Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. DuBois, and Frederick Douglass had varying views on the issue of Blacks' suffrage. At one end of the spectrum was Washington, who believed that Blacks should not protest for or even actively try to get equal civil rights or suffrage. He believed that they should just work hard and hope that eventually Whites would recognize them as equals. Frederick Douglass held views that were antipodal to Washington. He believed that Blacks deserved to get all of their rights immediately. He adamantly declared that if the Negro could be tolerated by the White man as a slave, then he could be tolerated as a free man. W. E. B. DuBois fell somewhere in the middle between Washington and Douglass. He disagreed with Washington's position on how Blacks should get their rights, but to a less extreme degree than Douglass. DuBois was more specific and intellectually logical about his disagreement with Washington, pointing out discrepancies in Washington's plan and referring to them as a "triple paradox."
As for the idea that racism was promoted by the upper classes in order to increase their wealth, I believe that this situation could be possible, but I do not think that it was a widespread, well-organized practice among the wealthy. It seem a bit conspiratorial to claim that the entire upper class in America was (or even still is) working together to "keep the Black man down" simply to amass some sort of profit from doing so. I do however, believe that wealthy people were/are generally more prejudiced than poorer people, but I think these prejudices are more directed towards anyone in a lower social standing than towards one particular race.
--Wald der Reich
I find your comments at the end of this post to be very interesting. You seem to be saying contradictory things; watch for this kind of thought when we look at Fitzgerald. I understand that you put all of your analysis at the end after we looked at these three leaders. Please forgive my earlier comments.
ReplyDelete