Protests Vs. Revolutions [graphic image warning]

Some are calling the mass protests in Egypt a "Revolution." They are incorrect. Revolutions do not take place in city squares crowded with protestors. In a real revolution, such a gathering would quickly become a charnel house. Here are some photos:



Above is a mass protest in Egypt.


Below are images from revolutions. You may be able to discern the difference. Revolutions are not peaceful. They are deadly. Fighting is not done by unarmed throngs of people in a public square. It is done by small groups away from public areas. Those groups often die.


Phillipines


Columbia


Iraq

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Are we bound to the past so much that we cannot change the definition of a word and the method in which we liberate ourselves?

of a word like "Revolution." It has far too long a history. Revolutions are violent, by definition. Using the word to define relatively peaceful activism is simply covering up the reality of revolutions. Sometimes revolutions are necessary, but they are always violent and deadly. Romanticizing the word does not change that in any way.

The word is used too frequently by people who know nothing about what is involved in a revolution. That romanticized definition is the epitome of the "let's you and him fight" logic error.

Revolution simply means a regime change. A coup d'etat is also a revolution and "bloodless" coups have happened a lot in the past. Unless you're going to argue semantics and say that ONLY violent uprisings can be considered "revolutions".

And that meaning is derived from the context, as well as the definition. In many cases, context defines the meaning.

Language is like a living thing. New words are born and some words die by falling out of common use, becoming archaic. Most of us can't even understand the early forms of English.

Business has used the word "revolution" in ad campaigns. There have been revolutions in thinking, art, science, philosophy, technology and industry.

However, your illustration of concern and the cautioning is worthy of consideration and discussion. Thanks.

What prevents you from understanding this?

It is not a revolution. It is a coup d'etat, and is typically done by the existing military of a nation. Name for me a revolution that was not violent, please.

Of course there are violent protests, but they're not revolutions. They are violent protests.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The argument is, at best, circular. You equate revolution with violence and then conclude that revolutions must be violent, so if it's not violent, then it must not be a revolution, it's a coup d'etat or a non-violent protest or something else, but not a revolution, revolutions are by definition violent.

And revolution's meaning is a regime change, not VIOLENT regime change. It CAN be violent, but not necessarily.

Either way though, I do agree it's not a step to be taken lightly. The grievences must be severe to undertake this step because it's ALWAYS subject to spiraling INTO violence.

A disagreement about what words mean.

But we don't disagree, you and I. Revolution is certainly not a step to be taken lightly, or without forethought.

And for all I know, nomenclature and usage might be the better term. :) I just use semantics whenever it appears that someone is making up their own meanings or ADDING a meaning to a word.

the word has also been used for things like the Scientific REVOLUTION and the Industrial REVOLUTION.

There is a great debate among historians, but emerging consensus is that it does NOT necessarily include all out violence.

<------------ Speaking as a practicing historian actually. Now back to work with me.

Simply pointing out that the word IS being used with different meanings.

Edit: to be clear, I agree, revolutions are not necessarily more or less violent than other changes of government. But the usage which assumes they are violent overthrows is common, even favored in the state propaganda organs.

due to that connection, between propaganda and popular use.

But in academic use it is a little more ahem... refined.

And she spends a good deal of time on the subject. Not that I claim to understand all she is saying, I put that on the shelf for ones that need another go.

to claim that there has been no loss of life in Egypt is a lie.

The exact number of dead are not known at this time but Feb. 2nd was a night of violence perpetrated by pro-Mubarak thugs against unarmed demonstrators.

Revolution literally means a "turning."

Political revolutions mean overturning power in a fairly rapid time frame outside of constitutional/governmental structures. that's it.

A coup d'état is generally viewed as an overthrow via the military apparatus in a nation state.

and is in fact, ongoing, if you consider partition and the consequences thereof as being born of the independence movement.

so you might want to take that off your list.


edit to add: there's good information in your post, which could make a good argument; too bad you had to surround it with insults.

Both can be violent or peaceful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution



demonstrations, loss of loyalty of the whole of the military, exile, some fighting in the streets— voilá, revolution. Following the same template, actually.

Remember, this little drama isn't over. Maybe you'll get the death counts you seem to be hoping for...

Your pictures of the Phillipino bodies, by the by, doesn't imply anything more than some roving death squads, could be that many Egyptians died when the Camel Cavalry charged, for all we know... or there could've been body counts from the police in any given year that high, on any given dune. Hell, there may be comparable piles of US sanctioned rendition victims.

And, what Iraqi revolution are you referring to? I'm not aware of any vaguely recent Iraqi revolutions... invasions and ensuing bloodbaths, sure... but that also isn't a revolution (because there wasn't a regime change).

Are you sure you weren't just looking for an excuse to skooge people out with snuff pics?

Often they are violent. Probably close to 100% so in the past. However and the reasons why can be argued, some regime changes have been accomplished relatively nonviolently. Especially lately. In the last 15 to 20 years. For that matter even the Bolshevik revolution was relatively non-violent, so it's even happened in the more distant past.

The LESS violent revolutions usually are accompanied AND oftimes BEGUN with the mass protests in the streets. Those street protests show just how unpopular the current regime actually is. I think that that's the main reason that revolutions can be accomplished (relatively) non-violently. Reason 1A would be the increasing use of nontraditional news sources to get the news out.

...but the civil war that followed it killed what, a half million people?

led and inspired civil war that followed killed a lot of folks. But the original post talked about revolutions being ALWAYS violent and THAT point was what I was disputing.

even if those people were unfairly privileged in the first place, a violent reaction is to be expected, don't you think?

Which is probably a big part of why revolutions are usually associated with violence.

disenfranchised realize that they have all the guns, money, communications structure and authority and that they don't really want to relinquish their power.

it is necessary to nullify that power somehow. either by more force or by effective non-violence. I don't think most people really believe in non-violence when the gun is pointed at themselves.

is to be expected in a regime change, ESPECIALLY an regime change FROM an autocratic regime. And yes it helps when the military is on your side or at least neutral. As it was during the October revolution in 1917 Russia. But the Red/White civil war in Russia after the Bolsheviks took over was actually fought MOSTLY by the armies of the capitalist powers of that time against Trotsky's infant Red Army. There were some of the Russian nobility involved and some of the Russian people involved, but they were mostly figureheads for the capitalist powers.

As I said in a post above, although a revolution doesn't HAVE to be violent, it shouldn't be undertaken lightly because the potential is ALWAYS there for it to BECOME violent. The other side of it is that just how authoritarian does a regime have to become before revolution, violent or not, is a realistic possibility? I submit it's got to be pretty damn bad because it doesn't have any chance of succeeding unless the MASSES of the people think it's a good idea. To paraphrase Kristofferson revolution IS just anonther word for nothing left to lose.

Revolution is a radical change of government. The level of violence that occurs in the process varies widely from sporadic petty crime to full-scale civil war.

Thanks for your reply.

which supplies many examples to disprove your claim.

in addition, if you look up definitions of "coup détat" and "revolution" you will see that your claim is not supported by historians.

but, of course, opinions are like... as the saying goes. however, when facts disprove you, it doesn't make sense to continue to claim your opinion is valid.

Well not quite, including Iraq was rather stupid.

They are nice things to have but they are not of much use when someone is shooting at you.

The whole "let's you and him fight" thing is very popular on Internet political forums. People who would never participate in an actual revolution often call for revolution. It's very frustrating and alarming to me.

Isn't a revolution more about the goal that a group is trying to achieve rather than how many people get killed in the process and where the killings occur? A revolution may begin with mass protests, but a revolution's intent is to take down a ruling government. A protest often involves a certain segment of the population with a grievance but stops short of calling for the overthrow of the government. Protests want the government to use its power to correct the grievance. The civil rights protests in America was not to take down the government, but instead force it to change in some aspects.
The Egyptian people are not looking for certain concessions from the government. They mean to tear the whole regime down and the movement has broad and growing public support. This isn't just minors or students or liberals or minorities. This is a popular uprising that represents young to old, uneducated to educated, atheist and religious.

Over a hundred Egyptians have died violently at the hands of Mubarak's forces already and this movement is not even two weeks old. Do these killings have to be in the mud of the countryside as opposed to the dust of a city to be considered an act of revolution? I'm sure there are scenes just as gruesome as the pictures you decided to post. But these pictures do not strengthen your point.


By the way, what's with this quote? "Be careful what you wish for. You may get it." Who is that addressed to and what do you mean by that?

"Over a hundred Egyptians have died violently at the hands of Mubarak's forces already and this movement is not even two weeks old."

Ok. How many members of the power structure have been killed? What changes have occurred? (REAL changes - Mubarak's appointment of 'Mr. Torture' as his VP seems to be going from bad to worse and certainly not a sign that these protests are accomplishing their goal. The mere fact that Mubarak is able to appoint *anyone* to *anything* is testament to the reality that this is nothing more than a show. If it were a 'revolution' Mubarak would be running for his life.)

I see the Egyptian government allowing the protesters to 'cry themselves out'. Eventually they will lose steam. They will need to go back to work. The world will lose interest and soon Egypt will be out of the news cycle. The agitators will then be rounded up and tortured before they are killed. No one will notice and nothing will have changed in any substantial way.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. Time will tell.

particular demonstration does not immediately succeed in its goal, the movement will strengthen and gain sympathy and support from abroad, imo. I believe the American Revolution had some protests and false starts early on that are considered part of the revolution. Those protests while not successful in changing the policies of the British to the colonists satisfaction did succeed in terms of rallying popular support for the movement. After all, the American Revolution was more than The Revolutionary War. The seeds were sown.
How long can the rulers of Egypt continue to defy the will of the people and mounting pressure from abroad? They're old men. Can they count on the next generation to continue the oppression? How long can the U.S. back up a regime (with or without Mubarak) that clearly abuses its own people. You can see how careful this administration is when speaking on the subject. The World understands the role we play in this. At some point the damage we take from propping these guys up will not be worth taking. I don't think this movement in Egypt is going away. I see it only getting stronger and eventually succeeding. Like you said, time will tell.

and reports of torture are being taken with the utmost seriousness by HRW an Amnesty.

Fail.

Some people actually WOULD rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

and our government to get them to do that. :)

I think there can be some discussion of the meaning of the word 'revolution' and what it must or might entail, but in any case, peaceful protest and actually getting real change to happen are very different things. Certainly, most revolutions are violent, and even the Indian independence from Britain (often touted as a shining example of the power of non-violence) was not completely bloodless.

Overthrowing a government is a difficult thing. In the case of Egypt, it appears that the Egyptian military is sympathetic to some degree with the protesters, and that has limited the violence considerably. It helps to have an army on your side.

However, the situation could change very quickly. I hope it does not. This situation is just beginning. How it will end is still unknown and very uncertain. Thanks for understanding what I was saying.

(I'm a poet and didn't know it!)

So, of course the military is 'tolerating' the protests against Mubarak - they're probably having a good laugh over it. But, that's also central to why this isn't a 'revolution' and there will be no substantial change.

for violence for change may not know wtf they are talking about.

It seems like many people are calling for the "people" to rise up and overthrow the government. In most cases, that call comes from people who want other people to do it, while they watch from safety. It is an attitude I deplore. It is the "let's you and him fight" attitude that is pervasive on both edges of the political spectrum.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't see 'massacre us until you get bored and leave' as a very effective tactic.

Revolutions occur in fits and spurts.

What has begun in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East is indeed a real revolution, the beginning of one.

I find it sad that some here speak of the "shame of the US co-opting it".

Indeed, I hope fervently that this plants a seed in the minds of young people who see that the opportunities in their lives are being erased through greed and corruption in a system designed to keep the lower groups in poverty while maintaining the status quo. It is as true in the US as it is in the Middle East, but with a differently dressed-up stage.

Oh well.

Firstly, in response to the panic you would instill in the face of the use of the word "revolution," by posting your sn^ff pics. I offer a spot of counter-warning: be careful what you are too timid to wish for, because you will never get it.

Next— a definition of revolution: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution)
"2
a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>
e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>"

—Your sn^ff pics are not required.

As to the implications of the juxtaposition of your title with your sn^ff pics (i.e. "what you are trying to pull"), the attempt to browbeat those who would struggle for the change of a revolution into, instead, merely turning to a "demonstration" (which carries connotations of a request made of one's rulers, rather than the connotations of a demand which are carried with the word revolution) shows your post to be a scare tactic which, implicitly, says that Egyptians, and by association anyone else who might read your post, should be afraid to do more than ask nicely (via protest) of their governments... or else, in place of the "protests" of your title they will get the "vs." ... at which point the equivalency your post tries to create between demanding change (as defined above) and horrific death (your sn^ff pics) is then left for the minds of your readers to "swap" for themselves.

In other words, your post amounts to a pictorial (and sub-conscious) creation of an association between change (as defined above) and horrific death. As an alternative to an awful death, your title suggests "peaceful protests" ... or asking nicely.

I hope no one is sub-consciously swayed by your message of "cowardice to power"...

Brilliant analysis.

Even if the OP is unaware of what he was doing, your explication is right on the money.

And I'd like to think others will become sick of it too... especially as more and more people, globally, have less and less to lose. (Well, unless everyone starts counting the probably false promises of the bosses and the politicians...)

and raise you one :kick:
What would the snuffy picture book from the BushCo war for profit look like compared to that?
What would the snuffy picture book from the BushCo war for profit look like compared to the stack of bodies Sadam made?
What would it look like if the USA investigated BushCo for it?

I won't venture to guess what it would look like if the USA investigated BushCo for the many Halliburton/KBR/Blackwater/etc. "improprieties" as "vigorously" as the State Department most likely called on all these corpse-pics to be investigated.

I have a modicum of talent for science fiction... but picturing what it would be like if the USA investigated the mass murders that its client states carry out in order to maintain power (not to mention under the secret terms involved in the rendition business)... it would probably have to sound like some sort of cartoonish Space Opera in order to even approximate the complexion of US and US Client-State involvements...

What kind of an asshole am I gonna look like if my predictions of US complexion abroad involves wookies and the Greedo-species?... :+

And claiming Sadam as an example of 'revolution' fails the fact test.

Well said.

Fear mongering from a lover of the status quo, an endorsement of cowardice. We should not challenge our masters because they are so mean.

Nobody wants any of that, if only they would abdicate, but what ruling class has ever done that? So they force this upon us, damn them.

Are you against the violent and failed Hungarian Revolution?
How about the peaceful one?
Or the peaceful revolutions in Czechoslovakia, and East Germany?

Just trying to make a proper judgment of where your opinion lies on that subject.

Please share.