Angela Davis

Matriarch Monday: Angela Davis

This week Indigenous Goddess Gang celebrates Angela Davis by presenting the full transcript of her work Lectures on Liberation 

Angela Yvonne Davis (born January 26, 1944) is an American political activist, academic, and author. She emerged as a prominent counterculture activist and radical in the 1960s as a leader of the Communist Party USA, and had close relations with the Black Panther Party through her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement.

As a result of purchasing firearms used in the 1970 armed take-over of a Marin County, California courtroom, in which four persons were killed, she was prosecuted for conspiracy. She was later acquitted of this charge.

She was a professor emerita at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in its History of Consciousness Department, and a former director of the university's Feminist Studies department. Her research interests are feminism, African-American studies, critical theory, Marxism, popular music, social consciousness, and the philosophy and history of punishment and prisons. She co-founded Critical Resistance, an organization working to abolish the prison–industrial complex.

Davis's membership in the CPUSA led California Governor Ronald Reagan in 1969 to attempt to have her barred from teaching at any university in the State of California. She supported the governments of the Soviet Bloc for several decades. During the 1980s, she was twice a candidate for Vice President on the CPUSA ticket. She left the party in 1991. Source: Wikipedia

Lectures On Liberation

By Angela Davis

INTRODUCTION 

Presented here are Professor Angela Davis’ initial lectures for 
“Recurring Philosophical Themes in Black Literature,” her 
first course at UCLA, taught during the Fall Quarter of 1969 At 
the time she was beginning a two-year appointment as Acting 
Assistant Professor in Philosophy, an appointment duly recom- 
mended by the Department of Philosophy and enthusiastically 
approved by the UCLA Administration. The first of the two lec- 
tures was delivered in Royce Hall to an audience of over fif- 
teen hundred students and interested colleagues. At the lecture’s 
end Professor Davis was given a prolonged standing ovation by the 
audience. It was, we thought, a vindication of academic free- 
dom and democratic education. For the lectures are part of an 
attempt to bring to light the forbidden history of the enslave- 
ment and oppression of black people, and to place that history 
in an illuminating philosophical context. At the same time, they 
are sensitive, original and incisive: the work of an excellent 
teacher and a truly fine scholar. 

Now Professor Davis is a prisoner of the society that should 
have welcomed her talents, her honesty and the contribution she 
was making toward understanding and resolving the most criti- 
cal problem of that society— the division between its oppressors 
and its oppressed. First she was attacked by the Regents of the 
University of California, who attempted to dismiss her from the 
University on the patently illegal ground of her membership in 
the Communist Party. When this attempt was overruled by the 
Superior Court of Los Angeles, the Regents denied her the nor- 
mal continuation of her appointment for a second year, in spite 
of recommendations from a host of review committees and the 
Chancellor of UCLA that she be reappointed. During the summer 
of 1970, she was charged with kidnapping, murder, and unlaw- 
ful flight to avoid prosecution, and was placed on the FBI most 
wanted list. When apprehended, she was held on excessive bail, 
then denied bail, and subsequently has been kept in isolation 
from other prisoners. 

In her first lecture Professor Davis points out that keeping 
an oppressed class in ignorance is one of the principal instru- 
ments of its oppression. Like Frederick Douglass, the black 

1 



slave whose life and work she surveys here. Professor Davis is 
one of the educated oppressed. Like him, she has achieved full 
consciousness of what it is to be oppressed, and has heightened 
this consciousness in her own people and in others. There can 
be little doubt that her effectiveness in blunting the oppressive 
weapon of ignorance was the chief motive for her removal from 
the University of California, and a major motive in the harsh 
treatment she has since received. 

These are lectures dealing with the phenomenology of op- 
pression and liberation. It is one thing to make the elementary 
point that millions are still oppressed in what is advertised as 
the world’s most free society. It is much more difficult to lay 
out the causes of that oppression and the ways in which it is 
perpetuated; its psychological meaning to the oppressor and the 
oppressed; and the process by which the latter becomes con- 
scious of it; and the way in which they triumph over it. This 
was the task Professor Davis set for herself. She bring* to her 
work a rich philosophical background, a piercing intelk .t, and 
the knowledge born of experience. 

It was perhaps inevitable that Professor Davi sh< Id be- 
come a symbol for conflicting groups and causes. But it is well 
to remember that behind the symbol lies the human beimj whose 
thoughts are recorded here, and that when she stands t lal not 
only a human cause but also a human life will be Tied In the 
meantime, we take pride in presenting these two b etui ■; by a 
distinguished colleague and friend. May they everywhere con- 
tribute to the defeat of oppression. 



Matthew Skttlicz , English 
Peter Orleans , Sociology 
David Gillman, Mathematics 
Sterling Robbins , Anthropology 
Marie Brand , Nursing 
J. C. Ries, Political Science 
Jerome Rabow , Sociology 
Donald Kalish , Philosophy 
Evelyn Hatch , English 
Kenneth Chapman , German 
Laurence Morrissette , French 
Ternma Kaplan , History 
Peter Ladefogcd , Linguistics 
D. R. McCann , German 
Robert Singleton , Business Administration 
Richard Ashcraft , Political Science 
John Horton , Sociology 
Paul Koosis t Mathematics 
Patrick Story , English 
Alan E. Flanigan , Engineering 
Roy L. \Volf(rrd 9 Medicine 
Albert Schuvrtz , History 
Wade Savag e, Philosophy 
Tom Robischon, Education 
Barbara Partee „ En glish 
Carlos Otero , Spanish 
Alex Norman , Urban Affairs 
Henry McGee , School of Imw 
E. V. Wolfenstein , Political Science 



2 



The idea of freedom has justifiably been a dominating theme 
in the history of Western ideas. Man has been repeatedly defined 
in terms of his inalienable freedom. One of the most acute para- 
doxes present in the history of Western society is that while on 
a philosophical plane freedom has been delineated in the most 
lofty and sublime fashion, concrete reality has always been per- 
meated with the most brutal forms of unfreedom, of enslavement. 
In ancient Greece where, so we are taught, democracy had its 
source, it cannot be overlooked that in spite of all the philosophical 
assertions of man’s freedom, in spite of the demand that man 
realize himself through exercising his freedom as a citizen of the 
polls, the majority of the people in Athens were not free. Women 
were not citizens and slavery was an accepted institution. More- 
over, there was definitely a form of racism present in Greek soci- 
ety, for only Greeks were suited for the benefits of freedom: all 
non-Greeks were called barbarians and by their very nature could 
not be deserving or even capable of freedom. 

In this context, one cannot fail to conjure up the image of 
Thomas Jefferson and the other so-called Founding Fathers formu- 
lating the noble concepts of the Constitution of the United Sates 
while their slaves were living in misery In order not to mar the 
beauty of the Constitution and at the same time to protect the in- 
stitution of slavery, they wrote about “persons held to service or 
labor,” a euphemism for the word slavery, as being exceptional 
types of human beings, persons who do not merit the guarantees 
and rights of the Constitution. 



Block people hove exposed, by their very existence, the inade- 
quacies not only of the practice of freedom, but of its very theoretical 
formulation.' 



3 



Is man free or is he not? Ought he be free or ought not he 
be free? The history of Black Literature provides, in my opin- 
ion, a much more illuminating account of the nature of freedom, 
its extent and limits, than all the philosophical discourses on 
this theme in the history of Western society Why? For a num- 
ber of reasons. First of all, because Black Literature in this 
country and throughout the world projects the consciousness of a 
people who have been denied entrance into the real world of 
freedom. Black people have exposed, by their very existence, the 
inadequacies not only of the practice of freedom, but of its very 
theoretical formulation. Because, if the theory of freedom re- 
mains isolated from the practice of freedom or rather is contra- 
dicted in reality, then this means that something must be wrong 
with the concept — that is, if we are thinking in a dialectical 
manner. 

The pivotal theme of this course will thus be the idea of 
freedom as it is unfolded in the literary undertaking of Black 
people. Starting with The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass 
we will explore the slave’s experience of his bondage and thus 
the negative experience of freedom. Most important here will be 
the crucial transformation of the concept of freedom as a static, 
given principle into the concept of liberation, the dynamic, ac- 
tive struggle for freedom. We will move on to W E B. DuBois, 
to Jean Tommer, Richard Wright and John A. Williams. Inter- 
spersed will be poetry from the various periods of Black History 
in this country, and theoretical analyses such as Fanon and Du- 
Bois’ A.B.C. of Color. Finally I would like to discuss a few pieces by 
African writers and poems by Nicolas Guillen, a black Cuban poet, 
and compare them to the work of American Blacks. 

Throughout the course, I have said, the notion of freedom 
will be the axis around which we will attempt to develop other 
philosophical concepts. We will encounter such metaphysical 
notions as identity, the problem of self-knowledge. The kind of 
philosophy of history which emerges out of the works we are 
studying will be crucial. The morality peculiar to an oppressed 
people is something we will have to come to grips with. As we 
progress along the path of the unfolding of freedom in Black liter- 
ature, we should retrieve a whole host of related themes. 

Before I get into the material, I would like to say a few 
words about the kinds of questions we ought to ask ourselves 
when we delve into the nature of human freedom. First of all, 
is freedom totally subjective, totally objective, or is it a synthe- 
sis of both poles? Let me try to explain whal I mean Is free- 
dom to be conceived merely as an inherent, given characteris- 



4 




tic of man, is it a freedom which is confined within the human 
mind, is freedom an internal experience? Or, on the other hand, 
is freedom only the liberty to move, to act in a way one choos- 
es? Let us pose the original question as to the subjectivity or 
objectivity of freedom in the following manner: Is freedom the 
freedom of thought or the freedom of action? Or more import- 
ant, is it possible to conceive of the one without the other? 

This leads us directly to the problem of whether freedom is 
at all possible within the bounds of material bondage. Can the 
slave be said to be free in any way? This brings to mind one 
of the more notorious statements which the French Existential- 
ist. Jean-Paul Sartre, has made. Even the man in chains, he 
says, remains free— and for this reason: he is always at liberty 
to eliminate his condition of slavery even if this means his death. 
That is, his freedom is narrowly defined as the freedom to 
choose between his state of captivity and his death. Now, this 
is extreme. But we have to decide whether or not this is the 
way in which we are going to define that concept. Certainly, 
this would not be compatible with the notion of liberation, for 
when the slave opts for death, he does much more than obliter- 
ate his condition of enslavement, for at the same time he is 
abolishing the very condition of freedom, life. Yet there is more 
to be said, when we take the decision to die out of an abstract 
context and examine the dynamics of a real situation in which 
a slave meets his death in the fight for concrete freedom. That 
is to say, the choice, slavery or death, could either mean slav- 
ery or suicide, or on the other hand slavery or liberation at all 
costs. The difference between the two situations is crucial. 

The authentic consciousness of an oppressed people entails 
an understanding of the necessity to abolish oppression The 
slave finds at the end of his journey towards understanding a 
real grasp of what freedom means. He knows that it means the 
destruction of the master-slave relationship. And in this sense, 
his knowledge of freedom is more profound than that of the master. 
For the master feels himself free and he feels himself free be- 
cause he is able to control the lives of others. He is free at the 
expense of the freedom of another. The slave experiences the 
freedom of the master in its true light. He understands that the 
master’s freedom is abstract freedom to suppress other human 
beings. The slave understands that this is a pseudo concept of 
freedom and at this point is more enlightened than his master 
for he realizes that the master is a slave of his own misconcep- 
tions, his own misdeeds, his own brutality, his own effort to 
oppress. 



5 




Now I would like to go into the material. The first part of 
The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, called “Life of a 
Slave/* constitutes a physical voyage from slavery to freedom 
which is both the conclusion and reflection of a philosophical 
voyage from slavery to freedom. We will see that neither voyage 
would have been possible alone; they are mutually determinant. 

The point of departure for this voyage is the following ques- 
tion Frederick Douglass asks himself as a child: “Why am 1 
a slave? Why are some people slaves and others masters?” (page 
50). His critical attitude when he fails to accept the usual answer 
— that God had made Black people to be slaves and white people 
to be masters — is the basic condition which must be present 
before freedom can become a possibility in the mind of the slave. 
We must not forget that throughout the history of Western society 
there is an abundance of justifications for the existence of slav- 
ery. Both Plato and Aristotle felt that some men were born to be 
slaves, some men are not born into a state of freedom. Religious 
justifications for slavery are to be found at every turn. 

Let’s attempt to arrive at a philosophical definition of the 
slave: we have already stated the essence: he is a human being 
who, by some reason or another is denied freedom. But is not 
the essence of the human being his freedom? Either the slave 
is not a man or his very existence is a contradiction We can rule 
out the first alternative, although we should not forget that the 
prevailing ideology defined the Black man as sub-human. The fail- 
ure to deal with the contradictory nature of slavery, the imposed 
ignorance of reality is exemplified in the notion that the slave is 
not a man, for if he were a man, he should certainly be free. 

We all know of the calculated attempts to rob the black man 
of his humanity. We know that in order to maintain the institution 
of slavery, black people were forced to live in conditions not fit 
for animals. The white slave-owners were determined to mould 
black people into the image of the sub-human being which they had 
contrived in order to justify their actions. A vicious circle emerges 
in which the slave-owner loses all consciousness of himself. 

The vicious circle continues to turn, but for the slave, there is 
a way out: Resistance Frederick Douglass seems to have had his 
first experience of this possibility of a slave becoming free upon 
observing a slave resist a flogging: “That slave who had the cour- 
age to stand up for himself against the overseer, although he might 
have many hard stripes at first, became while legally a slave 
virtually a free man. ‘You can shoot me,* said a slave to Rigby 
Hopkins, 4 but you can t whip me’, and the result was he was nei- 
ther whipped nor shot.** 



6 




Already we can begin to concretize the notion of freedom as 
it appeared to the slave. The first condition of freedom is the 
open act of resistance — physical resistance, violent resistance. 
In that act of resistance, the rudiments of freedom are already 
present. And the biolent retaliation signifies much more than the 
physical act: it is refusal not only to submit to the flogging, but 
refusal to accept the definitions of the slave-master; it is im- 
plicitly a rejection of the institution of slavery, its standards, 
its morality, a microcosmic effort towards liberation. 

”lhe first condition of freedom is the open act of resistance . . , In 
that act of resistance, the rudiments of freedom are already pres- 
ent/ 

The slave is actually conscious of the fact that freedom is not 
a fact, it is not a given, but rather something to be fought for, it 
can exist only through a process of struggle. The slave-master, 
on the other hand, experiences his freedom as inalienable and 
thus as a fact: he is not aware that he too has been enslaved by 
his own system. 

To begin to answer a question we posed earlier — is it possible 
for a man to be in chains and at the same time be free — we can 
now say that the path towards freedom can only be envisioned 
by the slave when he actively rejects his chains. The first phase 
of liberation is the decision to reject the image of himself which 
the slave-owner has painted, to reject the conditions which the 
slave-owner has created, to reject his own existence, to reject 
himself as slave. 

Here the problem of freedom leads us directly into the ques- 
tion of identity. The condition of slavery is a condition of aliena- 
tion: “Nature never intended that men and women should be 
either slaves or slaveholders, and nothing but rigid training long 
persisted in, can perfect the character of the one or the other.” 
Slavery is an alienation from a natural condition, it is a violation 
of nature which distorts both parties — the slave and the slave- 
owner. Alienation is the absence of authentic identity, in the case 
of the slave, he is alienated from his own freedom. 

This non-identity can exist on a number of levels: it can be 
unconscious — the slave accepts the master’s definition, renders 
himself unfree in seeing himself as inherently unfit for freedom 
Or it can be conscious, knowledge can strike a blow at it We are 
most concerned with the second alternative, for it constitutes a 
stage in the voyage towards freedom. 

7 



The most extreme form of human alienation is the reduction 
to the status of property. This is how the slave was defined: some- 
thing to be owned. “Personality swallowed up in the sordid idea 
of property! Manhood lost in chattelhood!. . .Our destiny was 
to be fixed for life, and we had no more voice in the decision of 
the question than the oxen and cows that stood chewing at the 
haymow.” 

Black people were treated as things, they were defined as 
objects. “The slave was a fixture,” Frederick Douglass remarks. 
His life must be lived within the limits of that objectness, wthin 
the limits of the white man s definition of the Black man. Forced 
to live as if he were a fixture, the slave’s perception of the world 
is inverted. Because his life is relegated to that of an object, he 
must forge his own humanity within those boundaries. “He had no 
choice, no goal, but was pegged down to one single spot, and must 
take root there or nowhere.” The slave has no determination what- 
soever over the external circumstances of his life. One day a 
woman could be living on a plantation among her children, their 
father — family, friends. The next day. she could be miles away 
with no hope of ever meeting them again. The idea of the journey 
loses its connotation of exploration, it loses the excitement of 
learning the unknown. The trip becomes a journey into hell, not 
away from the thingness of the slave’s existence, but an even 
sharper accentuation of his non-human external existence. “His 
going out into the world was like a living man going out of sight and 
hearing of wife, children, and friends of kindred tie.” Frederick 
Douglass gives a moving account of the last days of his grandmoth- 
er, who having faithfully served her master from his birth to his 
death, having had children and grandchildren for him, is looked 
upon in disdain by her then present owner— the original master’s 
grandson. She is sent into the woods to die a solitary death. 

Frederick Douglass’ owner reveals to him unwittingly the path 
toward the consciousness of his alienation: “ ‘If you give a nigger 
an inch he will take an ell. Learning will spoil the best nigger in the 
world If he learns to read the Bible it will forever unfit him to be a 
slave. He should know nothing but the will of his master, and learn 
to obey it.’ ” The slave is alienated totally insofar as he accepts his 
master’s will as the absolute authority over his life. The slave has 
no will, no desires, no being — his essence, his being he must find 
entirely in the will of his master What does this mean? It is partly 
with the slave’s consent that the white man is able to perpetuate 
slavery — when we say consent, however, it is not free consent, but 
consent under the most brutal force and pressure. 



8 




Frederick Douglass learns from his owner’s observations 
precisely how he is to combat his own alienation: 4 4 4 Very well/ 
thought I Knowledge unfits a child to be a slave.’ I instinctively as- 
sented to the proposition, and from that moment I understood the 
direct pathway from slavery to freedom.*’ If we look closely at the 
words of Frederick Douglass we can detect the theme of resistance 
once again His first concrete experience of the possibility of free- 
dom within the limits of slavery comes when he observes a slave 
resist a whipping. Now he transforms this resistance into a resis- 
tance of the mind, a refusal to accept the will of the master and a 
determination to find independent means of judging the world. 

Just as the slave has used violence against the violence of the 
aggressor, Frederick Douglass uses the knowledge of his owner, 
i.e., that learning unfits a man to be a slave and turns it against 
him: he will set out to acquire knowledge, precisely because it un- 
fits a man to be a slave. Resistance, rejection, on every level, on 
every front, are integral elements of the voyage towards freedom. 
Alienation will become conscious through the process of know- 
ledge. 

^ In combatting his ignorance, in resisting the will of his master, 
Frederick Douglass, apprehends that all men should be free, and 
thus deepens his knowledge of slavery, ol what it means to be 
a slave, what it means to be the negative counterpart of freedom. 
“When I was about thirteen years old, and had succeeded in learn- 
ing to read, every increase of knowledge, especially anything re- 
specting the free states, was an additional weight to the most in- 
tolerable burden of my thought — ‘I am a slave for life/ To my 
bondage I could see no end. It was a terrible reality, and I shall nev- 
er be able to tell how sadly that thought chafed my young spirit/’ 

His alienation becomes real, it surfaces, and Frederick Doug- 
lass is going to existentially experience all that is entailed by being 
bound to a state of unfreedom materially, while mentally finding 
his way towards liberation. The tension between the subjective 
and the objective will eventually provide the impetus towards total 
liberation. But before that goal is reached a whole series of phases 
must be traversed. 

The slave, Frederick Douglass, thus mentally transcends his 
condition towards freedom. Herein lies the consciousness of alien- 
ation He sees freedom concretely as the negation of his condition— 
it is present in the very air he breathes. “Liberty, as the inestim- 
able birthright of every man. converted every object into an assert- 
er of this right. I heard it in every sound, and saw it in every object. 
It was ever present to torment me with a sense of my wretchedness, 
the more horrible and desolate was my condition. I saw nothing 



9 




without seeing it and I heard nothing without hearing it. I do not 
exaggerate when I say that it looked at me in every star, smiled in 
every calm, breathed in every wind and moved in every storm. 1 

'The slave's predicament, by its very contradictory nature, is impos- 
sible: enlightenment does not bring happiness, nor does it bring 
real freedom . . .' 

He has arrived at a iiue recognition of his condition That 
recognition is at the same time the rejection of that condition. 
Consciousness of alienation entails the absolute refusal to accept 
that alienation. But the slave’s predicament, by its very contradic- 
tory nature, is impossible: enlightenment does not bring happiness, 
nor does it bring real freedom — it brings desolation, misery, i.e., 
as long as the slave does not see a concrete path out of enslavement. 
In speaking of his mistress. Frederick Douglass says: “She aimed 
to keep me ignorant, and I resolved to know, although knowledge 
only increased my misery.” 

Moreover, it is not just his individual condition that the slave 
rejects and thus his misery is not just a result of his individual un- 
freedom, his individual alienation. True consciousness is the re- 
jection of the institution itself and everything which accompanies 
it. “It was slavery and not its mere incidents that I hated.” To 
foreshadow Frederick Douglass 1 path from slavery to freedom, 
even when he attains his own freedom, he does not see the real goal 
as having been attained. It is only with the total abolition of the 
institution of slavery that his misery, his desolation, his alienation 
will be eliminated. And not even then, for there will remain 
remnants and there still remain in existence today the causes which 
gave rise to slavery. 

On this road to freedom, Frederick Douglass experiences 
religion as a reinforcement and justification for his desire to be 
free Out of the Christian doctrine, he deduces the equality of all 
men before God. If this is true, he infers, then slavemasters must 
be defying the will of God by suppressing the will of human beings 
and should be dealt with in accordance with God’s anger. Freedom, 
the abolition of slavery, liberation, the destruction of alienation — 
these notions receive a metaphysical justification and impetus 
through religion. A supernatural being wills the abolition of slavery: 
Frederick Douglass, slave and believer in God, must accomplish 
God’s will by working towards the goal of liberation. 

Douglass was not the only person to infer this from the Chris- 
tian religion. Nat Turner received an important part of his inspira- 
tion from his faith in Christianity. John Brown was another 
example. 



1U 




We all know that from the perspective of white, slave-owning 
society, Christianity was supposed to serve quite another function. 
The overriding idea behind exposing the slaves to religion was to 
provide a metaphysical justification, not for freedom, but rather 
for slavery. 

One of Karl Marx’s more notorious statements is that religion 
is the opium of the people. That is — religion teaches men to be 
satisfied with their condition in this world — with their oppression 
— by directing their hopes and desires into a supernatural domain. 
A little suffering during a person’s existence in this world means 
nothing compared to an eternity of bliss. 

Marcuse likes to point out that we often ignore the fact that 
Karl Marx also said that religion is the wish-dream of an oppressed 
humanity. On the one hand this statement means, of course, that 
wishes become dreams projected into a sphere beyond that over 
which human beings have control— I would say, an imaginary realm 
But on the other hand, we have to ask ourselves: is there anything 
else implied in Marx’s statement about the notion of wish dreams 
of an oppressed humanity. Think for a moment. Real wants, needs 
and desires are transformed into wish-dreams via the process of 
religion, because it seems so hopeless in this world , this is the per- 
spective of an oppressed people. But what is important, what is cru- 
cial is that those dreams are always on the verge of reverting to 
their original status — the real wishes and needs here on earth 
There is always the possibility of redirecting those wish-dreams to 
the here-and-now. 

Frederick Douglass redirected those dreams; Nat Turner 
placed them within the framework of the real world So there can 
be a positive function of religion because its very nature is to satis- 
fy very urgent needs of people who are oppressed. (We are speak- 
ing only of the relation of oppressed people to religion, not attempt- 
ing to analyze the notion of religion in and for itself ) There can be 
a positive function of religion. All that need be done is to say: let’s 
begin to create that eternity of bliss for human society here in this 
world. Let’s convert eternity into history. 

Why is it that more Black people did not shift the emphasis 
from the other world to concrete reality — to history? There was 
a calculated effort on the part of white, slave-owning society to 
create a special kind of religion which would serve their interests, 
which would serve to perpetuate the existence of slavery. Chris- 
tianity was used for the purpose of brainwashing, indoctrinating, 
pacifying 

Kenneth Stampp in his work. The Peculiar Institution, dis- 
cusses extensively the role of religion in creating methods of 



11 




appeasing Black people, of suppressing potential revolt. At first, 
Africans were not converted to Christianity because this may 
have given slaves a claim to freedom. However, the various 
slave-holding colonies passed laws to the effect that Black Chris- 
tians would not automatically become free men by virtue of their 
baptism. Stampp formulates the reasons why it was finally decided 
to let slaves through the sacred doors of Christianity: 

“Through religious instruction, the bondman learned that 
slavery had divine sanction, that insolence was as much an offense 
against God as against the temporal master. They received the 
biblical command that servants should obey their masters and they 
heard of the punishments awaiting the disobedient slave in the 
hereafter. They heard, too, that eternal salvation would be their 
reward for faithful service and that on the day of judgment God 
would deal impartially with the poor and the rich, the black man 
and the white.’ " 

'A very censored version of Christianity was developed for the slaves. 

