# data[].attributes.body
Donald Trump's Rhetoric

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Sunday, someone decided to perpetrate a senseless and deplorable act of political terrorism. They firebombed a North Carolina GOP office and defaced a nearby building with a Swastika and anti-Republican graffiti. The response to this act draws stark lines between the possible outcomes of this election.

Donald Trump's response to this craven act should take every single rational human being aback. He not only lied about the possible motive by claiming it was due to his "winning"(he is clearly losing in nearly every national poll), he blamed the violence on his opponent, and all Democrats, without proof -- after dehumanizing them.

It is the dehumanizing part that is most troubling. Once you get to the point on dehumanizing "the enemy," the next step is unrestrained violence without guilt. In this case, it is important that we realize that words have the power to do this. Words are how we frame our thoughts, and how we think about others is how we treat them. Trump is finally going there.

From " Less Than Human: The Psychology of Cruelty" by David Livingstone Smith:

Thinking sets the agenda for action, and thinking of humans as less than human paves the way for atrocity. The Nazis were explicit about the status of their victims. They were Untermenschen - subhumans - and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together. It's wrong to kill a person, but permissible to exterminate a rat. To the Nazis, all the Jews, Gypsies and others were rats: dangerous, disease-carrying rats.

After that initial tweet, Trump made sure to show his concern for the "people," a message of unification and a rallying cry against the enemy.

His language was carefully chosen: he did not say "all Democrats are animals." He said, "animals representing" and then directly linked them to his opponent and every Democrat anyway. This distinction must be made because it allows him to downplay the implications of his words while his acolytes here the dog whistle clear as a bell.

It is hard to see Trump's divisive rhetoric as anything but a clear attempt to dehumanize his opponent and everyone that disagrees with him.

It is even easier to see, perhaps, when the Democrat's response to the same tragedy is shown. Hillary Clinton immediately ( as in about an hour before Trump's tweet) condemned the actions as "horrific and unacceptable."

Following the national attention, Democrats would crowdfund over $13,000 dollars to help reopen the damaged office in less than 6 hours because that is who we are. We may fight over policy, we may disagree about laws and immigration, but when there is a tragedy we do not dehumanize other Americans to galvanize a political base. We leave that sort of nonsense to Republicans.

Trump is playing a dangerous game here and he's going to get people killed with his self-aggrandizing demagoguing. Let's hope he can held accountable for the first time in his life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump's "Animal" Rhetoric Is The Kind Of Hate Speech That Will Lead To More Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Sunday, someone decided to perpetrate a senseless and deplorable act of political terrorism. They firebombed a North Carolina GOP office and defaced a nearby building with a Swastika and anti-Republican graffiti. The response to this act draws stark lines between the possible outcomes of this election.

# data[].attributes.body
Basssem Youssef on Trump and Syrian Refugees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Speaking to CNN, Youssef slammed those who spread "propaganda" that encourages what he said is the "systematic dehumanization" of refugees.

"This kind of rhetoric --- spreading fear and suspicion against the other -- is not something new. We're used to it in the Middle East," Youssef said. "You always need something to hold on to, an enemy to direct your hatred to, to cover up your incompetence and cover up your failure."

One year ago Friday, a photo of the body of 3-year-old Syrian toddler Alan Kurdi went viral. Kurdi, who escaped Kobane, Syria, with his family, died and was washed ashore on a Turkish beach after a boat carrying refugees sank in the Mediterranean Sea.

The image galvanized the debate over the world's role in aiding Syrian refugees, and has risen to the fore of American politics, as Trump has vowed to send them back from the US to the war-torn nation if he's elected president.

Youssef, who knows firsthand what it's like to be an immigrant, is now diving into American politics and satirizing American democracy in "The Democracy Handbook," a web-based show on Fusion, where he seeks to give Americans a Middle Eastern perspective on US politics and challenge mainstream perspectives on the Arab and Muslim world.

"I can't even being to express my sorrow and sadness towards those people," Youssef said. "(Leaving their countries) is not a luxury thing for them. This is out of necessity, out of survival."

Youssef urged Trump and those who oppose refugees "to look at them as human" and "understand their sorrow and their agony."

"It is this systematic dehumanization of the other is why we have a negative outlook on refugees," he added.

A message left with Trump's campaign was not immediately returned Friday afternoon.

A target himself

"Tickling Giants," a documentary that premiered at the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival, chronicles Youssef's journey.

The heart surgeon turned political satirist hosted the Egyptian TV program "Al-Bernameg," which means "The Program" in Arabic. The show was inspired by Stewart's "Daily Show" and both Stewart and Youssef made special guest appearances on the others' shows.

In early 2011, when the Arab Spring came to Egypt, thousands rallied in Tahrir Square, where protests led to the ousting of longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Youssef, a longtime critic of the Egyptian government, quickly became a thorn in the side of the Egyptian government.

His show criticized the administration of Muslim Brotherhood-backed President Mohamed Morsy, addressed social taboos and used humor to call out authorities for undemocratic practices.

"I had my share of problems under the Muslim Brotherhood regime and the regime that followed and we ended up being interrogated, jammed, taken off the air once, jammed again, taken off the air twice," Youssef said.

In 2013, Youssef was accused of insulting Islam and Egypt and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was later released on bail.

But following intense pressure from the government, Youssef abruptly announced the suspension of the show in June 2014.

Fearing for his own safety and his family's, Youssef left Egypt and moved to the United States.

"Satire is very strong, especially in the face of fear and propaganda because it dissects trough their lies and nonsense, and it give people a more objective view of what's happening," Youssef said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
bassem youssef slams trump 'dehumanization' of syrian refugees - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Video by Alex Lee and Story by Deena Zaru, CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bassem Youssef slams refugee 'dehumanization'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One year ago a heartbreaking photo of the body of 3-year-old Syrian toddler Alan Kurdi went viral. Kurdi, who escaped Kobane, Syria with his family, was found dead and washed ashore on a Turkish beach after a boat carrying refugees sank in the Mediterranean Sea.

# data[].attributes.body
Trump on Muslims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A non-Muslim friend of mine tweeted: "This literally made me cry."

Another tweeted: "I Will Stand Up For Muslim Citizens Because I Want Help When The GOP Come For ME."

Shockingly, Trump told Yahoo News that he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database, or worse, mandating that they carry special identification cards that note their faith.

The reaction to this idea, fairly or unfairly, by many on social media, was to accuse Trump of wanting to mimic laws that Nazis had imposed on Jews, including requiring them to wear a gold Star of David on their clothes.

After Trump confirmed that he would set up a database for Muslim-Americans, an NBC reporter asked him point blank: "Is there a difference between requiring Muslims to register and Jews in Nazi Germany?" A clearly annoyed Trump at first refused to respond, but then told the reporter, "You tell me," and walked away.

Just so it's clear, Trump did not suggest that Muslim-Americans should be required to wear a symbol that would visibly identify them as Muslims, such as a gold crescent. (On the other hand, he did not rule it out.) But the Nazis do offer guidance on the practical impact of laws that target a religious minority. As The Holocaust Center notes on its website, the Nazi-era laws that required Jews to publicly identify their faith was "one of many psychological tactics aimed at isolating and dehumanizing the Jews of Europe, directly marking them as being different (i.e., inferior) to everyone else."

There's no doubt that making Muslims carry special religious identity cards or having to register with the government sends a clear message to other Americans that Muslims are different. That we, simply because of our faith, are less than fully American. I shudder to think where this may lead.

But Trump was not done in painting the hellish nightmare that awaits Muslims, and our country, if he's elected president. The GOP frontrunner explained that he was open to wholesale surveillance of Muslim-Americans and warrantless searches of mosques. He even praised past NYPD policies that spied on the New York City Muslim community as "great," despite the reality that this controversial program did not yield any leads or arrests. This means that under a Trump administration, Muslims would have fewer rights than other Americans simply because of our faith, which is no different than advocating for racial profiling of blacks or Latinos.

And Trump then doubled down on his recent proclamation that he was open to shutting down American mosques, noting he'd have "absolutely no choice" if "some bad things happen" in a mosque. Consequently, if two or three people in a mosque of say 500 did "bad things," the entire mosque would be shuttered. It would be as outrageous as closing down a mega church because two or three members firebombed an abortion clinic. Our system of justice punishes specific wrongdoers, not all who simply share the same faith or race of a criminal.

To be blunt, these ideas by Trump on how to deal with Muslims aren't original. They are very much akin to the ones anti-Muslim bigots have advocated in the past. Those people we can dismiss. But when the front-runner for a major political party starts parroting those alarming proposals, it's time that we all take notice.

Trump has shown us in this campaign that he has no qualms about stoking the flames of hatred for minorities in his quest for power. He has already done this to the Latino community with his despicable comments that Mexico is sending us "rapists" and other criminals.

So it's not surprising that Trump would use Muslim-bashing to score points because it plays well with GOP voters. In fact, a poll released earlier this week found that three-quarters of Republicans believe Islam is "at odds" with American values.

Regardless of why Trump is espousing these policies, his words must be bringing joy to ISIS. As I learned firsthand at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism earlier this year, ISIS hopes that Muslims in the West are demonized and discriminated against. Indeed, ISIS' operatives made that very point on social media after the Paris attack, expressing their hope that Muslims in Western countries would be victims of hate crimes.

Why? It's simple: ISIS hopes that when Muslims in the West are demonized, they will become alienated from the country in which they live. ISIS operatives believe then that their recruitment pitch that the West is at war with Islam will resonate more strongly. Consequently, ISIS is likely rooting for Trump's proposals to become law.

All of us want Americans to be safe from ISIS. But Trump's plan is both morally repugnant and ineffective. It doesn't make us safer, it simply demonizes Muslim-Americans and could help ISIS recruit. That's truly a losing combination for America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
donald trump's horrifying words about muslims (opinion) - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump's horrifying words about Muslims (Opinion) - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A non-Muslim friend of mine tweeted: "This literally made me cry." Another tweeted: "I Will Stand Up For Muslim Citizens Because I Want Help When The GOP Come For ME." Shockingly, Trump told Yahoo News that he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database, or worse, mandating that they carry special identification cards that note their faith.

# data[].attributes.body
Fred Korematsu Against Japanese Internment Camps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly 75 years later, the infamous decision has yet to be overturned

smithsonian.com

On Memorial Day 1942, Fred Korematsu was walking down a street in San Leandro, California, with his girlfriend when police arrested him on suspicion that he was Japanese.

Three weeks earlier, the U.S. Army had ordered "all persons of Japanese ancestry" out of the Bay Area part of California. The military was rounding up every Japanese-American and Japanese immigrant on the West Coast-110,000 people, most of them American citizens-and putting them in concentration camps. One of the worst civil liberties violations in American history, it was authorized by President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 of February 19, 1942.

But Korematsu, a 23-year-old welder born in Oakland to Japanese immigrant parents, refused to comply with the order. His defiance led to a historic test of liberty and an infamous Supreme Court precedent that still looms over American law today.

At San Leandro police headquarters, Korematsu told the police that his name was Clyde Sarah, and that his parents, of Spanish and Hawaiian ancestry, had died in a fire. But his story broke down when a police lieutenant noticed that his draft card looked altered. Eventually Korematsu gave the policeman his real name and told him his family was Japanese and in a relocation camp.

"I stayed in Oakland to earn enough money to take my girl with me to the [Midwest]," Korematsu told an FBI agent, according to an affidavit he signed. That way, he thought, he could live freely and not be concerned with being sent to a camp. Questioned about scars on his nose and forehead, he said he'd undergone plastic surgery with the goal of "changing my appearance so that I would not be subject to ostracism when my girl and I went East." FBI interviews with his girlfriend and surgeon confirmed the essentials of his story. The surgery was minor - Korematsu later said the surgeon just fixed his broken nose, and didn't alter his eyelids as promised. But prosecutors and the press would stress the detail.

