Freedom Fighter or Terrorist? How Labels Rewrite History

The same person. The same actions. Two completely different words.

This is one of the oldest and most revealing tricks in media framing — and once you see it, you can't unsee it.

The Label Game

Take Nelson Mandela. For decades, he was officially classified as a terrorist by the US government. His name didn't come off the US terrorism watch list until 2008. The South African apartheid government called the ANC a terrorist organisation. Today, Mandela is celebrated globally as a freedom fighter and one of the greatest moral leaders of the 20th century.

Or consider George Washington. To the British Crown in 1776, he was a rebel and traitor leading an illegal insurrection. To Americans, he's the Father of the Nation.

Same man. Same actions. Completely different label.

Why the Label Matters

The word isn't just a description — it's a moral pre-judgement. It tells you how to feel before you've even read the story.

• "Freedom fighter" signals: legitimate grievance, heroic sacrifice, righteous cause
• "Terrorist" signals: illegitimate, dangerous, morally disqualified
• "Rebel" or "militant" sits in between — ambiguous enough to avoid commitment

News outlets make this choice constantly. And it usually tracks with political alignment, not with the actions themselves.

Three Historical Comparisons Worth Knowing

1. The Afghan Mujahideen (1980s)

During the Soviet-Afghan War, these fighters were "freedom fighters" in US and Western media — heroes battling communist expansion. Ronald Reagan called them "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." Many of the same individuals and networks later became the Taliban and al-Qaeda — relabelled as "terrorists" after 2001.

2. The IRA in Northern Ireland

Irish Republican Army members were consistently "terrorists" in British media, "freedom fighters" in much of Irish-American media, and "paramilitaries" in outlets trying to stay neutral. The exact same bombings described with three different moral weights.

3. Hamas

Designated a terrorist organisation by the US, EU, and Israel. Not designated as such by Russia, China, Norway, and many others. Each outlet follows its government's designation — which means the same organisation is simultaneously a terrorist group and a political movement depending on which newspaper you're reading.

What This Tells Us

The label is political, not factual. That doesn't mean the underlying actions are neutral — violence is violence, and reasonable people disagree on when it's justified. But the word chosen by a news outlet reveals more about who they're aligned with than about the people they're describing.

Your Critical Lens

Next time you read about an armed group, ask:

• What word does this outlet use? What word does a different outlet use?
• When did that label appear in the coverage? Did it change over time?
• Who benefits from this particular framing?

The answers tell you something important — not just about the group, but about the outlet itself.

History doesn't change the facts. But it changes the label — and that changes everything.

---

This is part of Albis's ongoing media literacy series. We publish educational content every Wednesday and Saturday to help you read the news more critically.