Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Booker T. Washington vs. W.E.B. Du Bois

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:06:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
We claim for ourselves every single right that belongs to a free American, political, civil and social, and until we get these rights we will never cease to protest and assail the ears of America.

" W.E.B. Du Bois

The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremist folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than of artificial forcing.

" Booker T. Washington

This is an oversimplification of black thought on racial issues, but it will do for our purposes. Generally speaking, there are two streams of thought, and each one is emblematically represented by W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington. Washington took more of an "accomodationist" approach (see his "Atlanta Exposition" speech, which Du Bois named the "Atlanta Compromise") , whereas Du Bois took a very non-accomodationist approach.

Washington, in short, believed that blacks should give up demands for social and political equality from white society and focus their attention on building up their economic platform and educational opportunities (especially education in skills and trades). He thought that eventually white society would black were worthy after doing this for a while and grant them social and political equality in due time.

Du Bois, in short, believed that blacks were merely demanding rights that they were supposed to be embdued with in the first place, and until they were given blacks have every right -- and even an obligation - be "agitators". He also believed education was incredibly important, but he put more of his focus into liberal arts as that would produce the thinkers needed to dismantle the whole system of thought that motivated the oppression of blacks.

Du Bois critqued Washington thus:

"Notwithstanding this, it is equally true to assert that on the whole the distinct impression left by Mr. Washington"s propaganda is, first, that the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro"s degradation; secondly, that the prime cause of the Negro"s failure to rise more quickly is his wrong education in the past; and, thirdly, that his future rise depends primarily on his own efforts. Each of these propositions is a dangerous half-truth. The supplementary truths must never be lost sight of: first, slavery and race-prejudice are potent if not sufficient causes of the Negro"s position; second, industrial and common-school training were necessarily slow in planting because they had to await the black teachers trained by higher institutions,"it being extremely doubtful if any essentially different development was possible, and certainly a Tuskegee was unthinkable before 1880; and, third, while it is a great truth to say that the Negro must strive and strive mightily to help himself, it is equally true that unless his striving be not simply seconded, but rather aroused and encouraged, by the initiative of the richer and wiser environing group, he cannot hope for great success.

In his failure to realize and impress this last point, Mr. Washington is especially to be criticised. His doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro"s shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs.

....

So far as Mr. Washington preaches Thrift, Patience, and Industrial Training for the masses, we must hold up his hands and strive with him, rejoicing in his honors and glorying in the strength of this Joshua called of God and of man to lead the headless host. But so far as Mr. Washington apologizes for injustice, North or South, does not rightly value the privilege and duty of voting, belittles the emasculating effects of caste distinctions, and opposes the higher training and ambition of our brighter minds,"so far as he, the South, or the Nation, does this,"we must unceasingly and firmly oppose them."

http://historymatters.gmu.edu...

"To those of my race who depend on bettering their condition in a foreign land or who underestimate the importance of cultivating friendly relations with the Southern white man, who is their next-door neighbor, I would say: "Cast down your bucket where you are"" cast it down in making friends in every manly way of the people of all races by whom we are surrounded.

Cast it down in agriculture, mechanics, in commerce, in domestic service, and in the professions. And in this connection it is well to bear in mind that whatever other sins the South may be called to bear, when it comes to business, pure and simple, it is in the South that the Negro is given a man"s chance in the commercial world, and in nothing is this Exposition more eloquent than in emphasizing this chance. Our greatest danger is that in the great leap from slavery to freedom we may overlook the fact 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; shall prosper in proportion as we learn to draw the line between the superficial and the substantial, the ornamental gewgaws of life and the useful. No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top.

To those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits for the prosperity of the South, were I permitted I would repeat what I say to my own race,"Cast down your bucket where you are." Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides. Cast down your bucket among these people who have, without strikes and labour wars, tilled your fields, cleared your forests, builded your railroads and cities, and brought forth treasures from the bowels of the earth, and helped make possible this magnificent representation of the progress of the South. Casting down your bucket among my people, helping and encouraging them as you are doing on these grounds, and to education of head, hand, and heart, you will find that they will buy your surplus land, make blossom the waste places in your fields, and run your factories. While doing this, you can be sure in the future, as in the past, that you and your families will be surrounded by the most patient, faithful, law-abiding, and unresentful people that the world has seen. As we have proved our loyalty to you in the past, in nursing your children, watching by the sick-bed of your mothers and fathers, and often following them with tear-dimmed eyes to their graves, 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, interlacing our industrial, commercial, civil, and religious life with yours in a way that shall make the interests of both races one. In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress."

http://historymatters.gmu.edu...

If one were to look at these two men, it explains much about the current state of black thought on these issues.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 9:10:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I love this. Wish I had something to contribute, but I don't. It's like a paradox. I can't figure out which way is better. Probably Du Bois? But then I think of Palestine and other places, and that instinct to fight is so easy to manipulate and can be so destructive. So Idk. What do you think?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 9:13:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Someone remind me to post in this in a few hours.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 1:46:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
This is a good post.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Washington, though. Washington, unlike Du Bois, wasn't concerned with defining black social and political status against white people; whereas Du Bois was only concerned with measuring black status against whites.

Washington was interested in consolidating economic power among black people (which, if it had been done, would have radically changed the course of history), and using that human capital to build black communities from the ground up. Du Bois demanded recognition now.

The intellectual fault line between their schools of thought existed on whose actions should be the focus of their efforts: Washington's focus was on black people doing things for black people; Du Bois was more concerned with changing white people.

At the time, neither perspective was without merit; both had substantial, albeit different, value. But, the Du Bois school of thought prevailed, and it continues to dominate through this day; it's most asinine extension being Ta Nehisi Coates.
Tsar of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:34:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 9:10:24 AM, Hoppi wrote:
I love this. Wish I had something to contribute, but I don't. It's like a paradox.

Yup, it is. And that's what makes it so hard to find the correct path.

I can't figure out which way is better. Probably Du Bois? But then I think of Palestine and other places, and that instinct to fight is so easy to manipulate and can be so destructive. So Idk. What do you think?

I favor Du Bois and I think his critique of Washington was spot on and is still quite relevant to this day. But Washington had a lot of good things to say (as Du Bois said). Du Bois had great respect for him - Washington was the foremost black intellectual of the day - and it evidently pained him quite a deal to have to criticize him like he did, but he felt it was a moral duty.

I find it pretty interesting how this dynamic plays out over and over though. Look at former justice Thurgood Marshall as compared to current justice Clarence Thomas.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:35:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 9:13:51 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Someone remind me to post in this in a few hours.

Consider yourself reminded. :)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:09:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 1:46:35 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a good post.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Washington, though. Washington, unlike Du Bois, wasn't concerned with defining black social and political status against white people; whereas Du Bois was only concerned with measuring black status against whites.

Washington was interested in consolidating economic power among black people (which, if it had been done, would have radically changed the course of history), and using that human capital to build black communities from the ground up. Du Bois demanded recognition now.

The intellectual fault line between their schools of thought existed on whose actions should be the focus of their efforts: Washington's focus was on black people doing things for black people; Du Bois was more concerned with changing white people.

At the time, neither perspective was without merit; both had substantial, albeit different, value. But, the Du Bois school of thought prevailed, and it continues to dominate through this day; it's most asinine extension being Ta Nehisi Coates.

It's fascinating why D. garnered more white support than W.

I think some elements of rationale existed (and still exist to this day) That the Black man is inferior and cannot possibly survive without white assistance. Therefore we will do whatever it takes to equalize their station.
The reason why I think this approach was appealing than the approach of W. is because it allowed Whites to reconcile their attitudes of superiority with a compassionate patronizing plan for equality.

The approach of W. would have forced all whites to immediately renounce the idea that the Whites were superior.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:29:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 5:09:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:46:35 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a good post.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Washington, though. Washington, unlike Du Bois, wasn't concerned with defining black social and political status against white people; whereas Du Bois was only concerned with measuring black status against whites.

Washington was interested in consolidating economic power among black people (which, if it had been done, would have radically changed the course of history), and using that human capital to build black communities from the ground up. Du Bois demanded recognition now.

The intellectual fault line between their schools of thought existed on whose actions should be the focus of their efforts: Washington's focus was on black people doing things for black people; Du Bois was more concerned with changing white people.

At the time, neither perspective was without merit; both had substantial, albeit different, value. But, the Du Bois school of thought prevailed, and it continues to dominate through this day; it's most asinine extension being Ta Nehisi Coates.

It's fascinating why D. garnered more white support than W.

I think some elements of rationale existed (and still exist to this day) That the Black man is inferior and cannot possibly survive without white assistance. Therefore we will do whatever it takes to equalize their station.
The reason why I think this approach was appealing than the approach of W. is because it allowed Whites to reconcile their attitudes of superiority with a compassionate patronizing plan for equality.

The approach of W. would have forced all whites to immediately renounce the idea that the Whites were superior.

Actually, most whites favored W much more than D, whereas it tended to be the opposite amongst blacks, so....

And there are pretty obvious reasons why this was so...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:42:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 5:29:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:09:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:46:35 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a good post.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Washington, though. Washington, unlike Du Bois, wasn't concerned with defining black social and political status against white people; whereas Du Bois was only concerned with measuring black status against whites.

Washington was interested in consolidating economic power among black people (which, if it had been done, would have radically changed the course of history), and using that human capital to build black communities from the ground up. Du Bois demanded recognition now.

The intellectual fault line between their schools of thought existed on whose actions should be the focus of their efforts: Washington's focus was on black people doing things for black people; Du Bois was more concerned with changing white people.

At the time, neither perspective was without merit; both had substantial, albeit different, value. But, the Du Bois school of thought prevailed, and it continues to dominate through this day; it's most asinine extension being Ta Nehisi Coates.

It's fascinating why D. garnered more white support than W.

I think some elements of rationale existed (and still exist to this day) That the Black man is inferior and cannot possibly survive without white assistance. Therefore we will do whatever it takes to equalize their station.
The reason why I think this approach was appealing than the approach of W. is because it allowed Whites to reconcile their attitudes of superiority with a compassionate patronizing plan for equality.

The approach of W. would have forced all whites to immediately renounce the idea that the Whites were superior.

Actually, most whites favored W much more than D, whereas it tended to be the opposite amongst blacks, so....

And there are pretty obvious reasons why this was so...

I think it's pretty obvious that the prevailing direction is contrary to your claim that whites did not support it.
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:53:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 5:29:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:09:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:46:35 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a good post.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Washington, though. Washington, unlike Du Bois, wasn't concerned with defining black social and political status against white people; whereas Du Bois was only concerned with measuring black status against whites.

Washington was interested in consolidating economic power among black people (which, if it had been done, would have radically changed the course of history), and using that human capital to build black communities from the ground up. Du Bois demanded recognition now.

The intellectual fault line between their schools of thought existed on whose actions should be the focus of their efforts: Washington's focus was on black people doing things for black people; Du Bois was more concerned with changing white people.

At the time, neither perspective was without merit; both had substantial, albeit different, value. But, the Du Bois school of thought prevailed, and it continues to dominate through this day; it's most asinine extension being Ta Nehisi Coates.

It's fascinating why D. garnered more white support than W.

I think some elements of rationale existed (and still exist to this day) That the Black man is inferior and cannot possibly survive without white assistance. Therefore we will do whatever it takes to equalize their station.
The reason why I think this approach was appealing than the approach of W. is because it allowed Whites to reconcile their attitudes of superiority with a compassionate patronizing plan for equality.

The approach of W. would have forced all whites to immediately renounce the idea that the Whites were superior.

Actually, most whites favored W much more than D, whereas it tended to be the opposite amongst blacks, so....

And there are pretty obvious reasons why this was so...

Yes. Washington's method required work. Du Bois required white people to do stuff.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 6:01:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Also, many White abolitionists were still fundamentally racists who believed the Black was inferior, so W's plan would have been completely unappealing to even supporters of the abolishment of slavery. Basically, they thought the institution of slavery was wrong, but the idea that Black people could or should take care of themselves was unfathomable given the prevailing notion of the inferiority of the Blacks.

Less white support for W.

More support for D.

Support drives the policy changes.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 6:32:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 5:53:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:29:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:09:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:46:35 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a good post.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Washington, though. Washington, unlike Du Bois, wasn't concerned with defining black social and political status against white people; whereas Du Bois was only concerned with measuring black status against whites.

Washington was interested in consolidating economic power among black people (which, if it had been done, would have radically changed the course of history), and using that human capital to build black communities from the ground up. Du Bois demanded recognition now.

The intellectual fault line between their schools of thought existed on whose actions should be the focus of their efforts: Washington's focus was on black people doing things for black people; Du Bois was more concerned with changing white people.

At the time, neither perspective was without merit; both had substantial, albeit different, value. But, the Du Bois school of thought prevailed, and it continues to dominate through this day; it's most asinine extension being Ta Nehisi Coates.

It's fascinating why D. garnered more white support than W.