. . . This use of religion was one of the most violent acts against 
humanity/ 

Thus those passages in the Bible which emphasized obedience, 
humility, pacifism, patience, were presented to the slave as the 
essence of Christianity. Those passages, on the other hand, which 
talked about equality, freedom, the ones which Frederick Douglass 
was able to discover, because, unlike most slaves, he taught him- 
self to read — these were eliminated from the sermons the slave 
heard. A very censored version of Christianity was developed 
especially for the slaves. A pious slave therefore would never hit a 
white man, his master was always right, even when he was by all 
human standards wrong. This use of religion was one of the most 
violent acts against humanity. It was used to teach a group of men 
that they were not men at all, it was used to abolish the last 
remnant of identity which the slave possessed. But, in the long run, 
they were not successful as can be witnessed by Frederick Doug- 
lass, Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, and countless 
others who turned Christianity against the missionaries. The Old 
Testament was particularly helpful for those who planned revolts 
— Children of Israel were delivered out of Bondage in Egypt by 
God — but they fought, they fought in order to carry out the will of 
God. Resistance was the lesson learned from the Bible. 

Frederick Douglass’ reaction to Nat Turner’s revolt is re- 
vealing: “The insurrection of Nat Turner had been quelled, but 
the alarm and terror which it occasioned had not subsided The 



12 




cholera was then on its way to this country, and I remember 
thinking that God was angry with the white people because of their 
slaveholding wickedness, and therefore his judgments were abroad 
in the land. Of course it was impossible for me not to hope much 
for the abolition movement when I saw it supported by the Al- 
mighty, and armed with death/' 

I’d like to end here by pointing to the essence of what I have 
been trying to get across today. The road towards freedom, the 
path of liberation is marked by resistance at every crossroad: 
mental resistance, physical resistance, resistance directed to the 
concerted attempt to obstruct that path. I think we can learn 
from the experience of the slave. We have to debunk the myth 
that Black people were docile and accepting and the extreme 
myth, which by the way I read in my high school history texts 
in Birmingham, Alabama, that Black people actually preferred 
slavery to freedom. If you will begin to get into The Life and Times 
of Frederick Douglass, at the next meeting we can try to continue 
our investigation into the philosophical themes in Black Literature. 



Before 1 continue the discussion of Frederick Douglass, I 
would like to say a few words about the course in general Black 
Studies is a field which has long been neglected in the Universities. 
We are just beginning to fill that vacuum. And we must be very 
careful, because we do not want Black History, Black Literature 
to be relegated to the same stagnant, innocuous, compartmen- 
talized existence as, say, the history of the American Revolution. 

I could talk about Frederick Douglass as if he had the same rele- 
vance as, say, the so-called discovering of America by Columbus. 
History, Literature should not be pieces in a muesum of antiquity, 
especially when they reveal to us problems which continue to exist 
today. The reasons underlying the demands for Black Studies Pro- 
grams are many, but the most important one is the necessity to 
establish a continuum from the past to the present, to discover the 
genesis of problems which continue to exist today, to discover how 
our ancestors dealt with them. We can learn from the philosophi- 
cal as well as concrete experience of the slave. We can learn 
what methods of coming to grips with oppression were historically 
successful and what methods were failures. The failures are 
crucial, because we do not want to be responsible for the repetition 
of history in its brutality. We learn what the mistakes were in 
order not to duplicate them. 



13 




We ought to approach the content in this course not as frozen 
facts, as static, as meaningful only in terms of understanding the 
past. We are talking about philosophical themes, recurring philo- 
sophical themes. Philosophy is supposed to perform the task of gen- 
eralizing aspects of experience, and not just for the sake of formu- 
lating generalizations, of discovering formulas as some of my 
colleagues in the discipline believe. My idea of philosophy is that if 
it is not relevant to human problems, if it does not tell us how we 
can go about eradicating some of the misery in this world, then it is 
not worth the name of philosophy. I think that Socrates made a very 
profound statement when he asserted that the raison d’etre of phil- 
osophy is to teach us proper living. In this day and age “proper 
living” means liberation from the urgent problems of poverty, eco- 
nomic necessity and indoctrination, mental oppression. 



My idea of philosophy is mat ... if it does not tell us how we can 
go about eradicating some of the misery in this world, then it is not 
worth the name of philosophy/ 



Now — let me continue with the course. At our last meeting, I 
attempted to use the first part of Life and Times of Frederick Doug- 
las as the occasion for variations on the salient philosophical 
themes which we encounter in the existence of the slave. The trans- 
formation of the idea of freedom into the struggle for liberation via 
the concept of resistance; this sequence of interdependent themes 
— freedom, liberation, resistance — provides the groundwork for 
the course. Within this structure, we discussed last time the ex- 
tent to which freedom is possible within the limits of slavery. We 
determined that the very existence of the slave is a contradiction: 
he is a man who is not a man, that is, a man who does not possess 
the essential attribute of humanity: freedom. White, slaveholding 
society defines him as an object, as an animal, as property. The 
alienation which is thereby produced as the reality of the slave’s 
existence must surface — it must become conscious, if he is to 
forge a path towards liberation. He must recognize at first the con- 
tradictory nature of his existence and out of that recognition, re- 
jection emerges. We saw that recognition of alienation becomes a 
prerequisite of and entails rejection, resistance. Religion can play 
both a positive and a negative role in that road towards self-knowl- 
edge It can thwart liberation — and this is the express purpose for 
converting the slave — or it can provide powerful assistance as 
was the case in F rederick Douglass’ first experience of religion. 



14 



I’d like to begin today by continuing that discussion of religion. 
Now, we will discover that Frederick Douglass’ interest in and en- 
thusiasm about religion wanes when he apprehends the hypocrisy 
which accompanied it in the thoughts and actions of the slave- 
holder. It is important to recognize that the transition from spirit- 
ual elevation to disillusionment is ushered in by an actual physical 
change in the conditions of Frederick Douglass, slave. During the 
time he developed fervent inclinations toward Christianity as a re- 
sult of his learning to read, he lived in relatively comfortable cir- 
cumstances, that is, if anything can be termed comfortable under 
slavery. His disenchantment occurs when he is forced to live under 
conditions of actual starvation — when he is given to Capt. Thomas 
Auld. 

