Showdown on Paper

Comparing Washington and DuBois is a bit like debating the universal merits of home and mind. Some people may not be bothered by occupations of the mind as long as they have a full stomach and a warm house in which their families can live. This is not an archaic invention: it exists among all people in all areas of civility. Today as I was sitting in a class one of my classmates argued the benefits of being a housewife: no particular responsibilities outside cooking and cleaning ("which I don't mind," she added), no studying for abstract subjects that had no practical use. To my surprise two others sitting near us immediately agreed. "I'm ready to settle down and pop [a few babies] out," one detailed eloquently.

This is about the time I decided that, for the moment, I am partial to DuBois's argument that it would be better to be the poor black boy studying French grammar. And in theory he is correct by stating that rights to freedom and high education should not have to be fought for in the first place (see the Constitution of the United States of America), but should be guaranteed by our own populace. However there are some practical notes to Washington's address that should not be overlooked. First and foremost, though it may be the idealist's drive to not rest in the face of adversity, those that are starving each night may not feel so compelled. If you wish to civilize a race, a people, or some other generalized group, you probably have to work from the bottom-up.

Washington may be arguing that the challenges facing the African race after the decline of slavery in the United States are insurmountable to a people faced also with very physical problems. Can one be philosophical and act ideally while his or her children starve or grow ill without care? This is an interesting question when one considers again the modern state of our nation, where a growing number of people have no health benefits. If the Atlanta Compromise were to be applied, we should be demanding free public healthcare before worrying about abortion, the rights of belittled groups, and other various headline political subjects.

Perhaps this Compromise is situation-dependent in whether or not it can be critically overturned. But as DuBois puts it, people cannot achieve greatness or significance by acting as if they want none of it. Even temporarily giving up rights may be a means by which you can permanently leave your foot riddled with buckshot.