Reconstructing the Great Speeches – Frederic Douglass: “If There is No Struggle, there is No Progress”

frederick-douglass-circa-1818---1895-photo-by-library-of-congressgetty-images

Actually, the name of this speech is the “West India Emancipation Speech.” However, the line from Douglass’s speech that “If there is no struggle, there is no progress” is one of the most memorable lines in the history of speech.  I first read about the life of Frederic Douglass sometime around the end of the sixties.  As you may know, this was a time of social unrest and many assaults on the systems that governed the USA.  I had become involved with a number of leftist groups and was reading Marx, Marcuse, Anarchist, Socialist and other writings belonging to what might be called a genre of “radical” literature.  I became interested in anyone who championed change in our government, and this of course led me to a number of black authors.

I first read about the life of Douglass (1818–1895) in his autobiography (“Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass”, 1845).  When I finally decided to go to college at the age of 25, I was required to take a speech class.  The year was 1971 and I was 25 years old.  The school offered me the opportunity to test out of the class.  I was required to do a speech in front of a professor who then would decide if I could bypass the class.  I decided to do an excerpt from Douglass’s “West India Emancipation Speech.”  I was enamored of this speech years ago and today it is still one of the most memorable speeches that I have ever heard.  Evidently, I did a good enough job on the speech since I was given credit for the class and I did not have to take it.

Context:

Frederic Douglas gave this speech on August 3, 1857 at Canandaigua, New York.  It was an address concerning the history of the West Indian slaves in their own struggle for freedom.  After years of slave revolts and civil disorder, England had abolished slavery in the British West Indies in 1834.  Douglass used the anniversary of this event as leverage for speaking out against slavery in the United States.  It epitomized his views concerning the role of struggle in the battle against slavery.  The slaves in the West Indies achieved their freedom only after many years of struggles and reprisals against the British slave owners.

81IYcBLyoILTwenty-three years later, when Douglass gave his speech, the turmoil in the United States over the issue of slavery was growing.  It had always been a major source of dissension in the United States, but things were coming to a boiling point.  The Dred Scott decision had recently been rendered by the US Supreme Court.  This decision held that black people were not citizens and that slaves could not sue for freedom.  In March of 1857, James Buchanan was sworn in as the 15th President of the USA.  Buchanan was no friend of the abolitionists and he joined the Southern leaders in attempting to admit Kansas as a slave state.  He strongly supported the Dred Scott decision and today he would be considered an ardent racist.  The contrast between Lincoln who was elected four years later and Buchanan in terms of their policies towards slavery was the final straw that led to the Civil War.

Frederic Douglass was born a slave but escaped from Maryland to the north in 1838.  Douglass was 20 years old at the time.  He had taught himself to read and write.  He had natural skills for oratory and writing and it did not take him long to establish himself in the Abolitionist Movement as a leader and speaker against slavery.  Frederic was a man of deep compassion and empathy for others.  Douglas not only supported the rights of all minorities including Native Americans and Chinese immigrants to freedom and equality, but he also championed the rights of women to vote and to have full participation in government and civic affairs.

West India Emancipation Speech:

“The general sentiment of mankind is that a man who will not fight for himself, when he has the means of doing so, is not worth being fought for by others, and this sentiment is just. For a man who does not value freedom for himself will never value it for others, or put himself to any inconvenience to gain it for others.”

Reading this speech again after many years reminds me of how much I still adore the words and thoughts that Douglass has voiced.  I would not want a man as a friend who will not stand up for himself or others.  I loathe sycophants such as those who surround Trump.  I hate (yes hate) people who will abuse, denigrate, or attack other people.  I have fought physically and verbally to defend people who were helpless or were being bullied.  I would do so now and tomorrow.  The meek may inherit the earth but they will need the angry antagonistic people like me to acquire their inheritance.  I am glad that I do not profess to be a Christian because I do not believe in turning the other cheek.  Not once, not ever.  If there is a hell, I will go proudly to it knowing that I have fought to defend the rights of others.

“Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.”

No nation or people in history were ever given their freedom by others.  Those who want freedom must take it for themselves.  Douglass was well aware of the struggles of other nations to achieve their independence.  He noted the struggles of the Turks and the Hungarians and the Irish to achieve their independence.

“I know, my friends, that in some quarters the efforts of colored people meet with very little encouragement. We may fight, but we must fight like the Sepoys of India, under white officers. This class of Abolitionists don’t like colored celebrations, they don’t like colored conventions, they don’t like colored antislavery fairs for the support of colored newspapers.”

The sentiments that Douglass voiced here are hard for many white people to understand or accept.  When Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) the 4th Chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee wanted black people as the leadership of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the sixties many white people were indignant.  How could they want to kick us out?  “We have marched, we have rallied, we have sat side by side with black people to help overcome racism and now they are turning on us?”

stokelycarmichael3

When Ture supported the concept of “Black Power” many former white supporters were threatened.  In a “Black Power” speech in 1966 Ture said: “It is a call for black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, to build a sense of community. It is a call for black people to define their own goals, to lead their own organizations.” Black Power reflected the anger and pent-up disappointment with a system of white power that was forever promising blacks’ freedom and equality but never delivering on the promise.  Many white liberals thought that black folks were now going to far.

White leaders in the Civil Rights Movement did not and could not understand the needs of black people to lead their own struggle and fight for freedom and liberty.  Black people knew and understood that freedom achieved by others or given by others was no real freedom.  The fight against racism meant that blacks must lead the fight and white supporters must follow.  Frederic Douglass understood this concept one hundred year before the term Black Power was first used.

“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle…. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

His words have never been truer.  Greece fought the Persians.  Rome fought the Carthaginians.  England fought the Spanish.  The US fought the British.  The Chinese fought the Europeans.  Throughout history, countries have only achieved their independence by a struggle that as Douglass noted:  “This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle.” 

1592101150634

Today we see protests against racism that are led under the banner of the Black Lives Matter movement.  Some of these protests and rallies remain peaceful while at times others have become violent.  Many decry the violence, looting and physical attacks on the police that sometimes break out during these rallies.  I don’t defend the violence as necessary not do I defend the attacks on police as warranted unless they are in self-defense.  However, I do understand the difference between cause and effect.  When you are in a shell game, they tell you to “Keep your eye on the ball.”  This is almost impossible to do.  It is also impossible during the middle of the racism and prejudice that surrounds us to remember who the enemies and oppressors really are.

843d907c-d512-4c56-9cea-35ecaeda9e5f

The police that are supposedly there to “Serve and Protect” seem more likely to be there to “Preserve and Protect” the status quo and the interests of big business.  Too often, the mere presence of police in SWOT uniforms and riot gear at rallies serves to antagonize and provoke more violence.  The very nature of SWOT uniforms and riot gear is both threatening and violent in and of itself.  To stand there peacefully holding a sign while surrounded by people with batons, mace, tasers, automatic rifles and handguns takes a fortitude that not many people have.  If you want to criticize a Black Lives Matter rally, you should first come out from your gated community and join a rally.  See how you feel when law enforcement is present and looking over your shoulder with a rifle.

Should the rallies result in physical harm to others or to property?  The answer is obvious, and it is no.  But when I hear the outcries against such violence, I think back on Douglass’s words that:

“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.”

I repeat these words from above since I think they bear reflection.  Douglass knew that many abolitionists thought that slave revolts were “prejudicial to their cause.”  The same is often heard today when rallies turn violent.  But I want to ask, who is making this claim?  It is easy to stand on the sidelines and applaud but not so easy to stand up to violence being inflected physically on those who are protesting peacefully as has happened during Trumps recent Bible photo op outside the White House.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

downloadToday we are witnessing a descent into tyranny and demagoguery the likes of which have never before been seen in America.  We have a President who lies whenever he speaks.  We have a Republican party that abhors social justice and will do everything they can to suppress the rights of Americans to vote.  We have a base of supporters for Trump that are racist, fascist, and anti-democratic.  Lured by whatever sirens they listen to; they support the right of Trump to do whatever he wants to do.  They call him their Messiah and voice unconditional support for his attacks on the press, minorities, immigrants, women, blacks, Latinos, disabled, foreign countries and even the disabled.  A President who is willing to sacrifice thousands of lives to support his quest for a second term.

On a recent trip, I passed a sign in front of a house that read “Apathy is not an option.”  I am sure I know what the person meant who posted this sign.  Douglass would know what it meant and would fully understand that anyone professing a desire to stand on the sidelines would soon find themselves ruled by a tyrant.  There is no option today except to fight.  To paraphrase Patrick Henry, the chains of Americans are being forged in the White House.  They are being forged in the Senate.  They are being forged in the Supreme Court.  They are being forged wherever the Republican Party has attained a majority.  Quietly submit and you will attain the full measure of tyranny and injustice that your acquiescence has earned.

quote-power-in-defense-of-freedom-is-greater-than-power-in-behalf-of-tyranny-and-oppression-malcolm-x-18-45-52

Gandhi’s Sixth Social Sin: Worship Without Sacrifice

I find it surprising that I am writing about Gandhi and his ideas.  Surprising in that while growing up I was as far from a non-violent philosophy as anyone could be.  Sometimes it seemed like my whole life was violence, anger and fighting.  I joined the military out of high school and hoped to kill as many “commies” as I could.  I continued my violent ways for many years and to be honest I am still no pacifist.  I would not turn the other cheek once if you hit me, never mind 40 times. I am still on the border line about capital punishment.  One day I think Capital Punishment is terribly useless institution made even worse by its ineffectiveness at deterring crime. The next day I read of some horrendous crime that I feel can only be rectified by punishments that go well beyond the heinousness of legal murder.  If Gandhi were my father, he would surely disown me. 

Gandhi is one of those heroic icons who cannot be ignored.  Whether you believe in his ideas or not, you cannot deny that he tried to live according to his beliefs.  More important was that he lived to help others have a better life.  Everything Gandhi did paid evidence to his ideology that humans could be better than they were.  I know many people who think that educators, psychologists, social workers and other “human service” workers are just a waste of taxpayer money.  These same people are continually on the front line for more prisons and more military hardware.  It is evident to such people that humans can not improve and thus the only betterment of humanity lies in more weapons, more police, more military and more guns.  Gandhi would have professed the exact opposite and worked to create a world that was non-violent and where disputes could be resolved by civil discourse.

Years ago, I dropped my belief in God and in religions.  I came to the conclusion that the first did not exist and the second was evil. It seemed to me that much of the misery on the earth came from one or the other of the major religions.  The crusades, the inquisition, the Protestant Catholic wars, the wars against “Pagans” all showed me conclusively that religions did more harm than good. When I joined the military, I would not speak to any clergy and when they came around; I always avoided them.  I was even rude to them at times as I regarded them as hypocrites.  My first wife and I did not practice any religion together but I did bring my daughter around to several different religious venues as I wanted to at least expose her to them.  My second marriage was to a more deeply religious woman who practices her faith regularly by participating in church affairs and helping out at many church functions.  I often kid her about some of these events but I have come to a different point in my life regarding their benefit to the world.  I am somewhat less judgmental about religions and people then I was in my younger days. 

What does this mean for me about religions and how I regard them today?  I can say with sincerity that I still see much evil that comes out of religion, not to mention its ongoing hypocrisy (for instance where were all the churches and ministers when we invaded Iraq both the first and second times?).  However, I also see many good things that they now do, from supporting health care for poor people to championing efforts to feed people both domestically and abroad.  There are many other examples of good things that are done by churches and religious leaders.  So what does Gandhi mean by “Worship without Sacrifice?”  Is Gandhi against organized religion?  Here is the description from the Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence that summarizes Gandhi’s ideas in respect to his Sixth Social Sin: 

“Worship without Sacrifice: One person’s faith is another person’s fantasy because religion has been reduced to meaningless rituals practiced mindlessly. Temples, churches, synagogues, mosques and those entrusted with the duty of interpreting religion to lay people seek to control through fear of hell, damnation, and purgatory. In the name of God they have spawned more hate and violence than any government. True religion is based on spirituality, love, compassion, understanding, and appreciation of each other whatever our beliefs may be — Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics or whatever. Gandhi believed whatever labels we put on our faith; ultimately all of us worship Truth because Truth is God. Superficially we may be very devout believers and make a tremendous public show of our worship, but if that belief, understanding, compassion, love and appreciation is not translated into our lives, prayers will have no meaning. True worship demands sacrifice not just in terms of the number of times a day we say our prayers but in how sincere we are in translating those prayers into life styles. In the 1930’s many Christian and Muslim clergy flocked into India to convert the millions who were oppressed as untouchables. The Christian clergy stood on street corners loudly denouncing Hinduism and proclaiming the virtues of Christianity. Months went by without a single convert accepting the offer. Frustrated, one priest asked Grandfather: After all the oppression and discrimination that the ‘untouchables’ suffer under Hinduism, why is it they do not accept our offer of a better life under Christianity? Grandfather replied: When you stop telling them how good Christianity is and start living it, you will find more converts than you can cope with. These words of wisdom apply to all religions of the world. We want to shout from roof-tops the virtues of our beliefs and not translate them into our lives.”

Gandhi’s words remind me of a comment by Sitting Bull. When asked what he thought of Christianity he replied:   “From what I have read it is an admirable religion, however I do not see any white people practicing it.”  From a Native American perspective, the only thing the conquerors religions offered was a destruction of their habitats and lifestyles.  Witness the coming of the Spanish to the “New World” and the systematic destruction of the culture and religions that already existed by the Spanish military and their allied missionaries.  The genocidal destruction of indigenous peoples throughout the world is full of pompous and pretentious efforts to “convert” and save them from their evil ways.  In reality, religion only provided an expedient excuse to separate them from their lands and gold.  We have in much of the history of organized religion a clear example of what Gandhi meant by Worship without Sacrifice.

Perhaps surprising to some though, true Christianity is firm that Worship without Sacrifice is worthless: 

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.  If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and be well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?  In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

 

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.  

 

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

 

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?  Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?  You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.  And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called God’s friend.  You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.”

                    James 2:14-26- New International Version

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son for his religious beliefs. This is Worship with Sacrifice.  Going to church on Sunday or simply reading the Bible is Worship without Sacrifice.  When Jesus said that the two most important Commandments were Love God and Love Everyone, he meant you had to practice your faith by helping others who were less fortunate.  This has made it very difficult for most of humankind to be his followers in deed as well as in professed belief.  It is far easier to say “I am a Christian, then to “Sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”  It is much easier to pray, worship, and read the Bible than to actually practice what Jesus was saying.  Think for a minute what it would mean if all would be Christians really practiced the “Love Everyone Commandment?  A short list of the consequences of this would mean:

  • No religious wars
  • No Jihads
  • No terrorism
  • No murders
  • No rapes
  • No assaults
  • NO WARS PERIOD

Can you imagine a world without these problems?  This is the world we would have if everyone practiced their religions by deeds and not just words.  However, this would require sacrifice and too many people are not really willing to sacrifice for their religion, for Jesus or for God.  Sacrifice means giving up something to help others, not giving up something to gain something for you.  Those who blow up their bodies to attain paradise with 40 vestal virgins are not sacrificing for others; they are simply trying to take a shortcut to attain what other greedy people already have.  Any religion that terrorizes others in the name of “whoever” or “whatever” is evil regardless of what it calls itself.  This raises the question that might be phased as “What is the purpose of religion.”  Searching the web it is easy to find that many have condemned organized religion because of the atrocities associated with it. Great thinkers from Plato to Thomas Jefferson to Bertrand Russell have had little good to say about religions.  However, I like the following comment from WaheguruNet regarding what positive role religion could and indeed should play in society:

“Religion has and continues to impact almost every aspect of human civilization in both positive and negative ways. The great spiritual masters from all traditions have taught that we need to adopt and develop higher qualities of love, mercy, generosity, kindness and so on. These higher qualities are a natural byproduct of developing a deeper connection with our spiritual nature and so in this respect religion can be thought of as a vehicle to support our spiritual development and our re-connection with divinity.  In this way, human beings will be better at working together to create a better and more harmonious world.”

You will notice that in this purpose there is nothing mentioned about doom and destruction  or about going to hell and suffering for the rest of your life or about your neighbor who is a hypocrite and unlike you is destined for fire and brimstone.  The purpose of religion is to help us become better people. To help us find our connection to our inner spirit and to help guide us in living a more just and moral life.  This purpose must be followed by actions and deeds as well as pious readings and professed beliefs. There is no room Gandhi’s religion or Jesus’s religion for bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, hatred, intolerance and destruction of others or their belief systems.   

Time for Questions:

What can we do to practice good deeds as well as good thoughts? What sacrifices are you willing to make to help others?  Are we making a true sacrifice by telling others how hard we worked and that they can be what we are if they only try?  Should we simply tell others to pull themselves up by their boot straps?  Are all people really created equal in the sense that everyone has an equal chance at health and happiness?  Can we help make it so by sharing what we have with others?  

Life is just beginning.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: