W. E. B. Du Bois on Racial Equality
Many educated African Americans, especially in the North, objected to Booker T. Washington's
policy of racial accommodation. In 1903, W. E. B. Du Bois attacked Washington's ideas and
proposed alternatives that made sense to many black Americans, then and since. One of the
organizers of the Niagara Movement and of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, Du Bois had earned a doctorate in history from Harvard and was a professor at
Atlanta University when he published his criticisms of Washington, excerpted from his work The
Souls of Black Folk.
Booker T. Washington and Others, 1903
Easily the most striking thing in the history of the American Negro since 1876 is the
ascendancy of Mr. Booker T. Washington. It began at the time when war memories and ideals
were rapidly passing; a day of astonishing commercial development was dawning; a sense of
doubt and hesitation overtook the freedmen's sons, — then it was that his leading began. Mr.
Washington came, with a simple definite programme, at the psychological moment when the
nation was a little ashamed of having bestowed so much sentiment on Negroes, and was
concentrating its energies on Dollars. His programme of industrial education, conciliation of the
South, and submission and silence as to civil and political rights, was not wholly original. ... But
Mr. Washington first indissolubly linked these things; he put enthusiasm, unlimited energy, and
perfect faith into this programme, and changed it from a by-path into a veritable Way of Life. ...
It startled the nation to hear a Negro advocating such a programme after many decades of
bitter complaint; it startled and won the applause of the South, it interested and won the
admiration of the North; and after a confused murmur of protest, it silenced if it did not convert
the Negroes themselves.
To gain the sympathy and cooperation of the various elements comprising the white South
was Mr. Washington's first task; and [it] ... seemed, for a black man, well-nigh impossible. And
yet ten years later it was done in the words spoken at Atlanta: “In all things purely social we can
be as separate as five fingers, and yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual
progress.” This “Atlanta Compromise” is by all odds the most notable thing in Mr. Washington's
career. The South interpreted it in different ways: the radicals received it as a complete
surrender of the demand for civil and political equality; the conservatives, as a generously
conceived working basis for mutual understanding. ...
So Mr. Washington's cult has gained unquestioning followers, his work has wonderfully
prospered, his friends are legion, and his enemies are confounded. To-day he stands as the
one recognized spokesman of his ten million fellows, and one of the most notable figures in a
nation of seventy million. ...
But Booker T. Washington arose as essentially the leader not of one race but of two, — a
compromiser between the South, the North, and the Negro. Naturally the Negroes resented, at
first bitterly, signs of compromise which surrendered their civil and political rights, even though
this was to be exchanged for larger chances of economic development. The rich and dominating
North, however, was not only weary of the race problem, but was investing largely in Southern
enterprises, and welcomed any method of peaceful cooperation. Thus, by national opinion, the
Negroes began to recognize Mr. Washington's leadership; and the voice of criticism was
hushed.
Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission;
but adjustment at such a peculiar time as to make his programme unique. This is an age of
unusual economic development, and Mr. Washington's programme naturally takes an economic
cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely
to overshadow the higher aims of life. Moreover, this is an age when the more advanced races
are coming in closer contact with the less developed races, and the race-feeling is therefore
intensified; and Mr. Washington's programme practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the
Negro races. Again, in our own land, the reaction from the sentiment of war time has given
impetus to race-prejudice against Negroes, and Mr. Washington withdraws many of the high
demands of Negroes as men and American citizens. ...
In answer to this, it has been claimed that the Negro can survive only through submission. Mr.
Washington distinctly asks that black people give up, at least for the present, three things,
First, political power,
Second, insistence on civil rights,
Third, higher education of Negro youth, —
and concentrate all their energies on industrial education, the accumulation of wealth, and the
conciliation of the South. This policy has been courageously and insistently advocated for over
fifteen years, and has been triumphant for perhaps ten years. As a result of this tender of the
palm-branch, what has been the return? In these years there have occurred:
1. The disfranchisement of the Negro.
2. The legal creation of a distinct status of civil inferiority for the Negro.
3. The steady withdrawal of aid from institutions for the higher training of the Negro.
These movements are not, to be sure, direct results of Mr. Washington's teachings; but his
propaganda has, without a shadow of doubt, helped their speedier accomplishment. The
question then comes: Is it possible, and probable, that nine millions of men can make effective
progress in economic lines if they are deprived of political rights, made a servile caste, and
allowed only the most meagre chance for developing their exceptional men? If history and
reason give any distinct answer to these questions, it is an emphatic No. And Mr. Washington
thus faces the triple paradox of his career:
1. He is striving nobly to make Negro artisans business men and property-owners; but it is
utterly impossible, under modern competitive methods, for workingmen and propertyowners to defend their rights and exist without the right of suffrage.
