolph thankful to the few generations of technical drawers before him when he marched on Washington in 1941? I can see how this might be possible, but the ultimate success of the Civil Rights Movement and the equality of blacks through suffrage, etc. is, in my opinion, wholeheartedly a result of Du Bois philosophy.
What i found particularly interesting was the new strategies for black advancement. With the agreement over the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes and the withdrawal of troops from the south, i wonder how African American's will be able to overcome racial discrimination, lynching, and segregation. I support W.E.B Du Bois ideas about how African Americans need a voice and to be properly represented. My main question is: How would African American's achieve these goals and overcome adversity?
What is interesting to me regarding racial issues in this time period is that there was a heated debate among activists for african american rights regarding the action they should take to become full citizens. On one end of the spectrum was Booker T. Washington, founder of the Tuskegee institute, who wanted a gradual enfranchisement through becoming a viable economic force. On the other hand, W.E.B Dubois wanted to immediately push for enfranchisement and not "sell out" in a similar fashion to Washington. Finally, Ida B. Wells sought to ignore both sides and merely seek a stop to the violence against blacks, especially in the form of lynching. My question for the reading this week is would the enfranchisement movement be more successful if W.E.B Dubois and Booker T. Washington agreed on a single course of action?
What interested me the most with regards to this time period is the fact that there such a large split in thinking between black leaders. On one hand, there were blacks such as Washington who advocated for skilled blacks who can contribute to the workforce, while people like Dubois advocated for college education . This is an interesting split, and while I agree more with what Du Bois had to say, I would have to say that Washington's idea seemed to be the best step for blacks during this particular time period. Post reconstruction, many areas of the country, particularly the south, still harbored racial hatred, and were not eager to face competition from blacks at higher levels of education. In the context of the time period, as much as I hate to say it, Washington had the right idea. "Baby steps" would be a good way to view this situation, as slowly but surely blacks would gain more and more autonomy, with the beginnings lying in blacks that are skilled and able to support them selves in the economy. My question from this week is, was there ever a reconciliation of differences between the two parties and which method of thinking was more successful in leading blacks to autonomy?
I definitely thought it was interesting that this week introduced us to our first really powerful femal figure in the course, Ida B. Wells-Barnett. While there are others like Susan B. Anthony and Helen Hunt Jackson who have had definite impacts on the events we have read about, Wells definitely has had a more tangible impact with her ability to bring up both racial issues in lynching and women issues in the lack of education to the public forum. Her discourse will eventually lead to a much larger female impact in this course once we begin to discuss female suffrage and the 19th amendment.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me this week was the regression in status African Americans in the south experienced after 1877. After being made citizens and being allowed to vote, and in some cases like South Carolina's a majority of the elected state legislature becoming African American, laws began to be introduced that effectively took away these rights. With the removal of federal troops from the south that resulted from the election of 1876, states like Mississippi and South Carolina introduced grandfather clauses and poll taxes that inhibited African Americans from voting. Voters that had been enfranchised were now disenfranchised, and for the most part it stayed this way until well into the 20th century. I wonder if the contrasting views of W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington ended up hurting the overall movement for black advancement because of the lack of agreement between the two, or did their different approaches help the movement by providing multiple paths for advancement?
ReplyDeleteThe thing that stood out the most this week was the amount of support that blacks received from Northerners. Individuals like Andrew Carnegie gave a huge amount of support to Booker T. Washington in particular. It's likely that institutions like Tuskegee Institute would not have been able to stay afloat without Northerners' patronage. Did this patronage come from a genuine desire to improve the lives of blacks or did people simply want to garner good will for themselves by supporting a noble cause?
