The “Your Terrorists are Our Freedom Fighters” trope.
Efficient-Orchid-594 on
I guess you could say same for same thing for countries that were colonized by europe like India, Indonesia ect
IIIaustin on
Im a huge John Brown fan
But
Every terrorist thinks they are fighting for the right thing.
stewslut on
Terrorism is a set of tactics. Using those tactics doesn’t make your politics inherently evil. John Brown was a terrorist. John Brown did nothing wrong.
DonnieMoistX on
OP what do you think a terrorist is?
Conscious-Deer52 on
labels change, consequences don’t
Tall-Log-1955 on
If you think “fighting for the right thing” absolves you of moral consequences for your actions, you’re a monster in the making
CBT7commander on
Terrorism is about the methods used, not about the politics behind it or the moral evil of your action. What John Brown did was terrorism. He was justified. Slavery was not terrorism. Slavery was incalculably worse than anything John Brown ever did. All of these can be true at the same time.
Steel_Walrus89 on
Radical Christian Terrorist John Brown mentioned.Â
jayantsr on
Terrorist as a label has ran its course it only worked when people actually thought that there government has even the slightest of goodness in them
EdgySniper1 on
The real problem here is the assumption that terrorism = bad. Terrorism is simply an act of violence by a non-state entity in an attempt to spur change. John Brown was, by definition, a terrorist. As were the American revolutionaries, the French revolutionaries, the Russian revolutionaries, the revolutionaries of the countless decolonization movements. It doesn’t change the fact that they were still fighting for the right thing.
At the end of the day the only difference between a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, and a terrorist is the connotation you’re trying to make others associate their name with.
Sancadebem on
Glory, glory hallelujah
Darth_Reposter on
Legality != Morality
Also: “If the law is unjust, disobedience is for the just” -Aquinas (maybe)
MalikTheHalfBee on
Plenty of people have been on the right side of history but also terrorists in every sense of the wordÂ
RSFGman22 on
I love John Brown, he genuinely understood that the only language that Slavers understood was violence. He was also a terrorist in pursuit of a noble cause. Its okay that both are true
Kenichi2233 on
Well he failed and got himself and sons hanged so that’s something. Even without his failed raid Lincoln’s election would have caused the civil War.
Obviously slavery was an evil practice before anybody attempts to strawman me.
Sixnigthmare on
Y’all should read “His Soul Is Marching On” it’s real goodÂ
meed0k on
Terrorism just means “violence by non-state actors that has influence beyond the target of the attack”
Lord_Parbr on
Eh, not really. Terrorism is the use of fear and violence in order to promote or further a particular political agenda. So, yeah, though what he was doing was completely morally right, John Brown **was** a terrorist. The slave trade, however, despite being completely morally wrong, was not terrorism.
Pyotr-the-Great on
Personally with someone like John Brown I prefer not to determine whether he’s based or wrong.Â
I prefer to think of him like a force of nature, a representation of the free and slave states drawing to its final conclusion.
I guess for me I kind of admire John Brown in sort of a noble savage kind of sense. Theres an admirable spirit and its for the right cause. Though I think I’m not too much a radical like him so I definitely lean more torward peaceful solutions if possible.
But whether he was justified or not isnt something I’m particularly interested in. It just happened.
For me the fact someone like even exists shows just how things were building up to a final clash very very soon.
Pappa_Crim on
Both these things can be true
Haestienn on
Can someone please care to explain how this meme makes sense?
John Brown was an abolitionist who fought against slavery and some people may call him a “terrorist’
Slavery was basically an institution.
So how is it that a “terrorist” fighting against an institution, makes the institution terroristic?
Paul_reislaufer on
If you use violence to further a political agenda….. yes.
Careless_Hellscape on
John Brown did the right thing.
patou1440 on
terrorism, like fascism is not an ideology ! it is a mean of achieving your political agenda, your agenda can be good or bad it doesnt matter
yo_rick_brown on
John Brown looked at the greatest moral evil in American history and concluded that opeds, compromise, and bipartisan dialogue were fake and gay. So he became a religious zealot who started murdering pro-slavery settlers and attempted to launch a slave uprising, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The carnage of the Civil War very directly led into Reconstruction being a lot softer and influences why so many Americans view black people as lesser while countries that legislated away slavery aren’t as obsessed with race.
So, maybe “based” from a moralist reactionary standpoint, but probably shouldn’t have been so rash to be a terrorist and tried more of that stuff he felt wasn’t working quickly enough.
Witty_Departure2061 on
John brown for me was all times a hero but a hero like deadpool
SKRyanrr on
It’s offly convenient for those in power to have the ability to classify any opposition as “terrorists”.
Initial_Hedgehog_631 on
John Brown committed some extra judicial murders, and then attacked a town, killing several innocent civilians, and holding a number of them hostage.
One of the great ironies is that while trying to free the slaves he killed a freed slave.
Blackmore1030 on
Fighting against Israel and the USA is terrorism, fighting alongside them is not, regardless of anything else.
AmbitiousDesigner704 on
I always thought that that’s kind of the point of calling him a terrorist well.Yes, he would be considered violent today.If you saw some of the thing that they did to slays, not just the things that we know about, you know that we normally learn in school.Just the horrible horrid work conditions in some areas.You would see why he did.Some of those things now, of course, everyone’s going to go and say that.Well, what counts are the terrorists depends on who’s calling them a terrorist?But at the end of the day, what america did to certain groups was actual terrorism
32 Comments
Yes and yes.
The “Your Terrorists are Our Freedom Fighters” trope.
I guess you could say same for same thing for countries that were colonized by europe like India, Indonesia ect
Im a huge John Brown fan
But
Every terrorist thinks they are fighting for the right thing.
Terrorism is a set of tactics. Using those tactics doesn’t make your politics inherently evil. John Brown was a terrorist. John Brown did nothing wrong.
OP what do you think a terrorist is?
labels change, consequences don’t
If you think “fighting for the right thing” absolves you of moral consequences for your actions, you’re a monster in the making
Terrorism is about the methods used, not about the politics behind it or the moral evil of your action. What John Brown did was terrorism. He was justified. Slavery was not terrorism. Slavery was incalculably worse than anything John Brown ever did. All of these can be true at the same time.
Radical Christian Terrorist John Brown mentioned.Â
Terrorist as a label has ran its course it only worked when people actually thought that there government has even the slightest of goodness in them
The real problem here is the assumption that terrorism = bad. Terrorism is simply an act of violence by a non-state entity in an attempt to spur change. John Brown was, by definition, a terrorist. As were the American revolutionaries, the French revolutionaries, the Russian revolutionaries, the revolutionaries of the countless decolonization movements. It doesn’t change the fact that they were still fighting for the right thing.
At the end of the day the only difference between a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, and a terrorist is the connotation you’re trying to make others associate their name with.
Glory, glory hallelujah
Legality != Morality
Also: “If the law is unjust, disobedience is for the just” -Aquinas (maybe)
Plenty of people have been on the right side of history but also terrorists in every sense of the wordÂ
I love John Brown, he genuinely understood that the only language that Slavers understood was violence. He was also a terrorist in pursuit of a noble cause. Its okay that both are true
Well he failed and got himself and sons hanged so that’s something. Even without his failed raid Lincoln’s election would have caused the civil War.
Obviously slavery was an evil practice before anybody attempts to strawman me.
Y’all should read “His Soul Is Marching On” it’s real goodÂ
Terrorism just means “violence by non-state actors that has influence beyond the target of the attack”
Eh, not really. Terrorism is the use of fear and violence in order to promote or further a particular political agenda. So, yeah, though what he was doing was completely morally right, John Brown **was** a terrorist. The slave trade, however, despite being completely morally wrong, was not terrorism.
Personally with someone like John Brown I prefer not to determine whether he’s based or wrong.Â
I prefer to think of him like a force of nature, a representation of the free and slave states drawing to its final conclusion.
I guess for me I kind of admire John Brown in sort of a noble savage kind of sense. Theres an admirable spirit and its for the right cause. Though I think I’m not too much a radical like him so I definitely lean more torward peaceful solutions if possible.
But whether he was justified or not isnt something I’m particularly interested in. It just happened.
For me the fact someone like even exists shows just how things were building up to a final clash very very soon.
Both these things can be true
Can someone please care to explain how this meme makes sense?
John Brown was an abolitionist who fought against slavery and some people may call him a “terrorist’
Slavery was basically an institution.
So how is it that a “terrorist” fighting against an institution, makes the institution terroristic?
If you use violence to further a political agenda….. yes.
John Brown did the right thing.
terrorism, like fascism is not an ideology ! it is a mean of achieving your political agenda, your agenda can be good or bad it doesnt matter
John Brown looked at the greatest moral evil in American history and concluded that opeds, compromise, and bipartisan dialogue were fake and gay. So he became a religious zealot who started murdering pro-slavery settlers and attempted to launch a slave uprising, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The carnage of the Civil War very directly led into Reconstruction being a lot softer and influences why so many Americans view black people as lesser while countries that legislated away slavery aren’t as obsessed with race.
So, maybe “based” from a moralist reactionary standpoint, but probably shouldn’t have been so rash to be a terrorist and tried more of that stuff he felt wasn’t working quickly enough.
John brown for me was all times a hero but a hero like deadpool
It’s offly convenient for those in power to have the ability to classify any opposition as “terrorists”.
John Brown committed some extra judicial murders, and then attacked a town, killing several innocent civilians, and holding a number of them hostage.
One of the great ironies is that while trying to free the slaves he killed a freed slave.
Fighting against Israel and the USA is terrorism, fighting alongside them is not, regardless of anything else.
I always thought that that’s kind of the point of calling him a terrorist well.Yes, he would be considered violent today.If you saw some of the thing that they did to slays, not just the things that we know about, you know that we normally learn in school.Just the horrible horrid work conditions in some areas.You would see why he did.Some of those things now, of course, everyone’s going to go and say that.Well, what counts are the terrorists depends on who’s calling them a terrorist?But at the end of the day, what america did to certain groups was actual terrorism