“How serious was Plunkitt about patriotism’s connection to obtaining a job after Tammany won an election?”  George W. Plunkitt, was a democratic politician from the 1800’s.  He was a member of the Tammany Hall machine in New York City.  Plunkitt hated the Civil Service program. He believed because of it, many young men lost all interest in politics.  He believed that this happened due to the fact that if a young man wanted to become a part of Civil Service he had to pass a difficult exam that had nothing to do of politics.  Plunkitt provided government jobs for many of the young men who could not pass the Civil Service exam.  In return they would help him when election day came around.  If he won or lost an election, he would continue to help the people in order to secure their votes for the next election.   Not only did he offer jobs, he also offered aid to anyone that was in need of help.  When the next election came around, they would be sure and remember him.

Booker T. Washington was an ex-slave, he was freed from slavery when he was just 6-7 years old.  He believed in hard work, he started an industrial college in the town of Tuskegee Alabama.  He taught many young blacks the importance of hard productive work.  In the late 1800’s there was a lot of social discrimination toward blacks.  Blacks and whites were not allowed to use the same train cars, blacks were turned away from hotels, restaurants, and many other places, simply because of their race.

Washington believed that someday everyone would be treated as equals regardless of their race.  His view of the future was “A new heaven, and new earth.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  I believe that all men are created equal, and that no man should be treated like a mule because of his race.  With that said, I think it is wrong for the government to use taxpayer’s money to provide food and houses for men, who do drugs, drive expensive cars, and are not even willing to get a job.

Back to the original question, Was Washington’s view of the future also my view of the future?  No.   Like Washington, I wish that both races would get along and treat each other equally, but the fact is, on this earth there will always be tension of hatred between whites and blacks.  It is the sad truth.

Booker T. Washington was an ex-slave, the emancipation took place when he was just 6-7 years old.  He had skill and determination that allowed him to bring education to many of his race.  In his later years, he worked in gaining social acceptance for blacks.

Was Washington’s program for gaining social acceptance for blacks an elitist program?  I think the answer to this question is no and I will explain why.  An elitist is a person who believes that a system or society should be ruled or dominated by an elite.  Washington did not want social dominance, but social acceptance.  In the time of Booker T. Washington, blacks were turned away from all sorts of places and opportunities simply because they were black.   He believed that if a man was productive he would be more likely to be accepted by society regardless of his race.

Booker T. Washington’s autobiography “Up From Slavery” has a strong narrative, and contains many exciting stories.  I have selected what I think is the most memorable image from the narrative.  I will explain why.

In 1881, Washington was offered to take charge of what was to be a normal school for the colored people in the town of Tuskegee Alabama.  Washington took this opportunity.  He spent the first month preparing accommodations for the school, and also traveling through Alabama examining into the life of the people.  He stayed in the homes of these people, as he observed their farms, schools, and churches. “In these cabin homes I often found sewing-machines which had been bought, or were being bought, on installments, frequently at a cost of as much as sixty dollars, or showy clocks for which the occupants of the cabins had paid twelve or fourteen dollars. I remember that on one occasion when I went into one of these cabins for dinner, when I sat down to the table for a meal with the four members of the family, I noticed that, while there were five of us at the table, there was but one fork for the five of us to use. Naturally there was an awkward pause on my part. In the opposite corner of that same cabin was an organ for which the people told me they were paying sixty dollars in monthly installments. One fork, and a sixty-dollar organ! In most cases the sewing-machine was not used, the clocks were so worthless that they did not keep correct time—and if they had, in nine cases out of ten there would have been no one in the family who could have told the time of day—while the organ, of course, was rarely used for want of a person who could play upon it.”  Every time I read this I cringe.  These ex-slaves  had not the slightest idea as how to manage their money.  I do not think that these people knew what their financial priorities were.  It is absolutely ridiculous to spend $60 a month on an organ when the whole family shares one fork.  I think that I view debt in the same way as Washington.  Perhaps that is why this story stood out to me the most.