Open Thread


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. benson,

    If you believe Obama bombed tonight than I have given up all hope that you and I will ever have a thing to agree on beyond, perhaps, that Moon Pies are good with milk. Or that Strawberry Quick sucks. Or that George T. Stagg Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey really is better than Sazerac Straight Rye.

    I, on the other hand, go peacefully off to bed, smiling. It can’t move mountains, but it was good. And it relieved just the tiniest bit of the tension and pain I’ve been carrying about in my neck and shoulders.

  2. Etson;

    I think we are talking about different phenomena, then.

    My comments were more directed at the primary source of the discontent that leads to revolution of one sort or another. M4L started the debate with comments to the effect that the dirt poor are too concerned with basic survival to worry about political freedom, with which I disagree.

    I readily acknowledge that the leadership of such revolutions often comes from the upper classes, but I think it is often the case that they are not the source.

    I’m jealous of your academic background!

    Have a good night.

    PS: I think President Obama bombed tonight. Discussion for tomorrow.

  3. The point that Gem and I were making was not about the numbers but the leadership, of revolutions, Benson. Almost by definition there will always have been more lower class than middle class revolutionaries in terms of absolute numbers.
    I am a 19th Century UK / European historian by academic background. For that period I would argue that the degree of middle & upper clas involvement one of the main determinants of the difference between a riot / uprising and a successful revolution that resulted in a sustainable change in government (1848 revolutions = most widespread example).
    I was trying to think through cases where the lower class led a ‘revolution’ (your definition) & the closest I can come up with from British colonial history would be the Mau Mau in Kenya. They didn’t change the government but probably achieved a faster transfer of power than would have happened otherwise.