November 2, 2016
Page 7
Opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views of the
Portland Observer. We welcome reader essays, photos and
story ideas. Submit to news@portlandobserver.com.
O PINION
Nat Turner’s Mental and Military Motivations
Resistance
was constant
and two fold
e zrah a harone
Nate
Parker’s
movie The Birth of
a Nation has revived
the question: What
caused Nat Turn-
er’s 1831 uprising?
Turner, first of all,
was not a deranged
misfit who acted outside of a his-
torical context of previous Afri-
can freedom fighters. Throughout
slavery’s duration, resistance was
not only constant and fatal, but
two fold, Africans equally resisted
both slavery and Americanization.
Contrary to popular “feel
good” versions of history, the
“fight against slavery” should not
be presumed as a “fight to become
American.” For enslaved Africans
like Turner, Americanization was
the obstacle -- not the vehicle -- to
the freedom they sought.
A largely overlooked factor
that forged Africans into Ameri-
cans was their inability to muster
enough weapons to militarily free
themselves from Americaniza-
by
tion. Along with the 2nd Amend-
ment which allowed whites to bear
arms, slavery was also backed by
America’s military, which is why
800 soldiers deployed against
Turner. Within this context of
warfare (which fomented
at least 313 recorded armed
uprisings), there is provable
evidence that Africans be-
came Americans -- not by
virtue of winning the Civil
War -- but by virtue of prior
military defeats.
CNN Town Halls won’t
discuss this, but numerous cap-
tives were already soldiers in Af-
rica beforehand, who like Turner,
held deep monotheistic beliefs.
Once in America these battle-test-
ed troops launched guerilla forms
of warfare whenever possible,
using whatever weapons possi-
ble, with clear theological con-
victions that fused spirituality
with revolution. Naturally, after
being forcibly uprooted 5,000
miles from long-lived kingdoms
and cultures, they deemed Eu-
ro-Americans as new adversaries,
and Americanization was certain-
ly not their goal.
This explains why tens of thou-
sands of Africans militarily fought
with the British against America
during the Revolutionary War and
the War of 1812. Plus, another
100,000 fled or died fleeing to join
British forces. Conclusive stats are
unknown, but from a sheer com-
bat perspective, the Revolutionary
War could be framed as the largest
uprising of Africans who ever uni-
fied to militarily free themselves
from Americanization, including
Africans reportedly owned by
George Washington and Thomas
Jefferson.
Despite being defeated, it is
still necessary to credit legitimacy
to such Africans, beyond distort-
ed narratives that label Turner an
“African American” even though
men like him sought America’s
military downfall. Olaudah Equi-
ano (an Ibo, captured at age 11,
who published the first surviving
“slave account” in 1789: The In-
teresting Narrative of the Life of
Olaudah Equiano) wrote, “When
you make men slaves, you com-
pel them to live with you in a state
of war.” Once freed in 1792, he
bolted like lightning to England.
Haiti’s independence (1804)
ignited further military motiva-
tions. On July 4th, 1804, instead
of recognizing US independence,
hundreds of blacks in Philadelphia
stormed Independence Hall to live
Haitian independence vicariously.
Flanked in military formations,
they carried swords and attacked
whites for two days, chanting “We
will show them [whites] St. Do-
mingo [bloodshed like Haiti].”
So, by the dawn of his 1831 up-
rising, Turner was just one cog in
a long continuum of such idealists.
Other notable military operations
involved Fort Mose in Florida
(1738-1763); the Stono Uprising
in South Carolina (1739); the Ger-
man Coast Uprising in Louisiana
(1811); Negro Fort in Florida
(1815); and David Walker’s Ap-
peal (1828) advocated revolution
and religion (even though Walker
was more an assimilationist than
sovereignist).
Men like Turner also equated
themselves to other hemispheric
freedom fighters (in nations like
Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Colum-
bia) who gained independence,
including Euro-Americans. For
example, before being hanged for
their 1800 planned uprising, one of
Gabriel Prosser’s soldiers retorted,
“I have nothing more to offer than
what General [George] Washing-
ton would have had to offer, had
he been taken by the British and
put to trial. I have adventured my
life in endeavoring to obtain the
liberty of my countrymen, and am
a willing sacrifice in their cause.”
Translation, he meant, “Bring It: I
stand upon universal principles of
freedom that -- just like you -- I
will never compromise.”
Interestingly, in a 60 Minutes
interview, Nate Parker paralleled
Nat Turner to George Washington
in terms of their shared idealisms
to “Birth a Nation.” From this
perspective, whether you agree
or disagree with Turner’s guerilla
tactics, his comparative cause to
end tyranny was no less honorable
than America’s founders.
Tyranny however can be a very
peculiar and subjective creature,
since “one man’s tyranny can be
another man’s liberty.” Hence,
George Washington, who en-
slaved and tyrannized over 300
Africans is deified on Mt. Rush-
more as a hero, while conversely,
Nat Turner who fought against
slavery’s tyranny is demonized
as a savage. To this contradiction,
James Baldwin once quipped, “In
the U.S., violence and heroism
have been made synonymous . . .
except when it comes to blacks.”
Ezrah Aharone is an adjunct
associate professor of political
science at Delaware State Univer-
sity.
His Bigoted Majesty Protects Harmful Language
The ridicule
of preferred
pronouns
J ill r iChardson
A University of
Michigan student has
officially
changed
his personal pronoun
to “His Majesty.”
The student, who is politically
conservative, did so to call atten-
tion to and ridicule the university
policy which allows students to
select their own designated per-
sonal pronouns.
A personal pronoun is the term
others use to refer to you when
they don’t use your name: he, she,
her, him, they, them, etc. The En-
glish language doesn’t offer a gen-
der-neutral singular pronoun other
than “it,” but we generally do not
use the objectifying term “it” to
refer to people.
Most of us are assigned a sex
at birth — male or female — and
we grow into the corresponding
gender identity that matches our
sex. That gender binary dominates
by
our western social structure and is
instilled in us from birth.
From the moment the doctors
told my mom “It’s a girl,” I began
to identify as a woman. It’s
a privilege that I’ve never
felt the categories of “man”
and “woman” constrain me
in any way. I embrace my
womanhood. I am attracted
to men.
But that’s not so for all
Americans.
Society viewed Caitlyn Jenner
as the all-American masculine
ideal until she publicly came out
as a transwoman. And some peo-
ple don’t feel like they belong to
either gender at all. The “norm”
of binary classification doesn’t
account for people who are trans-
gender, intergender, genderqueer,
agender, or genderfluid.
As an educator, I have students
of all backgrounds in my classes.
And I’ve learned it’s not wise to
make assumptions about my stu-
dents.
It’s not my business who’s
questioning their gender or sexual
orientation, or who grew up poor,
or who has a mental illness — but
all of those situations and more
may be going on in my students’
lives.
They’re all my students. I want
to make our classroom a comfort-
able environment for learning, and
that includes referring to them by
the personal pronoun they identify
with.
His Majesty, at the Universi-
ty of Michigan, is attempting to
show that students who change
their pronouns are doing so arbi-
trarily, with no basis in reality.
His Majesty is likely a straight
white man. If so, he’s probably
never had to deal with misogy-
ny, homophobia, or racism. He’s
likely never had to act a role pre-
scribed by society as masculine
even though it didn’t fit the person
he knew himself to be.
Often it’s people like him —
those in the most privileged de-
mographics of our society — who
balk at “political correctness.”
It’s silly, they may think, even
arbitrary, as His Majesty contends.
Or it’s an annoying way that peo-
ple try to police the behavior of
others for no good reason.
But political correctness is not
an end in itself. There are real
harms inflicted upon those whose
identities are erased by society.
And they start with homo and
transphobic jokes, language, or
publicity stunts — calling your-
self “His Majesty,” for example
— at the expense of transgender
and genderqueer people.
Those who oppose “political
correctness” are simply trying to
remain at the top of an unjust so-
ciety and shield themselves from
their own intolerance.
Preferred personal pronouns
help to ensure that already mar-
ginalized groups are not excluded
Subscribe!
503-288-0033
and recognize the real pain that in-
sensitivity causes. And while you
may not personally understand the
life experiences of someone very
different from you, that doesn’t
mean you can’t be kind to them.
In short, another phrase for
“political correctness” is “not be-
ing a jerk,” and the University of
Michigan is taking the right steps
in helping to foster a safe learning
environment for every student.
OtherWords columnist Jill
Richardson is the author of Recipe
for America: Why Our Food Sys-
tem Is Broken and What We Can
Do to Fix It.
Fill Out & Send To:
Attn: Subscriptions,
PO Box 3137, Portland OR 97208
$45.00 for 3 months • $80.00 for 6 mo. • $125.00 for 1 year
(please include check with this subscription form)
Name:
Telephone:
Address:
or email subscriptions@portlandobserver.com