2. He insists on thrift and self-respect, but at the same time counsels a silent submission to
civic inferiority such as is bound to sap the manhood of any race in the long run.
3. He advocates common-school and industrial training, and depreciates institutions of
higher learning. ...
This triple paradox in Mr. Washington's position is the object of criticism by two classes of
colored Americans. One class is spiritually descended from Toussaint the Savior, through
Gabriel, Vesey, and Turner1, and they represent the attitude of revolt and revenge; they hate
the white South blindly and distrust the white race generally, and so far as they agree on definite
action, think that the Negro's only hope lies in emigration beyond the borders of the United
States. And yet, by the irony of fate, nothing has more effectively made this programme seem
hopeless than the recent course of the United States toward weaker and darker peoples in the
West Indies, Hawaii, and the Philippines, — for where in the world may we go and be safe from
lying and brute force?
The other class of Negroes who cannot agree with Mr. Washington has hitherto said little
aloud. ... Such men feel in conscience bound to ask of this nation three things:
1. The right to vote.
2. Civic equality.
3. The education of youth according to ability.
They acknowledge Mr. Washington's invaluable service in counselling patience and courtesy
in such demands; they do not ask that ignorant black men vote when ignorant whites are
debarred, or that any reasonable restrictions in the suffrage should not be applied; they know
that the low social level of the mass of the race is responsible for much discrimination against it,
but they also know, and the nation knows, that relentless color prejudice is more often a cause
than a result of the Negro's degradation; they seek the abatement of this relic of barbarism, and
not its systematic encouragement and pampering by all agencies of social power. ... They
advocate, with Mr. Washington, a broad system of Negro common schools supplemented by
thorough industrial training; but they are surprised that a man of Mr. Washington's insight
cannot see that no educational system ever has rested or can rest on any other basis than that
of the well equipped college and university, and they insist that there is a demand for a few such
institutions throughout the South to train the best of the Negro youth as teachers, professional
men, and leaders. ...
They do not expect that the free right to vote, to enjoy civic rights, and to be educated, will
come in a moment; they do not expect to see the bias and prejudices of years disappear at the
blast of a trumpet; but they are absolutely certain that the way for a people to gain their
reasonable rights is not by voluntarily throwing them away and insisting that they do not want
them; that the way for a people to gain respect is not by continually belittling and ridiculing
themselves; that, on the contrary, Negroes must insist continually, in season and out of season,
Toussaint L’Ouverture was a former slave who led the Haitian Revolution in 1798. African
Americans Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and Nat Turner were executed for attempts to lead
slave rebellions in the United States in 1800, 1822, and 1831, respectively.
1
that voting is necessary to modern manhood, that color discrimination is barbarism, and that
black boys need education as well as white boys. ...
[T]he distinct impression left by Mr. Washington's propaganda is, first, that the South is
justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation; secondly,
that the prime cause of the Negro's failure to rise more quickly is his wrong education in the
past; and, thirdly, that his future rise depends primarily on his own efforts. Each of these
propositions is a dangerous half-truth. The supplementary truths must never be lost sight of:
first, slavery and race-prejudice are potent if not sufficient causes of the Negro's position;
second, industrial and common-school training were necessarily slow in planting because they
had to await the black teachers trained by higher institutions ... ; and, third, while it is a great
truth to say that the Negro must strive and strive mightily to help himself, it is equally true that
unless his striving be not simply seconded, but rather aroused and encouraged, by the initiative
of the richer and wiser environing group, he cannot hope for great success.
In his failure to realize and impress this last point, Mr. Washington is especially to be
criticised. His doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the
Negro problem to the Negro's shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic
spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean
if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs.
From W. E. B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Company, 1903).
QUESTIONS FOR READING AND DISCUSSION
1. According to Du Bois, what were the shortcomings of the “Atlanta Compromise”? What
was compromised, and why? What consequences did the compromise have for black
Americans?
2. In what ways did Washington's “gospel of Work and Money” involve a “triple paradox”?
3. What alternatives did Du Bois propose to Washington's plan? How did the political
implications of Du Bois's proposals differ from those of Washington?
4. Who did Du Bois consider his audience? To what extent did Du Bois and Washington
differ in their assessments of their white and black audiences?
Purchase answer to see full
attachment