http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/feb/02/…

I don't accept that scenario, or any other scenario, that involves the killing of women and children, and excuses that killing as not murder–(what is the sanitized phrase we use?–oh yes, “collateral damage”)

That said, I well see your point about Nat Turner. Nat had many reasons to be enraged. So did Dr. King and all of the African American men and women who worked with him to secure equality–that work involving being beaten, scorned, and sometimes murdered. That is one of the things that is so extraordinary about Dr. King. He brilliantly employed non violent resistance as a lethal weapon to tyranny.
Malcolm was a brilliant leader, too, and, if I remember correctly, after his trip to Mecca, he began to question violence as a way to achieve equality. Of course, he died–violently–before he could implement his new ideas. I think we need to reframe the question, and see non violent resistance, as Dr. King practiced it, for what it was–a deadly weapon for those in the way of progress. Why do we extol violence? On the other hand, how do you stop violence when there is no system in place to stop it. Gandhi forced the British to live up to their laws and to their ideals. Dr. King did the same in America. What were Nat Turner's options?

In addition, I do not want to reduce our understanding of why Turner doesn't have a monument to what is contained in this post. It's a much more complex story than anything I've suggested here. My guess is that we probably agree on much of that narrative.

By the way, you will be happy to know that one of my students is reading a chapter in “Diehard Rebels” as part of his independent study.

Turner complicates our view of ourselves and our preferred narrative of racial progress.

Does the environment in which Turner operated affect our understanding of what it means to “murder” or who counts as innocent? Thanks for the comment.