charles baker and martha coakley. at 10:00, the minnesota senate debate with senator al franken and mike mcfadden. at 11 p.m. eastern, the hawaii governors debate. tuesday evening at 7 p.m. and senator cory booker and jeff bell. wednesday night at 8:00, live coverage of the louisiana senate debate between three candidates. maine senate debate. at 10:00, it is the texas senate debate. thann campaign 2014, more 100 debates for the control of

congress. universityrcer professor examines the life and legacy of booker t. washington. he talks about washington's early years at tuskegee university and looks at the ideological platform which encouraged african americans to establish their own economic base. washington helped create many institutions for african-americans, like the national negro business league, he also had opposition to his ideas, both during his lifetime and since. professor fontenot compares the ideas and tactics of booker t. washington and martin luther king, jr. this class is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> remember we have been talking about booker t. washington and some of you disagree that washington in fact is a seminal figure that i have insisted that he is. because i made a statement in class that many of you disagreed with when i said washington was

the most important and most influential african-american leader until the election of president barack obama. he is even more significant in some ways because booker t. washington was never elected to a public office. president barack obama was elected president of the united states and he is not a black leader. he is a leader of the free world and also the leader of course of our country. when we look at african-american leadership coming out of the 19th century into the 20th and even into the 21st century, i maintain that booker t. washington has no peers. some of you disagree with that. so i make my case today that you can in fact agree or disagree with. we start, of course, with washington's birth. this is the original structure, home, in which booker t. washington was born.

you remember from in "up from slavery," he talks about his humble beginnings and we said that washington is establishing his cred, his credibility, kind of street cred as a black leader. in the 19th century in order to establish your credentials as a race leader, you have to have been a slave. so at the beginning of "up from slavery" he establishes his street credibility so to speak, right? that he was a slave right? we know he wasn't a slave for very long because slavery ended when he was 12 years old. we also know that because slavery ended so early, in washington's life, that he may not have experienced the full import and weight of slavery because it ended when he was 12 years old. we know the full import of slavery, it usually did not rest upon slave children fully until they reached puberty.

so washington was a slave and he tells us some things about slavery, but he also tells us that he had no bad feelings, no real, he harbored no real malice toward those people who were his owners. in fact, he even says his owner was not particularly bad. that seems to be oxymoronic, doesn't it? it seems to be problematic, thinking of someone owning you, a slave master as not really a bad person. when the whole idea of just owning a slave itself is terrible, it seems to many of us , but this was the actual cottage, the actual house in which booker t. washington was born. then we know that washington went on to distinguish himself. skipping a whole bunch of stuff because of time here but washington went on to distinguish himself. in his autobiography, washington tells us of his route to

tuskegee institute and he says that there are some things that happened to him and decisions he had to make that contributed to him going to tuskegee institute. what are some of those decisions and things that happened to him? >> he had to work to find money to pay there. he didn't have enough money so he learned the dignity of labor in cleaning up to earn his spot at hampton university before he made it to tuskegee. >> ok, he learned the dignity of labor, right. in terms of working in order to achieve so that he could pay his way into tuskegee institute. he also, for his entrance exam , he says it was a particular event that happened before his entrance exam. what was that event? yes? >> i can't remember the name of the woman, but she helped him realize the value in labor.

he was like a servant in their house, cleaning, and making sure everything was in tip top condition and that helped him realize the dignity and value of labor. >> right. mrs. ruffner, right? you remember? mrs. ruffner. in fact, he values that experience so much with mrs. ruffner that he says she taught him not only the value and dignity of labor but taught him many lessons he uses throughout his life. he credits her for much of his success. right? so washington tells us that there is a value here of hard work. there is a value of morality. he values being able to pay your own way so to speak. in other words, washington is writing his autobiography, and undergirding it is washington's belief that the problems with people of african descent is that they came out of slavery as

a dependent group. remember we discussed this, right? he is trying to find a way, articulating a way to move african-americans from dependency to independence, right? and so washington says there are some things you need in order to move from dependency to independence. there are some resources you have to have. what are some of those things washington discusses up from slavery? yes? >> one of the most important things washington focuses on aside from the material aspects of going through freedom is the discipline. that is why he is stressing labor so much in "up from slavery." >> yes. discipline, all right. what else? >> once the discipline is founded, people can work toward other things like jobs.

>> all right. discipline was extremely important. yes. another hand up. all right. resources. what things did they need? yes? >> you need the skills necessary to impact their community in positive ways. >> they need skills. discipline. we discussed this, right? we talked about problems. sometimes folks look at washington and they get ahead of themselves. they say washington was advocating economic uplift. well, he was. he was advocating industrial education. at as far as washington was concerned, undergirding all this was the importance of discipline. a work ethic, discipline, values, etc. because if you give these resources to someone who does not have discipline and the correct values, you are wasting these resources because they will not know what to do with

them. right? so washington is making an argument here that somehow people of african descent coming out of slavery have to develop , if they do not already have it, the discipline necessary to carry them forward. so washington uses his own life as an example of the kind of discipline people of african descent ought to have. he talks about his route to hampton institute, where he slept under the boardwalk, goes and get money for his journey, and he gets to hampton, and he remembers the lessons taught by mrs. ruffner about how to clean, and he says that was my entrance examination. in terms of the building blocks, we have first the sense of discipline, hard work, ethics, etc., the lessons that mrs.

ruffner taught him. then he meets a man. a colonel, right? remember him? armstrong? what did armstrong teach him? >> [indiscernible] >> the dignity of labor. why was it important to see labor in a dignified way for people of african descent? yes. >> frederick douglass talked about this, that labor was seen as dehumanizing. slaves were these physical bodies that were only fit for physical labor, so they learned that labor was something to be ashamed of and shy away from and so booker t. washington to

uplift the race had to show that labor was something to be proud of. >> labor, being distinguished from toil, in a sense, with you working, but not benefiting from that labor. plus you have no vested interest , in that labor because someone else is getting the reward. as a slave, you are working, but you are not reaping the benefits. you are making someone else wealthy. washington says -- colonel armstrong taught me the dignity of labor. and he tries to emphasize labor as something that is dignified because washington is attempting to establish an economic base for people of african descent, right? 1895, what is also known as the -- when he gives that atlanta exposition address, that is also known as the atlanta compromise, washington is accused of being an accommodationist because he

says black people instead of going northward and leaving the south -- they are leaving land, leaving their heritage, leaving the possibilities for independence economically. they are going in search of education, right? political rights. less social pressure. get away from the ku klux klan, etc. and they are going in search of jobs. and so washington says instead of going to the north in order to find these things, stay in the south. now, the background of this is in the south, african americans own considerable pieces of land coming out of slavery. first of all, there was a group of african-americans who had never been slaves and many of them were landowners. second, many slaves coming out

of slavery -- now they are free. many masters who had considerable sums of land gave some land to their former slaves. and so african-americans had land. the third group was -- there are many african-americans who, after coming out of slavery, were able to purchase their own land later on. so you have african-americans who have some land in the south. and land historically in america has been seen as the basis of wealth. washington said if we can make this land functional and work for us, we can establish an economic base. if we can establish an economic base, the political and the social arenas of life will be easier to achieve. political rights will follow.

social rights will follow. once we get an economic base. washington is looking at the example that immigrants already had established. they had come in and within a generation or so, they had established their own economic foundation. their own economic bases, their communities, etc. washington is looking at immigrants and saying, black people can do that, too. of course, that is a little bit shortsighted as we criticize washington, and say he is looking at immigrants this way and saying black people can do the same thing. why? these people came as immigrants. they did not speak the language. they did not know anything about american society. but within one generation, they started pulling themselves out of their lower-class status. why can't african-americans do it?

and we have been here a lot longer. plus, african-americans have an advantage over the immigrants. they speak english. they are americans. they have the right, in order to make america function for them. so washington was saying african-americans ought to do like the immigrants. that is a bit shortsighted because immigrants could claim and often did claim later on that they were in fact white. they did not have the same physical distinctions that people of african descent have, and secondly, immigrants were never slaves. they were never defined as property. so washington's analysis is just a little bit shortsighted. but his point nevertheless is that african-americans need to establish an economic base. so once he became the headmaster at tuskegee institute, many people say he founded tuskegee

institute. that is not true. he did not start tuskegee institute. he did take over once tuskegee institute had been founded, ok? and then he built it from there. this is a picture of the site of tuskegee institute when it was first purchased, first bought. there were two buildings, still on tuskegee campus. those two buildings have been restored, and in fact, built onto, but trying to maintain the original architecture, etc. folks say it is being used as dormitories. if you ever get to the tuskegee institute, you can see these two buildings. but can you imagine starting off this way? in his autobiography, "up from slavery," he tells us about starting at tuskegee institute.

he tells us something about life in alabama when he first went there and started working to build tuskegee institute. he tells us about the people, the demographic, the educational level, how people were living, there is a bunch of farms, etc., right? and washington tells us that the community surrounding tuskegee, that he is looking at the pool -- pull students and the support for the institution is in what condition? what condition is that community in, would you say? how would you describe it? yes? >> i guess the term would be ignorant. some black families had enough money where they could buy a clock, but no one knew how to read the clock. or they had enough money to buy

a piano, but no one could play the piano. there was something there, something that they value. but they did not know how to use it. >> they knew that you had it. -- they knew they should have it, because these things signify that you have made it. if you have a piano, you have a clock, if you have knives and forks. do not even know how to use them, right? and washington says somehow we have to get this community, this community of people, emblematic for booker t. washington, that a large proportion of african-americans were stuck in at this time. he said, somehow we have to get -- so how do i get these people from here to here, right? so they can become more independent. and so we have the original building of tuskegee institute. porter hall. the first building erected on the tuskegee campus.

that is a picture of porter hall after it was first erected. the significance of this, booker t. washington is attempting to build an institution. he believes if people of african descent are going to progress, they must do through institutions. they cannot do so individually. they must do so through institutions. so, he builds porter hall, the first building erected on campus. of course, we know that booker t. washington emphasized what he called "industrial education." industrial education. another way of putting it later on, in the 1920's -- practical

education. industrial education. and that is the education that one needed in order to make the land profitable. washington's argument was, what good was it for people of african descent to be able to quote shakespeare or edgar allan poe, when they could not make the land productive? if you have 50 acres of land, you have very little use for shakespeare or edgar allan poe. not that it is a bad thing to know it. it is just that that ought not be your priority. your priority ought to be gaining the skills necessary and the know-how, the knowledge base to make that land productive. so, here we have people, women learning how to till the fields, plant, to reap the harvest from the fields.

we also know that washington also gave students ownership, part ownership in the development of tuskegee institute. he tells us in "up from slavery," one of the ways, he developed a leadership model and also a kind of on the job training system for the students. they participated in the building of their own institution. i thought that was very interesting. don't you? we don't do that here at mercer. you know, we do not ask students, would you help us erect a football stadium? here is a shovel. that kind of thing. it is probably a good idea. we probably would not have as good a one as we have here. but washington, making an

argument here that people of african descent need to participate in their own uplifting. all right? his critique here goes back to the failures of reconstruction. washington believes that the primary problem with reconstruction and the efforts of reconstruction and especially the freedman's bureau, was that -- apart from not being funded, that also that it created a system of dependency for people of african descent. and washington thought if people of african descent were going to prosper, going to become more upwardly mobile, they must do so through economic independence. the way you get there, washington argues, are the values he has already displayed

on his road to becoming the director of tuskegee institute. here, the students building the foundation for a building at tuskegee institute. they were physically building it. he also tells us that at tuskegee institute, it becomes known for brick masonry, and that they develop in fact a kind of organization, you might say. a business. brick masonry. training students to become brick masons and also training them to run those businesses. he tells us that various businesses in america can't wait for tuskegee students to graduate before they already have jobs. and they are running stuff, right? so, we have the economic model, because of washington's prolific use of these kinds of resources

and turning out these kinds of students, as well as his acumen politically and his accommodationist discourse, washington became known as the creator of what folks called the tuskegee machine. they referred to the tuskegee institute as the tuskegee machine. so washington was doing this. here is a picture of washington at tuskegee institute speaking. he was a prolific speaker. one thing people do not realize about booker t. washington was he was a licensed baptist preacher. he had gone to seminary. he was at seminary for 18 months. he said he believed he had been called to preach, but when he started meeting other black ministers, he lost interest because he did not respect them.

he said they were a group of folks that were just taking advantage of the african-american population. they were uneducated. they did not have the interest of the people, of the masses in their hearts. and in fact, they were simply in it for themselves. but washington gets out of the ministry, but he maintains the discourse of the black ministry, and so when washington spoke, apparently it was an event. you listen to recordings of washington speaking, it is riveting, the manner with which he spoke. crowds, thousands of people , would come out to hear booker t. washington speak. he is speaking again here. laying the word down. reminds me of myself, right? booker t. washington.

not only with tuskegee institute did booker t. washington make a significant impact. we talked about washington and his impact as well with other -- what we call now hbcu's, that because of washington's influence he was able to open up opportunities for other hbcu's to become land-grant colleges. to get not only land, but moneys from the state and the federal government. and because of booker t. washington, many hbcu's became proficient and also viable. although by 1900, tuskegee institute boasted an endowment of $1.5 million. that was a lot of money back then. that is a lot of money now, as far as i'm concerned. that was a lot of money back then to have as an endowment,

especially for a black university. also, in 1900, booker t. washington starts the national negro business league. here's a picture of the executive committee of the national negro business league. this league, this business league, was started, washington started again the process of moving the african-american community to independence -- from dependency to independence through the establishment of black businesses that would be viable. so, it is important to understand that washington was working during an era where there is segregation. segregation meant that whatever people of african descent were going to do or have access to was going to happen within the black arena, the sphere of influence where black people live. right here in macon, georgia, there were areas where people of african american descent lived. if someone was upwardly mobile,

a professional, a doctor, a lawyer, a dentist, a teacher -- they had to live within an area within the african-american community. you could not go over to the side of town where the white people lived. so, stores, businesses, the economy within the black community had to be thriving. and it was in fact thriving. and one of the reasons the economy was thriving in the african-american community was because of the national negro business league that booker t. washington established. one thing that they would do would be not only to promote the development of black businesses, but also help black businesses along. if you wanted to start, say, a grocery store or a clothing store or any kind of business. farming equipment. one could get aid and help from the national negro business league.

so booker t. washington put that together. as well as efforts after the publication of "up from slavery" in 1901 -- it won him acclaim, nationally and internationally, such that booker t. washington became not only the most significant, the most powerful and well-known african-american leader in america, but also he became internationally famous. and internationally known. this was an era where there was no twitter. there was not cable. there was no facebook, no cell phones, none of that. word about someone's success and celebrity status traveled primarily through the

newspapers, and also word-of-mouth and also books and other print materials. and booker t. washington, in fact, was invited to dinner at the white house in 1901. president teddy roosevelt. this was very significant because washington was the first african american who had ever been invited to dinner at the white house. and he was criticized for that by some. many of whom were what you might call haters. why him and not me? that kind of thing. but also, president roosevelt recognized washington for his efforts and had literally almost appointed washington as a counselor, as a primary advisor