I think some elements of rationale existed (and still exist to this day) That the Black man is inferior and cannot possibly survive without white assistance. Therefore we will do whatever it takes to equalize their station.
The reason why I think this approach was appealing than the approach of W. is because it allowed Whites to reconcile their attitudes of superiority with a compassionate patronizing plan for equality.

The approach of W. would have forced all whites to immediately renounce the idea that the Whites were superior.

Actually, most whites favored W much more than D, whereas it tended to be the opposite amongst blacks, so....

And there are pretty obvious reasons why this was so...

Yes. Washington's method required work. Du Bois required white people to do stuff.

And you say I was a bit unfair? smh
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 6:46:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 1:46:35 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a good post.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Washington, though. Washington, unlike Du Bois, wasn't concerned with defining black social and political status against white people; whereas Du Bois was only concerned with measuring black status against whites.


Oversimplification. Both of them had elements of that but the main dividing line was the timeline in which these things would happen. Now vs later.

Washington was interested in consolidating economic power among black people (which, if it had been done, would have radically changed the course of history), and using that human capital to build black communities from the ground up. Du Bois demanded recognition now.

The intellectual fault line between their schools of thought existed on whose actions should be the focus of their efforts: Washington's focus was on black people doing things for black people; Du Bois was more concerned with changing white people.


Oversimplification. Washington also focused on changing white people (by imploring them to give blacks education in skills and trades and other economic sectors) in exchange for giving up demands for equality at the present moment. DuBois was also focused on blacks doing things for black people.

At the time, neither perspective was without merit; both had substantial, albeit different, value. But, the Du Bois school of thought prevailed, and it continues to dominate through this day; it's most asinine extension being Ta Nehisi Coates.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 6:54:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:34:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2016 9:10:24 AM, Hoppi wrote:
I love this. Wish I had something to contribute, but I don't. It's like a paradox.

Yup, it is. And that's what makes it so hard to find the correct path.

I can't figure out which way is better. Probably Du Bois? But then I think of Palestine and other places, and that instinct to fight is so easy to manipulate and can be so destructive. So Idk. What do you think?

I favor Du Bois and I think his critique of Washington was spot on and is still quite relevant to this day. But Washington had a lot of good things to say (as Du Bois said). Du Bois had great respect for him - Washington was the foremost black intellectual of the day - and it evidently pained him quite a deal to have to criticize him like he did, but he felt it was a moral duty.

I find it pretty interesting how this dynamic plays out over and over though. Look at former justice Thurgood Marshall as compared to current justice Clarence Thomas.

Dang! I actually wrote a paper in college on these two historic figures, and I am sure I knew more about them then than I do now-- it was a LONG time ago... I used a fictional escaping slave story as an allegory for the two opposing schools of thought, and I cannot even remember the name of the story nor the author. So, again "dang!" and my apologies.

Would you also compare W and D with King and Malcom X, respectively? Or have you already made that comparison? In the excitement of recalling one of my precious A grade papers from over 20 years ago, I have admittedly only skimmed your OP as of yet...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 7:03:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 6:46:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2016 1:46:35 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a good post.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Washington, though. Washington, unlike Du Bois, wasn't concerned with defining black social and political status against white people; whereas Du Bois was only concerned with measuring black status against whites.


Oversimplification. Both of them had elements of that but the main dividing line was the timeline in which these things would happen. Now vs later.

I agree... we're talking about broad themes, here.

Washington was interested in consolidating economic power among black people (which, if it had been done, would have radically changed the course of history), and using that human capital to build black communities from the ground up. Du Bois demanded recognition now.

The intellectual fault line between their schools of thought existed on whose actions should be the focus of their efforts: Washington's focus was on black people doing things for black people; Du Bois was more concerned with changing white people.


Oversimplification. Washington also focused on changing white people (by imploring them to give blacks education in skills and trades and other economic sectors) in exchange for giving up demands for equality at the present moment. DuBois was also focused on blacks doing things for black people.

Again, we're talking about broad themes, here.