"3 Japanese Defy Curbs: Army Says One Tried to Become 'Spaniard' by Plastic Surgery," read a brief in the June 13 New York Times. Local newspapers also announced Korematsu's arrest: "San Leandro Jap Held As Evader of Ouster Order," "Oakland Jap Held for FBI." Ernest Besig, executive director of the San Francisco office of the American Civil Liberties Union, saw the stories and went to see Korematsu in jail. Would he be willing, despite long odds, to challenge his arrest all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? Korematsu said yes.

Though Korematsu had resisted the Japanese incarceration as a loner at first, his passionate belief in liberty and the lessons in American ideals he'd learned in school motivated him to fight the charges. His family, like nearly every other person of Japanese ancestry in California, had followed a series of military orders that forbade them to travel, except to turn themselves in at assembly centers, where they faced removal to a relocation camp. Because Korematsu had stayed behind, he was transferred to military custody at the Presidio in San Francisco and charged with violating a recently passed federal law that made it a crime to ignore a military relocation order.

His resolve grew after military police moved him to the Tanforan assembly center, a former racetrack where the Army held 7,800 people, including his parents and three brothers, in detention. The camp's overseers assigned Korematsu to live in a horse stall with a cot, a straw mattress and one light bulb hanging down. The camp, he decided, was worse than jail.

"These camps [are] definitely an imprisonment under armed guard with orders [to] shoot to kill," Korematsu wrote in a note to his lawyer. "These people should have been given a fair trial in order that they may defend their loyalty at court in a democratic way."

Korematsu tried to do just that at his trial in federal court in San Francisco in September 1942. "As a citizen of the United States I am ready, willing, and able to bear arms for this country," he said. He testified that he had registered for the draft and tried to volunteer for the Navy, that he had never been to Japan, couldn't read Japanese, and spoke it poorly. Still, the judge found Korematsu guilty of violating the removal order, sentenced him to five years probation, and allowed a military policeman to take him back to camp.

There, almost no one supported Korematsu's decision to fight detention. His father scolded him for getting in trouble, and his mother and brothers were ashamed he'd been arrested, according to Enduring Conviction, Lorraine K. Bannai's 2015 biography of Korematsu. The loneliness of his stand reflects the extraordinary pressures on the intimidated internees. "Many Nisei [Japanese-Americans] believed that they would prove their patriotism by complying," Bannai wrote. Researchers from UCLA have gathered stories that offer a counter-narrative, one of resistance and insubordination in the camps, from acts of civil disobedience to coordinated uprisings.

Arrest and internment also cost Korematsu his Italian-American girlfriend, Ida Boitano. Before Pearl Harbor, they'd hoped to marry. After his arrest, police warned Boitano to cut ties with him. Conflicted and afraid, she sent Korematsu a few letters, but then asked him to stop writing. "I happen to be Italian and this is war," Boitano wrote to Korematsu's lawyer, "so we must both be careful." (About 3,000 Italian immigrants and Italian-Americans were also detained during World War II.) Korematsu never saw Boitano again.

As his lawyers took Korematsu's case to the federal court of appeals, the Army moved the internees to more permanent camps. Korematsu and his family were sent to the Topaz relocation center in Utah. The camp was surrounded by barbed wire, and military police armed with rifles were stationed atop lookout towers. The Korematsus, a family of six adults, were assigned to two small barracks rooms. They wore masks to avoiding breathing dust kicked up by desert winds. Korematsu dug a well, moved drywall, and worked in the camp hospital's warehouse for $12 a month.

Starting in November 1942, the government gave him temporary leave to live and work outside the camp, a partial freedom granted to many younger internees of working age. Korematsu picked sugar beets, worked at a construction company, and got a welding job in Salt Lake City. "I don't even know how it is to have a home," Korematsu wrote his lawyer. "I feel like an orphan or something." In January 1944, the government gave Korematsu indefinite leave from the camp.

Meanwhile, in December 1943, the federal appeals court upheld Korematsu's conviction, ruling the military orders were constitutional. He was living at a Detroit YMCA and working in construction when his lawyers argued his case before the Supreme Court in October 1944.

On December 18, 1944, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Korematsu's conviction. "Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area" - the West Coast -- "because of hostility to him or his race," Justice Hugo Black wrote in the majority opinion, but because of "military dangers" and "military urgency"-fear that people of Japanese ancestry would carry out sabotage during a Japanese invasion of the West Coast.

Three justices wrote alarmed dissents. "The Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens," wrote Justice Robert H. Jackson. "The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need."

Criticism of the court's decision was swift. "Legalized Racism," read the headline of the Washington Post editorial. A columnist in the Pittsburgh Courier, a leading black newspaper, compared Korematsu to Dred Scott, American history's best-known victim of court-sanctioned prejudice. But the public felt differently. In a December 1942 Gallup poll, only 35 percent of Americans had agreed that "the Japanese who were moved inland from the Pacific coast should be allowed to return" after the war. Most who responded "no" wanted the internees deported.

Two weeks after the decision, the Roosevelt administration began to release a screened group of Japanese-Americans. Korematsu's parents returned to Oakland in May 1945 to find their flower nursery in shambles, neglected by tenants. Thousands of detainees, who felt they had nowhere to go or feared returning to the hostile West Coast, stayed in the camps until the last of them closed in May 1946.

Korematsu married, had kids, moved back to California in 1949, and worked as a drafter, though his job prospects were always limited by his criminal conviction. For decades, he found his memories of the case painful and rarely spoke of it. His children learned about in high school history class. But in 1981, a researcher uncovered evidence that the U.S. government had presented false information to the Supreme Court in Korematsu's case while also suppressing intelligence findings about Japanese-Americans' loyalty to the country. Korematsu returned to federal court, seeking vindication. In 1983, a federal judge threw out his conviction.

Korematsu became a civil-rights activist, lobbying Congress to pass the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which gave compensation and an apology to former wartime detainees. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998. Before his 2005 death, he filed a court brief supporting the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2010, California made his birthday, January 30, Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution.

Today, Korematsu v. U.S. is often described as one of the Supreme Court's worst precedents. Widely rejected but never overturned, it is part of an anti-canon that legalized discrimination, along with Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Buck v. Bell. Justice Stephen Breyer, in a 2010 book, called the decision "thoroughly discredited."

In 2014, the late Justice Antonin Scalia denounced the decision, but issued a warning. "[ Korematsu v. U.S.] was wrong," he told law students in Hawaii. "But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again....I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It's no justification but it is the reality."

This past November, Carl Higbie, spokesman for a super-PAC that supported Donald Trump's election, argued on FOX News that the Japanese internment of 1942 sets a constitutional precedent for a proposed registry of Muslim immigrants. Higbie's comment drew widespread condemnation-but also warnings that the Korematsu decision still lies in a dark corner of American law. Discarded and disdained but not disarmed, the gun that Justice Jackson warned about could be fired again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fred Korematsu Fought Against Japanese Internment in the Supreme Court... and Lost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
smithsonian.com On Memorial Day 1942, Fred Korematsu was walking down a street in San Leandro, California, with his girlfriend when police arrested him on suspicion that he was Japanese. Three weeks earlier, the U.S. Army had ordered "all persons of Japanese ancestry" out of the Bay Area part of California.

# data[].attributes.body
The Dehumanization of Japanese Americans

# data[].attributes.body
Frederick Douglass and the Dehumanization of Slavery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Frederick Douglass illustrates the horrors of slavery in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. There is so much evil occurring in inherent in Douglass' story that it is difficult to comprehend how such a barbaric thing can happen in the not too distant past. Douglass does a superb job of illustrating how dehumanization of black slaves by the white ruling class played a significant role in the continued proliferation of slavery and the brutal practices that came along with it. Without dehumanizing the black slaves, society would be unable to perpetuate the culture of violence necessary to keep a slave based economy intact.

The first instance of dehumanization Douglass illustrates to the reader is the separation of children from their mother at a very young age. He writes: "Frequently, before the child has reached its twelfth month, its mother is taken from it, and hired out on some farm a considerable distance off, and the child is placed under the care of an old woman, too old for field labor. For what this separation is done, I do not know, unless it be to hinder the development of the child's affection toward its mother, and to blunt and destroy the natural affection of the mother for the child. This is the inevitable result" (Douglass 2). Just as people often separate animals from their parents at certain ages, the slave owners of the Pre-Civil War Era South separated small children from their parents, without putting much more thought into it than when separating cattle from their mothers.

Another instance that Douglass uses to display the dehumanization of slaves is when describing how slaves were fed. He writes: "It was put into a large wooden tray or trough, and set down upon the ground. The children were then called, like so many pigs, and like so many pigs they would come and devour the mush; some with oyster-shells, others with pieces of shingle, some with naked hands, and none with spoons. He that ate fastest got most; he that was strongest secured the best place; and few left the trough satisfied (Douglass 12). Douglass uses the word "pigs," because slave owners did not deem it necessary to provide their slaves with proper eating utensils, because they simply did not view slaves as their equal human counterparts. Since slave owners viewed their slaves as more like pigs than actual human beings, it became quite easy for them to justify the culture of violence that made slavery possible. Slave owners wanted to feed their slaves the smallest amount possible to still be proficient at their jobs, because in the slave owner's context, food for slaves is considered a business expense and it is a business owner's job to keep expenses to a minimum.

Perhaps the best illustration of the dehumanization of slaves is when Douglass describes what happens in jail after his plot to escape has been foiled. Douglass writes: "We had been in jail scarcely twenty minutes, when a swarm of slave traders, and agents for slave traders, flocked into jail to look at us, and to ascertain if we were for sale... And after taunting us in various ways, they one by one went into an examination of us, with intent to ascertain our value" (Douglass 38). Douglass portrays the slave traders and agents for slave traders as men auctioning for cattle instead of human beings. The slave traders and agents for slave traders at no point stop to think what they are doing is wrong, instead it is business as usual and they are eager to acquire misbehaved slaves at steep discounts, much the same as farmers will bid pennies on the dollar for underweight farm animals. The most important aspect of this quotation in terms of the dehumanization of slaves, that it is a cogent example of how slaves were regarded as a commodity that can always be bought and sold at the right price, rather than human beings that have the same thoughts, feelings and emotions as everyone else.

Douglass' first encounters with Mrs. Auld and her kindness is a testament to the dehumanizing nature of slavery. Douglass writes: "She had never had a slave under her control previously to myself, and prior to her marriage she had been dependent upon her own industry for a living. She was by trade a weaver; and by constant application to her business, she had been in a good degree preserved from the blighting and dehumanizing effects of slavery (Douglass 14). Mrs. Auld had never been exposed to the horrors of slavery before her encounter with Frederick Douglass and as such, she was able to accept Frederick as a human being, rather than as simply a slave. Mrs. Auld even went on to teach Frederick Douglass how to read, and to a certain degree, was almost like a mother and less of a master. However, as time went on, all of this changed and Mr. Auld put a swift end to Mrs. Auld teaching Frederick Douglass how to read. Fortunately, for Douglass, the ability to read three and four letter words was the only spark he needed to follow up his learning with more learning and eventually came to realize his own discontent with the concept of slavery.

Slavery cannot exist without the dehumanization of slaves by the rest of society. It is only when the society views the object of oppression as non-human can such evil as slavery occur. Douglass does an excellent job of giving the reader examples to demonstrate exactly how this process took place in the Pre-Civil War Era South. His depictions are graphic in nature but are necessary to get his point across to his target audience. The examples Douglass uses of dehumanization not only serve the purpose helping the reader understand sociocultural dynamics at work in that society, but also serve the purpose of perhaps shocking the already sympathetic North into action against slavery.

This entry was posted in Class Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frederick Douglass and the Dehumanization of Slavery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frederick Douglass illustrates the horrors of slavery in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. There is so much evil occurring in inherent in Douglass' story that it is difficult to comprehend how such a barbaric thing can happen in the not too distant past.