Atlanta Compromise Vs Niagara Movement

The ethical choices offered by both sides are fairly different from one another. In the Atlanta Compromise speech by Booker T Washington, he proposes that African-Americans should submit to white political rule and if they do that, then they will receive basic education and due process under the law. This was a way of keeping slavery alive with the consent of the African-American population, and also a way to show the northerners how ‘good’ their relationship is with the African Americans. Having an educated African-American say this further supports what they are trying to do. The Niagara Movement speech, on the other hand, is about gaining full rights as an American citizen living in the United States. It is stated in the speech that they will not settle with partial rights, and will not stop until they get full manhood suffrage.

As I see it, the Atlanta compromise was simply a disguise made by the white southerners to show the northerners that they are changing the way they treat slaves and show that they treat these people fairly now. By having a black speaker say these things, they are showing how far things have come. The southerners want to say that these African-Americans need the southern white men to rule then in order to survive. When I read the Niagara Movement speech, they seem like a response to the other speech in which they say that they do not want to settle for a small amount of freedom in exchange for being ruled by someone else. They want to be fully treated equally without compromise.

The pros of the Atlantic Compromise are that it sees African-Americans as more than slave even if it is only a little. The slaves are given basic education and due process under the law which they have not been able to before. The cons of this compromise are that it is just a compromise. It does not fully free the slaves, and they are still put to work as they were before. They are still very much slaves, and this compromise is simply a disguise to fool northerners. The pros of the Niagara Movement speech are that it clearly states what the African-Americans want, and it is not a compromise that helps both sides. It clearly says the injustice that slavery brings, and that the slaves are tired of how they are treated. The cons of this speech are that it does not point out a clear way to get what they want. All this speech does is objectify the southerners and give courage to the African-Americans. There is no clear objective or agenda that they will follow in order to achieve what they want.

I am an immigrant born in India and came to the United States seven years ago. I was naturalized to become a U.S. citizen two years ago. I am clearly in the minority group in this country just like how the African-Americans were during this time. From my cultural background, I agree with the Niagara speech because I believe all people should be treated equally, and someone should not be held without natural human rights because of their race or past.

Booker T Washington faced a lot of adversities as a child being a slave to plantation owners. He was always looked down on but was provided education by the wife of a coal mine owner