Open Thread
Get started on
your next projectMost Recent Articles
Get started on
your next project
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.
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.
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.
Etson;
Well, I guess we would have to define “revolution” then. I do not limit revolution to mean a violent transfer of political power. I mean it to mean a dramatic change in the political structure of a country. In the cases of both South Africa and India, the powers-that-be (or were, more accurately) did not suddenly decide one day to turn over the reins of power. They tried to cling to power: imprisoning dissidents, resisting change and in some cases, resorting to violence.
I disagree with you about India. While Gandhi was himself a middle-class lawyer, the source of his support was the lower classes. What middle-class there was in India derived much of its living from working within the empire, and was not about to rock that boat.
“Yes, India just had a HUGE middle class when Gandhi uprooted the British, didn’t it?”
1) It was not a revolution. It was a voluntary and peaceful granting of independence.
2) Yes, India did have a middle class.
3) Gandhi was middle class himself, a lawyer.
Why are you talking about South Africa wrt revolutions? There was not a revolution in SA (unless you are talking Boer rebellion vs the British, which might half qualify). Power was ceded in the early 1990’s without one. It would not have been ceded at that time had FW de Klerk not been open to doing so.
Anyway, I tend to agree more with Gem re revolutions.
probably, im really really good at opening cans and stuff!!
*rob*
rob, you’d be a fabulous lunchlady. Simply fahbulousss.
maybe because i was slightly feral, i look at the idea of raising children with a jaundiced eye? not hate.. hate is too strong of a word.. im SURE if the Pope had his way, in my next life i’d be the lunchlady at ps321 :-/
*rob*