At the time, neither perspective was without merit; both had substantial, albeit different, value. But, the Du Bois school of thought prevailed, and it continues to dominate through this day; it's most asinine extension being Ta Nehisi Coates.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 8:21:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Washington was in the right. Most discrimination against blacks today is not legal but the ways that individual white decisions and judgments affect blacks.
Today, most distrust of Blacks among whites comes because of their high rates of crime (correlated with poverty) and the fact that they are poor (poor people are more likely to be criminal). That is, most prejudice against blacks stems from the fact that they are poor. Whites would show full respect to those who look like middle and upper class blacks. Those they consider untrustworthy thugs are people who look like this:
http://static.ebony.com...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 8:27:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Can one honestly be surprised Du Bois stance was the one majoritively adopted though. It's natural human behavior for the most part to forego self responsibility in favor of placing that responsibility upon another. Because then one has justification for blame. We all act like that sometimes lol
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 8:59:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 8:27:00 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Can one honestly be surprised Du Bois stance was the one majoritively adopted though. It's natural human behavior for the most part to forego self responsibility in favor of placing that responsibility upon another. Because then one has justification for blame. We all act like that sometimes lol

It's alot deeper than that Buddha. That was a policy adopted by WHITES; cause , ya know, whites had all the political power to make actual policy changes.

The real problem is that just about every abolitionist at that time was a racist, because absolutely no white person at that time looked on the Blacks as social and political equals, if there were any it would be a very sparse academic minority. Political changes were made in that context.

D's policies worked to establish parity without changing actual racist attitudes. Whites could agree to a policy that didn't challenge their racist belief system. Ergo we have a continuation to this day.

W's policies would have forced a complete denial of racism. There was little chance he could get the white political support to back him up solely because it defied the core tenets of racism. Heck, even some blacks doubted they had the intrinsic ability to take care of themselves back then. It had been beaten into them for so long. W knew the greatest challenge wasn't just to simply eliminate the White superiority complex. He believed he had an obligation to address the Black inferiority problem as well. He knew D's policies would not make any meaningful headway toward real change of racial attitudes. Since he knew attitudes are changed with action and events, W's policies were the only real hope for the eradication of racism.

You can see today that racism is fostered by the same idea that "Blacks cant take care of themselves...they are violent, they riot, they let their neighborhoods go to crap, they elect crappy leaders...." The attitudes W fought so hard against are supported with the continued Black subsidization by the will of Whites. The attitude that Blacks cannot take care of themselves. The attitude is infections. Many Blacks today are raised in a society where they are encouraged to feel inferior to whites. That they should dress down. That they shouldn't be expected to meet the same academic standards. That they don't need to value a strong nuclear family. That inferior attitude is perpetuated indefinitely with a victim status. A societal handicap for simply having black skin.

W. fought hard to ensure that would never happen. He lost. And we are all worse as a society because of it. Blacks and Whites.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 9:01:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 8:59:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2016 8:27:00 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Can one honestly be surprised Du Bois stance was the one majoritively adopted though. It's natural human behavior for the most part to forego self responsibility in favor of placing that responsibility upon another. Because then one has justification for blame. We all act like that sometimes lol

It's alot deeper than that Buddha. That was a policy adopted by WHITES; cause , ya know, whites had all the political power to make actual policy changes.

The real problem is that just about every abolitionist at that time was a racist, because absolutely no white person at that time looked on the Blacks as social and political equals, if there were any it would be a very sparse academic minority. Political changes were made in that context.

D's policies worked to establish parity without changing actual racist attitudes. Whites could agree to a policy that didn't challenge their racist belief system. Ergo we have a continuation to this day.

W's policies would have forced a complete denial of racism. There was little chance he could get the white political support to back him up solely because it defied the core tenets of racism. Heck, even some blacks doubted they had the intrinsic ability to take care of themselves back then. It had been beaten into them for so long. W knew the greatest challenge wasn't just to simply eliminate the White superiority complex. He believed he had an obligation to address the Black inferiority problem as well. He knew D's policies would not make any meaningful headway toward real change of racial attitudes. Since he knew attitudes are changed with action and events, W's policies were the only real hope for the eradication of racism.

You can see today that racism is fostered by the same idea that "Blacks cant take care of themselves...they are violent, they riot, they let their neighborhoods go to crap, they elect crappy leaders...." The attitudes W fought so hard against are supported with the continued Black subsidization by the will of Whites. The attitude that Blacks cannot take care of themselves. The attitude is infections. Many Blacks today are raised in a society where they are encouraged to feel inferior to whites. That they should dress down. That they shouldn't be expected to meet the same academic standards. That they don't need to value a strong nuclear family. That inferior attitude is perpetuated indefinitely with a victim status. A societal handicap for simply having black skin.

W. fought hard to ensure that would never happen. He lost. And we are all worse as a society because of it. Blacks and Whites.

