Dbq Civil Rights Movement
Throughout history there have been various periods, some brief and some extended, that had they not occurred would have changed the course of history and affected how we live today. During each period of history, there are those few great leaders who charted our history and were crucial to the success of our country as a whole. The civil rights movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was an important time in American history. Within the civil rights movement three of the most prominent African American men were prompted to attempt to solve the problem of racial inequality. Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey and W. E. B. DuBois, all approached the problem of racial inequality differently. Although each one approached the fight for
…show more content…
civil rights differently they each had a great and lasting impact on the progression of racial equality.
Booker T. Washington was a conservative who approached the fight for civil rights through the philosophy of self-help and racial solidarity. Washington urged African Americans to accept discrimination for the time being and concentrate on elevating themselves through hard work and material prosperity. “He urged blacks not to try to combat segregation: ‘In all the things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress (Foner, 700).’” Washington believed that if African Americans were educated to skilled, industrial, or agricultural workers they would prosper. “Washington advised his people to seek the assistance of white employers who, in a land racked by labor turmoil would prefer a docile, dependable black labor force to unionized whites (Foner, 700).” He believed that the African Americans should work for themselves and wanted job education to provide them the knowledge to successfully do their jobs. This idea to him was the most logical approach for African Americans to escape poverty and succeed in life. Washington wanted to win the respect of whites and that would allow whites to accept them as equals. He did not want African Americans to have to ask for equality but rather prove to whites that they were equal through action. Washington thought that they would not be successful granted equal rights if they simply asked rather than proving that they truly were equal. If African Americans were educated about society and real life situations that education would trump being “book smart” alone. Washington created a college, the Tuskegee Institute, to help African Americans to learn skills that would help them to find work and be successful at it.
W. E. B. DuBois differed from Washington in his position for advocating political action and a civil rights agenda. “DuBois wrote in at the (Niagara movement) manifesto, ‘every single right that belongs to a free-born American, political, civil, and social; and until we get these rights we will never cease to protest and assail the ears of America.’” DuBois wanted economic equality in addition to the social equality that Washington called for. He believed that social change could be accomplished by developing the small group of college-educated African Americans he called "the Talented Tenth,” meaning one in ten African Americans would arise and become leaders of their race as long as they had a college level education and the right resources (Foner, 797). DuBois believed that there should not be a difference in the education opportunities available to both races because economic security is important but without an education you can’t prosper. DuBois founded the NAACP as an organization for African Americans to turn to when they needed assistance. DuBois’ radical plan for equality demanded the immediate grant of equality however later in his life he changed his opinion. DuBois, “Abandoned his earlier goal of racial integration as unrealistic for the foreseeable future. Blacks, he wrote, must recognize themselves as ‘a nation with a nation (Foner, 888).’”
Marcus Garvey was very different from both DuBois and Washington as he advocated complete racial purity and separatism.
He believed that independence and African American self-reliance would make a difference in fight for civil rights. Garvey saw civil rights as a global problem and believed that, “Freedom that will give us a chance and opportunity to rise to the fullest of our ambition and that we cannot get in countries where other men rule and dominate (pg. 800).” Garvey’s beliefs were prompted by his anger and frustrations that African American soldiers, who had fought in battle in World War I, were returning home to inequality and prejudice with their valiant service being ignored and not rewarded (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5122).Garvey was viewed by DuBois and other popular civil rights leaders as a crowd pleaser, whose extreme radical notions was an excellent ways to gather a crowd but provided no results. His beliefs, or garveyism, can be simplified as the idea of economic rise by independence and political equality by means of autonomy. Garvey’s movement was viewed as militant and was therefore viewed as aggressive and abrasive, which provided a backlash across the board including other prominent members of the civil rights movement. Garvey believed that returning to Africa, also known as Diaspora, would be most beneficial in order to promote racial separatism. Garvey even financially supported, along with other African Americans, the Black Star Line fleet of ships to encourage African Americans to travel back to Africa to create a black-led nation in Africa. The UNIA, which Garvey helped found, also assisted in diaspora and other movements that promoted racial purity
(http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5122).
If each plan had been implemented fully, I believe that a combination of both Washington’s and DuBois’ plans would have worked the best to combat racial inequality. I believe that Washington’s policy of working in conjunction with the whites to slowly climb the socio-economic ladder along with DuBois’ emphasis on the completion of a higher level of education would be best. Washington and DuBois both had great ideas that dealt with separate issues in equality. Washington dealt with how to handle the relationship between whites and African Americans, while DuBois dealt more heavily with the education. Although education was crucial in both men’s plan for civil rights, I believe that the slow pace plan of Washington would be more beneficial as racial equality would be a big change that would be difficult for whites to grasp if it the movement was seen as too aggressive. Washington’s conservative plan for a gradual and patient approach to equality would be more effective than DuBois’ typical progressive plan of “investigation, exposure, and education would lead to solutions for social problems (pg. 797).”
I believe that if Garvey’s plan had been fully implemented we may have gone further backwards rather than move forward with regards to racial inequality. I do not believe that Garvey’s militant attitude was beneficial to the civil rights movement. Militancy is never beneficial when trying for equality and can lead to severe hostility from both parties involved. Garvey’s belief in separatism would never allow for equality but rather encourage independence rather than joining together in equality. Garvey’s idea of racial purity is not unlike the Klu Klux Klan, whose leader Garvey met with to seek financial sponsorship of his movement. This act set off a firestorm of disapproval, especially from other leaders in the civil rights movements. Garvey had good intentions but was thought to be less realistic that the Washington and DuBois. The only good things that should have been incorporated in a successful plan for racial equality would have been his tenacity for results and adamant pursuit of racial progression. With Garvey’s unwillingness to take no for an answer and his endless list of concepts to combat racial inequality would have made Washington and DuBois’ plan that much more effective.
All in all both Washington and DuBois would be successful if their plans for racial equality would have been fully accepted and implemented. Together DuBois’ requirement for a higher level of education as well as Washington’s idea for a docile and cooperative work force most likely would have combated racial inequality quickly and effectively. Garvey’s aggressive movement and militant ideals, in my opinion, would have been unsuccessful in encouraging equality between races. Garvey, I believe, would have promoted more aggressive behavior from both parties which would have been a major setback in the civil rights movement. In conclusion, all three men made incredible contributions to the civil rights movements and each had a lasting impact on the history of racial equality. Washington’s peaceful cooperation, DuBois’ quest for higher education, and Garvey’s adamant pursuit of equality all contributed to the success in the gain of racial equality. Had each man not contributed to the pursuit of equality things might have ended differently and we may have still, today, been fighting the war against racial inequality, at least in a larger capacity than we are today. In the end, Washington’s, DuBois’ and Garvey’s contributions to the pursuit of racial equality should never be forgotten and always be remembered as a valiant effort.
civil rights differently they each had a great and lasting impact on the progression of racial equality.
Booker T. Washington was a conservative who approached the fight for civil rights through the philosophy of self-help and racial solidarity. Washington urged African Americans to accept discrimination for the time being and concentrate on elevating themselves through hard work and material prosperity. “He urged blacks not to try to combat segregation: ‘In all the things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress (Foner, 700).’” Washington believed that if African Americans were educated to skilled, industrial, or agricultural workers they would prosper. “Washington advised his people to seek the assistance of white employers who, in a land racked by labor turmoil would prefer a docile, dependable black labor force to unionized whites (Foner, 700).” He believed that the African Americans should work for themselves and wanted job education to provide them the knowledge to successfully do their jobs. This idea to him was the most logical approach for African Americans to escape poverty and succeed in life. Washington wanted to win the respect of whites and that would allow whites to accept them as equals. He did not want African Americans to have to ask for equality but rather prove to whites that they were equal through action. Washington thought that they would not be successful granted equal rights if they simply asked rather than proving that they truly were equal. If African Americans were educated about society and real life situations that education would trump being “book smart” alone. Washington created a college, the Tuskegee Institute, to help African Americans to learn skills that would help them to find work and be successful at it.
W. E. B. DuBois differed from Washington in his position for advocating political action and a civil rights agenda. “DuBois wrote in at the (Niagara movement) manifesto, ‘every single right that belongs to a free-born American, political, civil, and social; and until we get these rights we will never cease to protest and assail the ears of America.’” DuBois wanted economic equality in addition to the social equality that Washington called for. He believed that social change could be accomplished by developing the small group of college-educated African Americans he called "the Talented Tenth,” meaning one in ten African Americans would arise and become leaders of their race as long as they had a college level education and the right resources (Foner, 797). DuBois believed that there should not be a difference in the education opportunities available to both races because economic security is important but without an education you can’t prosper. DuBois founded the NAACP as an organization for African Americans to turn to when they needed assistance. DuBois’ radical plan for equality demanded the immediate grant of equality however later in his life he changed his opinion. DuBois, “Abandoned his earlier goal of racial integration as unrealistic for the foreseeable future. Blacks, he wrote, must recognize themselves as ‘a nation with a nation (Foner, 888).’”
Marcus Garvey was very different from both DuBois and Washington as he advocated complete racial purity and separatism.
He believed that independence and African American self-reliance would make a difference in fight for civil rights. Garvey saw civil rights as a global problem and believed that, “Freedom that will give us a chance and opportunity to rise to the fullest of our ambition and that we cannot get in countries where other men rule and dominate (pg. 800).” Garvey’s beliefs were prompted by his anger and frustrations that African American soldiers, who had fought in battle in World War I, were returning home to inequality and prejudice with their valiant service being ignored and not rewarded (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5122).Garvey was viewed by DuBois and other popular civil rights leaders as a crowd pleaser, whose extreme radical notions was an excellent ways to gather a crowd but provided no results. His beliefs, or garveyism, can be simplified as the idea of economic rise by independence and political equality by means of autonomy. Garvey’s movement was viewed as militant and was therefore viewed as aggressive and abrasive, which provided a backlash across the board including other prominent members of the civil rights movement. Garvey believed that returning to Africa, also known as Diaspora, would be most beneficial in order to promote racial separatism. Garvey even financially supported, along with other African Americans, the Black Star Line fleet of ships to encourage African Americans to travel back to Africa to create a black-led nation in Africa. The UNIA, which Garvey helped found, also assisted in diaspora and other movements that promoted racial purity
(http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5122).
If each plan had been implemented fully, I believe that a combination of both Washington’s and DuBois’ plans would have worked the best to combat racial inequality. I believe that Washington’s policy of working in conjunction with the whites to slowly climb the socio-economic ladder along with DuBois’ emphasis on the completion of a higher level of education would be best. Washington and DuBois both had great ideas that dealt with separate issues in equality. Washington dealt with how to handle the relationship between whites and African Americans, while DuBois dealt more heavily with the education. Although education was crucial in both men’s plan for civil rights, I believe that the slow pace plan of Washington would be more beneficial as racial equality would be a big change that would be difficult for whites to grasp if it the movement was seen as too aggressive. Washington’s conservative plan for a gradual and patient approach to equality would be more effective than DuBois’ typical progressive plan of “investigation, exposure, and education would lead to solutions for social problems (pg. 797).”
I believe that if Garvey’s plan had been fully implemented we may have gone further backwards rather than move forward with regards to racial inequality. I do not believe that Garvey’s militant attitude was beneficial to the civil rights movement. Militancy is never beneficial when trying for equality and can lead to severe hostility from both parties involved. Garvey’s belief in separatism would never allow for equality but rather encourage independence rather than joining together in equality. Garvey’s idea of racial purity is not unlike the Klu Klux Klan, whose leader Garvey met with to seek financial sponsorship of his movement. This act set off a firestorm of disapproval, especially from other leaders in the civil rights movements. Garvey had good intentions but was thought to be less realistic that the Washington and DuBois. The only good things that should have been incorporated in a successful plan for racial equality would have been his tenacity for results and adamant pursuit of racial progression. With Garvey’s unwillingness to take no for an answer and his endless list of concepts to combat racial inequality would have made Washington and DuBois’ plan that much more effective.
All in all both Washington and DuBois would be successful if their plans for racial equality would have been fully accepted and implemented. Together DuBois’ requirement for a higher level of education as well as Washington’s idea for a docile and cooperative work force most likely would have combated racial inequality quickly and effectively. Garvey’s aggressive movement and militant ideals, in my opinion, would have been unsuccessful in encouraging equality between races. Garvey, I believe, would have promoted more aggressive behavior from both parties which would have been a major setback in the civil rights movement. In conclusion, all three men made incredible contributions to the civil rights movements and each had a lasting impact on the history of racial equality. Washington’s peaceful cooperation, DuBois’ quest for higher education, and Garvey’s adamant pursuit of equality all contributed to the success in the gain of racial equality. Had each man not contributed to the pursuit of equality things might have ended differently and we may have still, today, been fighting the war against racial inequality, at least in a larger capacity than we are today. In the end, Washington’s, DuBois’ and Garvey’s contributions to the pursuit of racial equality should never be forgotten and always be remembered as a valiant effort.