A critical experience occurs when he observes his brutal and 
sadistic slave master’s conversion to Christianity: “If he has got 
religion, thought I, he will emancipate his slaves. . . . Appealing to 
my own religious experience, and judging my master by what was 
true in my own case, I could not regard him as soundly converted, 
unless some such good results followed his profession of religion.” 

These philosophical inferences from what Douglass took to be 
the essence of Christianity: the demonstration of Christian 
thoughts by Christian deeds are refuted by the master’s subsequent 
conduct. For the oppressed, for the slave, religion serves a quite 
positive purpose: it is a much needed medicine which helps to allay 
suffering and at the same time it is an inverted consciousness of the 
world, projection of real needs and desires into a supernatural 
domain. The slaveholder’s experience of religion as it is exempli- 
fied in the behavior of Capt. Auld has an entirely different texture. 
Religion, for him, is pure ideology which is totally contradictory 
to his real, day-to-day behavior. The slaveholder must constantly 
work to maintain that contradiction; his very existence is based on 
the rigid separation of his real life from his spiritual life. For, if he 
takes the precepts of Christianity seriously, if he applies them to 
his daily life, then he would negate his own existence as an oppres- 
sor of humanity. Auld formulates this himself quite clearly when he 
says: “1 will teach you, young man, that though I have parted with 
my sins, I have not parted with my sense. I shall hold my slaves and 
go to heaven, too.” 

At least on an unconscious level, there must be some aware- 
ness of these contradictions in the mind of the slaveholder. This is 
indicated by an actual sharpening of the contradictions by Auld 
himself. The more intense his religious involvement becomes, the 
more intense becomes his cruelty towards his slaves: “If religion 
had any effect at all on him, it made him more cruel and hateful in 



15 




all ways/’ What we said was an unrelatedness between his religious 
life and his real life becomes a predictable discontinuity. His in- 
creased practice of religion seems to be both an excuse and an ex- 
piation before the fact — of his increased perpetration of misery 
among his slaves. Long and loud prayers and hymns justify long and 
hard flogging, justify outright starvation of the slaves. 

What can we infer from this analysis of the slaveholder’s re- 
lation to religion? As I stilted in the last lecture. Western Society, 
and particularly the era of the rule of the bourgeoisie, has been 
characterized by a gap between theory and practice, particularly 
between freedom as it is developed conceptually and the lack of 
freedom in the real world. 

The fact that somewhere in one of the foundational documents 
of this country, there is the statement that all men are created 
equal and the fact that social and political inequality has never been 
eradicated cannot be regarded as unrelated to the relative non- 
chalance with which Master Auld discusses the gap between his re- 
ligious ideas and his day-to-day precepts. The slaveholder s own 
words reveal to us the brutality which underlies not only his par- 
ticular situation, but that of society in general We sometimes have 
to resort to the most extreme examples in order to uncover veiled 
meanings of the more subtle example. 

Frederick Douglass’ recognition of the contradictions between 
religious ideas and the behavior of his master brings him to a crit- 
ical disposition toward the relevance of religion itself. “Captain 
Auld could pray. I would fain pray; but doubts arising, partly from 
the sham religion which everywhere prevailed, there was awak- 
ened in my mind a distrust of all religion and the conviction that 
prayers were unavailing and delusive.’’ 

Last time we pointed to Marx’s interpretation of the role that 
religion plays in society. I would like to point to some further ob- 
servations he makes concerning religion in the Contribution to the 
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. I think that Marx’s analy- 
sis of religion helps us to understand the state of Frederick Doug- 
lass when he begins to turn away from religion. I quote a passage 
from that work: 

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real 
suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh 
of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and 
the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. 

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a 
demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions 
about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires 
illusions.” 



16 




Frederick Douglass existentially experiences what Marx 
theoretically formulates. He sees through the veil of illusion in ob- 
serving the rather schizophrenic behavior of his master relative to 
his religion and his daily life. It is not insignificant that this en- 
lightenment emerges, as I have indicated before, at a time when 
his physical suffering becomes practically unbearable. We can 
infer that in seeing through the hypocrisy of his master, he attains a 
certain self-consciousness, self-knowledge. The master becomes 
a mirror of his own past escape. Situated in relative comfort, he 
had the luxury to think in metaphysical categories. Now he must 
come face to face with the absolute necessity to eradicate, to 
destroy his suffering. “Religion, Marx says, is only the illusory sun 
about which man revolves so long as he does not revolve about him- 
self.” 

'Frederick Douglass . . . saw the necessity to cancel out illusions, in 
order to transform the real world, in order to arrive at a total com- 
mitment to resist oppression/ 

Frederick Douglass gathers the courage to resist the slave- 
breaker to whom he is sent for domestication, for taming, the 
slave-breaker who is infinitely more brutal than any of his previous 
masters; he finds this courage when he is able to free himself of his 
religion: he says on this occasion, “my hands were no longer tied 
by my religion/’ 

So we find that the role of religion during the era of slavery is 
not homogenous: it is extremely complex. The function of religion 
continually reverts from one extreme to the other. No one formula 
can suffice. If we saw at the last meeting that religion can play a 
positive role, now we are uncovering the detrimental aspects, how 
it suppressed the slave in the person of the slave holder, how it pro- 
vided internal control and thus how it must often be transcended in 
order for real change to take place. Religious leaders of slave re- 
volts found inspiration in religion, they found courage in it. Fred- 
erick Douglass, at this point in his life, as well as countless other 
people, saw the necessity to cancel out illusions in order to trans- 
form the real world, in order to arrive at a total commitment to 
resist oppression. 

I concur with Marx that one must overcome religion in order 
to regain one’s reason, that the sigh of the oppressed creature in 
order to become an effective protest against oppression, must be 
articulated and acted upon in a political context. Yet. I do not deny 
that to a certain extent, the illusory nature of religion may well be 
transcended within the limits of religion — I gave Nat Turner, 



17 



Denmark Vesey, Gabriel Prosser as examples last time. By the 
way, someone brought to my attention that I did not mention any 
women among these examples. I was not on my toes. The accom- 
plishments of Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and many others 
can never be overestimated. 

I would like to leave the discussion of religion now — perhaps 
we will take it up again at a further point in the life of Frederick 
Douglass. I would like to continue to develop the notion of aliena- 
tion and how the slave experiences the world and history. We said 
that the extreme formulation of the slave’s alienation is his exist- 
ence as property, as capital, as money. There is a relatively long 
quotation I would like to take the time to read, because I feel it 
epitomizes by its very concreteness the notion of alienation. 

“I am, thought I, but the sport of a power which makes no ac- 
count either of my welfare or of my happiness. By a law which I 
can comprehend, but cannot evade or resist, I am ruthlessly 
snatched away from the hearth of a fond grandmother and hurried 
away to the home of a mysterious old master; again I am removed 
from there to a master in Baltimore; thence am I snatched away to 
the Eastern Shore to be valued with the beasts of the field, and with 
them divided and set apart for a possessor; then 1 am sent back to 
Baltimore, and by the time I have formed new attachments and 
have begun to hope that no more rude shocks shall touch me, a dif- 
ference arises between brothers, and I am again broken up and sent 
to St Michaels; and now from the latter place I am footing my way 
to the home of another master, where, 1 am given to understand, 
like a wild young working animal I am to be broken to the yoke of 
a bitter and lifelong bondage.” 

For the slave, the world appears as a hostile network of cir- 
cumstances which continually are to his disadvantage History is 
experienced as a cluster of chance events, accidental occurrences 
which, though far beyond his control, act in a way that is usually 
detrimental to his personal life. A trivial quarrel between brothers 
is enough to wreak and mutiliate the slave’s life — Frederick Doug- 
lass is brought back to the plantation of his real owner, one who is 
infinitely more sadistic than the brother with whom he had been 
living, as a result of such a banal disagreement. 

Yesterday one of the white students in the class came to 
my office and wanted to know how 1 was going to conduct the 
course. He asked whether or not I was going to limit the course 
to the philosophical experiences of the slave, of the Black man 
in society, or whether 1 was going to talk about people. Now, 
aside from the fact that slaves and Black people are people, 



18 



there is something in my mind which I think you should be 
aware of— and it is not unrelated to what I was just saying 
about alienation. Oppressed people are forced to come to grips 
with immediate problems every day, problems which have a 
philosophical status and are relevant to all people. One such 
problem is that of alienation. It is my opinion that most people 
living in Western society today are alienated, alienated from 
themselves, from society. To provide an objective demonstration 
of this would require some discussion, and if you like, we 
can take this up in one of the discussion periods. The point 



'Oppressed people are forced to come to grips with immediate prob- 
lems every day, problems which have a philosophical status and 
are relevant to all people/ 



is that the slave, the black man, the chicano and oppressed 
whites are much more aware of alienation, perhaps not as a 
philosophical concept, but as a fact of their daily existence. The 
slave, for example, experiences that alienation as the continual 
hostility of all his daily surroundings. During the era of slavery, 
I suppose it was common opinion that the slave was in bondage 
and the white man was free, the slave was non- or sub-human 
and the white man was the apex of humanity. Again, let us take 
a look at the extreme example of the white man in slaveholding 
society— the slave-breaker. There is something which I think we 
might call the concept of the slave-breaker and we can unfold 
this concept according to the concrete behavior of Covey, the 
Negro-breaker under whose authority Frederick Douglass lives 
fora year. 

Now, what do we mean by the concept of the slave-breaker? 
His existence is the sine qua non of slavery, an indispensable 
fact for the perpetuation of slavery. At the same time, the slave- 
breaker finds himself almost on the margin of slavery, the last 
barrier between physical enslavement and physical liberation. 
He is the one designated to tame impudent slaves, slaves who 
refuse to accept for themselves the definition which society has 
imposed upon them. He must break, destroy the human being in 
the slave before it succeeds in upsetting the whole balance 
present in the system of slavery. His instrument is violence. 
He does violence to the body in order to break the will Not 
only continual whipping, but work, labor not fit for a beast of 
burden were the manifestations of that violence. 



19 




“1 was whipped, either with sticks or cowskins, every week. 
Aching bones and a sore back were my constant companions. 
Frequently as the lash was used, Mr. Covey thought less of it as 
a means of breaking down my spirit than that of hard and con- 
tinued labor. He worked me steadily up to the point of my 
powers of endurance. From the dawn of day in the morning till 
the darkness was complete in the evening, 1 was kept hard at 
work in the fields or the woods. 0 

One of the lessons we can learn from the dialectical method 
is that in the process of functioning in the world, man under- 
goes changes himself which are consonant with his actions. That 
is, man cannot perform a task in the world without himself be- 
ing affected by that performance. Now, what does this mean for 
Covey, the Negro-breaker? His task is to mutilate the humanity 
of the slave. The question we must ask ourselves is whether he 
can perform that task without mutilating his own humanity. We 
ought to be able to infer, from the answer to this question, what 
happened to the humanity of the white man in general during the 
era of slavery. 

We don’t have to engage in any unnecessary philosophizing in 
order to answer that question. Frederick Douglass says it out- 
right. he calls the slave-breaker by his name. 

“His plan was never to approach in an open, manly and 
direct manner the spot where his hands were at work. No thief 
was ever more artful in his devices than this man Covey. He 
would creep and crawl in ditches and gullies, hide behind 
stumps and bushes, and practice so much of the cunning of the 
serpent, that Bill Smith and I, between ourselves, never called 
him by any other name than the snake? ” 

Who is the non-human here? Who lowers himself to the 
depths? Aside from the Biblical imagery of the serpent as the 
representative of evil, the image of the snake, his very posture, 
crawling around on the ground, is symbolic and revealing. In 
order to induce the slaves to labor, the slave-breaker lies, he is 
forced to lie, he is inhuman and is forced to be inhuman. He 
takes on the characteristics of the very task he sees himself as 
performing. I would go so far as to say that he is even more 
profoundly affected than the slave, for the slaves can see what is 
occurring— he is aware of the fact that there is an external power 
dedicated to the suppression of the slave’s basic human exist- 
ence. He sees it, feels it, hears it in every act of the slave- 
breaker. 



20 




The slave-breaker on the other hand is unaware of the change 
he himself is undergoing as a result of his sadistic actions: 

“♦ . . with Mr. Covey, trickery was natural. Everything in the 
shape of learning or religion which he possessed was made to 
conform to this semi-lying propensity. He did not seem con- 
scious that the practice had anything unmanly, base or con- 
temptible about it.” 

This tendency towards unconscious self-annihilation was not 
confined to the slave-breaker, to those who stood at the bound- 
aries of slavery in order to maintain those boundaries. These 
characteristics were direct results of the system itself and 
could be attributed to slave-holders in general. This is indicated 
in two passages: 

“Mean and contemptible as all this is, it is in keeping with 
the character which the life of a slaveholder was calculated to 
produce.” 

And in referring to the naturalness of Mr. Covey’s trickery 
and inclination to lie, Frederick Douglass says: 

“It was with him a part of an important system essential to 
the relation of master and slave.” 

Let’s continue to discuss this relation of master and slave 
and its effects on the master. As we were saying, the master is 
thought to be free, independent, the slave is thought to be un- 
free, dependent. The freedom and independence of the master, 
if we look at it philosophically, is a myth It is one of those 
myths which, I was saying at the last session, we have to 
uncover in order to reach the real substance behind it. How 
could the master have been independent when it is the very 
institution of slavery which provided his wealth, which provided 
his means of sustenance? The master was dependent on the 
slave, dependent for his life on the slave. 

'The independence of the master ... is based on his dependence on 
the slave. If the slave were not there . . . the master would not be 
free from the necessities of life/ 

In the Phenomonology of Mind, Hegel discusses the dialectical 
relationship between the slave and the master. He states, among 
other things, that the master in reaching a consciousness of his own 
condition, must become aware that his very independence is based 
on his dependence on the slave. This might sound a bit contradic- 
tory, but, then dialectics is based on discoverying the contradic- 
tions in phenomena which can alone amount for their existence. 
Reality is through and through permeated with contradictions. 



21 




Without those contradictions, there would be no movement, no 
process, no activity. I don't want to go off on a theoretical tangent 
about dialectics, so let us get back to the slave and the master and 
see the dialectical relationship as it is actually practiced in reality. 
The independence of the master, we were saying, is based on his 
dependence on the slave. If the slave were not there to till the land, 
to build his estates, to serve him his meals, the master would not 
be free from the necessities of life. If he had to do all the things 
which the slave does for him, he would be just as much in a state of 
bondage as the slave. Only, the slave is the buffer-zone, and in 
this sense, the slave is somewhat of a master — it is the slave who 
possesses the power over the life of the master: if he does not work, 
when he ceases to follow orders, the master’s means of sustaining 
himself has disappeared. 

So, at this point we can make the following statement — and I 
hope it is clear. The master is always on the verge of becoming the 
slave and the slave possesses the real, concrete power to make him 
always on the verge of becoming the master. 

1 don’t want this to sound like a whole lot of philosophical word 
games. Sometimes, when one reads Hegel, one has the impression 
that this is what he is doing— playing with our minds: things are 
themselves, but they are constantly becoming other than them- 
selves, they are constantly becoming their own contradictions. 

I think 1 can demonstrate the truth of the proposition that the 
master is always on the verge of becoming the slave and the slave 
is always on the verge of becoming the master Let’s look at what 
I think is the most crucial passage in the Life and Times of Fred- 
erick Douglass. It can be found in Chapter 17 — ‘The Last Flog- 
ging.’’ Frederick Douglass has just had the harrowing experience 
of being driven to work until the point when he physically collapses. 
At this point he has been broken — mentally his will is gone. Covey, 
refusing to accept his illness as a valid excuse for failure to con- 
tinue, beats him while he is lying on the ground unable to move. 
Frederick Douglass decides to return to his master, but, finding no 
form of compassion in the reaction of his master, returns. Fortu- 
nately, i! is on a Sunday when he finally reaches the slave-breaker’s 
house and because of his devoutness, Mr. Covey does not beat him 
— or, as Sandy, a slave who has helped Frederick Douglass would 
like us to believe, Mr Covey does not beat him as a result of the 
magical powers of an herb which he has given him. At any rate, the 
slave breaker does not enter into the person of Mr. Covey until after 
the Sabbath is over. Instinctively, unconsciously, Frederick Doug- 
lass fights back when the slave-breaker attempts to beat him : 



22 



“I do not know; at any rate, I was resolved to fight, and what 
was better still, I actually was hard at it. The fighting madness had 
come upon me, and I found my strong fingers firmly attached to 
the throat of the tyrant, as heedless of consequences, at that very 
moment, as if we stood as equals before the law. The very color of 
the man was forgotten. ” 

What is the reaction of Mr. Covey? One would think that be- 
cause, after all he is the master, he is white, he would have no 
problems conquering a sixteen-year-old boy. The slave-breaker, 
who has the reputation of being able to tame the wild-animal slaves 
from all around, trembles and calls for help: 4, He was frightened, 
and stood puffing and blowing, seemingly unable to command 
words or blows. ” He unsuccessfully calls upon a slave who is not 
under his authority, for aid. He eventually attempts to command 
his own slave, a woman, to conquer Frederick. She refuses, and he 
is left helpless. 

We have to ask ourselves what is happening here Covey is 
certainly physically strong enough to overpower Frederick. Why 
is he unable to cope with that unexpected resistance? That act of 
open resistance challenges his very identity. He is no longer the 
recognized master, the slave no longer recognizes himself as slave. 
The roles have been reversed. And think about this as a concrete 
example of that proposition I put forth earlier — that the master is 
always on the verge of becoming the slave and the slave is always 
on the verge of becoming the master. Here, it has happened. 
Covey implicitly recognizes the fact that he is dependent on the 
slave, not only in a material sense, not only for the production of 
wealth, but also for the affirmation of his own identity. The fact 
that he appeals to all the slaves around him to help him overpower 
Frederick indicates that he is dependent on that affirmation of his 
authority — they all reject it and he is left in a vacuum — alienated 
from himself. This has the effect of sapping whatever physical 
strength he may have needed in order to win the battle. 

After having obviously lost the battle, with no substantial basis 
for his < . n identity, his own role, he nonetheless attempts to reas- 
sert N authority with this impotent and hypocritical statement: 

4 4 4 No\v ou scoundrel, go to your work; I would not have whipped 
you hall i hard if you had not resisted.’ . . . The fact was, he had 
not whr ‘d me at all He had not, in all the scuffle, drawn a single 
drop * f Mood from me. I had drawn blood from him.’’ 

Cov< y never again attempted to whip him. This incident. 
Fredcrh Douglass describes as the turning point in his life as a 
slave 



23 



Next week we will analyze that incident from the perspective 
of the change produced in him, in the slave. It is not just the bad guy 
who undergoes the change in his nature as a result of the acts he 
performs. Since we are primarily concerned here with freedom and 
the prospect of liberation, we will attempt an extensive analysis of 
that event at the next lecture. 



24