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