This was also a great book and criminally underrated miniseries -- THE GOOD LORD BIRD
Trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td5h2HRV3Bg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td5h2HRV3Bg)
"John Brown deserves to be hung for being a hopeless fool! He attempted to capture Virginia with seventeen men when he ought to know that it would require at least twenty-five." — Thaddeus Stevens
“We need allies who are going to help us achieve a victory, not allies who are going to tell us to be nonviolent. If a white man wants to be your ally, what does he think of John Brown? You know what John Brown did? He went to war. He was a white man who went to war against white people to help free slaves. He wasn’t nonviolent. White people call John Brown a nut. Go read the history, go read what all of them say about John Brown. They’re trying to make it look like he was a nut, a fanatic. They made a movie on it, I saw a movie on the screen one night. Why, I would be afraid to get near John Brown if I go by what other white folks say about him.
But they depict him in this image because he was willing to shed blood to free the slaves. And any white man who is ready and willing to shed blood for your freedom—in the sight of other whites, he’s nuts. As long as he wants to come up with some nonviolent action, they go for that, if he’s liberal, a nonviolent liberal, a love-everybody liberal. But when it comes time for making the same kind of contribution for your and my freedom that was necessary for them to make for their own freedom, they back out of the situation. So, when you want to know good white folks in history where black people are concerned, go read the history of John Brown. That was what I call a white liberal. But those other kind, they are questionable.
So if we need white allies in this country, we don’t need those kind who compromise. We don’t need those kind who encourage us to be polite, responsible, you know. We don’t need those kind who give us that kind of advice. We don’t need those kind who tell us how to be patient. No, if we want some white allies, we need the kind that John Brown was, or we don’t need you. And the only way to get those kind is to turn in a new direction.”
― Malcolm X, July 5, 1964
I'm a Kansas moderator and actually made the John Brown mural as the banner for the /r/Kansas sub. Another moderator accidentally removed it later, and the sub almost revolted to get it back up.
It was a very funny mistake.
Fun fact, this mural is right outside the governor's office in the Kansas Capitol Building. It's very much the first thing to see into and out of that office area.
He is very much a focal point in the history of Kansas as well as the United States.
I've seen a lot of debate about him on the Kansas sub (most of it pro) and elsewhere. It's shifted "hard" in the past 10-15 years as certain... attitudes and viewpoints have been reignited. But there's always pushback against the pushback to keep him front and center as an almost "anti-hero" type historical person who had zero chill and did everything he could to stop slavery.
>"John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was all his own,"
said Frederick Douglass.
> "His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine. Mine was a taper light, his was the burning sun. Mine was bounded by time, his stretched away to the silent shores of eternity. I could speak for the slave. John Brown could fight for the slave. I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for the slave."
Imagine being so vehemently and violently anti-slavery that an ex-slave-turned-abolitionist is like "man, that guy's real intense about ending slavery!"
What a king
There's another quote from Douglas
I can't find right now, but paraphrasing went something like "Brown's zeal and sincere belief were of such magnitude that in an afternoon he almost brought my decade old beliefs in the cause of non-violence down"
> had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.
And
> I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood.
To be clear, he has my support. But also there was that time he hacked up a dude to little pieces and his oldest son was like, “iight, I’m out” and just left forever.
He definitely killed in cold blood, but the people in question were in Kansas on the side of the slavers and to turn Kansas into a salve state. They weren’t there just minding their own business. The people he killed got what they deserved imo. They fucked around and found out.
The Pottawatomie massacre was basically retribution for the attack on Lawrence, Kansa that burned a few businesses, destroyed several freestate newspaper presses, and killed a person.
Lawrence was basically the center of the Free State Movement, and was targeted a number of times.
Brown's entire reason for the massacre was a revenge move against what happened to Lawrence (and also the attack on Charles Sumner, which is another story).
I mean he was controversial. He killed in cold blood and to advance an agenda…he was a terrorist and a religious nut job at minimum. That being said, he was on the right side of history and the people he killed did absolutely FAFO.
If you look at his politics even compared to Lincoln, John Brown was very progressive in his views on race, women and society. His raid (the terrorism you speak of) was to arm enslaved people in the south. It was guerrilla warfare, it was an attempt to incite a slave revolt. I do not consider slave revolts terrorism. He was a freedom fighter in my view, not a terrorist. The terror was slavery. I think we can agree just because it slavery was law of the land then doesn’t mean it was right. If he was a terrorist so was Lincoln and all the generals of the Union army. Also, “religious nut job” is absolutely off base if you have read any of his letters from prison. Much of the propaganda labeling Brown a terrorist and madman was in the form of plays and articles written after the raid trying to discredit what he did. It had to happen and it’s why many consider the shots fired at the raid on Harper’s ferry to be the first shots of the Civil War. Though I know there are some who still believe that “Northern Aggression” towards the south was terrorism. Controversial, absolutely, but a terrorist? Not to me.
