That Brits like to blow themselves up, and have done so regularly for the last couple of centuries is indeed a cultural difference, but I’m not sure that I’d talk that one up as a good thing.
Indeed and that bombing was far closer in scale to the London ones (didn’t it still kill 2-3 times more people?). September 11th was just on a whole different level of mental so it really isn’t a fair comparison.
While the film was an American production, its director was Australian, the source material was British, most of the main cast were Australian/British, and the whole thing was filmed in London before the 7/7 bombings. I suppose they could have declined to release it in Britain, but that would have been a bit silly.
Really, clericalist belongs on the list with those other things?
There is a timeline about that: http://www.clockworksky.net/puritan_world/ah_pw_top.html
Clericalism is a form of theocracy like the Iranian regime, hardly pleasant.
I have the mask as my FB photo right now, but that’s more because of the movie, not for actual Guy Fawkes day. I saw the casual link and I can’t help but to think, “Remember, remember, the Fifth of November” every 5 November, so I put it up. Every time I see the movie I’m blown away about how much I (still) like it. I’m the type who doesn’t usually watch movies more than once. I get the differences between the two and how one capitalized on the other, but I still gave a nod.
This is one of the few times I’m looking like I’m showing solidarity with the OWS movement, since I’m 99.9 per cent sure those masks will show up in the U.S. today. (It’s not that I don’t support their larger claims, but it has become so splintered. A local leader was just arrested for setting a fire that caused $10m of damage in Fort Collins.)
Like the Iranian regime in what ways?
Arguably worse since while Iran tolerates “People of the Book” a clericalist England would like France and Spain have supppressed all Protestant sects.
I liked the film but found it philosophically very dubious.
Uh, with respect, why exactly is that better, except for Protestants? If that’s your meaning, fair enough, but speaking as an athiest i’m not entirely sure i’d declare that a group that oppressed everyone excluding me was much better than a group that oppressed everyone including me. They’re still oppressive, even if i’m personally off the hook.
Anyway, I was under the impression that “clericalism” had a broader meaning than simply that which you ascribe to that particular movement and that particular time.
Catholics were tolerated in Britain and there were plenty of men with even more unorthodox opinions (like Sir Isaac Newton).
“Tolerated” covers a pretty wide range of meanings; to this day, legislation exists such that a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic may not take the throne, for example. And it’s worth pointing out that English (and British) history covers a pretty wide range of both anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant (and anti-everyone, at some point) events.
Beyond that, I don’t believe that works as a response. Your claim was that a clericalist England is worse than Iran, because at the least Iran has levels of tolerance for “People of the Book” where clericalist England would have liked to see oppressed Protestants in Europe. They’re both oppressive. That you would personally not have been oppressed is, i’m sure, very attractive, but it doesn’t mean they’re nicer because you would be ignored to do your thing while they could oppress someone else. It doesn’t make them better, unless you consider non-Protestants and non-People of the Book to be less worrisome if oppressed, and I certainly wouldn’t think that of you.
Right. I don’t see any mentions of England during that time there. Or England at all, in fact. Or of oppression of Protestants.
Not any more!
Really? Neat. I always assumed it would be one of those things that only went away when the next-in-line fell in love with a Catholic, or something direct like that.
Still, it lasted for a good while.
They weren’t really. That was part of the reason that Catesby planned the plot in the first place. He had hoped that James, when he became king, would be tolerant of Catholics, and turned to the plot when it turned out that that wasn’t going to happen.
I mean, it was illegal for a Catholic priest to even set foot on English soil, and any priest or those sheltering a priest would be arrested and imprisoned or even executed. The goal of the conspirators wasn’t to inflict a theocracy or anything. It was to make the monarch Catholic again, which probably would have led to some persecution of Protestants, but they wanted to put Elizabeth in charge, not the Pope.
Eh, I’d say it’s more of a difference in goals.
Book-V’s entire purpose is to stick it to the people who brutalized him by destroying their entire system. The destruction is his endgame, whatever comes next he leaves to whoever wants it, he doesn’t really think or care about that part because it doesn’t matter to him. So it’s up to the people to whom such things matter. Textbook anarchist.
The fact that Evey takes up the mantle after his death is more of an afterthought he hadn’t anticipated when he first came up with his plan. The entire series of events boils down to an extended duel of wills (curbstomp, really) between him and the leader of Norsefire. V is most *definitely *not every man, quite the opposite: he’s the übermensch, risen above and transcending humanity. Ultimately, he wears a mask because who he was before is not important, he’s become something else entirely now. The mask sets him apart.
Film-V wants to motivate the people to rise up and put things back like they were before. Everything he does is framed in terms of what message it sends to the proles, his combat becomes an extended media happening and marketing strategy. And, yes, the latter is very American, this idea that the original form government had was idyllic and everything since has been a fall from Eden, as it were. Ultimately, he wears a mask because who he is is not important, he’s just an agent of the will of the people. The mask negates his individuality.
This dichotomy is made the most apparent when V hijacks the TV studio for his broadcast to London. The core message of Book-V’s speech is “You all suck. You’ve always sucked. This is all on you, sheeple, don’t you understand that ? Either change, or fuck all o’ y’all.”, while Film-V’s is “Some very bad men have hijacked our country from us. But we all know we’re really the good guys at heart, so let’s take it back together ! Hurray !”
Then again, I might be full of shit* - it’s been ages since I’ve read V for Vendetta :D. I should really do it again sometime.
- or more full of shit that the average literary critic, at any rate.
In your worldview, does Catholic = Clericalist ?
While there has been approval in principle for change, legislation to actually make the change has not yet been drafted, much less put into law.
Certainly I don’t think that. However while the French (far more tolerant than the Spanish) were sending Huguenots to the galleys, the English largely let Catholics free to worship although they were denied political rights. Do I approve of that? No, but one is less repugnant than the other.
And Catholic monarchs generally due to various factors were more intolerant of Protestants than visa versa. For example Elizabeth I did execute Catholics but largely for trying to assassinate her rather than just for practicing Catholicism. In addition Catholic monarchs were more absolutist-it should be noted the first countries with religious tolerance and parliamentary government in modern times were largely Protestant-UK, Netherlands etc.
It wasn’t your comparison of the French vs. the English that I was calling problematic, it was your comparison of a hypothetical clericalist England vs. Iran. Your claim was that such an English regime would have liked to see suppressed Protestants, while Iran would have tolerated them (as part of the People of the Book), therefore Iran is arguably better. My point is that it doesn’t make you better simply because you oppress a smaller group of people. You’re still oppressors.