So it is okay to enslave people, take away their lives, but not for one of 
those enslaved, oppressed people to rebel? You would have to see him as a 
man born a slave, whose family was sold away from him, and he being whipped 
into submission. He was not the only religous fanatic of that day. There 
were other religous fanatics who believed that Africans were born to be 
slaves for whites, and used the Bible to justify it. .

That would mean you would need compassion, and the ability to walk in his 
shoes. Don't judge him until you can do that.

Anita


>From: myfriends <[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: Nat Turner and unchanging history
>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:25:02 -0700
>
>No doubt there were other planned rebellions that were put on hold or never 
>got off the ground due to  the Turner fiasco, but I doubt if any new facts 
>will do much to change Nat Turner from a religious fanatic who saw blood on 
>the corn and interpreted an eclipe as the sign he should listen to the 
>voices he heard.
>
>I realize not everyone sees him that way,  but it's  downright scary to 
>read  a former teacher's posting that she could see:
>
>"...  a teacher asking the children to compare Nat Turner to George 
>Washington or Thomas Jefferson who both advocated freedom for the colonies 
>and fought/wrote so that they jeopardized their lives to make it happen. 
>Nat Turner did the same, had many supporters in Virginia and elsewhere, but 
>unlike George Washington he was not successful in defeating "The British" 
>and paid the
>price that would have been paid by George and Thomas had the war not been
>won."
>
>Sure, for highschoolers, but  4th graders?   Would they be asked to read 
>Turner's confession?
>
>Gus
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Wiencek" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 6:52 AM
>Subject: [VA-HIST] Nat Turner and unchanging history
>
>
>Charles L. Dibble writes that "factual history - is fixed." Yes and no. Nat
>Turner provides an excellent example. We know some of the basic facts of 
>his
>uprising, but not all of them; and when we learn new facts, the meaning of
>the event changes.  Lyle writes that the Turner uprising provides "an
>amazingly good definition of futility. . . . No real plan, just a sort of
>generalized instruction to slaughter."  But I recently heard a fascinating
>lecture by a historian who is finding convincing evidence that Turner was
>not a lone nut, as many have thought, but part of a network of conspirators
>across the South planning to rise up in a very well planned, coordinated
>assault against the slave power. Turner jumped the gun, fouled up the whole
>plan, and everybody else ran for cover.  No general uprising took place.  
>We
>will have to await publication of the research to judge its accuracy, but 
>if
>this historian is right, we get a whole new view of what happened, and the
>event changes.
>
>Henry Wiencek
>Charlottesville

_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now. 
It’s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_June07