John Brown. Hero or Terrorist?

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
PrinceofWands

"doing what is right" is totally in the mind of the individual. I imagine even suicide bombers are sure they are right when they push the button. No doubt The Crusades, Manifest Destiny, and myriad other actions were undertaken by people who thought they were right. But seen from another time, another perspective, one might suggest that they were not so "right".

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then feel free to murder for the sake of the greater good.

I would, if I felt it were necessary. Every individual is empowered with a mind capable of discerning right from wrong. Every individual is capable of working through a process of steps to achieve a goal. Some people don't care of course, and some are incorrect. However, the only thing we can do in the end is the best we can do.

There is simply NO ARGUMENT that it was correct to suffer slavery, that it is correct to permit rape, etc. ANY means are justified to combat those ends. I refuse to stand by while true injustice is being done in my presence. I will not compromise, no matter the cost. It has to be a serious situation to warrant killing of course, and all other options must be exhausted first. But once that's done, no amount of death is too much to achieve the right outcome.

 

[techs]

For the people who make a distinction between killing "innocents" as the definition of terrorist I ask this question:
If a person loudly and repeatedly said they supported slavery and voted for it would they still be an "innocent"?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
There is simply NO ARGUMENT that it was correct to suffer slavery, that it is correct to permit rape, etc. ANY means are justified to combat those ends. I refuse to stand by while true injustice is being done in my presence. I will not compromise, no matter the cost. It has to be a serious situation to warrant killing of course, and all other options must be exhausted first. But once that's done, no amount of death is too much to achieve the right outcome.

For those not understanding PrinceofWands' point in regard to the difference between justice and law, and even to those who do, I highly recommend this movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...70C&index=0&playnext=1

 

[OFFascist]

No different than a guy who blows up an Abortion clinic.

John Browning on the other hand was a Hero for designing some of the best firearms so far invented.

 

[Vic]

Meh. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[kylebisme]

The term "terrorist" is in reference to tactics with "freedom fighter" is in reference to goals, and hence the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: techs

While many Americans have openly proclaimed they will fight to the death any attempt to take away what they believe to be their Constitutional right to bear arms, is that different than what John Brown did? If you can claim your own interpretation of your Constitution justifies your actions is that any different from John Browns claim that slavery was immoral due to Gods law?

btw inspired by a History Channel show.

The law generally goes by 'how a reasonable person would interpret the law'. So while you could make up your own interpretation of the constitution, it would have to pass that test.

 

[Craig234]

What I find little answer to is, how do you get people who have condoned slavery for centuries as the South had at that time, to face the wrong of their behavior?

How do you get the plantation owner who makes his living and feeds his family off slave labor to become an opponent of slavery, especially when he's rationalized that there's really nothing wrong with it (e.g., 'he takes good care of his slaves, providing them food & shelter in their old age')? How do you get his civilian family who live off their labor to oppose slavery?

What I see a lot on battles of social justice - the right for workers to organize, breaking up land ownership monopolies, the right for women to vote, the right to equal access to public facilities by blacks, and so on - is that it can go on for centuries until some people take pretty strong action; and that that action is pretty much always condemned at the time as 'going too far', and 'wrong, even if the cause is just' - but that that action has a high correlation to occuring shortly before the injustice ends.

I think the issue of how such issues of justice are addressed is a lot more complicated than just 'the rebellious violence was wrong' or that it was 'right'.

Until we have a better answer to how to end injustices, which may have gone on for centuries (there are still states that would imprison gays for sex if they could), I think we need to look at that before we try to provide simplistic answers for questions about the violence the oppressed use to try to push their cause.

It's very easy to look at the families a John Brown murders and say how tragic and wrong that is, but when you don't have the benefit of hindsight and slavery a thing of the past, what do you say to the family of the slaves they own who are similarly tragic, while the injustice continues?

 

[Phokus]

If i were a slave, i'd be killing slave owners left and right.

 

[johnbrown1776]

Patriotic Terrorist FTW

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: johnbrown1776
Patriotic Terrorist FTW

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Phokus
If i were a slave, i'd be killing slave owners left and right.

... and that would be a completely different situation. Someone fighting for their own freedom or to defend themselves / family is different than someone going out and killing others because they are doing something (perfectly legal) that you disagree with.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What I find little answer to is, how do you get people who have condoned slavery for centuries as the South had at that time, to face the wrong of their behavior?

