"It was only a few years before that time that any white man in the audience might have claimed me as his slave; and it was easily possible that some of my former owners might be present to hear me speak." (XIII).
Wow. What a transition between Uncle Remus, and Booker T. Washington. The differences between these two people are just unreal. Washington noticed the two different time periods, because he was a slave, and he could relate to Jim (if he were real). What a monumental biography that clearly screams "rags to riches". I love these kinds of stories, just because of the hard work that is involved with them. Booker T. Washington worked his way up from a slave, to one of the first educated African-Americans ever. One thing that I noticed is the title that Booker T. Washington was given: The Negro Educator. That title is so good and so bad at the same time. He shouldn't have had to have a title like this, but the fact that he is a representative of all African-Americans in that time period is just astounding. I absolutely love this transition of Jim and Uncle Remus, to Washington.
Another comparison I think I could make to Booker T. Washington is a man named Martin Luther King Jr. Both of these men have incredible leadership skills, and are both very educated. They also stand strictly for equality. I think Martin Luther King was a little bit more outspoken, but both were really trying to get their messages across. They were both willing to face many challenges to make their messages clear. Washington had to travel from Boston to Atlanta, to give an amazing five minute speech to trying passing a bill, that actually got passed a few days later. This man, although he is, should never again be viewed as a black man, but strictly as an infleuntial man who had big dreams and followed through with them.
Posted by The Gentle Giant at November 14, 2005 10:53 PMI too enjoyed this traditional "rags to riches" story. It struck me that in the time this was written, a black man could rise against so many obsticles to become something truly great- whether he was black or white.
"...but the fact that he is a representative of all African-Americans in that time period is just astounding."
Was he really a representative of all African Americans? I've noticed comments on other blogs (mine included) that perhaps he wasn't exactly the best representative. He seemed to be striving towards being respected by the white people, not speaking to the common black man. Sure, Washington is one to be looked up to, especially by blacks at the time, yet he seemed to be speaking to a different audience.
Posted by: Vanessa at November 15, 2005 08:31 AMI was pretty sure that he was standing for equality. Yes he, himself, was trying to rise up against a completely dominant white class, but at the same time, he was the first step to the rise of all black people. Maybe that's just me, but I really feel this way after reading his autobiography. I also know that it's HIS autobiography, but I noticed that he doesn't come out and say everything. Like Huckleberry Finn, Booker T. Washington seems to do more showing than telling.
Posted by: Jason Pugh at November 15, 2005 09:15 AMI really like your comparisons and they are very good ones. That is an interesting thought about the title. African americans were free from slavery but they were not free of racism and prejudice, no matter what they were going to be Mr. _____ _____ a negro or something like that. MLK and Booker were very peaceful speakers and tried their best to make improvements in the lives for blacks.
Posted by: Meredith Benson at November 17, 2005 02:37 PMWashington was definitely an amazing speaker, but I still, in some ways, agree with Vanessa because he said a few things that just kind of...make me think that he's trying to say white people are better. Like in his speech, when he says, "Casting down your bucket..."--it could be interpreted that Washington finds black people lower inferior to whites.
I know he wasn't going for that exact idea, but it's sort of like the "n-word" in Huck Finn, when you know it's being used for a purpose, but it still rubs you the wrong way. Know what I mean?
Posted by: Valerie Masciarelli at December 1, 2005 05:07 PMI can definitely see that Valerie, but I think that is done for a very good reason. It is supposed to make the reader feel uncomfortable, because it makes the reader angry. The reader shows feelings and emotions against the "normal" Southern behavior. It is obvious that it would make many uncomfortable, but I believe that is the best way to strike emotions. Good Discussion everyone.
Posted by: Jason Pugh at December 5, 2005 05:07 PM