I do not like the concept of anything being inevitable. To an extent, revolutions (or any other past event) seem destined to occur because–well–they did occur. But even the things this class has thus far identified as making a revolution successful are so circumstantial despite appearing across multiple case studies that they should not be treated as part of a universal pattern.<\/p>\n
While the case of Iran presents us with an unstable regime making poor long term decisions, it took the shady death of Ayatollah Khomeini’s eldest son, a long, public mourning process, and the political will of individuals to turn such protected processes into agents of political change in order to spark revolution. In Haiti, it took a unique set of social and economic circumstances that placed large amounts of slaves (many of whom were belligerents recently in Africa) alongside a free black population that was treated unequally from its white counterparts along with a revolution back in France to make change viable. Though these descriptions are simplistic and generalize the narratives, they begin to demonstrate how revolutions are products of situationally unique circumstances.<\/p>\n
However, such a feeling is hard to reconcile with arguments like Camu’s, which appeal to a latent universal liberal humanity that part of me wants to exist. Yet Haiti proves all to quickly that belligerents on the same side of a revolutionary war can have vastly different interests and motivations. While linked by experience and race, free blacks in Haiti and the elite black class in general saw a post 1791 Haiti that was far different than the image rebelling slaves had. As Jake said in his blog post, the events that prompt revolutionary action are far too “fluid” to categorize them as binary.<\/p>\n
I’m curious–and this is cynical–about the extent to which the language of revolution (in the moment) is clouded in universalism as a political ploy to gain support. Do we hear this language because the interests of revolution are far more selfish in nature and thus less accessible to a population large enough to make needed change happen? Is this rhetoric responsible for how we think about revolutions?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I do not like the concept of anything being inevitable. To an extent, revolutions (or any other past event) seem destined to occur because–well–they did occur. But even the things this class has thus far identified as making a revolution … Continue reading