Yet,
Was it not genocide for Europeans to come into the America and murder 
Indians? Was it not genocide to bring millions of Africans (thousands of 
whom died), into the Americas, and strip them of their identies as human 
beings? If Prosser and Turner knew of genocide they learned it at the 
Masters Feet.

Anita Wills


>From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history         
>      <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Gov. Kaine Pardons Gabriel Prosser
>Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:08:31 -0400
>
>>From the Associated Press:
>>
>>"Virginia governor 'pardons' slave who led 'Gabriel's Rebellion'
>>The Associated Press
>>August 31, 2007
>
>Where in all this does a comparison of nobility of purpose meet means  and 
>methods?
>
>Rebellion to become free will justifiably be seen as serving the  nobility 
>of purpose end of the argument. On that, both the Am Rev and  Gabriel's 
>Rebellion are equal, albeit at vastly different scales.
>
>At the pointy end of the stick, wherein after the Dec. of Ind. was  read, 
>measures of a more physical nature were taken. Knowing full  well what 
>would happen once it was read, one can argue that the Am  Rev leaders only 
>had to wait for action to develop as the authorities  moved to put down the 
>venture. Conflict/Civil War then ensued with  the colonials coming out on 
>top.
>
>In contrast, Turner's higher ideal was simply genocide.  Indiscriminate 
>killing of men, women and children is murder, however  draped in the 
>verbiage of freedom.
>
>What separates the Am Rev and possibly Gabriel, from Turner certainly  is 
>the means and methods by which the ideals may be achieved. The  Haitian 
>Revolution was at first a bloodbath that has been later  sanctified by 
>those at several removes from it into a glorious  expression of freedom. 
>That would appear to lessen the value of the  lives lost so long as freedom 
>rings. That kind of specious reasoning  was also inherent in Stalin, Mao 
>and Pol Pot, to name but a few whose  results justified those means. 
>Haitians ended up switching the color  of master, but little of substance 
>is now discernible, apart from the  historiography of the event.
>
>Gabriel's aim, according to Edgerton, was not genocide, but rather a  
>negotiated settlement ending slavery. However, what muddies the  waters is 
>the issue of statements made concerning the conduct of the  rebellion. 
>Basically, join or die seems to have been the directive,  apart from 
>Methodists, Quakers and Frenchmen. Is Edgerton generally  viewed as reading 
>the documents correctly or has he ventured rather  far out onto the 
>revisionist limb?
>
>For those of you who will undoubtedly jump into the fray, I am well  aware 
>that in the Am Rev, there were quasi-institutionalized  incidents of brutal 
>behavior on both Colonial and Tory sides, similar  probably to the Border 
>Wars in the 1850's onward.
>
>State to state relations were the ideal and the practice during the  Am 
>Rev, not using genocide as a means of igniting conflict. The  questions 
>are: Did Gabriel advocate genocide, was he unable to  control more volatile 
>elements in his group, was genocidal advocacy  legitimately placed at his 
>door?
>
>Lyle Browning

_________________________________________________________________
Test your celebrity IQ.  Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great prizes! 
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2