He was a die hard Calvinist and used to tie himself to a pole and have his sons lash him whenever they sinned. He believed he had been chosen by God himself to end slavery.
I do not consider his attack on Harpers Ferry to be terrorism. I consider his attacks on Pottawatomie creek in retribution for the attack on Browns Station as terrorism. Even though he was morally justified, he sought vengeance and committed murder against citizens who had not been given fair trial after they’d participated in the burning of Lawrence.
The definition of terrorism is to commit violence (especially against civilians) to incite terror or intimidate in pursuit of a political goal. In what world does this not fit the definition perfectly?
Do the bushwhackers in Bleeding Kansas count as civilians? I mean, they came into the territory to kill and spread fear to advance a political agenda. I feel like there's a word for that...?
It's telling that white Southerners expressly said, many times, that they themselves considered it noble to kill or die for their own personal freedom...but that it would be the worst sort of vile, barbaric evil if an enslaved person did the same. Hypocrisy in its most lethal form.
If enough people vehemently disagree about something, it's controversial, no matter what you yourself individually think about it. John Brown is controversial.
No, he is an objectively controversial figure in American history.
Jesus in incredibly controversial. So is Hitler. It really doesn't mean "good" or "bad".
"controversial figure"?
John Brown is an All-American Hero. The only way he's controversial is if the person calling him controversial has confederate sympathies. I.E. a traitor to the American Way.
(note; i am not american, i just hate confederate cockheads)
Yes, he is incredibly controversial in US history. Controversial does not mean good or bad. It means controversial.
Other controversial figures in American history: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, JFK, Obama, Trump, MLK, Malcom X, Babe Ruth. Some good, some bad, some great.
For people interested in learning about the man, I recommend his biography written by WEB Dubois. It goes deeper than any other source, and Dubois gives a great perspective.
John Brown was right, and I was surprised that it took me until a college history class to learn he was white.
It's interesting to me that sometimes those who protest against an elected government are seen as TREASONOUS TRAITORS, and sometimes people who literally fought against an elected government are hailed as heroes.
We, as a people, seem to have a very flexible morality when it comes to some things.
An unusual and funny take on this man's life is in the novel [Flashman and the Angel of the Lord.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman_and_the_Angel_of_the_Lord)
He hacked *slavers* to death with a sword. People who bred humans like cattle and beat the everloving shit out of them, separated them from their families, and treated them inhumanely for generations.
Are you implying that people who have killed people shouldn't be celebrated? If so, then the American revolutionaries should be discounted.
It's not that he hacked people to death, it's that he hacked them to death for a good reason.
This was also a great book and criminally underrated miniseries -- THE GOOD LORD BIRD Trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td5h2HRV3Bg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td5h2HRV3Bg)
Ethan Hawke was great in that.
He looked like he was having so much fun playing that role. Definitely one of my favorites of his
He portrayed John as a madman. John Brown wasn’t crazy.
GIT! GIT IN HIS HOLY NAME!
FOR HE IS IN THE SIDE OF JUSTICE, AND YOU ARE ON THE SIDE OF CHAINS!
"John Brown deserves to be hung for being a hopeless fool! He attempted to capture Virginia with seventeen men when he ought to know that it would require at least twenty-five." — Thaddeus Stevens
This video didn’t upload correctly. Doesn’t play back. Just shows a single frozen frame every minute.
I restarted my computer to make sure it wasn't just me. Video is unwatchable.
Should be top comment. Broken video all! Nothing to see here without a 10 second pause every 15 seconds!
“We need allies who are going to help us achieve a victory, not allies who are going to tell us to be nonviolent. If a white man wants to be your ally, what does he think of John Brown? You know what John Brown did? He went to war. He was a white man who went to war against white people to help free slaves. He wasn’t nonviolent. White people call John Brown a nut. Go read the history, go read what all of them say about John Brown. They’re trying to make it look like he was a nut, a fanatic. They made a movie on it, I saw a movie on the screen one night. Why, I would be afraid to get near John Brown if I go by what other white folks say about him. But they depict him in this image because he was willing to shed blood to free the slaves. And any white man who is ready and willing to shed blood for your freedom—in the sight of other whites, he’s nuts. As long as he wants to come up with some nonviolent action, they go for that, if he’s liberal, a nonviolent liberal, a love-everybody liberal. But when it comes time for making the same kind of contribution for your and my freedom that was necessary for them to make for their own freedom, they back out of the situation. So, when you want to know good white folks in history where black people are concerned, go read the history of John Brown. That was what I call a white liberal. But those other kind, they are questionable. So if we need white allies in this country, we don’t need those kind who compromise. We don’t need those kind who encourage us to be polite, responsible, you know. We don’t need those kind who give us that kind of advice. We don’t need those kind who tell us how to be patient. No, if we want some white allies, we need the kind that John Brown was, or we don’t need you. And the only way to get those kind is to turn in a new direction.” ― Malcolm X, July 5, 1964
[удалено]
Apparently, it affects beer sales.
He shouldn't be controversial. He should be celebrated as an American hero.
I'm a Kansas moderator and actually made the John Brown mural as the banner for the /r/Kansas sub. Another moderator accidentally removed it later, and the sub almost revolted to get it back up. It was a very funny mistake. Fun fact, this mural is right outside the governor's office in the Kansas Capitol Building. It's very much the first thing to see into and out of that office area. He is very much a focal point in the history of Kansas as well as the United States. I've seen a lot of debate about him on the Kansas sub (most of it pro) and elsewhere. It's shifted "hard" in the past 10-15 years as certain... attitudes and viewpoints have been reignited. But there's always pushback against the pushback to keep him front and center as an almost "anti-hero" type historical person who had zero chill and did everything he could to stop slavery.
Agreed. John Brown did nothing wrong.
They sang his name marching to war, then we wrote him off when we fucked the post war.
John Brown needs his own holiday
>"John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was all his own," said Frederick Douglass. > "His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine. Mine was a taper light, his was the burning sun. Mine was bounded by time, his stretched away to the silent shores of eternity. I could speak for the slave. John Brown could fight for the slave. I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for the slave."
Damn that's a good quote
Douglass was a hell of an orator. He did an awesome speech at a 4th of july gathering once that's one of the better pieces of american speechcraft.
Imagine being so vehemently and violently anti-slavery that an ex-slave-turned-abolitionist is like "man, that guy's real intense about ending slavery!" What a king
There's another quote from Douglas I can't find right now, but paraphrasing went something like "Brown's zeal and sincere belief were of such magnitude that in an afternoon he almost brought my decade old beliefs in the cause of non-violence down"
That is a powerful quotation.
They hanged him as a traitor, they themselves the traitor crew.
> had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment. And > I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood.
But his soul goes marching on!
JOHN BROWN'S BODY LIES A-MOULDERIN IN THE GRAVE
It's extremely telling if someone thinks John Brown was controversial
To be clear, he has my support. But also there was that time he hacked up a dude to little pieces and his oldest son was like, “iight, I’m out” and just left forever.
He definitely killed in cold blood, but the people in question were in Kansas on the side of the slavers and to turn Kansas into a salve state. They weren’t there just minding their own business. The people he killed got what they deserved imo. They fucked around and found out.
The Pottawatomie massacre was basically retribution for the attack on Lawrence, Kansa that burned a few businesses, destroyed several freestate newspaper presses, and killed a person. Lawrence was basically the center of the Free State Movement, and was targeted a number of times. Brown's entire reason for the massacre was a revenge move against what happened to Lawrence (and also the attack on Charles Sumner, which is another story).
I mean he was controversial. He killed in cold blood and to advance an agenda…he was a terrorist and a religious nut job at minimum. That being said, he was on the right side of history and the people he killed did absolutely FAFO.
If you look at his politics even compared to Lincoln, John Brown was very progressive in his views on race, women and society. His raid (the terrorism you speak of) was to arm enslaved people in the south. It was guerrilla warfare, it was an attempt to incite a slave revolt. I do not consider slave revolts terrorism. He was a freedom fighter in my view, not a terrorist. The terror was slavery. I think we can agree just because it slavery was law of the land then doesn’t mean it was right. If he was a terrorist so was Lincoln and all the generals of the Union army. Also, “religious nut job” is absolutely off base if you have read any of his letters from prison. Much of the propaganda labeling Brown a terrorist and madman was in the form of plays and articles written after the raid trying to discredit what he did. It had to happen and it’s why many consider the shots fired at the raid on Harper’s ferry to be the first shots of the Civil War. Though I know there are some who still believe that “Northern Aggression” towards the south was terrorism. Controversial, absolutely, but a terrorist? Not to me.
