Labeling is the act of grouping everything into an easy subdivision. While labeling often has positive, or at least neutral, effects on society, labels can often be used to attack a specific group. These labels can then be used as undesirable lumpings-a person does not wish to do anything which would incur others in the society to group them with said undesirable label. In his Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Frederick Douglass speaks of a society which enslaves its fellow human beings and thinks it to be of no consequence. His attack is aimed directly at the vil of slavery, and the evil of the system which keeps slavery in place.
In Narrative, Douglass deals with the negative effects of labeling and labeling’s affect on necessary action. The label every white person fears is abolitionist. (Abolitionists are those who desired emancipation of all slaves. ) Many nineteenth century Southerners felt slavery was integral to their way of life. Therefore, abolitionists do not oppose slavery, in the Southern mind, but a Southern way of life. This practice of using the label of an undesirable group to quell dissenters and whip up public outrage hardly dies with slavery.
Currently, the word terrorist (or terrorist helper, or something to that extent) is thrown at anyone who questions President Bush’s stratagems. In Narrative, Douglass goes to work for a Mr. Gardner’s shipyard. Douglass is beaten nearly to death by a group of white apprentices. This occurred in the sight “of not less than fifty white ship-carpenters, and not one interposed a friendly word; but some cried, ‘Kill the damned nigger! Kill him! kill him! He struck a white person” (Chapter X). When Douglass’s master seeks justice, the police claim their hands are tied unless a white person comes forward.
Douglass notes: Of course, it was impossible to get any white man to volunteer his testimony in my behalf, and against the white young men. Even those who may have sympathized with me were not prepared to do this. It required a degree of courage unknown to them to do so; for just at that time, the slightest manifestation of humanity toward a colored person was denounced as abolitionism, and that name subjected its bearer to frightful liabilities.
The watch-words of the bloody-minded in that region, and in those days, were, “Damn the abolitionists! and “Damn the niggers! There was nothing done, and probably nothing would have been done if I had been killed. (Chapter X). To come forward in this situation is far from abolitionism. Wishing to see justice for someone beaten by numerous men does not constitute the desire to see all slaves, or even the victim, freed from bondage. In fact, Douglass establishes the ability of slaveholders to object to abject cruelty, even though he has himself is cruel: “[Overseer Plummer] Halways went armed with a cowskin and a heavy cudgel.
I have known him to cut and slash the women’s heads so horribly, that even master would be enraged at is cruelty, and would threaten to whip him if he did not mind himself” (Chapter I). In this way, Douglass recognizes abolitionism and objection to excess violence are not paired feelings. This emphasizes the affect of being called abolitionist. One can assume some of the men are uncomfortable by Douglass’s beating.
However, Douglass forces an understanding of the fear speaking up and being lumped with abolitionists, because “the watch-words… ere… Damn the abolitionists! ” Public ridicule is certainly a part of being abolitionist in the South, but the ridicule is only part of the public pressure. A non- abolitionist understands that to be an abolitionist is to represent a group which is contestable to the Southern way of life. Being accused of abolitionism is to be accused of being un-Southerly-a disgrace no Southern man can tolerate. It is difficult to imagine abolitionist being a dirty word. Most American students are raised to treasure the word.
Abolitionists are American heroes, they braved society norms because they knew slavery was wrong. To understand how the Southern whites viewed the word abolitionist, an example needs to be made from contemporary history. Ever since the tragic events of September 11th, the word terrorist has floated around as a penultimate insult. It is the group to which no person wants to belong. However, this does not stop society from clumping those who dissent from the majority as being labeled terrorist. Conservatives attack liberals as terrorists.
The Conservative infrastructure seems to have somehow created a situation where a person either supports our President and his war on terror or supports terrorism. Conservative writer Ann Coulter constantly creates the tie between liberal and terrorist. At times, she actually claims being a liberal is more contemptible than being a terrorist: “Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now” (Coulter, Slander p. 6).
Ignore the numerous factual inadequacies and racisms in Coulter’s writing, and her lack of an assertion as to just who these America-hating liberals are. She, along with Rush Limbaugh (conservative talk-show host), Sean Hannity (conservative Fox News pundit), and others, have managed to tie liberalism with terrorism. Much of the American public has taken to this idea. Numerous message boards and internet blogs echo this “liberal as terrorist” viewpoint. “Mikey” from Polipundit. com responds to a liberal comment, “SOrta [sic] like the terrorists that the [liberal commentators] so admire.
“MyVitriol” at community. channel4. com writes, “The Israelis don’t play the victim when attacked, that’s [sic] what the Palastinians [sic] and Hizzbullah [sic] etc [sic] do. The Israelis stand up for themselves. But the liberal terrorist apologists [sic] prefer to call it dissproportionate [sic] esponse [sic] these days. ” (Both these message boards are found by searching “terrorist AND liberal” on Google. com). Both “Mikey” and “MyVitriol” imply similarities between terrorist and liberal.
The more this idea of the Liberal/Terrorist is expounded, the more it will be bought into. I wonder if any people in highly conservative communities choose not to speak up over issues such as abortion or the Iraq War for fear of being labeled Liberal/Terrorist, exactly the situation of the carpenters. However, it needs to be mentioned conservatives are not the only group hrowing around the moniker of Terrorist. Recently, the nation of Israel went to war with the group called Hezbollah. Hezbollah is regarded internationally as a terrorist organization.
However, Hezbollah is deeply connected to the community of Lebanon. Israel’s war against Hezbollah invariably affected innocent Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah, without the armament to fight Israel traditionally, resorts to suicide bombings and random mortar attacks against Israeli civilians. Each side declared the actions of the other side as acts of terrorism. Israel claimed Hezbollah’s ctions are those of a traditional terrorist (scare tactics aimed at civilians), and Hezbollah declared Israel terrorist through the use of negligent, random, military might.
Both sides attempt to garner international sympathy through the invocation of terrorism. This is a great example of a label being used to condemn dissenting action, even though it happened at a national, and not social, level. “Terrorist” has become a negative buzz word nearly devoid of all meaning. This is exactly what abolitionist is in Narrative. A negative buzz word. Someone who is pro-choice and anti-death penalty has little in ommon with someone who hijacks planes and drives them into buildings.
However, this does not stop the comparison from being made. Stopping someone from getting beaten half to death no way implies a desire to end a social status quo. Yet, the comparison is made. I am not implying a terrorist is the same as an abolitionist, yet I am asserting the words carried the same connotation, just 150 years apart. Douglass is claiming this fear of ridicule through a label prevents justice. To Douglass, inaction is immoral. The buzz word of abolitionist forces inaction, and is a part of the system which keeps slavery intact.
