This cuts both ways you know- sometimes the leaders of much loved treasons really were thugs or selfish bastards who deserved to be opposed. Cult of the Founding Fathers aside, most modern Americans would probably support the British Empire and its concerns that its colonies should be subject to national law and help pay for defense over secessionists hurting over bigger taxes. (And, even at the time, many did- hence a significant exodux of the colonial population to Canada and elsewhere when the rebels won.)
Or I am better versed in history: quite a few social movements have succeeded by quietly gathering power and influence before peacefully asserting and pressing for changes, whereas violent revolutionaries just got their cause squashed for a few more years/decades/centuries. The success story of western liberalism isn't one of victorious violent reforms, but the spread of tolerance for peaceful dissent and pressures changing an establishment. Name five social movements in, say, the history of the United States that succeeded through violence and I'll be impressed. I'll even give you a handicap: feel free to claim the American Revolution as one, even though it predates the US.
If you believe that, sure. I don't- but then, I grew up in a culture in which military service was voluntary, and in which perceptions of conscription were more negative, and I've long since outgrown childish notions such as 'anyone who opposes my righteous cause is the bad guy.'
I think many people make a crucial logical mistake. They try to apply the norms of a post merchantile democratic society in a pre-merchantile feudal society. Truly nowadays such an act of terrorism is abhorrent, inexcusable and not an effective carrier of change. People react to exercises of strength or violence in a different manner and a non agressive approach is much more plausible because most of our societies have democratic regimes or even before those at least in the past 3 centuries there was a diffusion of authority because of merchantile strength and the rise of the burgeois against the feudal system. Dragon Age is clearly a feudal society and not a particularly enlightened one politically. The common people have no electoral power and very minor purchasing power. The feudal lords have very limited electoral power which is under the constant censure of military and religious power centers. Ferelden is perhaps further advanced because its existence is in opposition to Orlais; their nationalism is defined in opposition to Orlesian norms and it is well likely that the Orlesians could reclaim it at any moment. Kirkwall is much different. Its viscounts are presented to have ruled under the approval of the chantry and templars. If the common people rebelled against Meredith, she would simply put them down; in fact Leliana makes it pretty clear that the Divine might well put the entire city to the torch.
In this balance, one should consider the choice made by Anders. Perhaps change could be accomplished with a moderate approach but it would not take decades, but rather centuries. Not until the economic and political structures could support rights movements would the Mages be able to tap to the concordance of the collective to force political reforms. In this time we are weighing a likely short though violent war against the current situation. Templars do not simply incarcerate mages. There are extensive instances of molestation and rape, constant psychological violence, and the right of tranquility which is not only murder of free will and some sort of slavery but also largely economical exploitation; the skills of the Tranquil in enchantment partly fund the Chantry and the Templars, Mages are oppressed with zero to none cost. All I am saying is, do not compare what Anders did with examples of social reforms in the past century cause there is no analogy. Rather consider any instances of actual social reform taking place peacefully in the Dark Ages.
Retour en haut
.
