MovieChat Forums > The Birth of a Nation (2016) Discussion > If Nat Turner is a terrorist, America WW...

If Nat Turner is a terrorist, America WW2 movies are also

posted 8 years ago by blazetariq
59 replies | jump to latest

If Nat Turner is a terrorist, America is too.

America has bombed countless villages and killed countless innocents under the name of war.

If Nat Turners army in the Southampton Rebellion was a terrorist army, and Nat Turners war was a terrorist war, so was Americas army in the World War 2.

Therefore if Nat Turner movies shouldnt be made, and Nat Turner isnt a hero, neither is America and the legacy that America carried after WW2. By the same account, American WW2 movies should all be boycotted as well. This goes for any movies about the orders of the American government during WW2.

Americas legacy on WW2 should forever be tainted...They were nothing more than murderers and terrorist.

Nat Turner only retaliated as he seen fit. He was a preacher and obviously believed in EYE for an EYE. The white Nazis of America killed his innocent victims, he killed theirs.

More importantly, these women and children may have been a a potential threat to the ultimate goal of freedom, or collateral damage for the greater good. The lesser of the two evils. Killing a few babies and innocents, meant saving thousands more babies and innocents.

Whether he was right or wrong isnt even whats most important. Nobody is perfect and neither was Nat Turner. His army may have made mistakes, but no one can deny that he stood for a something. A greater good. A greater cause.

We can also go further to say modern American government has also bombed Arab nations and innocent villages to smithereens. By the same token, the government for the last few decades have all been terrorists. No more movies about terrorist American armies in any of their terrorist wars.

[–] medievil3791 8 years ago

If not for the "terrorist Americans" joining the allies during WWll we might very well be under a nazi regime.

[–] blazetariq 8 years ago

Yeah? And if Nat Turner didn't revolt by any means necessary, we would still have slaves. Ahhhh see how that works?

[–] NitroHangover 8 years ago

Riiiiiight, except that Turner's little "revolt" didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the ending of slavery. So no, that's actually not how that works, dummy.

[–] blazetariq 8 years ago

He was revolting to protest against slavery. It was a clear and direct protest against the treatment of black humanity. And we no longer have slaves anymore...See?

Or im assuming you must have thought his revolt was for gay marriage. Wrong movie buddy.

[–] articappleman 8 years ago

and he had no real part in it.

[–] TheFeaz87 8 years ago

It was a clear and direct protest against the treatment of black humanity. And we no longer have slaves anymore...See?

John Brown's attempted slave insurrection at Harper's Ferry, Virginia in 1859 had more of an impact on the dissolution of slavery than Nat Turner's rebellion did. Turner was vilified in both the North and the South because he went after civilian women and children. John Brown's attack was more positively received because it went after government institutions rather than private ones.

[–] milo44 8 years ago

His was not the only revolt .. but I don't think his was the one that ended slavery .. It had to do with everyone who was against slavery .. black and white .. Even without the Civil War , I don't believe for one minute that slavery would still exist in America ... Human beings are smarter than that in today's world .. and if it did , I wouldn't want to live in such a backward country that would put up with something like that .. that's unforgivable .. I haven't seen this movie yet , but I plan to on PPV .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".

[–] johnnybag76 8 years ago

You are the most backward thinking idiot i've seen on here, your logic is idiotic. Right because of Nat Turner's rebellion slavery ended? You are an imbecile. There were many rebellions of black slaves and none of them contributed to the end of slavery. Just like now most of the population of America was white and only white people could put an end to slavery.

Try reading a book dimwit.

[–] milo44 8 years ago

Then there would be two parts of America ... The southern America and the northern America .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".

[–] rapadake 8 years ago

uh?

the war was won by the time America entered europe to loot anything it could find.

[–] ManThing32 8 years ago

Lol. What a crock of *beep*

[–] NapoleonBender 8 years ago

Look at the casualties of all the countries. The USSR won the war while the UK contained the western part.

[–] StevieWunda 8 years ago

And America ended the war by dropping 2 bombs on Japan.

