Taking into consideration the definition we have of what a revolution is, do you consider the Arab Spring, the 1989 "Revolutions", and the guerilla movements in Latin America to be revolutions? Using the criteria from the Week 10 video, and the other material we've discussed, tell me why or why not. If some are and others aren't, what makes them different?
Please use SPECIFIC EXAMPLES to back up your arguments from the sources, both readings and videos.
Please use SPECIFIC EXAMPLES to back up your arguments from the sources, both readings and videos.
When it comes to the Arab Spring events that happened in the Middle East and Northern Africa, I would not consider them to be revolutions. I think they would be better considered as uprisings because they lacked certain important aspects of a revolution. First of all, many of these countries did not have a specific leader leading the majority of the people. Although there was much unrest among the majority of the people, there was no clear leader like the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Another common criteria for a revolution would be that there was a sudden change that occurred during the revolutionary period. In many of these countries, the change was not sudden, but was a buildup of tension over a period of months and even with the aid of other countries like in Syria, change did not come about for a very long time and Syria is still faced with unrest now.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to agree with Kayla when I say that I think of the Arab Springs as an uprising more than a revolution because it lacked the necessary leadership that defines a revolution. The events of Arab Springs were largely driven by students, giving it a definite ideological element, but they lacked a cohesive goal that would lead to a definite endpoint in the "revolution".
ReplyDeleteAs for the guerilla movements in Latin America, I also have a hard time defining them as revolutions. The violence that sprouted up in Latin America also had some ideological backing, but when I look at the events that happened, I just see chaos. The most organized I can think of Latin America being is in Nicaragua with the FSLN, but they were the exception rather than the rule.
With both cases, I hesitate to use the word revolution by its purest definition. Perhaps, a more fitting word needs to be made that encompasses some of the ideas of revolution without the hardline qualifications.
Meghann
I personally wouldn't call the Arab Spring an uprising but rather a failed revolution however I do believe that guerilla movement to be revolutions. In the case of the Arab spring much like our reading stated there was a match that set off an explosion. The Arab people had always lived in fear but one person's actions set a huge change to the way of life. The change was sudden and massive with ideas of overthrowing the dictatorships in charge. This was the start to a promising revolution however why I deem it a failure is that as previous people stated there was no leadership and still no end vision. After managing some success there was not a way that the entire diverse revolution could stay together. On the other hand the guerilla movements in Latin America did mange to change the status of colonial powers remaining in charge instead it put together governments led by the indigenous people the guerilla movement had support of the masses and the changes can bee seen today. Cuba would probably be a good example seeing as their revolution was mostly successful. It also fundamentally into communist like state. Showing the characteristics of revolutions as defined in class.
ReplyDeleteAaron
Aaron Wang
DeleteWhen looking at the Arab Spring I would not classify it as a revolution. There wasn’t widespread discontent thru ought the population. The youth were the ones that were unhappy with the government and they chose to rise up. I agree with both Meghann and Kayla in the fact that this should be qualified as more or an uprising and not a revolution. There wasn’t a leader who was coordinating everything. The youth started this on their own and they all played a part in it.
DeleteWhen it comes to the guerilla movements in Latin America I also do not believe they can be classified as revolutions. Most of them did not have drastic change. They had issues that had been building up that created chaos when they were released. Some of them had organizations like the FSLN, but these organizations weren’t necessarily leaders. In some cases the people were forced to fight in the army whether they wanted to or not. In El Salvador they were considered a success, but nothing really changed for the people. Their endpoint was never met, even though they call themselves successful.
When looking at the Arab Spring I would not classify it as a revolution. There wasn’t widespread discontent thru ought the population. The youth were the ones that were unhappy with the government and they chose to rise up. I agree with both Meghann and Kayla in the fact that this should be qualified as more or an uprising and not a revolution. There wasn’t a leader who was coordinating everything. The youth started this on their own and they all played a part in it.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the guerilla movements in Latin America I also do not believe they can be classified as revolutions. Most of them did not have drastic change. They had issues that had been building up that created chaos when they were released. Some of them had organizations like the FSLN, but these organizations weren’t necessarily leaders. In some cases the people were forced to fight in the army whether they wanted to or not. In El Salvador they were considered a success, but nothing really changed for the people. Their endpoint was never met, even though they call themselves successful.
