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

VARGAS BLOG 8

Terrorism and Justice can be intertwined to some people.  I think that the culture defines these two words and they shape them and form them into the way the culture sees fit.  There are cultures in which they see what we call an act of “terrorism” as an act of “justice” and they truly believe that, so much to as they are willing to risk their own lives.  These concepts of “Terrorism” and “Justice” are often blurry lines when it comes to the “good guys” or “heroes”.

These concepts are seen in the characters of the movie Unforgiven because it takes place in an era of cowboys, where Munny, lawman Daggot, and Logan venture off to kill two cowboys. In our society, the act of killing is often seen as an act of “terrorism” because we don’t associate that kind of act as a a “good” deed or anything.  The reputation of Munny, like Wallace, precedes the reality of it. They are seen as almost inhuman, godly figures who can do things that no other man would be able to possibly do. The fact is, that both Munny and Wallace are just humans, highly skilled in what they do, but still humans.  They are heroes not because of their reputation, but rather because of their acts and what they do with these skills. For Munny, this reputation in a way destroys and makes him because the reputation derives from what he did in the past, and thats what got lawman Daggot to come to him for his assistance. But also, he struggles to fight and forget that because he had quit that life style since he claims his wife saved him from it and other stuff he regrets. He used to kill without a care but now he has a reason that drives him to do what his journey takes him to do.

Random quote I heard “One man’s terrorist is another mans 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

Brown Blog 8

I believe that the line between justice and terrorism is determined based on your point of view.  For example, Wallace can easily be categorized as both terrorist and a man fighting for what is right.  Those who sympathize with his position do not view his actions as terroristic but needed to gain justice.  However, the english would have viewed his actions as terrorism with the murders and actions he takes.  The same can be said for V.  As an American society we understand the actions V takes to gain freedom.  We compare our lives to that which take place in the world that V lives and so we are allowed to understand his actions and justify them as being needed.  However, somebody who actually lived in V’s time may have felt more secure and safe in the current system of government, thus viewing his actions as terrorism.

Because of this it is very hard to truly define ones actions as either justified or terrorism.  The actions that someone like William Wallace or V do can be viewed easily as both.  The true definition is given to these actions based on the side a person stands.  This can be seen in today’s world and the terrorism that we fight in America and across the world.  To us we view actions of terrorism as horrific and unwarranted.  However, to the people that carry out these actions view them as justified for a greater cause and purpose.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Also posted in ELYSIUM | 1 Comment

Whitehead Blog 8

By nearly all definitions V is a terrorist, with William Wallace being somewhat of a blurry tag.  A key note to terrorism is that there is no defined army so to speak, or no definite “headquarters.”  They are not a sovereign power in terms of the national scale.  Therefore this creates difficulty when attacking or defending against them.  As said within the post, their main goal is to attack and instill fear into everyone.  However, their main power and influence comes through the power of ideas and philosophy.  They fight to protect, regain, or bring about a certain philosophy.  Like it has been stated, these are somewhat of blurry definitions as they lay at the hand of the ruling administration, as a terrorist or terrorist organization is a direct threat to the state and its safety.  Also, these men could also be labeled “revolutionaries” by both their followers and the government just as easy as they are labeled terrorists.

Both V and William Wallace attempt to save lives as much as they can while carrying out their work; meaning the don’t kill anyone who doesn’t need to be killed.  Both, however, present a direct threat to their ruling government so by the most basic definition they both are to be labeled terrorists.  However, as we learn they are indeed revolutionaries because the way that history works out, and of course the way that they are laid out within the film.  V, blows up infrastructure in order to prove his points; Wallace attacks and kills those who have betrayed him and his people.  It honestly just matter in what way a person is looking at the character and the way the character is presented.  The definition is indeed a blurry one, and one that is completely subjective.

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

Phinney Blog 8

To Kill a Mockingbird demonstrates that the line between good and bad guys is blurry, especially in the perception of Atticus and the Ewells. In the novel, Lee presents Atticus as a hero. He is an everyday lawyer who has taken on a highly controversial case. He told Scout, “If I couldn’t hold my head up in town, I couldn’t represent this county in the legislature, I couldn’t ever tell you or Jem not to do something again” (100). Atticus put his family’s reputation on the line by taking this case. He is a hero in representing fairness, even if those around him do not see it that way. The Ewells family serves as a foil to Atticus. They are the bad guys who coerce the town to take their side. Even though they were at fault, the town believes them to be the good guys of the story and Atticus the villain. They call Atticus a “nigger-lover,” and only support the Ewells.

This skewing of the line between good and bad is also evident in the film V for Vendetta, particularly through the character V. V’s actions were violent acts which were intended to create fear. These types of actions are synonymous with terrorism. However, V’s actions were for the greater good of the people, which in fact makes him a hero. He represented the wants and desires of those who were not strong enough initially to do so, even if his representation was through extreme measures.

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

Crispi Blog 8

When it comes to defining a hero from a terrorist or a good guy from a bad guy, it all has to do with the perspective of who is evaluating them and when they are being evaluated. Technically a hero would be someone who acts for the greater good and does something so remarkable and unique, people look up to them as they have single-handedly made an impact in the lives of many in a positive way.

Sometimes a good guy seems to be a bad guy to the majority of people during the conflict, but is in fact doing what we (the reader) feels is morally right. Basically Atticus Finch, V, and William Wallace are heros in our eyes but in their respective stories, were looked at by many as a bad guys because of the mindsets of the people in the story.

Atticus Finch became a “bad guy” in the eyes of the majority of the townspeople in “To Kill A Mockingbird” because of his decision to represent a black man, Tom Robinson who was falsely accused of raping a white woman. Atticus knew that Robinson was innocent.While in 2013 we see what he did as noble and ethical, realistically if we were back in that time period (and were white) we would have found Finch’s actions as out of line and wished him dead like many of the people in the story did. He is a hero in hindsight just like the other two characters I am about to introduce.

“V” in “V for Vendetta” is a rebel like no other. He has been oppressed by the government for far too long and he is vowing to overthrow the government and blow up buildings and such to get his point across. One would think this is a villainous activity, but when we look back on who was actually in charge of the government and how evil THEY were, we see V not being a “Wanted man” but we actually are rooting for this vigilante who the cops are constantly after. This shows another example of how an “outlaw” can be considered a hero by our standards. In Braveheart, Williams is just a man; he is not a terrorist in my opinion. He is just acting in accordance with what he believes is right and just, similar to the people I have described.

The word “justice” I feel cannot apply to the synonyms that are listed because justice is very subjective and these three stories are prime examples of protagonists who come off as antagonists but are truly doing what is right and just in the eyes of those who are watching them from a outside, and unbias 21st century perspective.

 

 

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

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)
3 Comments

ARiesett “Cultural Terrorism and Justice”

There is a thin line between the “good guys” and the “bad guys”. In many instances the good guys can be considered the bad guys and vice versa depending on the perspective of the situation.  For example, Atticus Finch in the book To Kill A Mockingbird is viewed as both a good guy and a bad guy in Maycomb county Alabama. He is a lawyer that exhibits the prime example of a folk hero. He defends Tom Robinson, an African American, charged with raping a 19 year old lower class white girl. Everyone in town considered Atticus to be a respectable man until he started defending Robinson. That is when some townsmen started to consider him as the bad guy because he was trying to win the trial for Robinson. No white man ever loses a trial to an African American during this time period. In a way, Atticus was also a cultural hero because he was before his time and fighting against the cultural norms of Maycomb County.  Since Atticus is living outside the cultural laws of his society, he is considered a folk hero. Also, Atticus is a folk hero because he champions the weak, Tom Robinson. He is a normal everyday townsman of Maycomb County whose life is transformed by his decision to defend Robinson.

The risk for Atticus defending Robinson is his family. He has two children to look out for and does not want to cause them harm. He also is perceived as disgracing his family’s name. He sacrifices these chances for the good of mankind and to do what he knows is right in getting justice. After Robinson is found guilty by the jury, Atticus’s children starts to question what justice is and why there is terrorism in Maycomb. The terrorism in Maycomb and the whole state of Alabama is the white people terrorizing the colored people by not allowing them equal rights and justice. For example according to the law of Alabama, Robinson is sentenced to the death penalty for rape because he is colored; whereas if Robinson was white, he would get up to 20 or 30 years in prison for the same crime.

I think Harper Lee, the author of To Kill A Mockingbird, wants the audience to relate to Atticus’s character and see the unjustice of Maycomb County. The audience is supposed to want to defend Tom Robinson and bring him justice. Lee wants the audience to stand up for their beliefs and seek justice just as Atticus did.

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

Dwarrick Blog 8

My friends and I have talked about the topic of if America was ever to be invaded, what our actions would be. We all own multiple weapons, and came to the agreement that we would in fact use them if, for example, Al Qaeda was walking down our streets with intent to defeat our country or those who fight for it. I am sure the circumstances would be different, but my point is this is how people in Iraq feel about our troops invading their country. We see them as terrorists; who is to say they do not see us as terrorists. It has to do largely with our beliefs and what we think is right and wrong. William Wallace from Braveheart is portrayed as a courageous hero who fought for Scotland, but if you lived happily under the king’s rule, you might hear his stories about killing many of your soldiers and think he was a terrorist. I believe a terrorist is someone who does not just fight for what they believe in, but do what is not morally right. Striking fear into people who mean no harm or have no ill effect on others is not justified is the only difference between a hero and a terrorist. Heroes fight for fairness, equality, right, righteousness, and justice in a way that is morally right, and not hurt those who do not wish to jeopardize their own beliefs.

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

benjaminsummers post 8

When trying to understand if a person is a terrorist, you need to understand the perspective.  V from V for Vendetta and William Wallace from BraveHeart are great examples of this.

V is directly called a terrorist by his government multiple times.  The government uses many types of propaganda against V and labeling him as a terrorist is one of them. V destroys buildings and kills government officials, this causes fear and panic in the government leaders.  This certainly sounds like a terrorist, but from V’s point of view it is justice.  V will not allow for a government that killed thousands of its own people to exist.  Justice and element of revenge, drive V to fully destroy the government.  At the end of the movie the general public also believes in him, this makes him a hero to the people.

William Wallace and V have very many similarities.  They are both seen as terrorists by their own government.  Although Wallace is driven by justice, I think he more cares about revenge than V ever did, at least at first when his wife was killed.  The biggest difference though, is that Wallace does not get support from many of his own people, where V gets support from most of his nation.  Wallace kills the people who do not support him, which make him look crazier than V.  The perspective that you look at the situation changes what they are.  As the government, V and William Wallace are terrorists.  By looking from the point of view of V and William Wallace, they become the people to bring their enemies to justice.

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

Kmeyerhoff Blog 8

The good guy versus bad guy line is often blurred.  People, especially anti and folk heroes, are technically “bad guys” in some way because most of them are living outside of law.  People that live outside of the law are taking part in illegal activities.  Even though illegal activities are bad, I do think that some of these anti and folk heroes are good guys.  They want to help others even though they’re putting their own lives at risk.

I think that William Wallace is neither a terrorist nor a hero.  I don’t think he’s a hero because I feel that his actions were done for selfish reasons rather than for the greater good.  Although winning would create a better world for Scotland, Wallace’s main goal is revenge.  I also think that he knowingly puts men in danger and disregards their safety.  He is well aware that the English have a well-equipped army, and the Scottish is definitely not as prepared.

I find Wallace and V to be very different.  Although they do seem to share some similarities, their motivations are in fact different.  Both Wallace and V wanted to overthrow an oppressive government, but for different reasons.  Wallace wanted his own revenge and was angry about what happened to him.  V wanted to help his country so that other people wouldn’t have to continue living in oppression and face the horrors that he did.  That’s the main difference between these two, making V an anti-hero.  V wanted the greater good out of what he was doing, not just revenge.

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