A relative of mine married someone who was named after Guy Fawkes. It turned out that his father was a history professor and he thought it would be cool to name his son after a well-known historical figure. It occurred to me, however, that Guy Fawkes really had engaged in terrorist activities, having unsuccessfully tried to blow up the British houses of parliament as well as King James I. It is for this reason that he is burned in effigy every November 5th. Do you think this guy's father could have given him a more contemporary twist, and named him Osama or Timothy McVeigh?
2007-06-15 08:26:09 · 10 answers · asked by spanner 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
He was one of the first, but not the VERY first ... Yes, it is true he tried to blow up Parliament, but the Nov. 5th celebration, in the eyes of some, at least, is a bit sad because they wish he had succeeded. It'd be a bit like if someone tried to blow up Congress here in the USA, would everyone be universally opposed to that? Nope, some might think it a good thing.
Yes, in today's naming practices one might well name someone Osama or McVeigh or Tupac ... oh, someone did that, but how many people know the origins of that terrorist organization? Near here is a school that has as their mascot the Vikings. Have you ever read what the Vikings did in England and Ireland? It'd be like naming a school mascot the Nazi's.
Oh how history changes our perspective. Which is why we never know if someone today is a visionary or a total idiot. We can't tell.
2007-06-15 08:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by John B 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ehhh..the Boston Tea Party was an act of vandalism at worst--I think that really pushes the definition.
The Bostonians were not burning down or blowing up innocent bystanders in any way.
Even if Britain had reverted to being a Catholic country, I'm not sure blowing up Parliament would have been as the right thing to have done....surely the whole thing could have settled with a quick Test Match instead?
2007-06-15 09:21:05 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ehhh..the Boston Tea party became an act of vandalism at worst--i imagine that fairly pushes the definition. The Bostonians were no longer burning down or blowing up harmless bystanders in any way. even if if Britain had reverted to being a Catholic usa, i'm no longer particular blowing up Parliament would were because the right element to have executed....really the finished element would have settled with a short attempt adventure rather?
2016-10-18 22:00:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the name is a good one, whatever Guy did. It may be a corruption of the French word, "faux",or false! Osama or Tim just don't have the same ring to them. As for what the original G.F. did, all he and his cronies were failed assassins. Terror is something the Jacobean government wanted the people to feel in order to keep Catholicism underground or better out of Britain because James I needed to secure his rule. He was always whining about various religious sects.
2007-06-15 20:26:05 · answer #4 · answered by jenesuispasunnombre 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He was neither. A terrorist is someone who "creates terror", hence the name. Guy Fawkes wasn't trying to create terror by blowing up parliament, he was trying to remove the government; that makes him a revolutionary, not a terrorist. The target was not the building, but the politicians and the king who would be there the following day.
2007-06-15 15:08:08 · answer #5 · answered by cernunnicnos 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Had the English been able to suppress the American Revolution, the Boston Tea Party would've been historically categorized as an act of terrorism. Maybe Guy Fawkes was a patriot.
2007-06-15 08:31:57 · answer #6 · answered by Captain S 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You seem to have an interest in revisionist history (I read your bizarro "Best Answer" to that kid's Hitler question) and perhaps you enjoy provoking "thought" over controversial issues, or more likely, you just like to stir things up a bit for a laugh.
But do you really think it's okay to suggest that Hitler was "framed" (whatever that could possibly mean), when so many of the readers here are probably still in their teens and still a bit gullible?
2007-06-17 04:36:19 · answer #7 · answered by The Voice of Reason 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.
What's the difference between a patriot and a terrorist? A winner and a loser. Since Guy Fawkes got caught, that makes him a terrorist.
2007-06-15 09:13:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would go with Attila, the original terr'st
2007-06-15 08:31:19 · answer #9 · answered by scaponig 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He was a terrorist to all but the Catholics, whose cause he was supporting.
2007-06-16 08:16:26 · answer #10 · answered by Fred 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