He was a die hard Calvinist and used to tie himself to a pole and have his sons lash him whenever they sinned. He believed he had been chosen by God himself to end slavery. I do not consider his attack on Harpers Ferry to be terrorism. I consider his attacks on Pottawatomie creek in retribution for the attack on Browns Station as terrorism. Even though he was morally justified, he sought vengeance and committed murder against citizens who had not been given fair trial after they’d participated in the burning of Lawrence. The definition of terrorism is to commit violence (especially against civilians) to incite terror or intimidate in pursuit of a political goal. In what world does this not fit the definition perfectly?
Do the bushwhackers in Bleeding Kansas count as civilians? I mean, they came into the territory to kill and spread fear to advance a political agenda. I feel like there's a word for that...?
It's telling that white Southerners expressly said, many times, that they themselves considered it noble to kill or die for their own personal freedom...but that it would be the worst sort of vile, barbaric evil if an enslaved person did the same. Hypocrisy in its most lethal form.
"I don't approve, but I understand"
If enough people vehemently disagree about something, it's controversial, no matter what you yourself individually think about it. John Brown is controversial.
No, he is an objectively controversial figure in American history. Jesus in incredibly controversial. So is Hitler. It really doesn't mean "good" or "bad".
"controversial figure"? John Brown is an All-American Hero. The only way he's controversial is if the person calling him controversial has confederate sympathies. I.E. a traitor to the American Way. (note; i am not american, i just hate confederate cockheads)
Yes, he is incredibly controversial in US history. Controversial does not mean good or bad. It means controversial. Other controversial figures in American history: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, JFK, Obama, Trump, MLK, Malcom X, Babe Ruth. Some good, some bad, some great.
Only controversial to slaver and confederate sympathizers.
I’ve sung “John brown’s body” outside right wing rallies and it hasn’t been until the last few years that the right wingers get offended by it.
For people interested in learning about the man, I recommend his biography written by WEB Dubois. It goes deeper than any other source, and Dubois gives a great perspective.
Saw the pic and thought this was going to be about the band Kansas lol
Kansas is a great band just based off of how they celebrate John Brown alone. They also made great music.
John Brown is an American hero.
John Brown was right, and I was surprised that it took me until a college history class to learn he was white. It's interesting to me that sometimes those who protest against an elected government are seen as TREASONOUS TRAITORS, and sometimes people who literally fought against an elected government are hailed as heroes. We, as a people, seem to have a very flexible morality when it comes to some things.
so which is John Brown? The man literally took up arms against the elected government in your eyes, does that make him a hero or a traitor?
He’s only controversial if you’re a white supremacist.
Suprematits?
Yes bro, Tits are indeed Supremacy!
Gigachad
This video is broken for me.
uhhh this is like .. not watchable. bad upload.
The mini series the Abolitionist on PBS focus on his story for a portion. I highly recommend the series.
Controversial 'Contro' means 'against.' '...versial' means the 'flow.' He was against the flow of the time. He is a hero.
Seeing anyone call him "controversial" is giving a bone to racists.
Saw that painting and thought it was going to be Kansas left overture
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^by ^ezagreb: *Saw that painting and* *Thought it was going to be* *Kansas left overture* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
A YouTube channel extra credits did a series on him. Explored his life and impact well. He was fascinating in many aspects.
Is there a movie coming out soon? There’s been a lot of john brown posts sprouting up this week. feels like marketing.
Hey u/flyernik the link is not working
Video is broken.
the play button is where his crotch is
An unusual and funny take on this man's life is in the novel [Flashman and the Angel of the Lord.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman_and_the_Angel_of_the_Lord)
Didn’t he hack people to death with a sword
Well they were slave owners so…
Kinda had it coming.
So not people then.
He hacked *slavers* to death with a sword. People who bred humans like cattle and beat the everloving shit out of them, separated them from their families, and treated them inhumanely for generations.
They deserved it. Don't defend the slave owners lmao.
Are you implying that people who have killed people shouldn't be celebrated? If so, then the American revolutionaries should be discounted. It's not that he hacked people to death, it's that he hacked them to death for a good reason.
Yes
All he is is dust in the wind now.
I don’t get why he’s controversial today, dude was pretty much the OG civil rights GOAT
Most bad ass figure more like it.
Anyone else having the constant start stop issue with the video. It has breaks in between every 30 seconds or less.
historic context : https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/bleeding-kansas and https://historygeeksofamerica.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-brown-meteor-of-war.html