About two years ago, I was tasked with doing a summary of the essential differences between management and leadership. This is one of the great topics in all of management and organizational behavior literature. Walls of books line bookshelves by experts from every field, from sports to defense to business.
This difference impacts all of us, because the effects of good or bad leadership filter down to all of us, either as government policy or work environments, or in extreme cases, life and death outcomes as seen in conflicts raging in Syria, South Sudan, and other troubled areas.
As someone working in public health, I am acutely aware how this woefully underfunded field needs inspirational leaders to tackle the challenges posed by public health threats, but also to inspire and steer public thinking and win support for greater public health funding.
Without strong leaders, from small agencies to leading scientists to figureheads like the U.S. Surgeon General (see my post that touches on how Dr. C. Everett Koop set the standard), the profession may continue to be relegated to third-tier funding status in federal budget priorities and not gain greater acceptance by a wider majority of Americans. (Note to my international readers, I am writing this post with an American context.)
With management and leadership issues very much on mind this past week because of some interesting developments I have observed, I have decided to publish a short summary document I did on this topic two years ago focussing on Abraham Lincoln as an example. He continues to inspire me, even when I hit roadblocks and get discouraged. And isn’t that what good leaders do, inspire?
“Towering genius distains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.” Abraham Lincoln
What Is Management and Who Are Managers:
Management has been defined as “the art of using all available resources to accomplish a given set of tasks in a timely and economical manner.” Management provides the basis for the system of control needed to maintain and operate an organization. It is also about getting things done through others and delegating work. Managers motivate employees to accomplish tasks with a variety of tools (intrinsic or extrinsic awards).
Typical Management Activities:
– Planning, decision-making, organizing, staffing, directing/actuating (the process of leading through teaching), directing, and controlling (determining what the organization does in relation to its mission).
– “Classic” management theory, dating back to the 1950s and 1960s, suggests managers have to rely less on technical skills and more on conceptual skills the more senior rank they hold. However, in the down economy as our class’s manager interviews found, managers at higher levels in lean organizations still have a lot of technical skills because they are doing a lot of frontline/skills-related activities.
Managers marshal resources to achieve the vision of others, and if they are good, help each person cultivate their talents and grow. Leaders are “visionaries, strategic thinkers, activators.” A talented few may excel at both.
Managers: rely on analysis and rationality, stress conformity, more like scientists, project power over people, seek obedience, emulate other successful managers/leaders.
Leaders: envision, rely on intuition, have self-confidence and take risks, project power with people, are creative and spontaneous, emphasize team building, explore new possibilities, inspire people to follow their vision.
Self-Awareness: Ability to recognize one’s emotions and their effects.
Self-Regulation: Ability to think before acting and suppress disruptive moods.
Motivation: A passion for the work beyond salary or status. Optimism, commitment, drive to do better.
Empathy: Ability to understand people’s emotions and treat them accordingly.
Social Skill: Good at building relationships and networks, finding common ground.
Leadership: Innate Ability Helpful, Practice Is Essential
Management experts debate if leadership is innate or learned; research suggests the latter. But innate traits such as drive, desire to lead, integrity, intelligence, and skill make it more likely that an individual will become a leader but are not the only factors in play. Research has shown that individuals can develop their leadership skills if they are given the right opportunities and mentored. – Leadership as Innate: Intelligence and technical skill are key, and both are at least partially determined by genetics. Emotional intelligence—main predictor—tends to run in families and be greatly influenced by personality and childhood experience. – Leadership as Learned: Businesses believe leaders can be created and invest a lot of time and money to identify and train individuals to assume leadership positions. – Transactional Leaders, focus on meeting organizational goals. Make adjustments as needed to complete tasks for group. – Transformational Leaders use personality/relations with followers to inspire the team to go above and beyond expectations. They are defined by charisma, vision, integrity, symbolism.
Abraham Lincoln, the Embodiment of Strong Leadership:
Lincoln Model, Emotional Intelligence: By the time he had become President, Lincoln had mastered his emotions and exercised great control by not sending “hot letters.” When the time came for action, he acted decisively, but only after deep analysis of the full situation. His greatest asset was his astounding empathy to understand his rivals, allies, and especially his opponents, including the slaveholding South. He was also a beloved storyteller and well-liked and admired by his peers. Lincoln also learned from missteps and made amends with opponents when victorious, and he did not carry personal grudges. He was driven to have a life that fulfilled a higher purpose and to preserve the Union—a nation he believed that had great future promise.
