TheNoNamedOne
03-23-2008, 10:55 PM
Some may believe that humans and their towns and cities have an inherent right to revolt with violence and throw off the shackles of a government they feel is unjust. But is there any real litmus test as to when that point is arrived at? Of course large disagreement on that within the population could lead to a civil war. But it could also lead to colonies declaring independence and fighting for that from a colonial power. Governments that are installed by occupying powers not agreed to by the people also can incite violence and be the target of revolts.
The U.S. revolted from England with violence. The Confederate States tried to revolt and break-away from the Union. The Iranians revolted against the Shah, the dictator they feel was propped up and forced upon them by the U.S. The Palestinians have been revolting against the Israelis, the Kurds against Turkey, a mix of Sunnis and Shia against the U.S., not to mention Tibetans against the Chinese government.
It is easy for us to look at those places now with their violence, shake our heads and mutter, "why can't these places get their act together and stop the cycle of violence that seems ongoing for years?" but we do so after having already had our affairs with violent revolt.
So, how can we look down and condemn their violence? How can we not think that their time in history with revolt is just as important to their future development as a nation, as surely as ours was?
Maybe violent revolt is not so bad. When do you think it is ok and not ok?
The U.S. revolted from England with violence. The Confederate States tried to revolt and break-away from the Union. The Iranians revolted against the Shah, the dictator they feel was propped up and forced upon them by the U.S. The Palestinians have been revolting against the Israelis, the Kurds against Turkey, a mix of Sunnis and Shia against the U.S., not to mention Tibetans against the Chinese government.
It is easy for us to look at those places now with their violence, shake our heads and mutter, "why can't these places get their act together and stop the cycle of violence that seems ongoing for years?" but we do so after having already had our affairs with violent revolt.
So, how can we look down and condemn their violence? How can we not think that their time in history with revolt is just as important to their future development as a nation, as surely as ours was?
Maybe violent revolt is not so bad. When do you think it is ok and not ok?