Reply
Scribe
vivico1
Posts: 3,456
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: John Brown


IBIS wrote:
Vivian, okay, okay.

"Uncle!" IBIS cried, with a wink at Vivian, and flew off into the tropical sunset.


lolol IBIS, dont mean this to be a contest, I am saying, I don't particularly see him as heroic but what he, in his own way, was trying to do, as you say could be called loathsome, but I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt because of WHY he was doing it and say, maybe the truth lies somewhere in between, do you think maybe? lol
Vivian
~Those who do not read are no better off than those who can not.~ Chinese proverb
Author
MichaelCWhite
Posts: 98
Registered: ‎10-08-2007
0 Kudos

Re: John Brown

All good points. A wonderfully illuminating discussion. To clarify my position on terrorists (such as Brown): I think that violent means for change should only be used as a last resort, not as early response to force change. And even then it can't be fully embraced as a moral good. The great pacifist leaders--Gandhi, King, Christ and the like--are the only advocates of change who do not have any blood on their hands. Everyone else does. And yet, I feel that there are circumstances when, after all lawful, reasoned, and humane attempts have been made to exert change, force is all that is left. Take for example, Nazi Germany. Setting aside for a moment all the appeasement mistakes we made before 1939, it came finally down to a matter of force. That is all that someone like Hitler would understand. I am by no means an advocate of force or violence under normal circumstances, and certainly the Bin Ladens and McVeighs are morally reprehensible people and their actions stand well outside any definition of heroic or morally defensible. But, on the other hand, the American Revolution is, I think, a good example of the complexity of branding an action as terrorist. The colonists entered into violence and force reluctantly, having first tried all legal means to obtain the rights every Englishman had. And even then, they knew, if they lost, they would be hung as traitors and terrorists.

This is a very necessary dialogue given the fact that we are now at war, and that we have an administration that so readily and loosely tosses about the term terrorist.

Michael


Learn more about
Soul Catcher
.
Wordsmith
kiakar
Posts: 3,435
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: John Brown



IBIS wrote:
Vivian, excellent question.

I'm thinking of the twist that contemporary culture has given to the meaning of "hero". The traditional definition of hero is someone with positive moral values who, if not exactly a paragon of virtue, is sympathetic because he tries very hard. A good example of a Western hero would be Shane.

However, today, there is a sore lack of positive role models. Our "heroes" today are sports figures who play for skyrocketing salaries, rock stars who perform for skyrocketing salaries, movie stars who pretend for skyrocketing salaries.

Music videos and CDs offer rap singers who are self-appointed role models for our youth, but whose lyrics are highly suspect.

Since many people equate John Brown to an American hero and patriot, I merely suggest that because of his actions, he is a loathsome one.

Message Edited by IBIS on 11-06-2007 08:48 PM




IBIS;
Its like saying something good happened from something badly done before it. I feel that it had to be a civil war because the southerners that wanted slavery were rich and influencial to beat a band. They would have never negiogated for peaceful agreements in giving up slavery. No Way! And how could enslavery continue on forever! For all the weak or weakly treated shall rise! It might talk of slavery in the bible but it also talks of the meek and the weak rising up someday. And like follow the leader, the rest of the southerners stuck their heads in the fire along with the rich plantation owners including Cain.
Inspired Scribe
IBIS
Posts: 1,735
Registered: ‎11-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Terrorist Tactics of John Brown vs Timothy McVeigh

Michael, Vivian, Linda, and everyone else sharing the discussion re this fascinating subject:

Attached is a link to the website HNN (History News Network) where I've found helpful discussions by historians re different subjects.

This link has a debate comparing the terrorist tactics of Timothy McVeigh and John Brown.

Just for the record, I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Paul Finkelman's NO position, but the YES position has some interesting points (re the role model of historic figures to our current generation).


IBIS

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=139
IBIS

"I am a part of everything that I have read."
Wordsmith
kiakar
Posts: 3,435
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Terrorist Tactics of John Brown vs Timothy McVeigh



IBIS wrote:
Michael, Vivian, Linda, and everyone else sharing the discussion re this fascinating subject:

Attached is a link to the website HNN (History News Network) where I've found helpful discussions by historians re different subjects.

This link has a debate comparing the terrorist tactics of Timothy McVeigh and John Brown.

Just for the record, I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Paul Finkelman's NO position, but the YES position has some interesting points (re the role model of historic figures to our current generation).


IBIS

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=139




Thanks IBIS; This is fascinating: the comparsion. Love it!
Wordsmith
kiakar
Posts: 3,435
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Terrorist Tactics of John Brown vs Timothy McVeigh



IBIS wrote:
Michael, Vivian, Linda, and everyone else sharing the discussion re this fascinating subject:

Attached is a link to the website HNN (History News Network) where I've found helpful discussions by historians re different subjects.

This link has a debate comparing the terrorist tactics of Timothy McVeigh and John Brown.

Just for the record, I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Paul Finkelman's NO position, but the YES position has some interesting points (re the role model of historic figures to our current generation).


IBIS

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=139




Oh! I forgot to add; I do not believe its a good comparsion either. McVeigh seemed to be pleasure seeking and conjuring up wild tales to support his evilness while Brown's cause was good, he just didn't go about it in the right way.
Inspired Wordsmith
Stephanie
Posts: 2,613
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Terrorist Tactics of John Brown vs Timothy McVeigh

IBIS,

Excellent link, thanks for posting it.
Stephanie
Author
MichaelCWhite
Posts: 98
Registered: ‎10-08-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Terrorist Tactics of John Brown vs Timothy McVeigh



IBIS wrote:
Michael, Vivian, Linda, and everyone else sharing the discussion re this fascinating subject:

Attached is a link to the website HNN (History News Network) where I've found helpful discussions by historians re different subjects.

This link has a debate comparing the terrorist tactics of Timothy McVeigh and John Brown.

Just for the record, I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Paul Finkelman's NO position, but the YES position has some interesting points (re the role model of historic figures to our current generation).


IBIS

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=139


Ibis,

Thanks for a great website. I read the debate about McVeigh and Brown with great interest, and end up siding with Finkelman, who makes, I think, by far the more clear sighted argument. Though I say this with great hesitation because violence, as I've said before in these discussions, should always be used as a last resort and even then it's never a morally clear act.

But thanks much.
Michael


Learn more about
Soul Catcher
.
Users Online
Currently online: 19 members 173 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: