Theodore Parker's work was pretty inspiring. I really liked the image of him reading the Bible with a loaded pistol at one hand and a sword in the other. I felt like this type of religious fervor was perhaps both admonished and admired in his day. It was good to see someone who believed in their cause so much to go to physical means of bringing it about and defending his beliefs rather than munching on the wafer, sipping the wine, and calling oneself holy. Parker's willingness to publish these thoughts must have made him a multi-vulnerable target for many opponents. They could attack his religious fervor, his personal opinions regarding slavery, and his militaristic style of belief. For some, I can imagine how he was a complete success with this persona but with others I can see how he would have been a failure.
Emerson, despite some of the conviction he writes with in his other works, really lacks the passionate response I would have liked from him. Like we talked about he only seems to do this to get it off his shoulders; it inconveniences him too much. This is very disappointing from a figure who had so much influence in the public spheres, especially in ones that could give the abolitionist movement a greater advantage. I was also very sad to note how he didn't really seem to be against slavery as much as he was against slavery affecting his life. For me, his attitude towards this issue of human rights was too "out of sight, out of mind." One would expect, coming into the lecture, that Emerson could provide a more illuminating philosophical argument against slavery. Instead, he pretty much just bashes the Webster guy and not really the institution as need be done. I feel like the rhetoric of his speech leans too much towards giving the people what they want rather than his own thoughts to really be very effective. In fact, it is kind of sad to see how he is forced into the political field and then behaves just like a politician.
In Thoreau's "A Plea for Captain John Brown" I felt the whole time like John Brown was one of the biggest badasses ever. I realize that Thoreau, who here is advocating some extremist action, really liked what John Brown was trying to do. At times he may take it overboard-- especially in his likening of John Brown to Jesus. "Some eighteen hundred years ago Christ was crucified; this morning, perchance, Captain Brown was hung. These are the two ends of chain which is not without its links" (377). I have some problems with this analogy. Jesus was pretty peaceful. He didn't really butcher people and hold hostages (those are the people that come AFTER him). Rather than liken the character of John Brown to Jesus I would liken it to something else; something a little more war-like.
I was very intrigued by the point Dr. Leubner made that in the biography about John Brown the claim was made that he, of all people in the nineteenth century, appears to have been one of the most not racist. This claim, if true, really puts a positive spin on his actions. For John Brown to be such a progressive thinker is quite a feat. It is hard even in our own enlightened time to avoid many of the stereotypes and subtle forms of racism that still plague our language and speech.
As we all debated about our feeling and thoughts surrounding Brown I really was at a loss how to feel. It seems like the only way to consider . To defend Brown would be like defending anyone else who commits what can be considered terrorist acts. Perhaps the veil of history veils the atrocities while accentuating the positives. If this is the case I wonder who else in the future will have a plea for the remembrance of other terrorists?
I would like to think that he will be remembered in a good way, but not for his actions. If John Brown should be admired it should be because of his progressive mindset regarding the equality of all races of people.
No comments:
Post a Comment