Washinton And Du Bois

Washington And Du Bois

 Two renowned authors of their time~ RavesZak Arnel 

    Booker "Taliaferro" Washington of "Up from Slavery"                                                                                  

"William Edward Burghardt" Du Bois of "The Souls of Black Folk"           

                      

These two authors help bring understanding to rising up against racial inequality during reconstruction. 

      Du Bois, the far more militant author in his view of how to settle inequality, seemed to be the author I would agree with most when it comes to his writings. I feel as if he may be a little too militant at times however; it comes off the tongue bitter to any awkward eye which would play to his disfavor in his time. I feel Du Bois's opinionated thoughts out weigh humanistic altruism, which was needed most at his time. Justly in his name though Du Bois had great motivation behind his almost, "Now or Never" voice for racial equality that pushed for absolute American liberty for all. Du Bois made his voice herd in a very candid way that stuck with anybody that heard his verbiage.

Washington is the far more conservative author when it comes to his writings. I believe that humanist promotion was key and passive resistance with a soft voice was necessary too, but Washington is so flaccid in his writings it reminds me of Grandison in the familiar story "The Passing of Grandison" by Charles Chesnutt. As we came to find out the great irony behind one of Grandisons conversations with the Colonel; Grandison is forced into acting softly given his situation, and he only goes on to show support of anti-liberty for all. The way Washington relates to Grandisons in that situation only differs in the sense that the supposed roots behind his writings was of pro-freedom seed. I feel if liberty for all was based on philosophy so captured by Washington writings that slavery and inequality would yet relapse, it simply wasn't strong enough potion.

After deeper reflection upon the origins of the men them selves and the states of freedom they were born into, I find a more intricate perspective and rather tactful strategy being deployed in their writings. As Washington was born into slavery yet seems conservative when reforming against racial inequality, I get the feeling he is going with the "Been There Done That" approach. He knows the oppression first hand inequality spawns, and wants to ensure it doesn't happen again by seeming like a threat by coming on too bold to the new reforms across the land. This is Washington's fear, going back into oppression. Du Bois uses the tyrannous militant approach to absolving inequality even though he was born into freedom having never experienced oppression first hand. Lacking this hands on exercise of conformity makes him unwise of it, it is unknown to him. This is Du Bois's fear, going into the oppression, going into the unknown. With that idiosyncrasy of his being so might he razz as much alarm as possible to ensure his fear is never furnished? Were these two men dedicated to making sure their worst fears were never materialized?

These deliberations rise striking controversy in my opinion towards both authors. Importantly, I am fonder of both and can appreciate their contributions to racial reforms during reconstruction with certified appreciation. I might also add that neither approach was either completely upheld or condemned effective in boosting reconstructive actions; so maybe required was an equilibrium of both.

~Political Funny~