MAllen Blog 8

William Wallace is a dynamic character in Braveheart. I would not consider Wallace a terrorist because the British wronging him was his motivation to save Scotland. Also his father and his love interest getting killed helped fuel his rage as well. However, there is a difference between righting wrongs and excessive brutality and murder. Wallace, while not a terrorist, does fit into the definition of terrorism in regard to “the systematic use of terror and fear especially as a means of coercion”. But I feel Wallace and V both used this method as a driving force behind change. I think terrorism applies when the change being implemented is negative. I would argue that both Wallace and V were being fair in the use of their terror and force. However, there are two different ways one can go about justice. MLK felt that peaceful protests were the best ways to combat physical abuse and murder but Wallace and V had more of an “eye for an eye” mentality. Both methods can be said to be justice but one is more frowned upon than the other. It is completely true that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. In regard to V for Vendetta, V is the freedom fighter of the people but he is the terrorist of the chancellor and all the people that did the experimental testing on him and the other patients. In every battle or conflict, there is always two different sides. While both sides will have reasons why they are justified in their actions, a third party looking in will have to decide what they believe is right and wrong. Wallace and V share the common thread of vengeance. They were both wronged and they are both after justice for what was done to them and their people. Excessive vengeance separates them. Wallace has a legend the gets to the Scottish before he does. V has no identity and keeps it that way. V kills all the people who wronged him and his people and officers that stand in the way of his plan. Wallace kills in battle and the men who die are not all responsible for the acts of the British. Most likely there were young boys in battle who were forced to fight or thought they knew what they were getting into and did not. Overall Wallace kills more people than V but that can be expected since Wallace went to war and V did not.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
This entry was posted in Blog 8 (Jan 15) Terrorists? Outlaw? Justice?. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

3 Comments

  1. Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    I agree that he is not a terrorist and actually said something similar about a third party looking in and seeing it from a different perspective. very good post.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    I agree that William Wallace is not a terrorist. I also think it is interesting that you put you think that Wallace and V are being fair in their use of terror and force. Interesting post!

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    I also agree that William Wallace was not a terrorist. I think in his as well as V’s case they both had a good cause and intent behind their actions causing them not to be characterized as terrorists.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply