Okay, before I begin, let me say why MLK and Malcolm X relate to these guys. Booker T is the predecessor to Martin Luther King Jr. They both believe slow progression and peaceful protests are the way to go. Most of the time, I believe in that reality. It is logical yet remains in the boundaries of the Constitution. The 1st Amendment is represented and yet nobody's individual rights are being violated, that includes the government workers. The African American's were the ones having their individual rights stripped from them, even while protesting. When police hosed those children, it seems to go against the 1st Amendment, because voices were being silenced, promoting the general welfare disappeared in this moment because the people were hurt when they were hosed. There were more violations of the Constitution, but those are the two big ones. Then their is the W.E.B/ Malcolm X. These two guys are for instant change. It kind of is like those Insta-Coco stuff, when the coco (the African Americans, ironically) lands on the milk, ( the white government, policemen, and racists, ironically) we want to see explosive results. They figured if we take the whites by surprise we can rule like the whites rule and we can get what we want. Now the question is, who is right: Booker T. Washington/ Martin Luther King Jr. or W.E.B/ Malcolm X?
I personally believe that the true way to get what you want is through constant and gradual persistence, all I have to do is look at my five year journey to get a phone. I HAVE NEVER HAD TO USE DRASTIC MEASURES TO GET WHAT I WANT! Although the African Americans have had to. Booker T/MLK's way of getting civic rights is the correct way to do things... but not in this instance. The maltreatment of the African American had gone on too long, even in Booker T.'s time, and I believe it would have been better if segregation and racism to end as fast as humanly possible. So I think that while the morally correct way to integrate African American's is the Booker T. way, the way that they would get their rights would be through the W.E.B way. Now yes, Booker T./MLK's ideas did win out in the end, but both were very powerful.
Booker T. once said that "character, not circumstances, makes the man." This basically means that what a person does defines him, not the current events of the day. How the man responds to the KKK actions represents is personality, not what the KKK did. MLK would agree, believing that peaceful marches are much more sufficient to the rioting like that of Haymarket. DuBois, "ignorance is a cure for nothing." DuBois says this, probably addressing the government, in order to make the statement that just blowing off that there is a problem is completely wrong, and does not help move us towards a more perfect union. It means exactly what it says. If we ignore environmental ideas, then what will happen to the environment? Yes, I think that if we ignore environmental concerns (insert sarcasm here) " the environment will become better, the ozone will repair itself, and we can go about our business as usual." Of course that is not true!
DuBois/ Malcolm X is a perfect example of power that comes from the bottom up. He urged the African Americans to fight and to rebel, and in no way were the African Americans on the top in DuBois' time. The same with Malcolm X. Booker T. Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. represents "democracy is represented best when all voices are heard" because they raised the voices of those blacks. MLK rose the voices of those marching on Washington.
Booker T. and W.E.B are both equally important to the African American movement. I can't tell you who is better. It is that of opinion, such as a Democrat believes Obama is better to be President, while a Republican believes that Mitt Romney is better for President. Obama and Romney are equals, Romney may be better than Obama in the Private Sector, but on the same token, Obama may be a more proficient spokesman. The same is true for Washington and W.E.B. While they are both fabulous spokesmen, Washington appealed to the Capitalists, as well as the people. However, DuBois was rejected by the Capitalists, which was a good thing for the cause he was fighting for. I think it may have hurt Washington's reputation that he was respected by the Capitalists.
In conclusion, Washington and DuBois, while both brilliant, have their flaws. Washington and DuBois are both important, they both helped their cause, they both fought for what they believed in. They are the true meaning of what it means to have the fight go on, the cause endure, and the dream never die.
No comments:
Post a Comment