Reading 1001 discussion

3. With regard to the Kansas Wars, Owen writes, "It was no longer clear to me: were we doing this for them, the Negroes; or were we simply using them as an excuse to commit vile crimes against one another? Was our true nature that of the man who sacrifices himself and others for his principles; or was it that of the criminal?" What do you think, and why?

I'm conflicted, because with social injustices sometimes there needs to be strong action taken, although I'm also in general a pacifist. So I think the actions of those men were vile and but I think the aim of most of them was to impact huge changes for the good of the many. Although I don't think that was Owen's real motivation.

I believe it was their true nature to sacrifice themselves for John Brown's principals. This passage explains: The Old Testament stories of Job and of Abraham and Isaac become the models for this father-son relationship. God tested Job's faith by letting Satan take everything from him -- his wealth, his servants, his family, his health. Yet Job refused to curse God, and the Lord rewarded him by restoring health, wealth, and family.

The figure of Job was, of course, like no one so much as Father himself. As Job stood to God, Father did also. My terrible understanding was that I, too, was like no one so much as Job. Not, however, in my relation to God; but in my relation to Father.
Owen tries repeatedly to break free of his father's domination, to become his own man, like his older brothers Jason and John Jr., but he cannot. Like Isaac, he is compelled to obey his father, even if his father is commanded by the Lord to slay him as a sacrifice.

Like ZK I am conflicted with this, yes there did need to be action taken and brave men needed to take it but how brave was it to attack men in their own homes, at night, in front of their families and butcher them?

At Harper's Ferry I believe they were trying to be good men and sacrificing themselves for a principle.

The moral issue posited by Banks is this: murder, or the victory of slavery in Kansas and the United States for generations to come. If you have qualms about the actions of John Brown, do you have qualms about the actions of the Cannons - killing their master, probably in revenge for his rape of Mrs. Cannon?

If there is no realistic opportunity to effect change by legal action, isn't violence permitted? Or even mandated?

I too am conflicted with this one. John gives us quite an answer to think about.

I believe that John Brown was doing what he thought was right to free slaves now, all of them as soon as possible. He felt the means justified the end. I as grew to love John Brown throughout the story especially the way he cared for people I was surprised when he turned to killing but I knew he was being true to himself.

I felt that the way that Owen chose to go was violent and not appropriate. He was an angry man who was marginalized and he used his father and his father's cause to legitimize his expression of anger but it was wrong. The father was wrong to, to think that it is okay to slaughter violently people who don't do as you tell them. I do not have any conflict on this part at all. They were wrong.

We're slavers wrong, yes they were but that never gives me the right to walk into people's home and kill them.

If there is no opportunity to effect change by legal action, is violence permitted? My answer is no, never. I realise that my answer is through my lens of a small country at the ends of the world, but violence is never justified in my opinion. From our perspective the United States is a violent country that is always justifying violent interventions, perhaps in the tradition of John Brown!