"Terrorist" is the label those in power use against those who oppose their power. The moral difference is in the cause being fought for. The Founding Fathers would have been called "terrorists" by the British, but they were fighting an unjust power for the freedom of their homes. The Maquis (WW II French version) were called "terrorists" by the Nazis and Vichi French. In Trek, the Cardassians called the Bajoran Resistance "terrorists" in like manner. And the Cardassians called the 24th Century Federation-based Maqis "terrorists", and the Federation, too weak-willed and/or cowardly to fight for the rights of their citizens went along with it.
^That's the political/rhetorical usage of the term. Technically, terrorism is the use of violence as propaganda, attempting to create terror in an enemy in order to demoralize them and diminish their resolve. I mean, folks, the word "terror" is right there. It has a literal meaning that's well-known -- extreme, debilitating fear -- and yet for some reason, when "terrorist" becomes a political or rhetorical label, people seem to forget that. What particularly annoyed me was the tendency of the George W. Bush administration to shorten "terrorism" into "terror" and talk about waging a "war on terror" or a "fight against terror" or whatever. That's just silly, a sloppy use of language all too typical of Bush. Terror is an emotion. It's the feeling that terrorists seek to induce in their enemies. If anything, putting oppressively tight security in every airport and subjecting ordinary citizens to invasive searches and surveillance and wiretaps with no evident end in sight isn't fighting terror, it's promoting it, surrendering to it. We'd be better off if we'd remembered that we were fighting terrorists -- or better yet, fighting a particular militant group whose preferred tactic was terrorism -- instead of defining our enemy as terror itself, an abstract, free-floating fear.
Remember the pilot who crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX? Funny how the authorities didn't call that terrorism. "Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said the incident was a single act by a sole individual, who appeared to be targeting the federal building. He refused to classify it as terrorism. "I call it a cowardly, criminal act and there was no excuse for it," Acevedo said at a news conference." Do you think that he'd say the same thing if Joseph Stack were brown skinned or a Muslim? If the motivation were the same but the race or religion of the pilot were different then you can bet that the calls of "terrorist" would have been all over the news. At best, there was a debate as to wether it qualified or not and it soon petered out. After all, doesn't everyone hate the IRS? People could empathize with someone disliking the IRS so they simply wrote it off to extreme frustration. If you'd like to read a great look at the "War on Terror" check out this interview with Terry Jones of Monty Python fame. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/02/inside-terry-joness-war-war-terror And here's one of his columns for The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/26/usa.iraq I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
one man's terrorist or traitor is another man's freedom fighter or hero. Usually status determined by who wins.
^As I said, that's the common or rhetorical usage, but there is a literal, technical definition of "terrorist" which is quite clear even though it's routinely ignored or abused by people with a political or ideological axe to grind.
Yes, but we're tossing around different evaluations of what specific kinds of abuses of the word are common. In particular, RPJOB and I are arguing that the word has been abused to refer to "violence committed by brown Muslim men whom white people don't like" rater than its objective definition.
^Unfortunately, that does seem to be one of the vernacular usages that's emerged. But that's why I think it's all the more important to stress the literal definitions and resist such rhetorical abuses.
I think Trek lit should represent and uphold and bolster Americana ideals and values, not Americash's ideals and values. There's infinite diversity and combinations right here. Making everybody happy makes noone happy. I think Bill Cosby said that.
true but our freedom fighter and terrorist mutually exclusive. I mean when you are the inferior force you have a much different set of tactics then the superior force.
Sort of like fighting water with fire. Or adversely, catering to and aiding an enemy that's trying to kill you, for real.
I don't quite follow your syntax, but if you meant to say "Are 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' mutually exclusive?" then I've already answered no. Terrorism is a tactic often used by people who believe they are fighting for their freedom. Of course, sometimes they resort to terrorism as a necessary evil in pursuit of freedom (like Mandela) and sometimes they just use false and deceptive rhetoric of freedom-fighting as an excuse for terrorism (like bin Laden). So perhaps it can be said that there's a useful difference between a freedom-fighter and a terrorist, depending on whether they approach terrorism as a means to an end or as an end in itself.
In Battlestar the polytheist colonist heroes are shown using suicide bombing against their monotheist opponents. That's about the most impressively subversive thing I've seen on TV.
I'd say Caprica was at least as subversive, because there it was the monotheists who were the fanatical minority using terrorist tactics against the respectable polytheist society.
I was honestly rather shocked that both shows were able to get away with those stories. But then again, IMO things like that are part of what can make sci-fi so fascinating.
BSG was interesting but honestly I ended hating every single main character by the end. They were horrible people. But some interesting social commentary to be sure.
I prefer to strip the term "terrorism" of any ethnic, racial or religious overtones and view it strictly as a specific type of tactic used to achieve military, political or economic goals. Freedom fighters using such tactics could accurately be labelled "terrorists". But not all freedom fighters use such tactics, so calling all freedom fighters terrorists is not accurate. Using the two terms interchangeably would hence be unwise. Or to put it another way. The Nazis under Hitler embraced the military doctrine of "maneuver warfare". But just because we use maneuver warfare does not make us Nazis. Calling the Continental forces in the American Revolution freedom fighters would be accurate, calling them terrorists would not. Terrorizing the populace would have handed victory to the British. As to diversity in Trek Lit, it is a fine thing, but making the crews of Federation starships consist of more varied species is really just window dressing. I want to see depth and complexity given to the cultures we already have in the Trek universe. Every species, outside of humanity, as depicted in Trek is way too monolithic to feel "real". Klingons are warriors all about honor. Vulcans are boring at parties. Ferengis are all greedy businessmen. Instead of just adding more species of aliens I would prefer more differentiation within each species. And yes I know it has been attempted, especially in the books, but every Klingon doctor or Vulcan soldier or whatever example you want to use comes off feeling like an outcast among their own people. And technologically advanced spacefaring races should not survive being so monolithic. Finally, I could care less about seeing any more white males in Trek Lit, but I would like to see a devout Christian sympathetic Starfleeter who pays more than just lip service to the religion. It would make an interesting challenge to write such a character intelligently enough to fit in with his/her crewmates.
I was equally surprised, but I'd say more impressed than shocked. It's a perfect example of Gene's approach of addressing subjects that ordinary (non SF) drama would be unlikely to get away with. It neatly undercut the terrorism is inherently evil stereotype and asked questions about the ends justifying the means.
I pretty much started feeling this way during the New Caprica arc and stopped watching shortly afterwards. There were no characters that I even remotely liked. I no longer cared what happened to any of them. There's a difference in having people with flaws and having people that are nothing but flaws.
Well, not just Gene's approach. Years earlier it was Rod Serling's motivation behind creating The Twilight Zone. He was frustrated by the censorship that kept him from writing about subjects like racism and war, so he decided to cloak it as fantasy so the censors wouldn't realize it had any relevance to the real world. (I've seen footage of an interview, I think it was with Mike Wallace, where Serling glibly lied that he'd completely given up on serious, message-oriented writing and would just be doing unimportant fantasy fluff from then on.) And you could probably extend the tradition back to H. G. Wells and even Jonathan Swift.