By: KEVIN JOLLY
Staff Writer
Most of everyone in America is familiar with the historic civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s which led to the 1964 bill and other achievements, but the civil rights movement didn’t end with these landmarks and certainly didn’t begin then. Something interesting to see is the earlier concepts people had about civil rights, and how they’ve influenced our ideas today. For example, we can actually see a sort of prototype or a microcosm, depending on the interpretation of political divisions today, linking directly to the differences between that of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois.
Booker T. Washington was born in 1856 as a slave in Virginia, and after emancipation became a child-coal miner in West Virginia, while also attending multiple schools and colleges in the area after teaching himself to read. Probably influenced by his obstacle-ridden childhood, Washington advocated for black success through economic means. He valued hard work and individual achievements as the most effective form of black acceptance into America. His strategy for overcoming racism was through encouraging the black community to work hard for themselves and essentially pull themselves up to build and pull their own selves and people up into society. He prioritized this kind of thinking over directly politically engaging with the government or trying to legally end segregation, and believed that until the societal and economic aspects had been resolved, politics were a waste of time. In his own words, “The world cares very little what you or I know, but it does care a great deal about what you or I do.” Something to keep in mind as it may seem strange for a civil rights activist to not value the political ending of segregation, but Washington had been a slave in his own lifetime. Late 1800s America for the most part was a white and hostile entity towards African Americans with lynchings, the Klan, and exploitation, and many at the time believed that African Americans could do better for themselves if they were simply left to themselves to foster their own communities. This kind of concept was called the ‘nation within a nation’, so it’s important to consider that full integration into America was just not an item on many African Americans’ priority list at the time.
Du Bois was born a full three years after slavery had ended in 1868 in Massachusetts. He excelled in school as a child, which made his teachers encourage him to pursue his later education at Fisk and Harvard, where he earned two bachelor’s degrees and a Ph.D. after his neighbors raised money for his tuition. Du Bois would go on to write some of the most influential writings in sociology even today and expressed a clear opposition to Washington’s school of thought. Du Bois’ strategy to mend racism prioritized intellectualism and political achievements over economic improvement. As a highly-educated man, he saw the value in having an educated population to work on the more complex political issues which he saw as necessary, and that a hard-working populace focused purely on self-improvement couldn’t achieve this. Du Bois’ view was much more reminiscent of what we would consider a more modern civil rights movement where activism would consist of the current systems in place becoming more accommodating or just less exclusionary of minorities.
Where the divisions would come in is clear. In many people’s view, Washington was a self-made man who overcame being born into arguably the worst position in America ever, slavery, and through hard work became a successful and influential leader. Meanwhile, Du Bois had been born into a relatively comfortable position in the north after slavery had ended where his local community was so nurturing, he received handouts to attend the best colleges. And Du Bois’ education was a big disconnect for many, as his goals could come off as elitist. For example, in his book, Talented Tenth, Du Bois wrote, “The Negro race, like all races, is going to be saved by its exceptional men. The problem of education, then, among Negroes must first of all deal with the Talented Tenth…” Du Bois had also been a large founding part of groups of this talented tenth like the NAACP, which was a much different organization from the one we know today, and the Niagara Movement. To many in the black community, the idea that only the top most educated and privileged themselves would be solely responsible to progress their race forward was out of touch with the common African American.
On the other hand, there were also substantial criticisms of Washington’s approach. Whereas Du Bois may have been overly concerned with intellectualism, Washington seemed to not care at all. With many African Americans living under exploitative conditions immediately post-emancipation, which was called economic slavery, and the general hostility towards African Americans at every turn, the idea that they could just overcome by themselves without greater political advocacy was ridiculous. His message could be interpreted as downplaying black issues or overestimating what could be possible within the system after the destruction caused by slavery. This can be best exemplified by his quote, “We should not permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities.” which could seem as if he’s simply waving away the severely troubled point at which African Americans were starting from if they just worked hard and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps so to speak.
As previously stated, there is something to take away from the rivalry between these two leaders and apply today. In a very-watered down and macro-level analysis of modern-day civil rights, we can still see a lot of these ideas and criticisms still shining through, despite the changing landscape of what racism is in America. The age of the Dixiecrat Party and the 1926 Klan march on Washington is over, meaning that blatant bigoted racism has lost the vast majority of public support, and now political groups have a shared common interest in improving African American communities, lest they essentially face political suicide. The question now falls between how big of a priority it is to their respective voter bases and their ideologically motivated action. One obvious distinction we can draw in modern times with parallels is the divide between the strategy of the Democratic and Republican parties.
The Democratic method to improving black communities is probably more closely aligned with that of Du Bois’, which is from the top down. Democratic lawmakers and leaders will usually advocate for and pass legislation with the intended goal of providing more help from the federal government to help lesser-privileged communities, not just African Americans, through things like stronger public schools with increased budgets, relief plans, infrastructure, and other related items. For some recent examples, we can look no further than the Biden administration’s plan laid out. Some notable items on their sheet include the ARP (American Rescue Plan) which was a direct cash relief bill aimed towards lower and middle-class Americans and effectively cut black child poverty by 33%. The administration also signed into law multiple bipartisan infrastructure bills which had segments directly aimed at predominantly African American districts. Biden also made some reforms to federal procurement programs to invest back into small businesses, which went a long way in providing relief to black businesses over the pandemic. Something also interesting to take note of is that although this top-down effort rings similar to Du Bois, the economic aspect has also largely been taken into account. However, Biden’s administration seems to be utilizing the federal government to stimulate or revitalize the black economy to do so, instead of direct encouragement which would be more akin to Washington’s approach.
On the other hand, we can look at the Republican method which is much more tuned to that of Washington’s approach. Republicans for around the past two decades have been pushing for the strategy opposite of Democrats, which is from the bottom up. Just for clarity, this type of legislature isn’t typically dominating Republican priorities, and for the majority of the time, Democratic politicians are the ones pushing civil rights just because ideologically they’re much more progressive. What I intend to point out is that on the off-chance Republicans do engage with civil rights, their methods tend to take influence from Washington. They intend to improve African American lives through stronger communities with things like the church, committees, local initiatives, and other things of that nature. We can see some striking parallels with Trump’s Platinum Plan, which was his proposed legislative sheet during his 2020 campaign for what was called ‘Black Economic Empowerment’. Trump’s Platinum Plan included prosecutions for the KKK being treated as terrorism and making lynchings a national hate crime, which is right along the train of thought Washington had where he believed African Americans would prosper if white hostility was avoided and they were left to foster their own districts. The Platinum Plan also claimed to defend religious values and to make the field fairer for black churches in terms of federal allocation, along with immigration policy designed to ‘protect American jobs’. This heavily ties in with Washington’s concept of building a stronger community, with the church being a large part of African American communities. Immigration policy aimed at ‘protecting American jobs’ is another item that could be viewed as the ‘nation within a nation’, where keeping out other groups or the broader America would actually empower minority sections.
So in the end, which is the more effective strategy for civil rights? Well, there is no simple or definite answer to that question. Both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois had virtuous goals, but simply different solutions. Is one necessarily better than the other? Or could it be that maybe both sides being taken into consideration is necessary to facilitate the success of either? We can see today how both of their values have begun to intermingle as many civil rights politicians today acknowledge both the political and communal aspects. Both options offer some valid methodologies which historically have proven effective in their own rights, but they can also be used to constructively point out the shortcomings of each other. Perhaps it’s necessary to debate these things in order to find common ground and progress forward.