One of the recurring themes through this class is how hard it is to define a revolution. This difficulty is not only because there is a general lack of agreement, but also because the definitions we do somewhat agree on are based less on objective political facts and more on impossible-to-see forces or attitudes. Most of the definitions put on the board on Wednesday involve some sort of subjective factor. To call something a revolution is not only a descriptive label but also a judgement.

In comparison, civil wars can be defined purely by looking at the political facts of a situation. An operative definition might look something like this: “A prolonged war fought between two entities which were previously one state”. While one might disagree about some of the edges of this definition, there doesn’t seem to be a need to expand this definition to include more subjective elements. That is, it’s a comparatively boring definition.

The contradiction is that, in some sense, civil wars and (separatist) revolutions seem to be so interconnected. Look at the example in class of the American Civil War. We define the American Civil War in particular, and, in general, a section of a country attempting to secede as a civil war (provided that there is in fact a prolonged war).  And we label a successful break as a revolution. Then is the only difference between these two concepts the success or failure of a war. How do we reconcile this with the greater significant we place on the definition of a revolution.