W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington are two great black American leaders of the 19 and 20th centuries. The two leaders had a sharp disagreement about the black progress economically. These opposing philosophies are found in many current discussions relating to how to end racial discrimination and social classes in society (Seaton, 2014). Booker T Washington mainly focuses on the philosophy of accommodation, racial solidarity, and self-help. Washington’s philosophy, therefore, urges people in the black community to currently accept their current situation but, in the meantime, work toward achieving their freedom.
W.E.B. Du Bois, on the other hand, discusses the back progress based on white oppression as the central concept. The philosophy as therefore advocated for a civil rights agenda and political action in solving the existing black oppression in the society. Du Bois believes that social progress can be achieved through the creation of a group of well-educated black students. This technique, therefore, aims at meeting the black economic growth through the use of the preceding method (Seaton, 2014). Du Bois’s philosophy thus primarily advocates for civil rights movements in an attempt to deal with the black American discrimination and the social discrimination issue. The articles thus submitted issues relating to the discrimination of the blacks in American society.
Many comparisons can also be drawn concerning the two ideologies. Washington reveals the reconciliatory approach in achieving different civil rights for the black community. In contrast, Du Bois, on the other hand, believed that the only way to achieve equality was through civil rights advocating and education of the blacks. Despite these similarities, both ideologies have played a useful role in dealing with black’s fight for racial progress in society. Comparing Washington to Du Bois, it is apparent that Washington had paid much attention to the acceptance and the accommodation of the cruelty that was being Shawn by the white people at the time (Seaton, 2014). This was majorly aimed at achieving mutual interdependence among the two races.
Booker further differs from Washington as he argues that the relationship between the whites and the blacks would result in economic progress for the blacks. He added that blacks would gain from this form of relationship. An analysis of the two groups, therefore, affirms the fact that the two groups were interested in liberating blacks from the dismal economic conditions they were facing at the time. Despite this common goal, Du Bois was primarily interested in achieving these goals through the practical education of black. In solving the black progress, DuBois believed that strategies by Washington were not entirely useful in finding a solution to the race problem, which was very eminent at the time.
A closer review of the two philosophies reveals that the Du Boise ideology has proven to be more effective than Washington. Education has been a critical weapon which has enabled black in places like the United States to find for equal rights. Educated blacks have in an excellent position to fight for jobs initially meant for the whites. The results of this are seen in many nations, such as the United States. Although racism has not been totally eliminated in the United States, Du Bois’s ideology has proven to be very critical in addressing the issue in the modern world.
The current reflection movement is a useful reflection of these two ideologies. Although the education of blacks remains a potent weapon in racial solutions, Washington’s thinking is still very applicable in solving the issue. Most of the current reparation movements are majorly a reflection of the Du Bois ideology, and the ideology applies to deal with racism across many nations. Despite the DuBois ideology being dominant, the current reparation movements have also employed certain aspects of the Washington ideology, and the concept is quite essential in integrating different races.
References
Seaton, C. (2014). WEB Dubois & Booker T. Washington: Approaches to developing citizenship post-reconstruction in America. Kola, 26(1), 51-60.