In a message dated 3/3/01 12:21:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, tavia@btinternet.com writes in response to my comment about Boucher and Nation copping out in loading the dice against Blake in season two:
<< I'm not convinced that the makers of B7 had much of a choice here: the extent of terrorist action against the UK government probably made any other course of action impossible. It's easy perhaps to underestimate the effect that terrorist action has had on ordinary UK citizens over the past decades (e.g., Kathryn's 'where are the waste bins' question), e.g., commuting to London (early 90s) I recall approximately 1--2 bombs/bomb scares per week closing either chunks of the Underground or the major London stations....
In a society where large numbers of people have been affected directly or indirectly by terrorist action, valorizing terrorist actions on public-subsidised television would simply be impossible.
I agree with what you say here to some extent. And I think you are right to point out that my "blaming" of Boucher and Nation for copping out by not to continue to valorize Blake is really due to factors more widespread than just the individual beliefs or fears of two people. Really, your comment about the bomb scares in the London Underground shows the extent to which such fear was widespread, legitimate and that Boucher and Nation were really at some level playing with fire in the whole premise of the show itself.
Still, it's the impossibility that you mention here that strikes me. I wonder what it would be like were it indeed possible for Boucher and Nation to have continue to valorize Blake at the same time that real political groups were using similar tactics against the British State. Were it possible to do this, would B7 have possibly opened up a space of debate about the nature of "terrorism" that it is now virtually impossible to locate let alone discuss?
I'm not quite sure what this space would look like but it seems that in valorizing Blake's actions as a "freedom fighter" I guess Boucher and Nation run the risk of possibly having their audience see the tactics of say the IRA as legitimate political actions, no less legitimate than Blake's.
Two things: First, I'm wondering first if that could have really happened -- I mean, I think I'm assuming too quickly a transfer from the level of fiction to the level of reality. And quite frankly, I honestly don't think people are all that consistent in their beliefs, so what looks right in a fictional universe we may still affirm as wrong in the "real" world.
And second, I'm also wondering what possible effect it may have had in terms of reformulating the debate about what is and isn't "terrorism." The fascinating thing about B7 to me is the way in which it makes me take seriously the actions (blowing stuff up) that in another context I would be likely to dismiss out of hand as unacceptable, simplistically violent and illegitmate.
Anyway, looks like I'm still stuck in the "Blake: Terrorist or Freedom Fighter Panel "at Redemption .....
Pat C.
Pat C. said:
Still, it's the impossibility that you mention here that strikes me. I wonder what it would be like were it indeed possible for Boucher and
Nation
to have continue to valorize Blake at the same time that real political groups were using similar tactics against the British State. Were it possible to do this, would B7 have possibly opened up a space of debate
about
the nature of "terrorism" that it is now virtually impossible to locate
let
alone discuss?
But except for absolute pacifists, everyone accepts that under some circumstances, the use of violence is justified. The question is whether a particular use of violence is justified or not (or whether the degree is excessive). It's quite unusual for people to think of THEMSELVES as terrorists--instead, they believe that they must fight oppression/defend order; that they must contain aggression/defend their homeland's interests, etc.
I'm not quite sure what this space would look like but it seems that in valorizing Blake's actions as a "freedom fighter" I guess Boucher and
Nation
run the risk of possibly having their audience see the tactics of say the
IRA
as legitimate political actions, no less legitimate than Blake's.
But why? Apart from the yawning gap between fiction and reality, someone could argue that the IRA (as a whole, or in a particular action) was justified and Blake was not, or vice versa.
And second, I'm also wondering what possible effect it may have had in
terms
of reformulating the debate about what is and isn't "terrorism." The fascinating thing about B7 to me is the way in which it makes me take seriously the actions (blowing stuff up) that in another context I would
be
likely to dismiss out of hand as unacceptable, simplistically violent and illegitmate.
And to me one fascinating thing about B7 is that it makes me think about the moral implictions of blowing stuff up, whereas other "action-adventures" just blithely assume that blowing stuff up is a postulate of the genre.
-(Y)
PS--Pat and I had dinner last night in New York City, in a Mexican restaurant, and the ONLY dessert they had was fried ice cream.
Dana wrote:
It's quite unusual for people to think of THEMSELVES as terrorists--instead, they believe that they must fight oppression/defend order; that they must contain aggression/defend their homeland's interests, etc.
I'm not surprised that people do this, but it seems to be an easy distinction to make: if you're attacking primarily governmental/military resources, you're Resisting; if you're attacking primarily civilian resources, you're committing Terrorism.
'Course, this broad brush doesn't take into account differing opinions of "governmental resources", especially as it relates to actual people and their families, but it's a handy rule of thumb.
Note that there's nothing to stop the Powers That Be also engaging in terrorism, either, especially when attacking an opposing sovereign force.
steve
-
Dana Shilling -
Sestina94＠aol.com -
Steve Kilbane