Signed into law by President G. W Bush immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act was meant for Uniting & Strengthening America by the Provision of Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 and in effect it acted as a timely response to the September 11th attacks. The key components of the USA PATRIOT Act are characterized by a crosscutting reduction in the restrictions imposed on law enforcement entities curtailing their domain of influence in carrying out telephone, e-mail communication , medical and financial searches; such intelligence liberties have bequeathed the Secretary of the Treasury with the autonomous power of standardizing financial transactions and extended the domain of influence of law enforcement in our foreign policies as evident in the immigration department where authority have been vested for detaining and deporting immigrants who may have some links with terror groups (USA TODAY, 2011, p. 1).
Key Components Related to Intelligence Gathering
The key components of the USA PATRIOT Act which are related to intelligence gathering include such titles as enhancing domestic security against terrorism, maintaining a steady vigilance in our surveillance processes, preventing terrorism through the institution of anti-money laundering policies, securing the security of our border, sharing intelligence information with relevant authorities and giving a helping hand to the victims of terrorism (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2003, p. 1).
Title 1: Enhancing Domestic Security against Terrorism
This component seeks to unearth all the viable avenues through which the provision of domestic security services may be accorded to U.S citizenry in a bid to prevent terrorism. To achieve this end, the title advocates for a strong FBI and counter-terrorism base by agitating for the provision of sufficient financial backing in this venture. This title does not only mandate the military with the sole responsibility of checking and tackling weapons of mass destruction, but it also expands the President’s domain of influence in terrorism matters as envisaged in the National Electronic Crime Task Force. It is also within the jurisdiction of this title that the authority to use critical intelligence tools by law enforcement personnel’s is vested that they can make timely detections of any targeted terror plots. The main controversy in this title is that with such broad liberties in intelligence gathering the civilian’s legal entitlement to privacy would be compromised, and as some have argued, ‘care must be taken lest we strike the innocent instead of the guilty’ (Eggen, 2004, p. 1).
Legal and Civil Issues in the fore mentioned Title
The intelligence gathering liberties envisaged in the provisions of roving wiretaps and investigative authority over business’ records and documents went way beyond the anticipated civil legal entitlements. It is feared that if provisions on roving wiretaps, access to business documents and the ‘lone wolf’ measure were not tentatively drawn, they could pose a potential danger to civil rights of the U.S citizenry in the event that the intelligent personnel abuse their professional liberties (USA TODAY, 2011, p. 1).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Title; Enhancing Domestic security against Terrorism
Whereas enhancing domestic security against terrorism is characterized by numerous strengths in equipping law enforcement personnel with the necessary tools to curb terrorism and ensure that security thrives in the entire nation, it is also marred with some inherent weaknesses as evident in undermining civil liberties of the U.S citizenry.
Reference List
Eggen, D. (2004). Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional. Web.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2003). EFF Analysis of the Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Web.
USA TODAY. (2011). Key Patriot Act elements up for vote. Web.
USA TODAY. (2011). Obama signs Patriot Act 4-year extension from France. Web.
It is important to consider the phenomenon of patriotism in the context of the US War of Independence. The content of the word patriotism worried the minds of many famous thinkers and philosophers, however, there is no unequivocal opinion, its content is fully exhaustive, and cannot be fully determined. After all, each of them, can understand patriotism in highly different manner.
In the most general sense, the concept of patriotism expresses an emotional attitude towards one’s Fatherland — a feeling of love and devotion, pride, a desire to subordinate personal and group interests to national interests in difficult moments in the fate of the motherland, a willingness to serve it, to do everything possible for its prosperity and even sacrifice one’s life for its sake. This is the reason for the loyalty of British Americans during the war.
Patriots and Loyalty
The premises of patriotism are rooted in the depths of human nature itself. American-born British citizens became Patriots due to the fact that they changed alongside the local population. Thus, their views shifted towards the notions of freedom and democracy. The strongest factor in the formation of a sense of patriotism is the individual’s attachment to the land, with which a person is bound by strong bonds (Kamensky 2016). Since ancient times, the motherland for its inhabitant has been not only a source of subsistence, but also an integral part of his or her continuation. Thoroughly knowing all the secrets and vagaries of his motherland, included in its biological rhythms, an individual was a whole with it and was afraid to even imagine himself or herself outside his or her native land.
It should be noted that patriotism is characteristic not only, and not so much for nation-states, but also for multi-ethnic and multicultural societies. One of the classic examples of a multinational state is the United States of America. Exploring the reasons for the victory of the American revolution, which led to the formation of the United States, the question of loyalty is forced to be asked.
It was something that united representatives of different nationalities into a single nation – emigrants from Europe who were not interconnected either by a common past, or by family ties, or the centuries-old practice of traditions and customs. Historically, all 13 colonies of British America were very different from each other (Hoffer 2019). They differed not only in geographical and climatic conditions, but also in priority types of activity, social composition, way of life, specific traditions and religion, all of which made these colonies unique and inimitable.
However, contrary to their differences, the colonies also had common features. It allowed them to remain loyal to their cause in order to gain independence. Numerous geographical, economic, social and cultural factors created the prerequisites for the creation of a new state. To begin with, the colonies were compact. The population of English colonies differed in the heterogeneity of culture and religious beliefs, but the English language and common values created the conditions for the unity of all colonists.
The emigrants considered it appropriate to adopt the system of laws under which they had previously lived in their homeland, and to continue their connection with it. The colonists who left the Old World were in almost the same position., There was completely no sense of any superiority among emigrants over others (Shorto 2017). The bulk of these people who left their homeland were not the happiest and richest people. They were sent into exile, but poverty, just like adversity, is the best guarantee of equality between people in the world. The driving force of all these extraordinary people was the desire for freedom – religious, political, and cultural. At the root, it was a desire to get away from any form of dictatorship and tyranny.
By the beginning of the American Revolution, much had changed in the colonies of British America, where people themselves had changed. Americans on the eve of the revolution demonstrated certain achievements in trade, culture, and politics. This can be attributed to the neutrality, which was common among certain states. These were people who already had sufficient reasons to consider themselves the original inhabitants of the continent.
They owed all their achievements, first of all, to America – the land that sheltered their ancestors and gave hope for the future. It was with America that they linked their aspirations, undertakings and dreams. The catalyst in the process of the emergence of a new nation was the colonial policy of the metropolis itself. After the end of the seven-year war, one after another the economic acts of parliament followed, which aimed to establish complete control of the metropolis over the colonies.
An important principle of the functioning of the institutions of power to the leaders of the patriotic movement was representation. The problem of representation of the North American population in the power structures of the states of the Confederation arose during the War of Independence especially sharply as a result of the abolition of the old corporate system of distribution of deputies. Using this system, colonial legislatures determined the number of deputies who went to legislative assemblies from counties, cities and parishes of the country. The corporate system of representation was largely a reflection of the peculiarities of the mentality of a person of the new time, who, despite the development of individualistic attitudes, retained an orientation toward traditional community values.
It helped to preserve the power in the hands of wealthy elites, most of which were accumulated in the wealthy and old regions. They often had significant advantages in the number of deputies over the newer regions. This was supported by the widespread theory of property-based representation in England. The political elite of the North American colonies supported the position that property – the most important of natural human rights – cannot be sufficiently protected until the people who possess it dominate the state legislature (Shorto 2017). The disadvantage of the corporate system was that it was easy to manipulate in the interests of certain groups close to the authorities. In addition, a significant portion of the population of the colonies was not represented at all in the legislatures of North America.
British Influence
It is important to consider the characteristic features of the new British colonial policy of 1763-1765 carried out during the Prime Minister’s stay, its consequences for the development of the North American colonies and its influence on the formation of the ideology of the patriotic movement. The signing of a peace treaty between Paris and England in Paris ended the seven-year war. At the same time, the king’s government, happy with a victory in a protracted conflict, experienced an extremely difficult financial crisis due to the enormous material costs of maintaining a large army.
To compensate for the damage caused to the state treasury by participating in the war, the English parliament, at the initiative of the prime minister, decided to impose new direct and indirect taxes on the population of 13 colonies. However, this measure had not only a specific pragmatic goal, but was one of the most important elements of the new course of the colonial policy of England.
The main content of this program was the establishment of close economic, political and cultural ties between England and its North American colonies. Rich in natural resources and minerals, possessing developed agriculture and industry, territories on the Atlantic coast were necessary for the stability and successful development of the British Empire. The British of this century smoked American tobacco, ate American sugar, cereals and fish, dressed in fabrics dyed by American dyes, and sailed on ships built from the American forest.
However, by the middle of the XVIII century the economic and cultural prosperity of the North American colonies was not only a source of profit for Great Britain. The unceasing struggle for power and spheres of influence between the British governors and local legislative assemblies, and more and more often flared uprisings against the colonial administration, testified to the deep crisis that hit the empire.
However, in the later periods, British colonial empire was on the verge of collapse. The Prime Minister began to energetically lead the policy of strengthening the colonial administration. In the years 1763-1764, the number of the British army in the North American colonies increased. In response to the complaints of the commander-in-chief of the British troops in the colonies, who had difficulty in providing the army because of the hostility of the Americans, the parliament began discussing a bill on billeting, which would allow troops to live in civilian homes during military operations.
At the same time, customs reform was carried out and the law of the English parliament ordered customs officers in the colonies to conduct a mandatory inspection of all merchant ships and to bring to justice the sailors who smuggled in their ships. The number of customs officers increased, and most of them began to make up visitors from the metropolis (Taylor 2016). Local officials did not want or could not enter into confrontation with the wealthy colonial bourgeoisie profiting from smuggling.
Uneven Reaction
As a reaction to oppression in the colonies, the anti-colonial movement for freedom and equality of rights of the colonists begins to unfold, and the appearance of a patriotic organization dates back to 1765. The northern part of the colonial America was more likely to be radicalized compared to other southern states due to their common struggles. Patriot leaders, the colonial press, communications committees took an organizational role and called on the colonists to combat the illegal exploitation and discrimination of the colonists, for the equal rights of the British and Americans, and a boycott of British goods.
The platform of patriots found a lot of support among the widest sections of the population (Kamensky 2016). The conflict began to acquire a nationwide character and the leading idea in speeches of patriots, resolutions of local assemblies, in the dreams and hearts of Americans was the idea of a struggle for the rights and freedoms of American colonists from unjust decrees of the mother country.
A truly significant event in history was the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The social and philosophical provisions of the Declaration on the Equality of the Natural Rights of People, on a social contract between the government and citizens, on the right of the people to depose an autocratic government that infringes on the interests of the people, formed the spiritual unity of people, fighting for social harmony to become a reality.
After signing the document, Washington addressed the soldiers and officers of the American army, urging the patriots to take their duty seriously and to mobilize all their forces in the fight against the formidable enemy (Hoffer 2019). The American army demonstrated high morale and the war for US independence brought many Americans of different social status and origin to the forefront. However, all of them, regardless of their past, are related by the all-consuming love of the motherland, their sincere desire to serve him and even their willingness to give their lives for this place.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the unification of Americans under the banner of the struggle for rights and freedoms ensured a favorable outcome for America. People have never shown such political activity before and its growth was stimulated by the conviction of the righteousness of the common cause to protect their land and property, rights and freedoms. Over time, the history of the American Revolution began to take on a romantic halo, its heroes became a legend, ideal and subject to admiration.
Many holidays and traditions come from the history of the American Revolution. Stories about the lives of heroes, famous aphorisms, memorials, places of military glory of the American army and even images of US presidents on dollar bills are the main means of educating the patriotic spirit in America. There is reason to believe that patriotism, which is one of the main components of the American mentality, has grown on the basis of the value of freedom, which was extremely actualized during the years of the War of Independence.
References
Hoffer, Peter Charles. 2019. Law and People in Colonial America. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kamensky, Jane. 2016. A Revolution in Color: The World of John Singleton Copley. NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Shorto, Russell. 2017. Revolution Song: A Story of American Freedom. NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Taylor, Alan. 2016. American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804. NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
The article by Michelene E. Pesantubbee Nancy Ward: American Patriot or Cherokee Nationalist features the life story of Cherokee’s beloved woman peacemaker Nanye’hi, also known as Nancy Ward. As Nancy dedicated her life to being a peacemaker, nowadays, there are various opinions on whether she is an American Patriot or Cherokee Nationalist. The author of the article explores various aspects of Nancy Ward’s life which correspond to both statements. The article states that Nancy Ward’s actions come from her understanding of changes that Cherokee had to face, and her will to adapt to the changes rather than commit to American Patriotism or Cherokee nationalism.
The author starts the article with an introduction of Nancy Ward and her impact on the American-Cherokee relationships. The article notes multiple opinions on people’s perception of Nancy Ward, emphasizing the statement that Ward desired to be more like white people (Pesantubbee 177). The author states that Nancy Ward’s actions were not due to this desire, her marriage to a white man, or because she felt that American society was superior.
According to the author, Nancy Ward carried her functions as a beloved woman and ‘sought new ways for Cherokee to thrive in a changing world’ (Pesantubbee 177). The article lists arguments regarding different aspects of Nancy Ward’s personality to prove that her actions were majorly impacted by her inner nature rather than as a commitment to American patriotism and Cherokee nationalism.
The arguments proposed by the author starts from Nancy Ward’s origins or her relations to the Cherokee Wolf Clan. In the author’s opinion, Nancy Ward’s actions were connected to her affiliation to the Wolf Clan, one of the most important clans of Cherokee that was responsible for helping captives during the war (Pesantubbee, 181). The text of the article implies that the help that Nancy Wards provided to American soldiers was a part of her Clan’s traditions.
The author entails that Nancy Ward’s responsibilities as a beloved woman defined her commitment to peacemaking. Ward’s duties and power were broadened by her additional title of war woman that she earned in the battle in Muscogee Creek. The author states that due to her responsibilities as a beloved woman and a war woman, Ward was the one to decide Lydia Bean’s fate, and due to these circumstances, she chose to protect Bean’s life.
Ward’s sense of patriotism is emphasized in a designated part of the article where the author addresses the issue that Ward is frequently perceived in American history as the only beloved woman. The article notes that war was a part of beloved people, both men, and women that dedicated their lives to the white path. According to the author, Cherokee people were able to balance white and red, where white symbolized peace brought by peace leaders and red symbolized warriors (Pesantubbee 189).
As an example, the author describes that Ward’s initial concern when she sent warnings about the Cherokee assault was to protect the warriors who engaged in the combat. Therefore, despite the action being perceived in American culture as Ward being a ‘traitor’ to the Cherokee people, it had another motivation (Pesantubbee 178). Ward’s relationship with her father, Attakullakulla, another famous Cherokee peacemaker, is also listed by the author as an argument that Ward’s personality is the reason for her actions.
The article lists valuable arguments supporting the statement that Nancy Ward’s actions were influenced majorly by her perception of the piece and her responsibilities as a beloved woman. The author provides a perspective that was not previously explored in a concise and organized way. With the article, the author achieved the stated purpose of determining whether Nancy Ward was an American Patriot or a Cherokee Nationalist and made a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.
Work Cited
Michelene E. Pesantubbee. “Nancy Ward: American Patriot or Cherokee Nationalist?” American Indian Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 2, 2014, pp. 177–206. JSTOR. Web.
It is a hard thing to pledge loyalty to a country that is not your own; that is, a country that is not your ancestral or original homeland. This becomes evident with a situation whereby one is required to defend a country in which he/she has acquired citizenship either through birth, registration or neutrality or especially in case of a war outbreak between the two countries; the mother land and the alien land.
This incident was experienced after the World War II, between the Americans and the Nisei people of Japanese origin, where the Japanese living in America was to serve in the American army by defending the country against any form of opposition, both within or without America.
The anti- Americans were forced to sign some loyalty questions to the American government; this was done while they had already been taken to the internee’s camps where they underwent a lot of physical, economical and psychological torture. According to the American chief of the armed forces, for one to be a true American, race and origin was not important but total dedication emanating from the heart and mentality to protect the country’s autonomy and social equality.
It was therefore difficult to the Nisei to decide their position especially on matters pertaining to the two loyalty questions presented to them, a situation that can befall anyone in a foreign country. Considering the fact that the alien country, is where one lives and has accumulated most of her/his wealth, it becomes reasonable to show loyalty to the country though this action can also result into negatives to the people back in the original land and the aliens still in the country.
To the question whether I will be willing to serve in the armed forces of the United states on combat duty wherever ordered, my response will be no, because of the following reasons; firstly, fighting for the American country in order to show loyalty will not be an action enough to save my fellows who are in the camps, especially the innocent young children and women from the torture they undergo.
The same liberty and freedom I will be fighting for will be denied my own people living in the country; this is evident through their denial to the right of shelter, food and clothing. Therefore, it will be with no benefit joining the army as long as I will be treated like a stranger in the country I will be defending.
Secondly, the need of showing loyalty to the country is because I am a citizen, therefore, asking me such a question that a real citizen cannot be asked or cannot be in a position to answer, proofs that am not treated as a true citizen and risking to join the army will of no good to me (Cooper 37).
This question implies that I remain to be an alien besides all my efforts to fight for the country. Furthermore, my people could not be segregated into camps and forced to live their own homes and property which they have accumulated in the country, instead if they were treated like citizens, they could have been allowed to live in their homes and the young and energetic people granted a direct entry into the army just like the Americans are granted. This gives me a good reason to stand firm in my refusal to say yes to such a question.
Thirdly, it is pointless to fight for a country that triggers hatred and fighting among people of the same origin instead of encouraging their solidarity. By answering the question, different feelings shall be aroused because not all people feel the same for their country.
This means that there are those who will be for a yes, others for a no and others will not entertain any attempts to answering the question. This will mean animosity among these different groups. On top of all the hardships my people will undergo, they will be forced to fight amongst themselves thus creating a very hostile condition for their survival.
A country that one has lived and intends to live for the rest of his/her lifetime can be considered to be his/her own and showing loyalty and patriotism is vital. All his/her property is based on this land and therefore protecting it means protecting his/ her own possession. Contrary to this good idea, is the fact that home is home and it is always best. That is why I confirm my no answer to the above question.
On the second question, swearing unskilled allegiance to defend America from any forms of attack and agreeing to obey the Japanese emperor or any other strange authority will be impossible for me. My answer will be no because, in the first place the question is twofold and if my answer is yes then I will be left homeless (Cooper 43).
By accepting to defend the US , then I will be against my own country and by signing allegiance with Japanese emperor, then it means evacuating from America, this will lead to a no place for me and my people. For survival, remaining neutral is the best thing, furthermore those who show loyalty to either of the two sides still suffer as if they had done nothing, therefore it is good when one suffers solely on a neutral ground.
It is also risky to show loyalty to one side, incase the side one supports losses. This question is presented to all even the women, and without their understanding to the question, they will answer it wrongly thus committing themselves to things they cannot accomplish in life. It is therefore important for me who understands the consequences for such a commitment to say no.
In addition to this, the rivalry created among my people and the misfortunes realized by them in the detention camps compels me towards achieving my answer as no. To many, yes would work as showing loyalty to both countries can be advantageous in that they can survive in the one that conquers, but for me, I will choose to die a patriot to my own country whichever the circumstance maybe.
Conclusion
In matters pertaining loyalty and patriotism for one’s own country, it is important to acknowledge the fact that it comes from the heart and mind but not by force. Furthermore the country which one chooses to defend must also acknowledge one’s citizenship. If all is put in place, the all these questions should not be directed to the same people who are taken to be citizens.
The whole idea behind loyalty is to protect human life, therefore showing Allegany to either side, means destruction of the same life that is to be protected. That is why on human ground, I chose to say no to both questions.
Works Cited
Cooper, Michel, L. Fighting for honor: Japanese Americans and World War II. Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000. Print.
The events in the film “Patriot” are happening during the period of the American Revolution. The main theme of the movie is uselessness of pacifism, as demonstrated in the setting of the American Revolution. As such, growing hostilities between citizens of Great Britain’s thirteen colonies and the local administration, which served the British crown, led to the Revolutionary War, commonly known as the American Revolution. All the colonies rebelled against its imperial rule, sparking a historic political and military conflict known as the American Revolution. The British crown and Parliament’s imposition of taxes without the consent of the colonial population sparked the initial revolt. Therefore, the paper aims to summarize the plot and the characters of the film “Patriot” in the framework of those historical events.
The main character Captain Benjamin Martin represents a collective image of the person of that time. It evolves around the contradictory feelings and desires for safety and peace along with the rage and desire for revenge. His older sons, Gabriel and Thomas, are young and ambitious men who, due to their lack of experience, are willing to get into the war and fight despite their fear. Charlotte Selton, the second wife of Benjamin, represents the women’s position during the war, their struggles, and the terror of losing their husbands, sons, and brothers. While Benjamin Martin is at war, she takes care of the children and remains strong to keep the most important family safe.
The Revolutionary War serves as the backdrop for the story, which explores the pointlessness of passivity. Namely, the movie is set in colonial South Carolina is in the year 1776 (Minow, 2000). Benjamin Martin, a military hero of French and Indian descent who is plagued by his history, now desires only to live in peace and harmony on his modest property and avoid involvement in a conflict with Great Britain, the most powerful country in the world. Gabriel and Thomas, his two eldest children, are eager to join the “Continental Army,” which has just been created (Minow, 2000). Gabriel instantly enlists to fight when South Carolina chooses to join the revolt against England.
The crucial moment of the film happens when a notoriously vicious British dragoon arrives and burns the plantation of Charlotte Selton, Benjamin Martin’s friend and close woman, to the ground. Gabriel decides to intrude in this situation, expecting to avoid possible punishment for his family since he previously let the wounded soldier into the house. Still, Tavington, the arch-enemy of the main character and leader of the Green Dragoons, gives the order to execute the injured Continental soldiers and burn the home for having hosted the enemy (Minow, 2000). As Gabriel is being led away, Benjamin cries out for mercy but is ignored. Tavington mercilessly shoots Thomas as he rushes forward to try to rescue Gabriel out of his grasp. The home workers, especially housekeeper Abigail, are compelled to work for the British government while Gabriel is carried away in a different convoy.
Benjamin soon discovers that he must choose between taking retribution, defending his family, and taking part in the creation of a brand-new, young, and ambitious country. Benjamin reluctantly decides to accompany Gabriel as he decides to re-join the Continentals, citing his decision as a soldier’s duty. Eventually, driven by anger, grief, and desire to revenge, the main characters engage in the war but take it as personal retribution. After the battle, Benjamin returns home to his family while Charlotte, now his lover, is still pregnant with their new child. He finds that his previous militia unit has begun to rebuild his farmstead on their former town road.
To conclude, the movie’s events demonstrate the reality of the people’s lives during the American revolution. In the framework of the historical events, the film demonstrates the general timeline and key moments and the war from the perspective of regular people. The losses and battles of the main characters are depicted to present the motivation behind the different attitudes towards war and the rationale behind the choices to fight or not to fight.
Reference List
Minow, N. (2000). The Patriot [Film]. Columbia Pictures, Centropolis Entertainment, & Mutual Film Company.
Gladiator is the greatest popular historic film describing remarkable period of Roman Empire and showing strong emotions and great contradicting feelings of the main character Maximus. His will, strength, energy and cruelty at the same time are depicted to convey patriotic feelings to the audience. Despite the fact that the patriotism adorns Maximus, it is vivid that he suffers a lot being such a patriotic warrior.
A famous writer Bernard George Shaw expresses his opinion on patriotism which is the best illustration of Gladiator’s idea: “You will never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race” (Shaw, 1). Consequently, the patriotism can be viewed as a big human vice which bothers to live in peace and happiness. The gladiator Maximus, and the general in one person, embodies the greatest Roman patriotism, in the name of which he sacrifices his wife and son, loses his liberty and wastes his precious life.
Family sacrifice in the name of patriotism
The patriotism as love towards the native land requires complete devotion and self-sacrifice. In fact, the film Gladiator shows such devotion on the example of the life of the general Maximus and other warriors fighting together with him and having the same life position.
As a rule, it is not possible to love motherland and own family equally and at the same time. Sooner or later, you have to choose what is more important to you. The main character tries to love both, however, fails. Due to the patriotism Maximus loses his family which means everything to him.
Having chosen the path of motherland protector and Caesar’s successor, Maximus cannot protect his family anymore. He is completely devoted to Rome and considers it to be the light in all his life. Judging from the scene where the general tells about his home and loving family to Caesar, it becomes clear that the family is his great value and happiness. However, the patriotism grown in his heart ruins his happiness and makes him dependant upon his people and native land.
Moreover, being a strong patriot Maximus tries to fulfill Caesar’s last wish and struggles for Rome and its people till the death, in spite of personal interests and not seeing his family for “2 years and 264 days”. It means that the interests of the empire are above his personal interests as well as above his love towards his family. Having accepted the role of fatherland protector, the gladiator finds his wife and son burnt and hanged for his desire to serve to Rome and patriotism.
What is more, such barbarity does not stop Maximus; on the contrary, it excites his patriotic feelings considerably and makes him desperate and violent in his following fighting. Within the whole film we see how patriotic feelings of the main character are turning into hatred and contempt. Thus we can observe the conflict of interests in the film resolution of which shows that the patriotism eliminates love and family, herewith, gives birth to cruelty and revenge.
Patriotism and liberty of the gladiators
In all centuries, liberty has been considered and it is still considered to be the most significant quality and value which can be possessed by a human-being. Everyone struggles for it and once received tries to keep it forever. Therefore, the film Gladiator shows us miserable people who were not able to preserve their liberties and became deprived gladiators. They are slaves who lost their rights and liberties because of patriotic spirits and desire to fight for truth and fatherland.
It is weird to see those huge strong men who are merely the toys or puppets in the hands of their owners and enemies. Gladiators’ life is reduced to bringing entertainment and bright bleeding show to the audience. What is even weirder is that such loss of liberty is not because of hard destiny or evil, it is the result of their own patriotic dedication and loyalty, their will and desire to serve Rome.
Special attention should be paid at the fact that even absence of liberty does not make the gladiators lose their feelings of patriotism. Being put into irons, Maximus stays to be faithful to Rome and due to this he feels free in the heart. He lives to serve his empire and people receiving back only respect from them. However, his total self-sacrifice does not make him free and he stays a slave till the death.
Although the problem of liberty and slavery concerns little today, more attention should be paid to it. The film Gladiator outlines not only physical dependence, but also a moral one. The latter is even harder since it is engraved deep in mind and reveals as the patriotism.
Patriotism vs. life
The patriotism and heroic death are inseparable and inevitable in fighting for native land. Excessive patriotism gives rise to the growth of hatred which leads to self-destruction. Consequently, the result of patriotic feelings is the loss of life.
In the analyzed film we see that the patriotism of gladiator Maximus, except resulting in the loss of family, happiness and liberty, deprives him of his heroic life. No doubts, in other case he would not be a hero and patriot.
Till the last seconds of his life the general is fighting for Rome but not for his own life and liberty. Maximus is obsessed with allegiance which brings him death. His desire to return Rome to people makes not only die, but also makes away his wife and son. His life is limited to blind patriotism which is in fighting and dying for Rome.
Paradoxically, even death of the gladiator Maximus hasn’t made him free and hasn’t brought liberty to him. He stays a slave since he is to serve Rome eternally and he will be remembered as a gladiator dying for his fatherland not a general fighting for his land and people. This striking issue is successfully depicted in the final scene of Maximus’s fight at Coliseum.
In addition to the list of striking problems depicted in the analyzed film, there is an urgent issue which is to be resolved by the audience individually. What is life and what we are living for? Seeing Maximus who lives only to carry out patriotic fighting for native land, it is makes clear that patriotism in war is only brutal need and loss of liberty.
All in all, the film Gladiator is the most successful show transferring deep feelings, thoughts and ideas for each. Live or die, defeat or win does not change a lot but gives possibility to be realized and define what life is for you.
Conclusion
Making up a conclusion, it should be highlighted that well-known and excellent film Gladiator is a great and bright example of patriotism. It may seem that this film is simple and just entertaining, however, if you look deeper you will see that it illustrates a number of crucial issues and amazes with urgent problematic questions of all generations.
By means of excellently shot scenes and interesting plot, the analyzed film conveys the problem of patriotism and its consequences. It outlines importance of values in our life and shows us detrimental consequences of heroic dedicated patriotism.
Thus the film Gladiator is a bright illustration of the fatal power of patriotism. This striking idea makes us think of what patriotism is in reality and whether it is worth living in our hearts and minds. An urgent question arises: Is patriotism worth losing family, liberty and own life? The answer to this question is to be given individually; however, the film Gladiator suggests possible variants which are to be chosen personally.
It is often difficult to get a clear idea of what life might have been like during major events such as the Revolutionary War. For the most part, I think of my ancestors as stiff individuals who didn’t possess a shred of humor or romance. Watching films such as this always surprises me how very human they were. They loved, died, had hopes and dreams, planned for the future, struggled through the hard times, and went through all of the things we still go through today. When the film is about a historical event such as the Revolutionary War, though, we also get a better sense of what things were really like.
At the beginning of the movie, when everyone is in Charlestown at the general assembly, Captain Martin (Mel Gibson’s character) reminds the people that a war against Britain will not be fought far from home in the wilderness while the women and children remain safe at home. The war was fought in the villages and towns right in full view of the women and children and many times including them in the skirmish. Men fired weapons of mass destruction at each other in the afternoon that had just been plowed by the farmers that morning. I think what really brought these ideas home to me were the many scenes where Aunt Charlotte (Joely Richardson) and the children were included in very close proximity to the battle scenes and the scene when the British burned the church with all the citizens locked inside.
There were a lot of elements in the film that were historically factual. This started with the costumes and the available weaponry that the soldiers on both sides were using as well as the potential damage these weapons could inflict on the human body. Other aspects of social life, such as the number of children Ben had, the idea that the mother had died at a young age, the presence of black people working as servants and slaves, and the idea that children participated in the fighting and dying, were also accurate. The film even shows some of the men who made up the militia (otherwise farmers) turning their heads away as they fired their guns so that they wouldn’t have to watch the man they were shooting at die. These men hadn’t been socially conditioned through video games and war films to be able to look human death in the face without feeling like murderers and it was obvious.
Although they seemed to try to make the film as historically accurate as possible, I did notice some inconsistencies. When Captain Martin is told about Bunker Hill, it was true that the British charged three times before they succeeded, but he says that the Continentals killed more than 700 British soldiers before the battle was over and uses this to demonstrate the level of their commitment to violence. In reality, only about 200 British soldiers were killed. The film may have allowed the character to deliberately exaggerate the number in order to persuade his audience or may have allowed him to tell the truth but tell it to slant since more than 700 British soldiers were wounded in the battle and were thus at least removed from the fighting numbers. Another historical inaccuracy was the use of the American flag, as a red and white striped banner and a blue field with a circle of stars, as the universal Continental banner. This flag wasn’t made until after the Revolutionary War was over. Each group of Continental fighters typically carried a different flag, usually something more closely related to their colony of residence.