Tuesday, January 15, 2013
February 5…Schooling and Social Change in an Unjust Society
After
reading a bit from Dubois and Washington, where do you come down on their
disagreements regarding the best way to educate African-Americans in the
post-civil War U.S.? Does their debate
have any relevance today (for African-Americans or other marginalized
groups)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mr. Washington’s plan was to appeal for to the whites in power by saying they African Americans won’t move in and take away from the whites but instead help build up society. He thought that by educating the other races, society could grow to be more accepting of each other. He told African Americans to not aim for the heavens and expect the stars just yet. They must make realistic progress; starting with making them stabile in the middle class than aim for the political positions, civil rights, and greater education. In order to achieve this he thought civic inferiority was needed to be preached so that attending common schooling and being placed in specific job tracks was supposed to guide “Negros” into their supposed place in society. Many African Americans were against this and thought the main things points they wanted were: the right to vote, civic equality, and education for children. Mr. Washington’s thoughts should not be viewed as a sign of weakness but I think it was more of reason due to the state society especially the “South” was in. Washington’s idea was any progress was at least progress.
ReplyDeleteMr. Dubois more critically attacked the systems that were installed after the Civil War. He criticized the materials, set up, and the teaching quality. He also said that as long as society had a limiting view on “Negros” they would be stuck in their designated place. He then continues to talk down about every level of education available to “Negros.”
What stuck out to me was how both Washington and Dubois felt that in order for change to happen society’s mind set on African Americans would have to change. I think Dubois plead for immediate change while Washington took the slow and steady approach. Progress is hard and society cannot be changed overnight. So I think Washington’s plan was the most efficient.
Craig Luskey
Just as Craig pointed out, Washington's argument was that blacks and whites could work together (oppressed with oppressor) and better the society. Washington found the education of all races to be of the upmost importance for through education not only will the state as a whole benefit, each person will be able to better move through society with more of an understanding of one another. Curious enough, Washington was not trying to bluntly persuade his audience that blacks and whites are equal, it was more of a "scratch our back, we'll scratch yours" kind of a deal. Dubois more courageously attacked the thought of inequality and tore down Washington's plan. I think Dubois' plan was the better of the two because he was calling for a much riskier, yet more radical movement in education and society of the time. Washington's plan, in my opinion, seemed more as though it was meeting the system (which was obviously in the wrong) in place half way. But that's also easy for me to say living in society today.
ReplyDelete-Sarah
Washington and Dubois have different views on the best manner to educate African Americans. Booker T. Washington believes African Americans should not rock the boat in order to gain more rights. He believes African Americans should make best use of the resources available to them rather than creating a ruckus trying to gain further freedom. Washington believes this will be the best course of action for African Americans. Wanting immediate rights would impede their progress. Dubois on the other hand feel that this method will not work. If progress is to be made African American would have to make noise, only through actions would change come about. Hoping for change to come about is not good enough
ReplyDeleteI liken the division between Dubois and Washington to that of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. King believed it was best to be patient and gain more rights through civil disobedience. Malcom X believed African Americans would never receive their rights if they just waited around and not take action. Malcom X ultimatum was "ballots or bullets." In the end, the more successful of the two movements was Kings and similarly Washington's was probably better than Dubois. It is important to bring attention to the issue of unequal education but it's more important in the manner in which you go about attaining your goals.
Faisal Ali
Washington believed that the best way to educate African-Americans was to have them develop skills that would help them get into the workforce, particularly in the fields of agriculture and industrial work. He believed that instead of always romanticizing about the attaining highest positions of society, there was nothing wrong with using mediocre positions to gain money and work your way up. What mattered was that somehow, African Americans had to find a way to assimilate themselves in society and gain respect and the best way to do so was to prove themselves as responsible workers and hardworking citizens. Washington also addressed the White community and believed that it was important for both races to cooperate with each other. DuBois on the other hand believed that African Americans should push harder for higher education as well as greater political power and civil rights. He believed that Washington’s methods deprived African Americans of opportunities that they deserved and didn’t allow them to reach their full potential. In his point of view, without a way to fully participate in their government, and without access to higher education, African Americans would still have an inferior position in society as compared to their White counterparts. I can see both the good and bad sides of both arguments. There is practicality in Washington’s plan in a sense that starting small and developing skills to join the workforce guarantees that one will make living and gradually become a productive member of society. However, at the same time, I think DuBois makes a fair point when he says that African Americans should be allowed to have a higher education and a more influential position in society, instead of just being passive and sitting back as good, hardworking citizens. Washington’s plan is sort of like saying take what you can get and make the best of it, while DuBois’s plan calls for being a little more aggressive so the best opportunities don’t go out of your reach and that you don’t lose sight of what can be.
ReplyDeleteNavami Ravindra
Stewart Bova,
ReplyDeleteI am going to deviate away from just reexplaining what Booker T. Washington felt about education - to the background and significance of his speech
The speech was given in 1895 at the Atlanta Exposition, (The south's reaction to an Exposition in Chicago), to a predominantly white Audience. His famous (or infamous) speech was the keynote of the convention, addressing the issue of blacks in the South. He wanted to convince blacks, (and the businessmen thinking of investing)that the place for blacks in the south was vital and important.
Today (through our modern perspective) we are horrified that he could possibly suggest blacks to be subservient and not fight for their rights. It should be noted that Booker T. was looking at the larger picture of blacks place in the economic system, and moving with "all due speed".
W.E.B. Du Bois differed from a lot of Booker T.'s ideas for schooling. While BTW focused on vocational schooling, W.E.B. Du Bois focused on education the top "ten percent" of blacks into liberal arts education.
It should also be noted of BTW dislike of Immigrants, (especially from Eastern Europe) One of his talking points during his speech was how businesses should trust blacks and not foreigners because "they have already proved their work".
Just some different points to bring up
Although I know Washington had good intentions when he said that Negros should only be concerned at the time getting industrial training and then work their way up to higher education, but I believe it is this type of thinking that has set black people up for failure up until this day. Just because blacks had just recently been declared free and no longer slaves doesn't mean that they should be babied into society. I think that the way their education should have been handled should have been to go ahead and immerse them in school just like the white children. The whole idea of slowly working blacks into education is foolish and makes Washington seem like he doesn't have faith in his own race. It's misconceptions like this that have perpetuated into today's society where blacks in some regards are still considered more likely to not succeed or not go to college (especially in the inner cities). But then again maybe Washington did have high faith in his own race but was afraid to risk too much politically by backing something so radical and jeopardizing his status as a great intellectual black thinker well respected by the white men. Maybe he felt that by appealing to the white men by saying the best way to educate Negros was to start with a lower scale education of industrial skills, that this might be the only way the blacks might ever gain a substantial education. It's wrong that in order to get what one wants they have to play the political card in order to get it, and most of the time that person won't fully get what they wanted to achieve in the first place. Politics and people pleasing have to be put aside when dealing with uncomfortable issues and the issue of education and those racial groups that the education system tends to neglect have to be looked into and thought about in a more radical and democratic way than ever thought of before.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Hiegel
I think it is really surprising, actually, what Washington says about african-americans and their education. Previously I only knew him as the founder of Tuskegee College, and therefore assumed he was a rather liberal minded individual and strong proponent of black rights. I was surprised then to read that he was mostly concerned with “industrial education (vocational schooling, I would assume), accumulation of wealth, and conciliation of the South” for african-americans. As DuBois points out, this isn’t exactly a logical focus; Washington’s “submission and silence as to civil and political rights” does not seem to advance the plight of the african-american population. As DuBois mentions, with only industrial education for african-americans, institutions like Tuskegee college could not exist; because of this, Washington contradicts himself a little.
ReplyDeleteI think that Washington is trying to be realistic about the possible societal changes for african-americans immediately following the civil war, but I do not think that he sets his goals high enough; DuBois accused Washington of “practically accepting the inferiority of the Negro race,” which in some ways I think he does. DuBois, on the other hand, is more idealistic with schooling for african-americans.
I do think their debate is still relevant to marginalized groups. Education for many minorities is simply a forced assumption in to mainstream culture without too much successful resistance (more the Washington’s-plan-for-schooling-african-americans route). Today, I am under the impression that many marginalized groups are somewhat forced in to vocational schooling rather than higher education (Labaree’s social efficiency model); Washington I think would not oppose this, as I would think he would see this as a practical solution to get some form of education to minorities.
Manon Loustaunau
While I agree with everyone's comments regarding the way Booker T. Washington and W.E.B Du Bois differed on the subject of teaching African American youth, I believe the source of the argument lies in whether higher education learning (colleges) must be reformed first or if it is the common schools and high schools that should be reformed to cater to industrial needs. Du Bois feels that at least some African American children should be given civil rights, and educated to the full extent of higher level learning so that they may go on to teach other children and show whites their capability and earn their immediate respect and equality. Washington obviously proposed a less radical program, allowing children to be educated for the purposes of the working class, without any acknowledgement of equality or civil rights. However as the article commenting on Washington says, if the children are not allowed access to those higher institutions, who will be trained to teach them?
ReplyDeleteIn regards to today's society, I believe their debate still has some relevancy. In Richmond alone, the school district is divided by predominantly African American and predominantly Caucasian public schools by area, and there is an unfortunate educational funding difference between the two. Many African American children are trapped just by their geographic location to a lower standard of learning and progress.
Taylor Thornberg
I think the main point of both DuBois and Washington’s arguments is that educational change cannot occur without social change. This is a key idea to the success of educating African Americans. However, DuBois and Washington differed greatly in their opinions of how to go about gaining a social change. I believe the focus, especially from Washington’s perspective, was more on how the blacks would fit in to a white society. He believed in slowly changing the minds of white Americans by educating all races and opening their minds through education. Washington’s theory was the most practical approach because change cannot happen overnight. DuBois, contrastingly, believed that post-Civil War, African Americans were entitled to an equal education and should stand up for their new right. This idea was a more radical approach. DuBois did not want to wait for social change to occur and then eventually integrate African American education into this new social stratum. DuBois wanted African Americans to BE the new social change regardless of how it affected other members of the society. Washington and DuBois both called upon a change but these changes are approached in two completely separate manners. Although both believed that African Americans had a right to education, these two influential African American leaders had clashing point of views.
ReplyDeleteBoth DuBois and Washington on my opinion focused on integrating African Americans into the education of their time somehow. However, the had very different views as to how that should happen. Washington viewed African Americans as a minority that is fitting into a majority White society. Therefore, his approach was that African Americans should be patient and happy with whatever little education that the White's offer them, even if that education is limited to certain rights. Washington's prespective of education was unfair in my opinion, but it was realisitic in that it had a realistic time plan. DuBois on the other hand wanted an unrealisticly quick change in education. He wanted things to happen overnight. DuBois was interested in making sure that African Americans had similar rights to White people after the Civil War. This approach is the most favorable in my opinion because it gives everyone equal rights to such a basic necessity as education. However, the time plan is a bit skewed. All in all, both put effort into incorporating African Americans into education and that in its own is a huge step forward. Therefore, they are not to be blamed for the downsides of their plans that much because they had good intentions behind them (Hopefully).
ReplyDelete-Mohamed Ibrahim
I wanted to address what Stewart wrote earlier:
ReplyDelete"Today (through our modern perspective) we are horrified that he could possibly suggest blacks to be subservient and not fight for their rights. It should be noted that Booker T. was looking at the larger picture of blacks place in the economic system, and moving with "all due speed"."
I understand where this is coming from. But it's a little frightening to me that we can even suggest Booker T. was looking at the "big picture" and moving "with all due speed." I'd argue that his response, and his reasoning for calling to white southerners to "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." What I took from reading this is Booker T. saying, we have served you before, and we will continue to serve you.
Of course, I'm over generalizing, and I'm sorry about that. But say we accept that B.T. was just setting realistic goals, that he didn't wish to ask for too much. If we give that reasoning for then, what is our reasoning for ignoring the problems with minority education now? Is our response that change will come "with all due speed?" What we should do, and what should have happened in the past, is demand more than we expect to get. There is an enormous disparity in minority education in the United States, and I will boldly claim that it has to do with white privilege and a disinterest of the white majority to ask "what can we do for you?" In the discussion of how to better reach minority education, the main solutions offered are by white leaders who believe they have a plan.
Miranda
In response to Miranda
DeleteYou hold two contradictory statements. First you say it is due to "White Privilege" and not asking "what can we do for you?". Then it is their fault because White leaders are making the plans. This is contradictory and I really don't know where it goes. You cannot blame whites for not doing anything - then turn and blame them when they do. You cannot look at history with your own modern perspective.
Further more on your statement, ?what is our reasoning for ignoring the problems with minority education now"? To say we are ignoring the problem is to ignore the billions of dollars put into our schools and programs created specifically for Minority children. You speak as if there is nothing done, when in reality there is more spending now on low income children and minorities than ever. The literacy advancement of blacks from the antebellum south to 1890 was one of the greatest Educational advancement in the past 300 years. Today our education, while still substandard in many aspects, Is not completely due to lack of funding or "care" Look at the history of the Dunbar High School in DC for a perfect example
To blame the problem on "White Privilege" is not only an all to easy scapegoat of the issue, but it does not hold up to a full empirical review of History. There is no "White Race". To say White Privilege is to say that all Whites are the same, which is to ignore the significant differences between European nationalities and their views and successes with education. This is about as ignorant as saying all Africans are the same.
With all this said. Booker T. Washington brings to the table a very (but sadly) realistic point of view of the times. While his methodology is defiantly dated by today's standard, to disregard his work completely serves no purpose.
BTW wanted to show the world what Blacks could do when given the chance, and earn their place in society. "White America" never asked what they could do for the poor Jewish minorities in Newyork, or the poor Italian minorities in Buffalo. During the early 1900s Japanese Americans were more persecuted than Blacks were at the time, and with no "help" from anyone, heavily succeeded in academic work. To imply that they can only succeed is with our "help" is to imply "the white mans burden"
We can't look at things from a completely ideological point of view. We have to look at what the reality is and how to put forth efforts to help foster the best outcome.
To throw in a quote on the matter -
The constant grasping for one answer or some magic formula or "innovation" may itself be part of the problem. What should be clear, however, is that self-serving mythology is not the answer. We are never going to solve the problem unless we can first face the problem as it is - not with a long list of excuses, pious hopes, or open-ended demands for "more".
Sorry forgot to say it was Stewart Responding
DeleteThe hard thing of this issue is that it comes down to a basic line of gradual change/compromise, and extreme change/being uncompromising. Both plans have merits, however in this particular circumstance of Dubois' plan versus Washington's plan, Dubois' call for equality although not perhaps as 'realistic' as others might claim at least supports my ideal which is that our education system should always be the battleground for moving towards are more idealized vision of society. We also have to be careful putting this discussion in a historical context because the issue is not yet settled. Though we are talking about this issue in the 1800's we are still having conversations in our class about class disparity and racial tensions within the school systems. The reason we debate issues like this is to put them in context for our own society. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I would argue that by being 'realistic' back then about equality for african american citizens led to years of oppression disguised as 'equality'.
ReplyDeleteIn Booker T. Washington’s "Up From Slavery" passage, he claims that blacks had the potential to step out of slavery and rise from the bottom tier of the class system. His propositions had good intentions, but it was as if they were selfish. He only concerned himself with the future of the black race and piggybacked on the new immigrants by stating that they were the new problem and indirectly claimed that they should be in place of the black's current situation. As Washington saw it: blacks didn't deserve to be treated any differently because their culture had been instilled in the American culture for centuries and education was the only thing hindering them from becoming successful; instead, the south should discriminate against the immigrants who didn't speak the language and did not work as hard the blacks did. He claimed that the south recovered from the war because of the black's willingness to work; what had the immigrants done? Well, I believe that his approach should have been worldlier and not so narrowed that he was willing to mop the mess towards the immigrants.
ReplyDeleteWashington focused on having an education to help blacks in the real world, so they could achieve economic equality. He didn't plead for equality from the whites. His argument was fair in that education would ignite the sparks for equality. He obviously didn't expect a black male to become the President but he did want institutions established so the average black man could get a decent job and feed his family, so that he could converse with an educated white male and talk on behalf of his credibility as a scholar not as a black male. He was strategic enough to not offend the black population or the white population. When he spoke at the exposition he didn't talk down to whites or say that they had mistreated blacks and owed a centuries worth. He simply proclaimed that the economy revolved around people who could get their jobs done right, and what better way to teach someone than starting them off with the basics of an education.
