February 26, 2017
Post by Chirusha de Mel
Should John Brown be Considered as a Terrorist or
Freedom Fighter?
John
Brown is a radical abolitionist who has caused violence in Kansas, in order to
free slaves from the south. Analysts of the conflict have viewed John Brown as
a terrorist. However, even though Brown and his group went on a rampage and
killed many innocent civilians, it does not mean that this was an act of
terrorism. I believe that John Brown was a freedom fighter because he fought
for basic human rights, by trying to put an end to slavery for a virtues cause.
In the article, John Brown, Terrorist?
By Nicole Etchenson. Etchenson argues that John Brown flourished as a guerrilla
leader in the 1860s by attempting to put an end to slavery, however some
scholars may argue that John Brown should be considered as a terrorist due to
the attacks on innocent civilians.
The
term terrorism was not defined until the1960s. John Brown is a freedom fighter,
he fought for the rights of African Americans, and while fighting he never
instilled fear among those he had attacked. In addition, terrorism is partly defined as
instilling fear among individuals, and as time progresses the term terrorism becomes
more ambiguous. According to Lutz and Lutz,
“terrorism
is a term that has come to have an extremely negative connotation that makes it
difficult to be connected to a good cause. The association of terrorism with
evil began in the 1960s and clearly became more connected in the aftermath of
the Oklahoma City bombings, the 9/11 attacks, the school takeover in Beslan in
Russia, and other major attacks that have killed large numbers of people. It is
worth noting, however, that terrorism did not always have such a negative
connotation.”[1]
The attacks at Pottawatomie
Creek was vicious, making John Brown’s actions unjustified in many eyes,
however this does not detract from his constructive acts to end slavery. It is important to note that only after the
1960s individuals began to consider John Brown as a terrorist. At that time period
John Brown was fighting to gain freedom for the African Americans, and did not
aim to harm innocent civilians. This portrays John Brown as an abolitionist
fighting for the rights of African Americans.
According
to Etchenson, while guerrillas predominantly attack
the military, terrorists engage in spectacular acts of violence intended to
impress public opinion and whose targets are either “indiscriminate” –
disregarding the possibility of civilian deaths – or are expressly civilians. [2] This states that John Brown appears as a guerrilla intent
on overthrowing the oppression of slavery. The Harpers Ferry was a model of
guerrilla warfare rather than terrorism. Harpers Ferry was a secret conspiracy
that failed, and the attack on Harpers Ferry was directed at a federal arsenal.
Furthermore, it is important to denote that John Brown, did not have a concrete
political strategy while causing violence. Lastly, his only intentions were to free the slaves. If John Brown did not fight for the rights of African Americans someone else would have. If John Brown never occurred, MLK would have been different, and may have not been as effective if he was peaceful. In addition, John Brown should not be considered as a terrorist but as a freedom fighter, and tactic was needed during that specific time period.
I really like this post because I agree also that John Brown was a freedom fighter and not a terrorist. You made a great point in saying that the term terrorism wasn't coined until the 1960's so therefore in that fact alone John Brown shouldn't be considered a terrorist. You can look back on his actions to see if his acts were considered terrorism in today's terms, but to call John Brown a terrorist discredits his bravery. Great post.
ReplyDelete-Stephen Agnatovech
DeleteI like how in your piece you mentioned how MLK and how that id john brown did not use violence and fail then possibly that could have changed how MLK acted himself. I also like how you mentioned guerrilla warfare and how it differs from terrorism.
ReplyDelete-Christopher Bouchard
Chirusha, you write a very compelling argument. I agree that John Brown's actions were virtuous and that what he did was heroic and he is a freedom fighter. You also make a valid point about how terrorism as a term was not defined until the 1960's. However, I believe that his actions can be terroristic and virtuous. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. I think if we remove the negative connotations around the term terrorism and still state that his actions were noble and virtuous, we can look at his actions as one of a terrorist.
ReplyDelete-Andrew Gillis
Although I disagree with your argument, I like the way you supported your argument. I understand that the term terrorism was not defined until the 1960's but I believe that anyone who uses terror as a tactic is a terrorist regardless of whether it was before the 1960's or after. I think that since he used terror as a tactic he qualifies to be labeled a terrorist regardless of his reasoning.
ReplyDelete