Is his insight into the true nature of slavery in the 19th century still relevant today?
Years ago I came across a review of Frederick Douglass’ autobiography by Chris Sullivan (reprinted by LRC) with some thought provoking excrepts from the book, like this one:
“The same traits of character might be seen in Colonel Lloyd’s slaves, as are seen in the slaves of the political parties….. Indeed, it is not uncommon for slaves even to fall out and quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the others. At the very same time, they mutually execrate their masters when viewed separately. It was so on our plantation. When Colonel Lloyd’s slaves met the slaves of Jacob Jepson, they seldom parted without a quarrel about their masters; Colonel Lloyd’s slaves contending that he was the richest, and Mr. Jepson’s slaves that he was the smartest, and most of a man. Colonel Lloyd’s slaves would boast his ability to buy and sell Jacob Jepson. Mr. Jepson’s slaves would boast his ability to whip Colonel Lloyd. These quarrels would almost always end in a fight between the parties, and those that whipped were supposed to have gained the point at issue. They seemed to think that the greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves. It was considered as being bad enough to be a slave; but to be a poor man’s slave was deemed a disgrace indeed!”
This has no relevance today, of course. As everyone knows, we are free. We live in a democracy and you can vote for your favourite political party and quarrel with other voters about why it is better than the others, while the politicians have their hands in our pockets and restrict our freedoms. No similarity at all.
More recently, Joe Jarvis wrote a piece in The Daily Bell in the same spirit. He concludes:
We have all the stress of free men, without the benefit! And the government has all the benefits of a slave-holder, without all the intricacies of owning slaves.
The criticisms that Frederick Douglass expresses of his masters are perfectly interchangeable with all the criticisms of the government. Heed his words. Douglass was 100% a slave at times, 99% a slave at other times, and even at a point 50% a slave, according to how much of his labor was confiscated.
But he was still a slave. Don’t let the masters keep you a thoughtless slave.
These libertarian types are lunatics, you know. Don’t read the linked articles: you might comprehend the reasons of their folly.
.
:: Dir One :: 