Comment by csomar
13 years ago
If you want results, riot in the streets. Civil disobeience. Historical actions and movements that achieve some measure of peace.
Do you have any backups for that? I mean, any historical proof that rioting will make change?
You know, Tunisia went on a relatively peaceful revolution and now we have less freedom and more problems/unemployment. It's even worse for countries where the revolution is violent.
Having lived that experience, I'll be against rioting/civil disobedience any time and for any cause.
Want to make change? Educate people. nothing else.
As another example, the U.S. is actually on its second government, not its first.
After the American Revolution we setup a government under the "Articles of Confederation". To put it bluntly, this new government sucked and was useless.
A convention was held to suggest improvements for the Articles; they decided instead to do it over again and propose a government that could actually stand the test of time.
The framers of this new Constitution then had to convince the rest of the country to adopt this different form of government. In the process of this debate and feedback it was decided to further specify Amendments that became known as the Bill of Rights to satisfy some reluctant states.
All of this happened peacefully.
The United States of America peacefully transitioned to its second form of government on March 4, 1789.
It hasn't been all peaceful, all the time, after ratification, but it should be in my opinion. We've managed to achieve so much as a nation with non-violent resistance and protest, there's no reason not to do that here to push for transparency.
Some political scientists would say we're actually on our third or fourth.
The third U.S. republic was created after the Civil War, with the passage of Constitutional amendments that made the Federal government unambiguously superior in power to the governments of the states.
The fourth U.S. republic was created during the Progressive Era, with the creation of the "regulatory state" in which significant authority over economic matters was delegated from Congress and the courts to regulatory agencies in the Executive Branch. This system evolved gradually over the years (with the biggest changes coming through Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society) into the system we live in today.
The changes wrought by the Civil War were unfortunately quite violent, but all the other changes have been peaceful, as you note. Our ability to reinvent our democracy in this fashion is a big part of why the Constitution has survived so long -- we can change how we govern ourselves in big ways without having to tear it up and start anew.
Ain't going to happen, because PRISM simply doesn't make the lives of 99+% people significantly worse. People riot when there's high unemployment, because that has a big impact on their daily lives. We don't have enough info about PRISM to correctly evaluate what impact does it have on our lives.
First you say this:
Do you have any backups for that? I mean, any historical proof that rioting will make change?
Then you say this:
Want to make change? Educate people. nothing else.
Your teachers must have omitted teaching you about the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War protests. And those are only two examples where protesting and rioting actually made a huge difference.
The Civil Rights movement used peace tactics, non-violence and Ghandian ethics. The Vietnam war protests were largely peaceful, except when e.g. government soldiers attacked college students at Kent State. @csomar is correct that changing peoples minds and following nonviolent tactics can effect change-- although not always matching everyone's expectations
The Vietnam war protests were largely peaceful, except when e.g. government soldiers attacked college students at Kent State.
With some significant exceptions, like the Weather Underground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground).
Indeed much of the violence in Vietnam war protests turns out to have been instigated by FBI agent provocateurs. Most of the violence of the era was perpetrated by the forces against change.
much of the violence in Vietnam war protests turns out to have been instigated by FBI agent provocateurs.
Oddly like many — if not most — of the "terror plots" that have been "stopped" over the past however many years, that...
Revolution in France in 1789. We don't learn history in school for nothing I hope.
While I agree, these are merely the exceptions. Sure, things can go great and well (after a long period of time). However, the following needs to be taken into account
1. The fatalities and economic losses
2. The high possibility that the power goes to the wrong hand.
3. The good possibility that the power doesn't change hands and we are stuck with even less freedom.
4. Revolutions make the country very vulnerable which is an opportunity for enemies.
Small and secure changes are better in my opinion. Revolutions have a high risk of going wrong.
If you asked me 3 years later, you'll get a different response. Having lived through this so-called Arab spring, I have now a very conservative view for revolution.
If you've got a really bad dictator, or an entrenched feudal system, then a revolution is probably worth it. If not, you'll probably end up with a dictator, and there's a chance they won't be so benevolent.
There's genuine problems with US Democracy. The lack of a good voting system (preferential, or better still - acceptance voting) means a stable two-party system.
Statistically, protest actions can be beneficial, as long as they don't go too far. No politician wants angry people on the streets. Media tends to cover it. It's a good way for a minority of people to have a huge impact (for better, or worse, depending on whether you support what the protesters want).
The problem is, a lot of protests are pretty much zero sum movements. They are things which half the people want, and half the people don't want (environmental protection, gun rights, gay marriage). A protest for something which would be popular, but most people don't really think about could be more useful.
Wasn't that the one that introduced Robespierre and the Reign of Terror, and then later another despot? Sure, Napoleon was talented and introduced the civil code, but it was still another example of the guy with the biggest stick making the rules.
They were uneducated people who went through a system that only valued rich and well connected people. What did you expect?
Take lessons from the past, and APPLY them to your context.
I'm not saying that rioting and killing Obama is the solution. I'm saying that using the government's tools (petitioning) against them is ridiculous. You have to show people you're angry, you have to show your entire country you're angry and you want things to change, laws to change, the system to change. You have to take a real stand.
EDIT : As I mentioned in some other comment. The revolution brought us Democracy, which later spread across all Europe, and brought us the beautiful Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which is used everywhere in the world as standards (not always respected though). I believe the revolution was the most beautiful part of France history. Napoleon was our anger which was still resonating years after the Monarchy. We're calm people now.
1 reply →
In the short term, maybe. But in the long term, it was a catalyst that forced reforms (and further upheavals) across the whole continent; it was a large stick to carry at each negotiating table for freedoms, human rights and so on.
In the same way, the Russian Revolution eventually generated Stalinism and brought suffering to the Soviet block, but it was a tremendous inspiration (and often brought material help) to workers' rights movements in many other countries, de facto creating the "social Europe" we currently enjoy (or used to).
EDIT: it's also funny to see these comments on American websites. Hello, your country was built by an armed revolution that was as nationalistic in practice as it was universalistic in inspiration. As certain modern philosophers from the Five Boroughs used to say, "you gotta fight for your right to party" :)
6 replies →
And a few years later they made Napoleon an emperor and he went on a spree of military conquest across the whole of Europe. Great example.
It could be argued that the French Revolution effectively ended its cycle in 1870 with the Third Republic, after two more upheavals (1830, 1848), two emperors and a few less powerful kings. The country ended up a lot better than it was at the beginning, and grew tremendously on almost all counts.
Also, it was one of the most interesting periods for arts and litterature ever to occur. Great example indeed
After a brief period of show trials and bloodletting.
That made change.
Not necessarily the DESIRED change, but it certainly changed things!
That brought Democracy. Which is closer to what people wanted at that time : A country ruled by the people.
Let's not forget that it brought us something even more beautiful : The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Ma...
3 replies →
Pretty much every place that ever one it's independence did so through violence or the threat of violence (yes, India very much included).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unre...
Boston Tea Party?