Who really needs justice? Frederick Douglas knew!

Frederick Douglas once stated in the work Reconstruction that even though there were changes as the result of work by those with interest in helping freedmen, these changes did “not reach the difficulty, and cannot, unless the whole structure of the government is changed from a government by States to something like a despotic central government, with power to control even the municipal regulations of States, and to make them conform to its own despotic will.”  Forthwith, it should be duly noted that despotism is thought generally to be a negative type of government, and this seemed though the way toward making sure the federal mandates would be the “law of the land.”  These are concerns of an earlier period. Still, the same principles apply to the situation whereby “nations” (like formerly states) are thought to limit worldwide changes for social justice. This argument has significance to the worldwide stage of freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.  Once again, the idea of "nation" is in the middle of the supposed fight between freedoms versus justice, tearing present political systems apart. Douglas asserted that if the right of each individual state is given credence, then “no general assertion of human rights can be of any practical value”   The question is not so much whether this philosophical or abolitionist position applies today in any particular constitutionally driven country.  To focus on that as a problem is to miss a more significant point about whether there is room in our minds for a new world order which eliminates nations from determining their own constitutional laws or laws as these nations deem fit.  Douglas was a brilliant man who significantly affected the abolition of many evil works and systems in the United States. His legacy has freed many people.

In the opinion of Booker T Washington, African American people could become “dependent on the government”  This is stated in his elaborations in Up From Slavery, where he discussed the education and advancement of black people who could get jobs in office but ended up in poverty. This seems to be evidence that Washington, DC, is not a very helpful place to be employed. On the world stage these days, though, there is a lot of world rule movement in the beltway.

Former leader(s) stay(s) there to continue their influence on the world stage. This is evidence that there is a significant influence of ideologies, including Parsee culture and ethnicity, whose ideology pushes the envelope with dualistic thought.  In this culture and religion, a divisive element promotes one side against another.  In the recent call for unity by certain leaders, the apparent push is for disunity. Their purity vs. impurity ideas, their wealth, and historical political power in the East introduce reasons that are of interest to Western society’s call for fluidity.  The influence of Zoroastrian ideas on Western culture will be interesting to watch over the next few decades. As one can see, there are popular figures and leaders from that culture who have a history of being perceived as savvy. This plays into what Edward Said called Orientalism, i.e., the term he invented to define negative perceptions; leaders in academics and policymakers could make decisions that Western society has taken thousands of years to establish. Sorry, went on a rant.

It is easy to characterize political figures, so I digress. It is the place of the Left to push a narrative of inequality as far as it can. Still, that superficiality, call it intersectionality or whatever, does not guarantee the changes being seen. The “notions” of equity and inclusion are being enforced on the minds of everyone, given the idea that certain peoples are underrepresented when they are not. There are the poor, yes, but poverty is not in favor of any type of person at this point in history.  The poor are all over the earth, and will we care for them, or will we continue to foster a sense of dualism, dividing our world so that the elite continue to rule.  We need more insightful people like Frederick Douglas and Booker T Washington, who see the real problems of the underrepresented and do not follow the directive of the elites. The poor, homeless, and the ill need attention, not the angry, entitled throng.