By watching Battle of Algiers and Bloody Sunday, I have gained a better understanding of the motivations driving these significant revolutions. It is important to understand why the FLN and IRA chose to engage in “terrorist” activities because analyzing the reasons behind their actions allows us to see who labels them as “terrorists” and how they are labeled. The labeling and characterization of these groups greatly influence the actions taken and the consequences that ensue. In the cases of the FLN and IRA, both groups were labeled as “terrorists,” but each followed different paths. These actions directly correspond to how they are perceived and treated within a society. This paper will show how the representation of “terrorist” groups shapes a specific understanding of their motives for action and outline the resulting implications of this process.
The movie Battle of Algiers accurately and realistically depicts the lifestyle of Algerians, portraying them as second-class citizens facing segregation, ostracization, and discrimination due to their appearance and lower social status. French citizens verbally harass and physically pursue these Algerian citizens within their own country. The unequal treatment is evident through the fewer rights and privileges that Algerians have compared to the French. Their living conditions are dilapidated, overcrowded, and unclean, further marginalizing them. Daily mockery and limited opportunities contribute to their frustration, leading them to resort to violence as a last resort.
The government imposes sanctions on both the Algerians and the FLN (National Liberation Front) in order to hinder progress and prevent any uprising. While the film portrays the FLN as a group willing to use brutal tactics for freedom and self-determination, it also highlights the daily societal segregation they endure. This lack of choices and opportunities fuels their belief that they have nothing to lose by rebelling against the system in order to fight for civil rights and equality within their own country.
All individuals of any gender or age play vital roles in this revolution. Despite living regular lives with some successes, they believe there are no chances for personal or familial progress. Consequently, they turn to violence as their only means of gaining attention.Their only goal was to be heard, and they thought that violence was the only way to accomplish it.
The Algerian people and the FLN appeared as desperate individuals longing for control over their nation and the future of their children. Meanwhile, the French citizens displayed indifference towards the oppressive treatment these people endured, and the government demonstrated a relentless pursuit to eliminate all members associated with FLN, regardless of the consequences. The primary fear of the French government was losing authority, even if relinquishing control could have been justified and morally right.
During Bloody Sunday, the Irish members of the IRA were compelled to extreme measures to accomplish their objectives, yet they pledged to avoid violence in order to safeguard their cause. Throughout Bloody Sunday, the IRA appeared as an organized group consisting of intelligent individuals who simply sought a radical transformation in societal interactions and available opportunities. Individuals of all ages – men, women, and children – partook in IRA marches across Ireland’s streets with the intention of drawing attention to their struggles. The IRA believed that international awareness of their situation would be beneficial as it would shed light on the segregation, limited education, lack of opportunities, and dire living conditions experienced by the Irish population. Despite voicing their concerns and demands, the British government paid no attention while British citizens dismissed them as a joke. The IRA fought for self-determination and the restoration of civil rights since they felt they had no future in a country that was once theirs. The oppressive and unsympathetic nature of British rule fueled their determination despite not resorting to violence themselves; however, the British government aimed at quashing the IRA even though violence was not employed by them. By labeling them as “terrorists” and creating an illusion of violence against British forces, Britain sought to undermine their cause. The goal for the IRA was never violence but rather gaining attention and instigating change within what seemed like a hopeless society.The FLN and the ANC both used “terrorism” to fight against oppressive governments, as they faced similar challenges such as poor living conditions, limited education and opportunities, oppression, and segregation. Their common goal was to create a future where they had the freedom to make choices and determine their own destiny. This drive for change led them to resorting desperate measures when all hope seemed lost.
Sociologists argue that the FLN and IRA both employed rational tactics. According to Oliverio’s article, terrorists are typically young, non-American, angry, irrational, marginalized, and concentrated in urban areas (6). These characteristics accurately describe the individuals involved in these organizations as well as the FLN and IRA themselves. Many sociologists, including Oliverio, stress the importance of considering who labels a group of people and how they are labeled. The FLN sought freedom and restoration of civil rights while the IRA aimed for their voices to be heard and change to occur through non-violent means. However, both groups were labeled as “terrorists” by governments and media outlets. Regrettably, this label was often the only information known about either group.
Black, a sociologist, argues that terrorists will never strike against those they perceive as equals. In the cases of the FLN and the IRA, both groups were oppressed and lacked the same level of respect as their governments. They were aware of their unequal status. Additionally, Black asserts that a certain degree of social distance, as well as physical closeness, must exist between a terrorist group and their government. This was certainly evident in both the Algerian and Irish contexts (21).
Black examines the structure and perpetuation of societies, particularly the Algerian and the Irish. These societies had long-established structures that restricted education and economic opportunities, ultimately leading to a limitation of collective power (25).
There exist various other theories relating to “terrorists” and “terrorist” groups, but the aforementioned two appear to be the most applicable. Both the FLN and the IRA shared similar objectives. They aimed for their civil rights and the ability to determine their own destinies. They sought opportunities for their children and desired equality in all aspects of society, so that no individual or collective was deemed superior. Both the Algerian people and the IRA members lost hope and had nothing to lose but everything to gain, prompting them to initiate a revolution. Drawing attention from their respective governments as well as others worldwide would only benefit their causes and improve their circumstances. Both groups were cornered and perceived no alternative except attempting to effect radical change in any feasible way. Desperate situations necessitate desperate actions.
Although all revolutions and uprisings have similarities and underlying themes, they also possess distinct goals and strategies. The FLN and the IRA differed primarily in their approach to violence. The FLN utilized explosives and weapons to accomplish their objectives, even if it meant targeting civilians, including their own people, to convey their message and garner attention. They considered anyone who did not support the FLN as an enemy, which created a hostile environment leading to violence from both parties, as depicted in the film Battle of Algiers.
The IRA and FLN both faced discrimination and were labeled as terrorists, which hindered their progress in society. However, they employed different tactics to achieve their goals. The IRA focused on peaceful strategies such as rallies and marches to raise awareness and educate the public about their cause. They also sought membership in Parliament to demonstrate their commitment to non-violence and discouraged violent actions due to concerns about damaging their credibility.
On the other hand, the FLN was less organized compared to the IRA and sought support from anyone willing to listen. Despite this, the British government resorted to violence against the IRA, unintentionally highlighting the group’s message and turning Bloody Sunday into a symbolic victory for them. This incident revealed the British government’s inhumane treatment, refusal to address IRA demands or relinquish control.
Both groups faced segregation and belittlement as a result of being labeled terrorists, pushing them toward extreme measures they would have preferred avoiding. As a last resort, violence became necessary for the FLN while rallies and marches remained key methods for the IRA. Although initially met with more violence from their governments, these methods eventually led both groups towards liberation.
The perception of these two groups is primarily shaped by society’s classification of them as “terrorists.” Unfortunately, this categorization creates oppressive structures that breed hostility, violence, inequality, and inhumanity.Both the FLN and the IRA established similar structures as a result of oppression, lack of understanding, and a desire for control. Countries or societies that label individuals or groups as terrorists and confine them within restrictive systems often face severe consequences, including violence. This was evident in both Algeria and Ireland. Ultimately, both the FLN and the IRA achieved their goals, but not without sacrifices and unnoticed loss of lives. The cost of freedom is steep, especially when one group oppresses another. The repercussions of creating a system where people despise their government and have limited options for improving their lives may not be immediately apparent; however, eventually a rebellious faction will emerge, urgency will prevail, and violence will inevitably erupt in some form or another. Neglecting care and understanding will only foster more violence. From my personal perspective, these films emphasize the vital importance of communication regardless of one’s identity or location.
