I don’t expect this discussion to be finished tonight, not even this week.
For background, I just watched it for the first time all the way to the end. It took courage for me because I don’t like the battle scenes, blood and gore.
But I did see so many correlations to our forefathers fighting the American Revolution, and even the Civil War.
I’m left with William Wallace’s war cry …”FREEDOM”!
So what does that really mean?
Freedom to chose a product on Amazon that is most likely made outside America, or freedom to express yourself as an individual without persecution? Or freedom from anyone telling you that you must follow their lead so you can “win”…
There are so many thoughts to reflect on from watching this movie.
I would like others who have seen the movie to give their thoughts.
There were liberties taken with the movie when compared to historical context. But the underlying theme of the movie was freedom comes at a cost. At a certain threshold freedom becomes more important that security.
More precisely the point that Wallace's character made throughout the movie was what happens when so called promises are broken or assurances are only temporary?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin.
I saw that in the movie. And that is how I see our elected officials betraying us now.
Zigackly fren, the problem I had, is that the story was out of context. The concepts are certainly worth exploring, but not at the cost of glorifying William Wallace.
Maybe the script-writers should have done that in a pre-French or American Revolution setting not a medieval one.
WW just did not have the philosophical bent TBH.
However, I agree with your analysis that freedom is higher than security, as a concept that was crafted in that movie.
In my opinion, this cannot be made black-an-white as a concept: Freedom at what cost? For example, Is your child walking to school freedom? On the one side, the security of a peaceful society offers that freedom. Most people now have to drive their children to school, because it is not safe to let them walk. bullying, child-trafficking, snatching etc. So, that is not freedom, when letting them walk in a safe neighborhood was. On the other hand, school is a prison-sentence for the crime of being born. Not freedom at all, and potentially bound up with all sorts of indoctrination from evil actors. In a supposedly free society, we cannot expect that groomers will not take hold of our children. Can you see what I mean?
Braveheart is my all-time favorite movie ever.
There’s a Scottish/ Celtic mentality that made its way to the CSA’s “Lost Cause” idea that the southerners were more honorable for standing up to aggression while outnumbered. The mentality influenced the philosophy of Frank Orr’s book Tough Guys of Pro Hockey: that big strong guys like Gordie Howe were tough, sure, but the even tougher guys were the smaller, weaker guys who were willing to get in fights that they knew they’d probably lose, just to send the message to opponents that cheap shots would cost at least a punch in the face even if they won the fight. The mentality is demonstrated in the beginning of Braveheart when William’s father Malcolm Wallace is discussing with other Scottish patriots the prospect of war against the sassenachs. Someone else says that they can’t defeat the English. Malcolm replies, “We don’t have to defeat them, we just have to fight them.”
I am having such a hard time really , because I want to consider myself a human companion on this earth to other humans, no matter their ideology. But I am understanding I must first consider my own preservation.
To me, that is a family unit and a faith in God. But if I want to I understand and accept others for their beliefs, how do you reconcile that with your own, without conflict?
...you can't...
...but you have noble intentions....
🙏
...hold the line Lassie....
Thank you Ashland :-) I am truly going through some existential thoughts.
...the world is noisy...
...God whispers....
I'm going to disagree with tren ashlanddog here -- who says "you can't" -- but perhaps that depends on the definition of "reconcile" -- which actually has several definitions . . . here are two:
Viewpoint and causality must be taken into account for evil behavior to be understood. That doesn't mean evil and virtue can be reconciled in the sense that they can or should "coexist in harmony" -- virtue should NOT coexist in harmony with evil, although it certainly is not possible to overcome every evil in the world and one must cease trying at least some of the time to have a healthy life.
But understanding the causes of evil -- seeing that harmful actions and attitudes are consistent with human nature, given certain harmful prior experiences or events -- teaches us what, other than punishment, we can do to reduce evil in the future; what we might do to turn people acting in evil ways back to less harmful behavior, and when it makes sense to shutter our compassion and do what is necessary to destroy, if necessary, those who are destroying the lives of others.
