Modern Revolutions

The First Intifada

The First Intifada was a mass uprising that began in 1987 in Israel. Palestinians, expressing their frustration over Israeli oppression and desiring a separate Islamic state, participated in many acts of civil disobedience, including boycotts, strikes, and demonstrations. However, as the revolution lengthened, the violence increased and over 1,500 people, both Israeli and Palestinian, were killed. In the end, an agreement was made between the Palestinian population and the Israeli government, yet Palestine was not declared a separate state, and in later years a future uprising would occur.
1.) What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolutions?
The First Intifada was a revolt mainly in the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Israel. Palestinians used both force and negotiation in their effort to free themselves of Israeli oppresion. The First Intifada involved a large amount of civil disobedience, including refusal to pay taxes, rallies, demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts. During the revolution, many Palestinian youths acted as human shields to prevent Israeli police and soldiers from attacking. Three major groups were involved in the revolution; the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Islamic Jihad, and the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas.
These three organizations desired a separate Islamic state that included all of historic Palestine. There were large amounts of popular support for the revolution. Many Muslim countries sided with Palestine while Israel suffered international criticism. It began with minimal violence; mainly thrown rocks and the like. However, as the revolution progressed, the violence increased with guns, hand grenades, and molotov cocktails. Popular support diminished and the Israeli government was forced to act in kind, with more troops and police positioned in the area.
2.) How is your revolution similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
All of the revolutions previously studied are all, in their own right, similar and different from the First Intifada. The American Revolution, like the First Intifada, involved one group attempting to free themselves of oppression, whether it is Britain or Israel. The American colonists were oppressed by Britain, who laid heavy taxes on the colonists and did not allow some privileges and opportunities, much like the economic restraints and lack of some privileges suffered by the Palestinians in Israel. However, the American Revolution involved armies and war, while the First Intifada consisted of random outbursts, demonstrations, boycotts, and sparks of violence. The uprising in Israel contrasts greatly with the American Revolution in size and violence.
The French Revolution was similar and different from the First Intifada in many ways. The participants of the First Intifada never had combined attacks, only small, random attacks, whereas the French revolutionaries bonded together to launch massive attacks and pillages on the French nobility. The revolutions were similar, however, because both parties were oppressed by others; the nobility in the case of the French, and the Israeli government in the Palestinians’. The People Power movement was quite similar to the First Intifada. Both consisted of acts of civil disobedience; in both, thousands of people banded together to hold rallies and demonstrations. The First Intifada, however, included much more violence. Few were killed in EDSA, while over 1,000 people were killed in the First Intifada.
3.) What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
The revolt for a separate Islamic state of Palestine was unsuccesful and resulted in over 1,500 deaths and a second intifada years later. However, the first intifada did succeed in a signing of the Oslo Accords, or Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arragements. The Oslo Accords consist of a set of mutual agreements between Israel and the PLO and the allowance of a five-year period of Palestinian rule in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian people benefitted from the Oslo Accords due to the transfer of power and Israel’s responsibility for security in the Palestinian area; both major points included in the Declaration of Principles.
4.) Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
The First Intifada was, by all means, a justified uprising. Israeli military occupation in historic Palestine had existed for many years, and despite international criticism and Palestinian frustration Israel did not significantly lessen the military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Unjust oppression led to the First Intifada, and it is justified by the fact that no group should suffer oppression merely due to religion or ethnicity. However, the First Intifada was faulty on many accounts. The revolt transformed from peaceful civil disobedience to violent outbursts and explosives. The uprising began as a movement of the people’s frustration and anger, yet ended as a war between Islamic Palestinian factions and the Israeli government. If the violence of the First Intifada had been considerably lower, than the revolt would have ended with less lives lost and more success, as well as international praise of the revolution for its non-violence.
5.) Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton’s Stages of Revolution.
The First Intifada was unique in the fact that it completely ignored Brinton Crane’s stated stages of most revolutions. This was mainly due to the purpose of a revolution; it was not for a new government, but rather a new Islamic state that included all of historic Palestine. The revolution was one ethnic group against its oppresor, which is unlike most other revolutions. The first intifada resulted in an agreement between the two groups, not a formation of a new government. However, the first intifada fits into two portions of the stages of a revolution. The revolution began due to the restrictions placed on the Palestinians by Israel and the oppresion they suffer. Also, the revolt began with minimal violence and was quite non-violent, yet later as the radical groups took charge violence began to spread as Palestinians were armed with explosives and guns, which is similar to Crane’s statement that moderates take power and are then succeeded by the radicals, who are later punished. The first intifada mainly does not follow Crane’s Stages of a Revolution.
Dennis Z.
Kai M. "ISRAEL 1967-1991 FIRST INTIFADA." Palestine Facts. 29 Jan 2008 http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_intifada_1987.php
"ISRAEL 1991 TO PRESENT FIRST INTIFADA." Palestine Facts. 31 Jan 2008 http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_intifada_nature.php
"Intifada." MSN Encarta. Microsoft. 31 Jan 2008 http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579974/Intifada.html
Kafala, Tarik. "Intifada: Then and now." BBC News. 08 12 2000. 31 Jan 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1061537.stm

