During class today, we discussed
whether Nat Turner is a patriot or not. In my opinion, he is a patriot. Turner
recognized that in order for enslaved people to be freed, drastic action needed
to be taken. In this case, people had to die. This type of reaction to a
situation in which people feel as if they should be afforded different rights
than they are being given is nothing new, though. The American Revolution
started based on a similar train of thought. Although the enslavement of an
entire race of people was not the reasoning for the American Revolution,
Americans felt economically and politically enslaved to England. Even though
their actions may have appeared to be delusional or risky, they knew that the
possible gains from acting would outweigh the inevitable losses they would
incur by starting a war. I believe that Turner is a patriot for the same
reasons that those who fought in the American Revolution are: he took action
against an unjust institution in the hopes of pursuing a better life for
himself and his country.
A few people in class raised the
possibility that Turner was, more or less, crazy for starting a rebellion. As a
society, we often perceive deviations from the status quo to be crazy, or at
the very least, gutsy. We are so socialized to accept the norm that it often feels
wrong to push back against it. In Turner’s case, pushing back against the norm
probably felt that way, as it would definitely involve bloodshed and
devastation for some. However, I would imagine that Turner knew that if he did
not do something, slavery would continue on. So, maybe Turner was a little
crazy, as he was willing to give up his life for what he believed in. However,
I would argue that instead of being “crazy,” he had extreme courage. Turner’s
rebellion and the Revolutionary War have that in common: it took much courage
and bravery to spark a change.
I don’t think that Turner’s extreme
courage, as I would call it, negates the patriotism that he showed by being
willing to quite literally fight for what he believed in. If anything, I think
that it strengthens the case for his patriotism. Though his actions may not
have seemed to be in the best interest of all those involved at the time, he
was able to effectively push back against something that he knew was wrong by
harnessing bravery and courage.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the means by which Turner approached his rebellion do not in any way negate his patriotism. The motives behind rebelling were absolutely justified, and he did display incredible courage in initiating a rebellion against the system that had done him so wrong. However, my personal interpretation was that Turner's reception of "visions" and "signs" seemed unusual and possibly indicative of an altered mental state. As someone who does not exactly believe in people being prophets, the author's characterization of Turner does seem a little "crazy," since they outlined his character solely with his religious interpretation of his surroundings. Further than it being only a deviation from the norm, Turner's reception of visions and signs from God could be interpreted as hallucinations, since he does describe hearing voices and noises from the sky. To someone who does believe in prophets, I am sure that these visions seem purely divine in nature, and in no way indicative of hallucination and therefore insanity. From my point of view, in response to the question "What did you think of Turner," he did seem a bit crazy. That does not mean in any way that his motives, actions, or methods were anything other than those of a patriot fighting for his cause. I agree that he was unbelievably courageous, and this courage was probably fueled by his reception of "signs" as means of motivation and divine purpose.
ReplyDeleteIt could be said that the colonists that rebelled against the British were crazy. They were just colonies, why would they think that they could make it on their own as a country? Nat Turner was just a slave, why would he think he could function as a autonomous human being? Those two questions are basically the same, in both cases the oppressed group rebelled. What makes the colonist patriots while Nat Turner is seen as crazy? The answer is that they were both patriots that were seen as crazy by their oppressors.
ReplyDelete