Define, compare, contrast.
*Biting opponents doesn't count.*
The Good Rebel....
Define, compare, contrast.
*Biting opponents doesn't count.*
Last edited by GGT; 06-27-2014 at 05:38 AM.
No bites?
Osama Bin Laden was considered a "good" rebel....by those who adopted his religious philosophy and took up his cause.
There are plenty of rebels in human history, and many were considered "bad" at the time, but turned out to be "good". And visa versa. They could be religious, intellectual, academic, or political figures. They could come from within established hierarchy, or challenge the status quo from perimeters, or outside conventional/accepted norms.
Galileo, Martin Luther, Ghandi, Stalin, Paine, Chavez....all rebels in their time, right? In current time, many people place Julian Assange or Edward Snowden in the "good rebel" category.
What metrics do you use to decide when a modern rebel is "good"?
The definition of a "good rebel" is one whose cause was ultimately victorious and "vindicated" by history. Really rebels are just rebels. Not good or bad. The value judgement is just a function of how history is written by the victors. Note that doesn't mean the identified rebels themselves were victorious. They might well have lost at the time.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Not sure I buy that definition, Fuzzy. We hardly ever wait for "history to judge" before making our own decisions. Ideally that would be about a cause or principle (and not any individual), but some people - even entire cultures - loathe any change that upsets the status quo.
Our judgements are subjective. So are those made in the future, when this has all become history. What makes Assange a "good rebel" to his supporters? They're people who agree with him. What could make that judgement lasting? He and his supporters "winning" and so people are taught he was right and they should all agree with him. There is no "good rebel" or "bad rebel." There are merely rebels one agrees with and rebels one disagrees with. That is the sum total of what it means to be a "good" or a "bad" rebel.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Do you believe in any form of objective morals?Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I don't consider myself an Assange "supporter", but I can appreciate his impact on transparency and public knowledge as a "good thing".... even though it created a lot of chaotic fall-out in the process. He falls into a whistle blower category of rebels that News Journalists used to occupy (like Woodward and Bernstein) before news and journalism evolved into a Digital Age that didn't require paid sponsors to get information out.
I don't see what any sort of moral objectivism has to do with whether a set of people who are not conforming with established norms or values are good or bad for their non-conformity.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Melding threads now....but doesn't arming and/or training "rebel forces" require defining what/who is The Good Rebel?
Or is it just a good 'nuff (but still lame) definition to think the enemy of our enemy is our friend?
Hey, today is Independence Day in the US! France was crucial in our endeavor....but it's academic/rhetorical whether they were fighting to help a new nation begin, or fighting against English dominance.
France was fighting for two reasons. A) it would hurt the British. B) after joining and turning the rebellion into a general war they thought they could use colonial successes as bargaining chips to gain territorial concessions elsewhere. In fairness, the colonials were hoping to use French and Spanish gains as bargaining chips to gain concessions themselves. The peace treaty was a marvel of the colonials, the French, and the Spanish all trying to make side-deals with Brtain at their putative allies expense.
Yes, it is almost entirely just a matter of the enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) friend.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You mean one of the more absolutist rulers in the world wasn't supporting the US because of ideological similarities?
Hope is the denial of reality
Ah, but now it's the 21st century. And we have the benefits of hindsight + technology. Indeed....some computer algorithms once found only in sci-fi movies are now used routinely to assess risks, like 3-D chess games factoring in/canceling out *irrational* human behavior, finding the most important links, and making future predictions.
Treating the enemy of our enemy as a temporary friend has been exposed as a weak-link theory, that comes back to bite us in the ass over time, because it's short-sighted and myopic. How many times do we have to repeat that exercise, before we decide to do something better?
Is there any historical event that can't be redefined to fit your description, fuzzy? Is there an imaginable one?
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
I'd like to see a citation for that.Treating the enemy of our enemy as a temporary friend has been exposed as a weak-link theory, that comes back to bite us in the ass over time, because it's short-sighted and myopic. How many times do we have to repeat that exercise, before we decide to do something better?
Hope is the denial of reality
You don't need me to cite anything, Loki. You know damn well how arms/ammunitions/weapons ended up in today's "enemy" territories.
Presumably ones that don't involve any "rebelling." But since this is a discussion started by GGT and thus the meaning of "rebel" starts broad and is only going to grow broader, I'm certain that with general enough terms that no, there won't be any historical event that can't be redefined as such.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Surely this depends on "good for what"? I could think of many rebels who were good for something, even if they lost in the end.
Hope is the denial of reality
Huh? What important historical event didn't involve "rebelling", or some "rebel" figure?FFS, you don't have to take an anti-GGT approach to everything you post, do you?
I would not generally characterize "Black Tuesday" and the '29 stock market crash as involving some "rebel" figure and I think it certainly counts as an important historical event. Munich agreement permitting the annexation of the Sudatenland. The invention of the Gutenberg press. For a US-centric movement, the three or four "Great Awakenings" of Christian revivalism.
I wouldn't have characterized Galileo or Assange as rebels either though.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well then...how do you consider events apart from their important figures, Fuzzy?
After the crash of 1929, the Federal Reserve had some haters because that began the end of the Gold Standard..but they were "monetary rebels" that helped end The Great Depression. Ditto for Europe's debts after WWII and the Marshall Plan.
I'm curious how you put these things together.
Last edited by GGT; 07-05-2014 at 03:47 AM.
Can you rephrase your question? Because I can't make sense of any of of the objects in that sentence in the context of a response to my prior post.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I was replying to that part of your post.
BTW, the invention of the Gutenberg press wasn't so controversial, in its time, compared to HOW it was being used. It wasn't just pumping out Christian Bibles...but also titillating novels, and advertisements in "news" papers. Must have been some 'rebels' in their editorial staff decades ago, huh.
Last edited by GGT; 07-05-2014 at 04:31 AM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
pffft, that just means you don't like how "GGT" starts threads, or titles them, and you refuse to take things to the next level based on forum personality traits. So much for diplomacy and international relations, huh?
If defining and deciding "The Good Rebel" is left to politicians, and politicians are beholden to their campaign donors....then it stands to reason that money can buy legislation, even when it's against the Will of the People.
I think it's a great question overall---when does democracy, and majority rule, take a back seat to minorities or "rebels" in a representative framework ?
Your claim was far more broad than that. Would you care provide citations for it or were you talking out of your behind yet again?You don't need me to cite anything, Loki. You know damn well how arms/ammunitions/weapons ended up in today's "enemy" territories.
Hope is the denial of reality
GGT, you indicated advertisements in newspapers was rebellion (presumably indicative of a "good rebel" but maybe not, it's not really possible to tell with you) Apparently "rebel" and "change" are synonymous and identical concepts to you. Which is even broader than your already rather broad OP and is so general as to be able to support any damn statement someone pleases. Metaphor is literal and literal is metaphor. There is no longer room for any gainful discussion here, if there ever was.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Sure, my "claim" is that nations -- and its governments -- decide the good or bad rebellions/rebels, and determine how it relates to domestic, military, and foreign policy. That's fairly broad. But it doesn't reflect "right or wrong" simply because it comes from government officials.
Viet Nam is one important case study....but so is Germany and Korea and Cuba, and even India (and dare I say it) Israel.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote