Category Archives: Blog 8 (Jan 15) Terrorists? Outlaw? Justice?

kmiller blog 8

I understand the idea that terrorism is a matter of perspective, yet I do not necessarily agree. I think, in most cases, that terrorism is not defined entirely by the act, but rather by the intent as well. A common them in many of the stories we have discussed is a black and white fight for freedom. In Braveheart the Scottish clans fight to be free of oppression from the British. In V for Vendetta we see a fascist government controlling its people, and the consequent fight to be free. In TKAM the idea is to free society of fear and a superiority complex and realize all men as equal.

While each side  may view the other as radical from their own perspective, objective viewer can typically see which side is “good” or “bad” based on the intent or moral backbone of the perspective. I think especially as Americans we rally around the idea of freedom and equality and identify with these themes in stories that we see. We are trained from a young age that freedom is a fundamental right that all men and women should have and that anything less than this is unacceptable. For this reason we quickly identify with heroes such as Braveheart, or  V, or Atticus and look for faults in their enemies.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Leave a comment

EClausen Heroes Blog 8

The word justice can be manipulated and interpreted in many ways. For example, when reading To Kill A Mockingbird, Tom Robinson is accused of raping Ewells daughter. Although innocent, the people of Maycomb believe that justice has been served because he was colored. Justice is skewed by the person who is looking at the word. Although against the law, was justice served when Bob Ewell was killed but they decided to say he fell on the knife and was not stabbed by someone else? It can be manipulated to fit the circumstances.

When looking at justice and terrorism in the eyes of good guys versus villian, I first think about at V. In the movie V for Vendetta we see that V ultimately has good intentions but uses tactics of terror to get them. So thinking further, how could we classify him? Does the way that he looks at just differ from how we look at it? Because the movie is centered around him, do we see justice in a new light. In my opinion, we do. When we root for a character in a movie, show or book we usually look at justice from their point of view. Something like killing another human being might be generally seen as unjust but when we get to know that characters and thier circumstances we could end up seeing those killings of the innocent as just. Whether it is the “bad guy” or the “good guy”, justice is for the person that has the best excuse in my opinion.

Like I stated early, To Kill A Mockingbird is and interesting way to look at the term justice and terrorism. Throughout the whole trial during the novel, we are rooting for Atticus and Tom Robinson because during todays times, race doesnt gererally determine the ruling in a court of law. However, during that time, it did. We saw how the justice system worked for the trial and we wanted nothing more than for Atticus to win the case. Although, unlucky, we still hoped that justice would prevail. This justice system, like Atticus states is very “black and white”. It is easy to see where justice lies, even if the jury refuses to admit it. After the case there is another instance where the anti-hero, Bob Ewell wants revenge for embarressing him and his family in court, even though they had won their case. By even creating some doubt, the Ewells name was looked at in a different light. The laws are unjust during that time because they favor the whites. Today, it feel unjust, but during that time, to some, it was just. Its a confusing, complicated and disturbing justice system at the time but that is how it worked. Like in Unforgiven the reputation was important because that is almost how they created and withheld their laws. Although wanting to do the right thing and help kill the men that cut up the womens face, was it just because it was to get revenge, or unjust because murder is never just. Its lines like these that make justice so subjective.

I believe that William Wallce is a just man. Although his actions can be perceived as terroristic, he action have the right intentions. The term justice is widely subjective because it depends on who we want to triump. In the real world, justice is mostly determined by the government and court systems but in movies and even senarios such as war, they are more subjective. Although his actions may have been violent and extreme in nature, he encouraged others to fight for what they believed in. Wallace and V are extremely similar in the sense that their intentions are good but the way that they get there can be perceived as evil or terrorism in nature. The difference, however, is that V has more of a personal vendetta while Wallace has the thoughts of others lingering.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Leave a comment

sarahlittle blog 8

               Terrorism is often connected with a negative connotation. Terrorism is, by definition is “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” Although, from the other side, terrorists are another countries self-sacrificing heroes; like the Japanese Kamikaze’s who put their country’s interest before their own. This, I believe, is a form of justice only heroes can accomplish; to be able to put aside all other factors in their lives and be willing to give their life for the advancement and hopefully the success of their country.

                I believe that this also translates into people like cowboys, lawmen, and villains. The lines are blurred when peering through the looking glass. In the film Braveheart justice is served in multiple ways that don’t always seem as such in a certain point of view. William Wallace is searching for justification and retribution for the death of his wife and everything that has been done to him in his past. From the point of view from the monarchy, Wallace is a total wild card and continues to defy the wishes of the monarchy and also continues to break the laws set before him; although, from the rebellions point of view, William Wallace is a phenomenon along with a fantasized hero.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Leave a comment

ABebout – Blog 8

Warren Wallace is a hero through his actions and courage. He gains followers by inflicting fear upon them. In many ways, Wallace uses terrorism as a means to achieve his goal – which is ultimately for Scotland to gain its independence. A great scene in the movie portrays this when Wallace threatens to personally fight the Scottish nobility in getting them to fight England for all of their freedom.

I believe that terrorism can be used as a tool to persuade people to fight for a bigger purpose. Not only is Wallace an excellent model of this, but V in “V or Vendetta” utilizes terrorism as a device to inspire people. In V’s case, he spoke the brutal truth of what the government was doing, and that instilled fear in the British citizens to fight against their government for its wrongdoings.

Fear can be also used as a tool to bring justice against the opposition. In “V for Vendetta”, V threatens and terrorizes the Chancellor and British government, and thus this terrorism weakens their power as an entity. Because of the weakened British government, V and his followers are able to overthrow it. Wallace also uses terrorism to weaken his opponent, the king of England. He continually threatens to declare a war on England unless Scotland is given its independence; in the end, Wallace acts on this threat, and Scotland ends up going to war with England.  Even though the Scots did not win the Battle of Falkirk, this battle was one of many fights that eventually led to the independence of Scotland.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Leave a comment

Strager Hero 8

A question I have been asking myself a lot in regard to if a character “good” or “bad” is whether they are truly harming others for a reason, or would they be doing so regardless? For instance, does a soldier just want to kill or are they killing in order to save their country? This is where I separate the line. If a death toll becomes collateral damage (not in the civilian sense) to a hero standing up for their rights, I understand and accept them more. V doesn’t torture Evey simply because he is sadistic, but rather to prove a point and help her overcome her fear. He does, what many consider, the wrong thing for the right reason.

I also completely agree that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. In all classes on warfare, we cheer when our “side” defeats the enemy, regardless of the brutality, but shudder with disgust when our enemy inflicts similar pain on us. We see William Wallace as a hero, but if he had just as many men as his enemy troops, would we still be cheering for him? Men betrayed him and instead of recognizing that people make bad choices and mistakes, he brutally killed all seventeen of them. That mentality to most, resonates much more with terrorism than it does with righteousness.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
3 Comments

Jordans Blog Post Blog 8

As defined in the prompt blog post, terrorism is the systematic use of terror and fear, especially as a means of coercion. I agree with this definition, acts of terror have often been used to make political points, oppose governments, oppose ideas, or simply to invoke fear into particular individuals who may be of a certain race, believe in a certain religion or anything else. I also beleve that justice can be manipulated in many ways. At one point the United States thought it was just, fair and ok to enslave individuals. Justice and terrorism both depend heavily on who is in control at the time; the people behind the justice system ultimately determine what is in fact just. In regards to terrorism individuals behind the terror have determined whether the act has a legitimate cause or reason, sometimes making the act only described as terrorism to the victims.

In To Kill A Mockingbird the story definitely challenges the idea of justice. The justice system of Maycomb, Alabama plays a huge role in the story. The justice system of the time of the story was actually the suitors of the injustice. The racial conflicts and flaws within the justice system of the time provided white Americans in the story and more specifically Bob and Mayella Ewell the individual lying on Tom Robinson about raping Mayella a platform to do whatever they wanted and not be prosecuted.  Even though the evidence showed that Tom did not commit the rape, the justice system still prosecuted him. The audience sympathizes with Atticus for representing Tom and standing up against and unjust system. We know as well as Atticus that the justice system is corrupt and that Tom is innocent, but we are forced to watch Tom take the fall for something he did not do simply because of his race. In my eyes Atticus is a hero for his efforts to protect Tom, he endures torment and puts himself endanger to protect and innocent man and stand up against an unjust justice system.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
2 Comments

JSilverman Blog Post 8

Terrorism is often defined as the systematic use of terror and fear, especially as a means of coercion. While Justice is defined as the quality of being fair and reasonable. I feel like these go hand in hand as while a terrorist is always considered bad, they still deserve justice or the right to be treated fair until they are proven guilty.

In the movie Unforgiven, cowboys embark on the town of Big Whiskey two attempt to murder an outlaw who supposedly chopped up a woman. Two of these cowboys (the main characters) Munny and Logan have dark pasts of killing many men and robbers who had done thefts and crimes in the past. I think while it is wrong to kill, these men feel less guilty and shouldn’t be treated as harshly by the law because they are killing people that deserve to be killed even if it is illegal. I feel like Clint Eastwood is actually a good character at heart. The idea of “gun slinging” gives them a rep of bad asses and people that shouldn’t be messed with. Some people see them as above the law.

