Modern Revolutions

The 2006 Democracy Movement in Nepal

1. What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
The rebels used various methods to express their frustration; one method was the boycotting of things. These things that were boycotted ranged from municipal elections to taxes. Another method used was organized protests and strikes. These protests were usually made up of Nepalese citizens and members of the SPA or the Maoists. One notable strike was the nationwide strike established by the SPA (Seven Party Alliance, one of the leading rebel forces) that demanded all businesses to close, and for all the citizens to protest for a few days. The demonstrators also created a blockade in the streets during the strike. This not only meant transportation would be on hold, but it would also cause the blockage of supplies from India such as food, medicines, etc. The nationwide strike lasted for two days.
2. How is your revolution similar and or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
The Democracy Movement of Nepal is quite similar to the EDSA revolution. First of all, both the revolutions had a large amount of support from the citizens. Another similarity is the main purpose of why the revolution was formed, both of the revolutions wanted to get rid of their leader at the time and establish a democracy. One difference was the level of peace. The protests of the Nepalese movement were fairly violent, as demonstrators would throw rocks at the police forces, while the police forces would fight back by launching tear gas grenades or beat up protestors. In some occasions, the police force would use live firearms; this would be the cause of a few deaths and injuries. On the other hand, the EDSA revolution was fairly peaceful, and the violence was very minimal.
3. What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
King Gyanendra would eventually realize that most of the citizens were not happy with him being ruler. Others were also not happy with the way the King had been ruling Nepal; India and the United States withdrew their assistance to the government when they had heard the news about the King’s new curfew to shoot any demonstrators on sight. Ultimately, the King gave in to the rebels, and his direct rule was abolished. The nation become better in the sense that most people were satisfied with the results, so the number of riots and protests would decrease, although there are still some people who want the old monarchy system back. The people certainly became better after the revolution, as they got most of what they wanted; right now they have a little bit of democracy and they stripped King Gyanendra of his power.
4. Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
The revolution has justified a large portion of the government, but some unfairness is still left in Nepal. For example, the groups that were against the government had created something called the 18 May Act, where on the May 18th, the parliament of Nepal had made a bill that decided to strip the power off the King of Nepal. The bill included that the government should also tax the royal family, give 90,000 men to the parliament and destroying the national anthem until a new one is made. But the unfairness about this is that the King is not kicked off his seat, some hard activists were outraged that the bill did not say that the King should surrender his position. So we can say that the revolution was justified in some people’s eyes. In others though, such as the activists, it wasn’t justified.
5. Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton’s stages of revolution.
The Nepal democracy movement sort of fits into Crane Brinton’s stages of Revolution. The first stage included the intellectuals (in this case, civil politicians) speaking out against the government, and eventually forming a group to oppose it. Another example of symptoms is the riots and protest groups formed by the citizens. In the second stage, the people start to get more aggressive, this is an example of people rising up to the government. There is a small battle between the crowds and the police that try and suppress them, 3 civilians die. In the third stage, the revolution try to spread the word around and protest, more deaths occur when protesters are shot in an attempt by the police to restrain the crowds. The nationwide strike also occurs during this stage, this would be a major part of the revolution as it was the last event before the action started to lessen. In the final stage, the king is stripped of most of his power. The country enters a period of recovery and temporary rules are established; with the new authority trying to restore Nepal to its normal state.
Bibliography:
"2006 democracy movement in Nepal." Wikipedia. 28 12 2007, Wikipedia, 5 Feb 2008 .
"NEPAL: Ethnic groups threaten nationwide strike." IRINnews. 18 04 2007. IRINnews. 5 Feb 2008 .
Mishra , Anuj. "Democracy from below: a grassroots revolution in Nepal." openDemocracy. 23 04 2006. openDemocracy. 5 Feb 2008 .
Bhatti, Khalid. "Half a million people celebrate as the King reinstates Parliament." socialistworld. 27 April 2006. socialistworld. 5 Feb 2008 .

Czechoslovakia: Velvet Revolution

1. What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to the revolution?
Czechoslovakia was formerly a democratic republic. However, when Germany annexed Sudetenland, the connection between Czech, Slovak and Romania loosened. As the connection between Czech and Slovak loosened, a de-facto split into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the Slovak Republic. In the year 1945, the republic governed by a coalition government with a communist government. Therefore, during the time when the communist government, governed the republic Czech and Slovak became a Socialist Republic and develop into a communist country. Through out the period of time when the communist government ruled the country, the public were not happy about they way the government ruled the country because they demanded for a democratic government. This demand lee the public to make a revolution called ‘Velvet Revolution’. Velvet revolution is a non-violence revolution because in this revolution there was no war, the people only made a demonstration to overthrow the communist government regime. It actually began when students at two universities, one from Czech and another one from Slovak started a demonstration in support of the Nazi party, but ended up leading to huge public protests against the Czechoslovakia communist government.

