If Booker T. Washington suggests that something is the case, one would be wise to consider him seriously. I suspect, furthermore, that he is correct in arguing that struggle is a better indicator of success than is accomplishment, and my suspicion, I think, is grounded in the standards by which I find myself making other, analogous, judgments about individuals' performances.
The temptation is very strong, in many cases, to suppose that one's success or performance is best judged by a set of very objective benchmarks or criteria. We say that one has 'passed the test' when one answers a set number of questions correctly, or, in some cases, that one has 'successfully completed the race' when one has run the appropriate number of miles. And, certainly, in many situations, these sorts of judgments about success are entirely appropriate.
Nonetheless, there is much to the suggestion that in many - and maybe even most - cases, what matters is not only whether one has met that goal, but also where one began and how one got to the point at which he or she arrived. When two competitors, say, run a race, we do not judge the victor, in most cases, by considering who reached a given point first unless we already know that both athletes are starting at the same point and are running the same course.
In other words, when we use accomplishment to judge success, we often do so because we take for granted that the obstacles, and therefore the struggles, that the individual had to face resembled in most respects those faced by other performers. To the extent that those obstacles and those struggles vary, however, so must our judgments about success, since we do not want to say that that which was attained easily is as much a sign of success as that which was attained only with great difficulty.