This begins a much longer discussion than we have room for here, but I'll say that Jesus' teachings on the nature and treatment of children -- in particular, on not offending them -- plus an understanding of sociopathy (being walled off to some extent from one's soul, due to early trauma) and psychopathy (being physically cut off to some extent from one's soul, due to brain deficit, mostly in the prefrontal cortex) -- are, together, an excellent start on the topic.
The outmost you can do is ask.
What is it that you belief and how does it work for you? It is not in the belief section we find common ground, but in real life.
No matter what background, walk of life or religion: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable.
The problem arises when these are no longer honored.
...I found the Mad Max trilogy much closer to our situational reality...
,,,doggy winks...
Ok, will start adding to my repertoire …
I’ve been a basic Lass - did my degrees to get to where I am, but they were science degrees, and just now getting into history...science was a whole lot easier to understand than history and “humanities”.
...science is in need of a level headed Lass...
It’s my Island☘️😝😂🤣☘️
...aye....
The movie has definitely been written for an American audience.
My partner's family has Scottish roots. So, the movie was basically a target for derision in our household. For one thing, there is no way that anyone would have evoked the ideas of freedom, like that, BEFORE the American habbenings. For another, WW was a man of few words, so the eloquent, rousing speech of freedom, was completely out of character. Also, WW was 6'7" and brutishly built, to be played by a well proportioned actor only 5'9" tall. HAHAH. And to top it all off, William Wallace was not popular, because he was lawless and brutal. Certainly he magicked a fighting force of rabble who were impressed by his stature and brutality, and so he was useful in repelling the English.
But afterwards, he was useful not so much, as he had no idea on how to run anything but murder. And so, on 23rd August 1305 Wallace was found guilty of treason and sentenced to death in London. He was executed using one of the most brutal punishments in the medieval era: hung, drawn, and quartered. His bits were displayed all over Scotland.
So, the story you see on the screen is fiction. Enjoyable, but not historically correct by any means.
I’m interested in what you have to say. As I begin my research into the battle between England And Scotland, do you have resources I can study?
There were many battles, and powerplays, stretching back to Hadrian, the Roman who built a wall to keep the heathen Scots out of civilization.
I would start with some videos, like from the History channel, or any youtube video about Edward 1. Beware, as the subject is very interesting and bleeds into the War of the Roses, the Elizabethans, Bonnie Prince Charlie etc. etc. Even Shakespeare is a source for the Kings here, as many of his plays were based on historical fact. For example, MacBeth (11 Century) was a real person:
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/real-macbeth-king-scots-1040-1054#:~:text=Shakespeare's%20Macbeth%2C%20king%20of%20scots,somewhere%20in%20Moray%E2%80%94in%201040.
But if Edward 1 is the main interest, there is a play by George Peele called The Famous Chronicle of King Edward the First
However, you might need to supplement watching as many videos as you can, by reading some academic work, as they often show-case different historians and therefore perspectives.
Well, they did portray the drawn and quarter scene, and gave an epilogue to such that all his remains were scattered across England as a warning.
I don’t for a minute think this is even remotely historical except for the idea of him being a rebellious helicon of certain Scottish nature.
But I do still have all the questions about humanity I listed above.
Interesting what you said above. I see that you espouse communal values, just as socialists do, which is admirable. However, there will always be people who do not agree with you - especially in this polarized political world. Then you cite self-preservation which is a conservative value, and admirable as well. Again there are grey areas where self-preservation can be viewed as just selfish, for example when the instinct is turned into war-profiteering - not saying that you are like that, but that this is what the American MIC is based on - self-preservation of the Arms manufacturers. It is an extreme.
Then you point out the third limb, which is, IMO, the only way forward for this world, and that is a religious foundation. Of course there are differences between religions, and these must be accepted somehow. Perhaps we can all see the good parts and agree to disagree?
You actually dissected my whole thought process impeccably. I have so many thoughts to consider right now.