In regards to Braveheart. I think William Wallace is definitely a just man. He is just like any soldier standing up for what he believes in. He may do a lot of unnecessary killing but at the same time it is necessary to assert his power and authority. Without having people respect your power you can never be a true hero or leader. One mans terrorist is another mans leader and freedom fighter.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
2 Comments

jkaufman6 Blog Post 8

In modern day literature, terrorism and justice have two very distinct differences. Terrorism can be defined as the use of terror or fear while justice can be defined as an action of fairness or equality. However, there seems to be a gray area in this aspect when examining heroes. Specifically anti-folk hero’s present a conflicting good vs. evil character, where the good character can have traits that appear to be bad and vice versa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example in the book To Kill A Mockingbird, the main character Atticus Finch is portrayed in many different ways. He is a lawyer in Alabama who is well respected for his professional reputation. As the novel goes on he defends Tom Robinson, an African American, who is charged with raping a white girl. This goes against the values and everyday norms of Maycomb County, putting him in an extremely difficult position. To the reader Atticus exhibits the role of a classic folk hero who is standing up for what he believes in. This role requires him to fight a battle against the culture norms of Maycomb, which is almost an impossible one to win. While his character demonstrates passion and true heroism, he is seen as evil in the eyes of his society. Defending an African American is considered a crime to many people during this time, along with a feeling of betrayal to his race. Atticus who is so well respected before this case puts his family and job in serious jeopardy in his quest for change. To the outside viewer Maycomb is filled with hate and terrorism against African Americans while the citizens of Maycomb view the everyday punishment of African Americans as punishment. This wide spectrum of terrorism vs. justice and good vs. evil, is the reason a folk hero presents such conflicting lines between the two. With this said I think the author does a great job of allowing Atticus’s character to shine. People feel for the injustice that exists in Maycomb, and want clear justice for Tom Robinson and the values Atticus Finch believes in.

Another great example is William Wallace from Braveheart and V from V for Vendetta. Both this character where ruthless killers that were terrorists in the eyes of many. They committed harsh acts against other human beings that could classify them as evil. However, they committed these actions in the fight for change. William Wallace fought for Scotland’s freedom and independence while V fought against a corrupt and abusive totalitarian government. Both these men sparked a rebellion that will allow their legacy to live on forever.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
1 Comment

CWhite27 Terrorists? Outlaws? Justice?

In To Kill a Mockingbird Atticus is portrayed as a folk hero. He is a lawyer in Maycomb county that decides to take a case that most others would not take. This case was where he was representing an African American. During this time people did not accept the fact that he was representing a black man which put his families reputation at a danger. His children Jem and Scout had to deal with many people calling their dad a nigger-lover and many other comments that were not appropriate for them to endure. Atticus told his children that he could not go to church on Sunday’s and speak with God if he did not take this case and represent the black man. He was a lawyer that wanted it to be fair for everyone. Blacks should not be treated different in any way and he wanted to make sure that he received the proper representation in the case against a white man. Most of the people in the town did not support Atticus’ decisions and portrayed him to be the villain in the situation. I think that not matter what others think you should always do what you believe is right and everyone should be provided with the fairness and equality that they deserve.

 

 

 

As for in Braveheart, I thought that William Wallace was a terrorist in the eyes of his enemy. William Wallace was killing those who placed his people in harm, and he was not just killing people just to do it. He had a purpose behind all the people that he killed so I do not think that in my eyes classifies him as a terrorist. William Wallace was doing what he thought had to be done in order to get the missions accomplished. I feel the same goes for V he killed many people, but he did it because he felt they were harming him. He kills the people that he felt were involved in the wronging done to him and for that he kills everyone that was a part of it and everyone who stood in his way. As for William Wallace he was killing people who got in his way and the people that were trying to harm him.  I do not think this qualifies either of them to be a terrorist.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
4 Comments

JHarris Blog 8

In my opinion both V and William Wallace could be viewed as terrorists depending on the person’s point of view. For example, if/when someone blew up an important building on US soil killing civilians, we viewed this as a terrorist attack (and I would agree with this point of view). In the cases of both Wallace and V the stories are told from their perspectives and we do not view them as terrorists. However, if we were working in Parliament of a native of England I believe we would have viewed both these individuals as terrorists. So someone’s opinion on if an individual is a terrorist definitely depends on his or her point of view. And in this was, yes, one man could see someone as a terrorist while another seems them as a freedom fighter, or as their only chance for change or hope.

In the movie Braveheart I did not see William Wallace as a terrorist because from the point of view that the story is told, his actions were justified. But according to the definition given he could be viewed as a terrorist because he did use his position to make others fear him.

When someone is seen by some as a terrorist and others as a freedom fighter the line for appropriate action becomes very blurry. I believe that the easiest solution would be to punish this person as each group of people sees fit. This means that if those who view him as a “savior” want to fight to protect him, then so be it, but if others want to fight to kill him that is also their choice. However, this line is very gray and I believe there is not “correct” answer to a situation such as this.

Both V and Wallace were similar in that they were fighting against their leaders or government but they were different in their approaches. Wallace did not start to attack until he had gained supporters while V gained supporters along the way, but regardless of this we was going to attack individually. This blurs the line of right and wrong even more…if Wallace is to be punished how many of his followers and fighters should be as well? I believe that the topic of terrorism will always have blurry lines and each situation will need to be analyzed individual in attempt to respond in a just way.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
2 Comments