[–] jjvz1989-224-63907 8 years ago

By the time, those two bombs were dropped. Japan was already in the process of surrendering following the invasion by the USSR and a previous bombing by the USA. However the terms of surrrender was not agreed upon yet and the bombing was merely pushing it in the direction of western powers (if I remember correctly, it had something to do with the title of emperor of Japan, he wanted to retain the title after surrender). Pearl harbour in itself is the subject of controversy as there was a Dutch seavessel that had warned appearantly but was ignored. Irrespective of what your position is with regard to the issue at hand, one thing needs to be made clear, America did not win the war and did not end the war, it was a collective effort. There were many nationalities that were instrumental in the end of World War 2 (nobody won, it was not a sports match, not speaking to the poster above, speaking to others.), America was one of the nations, not the only nation. Many lives of many nationalities were lost. Another thing is World War 2 was not against Germany, it was against the Nazi ideology. In the German army, there were officers that refused to wear any Nazi symbols, they fought because of patriotism and to protect their families.

The idea that those two bombs and that America won World War 2 is based on marketing, fact that there were no battle fought on American soil and the cold war (why would America concede, that Russia was instrumental in ending the war when they were sworn enemies). the marketing aspect came after the perceived failure of the Vietnam war, morale had hit an all time low and past glories became the saving grace, hollywood embraced the idea.

America was one of the many nations that were instrumental in World War 2 and they were instrumental in the war against Japan, the American fire bombings along with the Russian troops on the ground ended that war, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bully tactic in order to sway negotiations to the benefit of western powers. Even the Robert Lewis, the commander on the flight stated that he wrote "my God, what have we done" in the log book.

[–] mjelliott9 8 years ago

Except that the Soviet-Japanese War of 1945 started on August 9. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9 of the same year. Kind of changes the picture of Russia bringing Japan to it's knees when you realize they didn't even declare war until AFTER the U.S. dropped the atom bombs.

Oh, and fyi, Pearl Harbor is on American soil. Did you just make up your own ridiculous version of what happened in World War II or did some Russian teach it to you that way?

[–] NapoleonBender 8 years ago

Read what Eisenhower said about the nukes. He said everybody he knew knew that it was not strategically necessary in the slightest. But maybe we should take mjelliott9's word more seriously than him huh?

Nuking Hiroshima is an incredible war crime that we got away with.

[–] Border_Ruffian 8 years ago

Certainly a severe retribution, but if Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany had the Bomb and a way to deliver it I have little doubt they would have used it...

[–] scaliwags 8 years ago

rapadake.....uh?

the war was won by the time America entered europe to loot anything it could find.

What a dumbass!

[–] rapadake 8 years ago

yes it was in Europe. Why do you deny this? have you swallowed so many lies that you no longer find the truth palatable?

The only outstanding major "war" that America genuinely had to be fighting was with Japan. And even that wasn't for a just purpose, America was simply trying to dominate Japan with its stance in the Pacific and over oil (that ol chestnut)

[–] rapadake 8 years ago

if not for the terrorist americans, millions wouldn't have suffered and died at the hands of slavery and genocide that far outstrips what the Nazis managed in a decade.

We are actually VERY lucky that America were not. in a position to take over Europe with their "Nazi-like" racist policies

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] janisvstr 8 years ago

Do you really believe a country with a population of only 80 million was going to take over and occupy The USA, Russia, Canada, France and Britain?

The "taking over" does not work by your simplistic logic. It can be very effectively done by a group of less than 100 people. Only the key positions have to be occupied for a takeover to be official.

I laugh when I hear how Germany was out to take over the world.

You should indeed, but not because of the mathematical reason, but because it was simply not true. They wanted to eliminate Communists, not to take over the world. The propaganda has worked very well into making ignorant people believe that fairytale.
And now, some 70-odd years later, the same war is being fought - with different weapons. Only this time, the good side [nationalists] will win. Communists/Marxists have literally no chance against the Internet, against the connected world.

Never argue with a Cultural Marxist. They never make sense and they never give up their racism.

[–] bluesy 8 years ago

Judging by all your posts on imdb you sure sound like one neonazi racist scumbag. As a white person myself i despise types like you more than anything else in this world. You call yourself alt-right, but you are nothing but nazi scum.

[–] sindavide 8 years ago

if we are not under a nazi regime it is because of USSR, not because of the US.

[–] Johnator 8 years ago

More importantly, these women and children may have been a a potential threat to the ultimate goal of freedom, or collateral damage for the greater good. The lesser of the two evils. Killing a few babies and innocents, meant saving thousands more babies and innocents.

I think here is where you lost any credibility whatsoever. Nat Turner is a coward and child killer. The End.

[–] blazetariq 8 years ago

Just because you say I lost credibility doesn't make it true. But let me guess, you're white so your whiteness makes it true and argument for said accusation is no longer needed? Go figure

[–] sungod64 8 years ago

Yes sir!They can't handle the truth!

[–] kaunte 8 years ago

If anything, Nat Turner managed to make things worse for African Americans. Look up the aftermath of his rebellion.

"In total, the state executed 56 black people suspected of having been involved in the uprising. But in the hysteria of aroused fears and anger in the days after the revolt, white militias and mobs killed an estimated 200 black people, many of whom had nothing to do with the rebellion

The fear caused by Nat Turner's insurrection and the concerns raised in the emancipation debates that followed resulted in politicians and writers responding by defining slavery as a "positive good"

Across Virginia and other southern states, state legislators passed new laws to control slaves and free blacks. They prohibited education of slaves and free blacks, restricted rights of assembly for free blacks, withdrew their right to bear arms (in some states), and to vote (in North Carolina, for instance), and required white ministers to be present at all black worship services."

If I never meet you in this life, let me feel the lack

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

They were "legally" declared "N----RS" (In every ugly sense of the word.)

They were owned.

There is no "worse" for a human. Because that means, as "legal" N----RS, every conceivable act of cruelty and inhumanity was completely justified in every way.

Now, please stop repeating the lie of who was actually responsible for the additional atrocities done in his name.

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] kaunte 8 years ago

His actions also affected "free blacks", not just people who were owned.

If I never meet you in this life, let me feel the lack

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

His actions, his actions...

Now what about their actions? Just once, please try and explain your perspective on their actions. The people that did the actual enslaving, lynching and killing. Did he somehow "cause" them to become "more" inhuman than they already were? Was everything just fine until this instigator came along? What role did THEY play in this little melodrama? You seem to consistently leave their role out of your "explanations".

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] kaunte 8 years ago

My perspective? My perspective is that slavery was *beep* up, and as someone born in the nineties it's a pretty hard concept to swallow.

However, I also don't believe that somebody else's evil makes you good. Just because slavery was vile, doesn't make Turner a hero for slaughtering people.

MLK and Gandhi got sh*t done and they didn't go around killing people.

But then again, I don't judge Nelson Mandela for fighting against Apartheid. Which does seem highly inconsistent of me. The difference might be in the results of their actions. This does raise some big questions.

If I never meet you in this life, let me feel the lack

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

You simply did the exact same thing again. You reverted right back to focusing on Turner. When I relatively asked you: Who were these people that created this thing called "N----RS"? And a "legal" capacity to "own" them in the first place? What type of psychology does it take to do such a thing? Is the issue here really slavery? Or is there something much deeper and darker than that even? And ultimately, before we even begin to focus on Turner, what was going on up to that point?

That's our problem as a Nation. We refuse to be honest about what THAT garbage really means on more than just a surfacey level! It was utter dehumanization on a massive scale! And like millions before you, you're avoiding the reality of what that truly means. Thus, enabling you to make Turners actions and their actions somehow comparable. When the scale of the two evils are absolutely INCOMPARABLE! So the fundamental question is: What's really at the bottom of this deep, dark hole?

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] kaunte 8 years ago

Hold up. Just to clarify before you go on about our problem as a nation, I am not American. I live in a country that as recent as 50 years ago had pretty much no black people in it. We don't know what's it like to have that whole history of institutional racism USA has had. We've never had (racial) slavery or segregation. (We did have dictionaries at some point, with the n-word that describes them as lazy and of inferior intelligence. But that's way before my time.) There was one movie made in 1960 that had blackface in it. That was recently aired on television and caused some controversy. Most people don't see what's so offensive about it, since we don't have that history with Jim Crow or minstrel acts. I'm looking at this strictly from the outside.

I have at no point disagreed with you how massively messed up slavery was. But what do YOU believe that Turner accomplished by his revolt?

If I never meet you in this life, let me feel the lack

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

Being both a non-American and a child of the nineties, I implore you to please exercise a very healthy amount of both restraint and respect regarding these types of discussions. For the incredible, incredible amounts of racial violence that has been suffered. And for the astronomically complex social significance still very much associated with these issues in America at this very moment. So, not just about what was inflicted in the past, but also related to what is going on currently as well.

In fact, one of the most unintentionally insulting things you can do is to treat these kinds of conversations as if they are simply some sort of passing exercise or tutorial in how racism works. Because America's incredibly sordid history with racism is distinct from almost all other nations for a couple of very powerful reasons. Racism has now been at the forefront of almost every major historical event that has happened on these shores for over 500 years now. And America is the only nation to practice both chattel slavery AND 100 more years of "Jim Crow" apartheid. And most importantly of all. It has come absolutely nowhere even remotely close to coming to terms with either one. So as a result, to say you're now walking in, in the middle of this proverbial movie would be an astronomically huge understatement.

So once again, being both non-American and a child of the nineties, you run a huge risk of almost everything you say about race in America being perceived as either incredibly uninformed about the background behind certain things (and as a result, arrogant}, or just plain totally insensitive, period.

Otherwise, have fun!

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

That question holds absolutely no moral validity for me whatsoever! In fact I find it downright sociopathic for a person to even still be asking it in the 21st century, with what we now know in hindsight about the full magnitude of what was being done all around him, 24/7, to literally every African man, woman and child in America.

Because it is fundamentally predicated on questioning the good or bad of his actions, while completely (and very, very, very intentionally) NOT ASKING, in any way shape or form, about the good or bad of the entire 200 years of inhumanity that preceded his actions. And with it, what THAT inhumanity accomplished.

As with the original creation of the concept of "N----RS" in the first place, it is a question rooted in dark, manipulative, moral fraud!

And as such, I find it completely unworthy of dignifying it's inherent, underlying, racial dishonesty by answering it!

In fact, a far, far, far more honest question is: What was he TRYING to accomplish?

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] littlegeorgie 8 years ago

All that went completely over your head. His death is only meaningless if we keep lying about what caused it (and much more importantly, 20 million others).

If we're genuinely pursuing TRUTH here, then the focus shouldn't be on (just) Turner in the first place.

If we're finally going to START being honest after all these centuries of never-ending racial dishonesty, then the focus should finally be (FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER!) on finding out what created a Nat Turner to begin with.

That's basically called: Putting things in their proper context.

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] kaunte 8 years ago

But now that I've thought about it, this whole concept of "N----RS" is actually pretty similar to what the nazis did...

If I never meet you in this life, let me feel the lack

[–] c-r-hinton30 8 years ago

I cant help myself

In your own opinion

Why was MLK murdered

[–] rapadake 8 years ago

The actions you are referring to were the actions of people other than Turner. Turner isn't responsible for the insanity at that time prevalent in the ruling white AMerican people

[–] rapadake 8 years ago

Nat turners actions didn't cause that, the action of whites did it.

There is absolutely no basis for claiming turner caused them. The most can be claimed is that they are knock-on effects caused by others reactions.

[–] PointingMonkey 8 years ago

America's actions in World War II cannot by definition be considered terrorism. The definition of terrorism is as follows: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." Defined by the United Nations General Assembly.

The fact that America were attacked by Japan, they are covered in the sense that they had justification for declaring war on Japan. As Japan were the aggressors. On the European front, Germany declared war on America. So again America's actions have justification.

[–] rapadake 8 years ago

so.... the Japanese bombing a military base that's NOT IN AMERICA....(nad was only in Pearl Harbor in order to monopolise oil trade in the pacific..which is NOT owned by America)
....
...

is justification for AMERICA H bombing millions of civilians in Japan.

Like Shyte it is, FAIL.America was being typically Nazi evil multiplied several times in its actions from the the moment it entered the war till it finished.

[–] PointingMonkey 8 years ago

The unprovoked bombing of an American military base is more than enough justification for declaring war. America established the naval base in 1899 can continues to have a presence on the island to this day. So yeah, it was and still remains an American base.

is justification for AMERICA H bombing millions of civilians in Japan.

As for America "H bombing" Japan. I'm going to say that that cannot be considered a terrorist act. Because of the basic fact that America (or any other country) has never "H bombed" Japan (or any country for that matter).

America dropping ATOM BOMBS on Japan, was an act of war. And in no way can be consider an act of terrorism. Were they morally or ethically right? My answer would be most certainly not. They were unneeded and not something America should be proud of. As far as I'm concerned the Enola Gay should be destroyed, not put on display.

[–] rapadake 8 years ago

Unprovoked bombing. Still you lie. Why do you prefer to live in lies? Of course Pearl Harbor remains a military base, they beat Japan! Are you stupid?

A bombs, glad you agree it was entirely evil and wrong.

[–] PointingMonkey 8 years ago

How is calling Pearl Harbor an unprovoked bombing a lie? (Unprovoked: carried out, occurring, or acting without direct provocation. Just to take this a step further, Provocation: action or speech that makes someone angry, especially deliberately.)

Why would beating Japan have any bearing on Pearl Harbor remaining a military base? Pearl Harbor is Oahu, Hawaii. Last time I checked Hawaii was the 50th State of the United States.

As for being stupid, I'm not the one who confused the Hydrogen Bomb with an Atom Bomb.

[–] rapadake 8 years ago

hey you ever listen? why America militarising in Hawaii before it became an American state?

yeh u just said Hawaii, which became state in 1959, long after world war 2 had wrapped but you still dumb enough to type it in ww2 discussion. Stupid.

Hey why u never listen part 2? - America were active in an economic oil war with Japan that was ruining their economy. Stupido quelle.

Hey why u never listen part 3 - America went at Japan for Chinese oil, not for retaliation.They were practically invading already, swarming the sea with military to stop japan trading with non-USA oil merchants. Maximus stupidius, young Potter.

As for being stupid, yeh I said H bomb instead of A bomb but I was in a hurry and made a ONE LETTER mistake. Big whoohaa, still result is plenty dead, and of yeah you get in a huff over one letter too.but thanks for pointing out the one letter error I get the different, one even more potent.

[–] PointingMonkey 8 years ago

You realize that the oil embargoes by the USA on Japan were in 1940. Yet the USA obtained exclusive use of Pearl Harbor in 1887. Seeming the first oil war was Chaco War in 1932, I don't see how you can say that America holding Pearl Harbor had anything to do with America's military in Pearl Harbor.

You also seem to ignore that the beginnings of the tensions were Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931.

You were in a rush?  That's a good one. How anybody could mistake a for H for an A, when H is five letters to the right on the keyboard. Also A is typed with the little finger of the left hand and H is typed with the index finger of the right hand. I honestly cannot see how anyone can confuse the two. Let alone confuse Atomic with Hydrogen.

Judging by your other comments in this thread it is pointless trying to debate with you. You clearly are clueless. So I am done. There is only so long you can beat your head against a brick wall, before you realize that nothing is going to break through.

[–] randalllber 8 years ago

well technically, the 2 nukes didn't really have any military significance, they were to "bomb japan into submission" so yes they could be considered actions meant to generate terror or "terrorist" actions.

[–] PointingMonkey 8 years ago

They were acts of war. So cannot be considered terrorism.

[–] sungod64 8 years ago

There is only one truth when you are of color!When you are NOT of color the truth is relative to who it's coming from,in their minds the truth is what THEY say it is NOT the Actual truth but only what they say or think it is in their minds.People of color are HELD to ONE truth,if you are not of color,you hold yourselves to many different truths in your minds the truth is what you say it is not what it really is just what you want it to be.

This only works here in the u.s,it is full of a nation of deranged mutants.

[–] c-r-hinton30 8 years ago

well said sungod64

[–] HalloweenTime 8 years ago

I can't tell if this guy is trolling or not. "if Nat didn't revolt we'd still have slavery". This is the funniest thing I've read in a while. This moron has to be trolling.

*Life is great. Without it, you'd be dead*

[–] Edohiguma 8 years ago

This is a ludicrous comparison by someone who has no grasp of history.

Japan attacked the US in WW2 and Nazi Germany declared war on the US in the wake of that event.

Also, moral bombing was an accepted strategy used by all sides in WW2, which is why there were no trials in the aftermath against Axis personnel who ordered and carried out similar attacks.

The US in WW2 are nothing but terrorists and murderers? Why don't you visit Auschwitz or tell a Shoa survivor that the Allies were the bad guys. Maybe talk to some Korean comfort women as well.

[–] rapadake 8 years ago

woah meathead clam down, noone said the allies were the terrorists and murderers.

but ok you are a true meathead of you think it didn't happen.

maybe you are a true meathead, choice it yours, it wont affect me.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]