Now, WEB Du Bois had a different approach, he was looking for more political equality amongst other things. His views on education were that if blacks could be educated then they could get anywhere in life. He didn't see a difference in blacks and whites and made it obvious in his literature and speeches. His background may have been the reason behind his extreme reformist approach. He didn't want to just impress the white male and compromise by saying, "hey look folks, let us have an education and we can help you become economically stable". Rather, he saw it as a right blacks had. He built on Washington's ideas, but Washington "pleaded" for a chance so that the blacks could have an opportunity, whereas Du Bois demanded they should be equal in every aspect and that education was the first step in doing so. Idealistically, I would favor Du Bois but when you consider the environment his idealism crawls into impossibility. Washington understood enough to propose an idea that would work for the time being. Perhaps he knew that blacks would slowly gain rights in every category. But rather than demanding the rights all at once, why not take a small step and befriend the white race and use that to your advantage?
After reading through Booker T. Washington’s proposed plan for the rise of African Americans in society, I was quite surprised especially when I read that he wished for them to give up any hopes of political power, insistence on civil rights, as well as any kind of higher education. I don’t think that African Americans would be able to function happily within that sort of system because without political power or the right to vote, I would imagine that it would be quite easy for them to get taken advantage of. Not only that, but there would be little to no chance of social mobility for them due to a lower quality education. Washington wanted them to focus on advancing economically instead. While that is a good goal, it would only fuel the fires of American capitalism, a structure produced by slavery. In more vulgar terms, it seems that he was like “thank you, white man, for allowing us to be exploited by the capitalist system that the African slaves helped produce in less than a century with the fastest transition to industrialization known to humanity”. So basically, this would result in African Americans remaining stagnant is society due to a lack of higher education and no political power. However, in the context of his time and after discussing this a bit more in class, I can understand how he would want African Americans to follow a more vocational than educational route. I think that a part of it was that his primary concern was not angering the southern whites for the sake of protection, especially after being a slave as a child. As a result, he chose to appease instead of revolt. Alternatively, Dubois demanded equality with whites, both politically and in education. I think that both Dubois and Washington shared a lot of common goals, but Dubois had a more aggressive way of seeking equality and recognition. Obviously, their different experiences of growing up in the north and south respectively had a huge impact on their ideals. Dubois probably had the guts to be so gun-ho about equality because he had the privilege of growing up in the north and not experiencing slavery.
ReplyDeleteKatie Ketcham
After reading these documents by both Dubois and Washington, it is fairly easy to see how their disagreements regarding the best way to educate African-Americans has a lot to do with their upbringings. Washington, who was born with very little and then transformed himself will clearly have a different outlook than Dubois, who was born a freedman in the north, born with certain privileges.
ReplyDeleteWashington takes a stand on education that is admittedly more directed toward pleasing the South and sacrificing certain rights that African-Americans should have had. However, I believe his viewpoint was one of pragmatism; he wanted to find a plan that could yield fast results and get the nation moving toward the greater goal of equality. In this way, it could be seen as coming off as complacent with discrimination in the south, but in another way, because he essentially advised blacks to take to all jobs, even the lowest positions, with vigor. It was in this action that eventually the whites would come to see how they were more equal than many whites understood. This meant his view was to set up a series of black vocational type institutions. Dubois thinks entirely different of this sentiment, he wanted fast change to exactly the way he saw fit. Therefore, his view clashed with Washington’s, because instead of slowly assimilating Blacks into having higher education, he believed that establishing higher black institutions was the only way to create educational growth at all levels throughout the country. His view was to immediately get a select number of African American’s into higher positions. By Washington’s means, this would seem difficult to achieve given his knowledge and experience in the South. I think this debate has some relevance today given the issues of regionalizing schools to preform different functions, as today in isolated/rural areas, a practical vocational education may serve more of a purpose than a liberal arts education. In other words, the issues between Dubois and Washington, and the disagreements about the best way to school today all come down to the matter of the opinions and experiences of educational influencers in different parts of the country.
Laura Zoellner
After reading the reading from both Dubois and Washington some very interesting points between the two where made. Washington believed that the African Americans in the post-civil war where not ready to become scholars and that instead they should increase their foot holdings in the US through agriculture and vocational activities. Although this may seem harsh towards his own community, In the time that Washington grew up in this was definitely an option. For African Americans being just freed needed some kind of foundation and ability that they could offer the society that they have just entered. Du bois approach was that Black people should try to immerse them self in the new society especially through education. Du bois believed that blacks were confined in what society perceived them and the only way to rise above that perception was by learning what we could be. Today I believe that both of those theories could work to an extent and that a balance of both should be considered.
ReplyDeleteI sent this blog via email.
ReplyDelete