Revolutionary Threshold

Examples can be found throughout history, revolutionaries who pushed for a better tomorrow. In the American Revolution, the revolutionary leaders faced punishment by the British, but with the dream of a brighter future of independence, John Hancock audaciously inscribed his name at the base of the Declaration of Independence, the document signifying the birth of a nation, built on the hope that a person could work hard and be rewarded, and that a people could live freely without fearing oppression from any reigning monarch. Even if it’s not sparking a revolution, even if the eyes of the world isn’t watching, people are forced with the weighing decision of whether to make a difference or let the issue pass peacefully over them, ignored, everyday. In places like schools, workplaces, and on the streets of the world, witnesses see injustice, and are faced with a split second decision: do I do something or ignore it? A good citizen stands up, and faces the crowd, tells the bully to back down, and does something to make life better, even for a short period, because they know that everyone deserves

The struggle against a totalitarian government is unsurprisingly a frequent theme in dystopian literature. Almost by definition the genre is set in a futuristic society characterized by extreme oppression and despondence. Malevolent autocrats at the helms of totalitarian governments have, throughout our history, been responsible for innumerable travesties. This young century alone has witnessed the evil of Bashar al-Assad, Omar Bashir, and Saddam Hussein. Probing only slightly deeper into our collective memory, we are acquainted with the reigns of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Hideki Tojo, Francisco Franco, and (of course) Adolf Hitler. The last hundred years have undeniably been bloody, and it is therefore only natural that

When people are against an unjust government system, they end up using their right of expression to form opinions on that situation. Freedom is a natural right where the people are free to think as they choose without fearing for their opinions. A catalyst, a stage of a revolution that causes something to occur sooner than it would have, can strongly encourage expression of new ideas. An example of a catalyst can be seen in a 1971 case where military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, a secret study of the United States and its full involvement in the Vietnam War to the New York Times. Ellsberg was catalyzed by the Vietnam War to believe that this information should be released to the public and not be censored by President Richard Nixon.

I believe that this paragraph is a transparent representation of torture, dictatorship, persecution and power. Removing the fallacy of human emotion, manipulative language, and the denial of the acting party —it presents the true intentions behind revolution. The paragraph itself is intertextual in that it references seizures of power in the past (German Nazis and Russian Communist) that claimed to be for the “good of others,” but failed to recognize their true agenda —whether intentional or not. Being transparent about a desire for power, dictatorship or the use of torture would not garner much support for the movement; additionally, shrouding the true intentions of the movement with promises of betterment, an agenda focused on the good of

Others argue that the changes seen within a society during the time of revolution are short-lived and often times forgotten within a matter of years. Despite these two differing arguments over the exact meaning of the term revolution one thing remains constant. At the heart of any definition of revolution the word change can be found. For example, Samuel Huntington defines revolution as “rapid, fundamental, and violent domestic change in the dominant values, myths, political institutions, social structure, leadership, government activity, and politics.” (Booth 117) On the other hand, Theda Skocpol defines revolution as “rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structure, accompanied by and in part accomplished through popular revolts from below.” (Booth 117) Finally, Eric Selbin argues that “revolution and its social transformation are more likely where popular rebellion has cultural roots and precedents.” (Booth 117) The Sandinista Revolution in the early 1970’s provides a perfect example in regards to the transformation of society that each one of these definitions promises. However, in order to determine which definition of the term revolution most accurately describes the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua two key questions must be analyzed. First, it must be determined how strong and persistent are the

Thank you Dean Christy Hanson, the Institute for Global Citizenship, planning committee, fellow panelists, and distinguished guest Malcolm Gladwell for coming together for the 2014 International Round Table. A panel to discuss the grounding roots of ‘effective revolutions’ in no way feels revolutionary at Macalester. As an institution founded on a pillar of civic engagement, we protest, we gather and we surrender ourselves, our time and our labor to causes that we support. But at Macalester it often seems we are asked what we do, instead of why we do it. This ‘why’ question, however, is essential in the quest for understanding how revolutions start and what forces motivate communities into action. Today, we millennials extend arms or should I say “likes” to support our causes through social media. We join Facebook events, retweet 140 character blurbs from our favorite politicians and ‘tumble’ our time away reading the latest blog posts of like-minded friends. But do these social interactions produce the momentum and manpower to produce revolutions similar to a civil rights movement that engulfed the southern United States for nearly a decade?

With America’s history of people fighting for their rights, we have become accustomed to the idea that activism needs to be extreme; to cause riots, have aggression, and for people to be put in jail to make a point. We have created an image that there needs to be a fierce willingness to fight, in order for activism to be effective. As Malcolm Gladwell describes in “Why the Revolution Should not be Tweeted”, he reminds us of what ‘real’ activism is and how other generations have risked their lives to make a difference, in both their lives and the future of America. He does not think that activists can be considered true activists if they are non-violent when protesting for their rights. However, Gladwell should consider that protesting

Emotional contagion is the major factor for the number of protesters that joined in. Emotional contagion works like pass along readership in which the rumors or ideology get passed down from one human being to their social circle, with every individuals act as a medium of the ideology; once the story got told the content becomes more saucy(dramatic) and it could attracts more followers. When there are many people sharing the same ideology the group becomes very large and the hatred for the other side gets more intense. The group leader or the person who started the rumors then gain hegemony over the people and they can now easily persuade people to join the uprising. Emotional contagion could be implied to persuade a large group of people or invoke a protest. Democracy is a topic that every person in the nation give an importance to. Leaders or politicians will want to have more power and many of them were successful in doing so by using the emotional contagion and let the people literally fought for them while only think of creating

As protesting goes on emotions build up which can result in a public revolt that

Nonviolent movements are widespread across America, but very little are effective enough to create monumental change or to have a lasting impact. In their article "Waging Nonviolence: What makes nonviolent movements explode", Mark and Paul Engler explore what makes nonviolent protests powerful enough to force change. Written in December 2014, the article uses modern and historic examples of protest movements, with the main focus on the Occupy Wall Street movement, to create the context as to what each of the methods discussed has accomplished. Using the main example of Occupy Wall Street, the article showcases two major points, disruption and sacrifice, that nonviolent protest movements utilize in order to have the greatest effect, as well as how those two points work together to create lasting impacts. Disruption relies on interrupting everyday life and preventing business from occurring, while sacrifice focuses on what people are willing to risk and give up in order to see the change they wish for. In their article, the Engler’s propose that while these two methods of protest can be effective, protests rarely become large enough to actually create any change, even if they are combined, simply because the major businesses, corporations, and organizations that are being protested hold incredible amounts of political power and therefore are able to very easily shut down protests with police forces. This argument, that protests are inevitably going to fail, is very realistic

Since the dawn of human civilization, there have been governments. As a species, we have always attempted to efficiently and systematically maintain order. However it is not uncommon for those same governments to turn on the people it protects, as evidenced by the countless tyrants and authoritarian regimes that plague our history. When studying the complex subject of a free or oppressive government, it is rather interesting to look at the stark contrasts between how both of these organizations handle protests against their rules or laws. The authoritarian regime holds absolute power, meaning that nearly any form of complaint against their actions will be met with disregard, or even punishment. However in a free society in which the government must answer to the people, protests are the language of the discontent, signifying to a representative government that change is needed.

For the third engaged activity, I decided to attend a lecture on April 24th by Martin Previsic, a professor at the University of Zagreb who specializes in Croatian history. Previsic’s lecture was titled “The Yugoslav Gulag: The Goli otok (Barren Island) Labor Camp, 1949-1956.” Previsic’s lecture revolved around the time period of the “Tito-Stalin split”, which was an era marked as being the end of mutual relations between the Soviet Union and the former country of Yugoslavia. The spit, initially occurring shortly after WWII in 1948, was caused due to conflicting political interests of Yugoslavia’s leader Josip Tito and the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin. Though they had relations prior, Tito and the Yugoslavian government no longer wanted

Croatia has a parliamentary republic, with a semi-presidential system. It has separate branches of government that diffuse the power amongst them, so no one body can gain all control. Their executive branch is composed of the president and corresponding bureaucracies. The president acts symbolically for the country, both internally and abroad. The legislative branch is most responsible for enacting as well as the enforcement of laws and acts. The legislative branch is headed by the prime minister who oversees the welfare of the state. The country is a fairly new state experimenting with the implementation of democracy. It is considered a semi-consolidated democracy, due to the surrounding European states, some of which are reverting back to authoritarianism and its history

What determines a movement? Malcolm Gladwell defines what pushes a movement to make a difference. He analyzes the concept of “strong ties” and “weak ties” and how these relationships affect an individual’s willpower and determination to help a cause. Gregory Orr puts these ideas into context in his memoir, “Return to Hayneville”, in which he recounts his experience and involvement in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Malcolm Gladwell’s “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”, focuses, in particular, on the civil rights movement concentrates to the lunch counter sit-ins in Greensboro, North Carolina. Gladwell’s ideas and opinions of social and political emancipations are given a real world setting, as

Moreover, instating the right to choose also facilitates the incentive for people to speak out against an unruly leader. When a large mass of civilians disagrees or is concerned with a party’s implementation of policies, they can extract their title from them. Just because a party is elected, does not mean that they will remain in power for the entire duration originally allotted to them. The presence of foreseeable change is crucial to a societies degree of satisfaction associated with their current governmental system. Alteration gives democracy the upper hand. For example, in Spain in 1982, when Prime Minister Leopolodo Calvo Sotelo completely terminated the party that supported what the people wanted, the people in office forcibly made him resign.