First off, I think generalizing Revolutions as strictly random or strictly inevitable is an impossible task as each case is different in many ways. However, a passage that has stood out to me in recent readings was in Ardent’s piece. It reads, “Almost every revolution which has change the shape of nations has been made to consolidate or destroy inequality.” The reading also says, “this reality was biological and not historical…a change whose movements are automatic, independent of our own activities, and irresistible” As for Ardent she believes that Revolutions are a matter of human nature. The idea that humans will always fight for their dignity in the face of inequality. Similar to what we read the first week in Shah of Shahs about that pebble that contently nags at our side. So it seems, as long as there are oppressed peoples, as long as inequality defines a nation, there will be revolution. Sure it will be upon the back of an extraordinary event, a moment of viability when the impossible seems possible, but the “overwhelming urgency” that Ardent speaks of will always be engrained in our human nature.<\/p>\n
So are revolutions inevitable or random? Can they be both? Consider our study of Haiti. Sure it may have shocked the French masters when the men they once trusted as loyal turned on them and their families. However, the cogs of the uprising had be silently turning for quite a while.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
First off, I think generalizing Revolutions as strictly random or strictly inevitable is an impossible task as each case is different in many ways. However, a passage that has stood out to me in recent readings was in Ardent’s piece. … Continue reading