Lincoln Model, Learned Leadership: With just one year of schooling, Lincoln embodied personal drive and self-learning, as well as integrity. Lincoln spent years practicing his craft, in Whig party politics and then in the Illinois Legislature. He lost to his then-more renown rival Stephen Douglas in a U.S. Senate bid in 1856. He then won a brokered convention of the Republican Party in 1860, held in Chicago, after becoming the foremost speaker on the greatest issue of his day, the expansion of slavery. He credited the assistance of many benefactors and friends for believing in him and helping him rise to political prominence.
Lincoln Model, Not One Style of Leadership: Lincoln mixed authoritarianism (suspending the writ of habeas corpus, etc.) as a wartime president, but had a democratic style with his cabinet (his “Team of Rivals,” the most capable politicians of his day he personally recruited). He was transformational; his peers recognized his greatness, inspiring them to work harder.
Five years ago today, on a cold Alaska night, I was awoken by a strange phone call left on my answering machine saying something had happened to my Anchorage friend, Dr. Roger Gollub. Confused, I called the emergency room at the Maniilaq Health Center in Kotzebue, a remote bush city in the Northwest Arctic Borough, 26 miles north of the Arctic Circle on the Chukchi Sea. Roger had flown there a day earlier on assignment—I was with him the night before. I could not believe what I heard. The medical personnel told me, with great difficulty, that one of county’s finest pediatricians and public health caregivers had died from injuries sustained on a trail just outside of town that night.
Dr. Roger Gollub, a career pediatrician with the U.S. Public Health Service’s Indian Health Service, never returned home from his short visit to care for patients in this mostly Native community. He, along with a coworker, were mushing on a shared-use trail in subzero weather, under Alaska’s majestic starry skies, when they were run over by a snowmachine. The driver had a criminal background and was under the influence of drugs and booze. It was about a senseless a crime as I could have ever imagined, and more brutal because of the injuries Roger and his coworker sustained. (Note, Roger’s colleague survived, but only after heroic procedures and months of recovery, all costing more than any non-wealthy person can afford.)
After a bitter scream of disbelief upon hearing the news, I caught myself and thought, what would Roger do. I then spring into action for the next 24 turbulent hours, and the years beyond. In fact, my response to Roger’s tragic passing continues to this day. I would never have gone back to graduate school and earned my MPH in 2012 had I not been inspired by Roger’s amazing life’s work. He remains the finest man I have ever known.
Roger had just retired from a distinguished career, which included an epidemiological residence with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and path-breaking work with Native American and Alaskan Native communities (details here). He was still working under contract serving his many patients, and thinking about an active life ahead, including research, time with his wife and two daughters, projects with the Anchorage Amateur Radio Club, and travels he long delayed. Roger’s death forever changed my life, but also in a good way. From that time on I vowed to work even harder at showing the type of leadership that Roger demonstrated throughout his life.
Though he was only 5’6”, Roger towered above his peers as a professional, and particularly as an exemplary caregiver who understood his young Native American and Alaskan Native patients and their families. He was named physician of the year by the national health agency he dedicated his life too. He had legions of fans across the U.S. Public Health Service who held him in the highest of regards.
I saw hardened, even stoic and cantankerous men who knew him through his ham radio activities openly weep when trying to make sense of his death. (Roger was an advanced ham, who knew Morse code, and who brought amazing life into the local club.) I saw more than 500 mostly Alaskan Natives give him the highest honors normally bestowed only to revered elders. I heard dozens of stories describing how Roger helped and even saved their very sick children, all while preventing costly medical waste within a sometimes-inefficient bureaucratic health delivery system. That alone is amazing, and Roger never expressed cynicism about that system that often thwarted him and his seasoned colleagues.
This letter, published in the Anchorage Daily News shortly after his death, captured a sentiment that lit up the blog coverage of his passing, with comments pouring in nationwide: “I am sure I’m not the only one who feels a great loss with the recent passing of Dr. Roger Gollub. He was truly a man with a servant’s heart and had a tremendous impact on my family. As a pediatrician at the Alaska Native Medical Center, he has shown pure dedication to the Native community and loved each and every patient. He had a place in my heart and my children’s. Once, my daughter had to see another doctor while he was on vacation, and cried for her doctor to come back. The world will never see another with the same compassion, dedication, intellect, integrity and valor as he. I was privileged to know this man for six years and he will never be forgotten in my children’s heart and mine. Linda Tomaganuk Anchorage.”
On the darkest of days, Roger still managed to smile. He always took phone calls from worried parents–at home, in his car, on his walks, wherever. How many doctors take house calls, or personal calls, ever? That was Roger. That was the kind of leader he was. He breathed it. He lived it.
Roger demonstrated to me examples of the leadership that I admire most:
Emotional Intelligence: Roger demonstrated this trait that most researchers say is the best predictor of leadership. He never appeared flustered. His coworkers described his ability to bring chaotic situations under control, in hospital wards or during infectious disease outbreaks, with a calm, deliberative, thorough, and positive manner. It proved contagious, and he earned trust and credibility among his peers.
Understanding of and Respect from his Peers: Abraham Lincoln, America’s greatest politician, was infamous for his empathy and his ability to understand his friends and opponents, which helped him articulate decisions and policy choices that always seemed perfectly suited for the difficult challenges ahead. He knew where the audience was, and where he needed them to go. Roger was celebrated in the Indian Health Service for his true commitment to community based participatory research, for which he earned the deepest respect from his Native American medical professionals. Mention Roger to anyone who has worked in this community, and you will quickly learn of Roger’s deep and genuine appreciation for the community he served during his lifetime. I met a former career pediatrician in the Indian Health Service last spring and mentioned Roger’s name, and was greeted by the most contagious grin I had seen in months. One University of Washington School of Public Health faculty member, who specializes in the field of community based participatory research and who knew Roger in New Mexico, said unequivocally, “Roger was the real deal.”
Leading by Example: Dorris Kearns Goodwin’s portrayal of Lincoln’s wartime cabinet, his famous “team of rivals,” highlights Lincoln’s eventual winning over of Democrat Edward Stanton. Before the Civil War, the former Ohio attorney had ridiculed and mocked the then lesser-known Illinois lawyer as a “long-armed ape” during a legal case during which Stanton shunned Lincoln’s work. Lincoln did not hold a grudge, and he then sought out Stanton to run the War Department during the Civil War, because he had the right qualities to master a complex organization. Stanton later become Lincoln’s strongest ally. Lincoln’s ability to put aside personal grudges and genuinely collaborate even with his political rivals was not an act. It was genuine.
Roger treated everyone he interacted with, even those who did not return the courtesy, with respect. I never once heard him utter a bitter word or even cynical comments, even when I expected them. I have met few people who have demonstrated this trait. Roger had a work ethic paralleled by few. He put in 12-hour days and longer, never compromised his duties as a father or husband, and excelled at nearly anything he tried to do—medicine, engineering, ham radio communications, running, parenting, research, epidemiology, research. Roger adopted practices seeing patients that saved taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, which his peers steadfastly noted at his funeral. He never sought glory, though during his life he was gaining a national reputation he could never even imagine.
Roger particularly demonstrated this talent at University City High School, where he ran track and cross country. I attended the same high school, though ten years after Roger. Roger was the smallest man on an interracial track team, which was comprised of very large young men who towered over Roger. Racial tensions were real here, but so were the strong bonds. I know this school, and I can assure you this is a serious alpha dog environment and not for the faint of heart, particularly among young, competitive men. Roger’s peers voted him captain of the track team, because he pushed the bar farther and competed harder and ran faster than all of them. In short, he inspired them to do better. He never asked for that title. He earned it. He made his team a genuine competitor at the state level. Roger carried that excellence to Yale where he competed for the Yale track team as well. (Roger’s own running hero was Olympian Edwin Moses.)
Moral Vision and Visionary: Roger’s values were nurtured in his Jewish, middle-class upbringing in a diverse community, University City, Mo., which we both called home. (I lived next door to Roger, but only briefly overlapped when I was younger, as he was 10 years older.) It was an often-hard place to learn about racial differences, but also a great place to dream big about pursing a path that made a difference. Roger knew exactly who he was and what he wanted. He graduated class valedictorian in 1973, and never forgot his roots. His vision was, as his friends said, a mix of Mighty Mouse heroism mixed with the Star Trek prime directive to do no harm–and yes, these describe his actions and values as a doctor working cross-culturally.
