Frederick Douglass Day: Time to Give Credit Where It’s Due
By Joel
Boyce
Frederick
Douglass was born into slavery on (or around) Valentine's Day in 1818. In his
70-odd years of life, he escaped his captivity, became one of the most
outspoken opponents of slavery, and ultimately lived to see its abolishment.
After Abraham Lincoln's assassination, Douglas was reputed to have received the
late president's favorite walking stick from his widow.
It's said
that history is written by the winners. History is also written by those in
power, those with privilege, those who have not been disenfranchised. Douglass
was a counter-point to that trend, writing two autobiographies and becoming a
great enough orator that his voice could not be ignored completely. Few of his
brothers and sisters in bondage would have been able to read, but Douglass,
born into that life, was an accomplished writer.
White
slaveholders and defenders of slavery were using everything from scriptural
interpretation to bad science to protect their interests in that "most
unusual institution" of the American South. One of their major arguments
was that black slaves were clever animals, not actually capable of human
intelligence. Douglass, smarter than all of them, demolished that argument
simply by existing, but he took the time to explain exactly what was wrong with
treating people as property – you know, for the slower students.
I think
it's worth noting how truly exceptional an individual Douglass really was.
There's a kind of historical chauvinism where we look back at places, times and
events in history, with our 20/20 hindsight, modern education and all the
benefits of being born now, rather than just about any other point in the past.
People say, "why didn't the Jews fight back when they were being carted
off to Auschwitz?" or "I never would have put up with being a
slave." They also take the moral high ground: "I never would have
supported Hitler" and "I wouldn't have been a plantation owner."
The truth
is that now and in the past, most of us tend to follow the path of least
resistance and do whatever everyone else is doing. Questioning the status quo
is something the more thoughtful among us do, and actually doing something
about it? You have to be rather courageous to blaze a trail for social change.
No one wants to be the first to step out of line.
Amidst a
chorus of praise for Lincoln, Steven Spielberg's latest opus, there are a few
dissenting voices. The screenplay's first draft (written in 2001) actually
focused on the friendship between the president and Douglass, but after
rewrites and casting and filming, somehow this crucial black leader ended up
disappearing from the movie. It wasn't only Douglass whose contributions were
written out of this story. According to historian Kate Masur, an active and
well-organized black political presence in the DC area that the real Lincoln
would have been well-acquainted with in the months leading up to his death are
also conspicuously absent from the film.
There's a
degree of revisionist history here, which scholars of the last several decades
have been working to correct. The traditional version of what happened is that
important white people, like Lincoln, had a crisis of conscience, decided
slavery was wrong, and, after one bloody war, presented freedom to African
Americans as a gift on a silver platter. But of course Lincoln, while he did
fight to end slavery by peaceful means for most of his career leading up to the
Civil War, was also very clear about his priorities.
If I
could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could
save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about
slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
Union.
Douglass
himself was critical of Lincoln for being so late to the game with
emancipation, so while he called him the greatest American president (and he
may still be the greatest president, to date), it may have been at least
somewhat along the lines of democracy not being a very good system, but better
than all the alternatives. Yes, in the end he got the job done, but far from
being a white knight, riding to moral rescue at any cost, he was a decent but
very human individual who understood politics, made compromises and took those
final crucial steps only when he was forced to. So how come Lincoln gets a movie
and Douglass doesn't even get a bit part in it?
I have my
suspicions. Certainly, Kate Masur got at some of it. But Douglas is at an
additional disadvantage. Fairly critical of the church, and basically
non-religious, especially when compared to figures like MLK or Malcolm X, many
Americans may be a little less apt to put Douglass in a heroic role.
The film
Agora, a period piece set in the Ancient Roman Empire, struggled to find a U.S.
release, for seemingly much the same reason. Hypatia, an atheist, was martyred
by early Roman Christians. Though it was well over a thousand years ago, modern
U.S. Christians, it seemed, weren't eager to cheer on the faithless while the
bad guys are religious nuts.
So
Douglass, a fighter for equal rights, is even still being discriminated against
today. Ironically, he was so far ahead of his time that even with all the
strides we've made with respect to race, he's managed to bait an entirely
different sort of prejudice. Maybe one day we'll be able to leave prejudices of
all kinds behind us.
This
piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be
reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14564-frederick-douglass-day-time-to-give-credit-where-its-due