Thursday, February 27, 2014

Abolitionist or Terrorists?

Historian Kenneth Gray once stated that there existed a thin line between what one can call a patriot and terrorists.  He basic argument was that those the advocate a change for what they honestly believe to be fundamentally "right" can indeed be considered a true patriot.  Did not Thomas Jefferson state:

"And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Yet, one could, if one so desired, interpret the call to "...let them take arms" and "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots" to be a form of terrorism.  The Oxford dictionary definition of the word terrorism is, "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."  Therefore, one can clearly see Gray's point by stating that their exist that "thin line" between the two.

On February 14th of this year, a group of activists in Charleston, SC unveiled what has become a very controversial statue of the black abolitionists, Denmark Vesey.  The "New York Times" recently wrote an opinion piece on the controversy.  Click here to read the article and then fire away on the blog question for this week... should be an interesting one!!!

BLOG QUESTION:
First, do you agree with historian Kenneth Gray that there really does exist a thin line between what one may call a terrorists or a patriot?  After reading the article, what is your opinion on the statue of Denmark Vesey - should it be celebrated or does it glorify the wrong message?

*Note: Thanks Melissa for bring this one to my attention!!!  Again, any of you that have an interesting topic to discuss, just let me know!!

50 comments:

  1. This topic is very interesting. I, for one believed that patriotism and terrorism are two different principles that are only separated by a thin line I would like to call perspective. For me, I believe that a Patriot is someone who fights for the honor of his/her country, while a terrorist is someone who targets innocent people and basically commit violent acts with dishonorable reasons. However, when you think about it, a terrorist could be a patriot and a patriot be a terrorist, it’s just a matter of perspective and from where you are coming from.
    As for the statue of Denmark Vesey, I fairly believed the issues catalyzed by this statue again depends on perspective. To most African Americans he could be celebrated as a hero who fought for freedom but for the whites he could be seen as a rebel who disrupted peace. However, despite all the differences between perspectives, I don’t see why Vesey’s statue shouldn’t be celebrated. I mean this is the land of the free, and Denmark Vesey fought for unshackling the binds of slavery and for freedom, so why not celebrate a man who risked his life to attain freedom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you totally! But, the celebrated part I feel tilts both ways. Yes, the fight for freedom should definitally be celebrated. Hey, I mean we did it. However, due to the fact that it involved killing Americans, our own blood, i wouldn't celebrate it. Now it had to involve our own blood there was no other way! But to celebrate sounds wrong. That's why i feel it is stronger serving as a reminder of our history and the extremes that slave life was.

      Delete
    2. Do you think a patriot could also be a terrorist simultaneously...viewed as both at the same time? In other words a person who uses fear to accomplish his goal as a hero. Or do you think one has to be strictly a patriot or strictly a terrorist?

      Delete
    3. JEN GOMEZ's Comment:

      I agree with what you say about prospective. It is principally the situation that has the ability to determine if they are a patriot or terrorists. In respective to Abu, someone whom uses fear cannot be completely defined as a hero. There is a fine boundary between a patriot and a terrorist.

      Delete
    4. A lot of terrorists believe that they have killed people for an honorable cause, yet only they think it was for an honorable cause, while little to no people in the world will agree with them. This is definitely not a matter of perspective. Patriotism and terrorism should not be easily confused. If patriotism is confused for terrorism, than it's not patriotism.
      Justin to your comment, don't we celebrate independence day as separation from our own blood? We celebrate a war won against our own people.

      Delete
    5. When patriots are rallied against a cause, its because they are being oppressed of their country's founding ideals. That's what they fight for freedom, equality, etc. But terrorists plot attacks on culturally/regionally different people that aren't necessarily suppressing them. No one asks a terrorist to come into their country and teach them a lesson. In America's case, we all want to stay westernized. Terrorists are the ones stepping into a country violently and attacking it. In other words patriots fight a defensive war while terrorists are playing offense. So that is why I do not agree with you about perspective.

      Delete
    6. Okay, So, I still stand that the thin line that separates terrorism and patriotism is perspective. We are saying such stuff like terrorists fights for stuff and illogical reasons. BUT, that is how we see it. The people of the said terrorist might see their actions as patriotic. Thus, it is still a matter of perspective. It just all depends on which side are you on.

      Delete
    7. And as a reply to Abu's comment, I really find your questions interesting in a sense that yeah I've been pondering for a while on what to say. But anyways, I have come to the conclusion, that yeah a patriot could be viewed as a terrorist simultaneously. For example. Person A is viewed as a terrorist by Country B, while the that same person is viewed as a patriot by Country A. So yeah, a matter of perspective again.

      Delete
    8. And as a reply to Bishoy's comment, your statement "yet only they think it was for an honorable cause, while little to no people in the world will agree with them" How do you know 'little to no people in the world" will or will not agree if the committed act is honorable or not? That is fairly generalize to me. Also as for the confusion between terrorism and patriotism. How would these two get confused with one another? I said they are two principles that are different from one another but is only separated by perspective. It all depends on which side you are on.

      Delete
    9. I feel people should determine for themselves whether or not to celebrate the statue. It's not up to the town of Charleston. It's public property, just leave it as it is. If one group of people chooses to celebrate it, let them. If others choose to hate it, let them as well. This is America, after all.

      Delete
  2. There truly does exist a thin line between what one can call a patriot and terrorists, and unfortunately for lack of better words, i must take ms. De Leon's usage of the word"perspective." Why? Because after some serious consideration of the topic i truly believe it all exists in 2 things : The angle at which you look at look at it (perspective) ; and which side of the fence you are on. It sounds weird but I will clarify. A terroists I feel is accurately defined as "A terrorist is someone who uses fear to enact a desired response from a person/people". They do this based on a certain belief or for a cause that they feel the reaction will reflect on. A patriot, someone who believes and supports their country ardently. So even in just their definition i think it is clear one can simply be defined as both. Take the Boston Tea Party for example. The dumping of the Tea was a "patriotic" act was it not? Defending America and combating with Britain. Those who took part believed and supported their "almost country's cause". But did they also not do this to evoke a reaction from Britain to support the cause? Does this not make them terrorists in the eyes of the British? That side of the fence looks pretty capable of throwing the terrorist card. However, like my favorite quote states "History is written by the victor", so we are percieved as pretty patriot terrorists. Now for this topic; its a slippery slope. The main idea is you have to look at things through a slaves PERSPECTIVE and their lives. "Stage a protest march"... ahuh.. in their enviornment this wasnt an option, an idea , or possibility. Unfortunately, they lived in a violent enviornment and the reality of it is Vesey saw it as it was: "fight back or die a slave". Now here is my take on it. Rebellion or Revolution? Again perspective people. It was a violent plan but don't you understand he was fighting for freedom? Liberty? The roots of our own country. Yet some look down on him. So for the statue the message I take from it is "a man who attempted to combat unfair control for the better of his people". Hey it sounds like us! So no it does not express the wrong message but also it shouldnt be celebrated. What it should be is a reminder of our history that represents the struggles that slaves faced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with your idea of perspective. Different sides will view events differently. However, why don't you think we shouldn't "celebrate" this but it should only be a reminder? we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr so why not Denmark Vesey?

      Delete
    2. MLK advocated through peaceful terms and controlled protest. Obviously Vesey couln't take that pah it was impossible his only chance was to through violence. But in the end he was plotting to kill American's and although he did it for a good cause i admit the loss of American lives makes it bitter. I just don't think we can celebrate something that promoted killing eachother. It's like the civil war it is a dark thing and it can't be celebrated but serves as a strong reminder.

      Delete
    3. The Civil War is an event. Vesey is a man and we aren't specifically celebrating his rebellion. If your ideology was the case why do we celebrate men such as Sherman, Grant and even Lincoln. They put forth many events which caused American bloodshed

      Delete
    4. JEN GOMEZ's Comment:

      It was interesting to read all of your examples because they correctly portrayed a patriot and a terrorists. It was also interesting how you incorporated perspective because it does play a big part with both words.

      Delete
    5. I disagree with the whole perspective thing. Yes, their will be two sides to the story, but (and very rarely I will say this) only one side will be right. Terrorism is terrorism, Patriotism is patriotism. They both have very different goals, and if you have trouble discerning between the goal of a patriotic act, than it has to be terrorism. Vessey was a clearly a patriot due to his goal. Good Night

      Delete
    6. Jumping on a bandwagon follwing jen and justin lol. I too agree the line drawn btween the two is soley based off "perspective". I also agree that to be celebrated or to not be celebrated can go both ways, But, I mean he did fight to gain freedom, and put his life one the line for this. So I say why not?

      Delete
    7. Ok, and now for bish, you said that why can't the goals of patriots and terrorists be preceived similarly? And no i am not saying that I don't think Vessy was patriot or not? i just simply saying that this cannot be a fact that teh goals of terrorits and patriots are totally different. ( Perspective comes into play upon a variety of indivdual people)

      Delete
    8. JD I like your post but I think you are missing one piece of info here.

      The article mentions that Charleston also has monuments of Confederate soldiers displayed. Now I don't know how long they've been there but these monuments should not be displayed ether. So yes, in a perfect world Vesey along with the Confederate monuments should ALL be removed. But, that isn't going to happen. I agree that Vesey shouldn't be celebrated but neither should those guys fighting in the name of slavery. So do the black community some justice here and let them keep the statue.

      Delete
  3. I completely agree with Kenneth Gray's opinion. There is a very thin line between a terrorist and patriot and also the view depends on a person's viewpoint. A great example from modern times is Nelson Mandela. While he was fighting in his earlier years he was viewed as an insurgent. Later on, views shifted and he was viewed as a patriot. Furthermore, it depends on the side the per on is from. One person may view someone as a patriot while another may view them as a terrorist. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was viewed as a hero in the colonies while as a radical by Great Britain.The situation of Denmark Vesey's statue is simple. It should be celebrated because he was one of the earliest patriots fighting for the freedom and equality of blacks. He had to create "radical" plans because at the time the issues could only be dealt "radically." The government was completely biased and he was not able to do anything legally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, i feel we celebration of the statue can be taken in differing perspectives which is why i'd rather "representation" not "celebration". Because in reality he was attempting to take the lives of other Americans for his freedom. While this extreme was necesarry something that involves spilling the blood of any American is something which should never be celebrated. Rather it should represent a struggle for freedom and his bravery as an abolitionist. Agree? Or not ?>:(

      Delete
    2. I disagree... Vesey had no other choice during the time and this was the only way he could make a mark He should be celebrated for the major risk he took for equal rights. As for American bloodshed we celebrate the Union victory of the Civil War in many similar ways. Should we not also celebrate men such as Grant or even Lincoln then??

      Delete
    3. Abu i'm in a car on my way to Vermont so i'll leave you with this. I didn't think of it like that but i stand by my point! Maybe i dun-goofed but i'm going to nap now. Yes though we do celebrate vicotry but not the war itself. So it depends on how you percieve the statue i agree with you slightly. I would celebrate Veseh's bravery but not his course of action. We celebrate victory but not the war itself? Get me? Goodnight

      Delete
    4. JEN GOMEZ's Comment:

      I liked what you said about a person’s viewpoint. It is most definitely based on opinion, which is how perspective comes into play. Terrorists may see themselves as patriots because they truly believe they are harming others for the benefit of their country, but unreality they are terrorists for using violent means to get their message across.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. I believe Abu brings up a valid point when he talks about the statue of Denmark Vesey should be celebrated. Vesey needed to take a stance which involved the killings of whites. If he didn't no one would take him seriously because a protest or non violence acts would do nothing to create equality.

      Delete
    7. I agree with you that first, to conclude that something is patriotic or is an act of terrorism all depends on perspective and as what I have been repeating over and over again, it all depends from where you are coming from. And Second, yeah, Denmark Vesey Should be celebrated because again his cause was for freedom, he basically became a symbol of hope and his cause depicts the whole principality of the nation being the land of the free.

      Delete
  4. This is JEN GOMEZ's Blog Post:

    There most definitely is a very vivid line between what a patriot and terrorists. Agreeing with both Justin and Chrizxia, perspective does play a key role in this topic. A patriot is ultimately defined as a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. On the other hand, terrorists are those whom use violence in pursuit of political aims. The main difference between these two words is the violence. The act of terrorists involves the prominent actions of violence; this group of people believes bloodshed is the way to answer for the harm they have done. A patriot will defend their country in a humane matter. The attack of 9/11 was a terrorist action because they were aiming to permanently damage and hurt a whole nation. I must also agree that it is fully based on perspective and what many perceive of a certain event. A situation in which can be defined as a terrorist action may be patriotic. I also believe it has to do with the severedity of the situation; how much harm occurred? Also, the principal intentions of the person or group when going into the situation. Even though a patriot and terrorists are two very distinct things, the ability to mark a person or group with one of these names depends on the severity of the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoa Jen. Just hold up there. You just pretty much said that if violent force is being used than it is automatically terrorism. You pretty much said that every revolutionary movement, rebellion, or patriotic act is terrorism. You just said that the American Revolutionary war was terrorism, the revolution in Egypt is terrorism, the protests in Ukraine is terrorism. You completely eliminated patriotism. If the American government decides to eradicate freedom of speech and the Second Amendment, and the people of the country rise up and fight there country to regain their rights, is that terrorism? According to you it is, because the people fighting for their right are a group of people who "use violence in pursuit of political aims." Hopefully you didn't mean it and you just dun goofed in your wording.

      Delete
    2. Jen you seem to have somewhat contricted yourself. I totally agree with you that the differnence bwteen terrorists and patriots is based upon indivdual perspectives. But, as for you saying if violent force is being used than it is automatically terrorism, I think I'm with bish on this one . Again it is based upon opinon. But, you must take into account that a patriot though fights for his/her country to any extent to protect and do what is best for their country, but a terrorists can fit this criteria as well, and vice-versa.

      Delete
    3. I think Bish is right on this one Jenn. You basically are saying that any movement involving the use of violent acts deemed as terrorism. That most certainly is not true. Throughout our history we can see America has used violent acts to protect their freedoms and as Bishoy said the American Revolution. There was bloodshed on both sides but American was fighitng for its freedoms and rights, does this mean it was an act of terrorism?

      Delete
    4. I think you are confused in the sense of violent actions too. Obviously violence is present in both terrorism and patriotism; hence why it is hard for some to differentiate. However, the methodologies and principles behind the violence is what categorizes the act.

      Delete
    5. Jen, I agree with the perspective ideas, but I disagree with your statement "A patriot will defend their country in a humane matter."as defined by google humane means "having or showing compassion or benevolence" And aren't most defensive actions of a patriot leads to bloodshed. so does bloodshed show compassion? I don't think so.

      Delete
  5. I disagree with Kenneth Gray, terrorism and patriotism are not hard to discern from each other. This is an interesting topic because to answer the question we need to define what terrorism is. In my opinion, terrorism is a tool that humanity uses to accomplish two goals. The first goal, which is a simple one, is to use terrorism for self benefit. This means someone is threatening the lives of innocent people to gain money or power, such as someone holding a school hostage and demanding money for their release. The next goal of terrorism is a bit tricky, because it is more psychological. In this part, the goal of terrorism is to change the culture and moralistic views of a certain people, and the government, of a country. Basically, it is an attack on the people and government, not only physically, but also psychologically (morals). 9/11 is an example of this type of terrorism. We all know 9/11 as a physical attack on innocent American citizens, but the true attack was not only a physical attack, but also an attack on the American lifestyle, culture, and morals. Now that I have defined what terrorism is, let us look at what Thomas Jefferson wanted us to make of patriotism. The biggest difference between patriotism and terrorism is that Patriotism is not meant to change the moralistic views of a nation, but to uphold the nations moralistic views that may be threatened by the government. Basically, patriotism is not calling for change, but to revert to the founding principles of the country. If patriotism does not promote equality, freedom, the upholding of the constitution, and all these great things that America stands for, than it is terrorism.
    Let us look at Denmark Vesey. His goal was to promote equality and abolish slavery. Patriot. Now if his only goal was to kill the white people, then that is terrorism. But it was clear that he wanted equality after years of oppression. Now if you call this man a terrorist for inciting a rebellion for equality and freedom from an oppressive power, than that means America was founded on the bases of terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bish I really like the point you make about the two different types of terrorism, especially the second point you make. You describe 9/11 as "an attack on the American lifestyle, culture, and morals", and I completely agree. It really shows how much al Qaeda hates us by not attacking military base, but attacking the WTC: an American cultural center.

      Delete
    2. Baby Bish, you bring up a great point in your last sentence. America was oppressed by Great Britain and eventually rose up to fight for its freedoms and rights from Britain during the American Revolution. We view this as a patriotic act so can't we celebrate Denmark Vesey statue? He was doing the same thing, fighting for equality for blacks by using rebellious and violent actions.

      Delete
    3. I agree with practically everything you said. However, I think your second point can be kind of sketchy when you state: "patriotism is not meant to change the moralistic views of a nation, but to uphold the nations moralistic views that may be threatened by the government." If we are spreading our personal views of democracy and the Constitution through warfare we are trying to inflict those beliefs on others. The main difference though is patriotism reflects an entire nation and not a barbaric hatred or principle of a group.

      Delete
  6. Indeed, there is in fact a very thin line, concerning the difference between being a patriot and a terrorist. ( Just like chriz, justin, jen said) Yet, this can be viewed differently in the eyes of many. In my opinion, there is a straightforward split between them. A patriot is a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors, while a terrorist is a person that terrorizes, frightens and causes harm to others. (Innocent people). But, others might view it to be that a patriot can be a terrorist and a terrorist can be a patriot. It just a matter of opinion. As for Vesey, I feel like the argument could tilt both ways. I mean like JD said “fight back or die a slave.” Though he did commit harsh act, he was somewhat trying to gain freedom. ”. I mean I do see why he can’t be celebrated, because he was putting himself in danger to gain freedom. So why not? Yet, again it all depends upon one’s individual perspective. For the some he can be viewed as a hero; freedom fighter, but to others he could be viewed as rabble-rouser sticking his nose into their smooth sailing lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am very confused on your stance for this topic. I guess these "perceptions" get difficult because different nations have a variety of beliefs and standpoints.But by accepting the fact that we should take into consideration that those members of Al Qaeda are patriotic for their country is an insane thought. The group's ideological beliefs cost the lives of many and acted out of severe opposition to the United States and other Western, democratic nations.

      Delete
    2. "I mean I do see why he can’t be celebrated, because he was putting himself in danger to gain freedom." I completely disagree with this statement. Why can't he be celebrated for putting his life on the line to gain freedom? He was fighting for freedom, and don't we live in the land of the free? It is just right celebrate his cause. I mean we may not agree with his chosen methods to achieve freedom, but does he really have a choice back then? On the other hand, aside from that I got thoroughly confuse with what you are saying so yeah.

      Delete
    3. I also agree with Chriz and Jen, it seems like you haven't picked a side of the argument, and it's kind of confusing.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There certainly is a difference between terrorism and patriotism. Terrorist attacks are usually done by surprise and inflicted civilians, but there is another key difference to these two. A person killing in the name of patriotism is to fight off beliefs or policies that are detrimental to their society. The American Revolution is a prime example of this. Terrorism on the other hand is attacking to force an autonomic state to abide by the attacking party’s ideals. I’m looking at it as patriotism being a battle; like warding off an infection. And as the opposite, terrorists try to plant in their culture by violently attacking the home nation’s culture; like inducing an infection. Am I looking at this with an American bias? Of course, but I couldn’t authentically write any other way.

    As for Denmark Vesey, keep the statue. The article briefly mentions that there are monuments of Confederate soldiers there too. I bet that upsets the black community right? But hey this is America and we all have to respect each other’s heroes; plus, the city of Charleston is a public place. So no, they should’t have to take down the monument. Slavery is part of the South’s history, so you can’t act like these slave rebellions didn’t exist. Both ends of the stick are gruesome whether you owned slaves, or went out on a blood hunt like Vesey. And in the long run, he was standing by the ideals of freedom and equality. The white people in Charleston are just gonna have to get over this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that you brought up the likely perspectives of the black citizens of Charleston on the statues of the Confederacy leaders.

      Delete
  9. The historian Kenneth Gray was most definitely right when he says there is a really thin line between what one may call a terrorist or a patriot. As my fellow peers mentioned before me, to really define one as a terrorist or a patriot, it is all based on one’s own perspective. Merriam-Webster defines a patriot as “a person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country,” but can’t that also apply to a terrorist as well? Terrorist are doing the same thing, they are fighting for their beliefs and country by using extreme violence and arms. Defining one as a terrorist or a patriot is really based on how you look at the situation and what you believe is right or wrong. The statue of Denmark Vesey should be celebrated. Denmark Vesey main goal was equality for all African Americans and abolish slavery. During his time period he could not accomplish this goal by having non-violence protest because that would not create any stance. He needed to use extreme measures and began a rebellion because his state banned freeing of slaves. All Vesey was trying to do was create equality for all and was willing to do whatever it took to support his beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't think it is that difficult to differentiate between patriotism and terrorism. In my perception, patriotism is associated more with national interest and pride as a whole, while terrorism is more about singular ideological interest. The methodologies used also display their differences. For instance, if a "patriot" uses a bomb by attaching it to himself to wipe out a crowd with young children and women, that is an act of terrorism. Planned, deliberate murder of helpless, innocent non-combatants is not a tactic used by patriots, but solely by terrorists.
    Relating to Denmark Vesey, he was dedicated to equal rights and the abolition of slavery. As Bishoy even stated, American principles would be deemed hypocritical for calling him a terrorist. I wouldn't go as far as celebrating the statue, but its representation marks the long way America has come since Vesey's time/fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well,an extremist in either regard is an isolated sample (The suicide example). I feel like actually attempting to define and truly differentiate between the two titles is nearly impossible.

      Delete
  11. I believe that the line between a patriot and a terrorist is infinitesimally small. A patriot is zealously expressing their love for their country. The only difference between that and a terrorist is that a terrorist’s love for their country is put into action against other nations or to target specific groups of people. Although Denmark Vesey was a man who fought with good intentions, the way he carried out his actions to attempt to fix the problem does mark him as a terrorist; he specifically targeted the whites of Charleston, without regard to innocent whites who may not have owned slaves, or white women and children. His actions were terroristic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As per the statue; I agree with what was pointed out in the article, that it would be hypocritical to remove a statue of Vesey when statues of men who fought to keep slavery are put up all over the south. Just leave it as a reminder of the past, like Justin said.

      Delete
  12. I don't feel like there is much in the way of a moral or ethical line between a Patriot and a Terrorist;as what it comes down to is nothing but perspective. People who agree with a person's cause will view him as noble and patriotic, while those opposed will see him as villainous. A perfect example that we all can relate to is 9/11. We saw the hijackers as terrorists, while their countrymen idolized them. In relation to Denmark Vesey, I feel that it is absolutely justifiable that a statue be erected. He was a freedom fighter, who was willing to stand up for what he believed in. Humans, by nature, are violent. In the world that Denmark lived in, his only option to achieve his goal was violence. Every nation on this earth was formed or strengthened through some form of violence or conflict. Now, in the 21st century, we seem to forget this, or turn a blind eye to it. Look at Nelson Mandela. The man was a great freedom-fighter and leader, and truly fought for what was right; but he also helped incite a rebellion that remained ANYTHING but peaceful. I view these two men in similar regard.

    ReplyDelete