I think the Arab Spring shows that our class definition of a revolution is flawed. I do believe that many of the countries involved in the Arab Spring underwent revolutions, just not according to our definition. A perfect example is Egypt. Through there was no centralized leadership, the people as a whole spoke out and sparked immediate change. Egypt's government changed to a democracy (though it was short lived) and it is currently some version of a representative government. In our digital age, revolutions do not necessarily require a centralized leadership anymore. Social Media allows groups of people to organize and enact change as a whole. Eventually a leadership needs to develop, but is not initially required. Also, it is difficult to really define any of the Arab Spring revolts as "revolutions" yet because many of them are either still going on or are still being tested.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Arab Spring, the 1989 "Revolutions" and the guerrilla movements were all popular uprisings, I do not consider them all to be true revolutions.
ReplyDelete1. First I would like to begin with those that occurred in Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Although all three of these countries were subject to successful leftist coup of the authoritarian regimes that were previously present, they aren't true revolutions because they lacked an endpoint and universal satisfaction among the newly implemented leaders. In El Salvador for example, they FSLN was seen as the primary governing and military force in revolt, and although they were successful in gaining power, they weren't universally supported among revolutionaries and the conditions in El Salvador for the most part, conditions remained the same and even got worse in certain areas. I tend to see it as a failed revolution or uprising.
2.Most of the Arab spring revolutions were also not true revolutions for several reasons. Like in El Salvador, the Egyptian Revolution had a drastic and sudden change but still to date, it lacked a clear endpoint resulting in improving the conditions and there was a huge disparity among the revolutionary leaders, with both the military and Muslim Brotherhood lacked widespread support from the Egyptian people. Although Egypt implemented democratic alternatives to the status quo in the form of free elections, the elected leader, Mohammed Morsi was ousted within a year of gaining power by the same people who overthrew Mubarak.
3.I believe the 1989 revolutions or "Fall or Communism" were successful revolutions because they essentially were effective overthrowing the status quo, implementing a popular alternative to it and for the most part, and today, most of the countries are relatively more stable than they were in 1989. Russia (USSR) for example, was in horrible shape in the late 1980s, but after the successful overthrow of the communist government, there was much greater satisfaction among its citizens in the 1990s and 2000s and for the most part, much progress was made.
M.Ishkhn
Personally, I would not consider the situations in the Arab Springs to be revolutions, but rather uprisings. In the video, a revolution was described to be something that is a drastic change. However, the Arab Spring events happened in rather slow increments rather than something very drastic. For example, in Egypt, even after Mubarak resigned, the Army still held power and protests still occurred. Also, the events leading up to it did not seem to be rather drastic, and were in increments. For example, there was the Day of Revolt on January 25th and a Battle of the Camel on February 2nd. For these reasons, I would not consider the events in the Arab Springs to be exactly revolutionary.
ReplyDeleteMina Kim
Between the Arab Spring movement, the 1989 revolutions, and the Latin American Uprising, I would claim that the '89 revolutions best fit the definition of a revolution. The '89 revolutions featured a drastic shift in government for the countries involved, which also ushered in sweeping social change. In addition, we have the benefit of time in examining the '89 revolutions, as the long term effects of the revolution can be better seen. This is the reason why it is simply too early to give an effective judgement as to whether or not the Arab Spring movement is a real revolution. It is impossible to tell whether or not any real political or social change will be made at this point, though of all the "revolutions" in the arab world, Tunisa's would come closest to the definition. As for the uprisings in Latin America, it would be hard to classify those as true revolutions due to their lack of social change. None of the movements there really sought to improve life for a certain group of people, rather, their focus was more based in advancing the cause of the people leading the uprising for personal gains. All in all it is hard to clearly define what a revolution is as no two revolutions are exactly the same. That being said, if neither massive social or political changes are taking place, then it would be hard to classify a movement as being a revolution.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel as though the word “revolution” is a powerful term that has been thrown around too much to determine its true meaning anymore. Many of the times the word is used it is for propaganda purposes. Going off of our definition though, I agree with Ben in the above comment in saying that the ’89 revolutions were the most revolutionary. I hesitate to label the Arab Spring as a revolution because it is so recent. It is not outrageous to think that given the unstable conditions of those involved in the Arab Spring could result in those nations slipping back into oppressive regimes. Furthermore places such as Syria still are in conflict and so as far as we know next week the situation could be labelled as “The Syrian Revolt.” I will say though that the Arab Spring has shown the most drastic change in that it has gone from oppressive dictatorships to (hopefully) stable democracies. The ’89 revolutions however, fit the definition nicely. The fall of communism was definitely swift, as seemingly instantly legislation was passed to end the USSR. The ’89 revolutions may be found as a weak example depending on how you define the “ideas” section of our definition. If the definition requires these ideas to be new or original, then this may not fit as well as I believe. However this is possibly the only weakness. This brings me back to my original point: “revolution” is almost too powerful of a word for our own good.
ReplyDeleteI think that as long as we are following our class definition of revolution, the Arab Spring would not be considered a revolution and the guerrilla movements in Latin America could slightly be considered a revolution. But I personally think that they are, especially to the people in those countries, who went out everyday and protested and voiced their discontent, and who watched as people were arrested and shot. In Egypt, Mubarak was overthrown and democracy was present in Egypt, if only for a short period of time. So, there was change and the people did manage to make a difference in the government. In Egypt there may not have been a leader like in Cuba with Che and Fidel, but social media played a huge role in terms of leadership. With social media and technology everyone could be considered a leader if they had the correct platform and chose the correct words. I think that while revolution may have a dictionary definition, I think it means different things to different people and I can't imagine that the people who participated in the Arab Spring or the guerrilla movements didn't feel like they were a part of a revolution.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the definition of revolution that was presented to us, I would say that all of these movements were in fact revolutions. For example, in Latin America, specifically Nicaragua, the Somoza family ran the country with a strong military backing and U.S. aid. Through this dictatorship, the people became oppressed and wanted to “offer an alternative to the status quo”. This then led to the FSLN overthrowing the dictator, which qualifies as strong leadership with a sudden change. This revolution was widespread. As seen in the video of the soldiers’ testimony, this revolution reached kids of all ages. The men, who were only boys of about 14 and 16 at the time of the revolution, participated because they believed in the cause and saw violent action as the only way to solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteTunisia, in my opinion, was a revolution. Of all of the Arab Spring, Tunisia is perhaps the most successful- in the fact that they achieved a clear change, one that completely changed the government. This revolution was most popular among union members, then students, and eventually lawyers and teachers. It was in Tunisia that the Arab Spring started which then led to the other revolutions in the area, starting in Egypt and following to Libya, Syria, and Yemen.
Alexis Lilly
I agree with Rueger that the Arab Spring doesn't neatly fit our definition, but I don't believe that invalidates them as revolutions. Perhaps the issue is more of emphasis? How much emphasis should leadership, which I've noticed is a big issue in these posts, have compared to change and mass participation? These events have had perhaps more mass participation than any other in history, and the coordination at a grassroots level is truly remarkable and a symbol of our times. Does that not count more in terms of something being definitively revolutionary, than a clear, top level leadership? It seems that the change these events are bringing forth could be a determining factor and maybe time will tell. In both Egypt and Tunisia, the goal was crystal clear, remove the dictator and bring back a sense of identity and dignity to the nation's people, and to that end the goals were achieved. I just don't see why a poster child leader would add legitimacy to an impressive undertaking.
ReplyDeleteI would consider Nicaragua and Tunisia to be the countries that went through a revolution. The other countries involved with the Arab Spring, Latin America, and the 1989 “Revolutions” were only uprisings because they did not achieve in overthrowing their government and not reaching the endpoint they had hoped for. Nicaragua had been run by the Somoza family for 42 years until 1979, when different ideas were circulating to change the status quo. The party that opposed the Somoza’s ideas was the Sandinistas, who had communist-like features. Due to widespread dissatisfaction the party increased in size of popular participation during the 1970’s and would eventually form the FSLN, who achieved in overthrowing Somoza Debayle. The Sandinistas were able to organize political action and would form the Junta of National Reconstruction that was devoted to literacy and social reforms. The FSLN remained in control until 1990, but are still an active political party. Tunisia went through a revolution due to the fact that it meets all the criteria for one. In the immediate aftermath of Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-inflicted death, there was increased unrest and dissatisfaction with more and more organizations joining the protests and demonstrations. There was popular participation and the same ideas circulating in order to change the status quo when 40,000 people came together and demanded complete change from a presidential style of government to a parliament one. A sudden change in government happened when the former Minister of the Interior was arrested along with all 24 of the regional governors being replaced. In terms of leadership, a new government was formed with Fouad Mebazaa, the speaker of parliament, holding presidential responsibilities and organizing an election within 60 days. The endpoint was going from an autocratic government to a democratic one.
ReplyDelete