The Fifth of July

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
The following is an abbreviated version of Frederick Douglass's excellent Fifth of July speech, which I implore anyone who has clicked this thread to read during this Fourth of July weekend.

The full text can be found HERE.

douglass_frederick.jpg

Fellow Citizens,

I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too great enough to give frame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory....

...Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."

But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."

Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then, fellow-citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America.is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate; I will not excuse"; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, "It is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, an denounce less; would you persuade more, and rebuke less; your cause would be much more likely to succeed." But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian's God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Amercans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively. To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is passed.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival....


...Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. -- Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.

The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, "Let there be Light," has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. 'Ethiopia, shall, stretch. out her hand unto Ood." In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:

God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o'er!
When from their galling chains set free,
Th' oppress'd shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom's reign,
To man his plundered rights again
Restore.

God speed the day when human blood
Shall cease to flow!
In every clime be understood,
The claims of human brotherhood,
And each return for evil, good,
Not blow for blow;
That day will come all feuds to end,
And change into a faithful friend
Each foe.

God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant's presence cower;
But to all manhood's stature tower,
By equal birth!
That hour will come, to each, to all,
And from his Prison-house, to thrall
Go forth.

Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
With head, and heart, and hand I'll strive,
To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
The spoiler of his prey deprive --
So witness Heaven!
And never from my chosen post,
Whate'er the peril or the cost,
Be driven.​
 
The following is an abbreviated version of Frederick Douglass's excellent Fifth of July speech, which I implore anyone who has clicked this thread to read during this Fourth of July weekend.

The full text can be found HERE.

douglass_frederick.jpg

Fellow Citizens,

I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too great enough to give frame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory....

Any black man who can form his mouth to say those words about the traitors, savages, barbarian, and murderous rapists who made this nation is a goddamn fool.

Dont give a damn what good point he made(and he did) after he said that because his point of reference is fucked up. He was still thinking like a slave, and not a damn thing was good about the "Founding Fathers".:hmm:
 
Any black man who can form his mouth to say those words about the traitors, savages, barbarian, and murderous rapists who made this nation is a goddamn fool.

Dont give a damn what good point he made(and he did) after he said that because his point of reference is fucked up. He was still thinking like a slave, and not a damn thing was good about the "Founding Fathers".:hmm:

If it wasnt for the founding fathers we wouldnt have BGOL.:-)
 
Any black man who can form his mouth to say those words about the traitors, savages, barbarian, and murderous rapists who made this nation is a goddamn fool.

Dont give a damn what good point he made(and he did) after he said that because his point of reference is fucked up. He was still thinking like a slave, and not a damn thing was good about the "Founding Fathers".:hmm:

You lack perspective and understanding and your charge is better applied to yourself than Frederick Douglass.

Let's take the text you selected and examine it point by point and see who is the "goddamn fool."

He says the Founders were brave men. This is plainly a general truth. Similar to when Bill Maher correctly described the 9/11 hijackers as brave, even if you do not agree with the morality or methodology of the group, the bravery of their actions is beyond dispute.

As for Douglass "not wanting in respect" for the Founders and describing them as "great men," you'd have to read the speech in it's entirety to appreciate that and not have a faulty point of reference yourself.

Early in the speech, Douglass observes that America, 76 years from its founding, was a young nation and still impressible-- still able to change, not yet set in its ways. He THEN shifts focus to the Founders and their status as British subjects in relation to the much more powerful and purportedly more "mature" British empire:

The simple story of it is, that, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects. The style and title of your "sovereign people" (in which you now glory) was not then born. You were under the British Crown. Your fathers esteemed the English Government as the home government and England as the fatherland. This home government, you know, although a considerable distance from your home, did, in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose upon its colonial children, such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right and proper.

But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Such a declaration of agreement on my part, would not be worth much to anybody. It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776. To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when, to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men's souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers.


The Founders had the intellectual bravery to challenge convention and needed real courage as "the weak against the strong." Was Douglass not 150 years ahead of his time when he presented this analogy?

"To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so..."

To say now that the civil rights movement (much less the abolition movement) was right, and the white power structure wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it-- Mitt fuckin' Romney falsely boasted of his father marching with Dr. King as he attempted win the presidency in 2008. It is quite fashionable.

Just as I can apply his words to today, Douglass sought to bring the white people he was speaking before to think beyond convention-- to side with the oppressed against the oppressor DURING the oppression.

Douglass, after praising the Founders within the context of their actions as the oppressed acting against the oppressor, makes the following statement:

Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so, than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent (as has been intimated) of that day, were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it.

Such people lived then, had lived before, and will, probably, ever have a place on this planet; and their course, in respect to any great change, (no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it,) may be calculated with as much precision as can be the course of the stars. They hate all changes, but silver, gold and copper change! Of this sort of change they are always strongly in favor.

These people were called tories in the days of your fathers; and the appellation, probably, conveyed the same idea that is meant by a more modern, though a somewhat less euphonious term, which we often find in our papers, applied to some of our old politicians.

Their opposition to the then dangerous thought was earnest and powerful; but, amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it, the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on, and the country with it.


This is bold revolutionary speech. It is a warning. He is telling those who proudly claim and celebrate the legacy of revolutionaries that they are modern day tories. Who now stood as the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their current capacity? The oppressor may describe those who seek to remedy the situation as "plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men" but, as with the Founders, those who rise up are brave and oppression makes a wise man mad. The young nation could either change course or have it changed for her.

This is thinking like a slave??? :eek:
 
Any black man who can form his mouth to say those words about the traitors, savages, barbarian, and murderous rapists who made this nation is a goddamn fool.

Dont give a damn what good point he made(and he did) after he said that because his point of reference is fucked up. He was still thinking like a slave, and not a damn thing was good about the "Founding Fathers".:hmm:
C/fucking/S. The End.



You lack perspective and understanding and your charge is better applied to yourself than Frederick Douglass.

Let's take the text you selected and examine it point by point and see who is the "goddamn fool."

He says the Founders were brave men. This is plainly a general truth. Similar to when Bill Maher correctly described the 9/11 hijackers as brave, even if you do not agree with the morality or methodology of the group, the bravery of their actions is beyond dispute.
This logic is akin to saying that a pathological liar is honest in the context of what he defines are true. This is utter bullshit. So yeah, according to that I guess the "founding fathers" were "brave".

Like Chiyo said, the entire premise is fucked up. Founding what? The very notion of "founding fathers" is utter fantasy as is everything he says from that point on.



As for Douglass "not wanting in respect" for the Founders and describing them as "great men," you'd have to read the speech in it's entirety to appreciate that and not have a faulty point of reference yourself.

Early in the speech, Douglass observes that America, 76 years from its founding, was a young nation and still impressible-- still able to change, not yet set in its ways. He THEN shifts focus to the Founders and their status as British subjects in relation to the much more powerful and purportedly more "mature" British empire:
If he believed the highlighted then most definitely was he not only thinking like a fucking slave but he was thinking like a gat dayum fool.




The simple story of it is, that, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects. The style and title of your "sovereign people" (in which you now glory) was not then born. You were under the British Crown. Your fathers esteemed the English Government as the home government and England as the fatherland. This home government, you know, although a considerable distance from your home, did, in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose upon its colonial children, such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right and proper.

But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Such a declaration of agreement on my part, would not be worth much to anybody. It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776. To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when, to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men's souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers.
Quite poetic and eloquent but bullshit nonetheless. He's basically saying, forget that the white man sees you as sub-human and expendable merchandise, and identify with his struggles against his fellow CAC as oppressors, quite similar to the oppression you've been fucked with. Nah. there's no difference.

FOH Freddy. :hmm:




The Founders had the intellectual bravery to challenge convention and needed real courage as "the weak against the strong." Was Douglass not 150 years ahead of his time when he presented this analogy?
The long answer. No.



"To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so..."

To say now that the civil rights movement (much less the abolition movement) was right, and the white power structure wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it-- Mitt fuckin' Romney falsely boasted of his father marching with Dr. King as he attempted win the presidency in 2008. It is quite fashionable.

Just as I can apply his words to today, Douglass sought to bring the white people he was speaking before to think beyond convention-- to side with the oppressed against the oppressor DURING the oppression.
And where exactly is the rocket science here? :confused: Fight your oppressor! No shit Sherlock.



Douglass, after praising the Founders within the context of their actions as the oppressed acting against the oppressor, makes the following statement:

Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so, than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent (as has been intimated) of that day, were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it.

Such people lived then, had lived before, and will, probably, ever have a place on this planet; and their course, in respect to any great change, (no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it,) may be calculated with as much precision as can be the course of the stars. They hate all changes, but silver, gold and copper change! Of this sort of change they are always strongly in favor.

These people were called tories in the days of your fathers; and the appellation, probably, conveyed the same idea that is meant by a more modern, though a somewhat less euphonious term, which we often find in our papers, applied to some of our old politicians.

Their opposition to the then dangerous thought was earnest and powerful; but, amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it, the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on, and the country with it.


This is bold revolutionary speech. It is a warning. He is telling those who proudly claim and celebrate the legacy of revolutionaries that they are modern day tories. Who now stood as the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their current capacity? The oppressor may describe those who seek to remedy the situation as "plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men" but, as with the Founders, those who rise up are brave and oppression makes a wise man mad. The young nation could either change course or have it changed for her.

This is thinking like a slave??? :eek:
Yep. thinking like a dumb slave at that. Because some slaves had character, pride and dignity and were willing to die for it.
And all he was saying is that there were some folks who were shook and passive cowards sell-out fucks. And hundreds of years later nothing has changed. He didn't say shit about celebrating the revolutionaries.
 
Last edited:
This logic is akin to saying that a pathological liar is honest in the context of what he defines are true. This is utter bullshit. So yeah, according to that I guess the "founding fathers" were "brave".

Like Chiyo said, the entire premise is fucked up. Founding what? The very notion of "founding fathers" is utter fantasy as is everything he says from that point on.

:confused:

They did not found/father a nation?

Also, please elaborate on in what sense the revolutionaries were not brave.

If he believed the highlighted then most definitely was he not only thinking like a fucking slave but he was thinking like a gat dayum fool.

I fail to see the foolishness...

Is it your contention that America has not changed since 1776? Or 1852, when this speech was delivered?

Quite poetic and eloquent but bullshit nonetheless. He's basically saying, forget that the white man sees you as sub-human and expendable merchandise, and identify with his struggles against his fellow CAC as oppressors, quite similar to the oppression you've been fucked with. Nah. there's no difference.

FOH Freddy. :hmm:

And where exactly is the rocket science here? :confused: Fight your oppressor! No shit Sherlock.

You seem not to understand who the audience was here, Watson.

Douglass came nowhere near saying "forget that the white man sees you as sub-human" or "fight your oppressor." He was not addressing people of his own class. He was addressing the descendants of a formerly oppressed class, the subjects of the British empire who founded an independent America.

Douglass's observation that "To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy" is quite significant. It gives a perspective to his earlier statement that the British empire "in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose[d] upon its colonial children such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right and proper." By that example, the audience is asked to take on a task which is not exceedingly easy-- question the rightness of the "mature judgment" of their own class which was imposed on their Negro "children" (as supposedly inferior civilizations were often said to be in a childlike state of development).

Far from asking slaves to "identify with [the white man's] struggles against his fellow CAC as oppressors", Douglass drew the parallel between the former British subjects and American slaves to illustrate the rationality of the abolitionist position (in spite of established "mature" judgment). When Douglass calls the Founders wise men, it is after he counsels that "Oppression makes a wise man mad." While abolitionists were characterized as dangerous men and blacks as animals, Douglass affirmed the Negro's humanity, the self-evident logic of abolitionism and delivers a scathing summation of American hypocrisy which should have given the dullest listener cause for self-examination.
 
:confused:



You seem not to understand who the audience was here, Watson.

Douglass came nowhere near saying "forget that the white man sees you as sub-human" or "fight your oppressor." He was not addressing people of his own class. He was addressing the descendants of a formerly oppressed class, the subjects of the British empire who founded an independent America.

Douglass's observation that "To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy" is quite significant. It gives a perspective to his earlier statement that the British empire "in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose[d] upon its colonial children such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right and proper." By that example, the audience is asked to take on a task which is not exceedingly easy-- question the rightness of the "mature judgment" of their own class which was imposed on their Negro "children" (as supposedly inferior civilizations were often said to be in a childlike state of development).

Far from asking slaves to "identify with [the white man's] struggles against his fellow CAC as oppressors", Douglass drew the parallel between the former British subjects and American slaves to illustrate the rationality of the abolitionist position (in spite of established "mature" judgment). When Douglass calls the Founders wise men, it is after he counsels that "Oppression makes a wise man mad." While abolitionists were characterized as dangerous men and blacks as animals, Douglass affirmed the Negro's humanity, the self-evident logic of abolitionism and delivers a scathing summation of American hypocrisy which should have given the dullest listener cause for self-examination.

:yes::yes::yes:
 
:confused:

They did not found/father a nation?

Also, please elaborate on in what sense the revolutionaries were not brave.

No. They invaded a land pillaged its resources and murdered it's indigenous people who had lived there for centuries.

I guess in the context in which the word "brave" is used, yes they were brave. So was Timothy McVeigh. So yeah, I stand corrected.





I fail to see the foolishness...

Is it your contention that America has not changed since 1776? Or 1852, when this speech was delivered?

No. Of course it's changed...somewhat, as has most of humanity. We could get into an argument about the degree of change but that would more likely than not end up as a matter of opinion. I'll say this though, there are several immutable American institutions that aren't about to change anytime soon and i'm sure there are many Americans that can testify to this from personal experience.




You seem not to understand who the audience was here, Watson.

Douglass came nowhere near saying "forget that the white man sees you as sub-human" or "fight your oppressor." He was not addressing people of his own class. He was addressing the descendants of a formerly oppressed class, the subjects of the British empire who founded an independent America.

OK.



Douglass's observation that "To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy" is quite significant. It gives a perspective to his earlier statement that the British empire "in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose[d] upon its colonial children such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right and proper." By that example, the audience is asked to take on a task which is not exceedingly easy-- question the rightness of the "mature judgment" of their own class which was imposed on their Negro "children" (as supposedly inferior civilizations were often said to be in a childlike state of development).

Far from asking slaves to "identify with [the white man's] struggles against his fellow CAC as oppressors", Douglass drew the parallel between the former British subjects and American slaves to illustrate the rationality of the abolitionist position (in spite of established "mature" judgment). When Douglass calls the Founders wise men, it is after he counsels that "Oppression makes a wise man mad." While abolitionists were characterized as dangerous men and blacks as animals, Douglass affirmed the Negro's humanity, the self-evident logic of abolitionism and delivers a scathing summation of American hypocrisy which should have given the dullest listener cause for self-examination.

I didn't see where he did that part (the red highlighted). Can you show me where in your post? Thanks.

*edit*
Oh wait, never mind. You're right. Got it. Thanks.

...
 
Any black man who can form his mouth to say those words about the traitors, savages, barbarian, and murderous rapists who made this nation is a goddamn fool.

Dont give a damn what good point he made(and he did) after he said that because his point of reference is fucked up. He was still thinking like a slave, and not a damn thing was good about the "Founding Fathers".:hmm:

short answer: he was a mulatto.
mulattoes tend to try to 'walk the fence' between accommodating
white sensibility, while speaking on race issues. this is why a mulatto
leader should never be the leader of black people, who can speak on
black issues irrespective of the feelings of a white half.

this trend of them
accomidating whites are often why white people have historically placed them in
positions of leadership for us black people. Douglass, Booker T Washington, Obama.
 
Last edited:
No. They invaded a land pillaged its resources and murdered it's indigenous people who had lived there for centuries.

Trust me, I understand that and feel the same way.

I guess in the context in which the word "brave" is used, yes they were brave. So was Timothy McVeigh. So yeah, I stand corrected.
No. Of course it's changed...somewhat, as has most of humanity. We could get into an argument about the degree of change but that would more likely than not end up as a matter of opinion. I'll say this though, there are several immutable American institutions that aren't about to change anytime soon and i'm sure there are many Americans that can testify to this from personal experience.

Your point about most of humanity changing is a valid one, as change can be caused from outside regardless of the age of a nation or it's institutions.

And it is true that an argument about the degree of change would likely come down to a matter of opinion-- some argue that we are still slaves, which seems like gross hyperbole but somewhat well-reasoned at the same time. The truth seems to fall somewhere between the realms of acknowledging progress while understanding how far we have to go. Just as the sun is gigantic until you compare it to bigger stars, the change that has occurred from 1776 to 2010 is massive but still pales in comparison to what should be.

I didn't see where he did that part (the red highlighted). Can you show me where in your post? Thanks.

*edit*
Oh wait, never mind. You're right. Got it. Thanks.

:cool:

I don't agree with every word of Douglass's speech-- the proposition that "He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise" seems backward to me. Beyond the obvious fact that the cause which a man's country pursues may be unjust or even evil, overall, the emphasis should be on the whole of humanity and not some little sect, race or nation. But, on the whole, I was impressed by the major analogy putting America in the position of the British on it's most joyful day of moral self-aggrandizement. I also think it says a lot about what an American is and can be as meaningful for America in 2010, as it moves toward becoming a majority-minority country, as it was in 1852.
 
short answer: he was a mulatto.
mulattoes tend to try to 'walk the fence' between accommodating
white sensibility, while speaking on race issues. this is why a mulatto
leader should never be the leader of black people, who can speak on
black issues irrespective of the feelings of a white half.

this trend of them
accomidating whites are often why white people have historically placed them in
positions of leadership for us black people. Douglass, Booker T Washington, Obama.

You think a speech that reminds white people that they are celebrating the anniversary of a revolt and that the forefathers they now consider wise were formerly thought to be madmen and criminals, warning that oppression "makes a wise man mad," accommodates white sensibility?

Clearly, whites have been more accepting of and comfortable with "mixed race" blacks than those considered simply black or Negro. However, that does not automatically call into question the integrity of such a man or suggest that his loyalties are split or that he is somehow suspect.
 
:cool:

I don't agree with every word of Douglass's speech-- the proposition that "He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise" seems backward to me. Beyond the obvious fact that the cause which a man's country pursues may be unjust or even evil, overall, the emphasis should be on the whole of humanity and not some little sect, race or nation. But, on the whole, I was impressed by the major analogy putting America in the position of the British on it's most joyful day of moral self-aggrandizement. I also think it says a lot about what an American is and can be as meaningful for America in 2010, as it moves toward becoming a majority-minority country, as it was in 1852.
This is right here ... is real talk.
 
You think a speech that reminds white people that they are celebrating the anniversary of a revolt and that the forefathers they now consider wise were formerly thought to be madmen and criminals, warning that oppression "makes a wise man mad," accommodates white sensibility?

yes it does. "makes a wise man mad" is euphemistic to the specific atrocities that these same 'founding fathers' -these 'great' men in Douglass' words, committed against even Douglass himself. anything less than an unsweetened dressing down and verbal review of these atrocities is accomidationist.


Clearly, whites have been more accepting of and comfortable with "mixed race" blacks than those considered simply black or Negro. However, that does not automatically call into question the integrity of such a man or suggest that his loyalties are split or that he is somehow suspect.

Because of the very fact [even you agreed with] that whites are more comfortable with mulattoes, it stands to reason, that they have a different experience than us 'regular' black folks. because of that reason, I question their ability to speak for me, especially when they speak of killers, rapers, and pillagers, as 'great men' or even espouse a position of post-racialism. no, these must be positions born from the mulatto experience.
 
I meant to bump this shit throughout the day yesterday but was too busy... I hope somebody reads it and gets something from it.
 
Bump-- One of the best speeches EVER. Anyone who has not read this should make an effort to appreciate it over the next two days. Anyone who has knows tomorrow is the best day to re-read it (today on the East coast) and how worthwhile a read it is.
 
Any black man who can form his mouth to say those words about the traitors, savages, barbarian, and murderous rapists who made this nation is a goddamn fool.

Dont give a damn what good point he made(and he did) after he said that because his point of reference is fucked up. He was still thinking like a slave, and not a damn thing was good about the "Founding Fathers".:hmm:

C/fucking/S. The End.

This logic is akin to saying that a pathological liar is honest in the context of what he defines are true. This is utter bullshit. So yeah, according to that I guess the "founding fathers" were "brave".

Like Chiyo said, the entire premise is fucked up. Founding what? The very notion of "founding fathers" is utter fantasy as is everything he says from that point on.
:shades: The above quotes are valid , documentation provided by "the founding fathers".
 
Those who attack Douglas truly lack knowledge of struggle. He works off the self-evident beliefs of the foundation of the country. And then shows how the current nation at the time does not live up to it (regardless of the full understanding of each man mentioned.)

So anyone who would argue against his speech, would find themselves arguing against America, which was not a popular thing to do during his time. Douglas' mission seems to be to turn around the tide and doing so in a hostile environment at a dangerous time. Applause for the man and the mission.

Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then, fellow-citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America.is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future
 
Those who attack Douglas truly lack knowledge of struggle. He works off the self-evident beliefs of the foundation of the country. And then shows how the current nation at the time does not live up to it (regardless of the full understanding of each man mentioned.)

So anyone who would argue against his speech, would find themselves arguing against America, which was not a popular thing to do during his time. Douglas' mission seems to be to turn around the tide and doing so in a hostile environment at a dangerous time. Applause for the man and the mission.


Yeah ... this


Not gonna even GO into the other shit


Attacking a mans' sensibilities when you haven't walked ONE CENTIMETER in his shoes
Acting like his speaking on a podium ALONE in the year 1852 when slavery wasn't even abolished yet isn't the ultimate act of bravery


you gotta be on some "I ain't bailing a mutha fukking thig...suck my dick master!!" type shit
 
Back
Top