, for the affairs of people of african descent. so booker t. washington served as really the first black presidential adviser on behalf of people of african descent as well as american indians. so washington is very, very important in this respect. also, president roosevelt, roosevelt's wife were frequent visitors to tuskegee institute. not only president roosevelt, but many dignitaries. one of the reasons why and the primary reason why washington was able to amass such a large endowment at tuskegee institute was because his funding primarily came from liberal, white people who were very, very rich. the rockefellers, carnegie.

what is now the rockefeller foundation and the carnegie foundation, but in that era, they were living, breathing people who founded these companies, who were in fact contributors and supporters of tuskegee institute. and so, we have it here a picture of theodore roosevelt, that is theodore roosevelt with booker t. washington at tuskegee institute. this is a controversial picture of booker t. washington. this is controversial. this is at tuskegee institute. if you drive to tuskegee even today, you will see this statue there. the statue is of booker t. washington, and the man crouching down is a slave. there he is, a blanket symbolic of like a veil, and booker t. washington supposedly is lifting

the veil off of the slave's face such that his eyes can see and progress to something better. those who are detractors of booker t. washington raise the question, was washington lifting the veil over the slave's eyes or pulling it down farther? because of his accommodationist beliefs. because he believed the best thing for people of african descent to do was not to pursue political and social equality at that time. that would come later. instead, pursue economic empowerment. in that political and social equality would come some time later. although, he did later say he still believed, however, that black people ought to have the right to vote and if afforded that right they ought to go and

exercise the vote. but that ought not be the primary objective, the number one priority of people of african descent. so this monument raises a critical question. some of you who have a problem with booker t. washington. i think that is the source of the problem in many ways. he was a tremendous leader, but was washington in fact leading the way, opening the path to greater opportunity for people of african descent? or was he trying somehow to retard progress for african americans, in lieu of other things? so, as i come to conclude my part in this, then you have your time to argue with me. we have booker t. washington's positive legacy. tuskegee institute started in 1881.

the network of hbcu's, during his lifetime, from 1900 to 1915, when he dies. the legacy, of course, continues after that. the national negro business league, started in 1900. that was a tremendous thing for people of african descent economically. and then washington supported and even helped found a string of newspapers and this was extremely important because newspapers were the primary method through which people of african descent would receive information, but also people would place ads and businesses would flourish because of african american newspapers. contribute to literacy. so african american newspapers were extremely important. but then there are those

detractors of booker t. washington's. in terms of his negative legacy many would argue. of course, at the top of this, the atlanta exposition address, which many would argue is in fact the atlanta compromise. it was delivered, of course, in 1895, atlanta, the industrial exposition. you have read that speech, so you know booker t. washington, we said, might even play into this racist structure, paradigm , for people of african descent or labor, when he said let us work until we rebuild the south. because he was making a critique of those who are arguing that part of the reason reconstruction failed was people of african descent did not participate fully as they should have. washington does not even address

that argument. he simply says, let us work. and we will help rebuild the south. of course when he says that, he plays into this idea of blacks as workers and that is all that they really are. a physical race of bodies. you should add that at the top of the list. second, we know that booker t. washington supported plessy vs. ferguson, the u.s. supreme court case that established separate but equal in american society. and, in fact, strengthened segregation. it was past one year after the atlanta exposition address, and many blame the passage of plessy vs. ferguson on booker t. washington. he was summoned, in fact, and asked to testify over congress about plessy vs. ferguson, and

he gave his blessing, you might say, to a kind of separate but equal arena and separate but equal policies. this involved, of course, education, but then spilled over into other areas of life for people of african descent. now washington believed -- and we come to his defense -- washington believed that whites who are racist, who were in fact trying their best not only to limit black participation, but to get rid of black people. ku klux klan -- remember. washington believed people of this kind would never accept people of african descent on equal footing as members of their particular group and their particular society. integration was not even an option. washington believed the key to independence and

self-determination for african-americans was undergirded by them building up their own communities. so he had no problems with separate but equal. the problem is, of course, that plessy vs. ferguson turned out to be separate but unequal because of funding for various things -- education, public works, other sorts of things were not equal for black and white society. if you lived in the black part of town versus the white part of town, you did not get the same money spent per student. for example, right here in georgia, anywhere from three to five times the amount of money spent on a black child was spent on a white child as a result of plessy vs. ferguson, so washington gives part of the blame for that. and he is accused of being a racial accommodationist as well.

he is essentially saying here in the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th century that it is ok for american society to not only be segregated in all factors of life, but it is also ok for people of african descent not to challenge that will live within -- not to challenge that, but instead to live within the sphere of segregation. the finally, we have washington's distinction, being summoned and asked to appear at the white house for dinner with the president in october of 1901, and then being the adviser -- of course, to william howard taft and theodore roosevelt. this was important because it led to the establishment of a federal council for negro affairs.

later, his colleague and an heir to washington's legacy through the hbcu's. his legacy is great and i still believe he is the man. many of you argue he is not. now to your arguments. >> i acknowledge that booker t. washington made extraordinary contributions to the black community. he is the man. he is cool and all, but martin luther king, jr., was more influential in terms of overall history as a race leader because booker t. washington said we are just going to sit calmly and accept the situation. martin luther king worked for equality and for change. not just for black people. he worked for better standards

of living for everyone in america and booker t. washington seems very intent on pursuing a personal agenda and elevating his status in politics. and being the first at the white house. martin luther king accomplished everything he did without an official office. and he is better. >> he is just better, right? >> yep.\ he is also better because you are saying booker t. washington was the first, the only to be appointed to an office, but that does not make him the man overall because if you asked someone in the country whether they are 6, 16, or 60 who the preeminent symbol of racial equality is, martin luther king is the answer they come up with and that legacy holds more weight than any presidential appointment. >> ok, all right. who agrees with her? do you agree? do you agree? all right. what do you have to say? >> [indiscernible]

>> let you think for a minute and come back, right? yes? >> [indiscernible] -- really have a choice, like -- you know, how you say he is like a racial accommodationist. but like you said, during that time, it is the height of the kkk and he is in the deep south. it would be hard for him to go -- would it have been sparked -- smart for him to go against -- did he have any choice other than to be a racial accommodationist at the time? he would not have gotten anything accomplished. he probably would have been killed before he had a time to do anything. >> he would have most certainly not have lived a life as long as he did. he died when he was 59 years old. in 1915, that was a pretty long time. because of life expectancy. but had he said, well, enough of

segregation. we are going to march towards freedom and that sort of thing -- he would not have lived very long. understand, he was in alabama, one of the most racist, oppressive states in the south. not only is he in alabama, but he is in rural alabama. even today, tuskegee university is a magnificent institution, but it is not in a real, what we call urban center. , and during the era during which booker t. washington came into power as the head of tuskegee institute in 1881, tuskegee was really a very small rural area. very remote. he tells us what tuskegee was like in "up from slavery." i have often thought, what was

life like really for booker t. washington? what kind of things did he see go on in alabama? i imagine, if he did not see it, he knew black people were being lynched. that houses, churches and stuff were being burned. there is a lot of violence against people of african descent. part of his racial accommodationist discourse had to do, not only with his own self-preservation, but also the sense that people of african descent are going to come through this thing, segregation and all that and make the impact and become more independent people, we are not going to be able to do it with a gun in your hand. that is just not going to work. you see? now that is part of the same argument that martin luther king made in terms of the nonviolent demonstrations in the south, you see.

not only did king feel it was morally wrong to sink to the level of your oppressor -- because they are killing you, you do not have to kill them back -- shoot back at them. you have to rise to a higher moral standard. but king said another reason why i am against violence is we can't win. just look at it. practically, we can't win. we can't win a war. in the early 1920's, in fact, tulsa, oklahoma, an area with the national negro business league helped establish as the black wall street. there a lot of economic interests in tulsa, oklahoma. it was known across the country as black wall street. there was a race riot because a

young black man had been accused of wanting to rape a white woman in an elevator in a hotel. the race riot broke out and the u.s. military, air force bombed that part of tulsa, oklahoma , from the air. so, i mean -- there was a reason to feel -- this was after booker t. washington died. but martin luther king, he was aware of that, that happening in tulsa, oklahoma. booker t. washington is aware of the atrocities happening in the black community at the hands of white racists. so i think both of them are saying violence and confrontation is not the answer. that is not the answer. of course, king takes it to another level as well. because king sees nonviolence as a moral force that ultimately exposes the weakness and the

inhumanity of those who perpetrate violence. so, if you are intent on not using violence and you face folks who do, and they continue to use violence, you don't and you maintain your dignity, who looks bad? this was king's point. in one sense, maybe booker t. washington did not have much of a choice, in the same way martin luther king felt he did not have a choice. and the civil rights movement didn't. on the other hand, the sense of the racial accommodationist, that is really problematic. w.e.b. dubois hated that about booker t. washington. so did william earl trotter. and some other african leaders. william earl trotter hated washington so much, he would

follow washington around wherever he was going to speak. trotter would find where that was going to be and make arrangements so he could sit right in the front. and everything went fine. the singing and other kinds of things, until they introduced booker t. washington, and the minute they introduced washington, he got up and started shouting him down. you know? i mean, washington had great opposition from significant people of african descent. although he and w.e.b. dubois never had a public argument. this is a misnomer. this is a fallacy. you all this stuff, people riding stuff about dubois and -- people writing stuff about dubois and washington at each other's throats and all that. dubois only made two public statements about washington. one was a chapter in "the souls

of black folk," a very balanced critique of mr. washington. you will be reading it in the next few weeks. and the second one was after washington died, w.e.b. dubois wrote a eulogy for booker t. washington and published it in a major newspaper. those are the only two public statements that dubois ever made about washington and washington only mentioned dubois a couple times. once in "up from slavery" where he is in boston and he says, there is a young man with an interesting analysis and paper that he read. and he goes on. he did not say anything about him. they were two different generations, etc. but dubois is criticizing washington, but washington is attempting to build institutions.

this is really what is his legacy. this is what distinguishes him from any other black leader, including martin luther king. martin luther king jr., dr. king was a tremendous leader, no question about it. we do not think of the world in the same way prior to martin luther king that we think to the world now. dr. king was the first person in the history of the world to say war was wrong, for example. no one had ever said that before. even jesus said we will have wars and rumors of wars. dr. king said war is evil. it destroys communities. it destroys people. it destroys civilization. it destroys the land. it is a corruption of natural order. he said war is wrong. and we do just not think about war now the same way we thought about it before dr. king put down that analysis. he changed the perspective.

how about that? and the power of nonviolence. we think of that differently after dr. king. ghandi in india had established the paradigm for nonviolence, but it was dr. king who brought it to international awareness through the civil rights movement. people lived during the times, they lived during those ages. we cannot take them out of those ages and put them somewhere else. and say, ok, you do not like booker t. washington because he is a racial accommodationist, that was not right or something like that. it may not have been right. but you have to look at the context he is dealing with. your question is very, very appropriate. maybe he did not have the kind of options we think he ought have had to talk about racial accommodationist. i do think, however, that washington honestly did believe it was better for people of

african descent to accept and work within the arena of segregation than to spend their effort challenging it. i have read enough of washington's writings and know enough about his life that i honestly believe washington thought it was better for people of african descent to simply build up their own communities. if they build up their own communities, establish an economic base, the walls of segregation might come down. and if they don't come down, who cares? because then we will have our own. that is how washington felt. that is really how he felt. who cares if folks like you or don't like you if they don't sign your check? this was in washington's mind. who cares if they do not let us

into their universities if our universities are on par? who cares if they live on that side of town if we have nice houses on this side of town? washington's argument is, don't worry about all that, what is going on on that side of town. build up on this side of town. yes? partremember a particular was where washington was talking about how originally he felt when an individual made a statement in favor of segregation or racism of any type, it would anger him, but he had reached a point in his life where he ignored it, because he came to realize that eventually racial equality would be a reality and those individuals would be standing on the train tracks when the train was coming down the line. i guess my question is, do you think washington foresaw the increase in the number of pro-african-american civil rights organizations from world war i and world war ii and the

civil rights movement? through his economic strategy uplift? i do not know if he foresaw it. he laid the groundwork for it. i do not want to make a prophet out of booker t. washington. i do know that he laid the groundwork for a number of organizations that develop later on, like the congress of racial equality, urban league, all of that had direct relations to booker t. washington's legacy and the national negro business league. especially the urban league. the linkage is clear. even the core, the congress of racial equality, and the national urban league claimed some heritage to booker t. washington. so, in that respect, yes, washington did lay the groundwork that later on other

organizations, civil rights organizations claimed his legacy. also, marcus garvey, who was the leader of the back to africa movement, claimed direct lineage from booker t. washington. social lineage. he was not related to him by blood, but in terms of the intellect, these social activism tradition, he saw himself as inheriting the legacy of booker t. washington. he admired him. he thought he was the greatest man alive. everywhere he went, he carried a copy of "up from slavery." he came to america from jamaica to work with booker t. washington, but by the time he got here, washington was dead. and so, he said, ok, washington is dead. who do i talk to now about this

race thing? people said, the man now is w.e.b. dubois. he went and he met with and he was turned off by dubois. if you know anything about him, you understand how he got turned off. he was a brilliant man, but not great socially. he was a pretty uppity fellow. marcus garvey said, this man cannot be a race leader. plus, he does not look right. he has light skin, hazel eyes. so-called "good hair," all of that. in jamaica, those people were a problem. universalstarted the negro association and claimed direct lineage to booker t. washington and later on the nation of islam, that is an inheritor of the garvey movement, saw themselves having a relationship to booker t. washington.

in terms of the social and intellectual tradition. and elijah mohammed, the founder of the nation of islam, often quoted booker t. washington. so you have this strain of thought in the african-american community that comes straight out of booker t. washington that we refer to as black nationalism. the problem, of course, for nationalist thought, you have to say, ok, how are you a nation? you have to have land. washington felt that he could solve this problem because he actually went to congress and asked there be states set aside. that if he got it cleared with the president and congress, there could be state set aside for black americans to migrate to and established their own communities, their own states,

that sort of thing. washington said we need to have true black nationalism. none of this segregation, you go live on the other side of town. we will have our own states. the problem was, these were states that were undesirable for people of african descent, places like montana and the upper great plains. places like montana. too cold, too barren, and all of that. and then second, african-american leaders and others were not desirous of separating out and going to states where there would only be black people of african descent, or the great majority of african descent, because they felt that would make it easy to get rid of black folks. genocide would be easy. they had already bombed tulsa, oklahoma. so how easy would it be if 90% so, how easy would it be if 90%

of black people lived in the upper great plains? get up on a plane with some bombs, go on up there and get rid of black folks. black folks did not go. what did happen as a result of booker t. washington that i did not put on the powerpoint, there was a settlement of all-black towns that was an offshoot of this nationalist urge. in 1894, booker t. washington gave the commencement address at the university of nebraska-lincoln, in which he advocated the settlement of all-black towns. by this time he had given up on the notion of all-black states. he was advocating all-black towns. as a result of washington's trek through the upper south, midwest, and great plains, there were all-black towns that were developed. and partly as a result of booker t. washington's legacy.

