Further proof that no information can truly be hidden from the public; even as Nat Turner and the rebels were wiped from history, their legacy lived on forever.

Perhaps this is because of the idea that those who are dead protect those who still live.

All the rebellion needed to start was a leader, which ended up being Nat Turner.

Is this why Baker often uses the shadow of the moon to indicate time passing?

This just goes to show how impactful it is to raise a child in a nuanced way. By raising Nat Turner to believe that he was special and destined for more, Turner was able to lead a revolutionary slave rebellion.

This statement circles back to the trend of slaveholders to ban education among their slaves; the absence of traditional evidence allowed works like "The Confessions of Nat Turner" to depict Turner as a madman, thus belittling the movement that he fought for.

This timeline exemplifies the bravery of Nat Turner. Turner knew about the failures of the past, but went through with the rebellion anyway, because there was a chance that maybe his bravery could bring about equality.

Could this be a repetition of history? Denying the slaves access to education backfires on the slaveholders in the past, but they still try to hold power over others by retaining information from the masses.

Irony lies in the fact that they had Nat preach in order to strengthen their justification of slavery, but instead weakened their hold on the slave population by allowing the education of the leader of the rebellion, Nat Turner. This irony parallels the perverse, backwards thinking of slavery.

Baker emphasizes this point in Nat Turner by displaying different kinds of abuse that slaves suffered and the reasons for it.

"Traditional thinking has long held..." suggests that McCloud values the opposite, of literature and images together (which makes sense, since he's written and illustrated a graphic novel). McCloud argues that images and literature can strengthen each other and bring about a deeper meaning to the work.

Contrary to Roxane Gay's piece, Lightfoot argues that representation of slavery and its stickiness in today's society is essential to the healing of our culture, while Gay argues that we must move forward instead of constantly looking to the past, in order for the minorities of the US to advance in terms of social justice and equality.

I've always wondered this too... Although the story of slavery and emancipation is an important one that must be told, it also keeps the wounds open for actors of color, limiting them to a select few roles, thus limiting their freedom in the name of freedom itself.

This statement echoes the argument made in Roxane Gay's "I Don't Want To Watch Slavery Fan Fiction."

Gay argues that in such troubled times, it's the responsibility of TV show writers to instead write about a hopeful future tat solves problems, instead of reiterating and promoting inflagration of the issues we already know too well.

This circles back to "The Practices of Looking" by Sturken and Cartwright which presents the idea of mimesis, or in other words, imitation between life and the media, and between the media and life.

This clarifies the statement that I disagreed with earlier, and now I completely agree with the author. Simply putting forth representations of slavery doesn't do much good... It must challenge the world we live in today.

I disagree with this statement. While I don't deny that "we are still dealing with the vestiges of slavery in very tangible ways," I see the reimagining in media as showing others through a new lens how people today still live and feel. I see it as a help, instead of a hindrance.

These nooses have been hanging from trees every since the Klu Klux Klan- a sad reminder that we may never heal from the wounds of the past. Just like the masks of the '60s, the racists today hide behind anonymity because they know that what they're doing is wrong, but don't want to face their own ignorance.

This is an interesting way to think about how hate of this manner still survives today through the expression of Civil War memorabilia. Personally, I think that their racism shouldn't inherently be linked to the Civil War; to me, it gives blame to historical figures long gone and takes blame away from those living today and oppressing others, however, it links white supremacists with the image of stupidity and patheticness, which I kind of like

I'm intrigued by this statement, because it reminds me that different people interpret works different ways. What some might take as a cautionary tale, others might take as inspiration. It's also dangerous for the writer/artist, as the work might subconsciously reveal the prejudices within the artist him/herself.