13 Dec 2023 5:35 pm
Guess it depends on your perspective. I see Washington as a guy supporting self-sufficiency. He was for black business. Washington was from the south.Cannonpointer » 13 Dec 2023, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑ Oh, you're a COLLEGE BOY, huh?
I ain't got much book learnin. I've got a lot of COMMIN SENSE.
Anyway, I am surprised to learn that DuBois was preferred over Booker T. I had been under the impression that DuBois was bigger on self reliance than was Booker T. It was my understanding that Booker T. was more willing to work with the white man, and DuBois was more of a separatist/black nationalist.
I would have traced MLK back more to Booker T. and Malcom back more to the W.E.B. DuBois school of thought.
So that is NOT correct?
DuBois was from the north. I see him as emphasizing politics rather than blacks being merchants.
That's a simplistic view and there's lots of complexities, but this really mirrors what is happening today and with Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm X, etc. MLK and Parks sought political change. Malcolm X didn't trust white devils and thought--to a certain extent--that blacks did better in their own community.
Look how it applies to the Mont. bus boycott. Parks and her group were seeking political change. She ended up going back to the bus and the very bus system and government that despised her and her group. Look at what happened during the boycott. Blacks formed car pools, biked, and supported each other. Again, a modern day Uber. I think Washington would have been proud of those people. Du Bois would have rejected that.
Read academics' view of Washington. They generally disparage him and tout Du Bois. Malcolm is disparaged (or ignored) while MLK is lionized. Now, look at blacks who strike out on their own and tell marxists to stick it. They're off the plantation, according to libs. Libs want to emphasize that political change nonsense and act like blacks supporting one another in their own communities is somehow sucking up to the white man.