Chapters 4-6: Up From Slavery
Please use this thread for discussing Chapters 4-6: Up From Slavery.
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
This seems outrageous, but might be kinda-sorta of true. Founded in 1865, the KKK influence had reduced significantly by 1901. However there was a major revival in 1915 (after D.W. Griffith's movie "Birth of a Nation") and by the mid-1920's there were 4 million members. In 1925 50000 to 60000 members marched in Washington DC as a show of power. It didn't take much for the KKK to come roaring back, so I think Washington grossly over-stated the situation above.The "Ku Klux" period was, I think, the darkest part of the Reconstruction days. I have referred to this unpleasant part of the history of the South simply for the purpose of calling attention to the great change that has taken place since the days of the "Ku Klux." To-day there are no such organizations in the South, and the fact that such ever existed is almost forgotten by both races. There are few places in the South now where public sentiment would permit such organizations to exist. (p. 30 end chapter 4)
I'm just considering this small portion of the Booker T quote, There is an odd sort of outrageousness, Its like a denial of rural south realities(after thought: Not just the south). Its seems a given that remnants of the KKK have been and will be always around, Its almost naïve to document otherwise.LanDroid wrote:To-day there are no such organizations in the South, and the fact that such ever existed is almost forgotten by both races.
Washington had an agenda, to build Tuskagee into the successful institution for Black vocational training that it became. He knew that in order to overcome the incredible obstacles that lay ahead, he would require the support and resources of rich white people and that meant telling them what they wanted to hear. This included his agreeing to segregation, not insisting upon the vote, not opposing property requirements or literacy tests etc. In fact, many people feel that his support for segregation in the Atlanta Compromise address may have contributed to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v Ferguson, in favor of the legality of separate but equal public facilities for Blacks and whites.DWill wrote:It surprises me that only once in the book that I can recall does he refer to the major differences between him and someone like Dubois. Even then, the reference is oblique. He thought that the whites' desire to remain separate socially from the Negro was acceptable, or at least that it would be counter-productive to demand this type of equality up front. He had this serene faith that if the Negro race would patiently apply itself to all the useful arts, that ability would have to be recognized and accorded great respect by the white race, which then might forge social equality.
Lev, that does not read to me as a stereotype.LevV wrote:His description of the Indians he is working with is interesting. He describes them as, "wild and for the most part ignorant" showing that he is also capable of holding stereotypes of other peoples.