Talk:Nat Turner's slave rebellion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Feel free to redirect this page to Nat Turner if that's a better choice. I think it's worth starting anew considering that the Nat Turner article seems to be heavy copyvio though.

Contents

[edit] 200+ Black Casualities?

Turner and 18 others were hung for conspiracy where does the rest come from revenge killings?--Bushido Brown 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victims?

It is interesting that a separate page has been created to honor the "victims" by naming all of them, after emphasizing how cruel Nat Turner was. Interesting only because these "victims" were part of the heinous institution of slavery that regarded blacks as animals to be discarded. Perhaps...just perhaps Nat Turner got tired of being treated like an animal. Perhaps children were killed also because, more than likely, they were going to grow up to inherit the institution of slavery, and its capital (slaves), from their parents. Part of truly understanding history is being able to put actions into context. And slaves living in the 1700s were not ruthless killers who slaughtered innocent white victims. If there were victims, they were the slaves themselves. You can't regard human beings as "property" and not expect backlash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.113.50 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC). umm not even a majority of his victims were slave holders, im sorry but its true. His 'mission' was to kill all whites (pg 59 in Sources of the African American Past: Second Edition. Pearson and longman Publishing house). We have to understand that both slavery and Nat Turners actions are equally bad. Just like the reprisal killings of African Americans afterwards. Nothin is black and white, it is all gray. murder is murder, especially of children. Slavery is slavery, especially of children. See, all bad --Billwsu 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a military article. It might be easiest to rename it "causalities" as this is the usual word used for people killed in wars. futurebird 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Near victims" I wonder how this is al all significant? futurebird 08:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery, although horrific and inhuman, is not murder. Hacking women and children to pieces is worse than being forced to labor and whipped for disobedience. They are both terribly wrong but since murder is worse the victims are recognized as such. And by the way, the "war" Nat Turner started was not simply a fight for freedom, since some free blacks participated in it. It was a war of extermination. There was no plan of "escape" so to speak, but a deliberate seeking out and slaughtering of white people.72.192.16.31 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a POV tag to this section. The language used to describe the deaths of the white victims — especially when contrasted with the language used to describe the deaths of the Black victims — inserts a very clear point of view.
I also think it's ridiculous that more space is taken by the names and identification of the white victims and non-victims than the article spends describing the slave rebellion itself. Again, I think this inserts a point of view.
If a roster of the white victims must stay — and I object to it — it should be (a) limited to their names, (b) shown in two or three columns, (c) omit the non-victims, and (d) (maybe) appear in smaller type. There is no reason why an article about a slave rebellion should be overtaken by a selective list of its victims. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The list of victims (yes, that's what they are) is part of an historical account which is relevant to the article. This is what happened to people who were white. NOT people who were merely slave-owners. If they had tried to stop the slaves from escaping, the killing would have been justified. No. They hunted down people, particularly women and children, and hacked them to pieces or shot them. POV? Not at all.72.192.16.31 05:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the fact that there were white victims. I'm saying that an article that has 4 times more information about the white victims of the Turner Rebellion than it does about the Rebellion itself is pushing a POV:
“ Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. ”
(The quote is from WP:Undue weight, a section of WP:NPOV.) If you think the proportion is right, I'd like to hear why. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 07:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a citation for the "10 elementary school children were decapitated and their bodies were stacked outside the school" fact? I've done some research and it appears they did kill 10 children at a school, but I can't find any evidence of decapitations or arranging the bodies. Hey8 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read the part where it said that the majority of the victims were children? So you you condone of the brutal murder of children, eh? School-age children are hardly perpetrators of any sort of plight. And people deserve to know who was killed. There is no limit to the amount of information one may have in an article but if you have a problem with it, add more to this one and don't bitch about the other.

I'm of the opinion that Nat was a cold-blooded murderer but such opinions have no place here. THAT'S what NPOV is about, not the length of an article.Sion 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties -- proposed language

I'd like to propose the following language for the section on casualties. It's not perfect, but I think it fairly describes the brutality with which the white victims of the Rebellion were killed, and at the same time avoids the POV balance problem I described above.

According to the book "The Fires of Jubilee" by Stephen Oates, Nat Turner had ordered his followers to "kill all the white people", including women and children. Because their lives were considered of little or no value, no record exists of the number and names of Turner's followers who lost their lives.
Fifty-seven white men, women and children were killed during Nat Turner's Rebellion; most were hacked to death with axes, stabbed, or bludgeoned. The largest number of casualties were children. In one instance, Turner and his insurgents stopped at an elementary school, where they killed the teacher, decapitated ten of the children, and stacked the headless corpses in the front yard of the school.
Nat Turner's Rebellion resulted in a vicious response by Southern plantation owners. Eager to show that actions such as Turner's would not be tolerated, plantation owners throughout the south executed vigilante justice with terrorist-fervor, killing slaves and other persons of African descent (many of whom had no connection with the rebellion).

I hope we can word-smith this language to reach some sort of consensus. I'd like to know what other editors think. Thanks! — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong link

I don't know how to edit links, but the link to Stephen B. Oates, goes to a scottish football jock of the same name rather than the historian. Here is the link to the historian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_B._Oates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.172.10.46 (talk • contribs).

Fixed - just needed to add the "B.". Thanks for pointing that out!--Kubigula (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the term "African American"?

The article contains this phrase: "...sign that he should begin preparing for a rebellion against those holding him and fellow African Americans as slaves." I know this is indirect speech, but even so is it appropriate to refer to black slaves of that time as "African Americans"? I am not trying to be provocative, just asking. --ukexpat 12:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I know many others don't approve of my blunt language, but before Reconstruction I don't think there was such a thing as an African-American; most were enslaved Africans, although there were a few free Blacks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combatants?

The infobox trying to identify this as a "battle" is absurd. The 200+ black "casualties" (once again, and odd term) were spread out amongst a long period of time and the vast majority were innocent civilians not connected to Turner's rebellion, which makes listing them as combatants bizarre. The "opposing" infobox is even stranger. It lists the other side as "Southampton County" with a strength of 15,000 and lists 57 dead as "casualties". Once again, the 57 dead were not "combatants" killed in battle, but murdered civilians, mostly children.

This article would be 100% better if it weren't presented as a "battle", but the infobox needs to be changed either way. It makes it seem as though all the unrelated black & white civilians that were murdered were somehow either soldiers (for the whites) or rebels (for the blacks). Childe Roland of Gilead 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree about the infobox - it struck me as odd at once. I looked to find a better infobox, and the best I could find was Template:Infobox Historical Event. Any objections to using this infobox instead?--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I made the change. I have to say that it's a slightly less impressive infobox, albeit more appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drawn and quartered?

I swear I've read this article a few years ago, and it said that Nat's head and limbs were sent to different parts of Virginia. Does anyone know if that is true?

[edit] Mulatto?

There is speculation that he was a mulatto fathered by his slave master.74.185.0.47 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Never mind political correctness, report the facts

How many people were killed during Nat Turner's slave rebellion, how and where? The section on that is so scant. Nat Turner's slave rebellion is a well known event in American history--and it is well known he and his followers killed children. Is there a fear of detailing this, because there is an attempt to hero-ize him. If you want to hero-ize him, do so, it's your right--but don't deny what he did--he killed babies. I want the blow-by-blow. They went into honkey-house one and killed this many, they went into honkey-house two and killed this many. The killings that took place during Nat Turner's slave rebellion were slow and methodical. Probaly the actions of a sociopath. But to be honest--could you necessarily fault him or them? Oppressed people will at times rise up and even in violent and savage ways. William Wallace in Scotland began engaging is some savagery in his rebellion against the English. Can you necessarily blame him? I'm white and American. Nat Turner did some horrible things, but these were provoked acts, and probaly natural responses to oppression. But, there'd be no mitigation for this today, as blacks are no longer enslaved or deprived of legal rights, though I'm sure they'd like an excuse to kill some whites. That's why they rallied behind OJ Simpson. Those days were very different. Foolish people expect oppressed people to just stay down. It's like standing up to a bully--they are shocked by it and suddenly play the victim role. Stupid people who want to be able to do whatever they want to a person, and are emotionally thrown off when they won't accept it. Whether it's oppression, injustice, abuse, disrespect, bullying, mocking, people are not always going to take crap from others--people will rebel, revolt, react, and stand-up. All you cowards out there who are always looking to take advantage of someone only when you feel you can get away it, be ready for it. And it's not going to happen the way you want it.

Bravo... Nat is a hero and shouldn't be compared with OJ. Nat actually had a goal in mind: Freedom. OJ is an idiotic meathead who savagely acted without thought or purpose. Subsequently, the money he made from being paid to act violently toward other human beings--the profession called "Football"--got him great attorneys who saved him from the electric chair. And the reason why some blacks rallied behind him was not because "they'd like an excuse to kill some whites", it was actually because blacks have felt unfairly treated in the criminal justice system and thought that OJ had managed to beat the unfair system at its one game, exposing it as a system that actually favors those who are rich, famous, and/or happen to be of the same race as the majority of the jurors. But Nat didn't get lucky; he acted bravely in the face of a very bleak future for himself, his family, and fellow slaves. Had he not acted, he would have lived another 25-30 years as a docile animal, being passed on from generation to generation of slave owners and their children. 74.185.0.47 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)