John Brown

[Burn A Flag]

First Nat Turner, now John Brown. This time our textbook actually claims that he has a deranged mind. My teacher claimed he was a "crazy wacko abolitionist" on the basis that he "hacked people to peices at the Potawamie Massacre. Even from his wikipedia article he sounds pretty fucking revolutionary, but I'd like to hear some defenses of John Brown from Revleft. Justify the Pottawamie Masscare. It's really disturbing me how agressively she attacks any violent revolutionary figures, while ignoring and even applauding institutional reactionary violence. Even other students who aren't leftist are concerned with her intense hatred for people who fought slavery from a revolutionary perspective. The ironic thing is she went to Hampton University which is a majority African American school yet she sounds like a fucking apologist for slavery.

The way I see it John Brown and the Pottawamie Massacre are comparable to ANTIFA action against Fascists.

[Pretty Flaco]

John Brown was a little bit loose in the head but his militant opposition to slavery certainly was commendable.

EDIT
Sorry, you wanted a long drawn out explanation of the historical factors and whatnot, but I've just got a short opinion for you!

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you can get your hands on a copy of "Lies My Teacher Told Me" there is excellent stuff about how textbooks treat John Brown specifically.

THe basic argument of that chapter is that the way John Brown has been presented in schoolbooks reflects the racial situation going on in society. So John Brown was a monster when he was arrested and executed to all but the abolitionists (and then only some of them) but 10 years later he was seen as a hero of liberation and northern soldiers sang "John Brown's Body" as they marched to the south. After the reaction to reconstruction and establishment of Jim Crow, Brown was again seen as a crazy madman and it wasn't until the civil rights movement that historians began to re-evaluate their views of Brown and many historical figures but now most textbooks have gone back to the Brown is crazy version. The book argues that by presenting John Brown as a madman textbooks are suggesting that it is a crazy thing to actively oppose oppressive system - particularly when they do not effect you personally.

[Jimmie Higgins]

John Brown was a little bit loose in the head but his militant opposition to slavery certainly was commendable.

When I was in school they told us that he was crazy because he believed that God wanted him to end slavery. But in retrospect, I wonder how valid this charge is considering that many of the abolitionists were extremely religious and many religious people in that time thought that God gave them signs or messages about this or that. I'm sure there are quotes where Lincoln says something about divine guidance or something. Also most pro-slavery people thought that God wanted them to be in that position and that slavery was cool with God.

So, if you think that God wants you to end slavery, you are a religious fanatic... but if you think that God wants you to be a slave-master, you are just a normal slave-owner?

[gorillafuck]

John Brown was one of the greatest people ever

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinn...eshistory.html

[syndicat]

Well, Kansas was in the midst of a kind of civil war. the pro-slavery forces had promised bloody violence in their newspaper only shortly before the "Pottawamie Massacre." the "massacre" itself was a retaliation for the sacking of Lawrence, an abolitionist stronghold. in one of the cabins on the Pottawamie they searched, they interrogated people and let most of them go but killed a militant pro-slavery advocate. So, their efforts here were aimed at pro-slavery millitants, slave catchers and the like in the course of what was virtually a civil war. in that era use of swords as weapons wasn't exactly unusual. the slavers and advocates of slavery engaged in and advocated violence. and the abolitionist movement did so, as well, as part of its struggle against the slavers. the slaves were not going to be liberated without violence. the large active supporters of slavery, and the southern planter elite, would make sure of that.

at the time of the raid on the armory at Harper's Ferry, which resulted in Brown's death, he was regarded as a loose cannon because others weren't yet ready to consider an armed force of ex-slaves to fight for their liberation. but by about 1863 that's what the union government did...it started forming black regiments, and ultimately close to 200,000 black men fought for the liberation of their people in the union army. but by then this course of action was supported by much white northern opinion....so of course the opinion of Brown changed.

the white abolitionist movement was based to a large extent on the churches...congregationalists, unitarians, Quakers. my great-great-grandparents moved to northeast Kansas about the time of the Pottawamie massacre to participate in the abolitonist struggle there, and they were devout northern Baptists.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

John Brown was never even mentioned in any school that I went to.

I would suggest you remind your teacher that chattel slavery is based on the constant threat of violence... or at least I would if I thought it would have any effect.

[synthesis]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

[blake 3:17]

I knew a very brilliant 11 year old who asked the question, What would John Brown and Gandhi say to each other?

[Jalapeno Enema]

I'm sure there are quotes where Lincoln says something about divine guidance or something.

Many, many times (see link below).

It's hard to say, however, due to difference in culture then and now, and tolerance of differing religious outlooks, whether he was committed to the idea of religion, or merely offering lip-service. Read more about Lincoln's religious beliefs here

John Brown, on the other hand, I'm sure was very religious; I've heard nothing to contradict such claims.

When looking back throughout history, it's important to remember that as social animals, society around us shapes who we are and how people see us. Merely remembering dates and events is only part of understanding history. Try to understand how people lived their lives and you have a better understanding of history.

There have been times when religion has been more and times when less influential on people's lives then today. One trend I have seen, however, is atheist/agnostic apathy/despondence. It is rarely a bad political move to be perceived as devout, but it's often political suicide to been seen as non-believing. Even during times where religion is on the back burner, influential people often offer lip service.

[blake 3:17]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

He was playing for the highest stakes.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

I hate these movies too and their liberal quazi-white-man's burden undertones. But really is someone who's not from an oppressed group but recognizes the oppression in society and wants to do something about it is a fuck-up? I think we want working class solidarity and recognition of economic and racial inequalities.

John Brown wasn't trying to get a band of white abolitionist insurrectionists together to save black people who he thought couldn't save themselves, he was trying to arm black people to create a liberation army.

It's hard to say, however, due to difference in culture then and now, and tolerance of differing religious outlooks, whether he was committed to the idea of religion, or merely offering lip-service. Read more about Lincoln's religious beliefs here

Ok, but just to be clear I wasn't arguing anything about religion or religious attitudes, my target was more about how the textbooks represent historical figures. I mean my High School teacher didn't just say that John Brown was religious, but said he was an irrational fanatic and compared him to Charles Manson and the Branch Dividians (which was an ongoing confrontation at that time just to date myself a little). Because, you know, thinking that slavery is an intolerable situation and wanting to help countless people liberate themselves is basically the same and just as irrational as having the belief that you are the new son of God or wanting to sneak into the homes of celebrities to kill them.

[bailey_187]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

Wasnt the raid he was killed on an attempt to capture weapons to distribute to slaves though?

[gorillafuck]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

His story isn't reminiscent of white mans burden stories, because in those the white person realizes that racism is bad and convinces the racists to not be racist and learns a lesson about equality or something along those lines. John Brown was trying to startup a slave army for the slaves to use to overthrow their masters through an armed insurrection because he recognized that slaves needed to liberate themselves but he could help them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

John Brown = Tom Berenger in The Substitute

[Burn A Flag]

Thanks for all the useful information. She made it sound like John Brown and his sons mutilated the bodies of their victims. Is there any truth to that? In my textbook it also said that there were 13 people related to Brown who were legally insane. Truth to that either? Either way Brown was revolutionary, but just curious.

[La Comédie Noire]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

Dude he, cut people in half! That's more than Hillary Swank has done in her entire career.

Oh and I pass the John brown bell on my way to work everyday. mwhahaha history.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I guess it's hard to separate historically controvercial figures from the politically-motivated myths around them. Just think when historians go back and try and figure out what the left in this period was like: the evidence they will have will really only be our publications and what people like Glenn Beck say about us... so how the protests and groups of today will be seen by the future historians will depend on if there was a revolution or not (because if there isn't one then we'll be straight ignored.)

But anyway, even today Gerneral Sherman is portrayed as a monster by many people both north and south for the "march to the sea". But the same people who say it was barbaric for Sherman to try and sever the south from it's main points of military and trade infrastructure in a war that would end slavery and help liberate countless people also say it was totally justified for the US to drop a few a-bombs on Japan and threaten the survival of humanity with 50 year suicidal nuclear stand-off with Russia!

Really, who are the insane ones?

Edit: Also someone said that John Brown was killed at Harper's but he was hanged by the federal governmnet... I think he was the first official federal execution too, but I could be mistaken.

A PLEA FOR CAPTAIN JOHN BROWN by Thoreau

[gorillafuck]

Thanks for all the useful information. She made it sound like John Brown and his sons mutilated the bodies of their victims. Is there any truth to that? In my textbook it also said that there were 13 people related to Brown who were legally insane. Truth to that either? Either way Brown was revolutionary, but just curious.

Slaveowners were the ones who would mutilate and brutalize people every fuckin' day, even if it is true that John Brown did that, that is hardly a criticism to make against those who sought the liberation of the slaves.

the carcasses of the Abolitionists should be so numerous in the territory as to breed disease and sickness, we will not be deterred from our purpose

Whitewashing this while focusing on John Browns heroism and calling it "insane" is, well, insane.