# data[].attributes.body
i believe, for the time this took place, i believe Dubois was right, and to take action head on, because in such a fast growing environment, such as America at this time, things could be over looked or not taken serious, and facing it head on and taking immediate action and making your voice heard could be the only way to actually get things happening.

# data[].attributes.body
While both progressives agreed civil and political rights for blacks, they did not agree on how to approach the matters. Washington was more quiet in his approach for equality while DuBois was more upfront and in more in your face about it.

# data[].attributes.body
DuBois was a Progressive. While he didn't agree with Washington on many cases he wanted to improve human conditions, especially for blacks. Just as Washington did as well

# data[].attributes.body
i do believe Booker T Washington was a Progressive. He focused mainly on equality within the races. In which he wanted to reform the views the racism. During the Atlanta Exposition Address, Washington wanted people to "Cast it down.." which means he wanted people to help others and created a friendship throughout the races.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a tricky question. In the recent past, attempts to correct the horrible working/living conditions of factory laborers had resulted in violent strikes and not much progress for the common man. The government was just too tied up in scandal, big money, and its own agenda for unions to succeed. An attempt at social equality in an environment like this was highly likely to succeed.

However, the Progressive Era saw a great shift in government accountability: regulations of trade, the beginning of what would one day be the FDA, and new jobs like city commissioners helped maintain accountability. The public opinion had shifted toward government reform, not the maintenance of the status quo.

Therefore, I think DuBois' approach is the better one. Although making demands and antagonizing the government was likely more dangerous, I think it was probably the only way to gain progress. Washington's philosophy would have kept African Americans in a low working class permanently. DuBois' believed in more.

# data[].attributes.body
Washington and DuBois both have the goal of advancing their fellow Black Americans. Their views on how to do that are VERY different.

Washington believes that African American advancement can be achieved through peaceful cooperation with White Southerners and hard labor in trades and agriculture. His allegory in the Atlanta Exposition Address, comparing African Americans to men thirsting on an isolated ship, makes his views abundantly clear. He claims that, just as the men dying of thirst while surrounded by water seem ridiculous, so do African Americans claiming lack of opportunity when their "buckets" could be cast into the waters of "agriculture, mechanics, in commerce, in domestic service and in the professions." African American opportunity is to be found in cooperation with the current status quo, not in "the extremest folly" of questioning the social equality of the races.

DuBois strongly disagrees with Washington's standpoint. The entire document we read from DuBois is an attack on Washington's "cult" of "unquestioning followers," and on Washington's philosophies. The last paragraph is especially damning:

"His [Washington's] 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."

DuBois sees Washington's views as too passive, and catered especially to making whites feel comfortable. DuBois believes that only through the education of African Americans, and through voting and government participation, will true change actually come about.

# data[].attributes.body
Unlike Washington, DuBois fits the Progressive description. In denouncing Washington's passive stance on social reform, DuBois rhetorically asks, "The question then comes: Is it possible...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 of developing their exceptional men? If history and reason give any distinct answer to these questions, it is an emphatic No."

He goes on to emphasize the importance of unbarred voting rights and education amongst African American men. He says that the African American man's right to defend himself with his votes is integral to the rise of their race in society. This is a Progressive viewpoint, stating that government action and the common man's place in the political progress is necessary for social change. Furthermore, DuBois talks about how the burden of Negro suffering falls not just on African Americans, but on the nation as a whole, furthering the Progressive view that the federal government is partially responsible for the betterment of its people.

Overall, DuBois appears to be much more in line with the Progressive movement than Washington.

# data[].attributes.body
I'm going to take a slightly less popular stance on Question #1 and say that, while Booker T. Washington had African Americans' best intentions at heart, he was not a member of the Progressive movement.

Progressive values, according to the lecture, sought to eradicate social injustices by tearing down political corruption, promoting the participation of the common man in the political process, and by putting heavier demands on the government to attempt to fix social and economic injustice.

Washington does not promote this kind of behavior in the Atlanta Exposition Address. Instead of encouraging government participation and upward mobility among Blacks, he states that they should "cast their buckets" for salvation among trade work, farming, and domestic labor.

In fact, he goes so far as to say that "Our greatest danger is that in the great leap from slavery to freedom we may overlook the fact that the masses of us are to live by the productions of our hands, and fail to keep in mind that we shall prosper in proportion as we learn to dignify and glorify common labor... No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, not at the top."

He also says that, "The wisest of my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremest folly..." making it very clear that he doesn't believe that equality can exist between the African Americans and the Whites. Instead, he takes the "separate but equal" stance that was held for so long up until the Civil Rights movement. He states that only through hard work, not government legislation and social reform, will equality be achieved.

Washignton's sentiments make it clear that he thinks his African American brothers and sisters would do well to focus on working hard and laboring for advancement, not to fight against social injustices. This view would fit in much better with the Social Darwinism of the Gilded Age, not with the Progressive viewpoints.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading an ample amount of material about Booker T. Washington and WEB DuBois, I personally think that Washington makes a much better argument about how to advance black civil rights in this era in American history. He himself was an emancipated slave who became a self made man. He had hands-on experience and was treated poorly, so he knew what it felt like to be treated as a lesser. Washington believed that it was economic independence and the ability to show themselves as productive members of society that would eventually lead blacks to true equality, and that they should for the time being set aside any demands for civil rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, both DuBois and Washington agreed upon the points that racial equality was crucial to existence of our nation. Yet, these men did not have exactly the same views on how to handle this huge fight for racial equality. They sharply disagreed on strategies for black social and economic progress. Washington believed in education in the crafts, industrial and farming skills and the cultivation of the virtues of patience, enterprise and thrift. He thought this would win win the respect of whites. While DuBois had a mindset and advocated political action and a civil rights agenda.

# data[].attributes.body
W.E.B DuBois was also a progressive leader during this time period. He and Booker T. Washington both fought long and hard for racial equality. While Washington had his own sort of ways to go about portraying his viewpoints, DuBois didn't agree with them all. He was more along the lines an advocate for a better education for African Americans and really portraying how important it is for all people to have the same rights across the board. Overall, they both agreed that equality for African Americans was essential, yet they each had different tactics as to how to handle this tough fight for racial equality.

# data[].attributes.body
When tying back to the course readings and lecture, we as a class have dug deeper into the definition of Progressivism, and who was apart of the movement itself. To recap, Progressivism is term applied to a variety of responses to the economic and social problems rapid industrialization introduced to America. Progressivism began as a social movement and grew into a political movement. While reading "The Atlanta Equisition," we can say that Booker T. Washington was of course apart of this great movement. He was an African American who fought against racism for blacks. An example out of the text that clearly states how Washington feels about how blacks should be treated is as follows. "It is a recognition that will do more to cement the friendship of the two races than any occurrence since the dawn of our freedom." All he wants is equality for all.

# data[].attributes.body
For their time I think that DuBois was right. How would giving up your rights prove to people that you wanted more rights? I think that educated people in that time would be better off than people giving up their rights.

# data[].attributes.body
DuBois and Washington both were progressivists but they didn't have the the same views. Washington wanted his people to give up their  civil and political rights  and "higher education of the Negro youth", in exchange for a better chance of economic development.  DuBois was a Harvard graduate with a PhD and thought that education was very important where as Washington wanted people to give it up. DuBois thought that they should have been improving their education not giving it up. They both agreed on " definite action, think that Negros only hope lies in emigration beyond the borders of the United States."

# data[].attributes.body
DuBois was a progressivist. He wanted to improve the education for blacks. He thought that "the way for people to gain their reasonable rights is not by voluntarily throwing them away." He thought that people needed to get respect and ensuring that they needed their rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Progressivists wanted to improve the human condition. Booker T. Washington was indeed part of the progressive movement. A lot of his views were about race and he wanted todo more than "cement the friendship of the two races"   In Reading the American past Washington says " we shall contribute one-third to the business and industrial prosperity of the south, or we shall prove a veritable body of death" He was saying that if you don't try and help improve society  that it wouldn't be helping the politic body.

# data[].attributes.body
Washington and DuBois agreed on getting equality for the blacks.  They both wanted the black to have more of a say in the political, social, and economic matters in the country.  They disagreed on how to handle the fight for equality.  Washington believed that a calmer speech that asks for what they want will be more acceptable than telling what is going to happen.  DuBois wants to force his way into equality and making a big uproar to get more attention.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I think that Washington makes a better argument for their time in history.  Washington is taking things lightly so he does not become aggressive and scare any supporters.  I think he wants to take things one step at a time because once they gain some rights, then more will follow.  DuBois’ argument is a majority attacking Washington and no new ideas. If he backed Washington instead of working against him, then they could make an even stronger argument.  Washington’s argument also had a good analogy that was easy to understand.  He kept referring back to the analogy to make it stronger, which made his whole argument stronger.

# data[].attributes.body
DuBois had progressive views and was a big part in the progressive movement.  He didn’t agree with all of Washington’s views.  DuBois took a more confrontational viewpoint on how things should have been handled.  He did not like how Washington was submissive about the rights that African Americans should have.  DuBois was very big into improving education for the blacks more and more could get involved and show that they deserve the same rights as any other citizen.

# data[].attributes.body
Referring to the ship lost at sea, “Cast it down in agriculture, mechanics, in commerce, in domestic service, and in other professions.” Washington is referring to those who have more should help those who have less than they have. This is a progressive view because this is the basis of Reform Darwinism: the fittest are the ones who cooperate with each other. With the ship lost at sea analogy, he is telling the people and government of the South to help those in need.  His argument then leads to saying that if you help the ones in need, then you “will be surrounded by the most patient, faithful, law-abiding, and unresentful people that the world has ever seen.”  Washington is pushing for the government to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters, which is one of the key values of the progressive view. (Reading the American Past, 21-5, pg 115-116)

# data[].attributes.body
Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois were contemporary activists in the Progressive Era who were both interested in advancing the lives of black Americans.

After watching Lecture I and reading Chapter 20 Sections I, II & VI, use documents 21-5 and 21-6 in Reading the American Past to  add a post next to ALL FOUR items below.

Put your name in the header of each of your posts.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the definition of Progressivism explained in Lecture I and American Yawp, offer at least one piece of evidence from 21-6 "Booker T. Washington & Others"
that shows how DuBois is or isn't part of the Progressive movement

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the definition of Progressivism explained in Lecture I and American Yawp, offer at least one piece of evidence from 21-5 "The Atlanta Exposition" that shows how Washington is or isn't part of the Progressive movement

# data[].attributes.body
For their time, which do you think makes a better argument about how to advanc black civil rights in this era in American history? Why? Be sure to tie your opinion to evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Even people with similar goals don't always see the same path to getting there. Post at least one point they agree on OR one point they disagree on and evidence to support it.