How would he be regarded today? Does the passage of time make people something they are not?
2006-09-11 05:35:40 · 25 answers · asked by Michael E 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Mythology & Folklore
www.letterfrompoitou.co.uk
2006-09-11 05:46:16 · update #1
Depends on which side of the line you're standing, as always.
To the Palestinians, Syrians and Catholics in Northern Ireland, Hamas, Hizbollah and the IRA (respectively) are/were regarded as 'freedom fighters', not terrorists. The Taliban were 'freedom fighters' as well, while they were fighting the Soviets. Only after they started biting the (US) hand that fed them were they labelled 'terrorists'.
So to a contemporary Englishman, Wallace was certainly an enemy, if not actually a terrorist (did he actually engage in terror tactics?). To the Scots of the time, he was certainly a patriot and a freedom fighter. The only thing that makes people into something that they're not is the (re)writing of history in popular culture.
Here's something to chew on: If you define a terrorist act as an attack on civilian property by an irregular army, designed to force the ruling government to accede to a particular demand, then does that make the Boston Tea Party one of the first uses of terror tactics in modern history?
Sleep well, children.
2006-09-11 06:05:01 · answer #1 · answered by tjs282 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
William Wallace was a man on a mission! Using the acceptable methods of the day to create political change, he became an inspiration to many and a source of terror to others. He was NOT a myth or folktale. He lived AND died, a real human being with a desire to make his world a better place.
- He used the acceptable methods of the day to effect political change - methods that are also acceptable in this day and age when sanctioned by the governments in control.
- So, perhaps he would be regarded as a patriot by many today.
- I don't believe that the passage of time alone changes reputations and creates/perpetuates delusions, but that often does happen as some things are ignored and others magnified. No doubt such has happened in the retelling of the story of William Wallace as well.
2006-09-11 05:45:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The legend that was William Wallace. He was both. A terrorist to the English and a patriot to the Scots. He invaded England in his efforts to, as he saw it liberate Scotland from a foreign Tyrant. He was daft as the feudal system was alive an well in Scotland.
2006-09-11 05:50:13 · answer #3 · answered by Ashley K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Patriotic terrorist
2006-09-11 05:38:08 · answer #4 · answered by baheramgor 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One man's patriot is another man's terrorist. Take Nelson Mandela - would he have been the same choice 35 years ago. It has happened all over the world at different times. Most of the early senior members of Israels Parliament could also be classified the same. It all depends on whether you are looking through rose-tinted glasses or not...............
2006-09-11 05:43:56 · answer #5 · answered by thomasrobinsonantonio 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Listen, if another country came into your country and started killing everyone and trying to take it over, then you fought back for your people and your land, would you be a terrorist? William Wallace was a hero plain and simple.
2006-09-11 09:22:02 · answer #6 · answered by MetallicaRule 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was both, my dear one. It all depends on which side is judging him. I have asked a similar question in "what is the difference between a patriot and a terrorist" in my Q&A. It's amazing how many answers on can get. It all depends on Point of View. Blessings.
2006-09-11 07:14:17 · answer #7 · answered by Mama Otter 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmmm those that write the history books are those that dictate what a person is. a patriot is a person who fights on the cause of the accepted goverment. a terrorist is a person who fights for the cause of an unaccepted goverment. so if you were british of that time you would call him terrorist. if you were scottish of that time you would call him a patriot. makes you wonder what is really going on around this time frame huh?
2006-09-11 06:14:11 · answer #8 · answered by mournyngwolf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
patiot. He was trying to overthrow the government that had invaded his country from another country. He did not target Innocent people but the army of the English who had invaded Scotland. He fought wars directly with the enemy and he let them know who he was and was present at those fights not sending in young children taught to hate from an early age with no other education. He negotiated with the enemy to try to end the fighting (though not successfully).
2006-09-11 05:46:03 · answer #9 · answered by idaho gal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a patriot. Life was generally harder and far more savage then. Did you know he was supposed to have made the sheath for his sword out of somebody's skin? Whether that's true or not god knows but I believe whatever he did he did it for Scotland in far more brutal times than now.
2006-09-11 05:47:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