Nat Turner.  John Brown.  Denmark Vesey.  Menachem Began.  Yasser Arafat.
We see time and again where "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are
interchangeable, if not synonymous:  these politically charged labels
generally reflect the views of the speaker/writer.  And donning the formal
uniform of an organized army doesn't end the debate (Banastre Tarleton, Wm
T. Sherman).  Likewise, we see time and again where "act of war" and "act of
terror" are interchangeable, if not synonymous:  these politically charged
words generally reflect the views of the speaker/writer (Twin Towers, King
David Hotel, Dresden, Hiroshima).

Over the last two or three months, I have been almost overwhelmed by the
activity on this List.  And I have been delighted at how very divergent and
strongly felt opinions been expressed in a temperate manner.  

As a non-historian, I bring no special expertise to the discussion.  What I
have concluded, however, is that history - factual history - is fixed.
There may be additional facts uncovered.  Additional sources may be
discovered.  But they merely illuminate what has occurred:  they do not
change anything.  All the discussion, all the passion, all the debate is
merely the editorial comment of each succeeding generation that brings its
own set of "unbiased" opinions and "impartial" values to the continuing
discussions.  Illumination?  Enlightenment?  Revisionism?  Again, the label
attached to the exercise will generally reflect the views of the
speaker/writer.

I haven't read a single post on this list that has advocated re-institution
of racial segregation, much less slavery.  Yet I wonder what the views of
this list would have been 50 years ago on the subject of racial segregation.
And what would the views of this list have been 150 years ago on slavery
(Paul Finkelman compiled a list of all the "justifications" in a great post
on 6/11).  It is easy to condemn the actions of those who went before;  it
is much more difficult - and far more worthwhile - to learn from the past
and apply that knowledge to the real problems of today.  

=============================
Charles L. Dibble      
Columbia, South Carolina 29202-1240    
============================= 


-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anne Pemberton
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 22:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] VA homeschooling & SOL

Lyle,

In retrospect, I was probably thinking of John Brown as the uprising slave 
who was supported by a number of northerners, Quakers, and abolitionists. It

was a point made in a book about Robert Gould Shaw entitle "Blue Eyed Child 
of Fortune The Civil War Letters of Robert Gould Shaw" edited by Russell 
Duncan with a forward by William S. McFeeley.

But, the point I was making could be applied to either Nat Turner or John 
Brown. They both took the same risks as the leaders of the American 
Rebellion against Britain. The charge of Mass Murder could be laid equally 
against Nat Turner or against the presidents who ordered the bombs dropped 
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Viet Nam, or Baghdad, just to name those in my 
lifetime. It is all "mass murder", and the numbers are not so severe in the 
case of either Nat Turner or John Brown, as in the ones listed above. Nat 
Turner led an army of insurrection. How many armies of insurrection have we 
supported over the decades just in the 20th century? How is Nat Turner's 
"crime" so different?

Anne

Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org