KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Sialater wrote...
KnightofPhoenix wrote...
AtreiyaN7 wrote...
Or a revolution vis-a-vis, say, the American Revolution. I think that one was pretty win.
I didn't know the American Revolution was led by a tiny minority that is feared and hated by everyone else, for both religious and practical reasons.
You learn somethign everyday.
The Founding Fathers weren't in the majority at the time.
But they led a mass populist movement (aimign to rally up all Americans) that caught steam.
They were not a tiny mionority that are hated and feared by everyone else. Nor did they act in such a way as to alienate huge chunks of the population.
Really, KoP? We certainly alienated our mother country, and that didn't go over very well in England. Or did all those redcoats who popped over here intend to sing kumbaya and roast smores with us over a campfire? Oh wait, right, they were trying to wipe the revolutionaries out and assert the Crown's control of the colonies again - woops! If you look at incidents like the Boston Tea Party, you'll see that people were a little PO'd about things like taxation without representation. They were clearly upset about the level of economic burden/oppression that they were suffering from, especially since they had no representatives in the British Parliament and had no real say in governing themselves.
Furthermore, according to what I looked up, in 1770 our population consisted of approximately 2.1 million people (
http://merrill.olm.n...es/colonies.htm), whereas England had a population of around 6.4 million (
http://www.thepotter...ates/census.htm). So, we were a majority of subjects in the English empire, were we? We had oodles of representatives in Parliament, did we? And do you think we were treated on the same level as loyal English subjects who actually lived in England? I think not.
Even so, numbers and/or our revolution's status as a "popular" rebellion (it was popular in the colonies, not England) is irrelevant. The
point is that if people suffer oppression for one reason or another, they might just reach a breaking point at which the the oppression is no longer tolerable. And who has the right to tell them that their revolution or war was wrong or that it wasn't worth it? I know that my country holds certain ideals very dear: liberty, freedom, independece, individual rights, etc. I'm 99% sure that it was worth fighting for those things and winning our independence.
The mages might consider their freedom and their lives to be worth the cost despite the risk, ultimately. Meredith was incredibly ironfisted in her ruleand as her mental breakdown/paranoia progressed, it only got worse. What happened only affected Kirkwall as opposed to Thedas as a whole, but who's to say that something similar couldn't happen to another Circle? While I don't consider blowing up the Chantry the most brilliant idea in the world, it's the tipping point that has started a revolution in Thedas.
Ideally, peace, love and happiness would have been great. I think that Thrask might have had the right idea about mages and templars working together, but by that stage of the game in Act III, it was too late. The seeds had been sown with individuals like Grace (who wrongly holds resentments agains the templars and Hawke for her capture and the loss of her paramour). I imagine that we'll eventaully find out whether or not it was worth it and what the fallout is, but don't try to minimize or dismiss what Anders did as being insignificant (it was...unwise, but it sure wasn't insignificant or meaningless)..
Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 09 juin 2011 - 10:39 .
Guest_Queen-Of-Stuff_*
You should play more tetris. There's plenty of room for more, even though the passengers might be positioned kind of uncomfortably. Or not so uncomfortably. I don't think Zevran would mind being squeezed in between several versions of himself.
Retour en haut
)
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
