How do you know he was a good person? What makes one a good person? Is there a general definition or does it all depend which side are you on? Does greater good justify potential killing of people who just happened to be on the wrong place at the wrong time? Is it greater good if he was most likely just opening doors to hell? After all, can you defend human rights in chaos?
Interesting questions and not ones that can be easily answered. All of those questons are very subjective. A good person would also be a bad person depending on who was asked.
What makes a good person is also up for debate as people have different ideas of what makes a person good.
As for whether he was opening the gates to hell, who's to say what would have happened if the plan had gone as it was supposed to. Human society is always in a cycle of change, destruction and rebuilding. Regardless of that, people carry on, they survive. That's how it is.
Also, from what I read... was he really defending human rights, or was he just a pawn in political games? The Gunpowder plot was about killing current king and replacing him with his daughter, thus making Catholics be on top again.
History books are never a reliable source. As it has been shown, the winners can rewrite or change history to suit them. The only way to know for sure is to read books from all sides of the argument to form opinions on what happened.
True, he did want to take out the king, but for him and his fellow Catholics, it seemed the right thing to do. It's a complicated religious and political background that leads to the gunpowder plot. England had been Catholic until Henry VIII invented Protestantism. When that happened, Catholics were forced to convert or face death. So, they thought that putting a Catholic in charge would help them get fairer treatment. However, that might also have resulted in the unfair treatment of Protestant followers. Either way, one side was going to be treated badly by the other regardless of what happened.
I'm sorry about all these questions, it's just I never see anyone ask them. I don't think today's generations even care who Guy Fawkes really was or what he did, all they see is opportunity to play a rebel while wearing a cool mask. Kinda like Che Guevara on those red shirts.
I don't think people are as ignorant as the media likes to show, but I think there is a disconnect between the history of the events and the modern idea of it.
For bonfire night, we burn a model of Guy Fawkes on a bonfire and set off fireworks to celebrate him failing the plot. . And that very celebration probably started as a piece of propoganda to turn people against Fawkes and deter them from trying to do another gunpowder plot. But these days, this is just done for fun and there is nothign serious meant by it.
Then there's V for Vendetta which turns Guy Fawkes into an heroic figure representing stanting up to the unfair estabishment. It's Fawkes trting to blow up Parliament that modern people latch on to, it's that he stands for an idea of fighting against a bigger power.
)
