Apparently Twitter is good for something. Powerful stuff.
While it may not mean much, the protesters in Iran have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
We used to be in radio.
Blits and Blogs
Links!
- Mama Shaq, mama Shaq, Shaq's your mom, that's a fact.
- Albatross Shop
- D3 Powerhouse
- Con Amor Siempre
- Toner
- Meredith vs. Japan
- Louis the Pig
- Siby
- Albatross Hour Radio Archives
- Roger McGuinn's Folk Den
- The Environment? What?
- Who IS Doctor Funk, anyway?
- Possibly some sort of Poet
- The Chicago Shady Dealer!
- KDIC Grinnell College Radio
- Skeletor! YMCA! Japan!
- We Like The Moon
- Shoes
- De clunibus magnis amandis oratio
- I've Seen Things
- 20 Questions AI
- Truck Dismount
Posts
2 comments:
so based on your political model--the one that included apathy, revolution, etc. where are the citizens of Iran falling right now?
Well, protesting generally falls under gradualism: it's an appeal to those already in power. It's also a demonstration of the popular will.
When the regime replies to protests with violence, however, th situation is changed. It suggests the state regards the protesters a threat -- as revolutionary. If state violence doesn't cause the protesters to back down, further protests could be characterized as non-violent revolution. If, for example, the police refuse to turn on their own people, this can destroy government authority.
Reciprocal violence is also revolutionary in character, although it may be in self-defense. My earlier post assumed a static situation. When a government responds to peaceful calls for change with violence, it is effectively de-legitimizing itself, which complicates things. There's a sliding scale of gradualism and revolution in such cases.
I don't want to claim extensive knowledge of the situation, but it seems like the Iranians entered the election with hopes of gradualism and have gotten something a bit closer to revolution.
Post a Comment