My cite was to Merriam-Webster, which does not list “slaveowner” under any definition of “slaver.” I understand that you think you are making a political point, but what you are actually doing is confusing the language.
My first thought was a cynical “Yeah, I’ll bet that’s right,” but then I thought, “Wouldn’t you also be enfranchising a proportionate number of black women? How would enfranchising women change the ratio?”
“Brown” : “Terrorist” as “Underground Railroad” : “Organized Crime”
Maybe it’s just that I was volunteering with him at the same time as I was learning about Brown (in High School), but I have always equated Brown with Mitch Snyder. Mitch Snyder - Wikipedia
Mitch was an extremely intelligent man. He was capable of truly comprehending the numbers of homeless people in DC, and the enormous aggregate suffering they represented. He also lacked the filter that allows the rest of us to make a donation, or do “what we can” without fully disrupting our own lives.
He truly comprehended, and that knowledge was with him at all times. As he looked at his breakfast he was aware of the people in line outside, the 20-30 who were at the end of the line and would come through the doors after the food ran out. He was constantly angry with anyone who ate a bite more than they absolutely needed in order to continue their service.
I think Brown was the same way. He was intelligent, empathetic, and completely without filters. He had none of the protection (I guess it’s “denial”) the rest of us have from the suffering of others. He was driven in a way that we can not understand.
I do think it’s a mental illness; and that it’s one common to heros. I don’t know what it would be called, but I’m guessing Mother Theresa had it too.
ETA: And in case it’s unclear, I vote “Hero.”
Beautiful post, TruCelt. Thank you.
Well, in his book, Keyssar quotes a delegate to the Virginia 1829 state constitutional convention, and I’ve found the entire speech. From the speech, by a delegate advocating expansion of the franchise:
I don’t know if that’s contemplating slave rebellion or secession, but it’s contemplating something about the slaveholding states that needs poor whites to feel solidarity with the state government and slaveholders in order to want to serve in the military.
Also, not a southern state, but he’s got Rev. Joseph Richardson at the 1820 Massachusetts constitutional convention arguing for removing the property qualification by warning that the ardor of those who can’t vote “would be chilled . . .when called upon to defend their country”.
Thanks for digging up the cite Captain Amazing.
[QUOTE=TruCelt]
ETA: And in case it’s unclear, I vote "Hero.
[/QUOTE]
John Brown led a mob that killed unarmed people, some of them black, but it is considered heroic by some because it was in a good cause (even if it accomplished none of its objectives). Not a rhetorical question: do you consider Muslim suicide bombers heroic?
Yes, and my cite was to a different dictionary. Is Merriam-Webster appointed by government as the arbiter of words such that all other dictionaries are invalid or something? Seriously, what’s your point? “Slaver” is recognized by many dictionaries as having a meaning of “one who owns slaves.” Here’s another reference. Here’s another. Here’s another. Here’s another. Should I continue?
FWIW, I do use it for its emotional connotations: words like “slaveowner” seem too dry to describe the evil at hand, they allow people to act as though a slaveowner is no different from a horseowner or a dogowner. “Slaver” more properly communicates the villainy of imprisoning an innocent person through threats of torture, maiming, or death.
As for the threat of the vote of black women, I know that was considered at the time, but I forget exactly how the twisted racist rationale worked. My wife did some research specifically on early twentieth century arguments for suffrage in North Carolina, and I’ll check with her on how the argument went.
Are you talking about Harper’s Ferry? If so, not a rhetorical question: how many innocent people (that is, people who didn’t enslave other people) did John Brown’s forces kill, and how many of them were deliberate deaths?
I’d have to know more about the individual Muslim suicide bomber. I don’t consider it inconceivable that a Muslim suicide bomber could be a hero, though.
I’ll let you decide and look it up; you can go with his victims in Kansas or at Harper’s Ferry. I’m going to be interested to read how a baggage handler getting his face blown off is a heroic act.