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found interesting in this week’s lecture was the discussion of Ida B Wells and her contribution not only to the advancement of African Americans, but also to the women’s suffrage movement. While Booker T Washington and WEB Du Bois had good ideas on how to improve the status of African Americans in society, Wells recognized that before they could improve their status, it was crucial to be able to protect themselves and not fear persecution from people viewing an educated African American population as a threat. Her crusade against lynching and advocating for suffrage made her a very interesting character in history, and sets the stage for important future campaigns for basic human rights.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that stood out to me this week was the contrasting views of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois. I find it hard to completely agree with either person's views because they had very different beliefs in how to go about black advancement. In a way, Washington seemed more reasonable because blacks are not going to be completely accepted all of a sudden. It takes time and Washington saw this, but I think he was forgetting about those crucial rights that blacks deserved. Did these conflicting views on black advancement cause the blacks to separate into groups based on who they agreed with, and did these opposing views hurt the movement in any way?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the primary source of Booker T. Washington's speech, I found his ideas very debatable. In a way I thought he was still advocating for black subservience to white southerners. He seemed to be trying to convince them that blacks were necessary in the south just to perform certain jobs, not vote or have any substantial say in politics. Although he seemed to have a good goal in mind to help get African Americans in the south jobs, I felt he could have promoted access to a higher education and more civil rights like W. E. B. DuBois. My question from the reading and lecture was did Booker T. Washington have any internal motives for his actions, such as power or wealth?
ReplyDeleteWhat I found particularly interesting this week from the reading was Booker T. Washington’s idea of somewhat giving up on blacks’ rights for a time to focus on teaching labor skills. Although I don’t believe it was wrong to be wanting to teach these skills for the time period, I agree with W.E.B. Du Bois on the fact that forgetting about the bigger picture all together of their rights as citizens, such as the right to vote, was in fact a detrimental aspect of his views. The question that occurred to me was why were so many African Americans willing to give up the fight for certain rights for a period of time, forfeiting what so many had previously fought for?
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting in this week’s readings was how two contrasting ideas could both hold some truth to them. Personally, I thought that both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois held valid opinions on how the African Americans were supposed to regain status in American culture. Booker T. Washington’s idea of creating a massive, skilled technical workforce with skills for many jobs suggested that a large number of blacks would be able to gain a respectable living. W.E.B. Du Bois’ contrasting opinion that the liberal arts were more important in creating their future leaders meant that more blacks would be advanced and in higher levels of society. These two ideas would have really worked well implemented together, but Washington generally had more funding and approval from wealthy white businessmen. Why didn't the two men try to come to a compromise so as to strengthen their influence and power?
ReplyDeleteComparing Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois's opinions, I agree more with Du Bois. It is true that industrial education would benefit the Blacks, for it provided training in technical skills. However, how could Blacks protect themselves and their hard work if they don't have the right to vote? The societal and political structure needs to be changed. Moreover, in his address, Booker T. Washington said that "so in the future, in our humble way, we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defense of yours..." I found it problematic, because it put the Blacks in an inferior position compared to Whites. It almost sounded like Blacks are born to serve the Whites.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting seeing two vastly different theories concerning the advancement pf blacks in society. In certain ways, Du Bois and Washington's theories were practically opposites. Du Bois advocated blacks using their intellect to succeed and getting a proper higher education. Washington seemed to think that blacks could only succeed through vocational education. I feel that Du bois's theory was more ambitious, and perhaps not feasible for that time period, whereas Washington's was more practical and realistic for that era. I believe that through Washington's efforts, the nation has progressed to where DuBois's theory has become a reality. We learned about the responses that Washington's theory received. My question is how was Du Bois's theory received by influential leaders and politicians, considering its more ambitious nature?
ReplyDeleteI thought the debate about the best strategy regarding black advancement was very interesting. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Ida B. Wells' ideas on the best ways to African American elevation in America questioned what change needed to be implemented first. Booker T. Washington said industrial education in order to make African American's even more indispensable to the economy; however, W.E.B. Du Bois argued other positions that required higher education needed to be filled too like teachers and editors. Ida B. Wells declared industrial as well as liberal education fine, but a bigger problem is the senseless lynching occurring do to fear of economic competition among races. All of their strategies, to make good workers, to make good leaders, and to make better citizens by demanding respect amongst all, come together and show us that black advancement could not just rely on one factor, that many things would need to change in order for African American's to achieve elevation in this unjust society.
ReplyDeleteIf you consider the Civil Rights Movement (well, around 1948-1965; who knows when the era actually concludes) as the answer to the Du Bois vs. Washington debate, I think the answer is clear: Du Bois was right in his philosophy. Higher education and quest for civil rights was more important than technical skills.
ReplyDeleteThe most common question asked in reflection of this mid 20th century era is this: were the lawyers, clergymen, and policy-makers the figures who championed the Civil Rights Movement; or were the students, bus-boycotters, and homemakers the true heroes? Well, the answer to THAT question is ambiguous, I suppose, with a wealth of evidence supporting either side. But consider the following: The Niagara Movement was a forerunner to the NAACP, who were the intellectual leaders and synergists of the Civil Rights Movement; the students who followed Stokely Carmichael and Ella Baker were STUDENTS who were on their path to organic intellectualism; and were the busy-boycotters and sit-in participants really "skilled" workers? In most cases, I think it's an "emphatic No", to use Du Bois' terminology, because ultimately these men and women who occupied the lower class labor force in the 20th century did not attend college. Du Bois' stress of higher education and advancement of civil rights through education and intellectualism ultimately outweighed the need for technical skills.
On the other side of the coin, is it possible to measure just how influential the technical skilled, artisanal workers encouraged by Booker T. Washington were on the Civil Rights Movement? In what ways was the flux of technical drawers and brick-layers a contribution to setting the stage for the intellectuals in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s? Was A. Philip Randolph thankful to the few generations of technical drawers before him when he marched on Washington in 1941? I can see how this might be possible, but the ultimate success of the Civil Rights Movement and the equality of blacks through suffrage, etc. is, in my opinion, wholeheartedly a result of Du Bois philosophy.
What i found particularly interesting was the new strategies for black advancement. With the agreement over the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes and the withdrawal of troops from the south, i wonder how African American's will be able to overcome racial discrimination, lynching, and segregation. I support W.E.B Du Bois ideas about how African Americans need a voice and to be properly represented. My main question is: How would African American's achieve these goals and overcome adversity?
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting to me regarding racial issues in this time period is that there was a heated debate among activists for african american rights regarding the action they should take to become full citizens. On one end of the spectrum was Booker T. Washington, founder of the Tuskegee institute, who wanted a gradual enfranchisement through becoming a viable economic force. On the other hand, W.E.B Dubois wanted to immediately push for enfranchisement and not "sell out" in a similar fashion to Washington. Finally, Ida B. Wells sought to ignore both sides and merely seek a stop to the violence against blacks, especially in the form of lynching. My question for the reading this week is would the enfranchisement movement be more successful if W.E.B Dubois and Booker T. Washington agreed on a single course of action?
ReplyDeleteWhat interested me the most with regards to this time period is the fact that there such a large split in thinking between black leaders. On one hand, there were blacks such as Washington who advocated for skilled blacks who can contribute to the workforce, while people like Dubois advocated for college education . This is an interesting split, and while I agree more with what Du Bois had to say, I would have to say that Washington's idea seemed to be the best step for blacks during this particular time period. Post reconstruction, many areas of the country, particularly the south, still harbored racial hatred, and were not eager to face competition from blacks at higher levels of education. In the context of the time period, as much as I hate to say it, Washington had the right idea. "Baby steps" would be a good way to view this situation, as slowly but surely blacks would gain more and more autonomy, with the beginnings lying in blacks that are skilled and able to support them selves in the economy. My question from this week is, was there ever a reconciliation of differences between the two parties and which method of thinking was more successful in leading blacks to autonomy?
ReplyDelete