Booker T Washington was one of the most
prominent and well respected civil rights activists in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. He insisted that black equality and
suffrage would take time, “the opportunity to freely exercise such political
rights will not come in any large degree through outside or artificial forcing,
but will be accorded to the Negro by the Southern white people themselves, and
that they will protect him in the exercise of those rights” (Washington 114). Washington
is an eternal optimist and even at some points in his autobiography seems that
he sympathizes for the Southern white man:
“Having once got its tentacles fastened
on to the economic and social life of the Republic, it was no easy matter for
the country to relieve itself of the institution…When freedom came, the slaves
were almost as well fitted to begin life anew as the master, except in the
matter of book-learning and ownership of property. The slave owner and his sons
had mastered no special industry. They unconsciously had imbibed the feeling
that manual labour was not the proper thing for them. On the other hand, the
slaves in many cases had mastered some handicraft, and none were ashamed, and
few unwilling, to labour” (9).
Oxford English dictionary defines ‘imbibe’ as “To cause to absorb moisture or liquid; to soak, imbue, or saturate with moisture; to steep” (OED, ‘imbibe’ v.). Washington uses imbibe to suggest that it was not a choice for his white master to hold the belief that African Americans were fit for manual labor while he and his sons were not. Washington implies that it was not a conscious thought or decision on behalf of his master, but that he simply soaked in this idea from society. Through this and other passages in Up from Slavery, it is difficult to tell if Washington is making excuses for the Southern white man and his role in oppressing African Americans, or if this is just a compromise he makes intentionally to win the approval of the white man and reach his long-term goal of equal rights and suffrage.
Washington recalls that when the slaves were called to the big house, all of the master’s family were present so “they could see what was to take place and hear what was said. There was a feeling of deep interest or perhaps sadness, on their faces, but not bitterness”(Washington 10). Based on what we know about Washington and his goal to make amends between African Americans and Southern whites, I have to wonder if he is portraying his former owners so positively as to give a reason for fellow African Americans to not be bitter as well.
Many condemn Booker T. Washington for not being bold in his demand for equality. One of Washington’s most famous and vocal critics was W.E.B Du Bois. Du Bois opposed Washington’s Atlanta Compromise for separate but equal education and treatment. Refusing to simply wait for African American rights to be handed to them by Southern whites, Du Bois encouraged African Americans to actively fight for and take their rights. Washington would argue that one may try to gain these rights by artificial force, however man cannot change another man’s heart, and until the Southern white population acknowledges African American rights, their rights will not be recognized.
Do you think that Washington was right in making excuses for the
Southern white population, and that, “it is no easy matter for the country to
relieve itself of the institution”? Or do you think he was being too merciful
of the Southern white population?
A white speechwriter/Tuskegee publicist, Max Bennett Thrasher,
assisted Booker T. Washington with his autobiography Up from Slavery. Does that change your opinion of how Washington
portrays the white population, his view on the white population and their
involvement or un-involvement in the “institution” of slavery?
Compared to Du Bois, Washington’s approach to equal rights was more
modest. Do you think he was less passionate about the movement or do you think
that this was intentional, if so for what purpose?
I think Booker T. Washington, genially embodied in the Invisible Man, is not one to have cruel intentions or to purposely try to please the whites. Booker T. Washington is a victim of extreme naivete. He thought he was an example to his people of courage, he thought he was an inspiration. In my opinion, if the white man applauds your speech, something is very wrong. The reason the white man applauded his speeches is simply because Washington was an ideal that the white man really liked. he was not rebellious, complying, and brought his people along. This would ensure the white race the maintenance of their superior status without any revolts.
ReplyDelete