Thank you for enlightening me further regarding this senor
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 9:12:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 9:01:16 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 2/10/2016 8:59:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2016 8:27:00 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Can one honestly be surprised Du Bois stance was the one majoritively adopted though. It's natural human behavior for the most part to forego self responsibility in favor of placing that responsibility upon another. Because then one has justification for blame. We all act like that sometimes lol

It's alot deeper than that Buddha. That was a policy adopted by WHITES; cause , ya know, whites had all the political power to make actual policy changes.

The real problem is that just about every abolitionist at that time was a racist, because absolutely no white person at that time looked on the Blacks as social and political equals, if there were any it would be a very sparse academic minority. Political changes were made in that context.

D's policies worked to establish parity without changing actual racist attitudes. Whites could agree to a policy that didn't challenge their racist belief system. Ergo we have a continuation to this day.

W's policies would have forced a complete denial of racism. There was little chance he could get the white political support to back him up solely because it defied the core tenets of racism. Heck, even some blacks doubted they had the intrinsic ability to take care of themselves back then. It had been beaten into them for so long. W knew the greatest challenge wasn't just to simply eliminate the White superiority complex. He believed he had an obligation to address the Black inferiority problem as well. He knew D's policies would not make any meaningful headway toward real change of racial attitudes. Since he knew attitudes are changed with action and events, W's policies were the only real hope for the eradication of racism.

You can see today that racism is fostered by the same idea that "Blacks cant take care of themselves...they are violent, they riot, they let their neighborhoods go to crap, they elect crappy leaders...." The attitudes W fought so hard against are supported with the continued Black subsidization by the will of Whites. The attitude that Blacks cannot take care of themselves. The attitude is infections. Many Blacks today are raised in a society where they are encouraged to feel inferior to whites. That they should dress down. That they shouldn't be expected to meet the same academic standards. That they don't need to value a strong nuclear family. That inferior attitude is perpetuated indefinitely with a victim status. A societal handicap for simply having black skin.

W. fought hard to ensure that would never happen. He lost. And we are all worse as a society because of it. Blacks and Whites.

Thank you for enlightening me further regarding this senor

I'll also leave you this quip from Frederick Douglas

Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner-table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him alone, don't disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,"your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks" "preparation" is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. [Applause.] Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 9:18:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Just so you got that important part. Douglas believed the intercession of whites promoted a positive injury to Blacks.

"...Your interference is doing him a positive injury."
"Do nothing with us!"
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 9:20:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 9:18:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Just so you got that important part. Douglas believed the intercession of whites promoted a positive injury to Blacks.

"...Your interference is doing him a positive injury."
"Do nothing with us!"

I got that part, it was a powerful message tbh
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 1:09:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:34:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2016 9:10:24 AM, Hoppi wrote:
I love this. Wish I had something to contribute, but I don't. It's like a paradox.

Yup, it is. And that's what makes it so hard to find the correct path.

I can't figure out which way is better. Probably Du Bois? But then I think of Palestine and other places, and that instinct to fight is so easy to manipulate and can be so destructive. So Idk. What do you think?

I favor Du Bois and I think his critique of Washington was spot on and is still quite relevant to this day. But Washington had a lot of good things to say (as Du Bois said). Du Bois had great respect for him - Washington was the foremost black intellectual of the day - and it evidently pained him quite a deal to have to criticize him like he did, but he felt it was a moral duty.

I find it pretty interesting how this dynamic plays out over and over though. Look at former justice Thurgood Marshall as compared to current justice Clarence Thomas.

Yes. And not just in the US. It's everywhere. It's like, both strategies are unstable. Maybe both are necessary, or one is a reaction to the other one. Or maybe they're for different functions. Idk.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 1:15:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 9:18:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Just so you got that important part. Douglas believed the intercession of whites promoted a positive injury to Blacks.

"...Your interference is doing him a positive injury."
"Do nothing with us!"

But those were the days when the government and the law was white, and it isn't any more. What kind of "intercession of whites" are you talking about for nowadays?
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 1:18:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
This thread turned pink. It's like, we're approved by the establishment now. Does anyone else really hate that - or is that just me?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:12:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 8:27:00 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Can one honestly be surprised Du Bois stance was the one majoritively adopted though. It's natural human behavior for the most part to forego self responsibility in favor of placing that responsibility upon another. Because then one has justification for blame. We all act like that sometimes lol

People actually think Du Bois' position was to "forego" self responsibility? Lord help us all.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:14:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 3:12:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

People actually think Du Bois' position was to "forego" self responsibility? Lord help us all.

I was obviously mistaken and was corrected on my error senor lol
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion