Targeting innocent civilians is never justified, and shouldn't be
honored
by Jack Hunter
Those serious about fighting a "war on terror" might want to start in
Charleston, where plans have been made to erect a statue honoring
terrorist Denmark Vesey.
Few people are happy any time I discuss what constitutes "terrorism"
because I have a very simple definition of the term: the targeting of
innocent civilians to advance an agenda or objective. Obvious
terrorists al-Qaida targeted the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and
the White House in 2001, killing thousands of innocent civilians for
their own political objectives. In 1945, the United States dropped
atomic bombs on Japan, intentionally killing thousands of civilians,
also for political objectives. Both were acts of terrorism.
Like Osama bin Laden and Harry Truman, free black man Denmark Vesey
made his own large scale terrorist plans in 1822 when he attempted to
organize a slave rebellion hoping to kill enough white people to take
over Charleston. Vesey and 34 co-conspirators were hung for their
alleged plot. Writing for The Atlantic Monthly in June 1861,
abolitionist Thomas Wentworth Higginson noted that "Denmark Vesey was
known to be for a war of immediate and total extermination; and when
some of the company opposed killing 'the ministers and the women and
children,' Vesey read from the Scriptures that all should be cut off,
and said that 'it was for their safety not to leave one white skin
alive.' "
Despite his bloodlust, Vesey remains a hero to civil rights activists,
Mayor Joe Riley, and others who believe his motives were justified,
given the horrors of slavery. Said Riley of Vesey's legend, "We tell
these untold stories so the truth will set us free." It must be noted
that bin Laden is also seen as a freedom fighter by many in the
Islamic world who on 9/11 avenged the deaths of thousands of Muslim
civilians killed as a result of U.S. sanctions and war. Similarly,
many Americans believe Truman's dropping of the atomic bomb was the
work of a heroic statesman whose actions were ultimately worth it to
"save American lives."
For argument's sake, let's say each of these examples is true: Vesey
was defending the lives of slaves, Bin Laden was defending Muslim
lives, and Truman defended American lives. Each still killed or
attempted to kill innocent third parties to achieve their respective
goals. This is the very definition of terrorism, however inconvenient
or uncomfortable it is for some to admit.
This is not to say one cannot understand Vesey's motives or that of
any terrorist. During a 2007 Republican presidential primary debate,
when Congressman and candidate Ron Paul explained how the constant
U.S. military intervention in the Middle East makes terrorists want to
attack us, candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
angrily demanded an apology from Paul, saying, "That's really an
extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of
Sept. 11, that we 'invited' the attack because we were attacking Iraq.
I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty
absurd explanations for Sept. 11." Unfazed by Giuliani's melodrama,
Paul responded, "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when
they teach about 'blowback'... They don't come here to attack us
because we're rich and we're free. They attack us because we're over
there."
Many blacks living in Charleston in the early 19th century, free or
slave, were no doubt terrorized by their white masters or neighbors on
a regular basis. Slave rebellion, like that planned by Vesey, was a
constant fear amongst the white population. But why? Did perhaps
Southern whites have some sense that their relationship with the black
population was oppressive enough that it might cause an uprising? Was
there good reason for white Charlestonians living in the early 19th
century to constantly fear "blowback" in the form of a slave
insurrection?
Understanding terrorism is not to condone it, a point lost on Rudy
Giuliani and a point lost in the debate concerning Vesey's legacy.
Does anybody doubt that Truman would have been charged with war crimes
if Japan had been victorious after the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki? The Japanese were tried after World War II for their own
terrorist war crimes and rightfully so. Does anyone believe Bin Laden
should not answer for his crimes or that Vesey should not have been
hung for his planned terrorist deeds?
According to the abolitionist Higginson, Vesey's co-conspirators had
serious qualms about the killing of "the ministers and the women and
children" which tells us that even in the midst of slavery-ridden
Charleston in 1822, some oppressed blacks rightly recognized the evil
of terrorism. Erecting a statue to honor Vesey is admitting that
terrorism is sometimes justified, depending on the cause. But for
civilized people, terrorism should never be justified — and neither
should Denmark Vesey.
Catch Southern Avenger commentaries every Tuesday and Friday at 7:50
a.m. on the "Morning Buzz with Richard Todd" on 1250 AM WTMA.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment