Which set of revolutionaries do you have the most respect for?

[orange]

There have been many revolutions in history, some successful, some failed...which of these revolutions do you have the most respect for - as in the people who did them, the goals that they wished to accomplish, the means by which they accomplished their goals, the oppression they had to fight to accomplish their goals, etc.?

[chequita guevara]

All of 'em.

[C0ckney]

None of 'em

[General Ludd]

Some of 'em.

[Clear Skies]

I'm with chegitz.

[chequita guevara]

Okay, having actually thought about the answer I'll have to say that the Khmer Rouge and Sendero Luminoso are not among those revolutionaries that I respect.

[Clear Skies]

I think Gandi is definitely one of my top revolutionary-type people.

[chequita guevara]

I know too many revolutionaries to be able to answer this in a quick way, and I don't feel like doing all the work to give it a fair answer and then defend my answers for the next three days.

[MrFun]

Martin Luther King Jr., Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, Rosa Parks -- these revolutionaries I greatly admire.

The other revolutionaries I admire -- those American abolitionists who also believed that blacks and whites are equal.

[Immortal Wombat]

The ones who overthrew a worse government than they created.
Any fit that description?

[Immortal Wombat]

Why only the American ones, Mr Fun?

[Caligastia]

I like Rage Against The Machine

I think of them every time I see Chegitz Guevara's name.

[Stefu]

Let's see.

First of all, democracy's always a pretty important thing. Democracy might be flawed, but it's the best we've invented so far. And revolutions are, by themselves, undemocratic. At basis of each of them is an armed mob, or at least an armed faction, willing to use those arms to achieve their agenda. Rule by cartridge box instead of ballot box.

So, one of the biggest qualifications for revolution is that it happens in a situation where aims of the supporters of revolution could have been achieved via other means. Revolution as a last resort, in other words. Popular support of the revolution is also important. Of course, even if the government is undemocratic, revolution can lead to something worse - evil pretender trying to dethrone good king, for example - and there are other things that mark a good revolution, such as minimum bloodshed and so on - but revolution as a last resort would be the dividing line.

Thus, among good revolutions, I'd have to count such revolutions as Velvet Revolution - non-violence, except from the part of the oppressor, naturally, counts as a plus - and assorted changes of power related to fall of Soviet Empire. Non-violent, mostly led to more or less democratic governments, and didn't exactly happen to the nicest bunch of people available. French Revolution was justifiable, although it's results werent. And on the other end of scale, we have military coups, especially ones which happened in democratic nations - though whether coup is much of a revolution is a different question.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Why only the American ones, Mr Fun?

Just because I do not make an entire laundry list of all the revolutionaries and revolutions I admire, does not mean that I only admire American ones.

For instance, I also greatly admire the Haitian Revolution against slavery and French rule in early 19th century.



But the French Revolution in Europe was a failure that ended in a mindless blood-fest orgy.
It unleashed many new ideals though for other European leaders to strive for.
But the French Revolution in of itself, failed.

[chequita guevara]

Even though the Haitian Revolution resulted in genocide? All the French were killed.