is it possible to have a non-violent revolution or nation founding?
stalin and mao and hitler are rightly condemned for the tremendous casualties resultant in their revolutions, but should they be condemned for the violence, or for the terrific extent of the violence?
when north america was colonized by europeans, 95% (diamond, guns, germs, and steel)of the indigenous population was killed by disease, famine, and fratricide (the latter two usually being related to the confusion caused by disease). by the time wagons moved west, there wasn't much in there way (imagine how different american history might have been if there had been 20 times more injuns for the duke to fight off). everyone knows that israel's recent re-founding didn't go well, but archaelogical evidence suggests that the initial judaic conquest of canaan was quite bloody too. the walls of jericho really did come tumbling down.
essentially every area currently inhabited by humanity has been continuously inhabited for thousands of years now. if it is not possible to move in without pushing someone out, does that mean that stalin's crime in destroying his class enemies only differs from george washington's in exhausting the british by degree, not in nature?
Not sure I follow you... There have been historical examples of peaceful revolutions and nation-founding, but you go on to apparently talk about colonialism, something which is bound to be a bit less peaceful ("gimme your land and resources"). Could you perhaps sharpen your point?
i don't understand the difference between colonialism and nation founding. as i said earlier, everything currently inhabited has been continuously inhabited for thousands of years. was it colonialism when the napoleonic french conquered the arab egyptians? was it colonialism when the moors conquered the nubian egyptians? was it colonialism when the nubian egyptians expanded from the nile and conquered the nomadic desert dwellers (i think they called them the "ik", right?)?
if so, has there been an incidence of nation founding since like, 3,000 b.c. when phillipino natives reached australia (the last body of land to be settled, right?).
also, what revolutions and nation-foundings were peaceful?
when the british left india, gandhi was only half the reason.
>also, what revolutions and nation-foundings were peaceful?
the velvet revolution in czechoslovakia?
the subsequent segregation (and thereby, "nation-founding") founding of slovakia?
>>4
welcome to english, my name is bubu.
bubu, if i grant that your examples are truly non-violent (i'm going to look them up later when i have time to study them in depth, so i'm speaking hypothetically), then doesn't that make the comparison between george washington and stalin more apt?
if it is indeed possible to found or revolt peacefully, then perhaps washington and stalin are both monsters, they just differ in the degree of their monstrousness?
Also, the transition of England from a principality to a constitutional republic, the reunification of Germany, the fall of the Soviet Union and its bloc... You could name a few uprisings which may have played a part in all of these events, but there weren't any full-on wars; for the most part, they were peaceful revolutions.
>>7
Good examples for the most part, however:
>Also, the transition of England from a principality to a constitutional republic
what? It isn't called The First and Second Civil War without reason, I think. And the victory of Cromwell and his New Model Army is seen as the defining moment in the transition from absolute principality to parliamentary monarchy in Britain.
in russia its common knowledge that the reunification of germany had as much to do with the covert assassinations and sabotage of the cia as anything else. perhaps like a lot of common knowledge, thats not true... who knows.
also, i lived in moscow during the fall of communism, there were perpetual riots, and did you forget about the repeated coup attempts? it was the scariest time in my life at least, and i've been in ramallah while its under siege by the idf. ;)
>>8: Sadly, I have no idea who/what you're talking about. This might be one of those "lol public educashin" things...
>>10
very briefly:
1642-1649 an english MP and military genius, Oliver Cromwell, led the New Model Army (so called because it ws a force of professional, paid, drilled and uniformed soldiers led by professional generals, unlike the chaotic forces of the Royalists, led by clueless princes) fought in the name of Parliament against the forces of Charles I. The King was defeated the first time in 1645, fled to scotland, was turned over to the Parliament forces; fled again, was captured again and finally beheaded in 1649. From then until 1660, Cromwell established The Commonwealth, but proceeded to set up a reign of terror in the name of Puritanism & Parliament, installing himself as "Lord Protector of England", backed by his army and John Thurloe's "secret police". Although after 1660 Monarchy was restored, it never rose to the same power as before again, leaving Parliament at a huge advantage over any King to follow, because virtually every british Monarch ever after didn't want to lose his head like Charles I did. It led to a couple of new laws, guaranteeing that the King could no longer dissolve Parliament at will, that it had to be reformed every three years and so forth.
As I remember, Cromwell was also the leader of the Puritans, who went on to oppress the country in a totally new way.
The last two major transitions of forms of government in Denmark (1660s and 1849) were non-violent (though the former could be debated, as it was the indirect result of Denmark being brought to its knees in a war with Sweden).
The 1849 revolution essentially consisted of the people going to the King and demanding a constitution, and the King assenting. Genuine quote from a diary of the 1849 "revolution": "After the revolution, we went home and had coffee." :-)
Corrections:
Hitler didn't start a revolution. He became the chancellor (and later dictator) legitimately, without bloodshed. Stalin didn't start a revolution either, it is Lenin you must mean.
Lenin was pretty bloodless as far as revolutions go...isn't it something like only 300,000? The aftermath of a coup in most third world countries outweighs that most of the time.
Several of the Former Soviet republics in the last few years have seen peaceful revolutions, that overturned the governments and made peace within
>>14 I'm sorry but Hitler bloodless? non-violent? legitimately voted? may I remind you of Kristalnacht? burning of the Reichstag? the SA (and it's subjugation later on)? these are done before he became chancellor.
Although I have to admit NSDAP was the only party in Germany at that time that sounded like it has a plan while the other looked like they were just twiddling their thumbs.
>>17
These things happened after Hitler's party had come to power. This occurred through the Weimar republic's system, which was (and still is) considered the best kind of democratic system that you can get.
>>18
The best kind of democratic system? The one that led to incredible inflation, widespread corruption, class division, and best of all, led to the rule of the most horrifically evil government in history. Yeah, that's a model system right thar.
You are right about >>17, though. Kristalnacht and similar acts of terror were not just committed by Nazi party members, by the way, but more by incredibly racist Germans.
>>19
Can we have an internet discussion without using tired internet meme's. What was the advantage of using "thar" over "there"? To me personally, it deteriorated everything you typed prior to it (Not that it was impressive to begin with, just a small list of unsubstantiated generalizations.)
Conversely, your complaint would have been a lot more effective had you managed to correctly form the plural of "meme".
>>21
Oh yeah? Well, the period at the end of a sentence goes inside quotation marks, "Citizen."
>>22 In the US, not in the UK. That rule was created by US printers.
"And just why, you may ask, do they belong there? Well, it seems to be the result of historical accident. When type was handset, a period or comma outside of quotation marks at the end of a sentence tended to get knocked out of position, so the printers tucked the little devils inside the quotation marks to keep them safe and out of trouble. But apparently only American printers were more attached to convenience than logic, since British printers continued to risk the misalignment of their periods and commas."
>>17 Kristallnacht(Night of the Broken Glass), the burning of the Reichstag and the Sturmabteilung was a bit gruesome..
Kristallnacht was deliberately pre-meditated. A young Jew killing a German official was the perfect incentive for it. Jewish Synagouges were desecrated and Jews on the streets were beaten and killed.
The burning of the Reichstag was a motive to enact the Enabling Act due to the actions of the "communists".
The Sturmabteilung(SA), or Storm Troopers were comprised of thugs and criminals. Essentially Hitler's bodyguard unit before the Shutzstaffel(SS)was established. Former SA leader Ernst Rohm was massacred, along with other high ranking SA officals on the Night of the Long Knives for supposedly trying to take over. Truth is, he was killed because the truth was spreading about his homosexuality, and Hitler did not want anyone to know. Hermann Goering assumed control afterwards.
Sorry for the histroy recap, I'm just highly fanatical about Nazi Germany. The history is so intriguing. I plan on becoming a Historian based on it.
Anyway, the Weimar Republic was established right after the Great War, so yes, it was very unstable. Comprised of uncapable officials in a time of crisis, I wouldn't be suprised.
What, are you trying to say that only obsessive-compulsive language perscriptivists can appreciate irony in someone complaining about language use, and misusing language at the same time?
I'm saying that 21 and 23 is "Nihon" from Wikipedia, a comical obsessive-compulsive language perscriptivist.
lol perscriptivist