You are quoting a man who was a former slave. You do realize that. If you are not conscientious enough to understand his frustration when writing this, then I would suggest you throw yourself a bone and try practicing a lil empathy. If you were tormented and harassed beyond the very fiber that holds you together as sentient being you would want your opressor to leave you the hell alone as well.
I have been in situations where either my "betters" or "tormentors" spent significant time imposing their ideas upon my particular circumstances. I can empathize with with what Douglass is saying, but I think the two of us disagree not on the likely emotional state of Douglass when he said this statement, but on the substantiative content of the statement itself.
According to the literal text of this statement, Douglass is asking for the chance for blacks to prove their worth, RATHER THAN asking for help.
If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.
Douglas explicitly advocates against "tying or fastening them on the tree in any way," a statement from which I assume he advocates against the ministrations of well-meaning people towards the black population of his time. It is because of the history of this particular era that I think this advocation against assistance is so compelling.
By the way PN you are certainly a formidable opponent with regards to this debate, but I honestly think further dialogue would be better left exercised vocally. I would welcome my future law school to have such a debate. That is of course after we debate more pressing moral issues that affect the very livelihood of mankind (i.e. suspending habeus corpus, spying on law abiding citizens, incompetence & indolence of rebuilding new orleans, occupying a foreign territory, voter intimidation and ballot fraud) . Pardon my sarcasm, but I think debate on AA should be the last item eaten when we set down at the round table for the great meal of morality and injustice.
Well, I'm not sure what any of the things you mention have to do with what Frederick Douglass said.
FWIW, in inflation-adjusted dollars, more money has been poured into New Orleans than was poured into all of Europe via the Marshall plan.
I will only respond to the katrina comment. You are absolutely positively correct. We have spent a total of 127 billion dollars on katrina which is about 40 billion more than we spent on the marshall plan. the gross gdp of new orleans is only 141 billion. It seems only about 25 billion or so went to sources for which we can modestly account (army core engineers, housing relief) the rest went to subsidiaries of haliburton and other large firms which by the way have a "labor" work force made up entirely of illegals.
In other words, the money went to the only companies that could efficiently do the work, with no actual connections to the administration, and they did so on an efficient basis. (The idea their work force, labor or otherwise, is make up entirely of illegals is patently false.)
I don't know how far you lean to the right, but you and i know there has been a gross mismanagement of katrina relief. Whatsmore, is it has been done under neocon leadership.
Well, let's be grateful it was done under neocon leadership -- there obviously would have been far more waste and mismanagement under "liberal" leadership, which is generally more concerned with spreading wealth around to political supporters than actually accomplishing anything.
All government action is inefficient and wasteful -- liberal action is simply exponentially worse, because they don't even try to be efficient, and have no idea how to actually accomplish anything at all in the real world.
dear brother lindberg you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. as someone who has worked for both bechtel, halliburton, and centex as a project engineer I can assure you that the labor force is indeed prodiminantly illegal. i will gladly say that the project management is made up almost entirely of university educated americans, but the those individuals doing survey work, nailing the two by fours and all other rudimentary engineering tasks are almost entirely illegal. Let me be fair. Hell, the entire general contacting, construction project management and civil engineering industry uses illegals as the majority labor force. This should be nothing new to you.
And halliburton is not the only contractor that can do the work, certainly you don't believe that. There is nothing particularly unique about the environment (such would be the case with california, iraq..israel...nevada) that would require halliburton's specialties. I can throw you a bone with Iraq, but as someone who has worked for them and received a formal education in construction management i think your comments are a little short sighted.
everyone knows cheney still has ties with halliburton don't be naivehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml
additionally, new orleans has been traditionally democratic but at the state level louisiana was, is and always will be a red state. you and i both know that.