for example, in nebraska, there were like five all-black towns. there are all-black towns in kansas, oklahoma. oklahoma still has all-black towns. boley, oklahoma. which is the site of the all-black national rodeo. montana had two all-black towns. texas had some all-black towns, etc. washington's legacy was, "let's have our own towns." let's have our own thing. yes. >> black business, negro business league, what happened to it? on saturday, i went to a local community called pleasant hill. a lady was giving a history lesson about how in the past, all these black leaders, doctors, and lawyers in a community. if you look around at the community, you will see those houses that were nice in the early 1900's, they are not in

mint condition anymore. they are just poor. you said the national negro business league funded those black communities and towns headed by booker t. washington, so what happened to it? >> integration. when integration came, many blacks found it more attractive to live, work, spend money in predominantly white communities instead of their own. i was a student coming out of junior high school into high school when integration supposedly happened. in the community in which i lived, it did not happen. but i remember the discourse. i remember the discussions about that. since then, the whole question of integration and what has happened within african-american communities.

one thing that has happened has been the ghettoizing a black communities because those who are more economically and politically upwardly mobile left black communities. so black communities were robbed of resources, its primary source, which was people. doctors, lawyers, professors, teachers, etc., left the historic black communities and moved into more integrated areas. a lot of times, for very good reasons. they could get better housing, nicer neighborhoods, nicer stores, better schools, all that

sort of thing. but the fallacy in integration was that many people of african descent did not support integration simply to live amongst whites. they saw that as a means to an end, which was the quality. the philosophy behind integration was if we move over there with the white people, go to their schools and all of that, we will be able to share in those resources. for example, in a practical way, if you are sitting in a classroom, black student in predominately white classes, the teacher gets up to teach, the teacher cannot teach the white kids without teaching the black one. if books are handed out, that black kid is going to get a new textbook, too. whatever resources that are going to be handed out and

available, the black people will have access to those resources in integration. you see? that was the theory behind integration. it did not quite work that way necessarily. but that was the theory behind integration. it was a means to an end instead of an end to itself. don't have to sit at a lunch counter next to somebody white, but the fact is that particular restaurant in the white neighborhoods have better cuts of meat. the people are being paid a little more. the structure is better, the neighborhood, and all that. we integrate there, we have access to those resources. it is all about resources. not so much about black people who did not feel comfortable around other black people. it is about accessing resources. but in that move to somehow improve the conditions of people of african descent through integration, resources over here, lack of resources over here.

let's go where the resources are. doing that, the intelligentsia, the most economically viable of black communities pulled out and went across town. that left the black community increasingly ghettoized, and that is why you see the situation as it is today. over generations, that has occurred. i have seen it in my own life. >> the fact they integrated with the whites, why did that affect the national negro business league still keeping its promise in the black communities? that organization became part of the national urban league.

that is an organization that has spurred black businesses and that sort of thing. that organization did not end its work in african-american communities. part of the problem is black businesses tend not to have resources to start up. most businesses in america fail within the first three years. anytime you're trying to start a business in america, and i know because i had a little business at one time, a mental health center, and went through the small business administration. you need money. i went through the training. one thing they told us, i was in a room with 20 other people trying to start up stuff.

if you are going to start a business, you need to have three to five years of cash money in terms of operating money. you need to have that set aside. don't touch it. don't expect your business to even pay your salary, much less turn a profit for the first three to five years. most black businesses can't do that. people start on a shoestring. if they run into problems, usually within six to nine months, a lot of businesses are closing in the black community because they cannot sustain that period where you don't get a check. that has a lot to do with it as well. yes. >> i think to some degree what

she was talking about, the breakdown of the black community, can be attributed the philosophy of booker t. washington had. i remember a passage where he said the black communities, to be seen as equal, had to prove the rest of the community could not survive without them. you are perpetuating this idea i am not equal because i am human, i am only equal because i work really hard. then integration happened. some affluent white people probably felt like this is my time to shine and prove that i am useful so they moved as a community. maybe if he was not such a racial accommodationist early, those structures that were successful could have maintained and stayed because they were already in the mindset that we

are equal as we are. he did not tch that, but martin luther king did. >> [laughter] in saying booker t. washington was the most influential, powerful black american that has not been elected to office, i don't mean to say that i agree with him. there is a lot about booker t. washington i don't like, i don't agree. however, washington was in a position after 1900 to say yea or nay to things people of african american descent were trying to get started that were supported by settlement funds. i've spoken with older african-americans and older whites who were trying to

participate in this racial uplifting movement, who were starting schools or businesses or anything such as that. many said in order to get it started, they knew they had to get washington on board. so they wrote a letter to booker t. washington or talk to someone who knew, had access to booker t. washington. as long as he did not speak against, you were ok. if you had a job, if you got a job that was being funded by the state or federal government and you came out against washington or washington's program, you would find yourself unemployed. so i don't agree necessarily with washington because he did become kind of a demagogue after that. no question about that. some people charged martin luther king was that way, that he thought he was the lord, that kind of stuff. folks would call him "the lord," etc. anytime a person achieves that sort of status, they will have detractors and haters. martin luther king was a

tremendous national and international figure. no question about that. life is different for us because of dr. king's leadership and what that movement was able to do, the civil rights movement. but life is also different because of what booker t. washington was able to do. martin luther king even credited booker t. washington with some of the successes of the early parts of the civil rights movement because some of the civil rights movement was also economic justice. later on when dr. king was assassinated, the march on washington was to march 250,000 people to washington, d.c., and bring the united states government to a halt. lay down on runways so planes could not take off, and that kind of stuff.

just literally a huge act of civil disobedience. the demand was everyone in america be guaranteed a minimum livable wage. that was what the king movement, the civil rights movement ultimately ended at that point of saying we must have economic justice and there should be a guaranteed salary. no matter whether you are flipping hamburgers or lecturing before c-span. [laughter] there ought to be a guaranteed minimum salary for everybody in america. when you look at that, smacks of booker t. in there somewhere. people build on the successes and failures of those who have come before them. i still think i won this argument myself. you probably think you won, and

that is ok. that is fine. i believe we have a tremendous historical dynamic period in american history for people of african descent, so much so that we have in terms of a legacy of booker t. washington, we have many things in american society. many folks look at booker t. washington as a tremendous figure. even the president of the united states, president barack obama has paid tribute to booker t. washington. and also martin luther king. when i look at these two great leaders, i say there is something about each one of them

that contributed significantly to black progress for people of african descent. there are things about both of them also that we could criticize. martin luther king may have stayed with the nonviolence thing too long some people say. later in his life, he questioned whether or not nonviolence could work in an unethical society because the premise of nonviolence is sooner or later the folks who are pressing you will get embarrassed or something. feel like we are making ourselves look bad. what if the folks who are oppressing you don't have that kind of humanity? some folks don't have shame. if you are trying to shame someone who does not have any shame, you are in trouble. martin luther king ultimately came to that point and questioned that.

read his books. at one point, martin luther king questioned, can nonviolence work? this was after he went to chicago. the kind of structures in chicago were not the same as in the south. in the south, especially the deep south, to gather more than three or four black people together you disrupted the fabric of the society. there were laws against black assembly. he went to chicago and marched right through skokie, illinois. did not bother anybody because in chicago, people do that stuff all the time. black folk walking down the street together and that kind of thing. just by the very presence of 500 black people marching, it did not necessarily bother anyone in an urban city in the north. so there were things about dr. king and his perspective in the movement that fell short, no question about that.

but nonetheless, we experience a better life because what he did. we experience a better life because of what booker t. washington did. if i could talk to booker t. washington now, have a conversation with him, i think i would argue with him about a lot of stuff. no question about that. but i also salute the fact he was the man. no question about it. he was the man. ok? one last question or comment? yes. >> i would say he was either the most powerful or influential. i will give you he was the most powerful because of his appointed office and martin luther king was the most influential. >> it is hard to make a distinction between powerful and influential. it depends on the basis which

you are looking, you see. what i am saying is martin luther king, no question about it, had a great amount of influence. passing the civil rights act, desegregation of the south, that sort of thing. no question about it. the whole question of war, calling into question war, which led my generation to say we are not going to vietnam. i refused to go and i was ready to go to jail. turns out i did not have to go to jail because of the draft at the time. so dr. king was very influential, no question about it. what i am looking at in terms of institution building, the legacy you leave, dr. king's legacy is different than booker t. washington's legacy. dr. king's legacy is of a

society that operates differently. blacks and whites sitting in the same classroom, going to eat together, doing things together, dating each other, growing up together. that would not have been possible without the civil rights movement. no question about that. but when you look at the kind of legacy of booker t. washington who believed institutions are what transforms reality and the opportunities for people, and booker t. washington is the only black leader, social leader, that left institutions. no other one. not even martin luther king left institutions. he left an organization. the conference can't get along with each other. du bois and the naacp can't get it together, fussing and fighting.

but look at booker t. washington. still over 80% of black folks are educated. still where seven or eight out of every 10 doctors and lawyers are still being educated at hbcu's. that kind of like leadership and intelligentsia coming out of hbcu's, and a lot of that had to do with booker t. washington's support financially sending money their way so they could survive and all of that. you have legacies in different ways. we have one institutional legacy and another in terms of transforming american society in