About Abigail Parlier

HRE Administration

terrorism ch. 1

I love how language evolves and I love how meanings can change over time. Does this change the actions behind the definition or does the definition change the action? Because humanity doesn’t change. Sure, it can show up in different forms, but people six centuries ago and people today are still cut from the same cloth. People are still driven by survival, by love and by opinion. They’re driven by passion and by hope and by the desire for things to change.

I still stand firmly behind the notion that a person can be viewed as a terrorist just as easily as they can be viewed as a rebel or an advocate, an activist or a freedom fighter. It just depends on whether or not you’re on the receiving end of their ‘activism’ or their ‘terror’. That stipulation is not me condoning violence or me condoning the actions of others that have caused and continue to cause great amounts of pain and suffering. But I think it’s important to look at their motivations. I don’t remember if it was this article or the next, but it was talked about how Franz Ferdinand’s assassination sparked World War 1 because of someone’s hope that the Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, etc. would be then drawn together under a united front. Arguing if he succeeded or not is a different question, but his murderous intentions had a reason behind it. One one side it’s viewed as killing, on the other it’s viewed as a necessary evil for a greater good.

The human race is still as complex as they were when they were born, and I don’t think that that stands to change anytime soon.

Colonialism v. Imperialism

I thought this was an interesting dichotomy because I’ve always heard the terms used interchangeably, but with specific references to different events and locations. Colonialism can typically refer to the European conquest of continental Africa, the Scramble for Africa and the detrimental effects of the Triangle Slave Trade, the lack of concern for ethnic borders or religious groups, and the devastating economic and social result of centuries of oppression. Imperialism then is thought of as the spreading of American values and influence rather than direct takeover. There’s a militaristic presence but not a territorial conquest. With the attempted breakdown of the two terms as well as the argument of post-colonialism and whether or not that’s even a thing, I had a difficult time wrapping my head around things I thought that I already understood. Similar to Huntington’s civilization divisions, there are no concrete borders between what is colonial and imperial. You can only divide on such a broad spectrum that it can’t take into account individualistic details. The same goes for colonial and imperial societies, especially since some have been so defined by those two terms for as long as anyone can care to remember. With post-colonialism’s existence under debate, it made me think that can we really be post-colonial if colonial effects are still visible?