2. How is your revolution similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
Velvet Revolution is different from the American Revolution because in the American Revolution, the people are fighting for independence from the British but there is one similarity about the American Revolution with the Velvet Revolution, which is that they don’t like the way the government rule. The French Revolution is quite similar to the Velvet Revolution because the public isn’t happy about the political and social system; the Velvet Revolution had some mild kills such as children protesting in the streets would be killed. In the same time the French had something’s similar but with important people like King Louis XVI and his wife Maria Antoinette. There are also some differences with the Velvet Revolution because in the French Revolution there was more violence in the revolution. Velvet Revolution is similar to the Philippine Revolution because in the Philippine Revolution, the public wanted to overthrow their first elected president, President Ferdinand Marcos because they dislike the way he ruled the Philippine.
3. What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
As a result of the Velvet Revolution, the Czechoslovakia’s parliament voted to split the country into Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Czechoslovakia’s parliament voted during the Federal Assembly, on November 25, 1992. Two months after the Federal Assembly, the country is officially split into two on January 1st 1993. Now a days, the people become much better and satisfied due to the government.
4. Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked
The revolution was justified because the people wanted to overthrow the communist government to be able to start their own countries in each area in peace without having to deal with many complaints about what the want to do and what the other wants to do. In regards to this, they were able to overthrow the communist government and turn Czechoslovakia into two different countries. They are now known as Czech Republic and Slovakia. The other method that might have worked for this revolution was to have a neutral president and also his cabinet. This would of lead to having peaceful state and be able to hear the words of both citizens of Czechoslovakia. Another one related to this would have been to have a neutral president but his cabinet could be one from the Czech’s and one from the Slovaks. It would look like the cabinets were mayors in most countries today, or like the states have a governor.
5. Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton's Stages of the Revolution.
The Velvet Revolution doesn’t follow Crane Brinton’s Stages of the Revolution because in the first stage the middle class rebel against the economy and an ineffective government. In the second stage they didn’t form a new government they split the country into two parts Czech Republic and Slovak. In the revolution the communist government is out of power and new country governments are made. They’re both NOT fragile governments. In the third stage, it doesn’t follow because the government is a communist government and not a democratic government. This revolution was more on people power revolution because it is all about the talk and to change the government to be able to split the country into two. As for the fourth stage of the Crane Brinton’s stages of Revolution, there are some similarities that agree to his stage but then one out of place which is the people of Czech and Slovakia didn’t get punished which is necessary in his stage
Bibliography:
"Panic! on the Streets of Prague." 28 January 2008 .
"Velvet Revolution." History of Czechoslovakia(1989-1992) 25 November 2007 28 January 2008 .
"Velvet Revolution." Velvet Revolution 23 January 2008 28 January 2008 .
William H. Luers. "Czechoslovakia: Road to Revolution." 28 January 2008 .

The First Intifada - Brendan, Chandu, Jun-Ha

1. In 1987, the Palestinians rebelled against the Israelis who were controlling them and their land through military occupation. This was called the First Intifada, which lasted for 6 years. They rebelled with general civil disobedience, boycotts of Israeli products, general strikes, graffiti, and barricades. The youths also rebelled by throwing stones at Israeli Defence Forces, resulting in fatalities as soldiers panicked and fired at the young rebel. This then grew more serious, as the youths retaliated with Molotov cocktails.
2. The American Revolution was started in order to get rid of British colonial power in America. The Palestinian uprising was spontaneously started to reject Israeli occupation. There were similarities and differences between these two revolutions. Unlike the American Revolution the Palestinian uprising was started spontaneously then became a more organized Revolution while the American Revolution was more organized and formal from the beginning. The American Revolution was started to get rid of colonial rule in America while the First Intifada was to get rid of a neighbouring country (Israel) which was occupying them. They were both violent although the First Intifada had lower causalities. Both these revolutions had civilians participating in the fight. In the First Intifada, soldiers were attacked by citizens with rocks, Molotov cocktails and handguns. In the American Revolution the Minute Men were a militia who fought against British soldiers.
 
3. The, term revolution is not the proper way it could be called. We could say that the outcome of the revolution was a success, but at a high cost. It was shown that the Palestinian people were very violent with around a thousand deaths. Even so, Israel was successful in containing the uprising. This happened due to the inferior force in relation to the superiorly trained Israeli Defense Forces. Even so, during the Intifada there were heavy economy blows against Israel. This resulted in the country loosing $650 million in exports. Also, Israeli tourist industry went terrible as it was important for the Israelis. Then again, this revolution lead to the September 1993 Oslo Accords. The agreement stated that Palestinians were allowed for Palestinian self-rule to most of the Palestinian towns and refugee camps in the West Bank.

 
4. Our group believes this revolution was well justified, the Israelis had no right to control the Palestinians or their land. Their methods were cruel, as you read in the first paragraph, but they were one of few options available to them. People Power and other peaceful protests wouldn’t have been effective. The best option would have been to wait for the United Nations and/or the African Summit to intervene, after they dealt with the First Persian Gulf War (Iran-Iraq), instead of fighting back using the same if not more cruel methods.

 
5. The First Intifada somewhat follows Crane Brinton’s Stages of a Revolution. The reasoning behind this is obvious. The First Intifada was a series of violent fights between the Israeli Defense Forces and the Palestinians. The Intifada basically started because the Palestinians to be governed by their people, not the Israelis. For example, stages 1 or symptoms happened as the Palestinians displayed their anger to the Israelis. However, as the STR states, the government or the Israeli people were effective in holding back the people. Stages two is the rising fever. In stage two, we can see that the Intifada is not related to it at all. Although Palestinian people now run the camp, they are only called as a rebel against the Israeli people. In phrase three however, the Intifada somewhat continues to follow the course of Brinton Crane’s revolution. We can see that the revolution is rather fragile (The Palestinian’s rebel) and that they even kill their own kind if they see a sense of betrayal with the Israelis. This also relates to the violence from the people. Finally, the revolution leads to stage four or convalescence. Apparently, we can see that the Palestinian revolution did not come to recovery or to a new government. However, a peace treaty was signed by the Israelis and the Palestinians which stated that the Palestinians had the right to govern the camp which had their own kinsmen. Apparently, this lead to stopping the violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. To sum up, I would say that the revolution would both fit, and not fit in with Brinton’s Cranes anatomy of a revolution.

 
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579974/Intifada.html
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_intifada_nature.php
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_intifada_1987.php
http://www.jerusalemites.org/Intifada/first.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada
 

EDSA II

1. What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
In the year 2001, the people of the Philippines were furious when they heard the news that President Joseph Estrada was criminally taking millions of pesos from playing juteng, an illegal game. He was also charged of having different bank accounts under different names containing millions of pesos. This caused the second EDSA Revolution. It followed the methods of EDSA I. People gathered in protest in front of the Virgin Mary shrine at EDSA. They demanded that Estrada step down from office. Some people went to the Malacañang Palace but Estrada escaped the presidential palace. People from Estrada’s cabinet and economic advisors resigned as well. There was an impeachment trial with 21 judges which was formally opened on November 20 but began on December 7. These were the methods used that ultimately led to the revolution.
2. How is your revolution similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
Our previously studied revolution, EDSA I, is similar to the EDSA II Revolution because it was a nonviolent. It was mostly done by protesting that was headed by a political leader. The reason for both of these revolutions was that the country was being led by a corrupt leader. The American Revolution was different because what caused it was “no taxation without representation” which is a very different reason from EDSA II. In the American Revolution it was a group of people rebelling against another group whereas in EDSA II it was mostly just against one person, Estrada. The American Revolution also involved violence unlike this EDSA revolution. The French Revolution was also different from this because it was caused by inequality amongst the social classes. Both the French and EDSA II revolutions are similar because both protested. Though, the French Revolution used violence.
3. What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
The eventual outcome of the EDSA II Revolution was that Estrada, the corrupt president at that time, stepped down from office. It took a few days for Estrada to finally admit defeat. He called for a quick presidential election on national television. He did not plan on participating in this election. This let the Filipinos have a choice of who their president would be and they picked the current vice-president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Estrada was put under house arrest in his country house at Tanay, Rizal. He was only released last year, 2007. The nation and people did not improve after this because Arroyo also became corrupt after a while. She is no longer liked by the people as she has been accused of doing illegal things such as bribery for her defeat at her second term of presidency. Now, they want her out of office and have tried to use the same methods as EDSA II in trying to achieve this.
4. Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
The EDSA II revolution was justified because Joseph Estrada stepped down from office and the Philippines got the president they wanted, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The method used was good because it was nonviolent therefore less damage was caused. There were hardly any people who died or got injured in its duration. Other methods would not have worked as well as the method they used because they would have caused more harm. Some methods they could use would be violent protesting like riots or coups. The positive effects of having violent protests or violence in their methods is that it would increase the speed of the effects. If the people of the Philippines had been violent, then Estrada would have probably stepped down faster than he did in the revolution held. But would it really be worth it to harm or kill people just to get the job done faster? Probably not.
5. Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Brinton Crane’s Stages of Revolution?
The EDSA II revolution does not fully follow Brinton Crane’s stages. The first stage, Symptoms, fits in. The middle class, who in this case are the citizens, loudly express their anger through protesting. The government is ineffective and is not able to manage the country because of an inept leader. These leaders are eventually deserted by the people.
The second stage, Rising Fever, does not match up so well with EDSA II because despite the fact that the people do rise up against the government and the government cannot control the rebellion, no real new government is formed. There is no new constitution to be made.
EDSA II did not follow stage three, Crisis, at all. The moderates in this revolution were the people of the Philippines but they were never given the job of ruling the country and therefore could not be inept at it. There were no radicals. This was a people power revolution that did not involve any violence by the people. The revolution was quite strong rather than fragile because it had many supporters throughout the country. The revolution was not lacking anything. It had money and a lot of support. More and more people would join the rally everyday and they did not lose their will to win.
The last stage, Convalescence, works well with EDSA II. When Joseph Estrada finally stepped down from office the revolution ended. However, the country did not require a period of recovery as Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power by becoming president and making everything back to normal. Life in the country did begin to return to normal.
Bibliography:
None, None. "EDSA Revolution of 2001." EDSA Revolution of 2001 1.. January 29, 2008 .
None, None. "The success of People Power II." People Power II/EDSA II 1.. January 15, 2008 .
Torchia , Christopher. "Smoke-clogged EDSA has become an emblem of popular revolt ." EDSA 20 24 feb 2006 1. 29 jan 2008 .

First Chechen Rebellion against Russia

First Chechen Rebellion against Russia happened during the year of 1994. Chechen had lots of complaints towards Russians. According to Chechnya, they declares that they are not related with Russians. By making the rebellion, the outcome became "violence". The war has have continued until 1996. Chechen wanted freedom and independence. But Russians decided to give just the freedom. This revolution was not a success. It was a failure. They didn't get what they have wanted and wished for. And to get the independence, Chechen creates the Second Chechen Rebellion against Russia. 
1) What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
Chechen announced that they won’t be part of Russia in the year of 1994. To express their frustrations and ultimatley, they had to create violence. During the war, from 1994, to 1996, the Chechens created a guerilla war against Russians by attacking soliders at night and making violence attack against the Russian town. Because of this attack, Russian troops offered little resistance. Chechen expressed their frustrations by creating the war and violence between them and Russia.  
2) How is your revolution similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
I could find similarity and difference in the Chechen Revolution with the previous revolution that we have studied. One of the simliarity was that American and the French were under control some other nation while they were in the stage of revolution. And Chechen was also under control from Russia. Americans were under Great Britain and French were under control by a nation and had a war with the British. One of the differences between the Chechen and the previous revolution was the cause. The Chechen were anxious about being part of the land of Russia. Instead, American and French had complaints about the tax and their opponents controlling their land. Because Chechen's land was part of Russia, they tried to create revolution to tell and declare Russians that they are different nation. Chechen’s complaints were not only about the land but a different religion. They’ve told the Russians that they should not be counted as one of the Russians because the people of Chechen’s religion and other things were completely different from them.  
3) What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
Chechen got fifty percent of what they wanted before the revolution. Russians told Chechen that they could take their own freedom. But Russians haven’t given Chechen the independence. I think the some of the people of Chechen would satisfy and some wouldn’t. But for the most part, the revolution did not succeed. It was some a failure. What Chechen wanted was freedom and independence. Because Chechnya only got the freedom, but did not get independence, people did not become a better due to the revolution.  
 4) Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
The revolution was not justified because Russia was in better condition than Chechen. After Chechen rebelled against Russia, there were Second Chechen war. By showing that Chechen had the second war, the audience could easily realize that the revolution was not justified. Chechen only got their freedom from Russia. No independence. Yet, they created the second chechen rebellion against Russia to try to get their independence. War would have been the best choice for Chechen. Chechen did not have a great power like Russia. So I think the violence was their best choice to make.
5) Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton’s Stages of Revolution
Not every stage of Crane Brinton Stage's of Revolution fits into the First Chechen rebellion against Russia. But some parts do. We cannot say that Chechen was the middle class that expressed their anger to the government. Chechen was one of the nations among Russia and expressed their feelings and made announcement about the anger and frustrations they had. Although Brinton Crane talks about the middle class going against the government, and Chechen revolution is quite differnet, the way Chechen went against Russians were similar. Especailly when there were lots of violence and efforts to spread the ideals of the revolution. Briton Crane’s revolution and Chechen revolution were both fragile. Although the Convalescence is different like how Brinton Crane's recovered while Chechen didn't. Chechnya had to make a Second Chechen rebellion against Russia. The nation of Chechen does not begin to return to normal but it begins to turn normal after the second chechen rebellion against Russia.
Bibliography
"Chechnya." Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. 02 FEB 2008. Wikipedia. 4 Feb 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya.
"Online Backgrounders." Update: Chechen Rebellion. 16 JAN 1996. Google. 4 Feb 2008 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/russia_1-16a.html.
"Strategy Page." Chechen Rebellion Flicker Out. 11 JUL 2006. Google. 4 Feb 2008 http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20060711.aspx.
 
 
 

