He lost, so obviously a terrorist. If he and his rebels had won, they would have been hailed as freedom fighters and there would have been schools and streets named after them. America may root for the underdog, but we only celebrate the victors.
Terrorists intentionally do violence upon civilians to advance their cause, whereas I reckon a bona fide freedom fighter would minimize civilian casualties to those inflicted in self-defense and those incurred as minor collateral damage when engaging government targets or other armed belligerants in the conflict. So far as I can tell, Nat Turner's campaign was unequivocally terrorist in nature, though it bears noting that retaliations against slaves afterwards were even more brutal and morally backward. With the benefit of hindsight I don't think I'd have aligned with any of the factions involved.
Anyone held as a slave is not a terrorist. The slavers bring any violence of a slave revolt upon themselves.
Violence is NEVER good, unless it's instigated by the mighty against the oppressed. The oppressed usually lose, so they're the terrists. We ought to know that.
the time period has to be considered, a slave had no right to life, fair treatment or mercy, killed, tortured, raped, beaten, sold as property by their owners, treat people like that and you shouldn't expect to be treated any differently when the roles reverse...
I would like to state that there is a difference between a "reason" for something violent and nasty happening and a "justification" for the same event happening. Several times in this Forum I've been accused of being pro-Terrorist because I stated I understood the reason behind the terrorism, but I was always pointing out that that reason didn't justify true terrorism (targeting of innocent civilians being the most obvious example of non-justification). There is a definite difference in meaning between the two words. The War on Drugs creates the reason, caused by market forces, for violent criminal behavior by the gangs creating, importing and distributing those drugs but it doesn't serve as a justification for that criminal behavior.
Fight can also be a revolutionary act to cause something (or resistance or fight) Since 9/11 you see several groups and/or organisations that 'fight' a political topic (cause fight) (OWS, Assange, femen, Infowars, all did/do the same, cause resistance or fight), but do they really fight or do their revolutionary acts, to cause resistance in millions of people? You have to see that resistance to a problem or tyranny (caused) will lead to organisation of millions of people. Not many times in history organisation develloped because of tyranny from rulers/emperors/kings has led to freedom, often ended in empire/dictatorship/kingdom and war. How a freedom fighter has become a 'terrorist' over the centuries. Terrorist has become a political label since 9/11, never solid proof of 'terrorists', but if you look at history and how any times there were slave periods and/or a freedom fighter a Robin Hood figure, you can imagen who did or caused the tyranny) How freedom fight (resistance) and also 'terrorism' (that is the proganda, the spread of fear) leads to mass organisation. A freedom party or freedom organisation does not keep people's freedom.
usually the victor writes the history... Nazi germany referred to the resistance forces of occupied europe as terrorists, and the allied bombing raids as terror bombings ...
ya, "two wrongs don't make a right"...but why it happens is understandable... the bombings of civilian targets in moscow by muslims is terror but when I look at the bigger picture and see what the death and terror russians initially brought down in Chechnya I can understand the retaliation...not that it makes it justified...
Turner was a hero, no question about it. So some white civilians got killed. whoop Most of the people holding slaves were white civilians. Anybody eating the bread produced by a slave deserves to die. That simple.
Clearly a terrorist, he lost... The only way a slave revolt would have been successful is if it was perpetrated in Africa, where the blacks were selling the blacks to the Europeans, nip it in bud sort of thing, alas that didn't happen and we hear the whining about such a failure ringing through the centuries...
The slave trade prior to the European invasions was mostly a means of pacifying newly-conquered areas. Slaves had some legal rights and could escape their slave status. At least, in Africa, they were not considered less than human.
I'm surprised that PF allows such a blatantly racist post that celebrates murdering people because of their race. You should be shamed of yourself leftysergeant. As for the original question, Nat Turner was a terrorist because he targeted innocent civilians, not the institution he was opposed to. Also, Turner explicitly said he wanted to spread "terror and alarm" among whites and claimed to have been "charged with a mission from God to destroy the white race." There is no valid excuse for killing 60 innocent men, women, and children. None.
i voted freedom fighter because simply slavery was and always will be wrong and no innocent person deserves to be treated in such a way.
