Somewhere along the line I've read that two wrongs don't make a
right. Somewhere.
So please let us not trot out these red herrings again.
Thanks,
Lyle Browning
On Sep 3, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Anita Wills wrote:
> 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
|