Iraqi Insurgency Against U.S. Occupation

What methods did the group (s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
The Iraq revolution in 2003 is set aside from other revolutions under the terms that revolution was against foreign invading forces, but at the same time civil war plagued the country as well. Before the invasion of outside forces, there was high tension within Iraq between the two dominant Muslim branches of religion in the country, the Sunni’s and the Shiites. Eventually extremist parties from both sides began combating each other, the situation intensified as the violence grew from fist fights to gun skirmishes between the two sides. When the U.S. took the city from the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein by military force, the surviving remnants of the Iraqi army loyal to Saddam, the terrorist organization Al Qaeda as well as the extremist Muslim cells (some supported by Al Qaeda) started a revolt against the foreign invaders .They began using suicide and guerilla tactics to try and halt the efforts of the United Nations and the United States who were attempting to form a liberal democracy within the country. The insurgents released propaganda, planned raids and suicide attacks against U.S. controlled buildings and troops. Hoping to inflict enough casualties to cause the U.S. and U.N. to withdraw. The most deadly weapons were IEDs or Improvised Explosive Devices. These makeshift bombs were placed on road sides or outside buildings then ignited using a detonator, usually an altered cell phone. These weapons caused more civilian casualties than U.S. military, showing how determined the revolutionaries were to stop the U.S. They were willing to kill their own people to accomplish their goal.
How your revolution is similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
There are only few similarities between Iraqi insurgency against the United States government and having a republic as a government, and the American Revolution is that the ultimate goal of both revolutions was to eject foreign rule and interference from their nation, and set up their own government. Another likeness to these groups is that they both eventually used violence during their revolution, and had been receiving aid from people foreign countries. France, Spain and Holland had been giving support to the colonists during the American Revolution, while the Taliban, another extremist group from Afghanistan, have been lending assistance to the part of the Iraqi insurrectionary.
There are many differences between the Iraqi insurgency and the American Revolution. Already complicated, the Iraqi revolution was made more complex by conflicting religious beliefs, and opinion in the opposing groups. Firstly, the Sunnis and Shiites, the two main revolutionary groups in Iraq, are not united in trying to expel the U.S. soldiers from Iraqi land. In fact, the animosity between these two Muslim extremists had gone back to the time after Prophet Muhammad’s death when the leaders of the Shiites and Sunnis argued on who would continue the great Prophet’s legacy. Basically, the Iraqi extremists are fighting against the American soldiers and against another revolutionary group who has been their enemy for hundreds of years. Both Sunnis and Shiites employed violence as a means to attain their goal. They had no qualms or hesitations about harming innocent civilians, however honorable or not their actions are. Raids from the revolutionaries of these two groups were one of the many direct causes of the civilian street riots. And to convolute the matters even further, another famous terrorist group, the Al Qaeda is part of the coalition against the U.S. troops, though this time, their hostility seemed reserved to the American soldiers.
Contrary to the insurgency in Iraq, he American Revolution was much more well-planned and orderly revolution than the insurgency in Iraq. And at least a third of the combined states supported the revolution. Also, those who were strategizing the revolution in America had constructed plans for the future of the United States of America if they won the war against Great Britain. The constitution had already drawn up the founding fathers before even the revolution was over. And while the Sunnis and Shiites may have already planned as well, it would be for the benefit of their perspective groups, and not for the Iraqi people. Also, so far, there has been no word or news of any constitution or the like devised by the insurgents.
What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
The success of the revolution is debatable. In terms of causing a full withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq and stopping the installation of a democracy within the country, the revolution failed. There is still an occupation of outside forces inside Iraq. However, the global view on the invasion of Iraq is mostly negative. The majority of people now think that foreign forces should withdraw from Iraq and leave it to recover and function on its own. Because of the increasing casualty rate, people think that these “pointless” deaths can be avoided if the U.S. withdraws its troops from Iraq. The citizens of Iraq are still in a similar state that they were under Saddam Hussein or during the war. The country is still in shambles and people live in fear. It can be looked at as: Under Saddam, the people lived in fear of being arrested and executed. During the war, people were afraid of being shot. During the U.S. occupation, people lived in fear of being a victim of a terrorist attack. But the country is making a steady climb back to normal day life. With the establishment of a new government, the country can start dealing with the internal needs and affairs of the country and its people.
Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
Unlike the French and American Revolution, the insurgency in Iraq cannot be justified. There were no iniquitous officials needed to be overthrown or too many heavy taxes to be paid or unfair social systems and divisions needed to be changed. The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani was an Iraqi, not American, so it would be safe to say that the population has a suitable representation in the government. The American soldiers occupied in Iraq are just trying to keep the peace. And while many think that the United States has ulterior motive, the oil, they are still doing their best to keep the order in a chaotic country. Numerous civilians and militants had died in the major conflict in Baghdad, especially in Haifa Street, almost one year ago. At the peak of insurgency, 200 civilians died daily, caught in crossfire and explosions, and the annual death rate that year was 34,000 people, militants included. All these persons did not need to lose their life prematurely if the extremists hadn’t involved the rest of the populace.
Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton’s Stages of Revolution?
The revolution in Iraq is not easily compared with the stages described in Crane Briton’s Stages of Revolution. This is mainly because of key factors such as: the leaders of the country at the time were foreign forces who were working to construct a new government which would then be taken over by the country, there were many different forces who were in the revolution and whether or not the revolution was a success is a matter of personal opinion. Parts of the first stage of the anatomy fit the revolutions characteristics. The government was ineffective and was unable to maintain control and manage the country proficiently. The country was in debt and there was no set leader at the time. However, the rebellion was not caused by economic restraint. The rebels were upset by foreign control of the country. Also, the government co-operated with the foreign forces so no significant government leaders in the country’s government defected.
During the second stage, the rebels did rise up and uses extreme violent manners to try to take control of the government. But, they did not, or rather, have not taken control of the government. Since the revolution is still covertly being continued to this day, it is still a possibility the rebels can cause the foreign forces to withdraw. But it is still a stalemate. Element from the third stage, Crisis, such as violent and efforts to spread the ideals of the insurgency, can be found in the revolution. But as of now, it sounds like the streets in Baghdad are fairly peaceful. Shop keepers move back in to their previously abandoned stalls and markets and businesses started by the Americans are now continued by the Iraqi people by themselves. This aspect can be part of the fourth stage, Convalescence, but the revolution is not yet completely over since the revolutionary groups had not yet been disbanded and punished. As of now, life seemed normal in Baghdad, but it can all change quickly once the terrorists decide to return out into the open and try to recapture the Baghdad, now that the U.S. is trying to decide if 25,000 troops stationed in Iraq should withdraw from the country.
Bibliography
Armanios, Febe. "Islam: Sunnis and Shiites." FAS. 23 Feb 2004. 29 Jan 2008 .
"Battle for Baghdad: No Way Out." CBC. 05 Apr 2007. 31 Jan 2008 .
"Democracy in Iraq." White House. 12 Dec 2005. The White House. 28 Jan 2008 .
Gresh, Alain. "Iraq In Focus." Insurgentjg. 27 Jan 2008. 29 Jan 2008 .
"Jalal Talabani." Wikipedia. 24 Jan 2008. 29 Jan 2008 .
Mazzetti, Mark. "C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden ." The New York Times. 04 July 2004. The New York  Times Company. 31 Jan 2008 .

Bangladesh Revolution

In 1947 when Britain left British India it formed to states: India and Pakistan. It divided Pakistan into two wings. The East and West wing. The West wing is now Pakistan and the East wing is now Bangladesh. They were separated by 1,600km and India. They were also culturally different. West Pakistan spoke Urdu, and insisted that it should be the national language. East Pakistan thought that Bengali should be the national language. They couldn’t agree on many issues and eventually went to war.

What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
East Bangladesh used force and violence to become and independent nation. At first resistance was unorganized and was not expected to last long. But as the Pakistani Army cracked down on civilians of East Pakistan, more and more support against the Pakistani Army and Pakistan grew. They formed an army called Mukti Bahini. They got their weapons from India. The fighting then continued until India joined East Pakistan or Bangladesh and soon after Pakistan surrendered.

How your revolution is similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
The Bangladesh Liberation is similar and different to all of the revolutions we have studied. It is similar in the fact that, they were unhappy with the government that was in place. They had had enough of what it was doing to them and so they decided to rebel. It was also similar in the fact that they got rid of the government that was in place at the time. It is different to all the three revolutions because it was a very bloody and violent revolution. Up to 3,000,000 civilians are said to have lost their lives due to the revolution. Not nearly as many people were killed in the revolutions we studied.

What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
The eventual outcome ended with an independent nation called Bangladesh. It is hard to say whether the revolution did any good. It made East Pakistan an independent nation. It got rid of the violence that the Bangladesh Liberation War caused and also the violent crackdown on East Pakistan that West Pakistan was causing. The Bangladesh of today is filled with poverty and corruption. According to Transparency International, Bangladesh is the 167th most uncorrupt country in the world even more corrupt than the Philippines which is at 132; and we know how bad it is as we live in it. The average wage in Bangladesh is 1,400 dollars. The world average is 10,400. There is a large gap between rich and poor. It is debatable whether the revolution was successful or not.

Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
The revolution was justified because Pakistan would not give Bangladesh its independence easily. A peaceful people power revolution may have worked but it would’ve taken a lot longer than the revolution that took place. It would’ve taken more time because war has a far larger immediate effect compared to people protesting. Imagine to which you would react faster; a gun pointed at your head or someone telling you to stop repeatedly. It would have been a better way to change to an independent nation because so many lives wouldn’t have been lost. If one had taken place peacefully maybe Bangladesh wouldn’t be in the same state it is now.

Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton’s Stages of Revolution.
I think the Bangladeshi Liberation War fits with some parts of Brinton Crane’s framework of a revolution. The symptoms of the Bangladeshi Liberation War began when the Pakistani president wanted to make the only national language Urdu. East Pakistan (Current Bangladesh) did not like this because most of East Pakistan spoke Bengali, and to learn a new language would take work. The Rising Fever of the revolution began when the cyclone named Bhola hit the coast of East Paskistan in 1970. 300,000 – 500,000 people were thought to have been killed but the exact numbers are unknown. The president of Pakistan had made mistakes in handling the relief efforts because he did not fully understand what happened. Accusations of the president’s neglect and indifference sprang up and accusations of the president limiting new coverage were also said. Maulana Bhashani addressed a rally of 50,000 people, where he accused the president of inefficiency and demanded his resignation. As the conflict grew bigger, it eventually widened into the Bangladesh Liberation War. The crisis of the revolution is the war itself. However, there are no political parties wanting to take control of the country. Instead, the Eastern part of Pakistan wants to separate and become independent. The Indians are supporting the Bangladeshi’s in this war. The convalescence in the Bangladeshi revolution came at the end of the war. Bangladesh gained its independence and a new ruler named Sheikh Mujibur Rahman came to power. He was not a strong ruler and only ruled Bangladesh for a year. Brinton Crane’s Anatomy of a revolution does not fit very well with the Bangladeshi revolution.

Bibliography
Akram, Tanweer. "Virtual Bangladesh : History : Article by Tanweer Akram." Virtual Bangladesh. 07 Nov 2007.  VirtualBangladesh. 2 Feb 2008.
"Bangladesh Liberation War 1971." Bangladesh. 24 Dec 2008. Wepaint. 2 Feb 2008.
"Bangladesh Liberation War." Wikipedia. 29 Jan 2008. Wikipedia Foundation. 2 Feb 2008.
"History of Bangladesh." Discovery Bangladesh. 02 Feb 2008. Discovery Bangladesh. 2 Feb 2008.

Burmese (Saffron)Revolution

A major method used in the saffron revolution is the idea of peace full protest and religion. These protests may have triggered the revolution. Thousands of protesters lead by Buddhist monks gather to the streets of Burma rallying and fighting for there freedom. Groups in Burma declare boycotts of the country’s military regime and rally outside military bases and demand that political prisoners are released. The monks all wear saffron colored robes to represent their revolution. This is another form of protest and is where the word saffron comes into the name of the revolution. Campaigns and rallies are held in other countries to show there support.
This revolution I think is similar to the people power revolution in the Philippines or people power may have influenced this revolution. The people power revolution also associates with peace full protest and religion. In both these revolution martial law is present leading to the people to protest and express their frustrations. In people power they use the color yellow to symbolize the revolution and as a form of protests in comparison to Burma with saffron .As well as people rallying through the streets fighting for there freedom. As monks are present in the saffron revolution, in the people power revolution nuns pray in front of tanks and show there support. In addition the Catholic Church plays a big role in people power.


