This week, Hasan Kwame Jeffries, an Ohio State University history professor and the brother of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, joined the mantra of many on the left for citizens to rise up and fight the system “by any means necessary.” However, Jeffries added a menacing element in calling for citizens to emulate John Brown, who murdered white farmers who supported slavery. He is not the first academic to use Brown as a model for political action today.
In a social media post flagged by Libs of TikTok, Jeffries declared that “John Brown understood that the only way to free Americans from the scourge of white supremacy was to get rid of white supremacists by any means necessary. He was right then. He is right now.”
The posting was widely interpreted as a thinly veiled rationalization for political violence, a dangerous contribution to an age of rage marked by rising attacks, including assassinations.
Other academics have pushed Brown as a model for activists in fighting racism, oligarchy, and other ills in society.
Stacey Patton, professor of journalism at Howard University, previously pushed this model in a blog titled “John Brown Didn’t Ask Enslaved People How to Be A Good White Ally.” Patton scolded white liberals to stop asking how to be a better “ally” to minorities. She wrote:
“It’s a question that always lands heavy. Not because I doubt their sincerity, but because the question itself is still a form of protection that centers the asker’s confusion instead of the target’s danger. It’s a request to be taught, forgiven, and reassured, again and again. It’s another round of homework assigned to the wounded…It’s exhausting as hell because it’s still a form of emotional outsourcing.”
Brown is best known for his pivotal role in the period known as “Bleeding Kansas” and the infamous Pottawatomie massacre.
In 1856, he orchestrated the Pottawatomie massacre. He and fellow abolitionists dragged five Kansas settlers, at least three of whom were pro-slavery sympathizers, out of their homes and executed them. His own son, Salmon Brown, said that when his father and his brother heard about the caning of abolitionist Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks, they went “crazy, crazy.”
Brown was eventually captured after his raid on Harpers Ferry and hanged.
I understand that Brown is viewed as a figure who recognized that the scourge of slavery would only be excised from our nation by force. He is viewed as a catalyst of the Civil War by many. However, his murder and kidnapping of whites were efforts to use terror and vigilanteism to achieve the worthy goal of emancipation.
Frederick Douglas wrote beautifully about his divided emotions about Brown, crediting him with being “the thunder clap” that helped spark the struggle for freedom. He spent time with Brown who was a guest at his home and admired his convictions and passion. However, he was also a critic of the raid on Harper’s Ferry and argued for political, not violent, change. ( He wrote that “taking of Harpers Ferry was a measure never encouraged by my word or by my vote.”).
For his part, Abraham Lincoln denounced Brown as an insane zealot, adding that this “was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate.”
Lincoln notably compared Brown to “the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution.”
Patton (and apparently Jeffries) now suggest that Brown’s blood-soaked legacy may be worthy of replication. Patton heralded Brown, who “saw the horror for what it was and decided that ending this racist f*ckery mattered more than being understood.” What clearly makes Brown stand out for Patton is his violence: “So when white allies ask, ‘What can I do?’ here’s the answer: Be like John Brown. Ask yourself, what am I willing to burn so somebody else can breathe?”
She added, “If you don’t want to die like John Brown, fine. But understand that somebody always does.”
Now, Dr. Jeffries is picking up the same call to rally behind Brown’s legacy. Notably, Brown himself dismissed those who believed that real change could occur with a blood-soaked reckoning: “I am quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think vainly, flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.”
According to his university bio, Jeffries teaches in areas such as “Power, Culture, and the State,” “the Black Power Movement,” and “Race, Ethnicity, and Nation.” He was featured by PBS as part of its series Black America Since MLK.
His better-known older brother, Hakeem, has notably been accused of fueling the rage in society, including posting images of himself brandishing a baseball bat. He has remained silent on his brother raising the specter of “Bloody Kansas” as a worthy inspiration for students and activists.
As many celebrate or rationalize the assassinations of figures such as Charlie Kirk and UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the effort to encourage others to embrace the legacy of John Brown is hardly a subtle message. Many will take it as another signal that violence is not just warranted but righteous.
Rage rhetoric has already taken hold of much of our politics and the most extreme candidates garner support from voters.
Democratic voters turned out for a candidate in Texas who has called for the imprisonment and even castration of “Zionist billionaires.”
In Maine, the Democratic candidate Graham Platner has called himself an “Antifa supersoldier,” referring to the most violent and anti-free speech group in the country.
Platner has channeled the most unhinged aspects of John Brown. Indeed, some of his statements are strikingly similar to Brown’s: “There are times in this world when, for the good of tolerance and humanity, you need to kill a motherf—er.” He added the Brownesque twist that “Sadly most people who are true believers in tolerance and humanity find that activity repulsive.”
In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I explore the rise of such radical voices calling for violent action in the context of our 250th anniversary. These “new Jacobins” are unleashing the same impulses that led to “Terror” in France as citizens threw off any restraints to vent their rage. They too dismissed notions of nonviolent political action. As Platner observed, “I suppose [tolerance] is morally good, but pragmatically a shortfall.”
Among the Jacobins, a lawyer stepped forward to advocate for the “pragmatic choice” of violence. His name was Robespierre, and he declared, “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.”
Ultimately, Robespierre himself would be guillotined like the tens of thousands of his victims. One of the few surviving central leaders after the French Revolution would offer a cautionary tale to those who seek to fuel such rage to achieve political power. French writer Jacques Mallet du Pan wrote in 1793 that “Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This is your brain. This is your brain on black studies: a free machete with each diploma.
And here I thought a mind was a terrible thing to waste.
I believe the correct exression is: “a mine is a terrible thing to waste” 🤣
John Brown was certifiably insane. So was Nat Turner. So are these idiots. A major point they leave out is that the slaves refused to follow them. Abolition was all by WHITE Congregationalists and Presbyterians, who were descendants of the Puritans, whose idea of God and obedience was whatever they wanted to make it. They believed they were of a higher law and calling than the Bible and the laws of the nation and state.
You got it all wrong Sam.
Patton: “be like John Brown. Ask yourself, what am I willing to burn so somebody else can breathe?”
Seems like these folks have already burned a lot.
And looted a lot.
And killed a lot.
They weren’t the only slaves in history by a wide margin. And, in any event, slavery is long gone in this country.
However it still exists in parts of Africa and the Muslim world. Why don’t they ever say anything about that? No money in it I suppose.
If Prof Jeffries, and others like him, really opposed slavery as an institution, they would be demonstrating every day for release of the Uygurs held in China in concentration camps. Those camps are worse than anything Mr Jeffries’ ancestors had to suffer. Yet he and all liberals are silent.
Mahl, Trump seeks to build a series of concentration camps right here in the U.S. using old warehouse space. Trump literally wants to warehouse Hispanics destined for deportations. The whole concept is as ugly as it gets.
Those are not “concentration camps.” Those are detainment centers where criminal illegals are being held until they can be deported.
Yes they are concentration camps. When you put a defined group (i.e, illegals) of people into an enclosed protective structure you are concentrating them, thus, a concentration center, prison camp, detention camp, internment camp, and of course, gulag.
But detainees have the key to their cells at all times. Uncle Sam will fly them home at any time, for free.
Imagine WW II if Hitler had shipped six million European Jews to Palestine, instead of building crematoria.
Understanding euphemisms is not you’re strong point. You make a very good Nazi Farmer.
Trump does not want to warehouse illegals. He wants them to voluntarily deport.
For years our policy was to let them melt into the background, live as if they had full legal status.
Well, Homie (Trump) don’t play that. Illegals can’t participate in our society.
There is a piece of this violence over speech discussion that cuts against the lasting power of violence. Accounts l read are that Robespierre was a forceful maker of arguments. At his arrest he was shot in the jaw. It was wired shut at his trial. All planned on fear that his speech would wreck the desired outcome.
Mike: “Accounts l read are that Robespierre was a….At his arrest he was shot in the jaw. It was wired shut at his trial. All planned on fear that his speech would wreck the desired outcome.”
Good grief! Where did you get accounts like that? Utter rubbish.
Watch this to get a fairly good depiction of Robespierre’s end. He had prepared a list of fellow revolutionaries to be executed and refused to disclose it.
Hakeem and Hasan. I have always found it odd that so many Black Americans are anxious to adopt Arabic names, when in fact the Arabs captured, sold into slavery, castrated, and used as sex slaves untold numbers of Black Africans. Can’t learn from history if one doesn’t undertstand it.
Can’t learn from history if one doesn’t undertstand [sic] it. So what history did you learn from? Obviously from a racist source… your parents perhaps? Obviously you didn’t bother learning why Black Americans” became Muslims or why they adopt Muslim sounding names?
Black Americans adopted Muslim and Arabic names primarily as acts of resistance against slavery and as a means of reclaiming cultural identity. During the era of slavery, many Africans brought to America were already Muslim, but slave owners systematically stripped them of their original names and forced Christian conversions, aiming to erase ancestral connections.
Use whatever name you choose for whatever reason you wish. Have whatever political view you choose. Say whatever you please.
BUT BRING VIOLENCE TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD YOU WILL BET MET WITH VIOLENCE
Spoken like a well trained MAGA Nazi.
All the Nazis I see are on the left. Attacking Jews, heckling speakers they dont like, rigging elections, trying to pack courts when the verdicts arent to their liking, threatening political violence to get there way…. I could go on. The only thing missing are the brown shirts.
Did Hakeem pick his own name, or did his parents? I know Black Millennials with African names bestowed on them by Afrocentric Boomer parents.
What many do not recognize is that for the Brothers Jeffries, and most similar firebrands, is that it is easy to cast out inflammatory rhetoric in the hope that a few useful idiots will take heed and act out, to the demise of the idiot and the target. Yet the Brothers sit in the comfort of their own protected bubble.
I propose that people can benefit from looking at these firebrands, especially politicians and those seeking power, as paper tigers that con others into doing their bidding at the expense of ordinary people who get caught up in the controversy. I doubt that the Jeffries’ would have the guts to put their own selves in jeopardy of life, limb or freedom to off those people whom they imply must be killed. Holding a baseball bat and saying others must die is one thing. Doing it themselves is another. Deep down they know they wont stoop to violence themselves, especially when others can be summoned to do it for them.
Simply put if someone says, “You should go out and kill these people.” You (meaning everyone) would be far better asking, “You want me to go to prison for you? Well screw you. I ain’t doing it.” Humanity would be much better served by not listening to others in cushy jobs or high authority when they demand we fight other people’s personal battles.
Darren, everything you’ve written is right on the money. But it all applies to Donald Trump more than anyone else. For that reason we have always wanted real statesmen in the White House.
You might want to read this and get informed, Willingness to circumvent will of voters, even by cheating, most pervasive among Dem elites: Survey
“Despite broad public sentiment against it, however, support for outright cheating in elections rose dramatically among a group of voters that Napolitan identified as the “Elite 1%.” Of that group, 73% identified as Democrats, 67% were aged 35-54, 86% were white, and 47% embraced “Sanders-like policies.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/wkdas-electorate-frustrates-elite-ambitions-contempt-voter-rising-among-dems
Informed? Man are you daft or something? That’s nothing more MAGA propaganda of which you are easily gullible and spread it. You might want to read different sources for a complete picture of that non-issue.
Support for cheating isn’t cheating. That award goes to Republicans who famously have numerous times immediately taken up new laws in opposition to citizen initiatives passed by wide margins.
@ Upstatefarmer,
Before telling anyone to ‘get informed,’ you might want to look closer at the actual math and structure of the survey you just cited, because it doesn’t say what you think it says.
First, the article explicitly notes that the ‘Elite 1%’ demographic being polled is overwhelmingly made up of Democrats (73%). When a subgroup is nearly three-quarters Democratic to begin with, any statistic pulled from that group is naturally going to reflect Democratic voters. It is a textbook example of sampling bias; you cannot claim a trait is ‘most pervasive among Democrats’ when the poll intentionally focused on a group that was already mostly Democrats.
Second, look at the actual numbers: only 35% of that Elite 1% group expressed support for cheating. That means the vast, overwhelming majority (65%) of these so-called elites still completely reject cheating. The article twists a clear minority opinion into a headline that implies it is a ‘pervasive party platform,’ which is flat-out inaccurate.
Finally, the article uses this tiny, hyper-specific 1% slice of wealthy, white, coastal academics and elites to paint an entire political party with a broad brush. In doing so, it completely ignores the fact that 93% of ordinary voters across the country—regardless of party—flatly oppose cheating.
This article isn’t an objective breakdown of voter behavior; it is a carefully spun narrative that uses skewed demographics to manufacture a headline.
I recall when Trump famously called for people to go to the Capitol and fight or they wouldn’t have a country anymore and then got in a limousine and ran for the safety of the White House while his minions literally climbed walls, staved in windows, bashed police with fire extinguishers, ransacked Congressional offices, and paraded a flag of the Confederacy through the Nation’s legislative core. Many of them did go to prison on behalf of Donald Trump.
Darren, you are falling into the exact same hypocritical trap as your boss, Jonathan Turley.
Turley sits in a comfortable academic bubble lecturing the public on civility. He praises the American Founders for using radical, disruptive means to overthrow British rule, yet the second a Black historian points out that ending chattel slavery required that exact same radical disruption, Turley panics. It is pure hypocrisy to celebrate historical rebellion when it suits your narrative, but condemn it when it challenges modern systemic issues.
By invoking John Brown, Hasan Jeffries isn’t looking for “useful idiots”—he is forcing us to reckon with a man who actually did sacrifice his life and freedom to fight an existential evil. John Brown was no paper tiger; he paid for his convictions with his life.
If the American colonists had followed your advice—staying in their comfort zones and dismissing every radical voice as an inflammatory firebrand—we would still be subjects of the British Crown. Progress is never made by compliance, and it certainly isn’t made by listening to the selective moral outrage of people like your boss, Turley.
To pretend that we live in a country of inequality commensurate to centuries ago is intentionally obfuscating, stupid, insane, or all of the above. The modern left has nothing to offer the world but hate and tyranny.
Seriously – these people are damaged, and have ironically fully regressed to the mentality of their ideological forebears during the time in question here. It is madness.
The modern left has nothing to offer the world but hate and tyranny.
And what exactly is your comment about?
Jame’s comment has nothing to do with hate and tyranny. He is simply making an observation of the situation, the rhetoric Democrats are making.
You really need to re-take reading comprehension class.
“terror and vigilanteism” is what kept the slaves in slavery. Like sees like. The irony is that the slavers were made uncomfortable by what they themselves had done.