School & Society: Ch. 6 Study Questions

1. Some students familiar with Du Bois's criticism of Washington have defended Washington's approach as a "practical" solution that sought to accomplish what could be done for black people under the conditions of that particular place and time. Yet Du Bois believed that Washington fundamentally misinterpreted those conditions, and that given the political-economic and ideological realities of the period, the Washingtonian solution was truly impractical as a route to black advancement. Which leader had the stronger position, in your view, and why?

I tend to think that both Washington and Du Bois held pieces of the puzzle, although it seems that Du Bois's held a somewhat larger piece. Washington's continual insistence on "earning" or "deserving" one's rights - as opposed to simply demanding them - is largely wholesome. Du Bois, however, while he recognized the truth in Washington's approach, lays his finger on the larger problem: "[Washington's] doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro's shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs."

Thus, I am inclined to side mainly with Du Bois, though with a generous dose of Washington mixed in.

2. Du Bois relied on Washington's autobiography in writing that "the picture of a lone black boy poring over a French grammar amid the weeds and dirt of a neglected home soon seemed to him the acme of absurdities." Why, in your view, did Washington see this image as so absurd, and why did Du Bois see Washington's view as so wrong in this instance? Which position do you believe is stronger, and why?

There is no single right answer. Washington is protesting the folly of overlooking the obvious, antecedent things, while Du Bois is extolling the virtue of education and higher thought. Both are valid perspectives. Washington could not see any practicality in the scenario, and Du Bois for his part could not see how the scenario could be anything but healthy. I say it depends. It may be entirely appropriate for a boy of uncommon genius, and it may be thoroughly inappropriate for a boy who simply disliked manual work.

3. In your Primary Source Reading, Du Bois wrote, "Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched, - criticism of writers by readers, of government by those governed, of leaders by those led, - this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society. If the best of the American Negroes receive by outer pressure a leader whom they had not recognized before, manifestly there is here a certain palpable gain. Yet there is also irreparable loss, - a loss of that peculiarly valuable education which a group receives when by search and criticism it finds and commissions its own leaders." To what degree do you find this statement consistent or inconsistent with Thomas Jefferson's views on intellectual freedom and the developmental value of democracy? Support your position.

American society in the late 19th century used some "democratic" sleight of hand to conceal their belligerency towards the Negro race. Washington bought into this deception, at least to some extent. His sights became politically clouded and began to affect his vision and ideals.

Du Bois is saying two things: 1) that the censuring of criticism is destructive to democracy, and 2) that it is important for any social entity aspiring to freedom and responsibility to learn to select its own leaders and recognize its own voice. Both ideas are entirely consistent with the Jeffersonian ideal. As Jefferson himself said, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

4. Du Bois also wrote, "When to earth and brute is added an environment of men and ideas, then the attitude of the imprisoned group may take three main forms, - a feeling of revolt and revenge; an attempt to adjust all thought and action to the will of the greater group; or, finally, a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion." However Du Bois might characterize Washington, how would you place Washington's vocational-education approach with respect to the three responses proposed by Du Bois? To what degree does Washington's approach fit one or more of those descriptions? Explain.

Du Bois's characterizations are plain: he dismisses the first category as crude and irrational, describes Washington as overly accommodating and lacking in pluck - the second category, and includes himself in the third category, among those who advocate "a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion."

This assessment stacks the deck against Washington, as was no doubt Du Bois's intention. I'm sure Washington would protest that his ideology and methods were closer to the third category and more than just a limp acquiescence to White pressure, and his protest would have some merit. So I think Du Bois is largely correct, in a simplified sense, but Washington should be given a bit more credit if we want to split hairs.

5. Du Bois identifies the following "dangerous half-truths": "The distinct impression left by Mr. Washington's propaganda is, first, that the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation; secondly, that the prime cause of the Negro's failure to rise more quickly is his wrong education in the past; and, thirdly, that his future rise depends primarily on his own efforts. Each of these propositions is a dangerous half-truth." To what degree do you agree that each of those propositions is partly true but partly false, and why would it be "dangerous" to overlook the falseness you identify in each? Defend your view.

Let us take them in order. In the first proposition, Washington states that "the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation." This is partly true, as it is mostly fact, but it is partly false, because of the Negro's degradation being due in part to the South's present attitude toward them.

Secondly, Washington deplores the lack of effectual education among the Negroes. This is true. But it is also true that Negroes were largely deprived of the necessary means to make such an education possible.

Thirdly, Washington lays the responsibility for self-advancement directly at the feet of the Negroes. This is true in the sense that it is indeed primarily their responsibility, but false in that it is not wholly their responsibility, which is what seems to be implied.

Therefore, each error follows the same theme: the Negro must indeed take responsibility for his situation, but, as Du Bois argues, that is not the whole story. To deny the mutual responsibility of the White man in this fashion is "dangerous."