This revolution is not yet finished. I predict that when the revolution is over, the people will be better. Only if the government makes the prices of diesel and petrol get lowered. They should also get rid of the military junta because they are the reason for the economic problems of Burma. I think if this happens people like the monks, who started this revolution will be better people. This will happen because the wont be angry and upset because the military junta, are not the leaders so the prices of diesel and petrol will go back down.




The Revolution in Burma is not finished. So far I think that it has not been justified. I don’t think it is fair that they raise the prices of petrol and diesel. These are very important things and the price of them has been raised by over one hundred percent. I think that this revolution will not be justified when it is done. The military Junta is in charge and I don’t think they would make this happen.




I think that now the Revolution in Burma, also known as the saffron revolution, follows Cranes Briton’s Stages of a Revolution. The revolution is not finished but so far I do follow Cranes Briton’s Stages of a Revolution. It says that they will protest against the government. The Buddhist monks did protest against them and some of them even got hurt because of doing so. I think that this will follow Cranes Briton’s Stages of a Revolution and not succeed because the monks are mostly the ones protesting. I don’t think they will have enough power to overthrow the government.

Darfur, Sudan Genocide

Questions:
1. What methods did the group(s) use to show their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
2. How is your revolution similar and/or different to the other ones that we have studied?
3. What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
4. Was this revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
5. Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Briton’s Anatomy of a revolution?

1. What methods did the group(s) use to show their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
Darfur is the western region of the Republic of Sudan. A region that host’s many diverse ethnic groups, Arabs and non-Arabs. Today, Darfur is described as an African-Arab conflict. Darfur is economically weak and neglected; a region where healthcare, education, institutions, infrastructures are at its lowest standards. The efforts to build a unified Darfurian politician platform failed to succeed. The government’s failure to address key issues, and their support to the Janjaweeed, an Arab militia, increased the growing discontent. This eventually led to the rebel groups to take arms; led by the main groups such as the JEM (The Justice Equality Movement) and the SLA (The Sudan Liberation Army). Both these groups comprised of non-Arabs, Fur, Zaghawa etc. These groups attacked government military garrisons and fought Janjaweed militias.
2. How is your revolution similar and/or different to the other ones that we have studied?
The Darfur conflict is very different to the other revolutions we have studied because it involves a conflict between the government and two rebel groups namely the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. Usually the other revolutions are instigated by the majority of the people rebelling against the government. The two groups that have rebelled say that the government is “oppressing black Africans in favor of Arabs.” This conflict is centered on race and color whereas the American Revolution was about people who have lived in their place for a sustained time protesting against a king who is living on the other side of the world, assert his control over them, and wanting to impose taxes. The Darfur conflict is also not similar to the French revolution because it was on the subject of inequality between classes. Likewise it is not akin to People power because it was done to oust a terrible dictator who declared marshal law. UN peacekeepers and African Union troops are in Darfur trying to stop the conflict. In the other named revolutions there were no people actually trying to stop the rebellion. For these reasons the Darfur conflict and the French, American and Filipino revolutions are not very similar to each other.
3. What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
Along with the uprising and change in Darfur; the revolution had a price to pay. According to the UN, about 200-400,000 people have died in the conflict. Around 2.2 million Darfurians have been driven out of their homes due to the violence; one-third of the population still lives in refugee camps. Humanitarian assistance is another key issue as international relief workers fail to reach the much helpless communities because of Sudan’s strict regulations. Its people, have deeply suffered from atrocities such as the destruction of villages, slaughtering by the Janjaweed, women are a target of rape, contamination of water wells and food supplies; violence, starvation, disease sum up the current situation in Darfur. The UNAMID (UN and the AU-African Union) have agreed on deploying around 26,000 member peacekeeping force in Darfur. Their goal is to provide better resources to protect, and aid the civilians as well as humanitarian workers. There are already 7,000 AU troops in Darfur; however, that has been unsuccessful in controlling the violence. The Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) has also been signed by the Sudanese Government and a faction of the SLA.
4. Was this revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
Yes, the revolution was justified as the Darfurians were fed up with the Sudanese Government. Over the past years, the government has abandoned Darfur; thus, affecting Darfurs infrastructure, institutions, healthcare etc. Attacks on villages and innocent civilians, especially women, by the Janjaweed still continue. This leads to the creation of refugee camps, diseases and starvation. The government is not disarming the ruthless ethnic militias (Janjaweed), but supporting it through armed forces/weapons. It is allowing and permitting attacks on civilians/villages; violations of international law go unpunished, as well as the attacks on AU and humanitarian aid workers. They coordinate the bombings on the communities that are suspected to host the rebels. Furthermore, they have also rejected main issues that include power sharing between the people, victims compensation fund, and foremost, rebel representation in government. There are other means that might work. International institutions and foreign governments could apply pressure on the Sudan’s government through sanctions, forcing it to change its policies and practices. The deployment of more UN and AU troops who are more experienced and well-trained. Organizations around the world should be more involved in improving the living condition at the refugee camps.
5. Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Briton’s Anatomy of a revolution?
The problem in Darfur does not fit Briton Crane’s Anatomy of a revolution. This is mainly because there is no division between the people such as the middle class, the intellectual, the moderates, the radicals and others. Considering the symptoms stage, Briton Crane states that the people express their anger over economic restrains. In considering this matter the conflict in Darfur has nothing to do with the economy; it is a mass genocide. The government was not inefficient at all; in fact they are even winning this genocide. During phase 2: the rising fever, there was no new government that was formed. There is a rebellion but the government is able to suppress the rebellion. When it reaches phase three which is Crisis, there is a lot of violence but the opposition is not squashed and the revolution is not fragile because the SLA and the JEM have support of the people. Sadly, there has not been any convalescence in this revolution because it is still going on and alas the people are not winning, the government is. Thus many black Africans are dying.
Bibliography:
"Darfur conflict." 16 January 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. 16 January 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict.
"Darfur mission 'behind schedule'." BBC News. 02 December 2007. BBC. 16 January 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7123378.stm.
De Waal,Alex. "Darfur." Microsoft® Student 2008 [DVD]. CD-ROM.2008 ed.Redmond, WA:Microsoft Coorporation,
Pavic, Filipa. Personal interview. 30 January 2008
"Q&A: Sudan's Darfur conflict." BBC News. 15 November 2007. BBC. 16 January 2007
Ratnesar, Romesh. "The Don Quixote of Darfur." TIME 02 November 2007: 24. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm.
"The worsening chaos of Darfur." The Economist 13 October 2007: 55-56.
Dinesh Mohnani & Stanzin

The Romanian Revolution of 1989

1. The methods the group used to express their frustration  
When Ceausescu was re-elected as a communist leader of the Romanian Communist Party of another additional five years, many rebelled against him whilst doing certain acts to throw him off his leadership. Some acts involved in mocking and insulting him, and booing him during his speeches. Groups of people even attempted to burn down the building where the District Committee of the Romanian Communist Party resided. Furthermore, they started protest marches, broke into buildings and chucked certain documents out the windows like propaganda brochures, Ceausescu’s writings and other symbols belonging to the communist power. Cars were being burned and fights broke out. People waved Romanian flags with the coat of arms, representing communist power, removed and missing from the flag whilst singing a national Romanian song that was banned since 1947 and protestors chanted anti-governmental protests.  
2. Similarities/differences between Romanian Revolution and People Power  
Romanian Revolution and People Power share both similarities and differences. During both revolutions, the people protested against their dictators, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, and were able to get rid of them. They are also similar that their economic and political situations were not stable after the revolutions. During the protest, both Romanians and Filipinos pacified the army by offering flowers and cigarettes (but Romanians only did that once). However, while the Romanian Revolution caused fatalities of thousands of people and is still considered to be extremely violent, the People Power did not cause any killings and was peaceful. In addition, while the various sectors of the Philippines could unite for a short time to achieve a common goal, it was unclear if Romania could do the same.  
3. Eventual outcome of the revolution/ situation of Romania after the revolution  
After Ceausescu fell from his leadership position and the new political structure, National Salvation Front, took power (after a huge battle taking the lives of at least nine hundred forty two people), countries turned their attention to Romania after the revolution. The National Salvation Front consisted of many former members of the Communist Party and was allies of Ceausescu, much of the world‘s sympathy was directed to the government led by Ion Iliescu. The government controlled over the main media outlets, national radios and television networks to broadcast strong and active propaganda attacks towards their political opponents; the traditional democratic parties.  The revolution was violent but the result was close to the violence of the revolution due to the battles between the people and the government. Though even against their will, the people were eventually controlled and the battle between the government and the people was settled under the control of Ion.  
4. Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
The Romanian Revolution was justified in getting rid of the dictator; however, it was very brutal and claimed too many lives and even the other countries called it as a ‘Romania’s Bloody Revolution’. And even after the revolution, the situation of the country was yet unsteady. Therefore, the Romanian Revolution can be only justified in being able to get rid of Nicolae Ceausescu. On the other hand, the Romanians might have found it difficult to avoid the violence because the army supported the dictator strongly and the situation was already tensed due to the genocide and power abuse. In addition, I consider that even if the Romanians have protested peacefully, the army would not think twice to eliminate them.  
5. Crane Brinton’s Stages of Revolution and Romanian Revolution   
The Romanian Revolution was very different from the Crane’s Stages of Revolution because the middle and the lower class weren’t the only ones who loudly expressed their anger against Ceausescu; it wasn’t the economic restraints but rather Ceausescu’s leadership skills. Despite the fact Ceausescu was an inept leader, the military yet still followed his every order and pushed back the people. Although Ceausescu was deserted by the military and by his people, the Communist Party was still allied with him. The ruling party contained of all the intellectuals who never deserted Ceausescu until his fall from leadership. Rioters and protestors began attempting to burn down buildings belonging to the Communist Party and violently march down streets. Not one battle but more than one are being fought; leaving dead bodies to be thrown into mass graves or burned. The military deserted Ceausescu and joined the people, leaving him vulnerable to the people who yet violently reacted towards him. The new moderate government, The National Front Salvation, claimed control with Ion as the leader but much of the people still protested against him, which led to violent battles once again. Despite the fact Ceausescu was tried and executed with his body showing up on television, the fighting continued in the capital and Timisoara, and the situation of the country was very unstable.  

References:
"Romania's Bloody Revolution." BBC News. 22 Dec 1999. BBC. 17 Jan 2008 .
 "Romania." Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica. 17 Jan 2008 .
"Day-by-Day History of the Romanian Revolution 1989." 17 Jan 2008  .
"Romanian Revolution of 1989." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia. 28 Jan 2008  .