Who is the greatest African American of the past hundred years? Who was the most prophetic about civil rights concerns for the twenty-first century? Not Martin Luther King. I would have to rank him second or third. The greatest and most prophetic figure was Booker T. Washington. To see why, we have to revisit an early twentieth-century debate between Washington and W.E.B. DuBois. Although the debate focused on black Americans, it is relevant to the question of how any group starting out at the bottom can advance in society.
DuBois, a distinguished scholar and co-founder of the civil rights organization NAACP, argued that blacks in America face one big problem, and it is racism. Washington, who was born a slave but went on to become head of the Tuskegee Institute, countered that blacks face two big problems. One is racism, he conceded. The other, he said, is African American cultural disadvantage. Washington contended that black crime rates were too high, black savings rates were too low, there were too many broken families, blacks did not have enough respect for educational achievement, and so on.
DuBois insisted that these problems, if they existed, were due to the legacy of slavery and racism. Washington did not entirely disagree, but he insisted that, whatever their source, these cultural problems demanded attention. What is the point of having rights, Washington said, without the ability to exercise those rights and compete effectively with other groups? To put the matter in contemporary terms, there is little benefit in having a right to a job at Microsoft if you don't have the skills to get and perform the job. Washington further implied that if these cultural deficiencies were not remedied, they would help to strengthen racism by giving it an empirical foundation.
The civil rights movement, led by the NAACP and later Martin Luther King, fought for decades to implement the DuBois program and secure basic rights for black Americans. This was a necessary campaign, and ultimately it was successful. The laws were changed, and blacks achieved their goal of legal equality and full citizenship. Other minorities (and I count myself in this group) also benefited from the doors that King and his fellow activists opened. Obviously issues of enforcement remain, but by the late 1960s the early civil rights agenda represented by DuBois and King had been largely achieved. At this crucial juncture, the civil rights movement should have moved to embrace the Booker T. Washington agenda.
Unfortunately this didn't happen. It still hasn't happened. Even today Jesse Jackson and the NAACP continue (in the famous words of Frederick Douglass) to "agitate, agitate, agitate" for black progress. But now there are hardly any Bull Connors and Southern segregationists to fight, and so the activists are reduced to fighting "covert racism" and "institutional racism" and "racism that has gone underground" and basically racism that is only visible to them and to no one else. Most significant, these fights do little to help the blacks who are the poorest, the group that sociologist William Julius Wilson termed "the truly disadvantaged."
Meanwhile, there is another group that is following the Booker T. Washington strategy, and that is the nonwhite immigrants. I don't just mean the Koreans and the Asian Indians; I also mean black immigrants--the West Indians, the Haitians, the Nigerians, and so on. All are darker in complexion than African Americans, and yet racism does not seem to stop them. The immigrants know that racism today is no longer systematic, it is episodic, and they are able to find ways to navigate around its obstacles. Even immigrants who start out at the very bottom have shown that they are make rapid gains. These groups are surging ahead of African Americans and claiming the American dream for themselves. West Indians, for instance, have established a strong business and professional community and have achieved income parity with whites.
How is this possible? The nonwhite immigrants don't spend a lot of time meditating about the hardships of the past, nor do they blame their circumstances on society. They recognize that education and entrepreneurship are the fastest ladders to success in America. They push their children to study, so that they will be admitted to Berkeley and MIT, and they pool their resources and set up small businesses, so that they can make some money and move to the suburbs.
Thus we find that any group trying to move up in America is confronted with two possible strategies--the DuBois strategy and the Washington strategy---and it is an empirical question as to which one works better. A century ago, when segregation was still the rule, clearly the DuBois strategy was better. In this sense, Booker T. Washington was wrong during his day. But today it's clear that the man was ahead of his time. So far the evidence is overwhelming that the immigrant approach of assimilating to the cultural strategies of success is vastly better for group uplift than the tired old strategy of "agitate, agitate, agitate."
Martin Luther King nobly led the first phase of the struggle, but he only dimly saw the next stage. At the time of his death King was peddling all kinds of impractical schemes for sharing the wealth and he also became unnecessarily involved in the anti-Vietnam movement which diluted his currency as a civil rights leader. Even so, there were moments when King was prescient about the future. At one point he said that ultimately every man must write with his own hand the charter of his emancipation proclamation. I take him to mean that we all have the right to be treated equally under the law. We have this right, but we don't have any more rights than this. What we do with our rights, what we make of ourselves, the script that we write of our own lives, this finally is up to us.
Postscript: This article has been loosely adapted from my book What's So Great About America. The issues it raises are exhaustively treated in one of my earlier books, The End of Racism.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 40)
76. Your statement "racism today is no longer systematic, it is episodic," is the worst example of your off the cuff narratives to date. Please desist: You are a dunce and a lunatic. Racism is alive in America. It is endemic to America. It is taught, learned and handed down to other generations. Racism is institutionalized via our biases and prejudices and continues to be largely accepted and practiced by most unaffected Americans. Racism can be overt and offensive and subtle and offensive. One need only look to the incarceration rate of black youth,the criminal disparities in education, the blatant slant of our media,the unmitigated profiling: the flip side of our national equal rights for all political persona is the blatant lack of political will to improve race relations today and tomorrow. MLK was a student of his predecessors. The rights for equality were progressive;each era had its own saints,agendas and priorities. Contributions were made by so many people. MLK was riding on the backs of such luminaries as Sojourner Truth, Dred Scott, Marcus Garvey, Rosa Parks. MLK built on this legacy to propel America out of its Dark Age and into the land not just of promises but of conviction. However,America has continued to lack conviction and settles for well it was better than before complacency. It should be mandatory for all Americans to experience one day as a black American. It would be a guarantee to ensure that racism would be put in its place: to live in a world of gross negligence and insensitivity should be a thing of the past.
boredwell at 4:16AM on Jan 20th 2008
77. "I've heard of many atheists who suddenly became "born again" when the end is nearing"
Like Mother Theresa?
a born atheist at 8:45AM on Jan 20th 2008
78. From an article in the Houston Chronicle online Jan. 19, 2008 (a pro abortion article incidentally) citing Planned Parenthood and their “pals” the Guttmacher Institute:
“…But year after year the statistics reveal that black women and economically struggling women — who have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies — are far more likely than others to have abortions.”
The article ALSO says that while black women are 13% of the total US population, they get 35% of the abortions.
==================================================
MARTIN LUTHUR KING DAY – should be a day to GRIEVE the WASTE of a large natural resource THE BLACK CHILDREN ABORTED (as well as the LARGER amount of black children STILL growing up …….
WITHOUT less good family – or extended family support, and with MORE absent fathers, etc…the issues which affect MANY poor, but which still DISPROPORTIONATELY affect the blackcommunity.)
LOOK UP PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S FOUNDER
MARGARET SANGER AND THE NEGRO PROJECT.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1466&department=CWA&categoryid=life
vikingmother at 9:00AM on Jan 20th 2008
79. I am a black african and i say that Dinesh is right.Mind you i disagree with his minimalisation of racisim in Black American life.Race is still the issue.
However,what he says about the victim mentality amongst black Americans is true.A few years ago,a Nigerian intellectual was speaking to some black youth.In the course of his speech,the intellectual mentioned that many black american youth think that getting straight A's in school is tantamount to trying to be White.He was shouted down,with some black youth telling him that it is not worth their while to get A's.How sad.
Dinesh mentioned that African immigrants do better than African-americans.Why?As a child growing up in Nigeria,I just had to do well in school.In Nigeria,schooling is very expensive,and some schools can kick u out for just flunking a year.Also,discrimination on the basis of tribe exists,meaning you have to do extremely well in your university entrance exams to get through.Furtermore,Nigerians studying in the States do not have acess to financial aid.They have to use life savings to complete schooling in America.Finally,a Nigerian working abroad,is oftentimes responsible for literally dozens of relatives back home.
To my black american brethren.Racisim is real.Just don't let it stop u from being excellent please.
aniekan thomas at 9:01AM on Jan 20th 2008
80. Let me add that it does not matter whether your ancestors suffered as slaves or not.A culture of excellence is still important.That is the issue here,and it is one that transcends all races
aniekan thomas at 9:19AM on Jan 20th 2008
81. I want to know what Dinesh's agenda is here. He ALWAYS has one. Without fail. Even if he just ends his blog entry with "and atheists are big stinky poopyheads" or something like that, there is always some kind of nasty point.
Is it because of Jackson's support of Obama, perhaps? Or what else could it be?
brandon at 11:38AM on Jan 20th 2008
82. is dinesh insinuating that black americans should not have rights if they are not going to get jobs at microsoft, move to the 'burbs, and send their kids to private colleges?
he also seems to be implying that it is their own fault that racism exists. well dinesh, here's a little FYI. it isn't the problem of those being discriminated against that discrimination exists. it is the problem of those who discriminate. to say, "well i'm only racist because you black people won't get out of poverty" does not work. is this how you try to justify your own racism dinesh? by blaming black people?
dinesh, i find your comments about how nigerians have darker complexions and they are still seeking education despicable. is this supposed to mean that they are more black? do you have some "level of blackness" developed? with that comment you seem to be saying "look american black people, these people are even BLACKER than you and they still have better lives. therefore, YOU have no excuse!"
and thanks for letting us know that this garbage thinking is included in your disgusting book so we all know it's not worth reading.
Richelle at 12:05PM on Jan 20th 2008
83. It is interesting how one moving across the seas to a new land can slough off the constraints of his past, while one making a start at home feels weighed down by his inherited reality. It speaks of the type of person who has the motivation to get across that expanse of ocean, as well as the struggle of a young person working with broken tools that was all he could find. Is strongly identifying with survivors of slavery a "broken tool"? I don't think so, but there are many kinds of personally debilitating beliefs which may concurrently be held by somebody who finds identity with being proudly Black. I guess one could try to make the point that Africa has been decolonialized since 1960, so the fact that they are still the poorest continent indicates some moral failure on their part. If we model the world in overly simple terms, we could advance the most preposterous suppositions infallibly.
prunar at 12:25PM on Jan 20th 2008
84. Booker T. Washington and WEB Dubois debated solutions to problems, not origins. They did not fundamentally disagree on the impact of slavery, white racism, white brutality on the lives of African-Americans, they disagreed on the response. Booker T. Washington did not believe in the push for political rights - the idea of changing white minds - he believed in a focus on economic security. There is value, and need for both arguments.
Booker T. Washington did not believe black people were criminals, resistant to education, and all this other trash that D'Souza attributes to him. He believed they should take a course of action in response to the racist system they lived in.
Certainly, Booker T. Washington did not believe - as does D'Souza - that blacks are genetically inferior to white people (and other races), that blacks are culturally backwards and that, not racism, is the cause of their enslavement, and racism against them.
D'Souza is a degenerate for presenting the idea that to any extent Booker T. Washington would agree with his ideas. And how valuable is the opinion of a racist, with clearly articulated views of the inferiority of black people, about the "The Greatest African American?" -- How then would we value a list from Hitler of the greatest Jewish people?
D'Souza is deliberately distorting the viewpoints of both men to fit his own racist beliefs -- and depending on the ignorance of the audience to agree with his premises automatically - leaving only a debate about his text. People need to directly read the words of these men, and don't let them be twisted, manipulated - filtered through the racist mind of D'Souza.
If D'Souza thought it would work, he'd be telling us the Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated black criminality, and that his "I have a dream" speech was about advocating drug use.
Crimes rates too high? When Booker T. Washington was born, for a black person to escape slavery was a crime. To learn to read, or teach another black person to read, was a crime. To assert your freedom as a human being, was a crime. To refuse to be a slave was a crime. Post-slavery, to try to vote was a crime in most places, to "disrespect' white people was a crime. Black people were actively being lynched for a whole host of 'crimes' that were only crimes because they resisted a racist system and exploitation. Many black women were jailed as 'criminals' for resisting rapes and attempted rapes. Broken families? How many slaves had control over their families being broken? When their mothers, children, spouses, could be sold away -- and they weren't even able to control their 'marriages' and 'births' anyway? After slavery ended, people wandered unable to even identify where their relatives had gone -- and slavery ending didn't mean the country was not the same hostile place that it was under slavery. Respect for educational achievement? Every black person who got an education contravened a system that refused them even equitable access to education. In some places you could build a school, in other places you'd be killed for trying to gather under a tree to even teach black students. Savings rates? People were struggling to survive, and those who could save, did -- as evidence by the many black towns, business, etc. that sprang up. But these were done against a system that stifled them. It wasn't black culture that held them back.
D'Souza is an ignorant racist - who willfully depends as much upon the similar ignorance of his audience, as he does upon similar racism. Most readers have little idea of Dubois or Washington, and certainly don't know what they actually said or wrote. These readers don't even have a grasp of the time period, the laws and existing conditions of life which controlled African-American life. Lynching was a common crime -- and please don't speak to me about African-American cultural disadvantages during a time when the White-American cultural disadvantage was that they still could not decide it wasn't okay for a black person to be dragged behind a horse, beaten, castrated, hung from a tree and burned to death, simply because they didn't say "Sir" to a white person, looked the wrong white at a white person, resisted some manner of racist brutality, or simply owned property that a white person wanted. Research the history of the town of ROSEWOOD, to see what happened to black towns that thrived from black cultural strength.
Had D'Souza lived during those times, he'd be the one writing passionate articles about why africans should remain enslaved, why they were unfit to own property, unfit to vote, why they should not be allowed schools, etc. I am sure he'd be flush with excitement, probably to the level of arousal to watch a lynching, to see pregnant women whipped to the point of miscarriage, and he'd still be arguing that all of these were justified to the black racial - cultural disadvantage.
In 2008, D'Souza desperately wants to see the U.S. impose a racial caste system, and if he can't get it back into law, he wants to get it back into social acceptance. The only thing he'd want more is to look into the mirror and see blonde hair, blue-eyes and skin fair enough to pass for white.
Respect for education? D'Souza has no respect for education because he is writing lies that are based on the idea that his readers will not be educated enough to refute those lies.
Nicole at 12:43PM on Jan 20th 2008
85. I think the categorical labeling of DD is appropriate, "Controversy, Race Relations." I say this because his historical detail is only partially accurate. The debate between Booker T. Washington and WEB DuBois, who by the way has Haitian roots, was more about the evolution of the former slave. Booker T. supported vocational trade for many freed slaves, hence the "skills" DD is advocating. DuBois on the other had saw the evolution of society and believed that the traditional vocational trades that were delegated to the former slaves would not be enough. African Americans would have to pursue higher education in order to survive, hence the concept of the "Talented Tenth." So when DD speaks of the beliefs of working hard, getting that education, etc. that he feels most African Americans do not possess, he is essentially supporting DuBois' argument. I encourage everyone to read DuBois' Souls of Black Folk and the Autobiography of Booker T. Washington in order to learn for themselves and not take the word of someone whose goal and objective is to provoke and ellicit discord.
Secondly to defame Martin Luther King Jr, by stating King was "peddling all kinds of impractical schemes for sharing the wealth and he also became unnecessarily involved in the anti-Vietnam movement which diluted his currency as a civil rights leader," is another attempt to create controversy. What was done in terms of civil rights, not just for Black African Americans, but all Americans (Women, future Immigrants, etc--and yes, DD) not only changed the dynamic of America, but the entire world. Furthermore, that "scheme for sharing the wealth" would have been the next direction of evolution. Dr. King and those realize that there are more poor people out there, and those lines transcend race, thus the poor Black man in the South, has much more in common with his White counterpart in Appalachia: they are both poor. If Dr. King would have been able to unify that front, think of the direction where this country would be today. The trifles of racism and sexism are diversions to keep individuals from seeing the real issue: the uneven distribution of wealth in this country, and the fact that most of us Black, White, or what ever ethnic group we identify with, we will never have access to that wealth.
TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF....DO NOT BE FOOLED AND LEARN FOR YOURSELF.
Marvin at 1:02PM on Jan 20th 2008
86. Some knuckleheads idea was that forced integration would work thinking that the only problem was that whites didn't want to community with blacks. There should be forced professional integration, but forced social integration has only fueled the fire for way to long. People are going to hang around with whoever they want to hang aound with because it's human nature to group together when we share commonalities. Skin color being in the forefront. Don't get all upset and telling me I'm a prejudiced whitey when you know that hispanics group with hispanics, whites group with whites, blacks group with blacks, etc, etc.
The idea is that if we can all just intermingle then there would be peace in the world, but really if we could all resist trying to supress each other there MIGHT be peace in the world. I had a white friend that went to a predominantly black college and if she walked around with her head up or made eye contact with the other girls she was threatened with bodily harm. She had to go to the Dean and threaten to take her story to a newspaper to get the right to be a human being. She only went there to begin with because it was requirement of her major. Forced integration at it's best.
STaylor at 1:25PM on Jan 20th 2008
87. Some folks are confused about liberals and the stance they take on various issues, such as being pro-choice. Here is a biblical quote from JC:
RESIST NOT EVIL
Therefore, if killing unborn children is an evil, (and most would agree that it is) a follower of JC would not stop a mother from committing this evil.
And that is how a liberal can be pro-choice.
Any questions, class?
The Goddess Athena at 1:41PM on Jan 20th 2008
88. wondering what happened to my post ...
kettyluv at 1:53PM on Jan 20th 2008
89. Neither Catholicism nor demonic possession are mentioned in Dinesh's article.
I'm not sure how they got into the discussion, though I shouldn't wonder since,
no matter the subject, someone will find a tangential way to bring religion into
play in order to try to prove their beliefs are more important and truthful than
those of other posters.
Demonic possession does exist, and there are multiple sources which you can
check which will prove the veracity of that statement. Since you seem to place
such a high priority on education, or at least the education as it pertains to
religious matters, then you would do well to educate yourself in the matters of
religion before you spout off about religious practices,beliefs and customs. If you're going
to believe education is a large part of belief, then at least admit that religion is part
of education which you have chosen to dismiss.
"Being an exorcist is one thing and the saying demonic spirits obeyed Jesus are
different." How? Jesus commanded demons to leave the bodies of various individuals
mentioned in the New Testament, which summarily happened. That you weren't
there to see it doesn't make it false.
Your claim that the New Testament is made up do not have any basis in fact
is a false claim, a statistic made up by you, on the this spot, to debunk an afterlife.
The belief in Jesus and demonic possession is not unique to the Catholic
faith. If you were so well-versed in matters of religion, you would know that.
kettyluv at 2:01PM on Jan 20th 2008
90. That’s because you agreed with him. Now let someone give you that same speech in support of legislation to protect the life of unborn humans and I’d bet money their beliefs become an issue.
xxx
No, it's because he did NOT push his religious agenda like I said the first time. Wake up.
Again, since there is no atheist organization, your expectations that we would conform to dogma is delusional and the product of your own religious indoctrination. I don't have any need to agree with Hays point by point, and your continued attmpt to see some sort of organizational dogma is delusional.
King was not a proselyte of his religion. He was a proselyte of civil rights among others. He lost his life in his cause, and neither he nor his family made any attempt that I know to convert others to his faith. Dominionists push, and they push to satisfy their need for enemies and power. You don't find atheist organizations, much less atheist organizations against gays or blacks. You may find organization against dominionism, but that's just what any loyal american OUGHT to be against.
King was not a proselyte - you folks tend to be and tend to get violent about it.
Clif Kuplen at 2:10PM on Jan 20th 2008