I never once saw Roger lose faith in others or in the inherent goodness of people. His service to patients, the core mission of the U.S. Public Health Service, and purposes far bigger than himself can be seen in every personal and professional choice he ever made. He demonstrated and articulated a clear, humane vision for health care, community, family, race relations, and society that he blazed intensely everyday, inspiring dozens if not hundreds by his example.
Don’t be fooled by that doctor you see in this picture with a goofy grin, and a lobster hat and Elmo toys. That was a master professional’s slight of hand to get nervous kids comfortable and the most conniving of change agent’s subversive and effective strategy to reform a health care system that has long forgotten how to put compassion ahead of egos and profits.
I have yet to meet anyone in the field of public health and public service who embodied all of the leadership traits Roger seemed to have in spades. Sometimes we just get dealt the right hand and can say, damn, I was lucky I had a chance to work with or know such a gifted, natural leader. Thanks, Roger!
News stories continue to highlight the growth of human trafficking in the United States, Europe, and especially Asia. One estimate puts the number of persons in captivity, either for forced bondage or sex trafficking and prostitution, at 12 million to 27 million. An increasing number of victims are young girls 18 and younger, who become infected with sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDs.
Slavery seems to bring out the worst of humanity, and perhaps is a manifestation of our inglorious inhumanity. Sadly it is, well, about as American as the U.S. Constitution that not only enshrined it, but gave Southern states extra voting power–the notorious 3/5ths clause–for its slaves in the census allotment of Congressional seats.
I still remember when I visited the Philippines in 2003. Male and female pimps repeatedly accosted me within seconds of exiting taxis in front of my hotels in Cebu City and Manila, where I was working on a photo-documentary project. I was sure their workers were sex slaves. When I told them to go away, they mocked me and even offered me young children. It was sobering to realize that I represented a market, a lucrative market, that eagerly comes to countries like the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos to exploit women, even young boys and girls. Though aware of the problem, and having seen evidence of its freewheeling nature in Asia, the unrelenting media coverage of sex slavery has become overwhelming.
In April 2013, European Union Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström lamented: “It is difficult to imagine that in our free and democratic EU countries tens of thousands of human beings can be deprived of their liberty and exploited, traded as commodities for profit.” The United Nations estimates human trafficking nets $32 billion annually—a major transnational business. The United States fares no better. There are slaves being trafficked and sold in my home city of Seattle right now. A local KIRO News story recently reported: “Child sex trafficking – as easy in Seattle as ordering a pizza.”
Visiting Osawatomie, and its place in U.S. history
So slavery was on my mind when I drove across the country in late May from St. Louis to Seattle. I wanted to take a road less traveled and see some out of the way places, including in Kansas. Most of my friends practically laughed at me when I described sight-seeing there. So, I pulled out my atlas and found Osawatomie on the map, about an hour southwest of Kansas City, along state Highway 169
Specifically, it is where America’s most famous abolitionist and violent revolutionary, John Brown (1800-1859), fought pro-slavery forces to prevent the then Kansas Territory from becoming a slave state. All told 30-45 free state defenders, known as Jayhawkers (the University of Kansas’ namesake) fought nearly 250 proslavery militia along the banks of the Marais de Cygnes River on Aug. 30, 1856. Brown’s son Frederick and others died. Many say the war actually began in this small Kansas town that pro-slavers burnt to the ground during the attack.
In May of that year, Missouri ruffians, numbering 800, had sacked Lawrence, Kan., and burned a hotel, killing one abolitionist. Their strategic goal was to keep an entire race of persons in human bondage and treated as nothing more than property, and expand the inhumane practice and trade into territories recently “ethnically cleansed” of its Indian population by the U.S. Army, based at Ft. Leavenworth.
On May 24 and 25, 1856, at the so-called Pottawatomie Massacre, Brown responded in kind, by murdering five pro-slavery settlers with a sword. The mass murder by Brown and his sons was inspired by Brown’s deep Christian faith that he had been called to undertake a divine mission to end slavery and contest its brutality and those of its violent supporters with force.
The repeated and well-publicized examples of slavery’s inhumanity in the United States enraged Brown to the point where he dedicated his life to crushing it and freeing the slaves. (Unlike most of his day, Brown also believed in the equality of races, including Indians, and of the sexes.)
Just two years earlier in 1854, a divided Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, ending the fragile 24-year-old Missouri Compromise allowing a balance of pro-slave and free states to join the Union. With the 1854 act, settlers themselves would determine if that “peculiar institution” of slavery, which held in bondage an estimated 4 million persons, or 13% of all residents in the young country, would be allowed. Pro-slavery voters won, but the constitution was disavowed, the bogus legislature tossed out, and Kansas entered a free state in 1861.
One historic political outcome from the four years of fighting in the territory was the rise of a young Illinois politician of the nascent Republican Party, who noted in his political speeches, “Look at the magnitude of this subject! … about one-sixth of the whole population of the United States are slaves!” Abraham Lincoln emerged from the turbulence of the era as the standard bearer of his party in the divisive 1860 election that set in motion the war to address what Lincoln accurately noted was the “the all absorbing topic of the day.”
As for Brown after Osawatomie, he travelled in and out of Kansas the next two years of violence before returning East to plan his failed Oct. 16, 1859, raid on the federal armory in Harper’s Ferry, Va. The raid, with 21 men to trigger a Southern slave uprising, failed miserably.
Brown was captured, tried in Charlestown, Va., and sentenced to hang to death on Dec. 2, 1859. During his trial he told the court, “Now, if it be deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children, and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit: so let it be done.”
All of that history seemed overblown and forgotten in modern-day Osawatomie (pop. 4,447). The memorial to Brown and the battle is the John Brown Museum State Historical site. It includes a cabin of a local minister and his wife used as an Underground Railroad station. The cabin survived the battle. The park features a bronze statue of Brown and historic battle markers. It looked a little shabby and unappreciated, like any small-town park without money for upkeep, except it has happened to have two presidential visitors who delivered policy speeches, by Teddy Roosevelt in 1910 and Barack Obama in 2011.
Hollywood, Slavery, and the Battle for Kansas
For many of us, however, our perception of slavery is shaped by popular culture. One of two most recent Hollywood treatments of the subject was the scholarly costume epic Lincoln, by Stephen Spielberg. The film did not hide the brutality of slavery; in fact, the film opens with a vicious hand-to-hand battle pitting likely former slave Union soldiers locked in deadly embrace with their white Confederate adversaries. The film is basically a procedural drama how Lincoln’s administration passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, to end slavery “forever” in United States, while the nation’s most violent war rages outside of Washington.
The more controversial rendering of slavery is the 2012 Quentin Tarantino blood and gore pre-Civil War spectacle, Django Unchained. This shoot-‘em up racks up a huge body count in a gratuitously violent revenge fantasy that follows the actions of a former slave, Django, played by Jamie Foxx. He kills perhaps nearly two dozen Southerners, blows up plantation mansions, and frees his true love. Unlike Lincoln, this film was heatedly debated. One review noted, “No single Hollywood film in the last decade has sparked the kind of controversy and wide-ranging response as Quentin Tarantino’s latest.”
The film triggered unrest not because of its brutal violence (nothing new for Hollywood splatter fests), but because of its rival view of history. “The most important thing about Django Unchained is that it’s a reaction against, or corrective of, movies like Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind. At every turn, it subverts or inverts the racist tropes that have defined Hollywood’s–and our culture’s–treatment of slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction,” according to Jamelle Bouie.
I have black friends who had a distinctly more positive personal reaction to the violent tale than did my white counterparts. While the film’s violence seems designed only thrill audiences, the violence of slavery and of efforts to expand it by pro-slavery bushwhackers in Kansas before and during the Civil War was every bit if not more cruel, if historical records are accurate. Reality actually trumps anything Tarantino could dream up.
According to one account, a bushwhackers’ raid during the Civil War on Lawrence, Kan., is considered one of the worst cases of mass murder by the pro-Slavery forces.
On Aug. 21, 1863, 450 pro-Confederates Led by Bill Quantrill staged an early-warning raid and mostly showed no mercy, slaughtering about 180 men and boys as young as 14. Most of the victims were unarmed and still in their beds when the killing began. Another famous bushwhacker in the region, a psychopath named “Bloody” Bill Anderson, reportedly scalped victims before he was tracked and killed, and then beheaded as an example.
The official Hollywood rendering of “bleeding Kansas” and John Brown’s efforts to end slavery remains Michael Curtiz’s unsavory pro-slavery 1940 Western called the Sante Fe Trail (you can see the whole film here). The movie stars Errol Flynn as future Confederate General Jeb Stuart, then-actor Ronald Reagan as future Indian-killing General George Custer, and Olivia de Havilland as their mutual romantic interest. The film renders a staggering historic whitewash of not only slavery and pre-Civil War America, but of John Brown’s actions in Kansas to contest the bushwhackers during the mid- to late 1850s.
Brown is portrayed by Raymond Massey as a bug-eyed, villainous psychopath bent on murder and revolution to end slavery, while Southern gentlemen like Flynn’s Stuart are true Americans who claim the South can work out slavery on their own terms. There is no portrayal of slavery’s base cruelty, only abolitionist violence in Kansas and at Harper’s Ferry.
In an even more bizarre twist, future Confederate President Jefferson Davis is rendered as moral voice of wisdom, telling the graduating cadets: “”You men have but one duty alone, America.” This was the same Davis who owned slaves and dedicated himself to ensuring slavery’s survival as head of the pro-slave states doing everything they could to break away from that country.
The only “black folk” seen in this disingenuous Dixie-cratic rendering of reality are powerless, witless slaves who cannot think for themselves. After a firefight that sent Brown fleeing, a husband and wife slave couple from Texas caught up in Brown’s violence reveal themselves to Stuart as misguided lovers of the white slaveholding class: “Well, old John Brown said he gonna give us freedom but, shuckin’, if this here Kansas is freedom then I ain’t got no use for it, no sir,” drawled the wife. Her husband added, “Me neither. I just want to get back home to Texas and set till kingdom come.” I suppose that means he’d get a good whipping if he fessed up for trying to win his freedom.
As one film commentator noted: “In the years before 1960 most portrayals of slavery in cinema were like it was in Gone with the Wind and Jezebel. The slaves were happy and contented and too simple to live on their own. The Civil War was unnecessary and brought on by a handful of fanatics in the North.” The film’s final scenes show Brown before he is hung in 1859, followed by a happy kiss of the newlyweds, Flynn and de Havilland, all two years before the entire country entered its greatest conflagration that claimed more than half a million lives, finally “ending” slavery as a legal institution in the United States.
Former Klansman becomes part of Hollywood whitewash of Southern bushwhacking
The other noteworthy and historically inaccurate portrayal of Kansas-related bushwhacking violence is Clint Eastwood’s disturbing 1976 revisionist film The Outlaw Josey Wales. While supposedly based on a true Southern fighter, the film rewrites the script of historic events. Instead of violent Confederate bushwhackers who murdered indiscriminately, as they did in Lawrence, Southerners are portrayed as victims of murderous Jayhawkers and Union soldiers, who kill innocent women and slaughter surrendering prisoners, and hound Wales to Texas. The film was based on a novel, Gone to Texas, by Asa Carter, also author of a popular kid’s book called the Education of Little Tree.
At the time the film was made in 1976, it was unknown that Carter had reinvented himself. Instead of being a Cherokee Indian as he claimed, Carter was in fact a former Alabama Klansman, avowed racist, and speechwriter for Alabama’s segregationist Governor George Wallace. The books served as a clever reinvention for a man preaching against “government intrusion,” as Carter did for Wallace with racist hate language. Even his supposed Cherokee words were fiction. As for Josey Wales, the film helped to reinforce Southern stereotypes of Northern aggression and Southern innocence (despite its holding 4 million in captivity), while boosting Eastwood’s maverick filmmaking career.
In 2013, in an era when slavery seems to be as thriving an enterprise globally as it was in the antebellum South, perhaps it is time reexamine on the big screen the complex events in Kansas and Virginia and that fanatical revolutionary who committed his life to ending the institution forever. I just do not want the filmmaker to be Eastwood, Tarantino, or even Spielberg, nor a vampire camp production. Time to let someone else tell a tale that still needs to be told. Love or hate him, Brown was right about slavery’s stain on the nation. Brown’s enemies “could kill him,” wrote freed slave and fellow abolitionist Frederick Douglass, “but they could not answer him.”