Okay, I’ll start with the usual disclaimer: Slavery is the greatest blemish on American culture (or at least co-regnant with the treatment of Indians) and nobody’s arguing that. I am completely against slavery and I don’t care who wants to brand me a flaming liberal because of it.
That said:
A local TV station has been running “Heroes of Black History” spots on cable access here in which recorded voices (clearly elementary or junior high school students) give biographical voiceovers of about 30 seconds while photographs and portraits of famous black people (and a few white people associated with black rights [Justice Hugo Black, Benjamin Franklin {who it doesn’t mention was a slaveowner}, Eleanor Roosevelt) and refers to them as a “Hero of Black History Month”. Most I have no problem with- they were heroic by anybody’s definition (King, Malcolm X, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, etc.), though I have a major problem with inaccuracies in a couple (that damned UL about Charles Drew dying due to a racist hospital, for example) and some are decidedly iffy on the heroism scale (Elijah Muhammad, for example), but the two I have the most major problem with are the two from the title.
Nat Turner & John Brown both gave their lives in the fight to free slaves, that much is absolutely true. However it’s also true that both heard voices and led other followers to their death in a largely self aggrandizing mission that led to the deaths of innocent men, women and children in addition to any arguably deserving casualties. (Even the left wing of their day [Emerson, Thoreau, etc.] actively tried to distance themselves from Brown [whom they’d once praised as prophetic and holy] once his atrocities became more well known after Harper’s Ferry]).
So I’m curious: do you consider Brown and Turner heroes or villains? And why?
That’s true. I remember when I was a kid I watched two miniseries in the same week- one was Guyana: The Jim Jones Story (a repeat), the other one Masada. Both are about heavily armed religious zealots who withdraw to a remote location and kill themselves when the prevailing authority infiltrates them. The Jonestownians are considered psychotic brainwashed fools and the Madadans are hailed as natural iconic heroes. (Of course there are major differences, but still- it shows the value of spin.)
I’d say perhaps a bit of both, though John Brown was a little more discriminating. He spared women and children during the infamous Potawatomie Incident, while Nat Turner did not.
Both were somewhat disturbed zealots, albeit ones struggling against an acknowledged evil.
In this discussion, the first thing we should do is separate Turner and Brown. They were two distinct individuals who performed different acts (for different reasons). They share the traits that their actions included violence and that they (ostensibly) failed in their stated goals, but they are quite different in many other aspects of their lives and deaths.
Now as the linked article suggests, as a direct quote this is a bit wanting. But I think the difference between “he is doing God’s will” and “he’s hearing voices” is very close to the difference between “he’s a freedom fighter” and “he’s a psychotic butcher.”
The parallel is interesting. Certainly slavery is equally if not more evil than the despotism of Saddam in Iraq? So far the estimate of Iraqi civilians killed during the US invasion is between 16,000-18,000. (link) If that level of collateral damage is acceptable in the heroic fight for democracy in Iraq, surely the innocent civilians killed during slave revolts is equally excusable, considering the slaves were fighting for their freedom?
Turner was not a normal man, I am not saying that he was. I am not saying “well to get something accomplished sometimes you need to kill a few women and children” but ultimately I think if you want to slap a label on him you have to start with the fact that the man was a slave.
He was leading a classical slave rebellion in a process we have seen played out many times in History : Spartacus, The Haiti Slave Rebellion etc. It is “normal” and not “psychotic” for slaves in rebellion to kill and rampage in an orgy of violence and rage. I am NOT saying that doesn’t make him a butcher, but I also think “freedom fighter” label fits equally well. If I was a slave I hope I’d cook up some sh^t just like Turner did: claim to have divine backing, get my followers excited in the face of hopeless odds – I hope I would allow the white folks to leave peacefully and I’d burn down the farms – try and strike at the infrastructure of slavery without killing. Good Luck, right? But I’d try it – Turner did it another way but I am more than a little inclined to give the man, bought, sold, rented out etc. the benefit of the doubt. If we need a label how about “Butchering freedom seeking slave rebellion leader”?
The law is man-made. It is not sacred. Violent laws sometimes can only be opposed by violence.
There are such things as “unjust” laws. Unjust laws are usually supported people who cannot reached by reason. Unjust laws are crafted by people who will not be swayed by arguments, boycotts, and sit-ins. Some unjust laws are petty and inconsequestial. But when they impinge on human rights, I think the victims are entitled to fight by any means necessary.
You are a slave. The law explicitly excludes you from its protection. The law was not written by anyone you elected. You cannot bring a case to court. You cannot write your local congressman (it is against the law for you to do this, in fact). Social codes forbid you from asking favors from those best in the position to carry them out. You have absolutely no voice or power against the horror around you. You have witnessed the rape of your mother. The selling-away of your helpless children. You have suffered from the lash of the whip for actions only an insane person would deem criminal. You are a grown man but you’ve never owned a pair of shoes or pants. You have been told that your own body does not belong to you, and that you will be killed if you ever forget it.
What non-violent means do you have at your avail, seriously?
It is all well and good to be a pacifist when there are plenty of alternatives to violence. For millions of slaves, the alternative they chose was to simply suffer. And they survived, too. But I believe they were well within their right to actively rebel. If a slave owner can be forgiven for “owning” another human being as if he were a piece of furniture, then his slave can be forgiven for taking up arms against him. Just like a police officer can be forgiven for shooting a hostage taker. Or a woman can be forgiven for killing an abusive husband.
A psychotic butcher is someone who has no good reason for their violence, IMHO. Neither Turner or Brown fall into this category. I would not have carried out their actions, but I would have standing on the sidelines cheering.