I have already, of course–you keep assuming I don’t know what I’m talking about, and it really does you no favors to make such an absurd assumption. If you’re talking about Harper’s Ferry, the stuff I’m finding doesn’t mention specifically who was killed by John Brown’s Raiders, nor whether the civilians killed were armed, nor whether the killings were deliberate. How about you look it up, and you’ll see what I’m talking about?
As for his victims in Kansas, as far as I can tell, all of them were engaged not only in slavery, but were also engaged in destroying the abolitionists’ chances of a democratic solution to slavery. Far from innocents.
Edit: on preview, I see you edited your original post. The baggage handler who was shot and killed was trying to stop a military action. To the extent that civilian casualties are ever acceptable in military actions, I think this would be a prime example of an acceptable casualty. However, I’m not sure that civilian casualties are ever acceptable. This is a good point.
The question is too broad. But in general I can say that suicide bombers are often completely or nearly ignorant of the precise causes they are dying for, and the identities or even the alleged crimes of their victims. They are usually uneducated, brainwashed, youngsters with almost no self-motivation beyond the belief that their families will be provided for as a result of their actions, and that they will be rewarded with food and sexual favors in “Heaven”. (Not the right word, but you understand what I mean.)
In short, no, not qualified as heros in my estimation. Victims mostly.
I am not a professional philospher, but . . .
In weighing the morality of killing, slavery and killing to fight slavery, I opine that we have to determine what it is that makes killing and slavery immoral. As a Humanist I prize human life and freedom. So then, killing and slavery are the most extreme forms of evil. But, why?
In meditating on why murder is evil, I considered that murder is the taking of a life. But, life is by nature temporary. Why is it so wrong to bring about the death of a mortal? Mortals die, by some means, anyway. Mortal MEANS one who dies. But the other great good I mentioned is freedom, the ability to make substantive choices with one’s life. When one’s life has ended, so has that ability to choose.
Isn’t this why the death of children is so tragic? While the passing of a venerable elder is felt with sadness borne of our knowledge that we will not soon (ever?) be reunited, we also know that this person has (usually) experienced growth, pleasure, freedom, friendship, laughter and all the other facets of the human experience. But, when a child, or infant dies, we grieve not only for the suffering of the little one, but also for all the pleasure, enlightenment, joy and love that he will never know. It is not merely the baby that has died, but the child, the teenager, the youth, the father, grandfather, mentor and venerated elder that will never be.
Now consider slavery. The abject, perpetual and hereditary loss of freedom. To be tied, utterly to another human, no more perfect, rational or entitled to freedom that yourself. To live life on his terms and to labor, rest, travel, eat and marry at his whim. What small pleasures you could be allowed are hollow comfort when weighed against the knowledge that they could be capriciously taken.
So, the slaver and the murderer are kin, the evil of each stemming from the denial of freedom to another. But, there is a difference that makes the worst of slavers even more vile that killers. That being the labor and travail of his slaves. While those in bondage may not be free to enjoy life, they will certainly feel its pain. They may not know freedom, but they know labor. They are subjected to every bit of cold, heat, fatigue, hunger, frustration and indignity as any other human, all while being denied rest, fine foods, leisure, education, security and love.
The institution of slavery, then, is worse than murder. Murder kills the body, bringing an end to the individual, robbing him of all the pleasure of life. But, murder at least frees the victim from suffering. Slavery, far more insidious, preserves and magnifies all the suffering common to man, and inflicts its own as well, while denying what is best in life (whatever you consider that to be) to its captives.
I am loathe to advocate the taking of human life. But, if there be any abomination at all that is sufficient cause to warrant it, slavery would be it. Not revenge, not deterrant, not punishment, but to liberate the slaves. If killing slavers is too extreme to be just, then there is no circumstance, ever, in which it can be just to deprive any person of his life.
Suicide bombers attack civilian populations, often of nations that have done some very bad things. However, these are “bad things” done by nations (entities that are not entirely, and sometimes not remotely, representative of the will of their citizenry) to other groups of people (not necessarilly representative or consisting of the bombers themselves). This is not the same as killing “slavers”, who personally and persistently dispossess other human beings of their most basic freedoms.
In other words, bombers attack people loosely associated with, or like, those who have done wrong. The targets may not even agree with the policies of those who offered the initial insult and may even sympathize with their attackers. The slaver is personally involved in his crime against humanity in general and his own captives in particular. Killing him is not only appropriate, but may also be the only way to terminate his continual offense.
You’re ignoring the fact that many (indeed most) slaves did enjoy the “pleasures” of life-slaves were not in concentration camps or anything and most masters were not extremely brutal sadists-they did let their slaves do what they pleased in their private lives.
Today is the 151st anniversary of his hanging incidentally.
Definitions for terrorism:
Definitions for terrorist include
Brown was a terrorist, there’s no debate on this. He used the dictionary definition of terrorism to attempt his objectives.
Since I don’t think anybody is attacking the thesis slavery was evil and Brown was clearly a terrorist, the only debate left is whether he was a hero as well since hero and terrorist aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. (The Sons of Liberty could be convincingly argued to have been terrorists and are accounted heroes.)
Three of Brown’s victims at Harper’s Ferry (and I’m counting as his victims anybody killed by his band since 1- it’s unclear who killed some of them 2- Brown was responsible for their actions:
Hayward Shepherd, a free black porter for the railroad; unarmed, killed with a shotgun blast to the face.
Fontaine Beckham- 71 year old mayor of Harper’s Ferry and railroad agent, killed while identifying the body of Shepherd. He was considered a kind man and many eulogies attesting to this can be found online. I don’t have access to ancestry.com at the moment or I’d check his slave index entry for 1850 and his heirs for 1860, but the only record I have of his slave ownership is actually benevolent: he purchased the wife and children of Isaac Gilbert. Gilbert was a slave who worked for the railroad (it was fairly common for slaveowners to lease their slaves to businesses and in Gilbert’s case he was allowed to keep a part of his income which he saved to buy his family, but cause Gilbert’s owner was not willing to free him yet and a slave could not legally purchase slaves himself Beckham did using Gilbert’s money with the promise they’d be freed when he died or when Gilbert was free. He kept his word- mother and children were freed in Beckham’s will- making them probably the only slaves freed by Brown’s raid but only because it was already in his will and only because it was not a standard slave purchase. [cite] I don’t know if Beckham owned other slaves.
Luke Quinn, 24, Irish born Marine private, not a slaveowner
These are three of the men Brown and his raiders killed at Harper’s Ferry. Quinn was the only one armed at the time of his death. There were of course more casualties but I don’t have time at the moment to find their life stories, but all save one were civilians. Lewis Washington, who owned many slaves, was a captive but Brown chose not to kill him, possibly due to his descent from George Washington’s brother.
Brown killed at least two innocent men (innocent defined as unarmed and posing him no threat and who he quite probably didn’t know or care who they were) and almost certainly more. Quinn, who as a Marine was armed, certainly wasn’t there for ideological reasons but because he was a soldier ordered to active duty because there was a man seizing U.S. property and killing people. None of these deaths changed a thing and may well have made it worse. Regardless of how noble emancipation may have been as an aim, I can’t count a raid that resulted in the completely needless death of innocent people as a hero.
Just because it wasn’t Auschwitz doesn’t mean slavery was much better. Note: Gone with the Wind is NOT a documentary.
Let’s not add more stench to the manure. Both were dehumanizing and evil, but that said if you had to choose between being an inmate at Auschwitz and being a slave on a Louisiana plantation, is there even a second’s hesitation as to which one would you choose?
When someone gets hit by a car you don’t say “well at least you weren’t assraped”. Slavery is fucking horrible, regardless of how it stacks up with Auschwitz. I’m pretty sure that was the whole point of what Guin posted.