That's a very good question. Usually it does take some rather drastic action to create that kind of change. That still doesn't make terrorism just. If, for example, a group of slaves started a revolt and killed people trying to enslave them, I don't view that as terrorism at all.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Craig234
What I find little answer to is, how do you get people who have condoned slavery for centuries as the South had at that time, to face the wrong of their behavior?

That's a very good question. Usually it does take some rather drastic action to create that kind of change. That still doesn't make terrorism just. If, for example, a group of slaves started a revolt and killed people trying to enslave them, I don't view that as terrorism at all.

Slaves revolted, frequently. But it's tough to fight people with guns when you have sticks. John Brown did what needed to be done. To me, the lives of slave-owners and their supporters aren't worth all that much. Those that sit by as atrocities are committed are hardly innocent.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: techs
If a German had led an insurrection against Hitler to free the Jews would we call him a hero or a terrorist?

Depends. Did he assassinate concentration camp officers or did he blow up coffee houses filled with women and children to make his point? Motive is only half the story, means is the other.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: techs
If a German had led an insurrection against Hitler to free the Jews would we call him a hero or a terrorist?

Depends. Did he assassinate concentration camp officers or did he blow up coffee houses filled with women and children to make his point? Motive is only half the story, means is the other.

If blowing up the coffee houses of not-so-innocent German citizens is what it took to end the Nazi regime, I'd be all for that. And you should be too. The lives of millions of oppressed people are worth more than the lives of a few of their oppressors.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Slaves revolted, frequently. But it's tough to fight people with guns when you have sticks. John Brown did what needed to be done. To me, the lives of slave-owners and their supporters aren't worth all that much. Those that sit by as atrocities are committed are hardly innocent.

What!? You insult the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You must die, so it is written in the holy recipy book! By your logic it's perfectly fine for someone to off you then if they think it "needs to be done"? Who gets to decide what "needs to be done"? That's why you have a society with laws, and mechanisms for changing those laws. Taking it on yourself to make a determination as to what is wrong and (in your mind) punishable by death is absurd. Anyone who thinks like that is a threat to a civilized society and should be institutionalized. This is exactly the kind of mentality of the religious nuts who think they have the right to go blow up someone else because that someone else does something they don't agree with, even though it's within their legal rights.

I agree with the his cause, but killing innocents to forment political change is terrorism, pure and simple.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Slaves revolted, frequently. But it's tough to fight people with guns when you have sticks. John Brown did what needed to be done. To me, the lives of slave-owners and their supporters aren't worth all that much. Those that sit by as atrocities are committed are hardly innocent.

What!? You insult the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You must die, so it is written in the holy recipy book! By your logic it's perfectly fine for someone to off you then if they think it "needs to be done"? Who gets to decide what "needs to be done"? That's why you have a society with laws, and mechanisms for changing those laws. Taking it on yourself to make a determination as to what is wrong and (in your mind) punishable by death is absurd. Anyone who thinks like that is a threat to a civilized society and should be institutionalized. This is exactly the kind of mentality of the religious nuts who think they have the right to go blow up someone else because that someone else does something they don't agree with, even though it's within their legal rights.

I agree with the his cause, but killing innocents to forment political change is terrorism, pure and simple.

Hindsight tells us that John Brown was justified, and that the people he killed were not innocent. Do you think we should have just waited until slavery was no longer popular? Do you think we should have just let the Nazis kill millions? Do you think they would have realized they were wrong at some point? Using legal means to stop oppression may spare the lives of a few oppressors, but in the years you spend waiting for the oppressors to suddenly accept the rights of a group different from them, millions of oppressed people will be living as second-class citizens, raped, enslaved, killed.

You focus on the "innocent" white Southerners John Brown killed. I think of the African-Americans who he had a part in liberating.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Slaves revolted, frequently. But it's tough to fight people with guns when you have sticks. John Brown did what needed to be done. To me, the lives of slave-owners and their supporters aren't worth all that much. Those that sit by as atrocities are committed are hardly innocent.

What!? You insult the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You must die, so it is written in the holy recipy book! By your logic it's perfectly fine for someone to off you then if they think it "needs to be done"? Who gets to decide what "needs to be done"? That's why you have a society with laws, and mechanisms for changing those laws. Taking it on yourself to make a determination as to what is wrong and (in your mind) punishable by death is absurd. Anyone who thinks like that is a threat to a civilized society and should be institutionalized. This is exactly the kind of mentality of the religious nuts who think they have the right to go blow up someone else because that someone else does something they don't agree with, even though it's within their legal rights.

I agree with the his cause, but killing innocents to forment political change is terrorism, pure and simple.

Hindsight tells us that John Brown was justified, and that the people he killed were not innocent. Do you think we should have just waited until slavery was no longer popular? Do you think we should have just let the Nazis kill millions? Do you think they would have realized they were wrong at some point? Using legal means to stop oppression may spare the lives of a few oppressors, but in the years you spend waiting for the oppressors to suddenly accept the rights of a group different from them, millions of oppressed people will be living as second-class citizens, raped, enslaved, killed.

You focus on the "innocent" white Southerners John Brown killed. I think of the African-Americans who he had a part in liberating.

Say the US captured a plane full of 3 year old German girls. Should we have given Hitler an ultimatum, surrender or we will torture and murder each of these children until you do? We'd have been justified in doing so if he didn't surrender or close the concentration camps?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Slaves revolted, frequently. But it's tough to fight people with guns when you have sticks. John Brown did what needed to be done. To me, the lives of slave-owners and their supporters aren't worth all that much. Those that sit by as atrocities are committed are hardly innocent.

What!? You insult the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You must die, so it is written in the holy recipy book! By your logic it's perfectly fine for someone to off you then if they think it "needs to be done"? Who gets to decide what "needs to be done"? That's why you have a society with laws, and mechanisms for changing those laws. Taking it on yourself to make a determination as to what is wrong and (in your mind) punishable by death is absurd. Anyone who thinks like that is a threat to a civilized society and should be institutionalized. This is exactly the kind of mentality of the religious nuts who think they have the right to go blow up someone else because that someone else does something they don't agree with, even though it's within their legal rights.

I agree with the his cause, but killing innocents to forment political change is terrorism, pure and simple.

Hindsight tells us that John Brown was justified, and that the people he killed were not innocent. Do you think we should have just waited until slavery was no longer popular? Do you think we should have just let the Nazis kill millions? Do you think they would have realized they were wrong at some point? Using legal means to stop oppression may spare the lives of a few oppressors, but in the years you spend waiting for the oppressors to suddenly accept the rights of a group different from them, millions of oppressed people will be living as second-class citizens, raped, enslaved, killed.

You focus on the "innocent" white Southerners John Brown killed. I think of the African-Americans who he had a part in liberating.

Say the US captured a plane full of 3 year old German girls. Should we have given Hitler an ultimatum, surrender or we will torture and murder each of these children until you do? We'd have been justified in doing so if he didn't surrender or close the concentration camps?

There's no need to involve children. To answer your question, yes, we would be justified to capture a few German citizens if that led to the end of the Holocaust. There's no need to consider if it would be justified to do so if that didn't lead to ending the Holocaust, because John Browns actions led to the Civil War and the end of slavery.

Just because you consider adult citizens who support oppressive regimes to be innocent, doesn't mean that they are. Do they deserve to die? I'm not sure. But if they do, I won't cry.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: johnbrown1776
Patriotic Terrorist FTW

johnbrown1776
wtf?

 

[PokerGuy]

n yusef, you're basically an extremist that views the end as justifying any means, very much like the nutjobs from various religions. The danger with that thinking is that you can justify any behavior, no matter how horrible, by just saying "it needed to be done". It's the same thinking that the previous admin used to justify their actions: "who cares if we torture some innocent people? It's needed!".

With regard to John Brown's actions: we can speculate that his actions may have played a part in bringing about changes and civil war, but that's speculation. For all we know, the same thing would have happened even if he never existed. Since nobody has a "do-over" machine, nobody knows for sure. What we do know is that he killed people innocent of any crime under the laws at the time. That makes him -- at the very least -- a murderer. That is not speculation, that's a fact. His motivations behind the murders make him a terrorist.

Your hindsight justification of his terrorism based on speculation on how he impacted history is simply flawed logic.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Phokus
If i were a slave, i'd be killing slave owners left and right.

But I'd like ot return to my larger question, because the justice of your cause has little bearing on your ability to get any justice.

History is filled with groups who have been badly screwed, and our democracy, in theory, is supposed to be the best system for recognizing and correcting those injustices.

So, say there is an injustice going on, and let's use slavery in the south for an example.

How do you persuade the people to change it - and if the answer is, 'you can't', then how do we deny the victims of the injustice the right to use other means to defend themselves?

I think we do have a blind spot on this, that it's easy for us to condemn the terrible wrongs in violent rebellion, but stopping them leaves us with the 'dirty, calm society' who quietly continue to condone the injustice and are happy not to have the violent rebellion, and perhaps to chit chat sympathetically with the oppressed people while refusing to do anything to change things - as we have on many issues for centuries.

I think this is a key benefit of 'learning history' - the experience of realizing that what might seem like a 'crazy view' on some unrecognized right, can actually be a very legitimate injustice we do not but should recognize. How crazy did people who defended gay rights seem a century ago? How crazy did people arguing for the right for women to vote or get equal work rights seem two centuries ago? It wasn't because those were 'bad people', but because it's so easy for societies to get locked into their current views.

One thing that can be said about slave owners is that most seem to have believed what they were doing was not wrongto the slaves. However wrong John Brown's violence may have been, it did force many to consider a view they had not considered - was there such a terrible injustice being done that the slaves had any reason to feel justified in committing such terrible violence? It's not unlike white America realizing the injustice to blacks as the civil rights era began, when they simply had not realized the injustice before, generally.

It's why you had white mobs violently resisting change at first s when they put blacks in colleges - but blacks protesting violently or not made people think further on justice.

One problem is when the oppressed group just lacks the size and power to do much, though. Slaves lacked power; gays lack numbers.

Slavery ended more an an accident than a plan (even Lincoln had planned in victory to phase out slavery by the end of the century), but I suspect there's a reason why half the population, women, were able to get some progress on the right to vote long before gays were able to be a viable political movement, with over 95% of the public not in their group. It was another 'easy to ignore' injustice, easy to create myths about it that rationalized injustice.

But as terrible as it is for justice to take centuries, we can take some pride in how far our country has come - and led the world in some cases to do the same.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
n yusef, you're basically an extremist that views the end as justifying any means, very much like the nutjobs from various religions. The danger with that thinking is that you can justify any behavior, no matter how horrible, by just saying "it needed to be done". It's the same thinking that the previous admin used to justify their actions: "who cares if we torture some innocent people? It's needed!".

With regard to John Brown's actions: we can speculate that his actions may have played a part in bringing about changes and civil war, but that's speculation. For all we know, the same thing would have happened even if he never existed. Since nobody has a "do-over" machine, nobody knows for sure. What we do know is that he killed people innocent of any crime under the laws at the time. That makes him -- at the very least -- a murderer. That is not speculation, that's a fact. His motivations behind the murders make him a terrorist.

Your hindsight justification of his terrorism based on speculation on how he impacted history is simply flawed logic.

It seems to me, and to John Brown, that moral laws outweigh those of the State. To us, the slaveholders and millions of citizens who, through their lack of outrage, allowed them to own other humans, committed acts of terror far worse than anything John Brown or any other abolitionists.

That so many posters here would stand by and let slavery exist, because they think it's wrong to kill a few not-so-innocents, is outrageous to me.

If John Brown is a terrorist, then I'm proud to be a terrorist sympathizer.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
n yusef, you're basically an extremist that views the end as justifying any means, very much like the nutjobs from various religions. The danger with that thinking is that you can justify any behavior, no matter how horrible, by just saying "it needed to be done". It's the same thinking that the previous admin used to justify their actions: "who cares if we torture some innocent people? It's needed!".

With regard to John Brown's actions: we can speculate that his actions may have played a part in bringing about changes and civil war, but that's speculation. For all we know, the same thing would have happened even if he never existed. Since nobody has a "do-over" machine, nobody knows for sure. What we do know is that he killed people innocent of any crime under the laws at the time. That makes him -- at the very least -- a murderer. That is not speculation, that's a fact. His motivations behind the murders make him a terrorist.

Your hindsight justification of his terrorism based on speculation on how he impacted history is simply flawed logic.

It seems to me, and to John Brown, that moral laws outweigh those of the State. To us, the slaveholders and millions of citizens who, through their lack of outrage, allowed them to own other humans, committed acts of terror far worse than anything John Brown or any other abolitionists.

That so many posters here would stand by and let slavery exist, because they think it's wrong to kill a few not-so-innocents, is outrageous to me.

If John Brown is a terrorist, then I'm proud to be a terrorist sympathizer.

Why settle for being a sympathizer when you can be a real hero?

Slavery in Africa continues today. Slavery existed in Africa before the arrival of Europeans - as did a slave trade that exported millions of sub-Saharan Africans to North Africa, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf.