Weighing the arguments

Booker T. Washington's argument is more conservative, while W.E.B. DuBois's argument is more militant. I agree with both arguments, but if i had to chose, i would go with DuBois's argument, as his is more get-it-done-now-ish. I feel that this is more effective, though the better way is to mix both ideas. If there was a person who found a middle ground, it would have been amazing.


While Washington was a man that was born into slavery, he has great ideals and ideas as to how to help the African American cause. He feels that the way to go about things is to ease people into the idea of there being freedom and equal rights to colored people. His background makes him know that the easiest way to do things is to let people become accustomed to the idea before acting upon it. He knows the life of a slave and how other slaves might feel about being freed- they all want it, but they want to assimilate slowly into society. Anyways, those are his views.


However, on the other hand, W.E.B. DuBois has the attitude of get it done now and get it over with. Him being born free in New England has impacted his views. He's from the northern free states, which means that he's experienced having things go well for him, and has not had the experience of being a former slave. He feels that slaves want and need to be freed and have equal rights as soon as possible and he wants it done right away. He has the “I–want–it–and–I–want–it–now” attitude. This is beneficial, and helps get the ball rolling, but his views oppose those of Booker T. Washington’s.


While their goals are the same, they go about it in different ways. The two men’s pasts have indeed influenced their arguments and how they want things done.