Utamaroho, thanks for making mention of this thread in my inbox. I didn't pay attention to it until now.

Economic empowerment did not fail, for the simple fact that it was never achieved. You can't call something a failure that was never used. Washington had the right idea, but from my research of his beliefs and views his plans were full of holes.

Economic empowerment is more than simply making money. It is an uplifting of practically every aspect of black life, which will in turn bring money. To have a successful business, people simply dont get a bunch of money, throw it into a building and products, and say, "tada, I have a business", else you're doomed to fail. You must be ready to own one, you must be disciplined to own one, you must be skilled and knowledgable about your product. What does your product do? Why should consumers get this product? Why get it from you and anyone else?

In other words, you need to be prepared mentally and physically for the challenges that await when you start a business, and it's the same way in black community as well. It will take a social overhaul as well as purely economic.

Washington realized the overhaul, yet he misunderestimated the obstacles. He stressed hard work and discipline internally among blacks in the South, BUT, the difference between he and other leaders was that he stressed that every single ounce of discipline they had was supposed to bring forth a profit of some kind. In other words, if you are gonna work hard, have something to show for it. If you are gonna go to college, make sure it's worth YOUR while, and you aren't wasting your time. Through that would bring for even more motivation, and soon true financial empowerment. That is something that is lacking today from our so-called leaders. Instead of insisting on building and uplifting, they make excuses and try to victimize us.

The problem with Washington's plan was his interaction with whites. Although credit should be given to him for secretly financing and supporting political causes as well as being the top advisor to Presidents Taft and Roosevelt in negro matters, in public he chose to be a pacifist and appeased whites when he spoke. When asked about political issues he either took a stance of neutrality or against forced civil rights legislation and discouraged blacks from meddling into politics. While Washington was right in that forceful legislation would incite more racial tension and would hurt blacks more than help, his ploys made it seem as if he had no backbone, and he lost alot of support in his last years, particularly up North. Once dead W.E.B DuBois and the assimilationist NAACP pretty much trashed his name, saying he was at fault for black disenfranchisement, and even his decendants were ashamed and wouldn't tell people of their lineage of him.

I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that there needed to be civil rights and political activism of some kind in order for blacks to be in a position to gain a spot in this country. Washington, in my opinion, wanted as little of it as possible, and if you look at today's politics, you can see he did it for very good reasons. Because of the success of the civil rights movement "victim politics" has become the norm, where instead of trying to uplift, leaders want to indirectly keep the masses in the same position they are in so they can manipulate them into continuous support by stating they are going to the legislature to fight and make their lives better. It's a continuous cycle. I think Washington got discouraged from dwelling into the political realm for 3 reasons....

1. The repeal of the first Civil Rights Act, which was passed in 1875 yet declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1883.

2. The end of the Reconstruction Era, which led to a takeover of state governments by Democrats who then passed a slew of laws aimed to keep blacks subordinate.

3. White lynchings and race riots were at their height in the late 1800's, particularly in the South.

4. Political involvement would have meant separating himself from the rich corporate philantropists at the time, which would have spelled an end to Tuskegee Institute, which almost all of it's funding came from.

Probably the strongest argument is #4, because Tuskegee was Washington's jewel, and he dedicated his life to it. It's been noted that he personally hated public speaking, although he was good at it, and only did it to carry favor for donations.

Although Washington was a political pacifist, to call him an assimilationist would be extreme. Washington actually supported segregation of some kind, and thought it would be best if blacks earned their roles in American society. In fact, some people think the southern governments actually got their ideas for Jim Crow from Washington, particularly where he stated in a famous speech in Atlanta that "blacks and whites can be as separate as the fingers, yet united as the hand that holds them together". Not to mention Marcus Garvey himself was a follower of Washington's economic and segregationist philosophy, and actually sought Washington's help in securing a trade school up north. However by the time he got to Alabama, Washington was dead.

Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. - Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. - H.L. Mencken

When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? - Henry David Thoreau

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" - Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor.

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

And always...my favorite....
Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take comfort in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today. Someone else tomorrow. You have no Constitutional right not to be offended. - Neal Boortz

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee