When Being Right is Wrong

by J. Brown

As you all know by now, France was attacked by terrorists on Friday night. In an event that felt eerily similar to 9/11, 129 people were killed by attacks at six different French locations. ISIS has since claimed responsibility for the attacks, and it can be assumed that the attacks were due to France's involvement in the US airstrikes in Syria. (For more information on the Syrian war, check this out. I was a bit in the dark myself, and this video helped to clear up a lot for me.)

Since news of the French attacks surfaced in the US, many Americans have taken to social media to express their well-wishes and to show solidarity for the innocent lives that were lost. Others, after seeing these displays of sympathy, took to social media to explain why we should not be supporting the French. 

This makes no sense.

One argument is that we are extending a level of sympathy to France that was not given to Beirut, Lebanon, which experienced similarly devastating terrorist attacks, and that we routinely do not show enough support to other victims around the globe. This may be true, and in all honesty, it probably is. What I don't understand, though, is how any of that makes it wrong to show support to the French. Should we be talking about Lebanon and the other nations that have been devastated by terrorists? Absolutely. Does that mean we must now stop talking about France? No, not at all.

The (Alleged) Importance of Education

by J. Brown

During college, I took a number of courses on African-American History and Literature. In one such course, we discussed and wrote essays comparing and contrasting the views of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois. Both men were influential Black figures during the Reconstruction era that followed the abolition of slavery. After freedom was finally achieved, most former slaves found themselves in a very fragile state. Newly-freed Blacks now had to find places to live, find ways to make a living, and ultimately learn how to survive on their own. As one might imagine, this led to various opinions on how best to achieve these newfound goals. While many African-Americans held polarizing views, Du Bois and Washington served as figureheads representing the opposite ends of the spectrum. 

Du Bois, who was born free, was well educated and graduated from Harvard. He believed that the key to Black success would come from education, knowledge of the arts, and access to equal opportunities. Washington, who was born a slave, graduated from Hampton, a historically black college. He founded Tuskegee Institute, which focused on teaching agricultural and technical skills. He believes that the key to Black success would come from learning job skills that would allow Blacks to earn money for themselves. 

Learning about these two men, I always leaned in favor of Du Bois' ideas. To me, Du Bois' plan was more long-term, while Washington's plan seemed temporary. Sure, vocational skills can get you a job, but how can you ever expect to get a better job in the future without an education? I also read about the so-called Atlanta Compromise, and that really turned me off from Booker T. Washington for good. It always seemed to me that Washington was a bit of an Uncle Tom, appeasing to the fears of whites by assuring them that Blacks would never be their equal as long as white philanthropists supported and funded his industrial efforts.