In our discussion of David Walker
and Nat Turner’s Rebellion, I think we left out a major aspect of rebellion as
a way to reclaim humanity through violence. Similar to the manner in which
Walker attempts to reclaim the use of religious texts to support the emancipation
of slaves through contextualizing and reframing the Bible, Turner’s Rebellion
seeks to reframe the violence of slavery. Turner justified indiscriminant killing
of families based on two components: race and location. Slavery condones the
indiscriminant violence of people based on those same two components.
With the justification for these
atrocities are the same, one is inherently more just than the other. When
quarrelling children are told “I don’t care who started it”, they are learning
that violence is never justified and to sacrifice their own rights to preserve
peace, even if one-sided. Violence, for the sake of protecting your rights as a
human being, can be justified. In oppressor/oppressed situations in which abuse
is long standing and repetitive (whether or not outsiders are able to view this
abuse) often necessitates violence. US Slavery consists of this relationship
wherein hegemonic white society is benefited through systematic, individual,
and internalized white supremacy. As such, the violence for Turner’s rebellion
is not only justified in the sense that oppressors will continue to oppress
until prevented but also in that the violence against Black Americans will not
stop until white society and its profiteers are dismantled.
In reaction to whether or not the
mater’s tools are able to dismantle the master’s house, religion has, to some
extent, proved the effectiveness of reframing and wielding the mater’s tool.
The trick here is that while the tool might be markedly similar, modifications
must be made. Religion, for example, must be reinterpreted. Violence should
continue to be utilized because until the oppressor’s lives are substantially
disrupted, motivation for equity will be absent.
I agree with your argument on the necessity of violence in the oppressor/oppressed relationship (i.e. violence in reaction to violence, no matter the form it takes), but in my opinion, religion is close to useless in this scenario, since it is inherently a master's tool and due to its moralistic nature. By stating that another Christian isn't being "Christian" enough or by saying that they are doing Christianity "wrong," the accuser will only lose power due to the fact that they are insulting the religion and not the action of oppression itself. It's as if I was stabbed in the leg, and I insulted my attacker based on the glasses they were wearing. Moreover, by insulting someone else's way of practicing a religion, there comes a whole host of moralistic and spiritual complications that will only render the accuser in the wrong. Ultimately, for change to take place, I have to be on the side of your violence argument; even though it is similarly one of the master's tools, I would much rather be holding an axe than a bible in times of violence and injustice.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see where your point about religion comes from, but I think it’s important to recognize the power of reclaiming tools of oppression. While I don’t necessarily agree with the manner in which religion is being attacked/used to support opinions, religion provides a basis for safe spaces and community unity that many other sources do not. Religion is being reformed through Black movements in a similar way language has been. In fact, what we can observe is much more about safety than religion itself. Why else would the manner of practice be the point of conflict? The label of “Christian” isn’t as pertinent to the conflict, rather, the definitive aspect of the interaction comes from the interpretation of the religious teachings themselves. I think it matters less that the reclaiming occurs in religious spheres and more that the reclaiming of spaces, language, and cultural norms are occurring at all.
Delete