The Singing Revolution (Kei and Chloe)

From 1987 to 1990, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all expressed their frustrations against the Soviet Union simply by singing songs originally banned by the Soviet. On May 14th of 1988, the people of Estonia gathered together to join hands at the Tartu Pop Music festival and sing “Five Patriotic Songs”. This was the beginning of a series of singing demonstrations. The citizens of all three states joined hands, thus forming the human chain that was known as the Baltic Way, also singing together as one, defending themselves as well as the love for their country in front of armed tanks and readied bullets.

Revolutions like the American, French, and Philippine Revolution was all dealt with in different ways, each had their weapon of choice and each had a life or two lost. The American and French revolutions were violent and overthrew their rulers aggressively, like the execution of King Louie and the battles between the red coats and the Americans. However, the Philippine revolution (though had a few lives were lost) overthrew Marcos peacefully, holding masses in front of tanks and selling flowers to the soldiers. The Singing Revolution against the Soviet Union, unlike the American and French revolutions, chose singing as their weapon. Their non-violent demonstrations against the Soviet Regime led to a peaceful change, which ultimately, brought Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania their independence.

In year 1990, the struggles to regain their independence had ended after a series of peaceful demonstrations since year 1987. They had finally reclaimed the freedom to their country and independence was now official to the citizens of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The independence was declared to Estonia on a late evening of August 20, after political parties had reached an agreement. The following day, the Latvian Republic had announced their independence, justifying itself as a fully independent nation.

The Singing Revolution was justified and successful, the nations regained the right to their country. Their demonstrations were different compared to the methods of other nations but luckily, they succeeded. Other methods might have also worked but singing had brought the people together as one and they had successfully shown the right to their country peacefully, without bloodshed.
Because of the non-violence of the Singing Revolution, it doesn’t fit Crane’s anatomy of a revolution wholly. The first stage, Symptoms, fits the bulk of the Singing Revolution. It fit into Symptoms in a sense that the community expressed its dissatisfaction over a failing Soviet Union in several mass singing demonstrations against the Soviet Union. However, it jumped from Symptoms to Convalescence. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were all peacefully granted independence from the USSR, without any violence, loss of popular support, or extreme economic conditions. The Singing Revolution is a perfect example of why peaceful revolutions don’t fit into Crane’s anatomy of a (violent) Revolution.

"Freemuse: Estonia: Banned choral singing became a singing revolution." Free Muse: Freedom of musical expression. October 24, 2007. 28 Jan 2008 .

Burma Revolution

Toshi
Min-Ho
Tim
1). The saffron revolution in Burma’s people protested and used non- violent actions such as a banner that tells to free Burma and other countries also helped out Burma by internet blog and stop trading goods to express their frustrations.
2). The revolution is called “The Saffron Revolution in Burma”. So far in our social studies class, we’ve learned American Revolution, French Revolution and People Power. This revolution includes non- violence and protesting and it is very similar to People Power that happened in Philippines because, they also used non-violence and tons of people protested to get rid of president.
3). The eventual outcome of the revolution will be that the Burmese people will gain their freedom after roughly six years of dictatorship and they will continue to live in horror and suffering until that day when some person will overthrow the leader.
4). We can’t actually say if the revolution was justified because it is still going on. Other method might had have worked but we think this was the best method. The whole point of the revolution was for the monks, who are highly respected in Burma, to rebel against the dictator with out violence. If the dictator used violence, it would make him look bad and give him a bad repetition to the world (since the monks are not fighting back). So this is why we think this method was the best.
5). This revolution follows Brinton Crane’s ‘Anatomy of a Revolution’ because the government had made the people angry and they were beginning to demonstrate protests its also becoming very fragile due to the suppression of the public.

The 1991 Kurdish Revolution

What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
    Kurdish nationalist rebel groups, after much planning and preparation, took over towns in Northern Iraq (or Iraqi Kurdistan) and resisted Saddam government rule. After finding torture rooms smeared with blood and filled with corpses of women and children in government/police headquarters, they slaughtered and brutally massacred members of security forces and intelligence agencies. Believing falsely that at the time, Saddam’s government troops were weak, civilians started to openly show their support for rebel groups, marching in streets and shouting anti-Saddam slogans.

    These uprisings in the North caught Saddam’s attention and he eventually retaliated with armed troops, and thus the revolution ignited.



How is your revolution similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?

    This revolution is similar to the American Revolution because they are both fighting for their country, their rights and their independence, but for the Kurds, it was a more severe matter because they didn’t have a country. It didn’t exist; it wasn’t on the map.

    Compared to the American revolution, the Kurdish revolution wasn’t a successful and romantic affair. The Kurdish revolution was more violent and in return, the Kurds were met with brutal force, their every attempt crushed ruthlessly by Saddam.

    To this day, Kurdistan is not yet a country, but America is. This is the big difference. The Kurds will have to keep fighting for their nation to exist once again.

    As for the French Revolution, the Kurdish revolution is also partly similar and partly different to it. The people in France wanted to overthrow an inept leader and obtain rights, and that was basically what the Kurds wanted to do as well. However, these two revolutions are still strikingly different as the French revolution was largely successful while the Kurdish one was abortive. The French were able to overthrow the royal family and obtain more rights, while the Kurdish were just met with amazing force from Saddam’s regime and crushed.



What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?

    Sad to say, the Kurdish revolution of 1991 was crushed by the forces of Saddam. The Kurdish people were not only back to where they were before the revolution, but they were definitely worse off. First, the city of Basra fell and the army poured kerosene on the refugees and set them on fire.
    An article on the Kurdish revolution stated, “There were mass executions of civilians, some of whom were tied to tanks and used as human shields. In Karbala, some of Shiite Islam’s holiest shrines were destroyed. Others were used as centers for murder, torture and rape. In Najaf, residential areas were bombed, and hospital staff and patients were murdered. The homes of suspected rebels were destroyed while the suspects were executed in the streets.”
    After the revolution, the Kurds became refugees, and at one point, the number of deaths per day reached an overwhelming 2000 due to typhoid, dehydration and dysentery.
    Fortunately, later on, the Kurds were able to establish self-rule in the three northern provinces of Abril, Dohuk, Sulaimaniya, under the protection of a western security no fly zone. Today, this area of Northern Iraq is known as Iraqi Kurdistan, and is quite peaceful, as Saddam is dead and no longer a threat. The war on terrorism occurring in the rest of Iraq has not affected them.



Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?

    The Kurdish people have long been oppressed and mistreated. They have a population of around 30 million, which is about the same size as the population of Canada, and yet they have no country or homeland. After World War II, Kurdistan was broken up by the British, who back then had colonized it, and its land was distributed to different Middle-Eastern countries. Since then, the Kurdish people have been living as second class citizens in the scattered countries to which their land had been distributed.

    A large concentration of them settled in Northern Iraq, but they have been abused atrociously by Saddam’s regime there. Prior to the Kurdish uprising/revolution, Saddam had launched a genocidal campaign called the Al-Anfal Campaign. During this campaign, Saddam wiped out anywhere from 50,000 to 100, 000 Kurdish civilians, in his Nazi-like concentration camps and elsewhere using explosives, artillery, and perhaps most horrendously, chemical weapons. In addition to this campaign, Saddam has also executed, through his secret police personnel, a number of other Kurdish people. Considering the fact that they are so large yet have no country, and also the vast amount of suffering the Kurdish people have gone through, it is definitely understandable and justifiable for them to want a revolution.

    However, although we believe that the revolution is justified, we do not consider the means by which the Kurdish rebels undertook the task suitable or even acceptable. Their brutal retaliations against Saddam’s workers were but mirror images of the treatment they despised so much from the dictator. Perhaps if they had opted for more peaceful methods, such as trying to negotiate or just seizing cities without killing the security officers and government men, and granting them amnesty like they had the government soldiers, they might have been able to achieve their goal without so much bloodshed.



Does your revolution fit into Brinton Crane's Anatomy of a Revolution?

    In the Kurdish revolution, phase one of Brinton Crane’s anatomy of a revolution was nearly fulfilled. The Kurds have been oppressed and treated as second-class citizens in their host countries for many, many years. The Kurds hated Saddam. The revolution wasn’t only made up of the middle class, though. Two groups – the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shiites in southern Iraq – rose up against the oppressive government of Saddam Hussein.

    The Kurdish revolution follows Brinton Crane’s analogy of a revolution only up to half of stage two. The people did rise up against the government and they did have a great battle. The Kurds seized many towns, and killed many people. However, the formation of a new moderate government did not take place.

    The fact that the revolution did not follow through with forming a new moderate government means stage three, wherein the political left takes over, did not take place. Later on, the revolution ended, and this part basically followed Brinton Crane’s “Convalescence”. Northern Iraq became a sort of independent state within Iraq, not quite an independent country but better off than they were before. They established their own government that controlled Kurdish affairs within the state, and have been protected from further attacks from Iraq by a Western security no-fly zone. However, unlike what is described in Brinton Crane’s anatomy, there was no strong ruler that came to power during this time.

    Overall, the Kurdish revolution did not seem to follow Brinton Crane’s anatomy, as it contradicted it more than it followed it.
Bibliography
Atroushi , Jowanne . "IRAQI KURDISTAN REGION ." www.geocities.com. 6 October 1999. 3 Feb 2008 .
"ENDLESS TORMENT The 1991 uprisings in Iraq and its aftermath." www.hrw.org. June 1992. Human Rights Watch. 3 Feb 2008 .
"Genocide in Iraq: The Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds." www.hrw.org. july 1993. 3 Feb 2008 .
jones, adam. "Case Study:The Anfal Campaign(Iraqi Kurdistan), 1988 ." www.gendercide.org. 3 Feb 2008 .
johns, dave. "The Crimes of Saddam Hussein: 1999 Supression of the 1991 Uprising." www.pbs.org. 3 Feb 2008 .
"THE KURDISH UPRISING AND KURDISTAN'S NATIONALIST SHOP FRONT AND ITS NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE BAATHIST/FASCIST REGIME." www.purr.demon.co.uk. 3 Feb 2008 .

Bus Boycott by Rosa Parks and the start of the US Civil Rights Movement, report by Fiona and Kay-Li

Bus Boycott by Rosa Parks and the start of the US Civil Rights movement
Our revolution was that of Rosa Parks’ Bus Boycott. Rosa Parks, an African American, was just an elderly seamstress when she was faced with the decision that changed the world as we know it. On a color-segregated bus of Montgomery, she was ordered to give up her seat to a white man, considered superior over her in 1955. But Rosa Parks refused to be treated unfairly by him, because they both paid the same bus fare as passengers.
What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
Although it was fairly obvious how unjustly African Americans were being treated at the time, no one had the courage to speak out about it, until Rosa Parks stood up to her racist oppressors. Just the simple act of keeping her bus seat gave other African American lower classmen the inspiration to start freedom movements and really put an effort into convincing people we’re all equal. On top of that, seeing an old lady being thrown into jail for how she was made a lot of people aware of black-white situation.
How is your revolution similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
Compared to the American Revolution, Rosa Parks’ Revolution was similar because the protestors in each scenario felt obligated to rebel due to the fact that their groups were being treated unjustly (in the case of the American Revolution, Americans were required to pay tax while not allowed to have a voice in their own government, while in Rosa Parks’ bus boycott, Rosa Parks stood up to authority to express her disapproval toward African Americans being heavily discriminated against, even decades after slavery was abolished). However, in contrast, the American Revolution started with the help of hundreds of righteous Americans rising up against their oppressors, while Rosa Parks’ bus boycott started with the decision of one elderly woman to act.
What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
In the short run, this revolution desegregated the buses of Montgomery and eventually the whole of USA. However, this uprising caused a much larger effect on America. Once the buses were desegregated, people started questioning why this couldn’t happen for the rest of the daily articles of life that were also tainted with racism, like the children’s schools, for instance, or even the drinking fountains. Soon enough, discrimination was frowned upon rather than encouraged, like it had been for many generations before. This is better for the black people of America because of all the rights they now have acknowledged to them, as well as a better example for the world, America being one of the greater superpowers. Most importantly, however, this is better for the children of America, free to learn uncorrupted by different perspectives of color, and free to access the same opportunities, and succeed or fail as people, undefined by skin.  
Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
I believe this revolution was justified because it is never right to treat human beings according to how they look. This discrimination was nationwide and reinforced by law, and it was about time that fact changed. Although I like the non-violent approach Rosa used to revolt, other more violent methods would probably have worked as well, though it would have left a bad impression for Americans to perceive for a while. Aside from avoiding the deaths, injuries, and unnecessary imprisonments, the fact that African Americans succeeded in the insurgency without violence made it an overall positive revolution, shaming the racist Americans in the process.
Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton’s Stages of Revolution.
Our revolution fits some of the stages of revolution, like stage two: “The Rising Fever,” because once Rosa Parks expressed how she felt towards this whole situation of racism, most of the African American population (considered lower classmen at the time) did the same. This was done by boycotting all segregated buses. However, this revolution doesn’t fit most of the other stages of revolution. Unlike in many other revolutions, most African Americans didn’t question the discrimination going on, maybe for fear of getting beaten, maybe from not knowing any better or simply not caring, or maybe even from taking into consideration all the work past generations of their race had done to get them where they are now, gratitude, perhaps. As for the other stages, this revolution doesn’t really fit either because the boycott was never really a fight to take out the government, but rather to get the government to change some things; a fight against the mentality of most Americans of the 20th century. 
 
Biliography:
"Rosa Parks." Wikipedia. 2008. 29 Jan 2008 .

The Cuban Revolution

1.) What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
a. What fidel castro and his brother did was to gather a 100 poorly armed gurillas to attack the “moncada barracks” most of them were killed but those who survived were fidel castro and his brother. They were sentenced to 15 years in jail. Bautista freed all political prisoners. Fidel Castro and his brother gathered up all the other Cuban prisoners when they were exiled in Mexico. They eventually came into Cuba and forced Bautista to flee the country. Because no one took power fast enough so Bautista seized power.
2.) How your revolution is similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?   a. No because the Cubans went out and attacked people without talking about it. The thing that separates the cuaban revolution is that the leader of the revolution fidel castro hated bautista and he attacked him out of random with a 100 badly armed group.
3.) What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
 a. The outcome of the revolution is that fidel castro became the cuban leader and they nation/people have been living better because of this man. After a rvolution the country should fall into a dictatorship.
4.) Was the revolution justified?  Would other methods have worked?
 a.  Justified means to declare innocent or guiltless. Yes, the revolution was justified in public. Groups of people that sided with Fulgencio Bautista like suspected Batista-era agents, policemen, and soldiers were put in public for trial against human rights abuse and war crimes like murder and torture. Bautista’s soldiers were sentence to be executed, some were sentence to life in prison, and others were fortunate to be dismissed from the army and police without prosecution, and some high-ranking officials in the ancien regime were exiled as military attachés.
5.) Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton’s Stages of Revolution.
a. People did not like Fulgencio Batista’s regime.  
b. Starting point of revolution is on July 26, 1953.
c. Did not follow the Crane Brinton’s stages of revolution because the symptoms and the rising fever occur at the same time of the rebellious act.
 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution,
http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/the_cuban_revolution_-_1959.html
http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/ratb/cuba/cuba_rev.htm
http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=122
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/cite/cuba1956.htm

BULLDOZER REVOLUTION

1.     The people of Serbia were fed up with the irregularities happening in the election so the vote was largely boycotted in Montenegro. The protest started at the mines where Serbia’s electricity is developed. Several hundred thousand protesters from all over Serbia arrived in Belgrade to protest unlike previous protests; there was no large scale police crackdown. The parliament was partially burned during the protests and the RTS building, the symbol of Milosevic’s rule, was taken over. 2.     This revolution is similar to the Philippine People Power revolution because there was a huge protest in both. It is also similar to the American Revolution because of the boycotting. The Americans boycotted the tea of the British and the Serbians boycotted the vote. This is also different from the American Revolution because there was no violence involved whereas in the American Revolution there were many deaths. When the RTS building is captured, that’s similar to the Bastille being captured of the French Revolution.
3.       The outcome of the revolution was positive when it came to the people’s choice. The Yugoslavians gained a new president, Vojislav Kostunica who was not a dictator. Since the bulldozer revolution, Yugoslavia has had no major problems when it comes to their president. The people are much happier knowing that they are now in a democracy and can be a part of their country.
4.     The revolution was definitely justified. The people of Yugoslavia were finally given a president that allows them a democracy. They were able to overthrow their 13 year dictator without violence. I think non violence is the best method for a revolution because they are successful without hurting anyone. Many violent revolutions have not been successful in the past, however revolutions such as this one or the Philippine revolution to overthrow Marcos have been successful and I think it is because they did not get violent and out of hand. The revolution was controlled giving the people power instead of being one among the mess of killing and destruction. Also, the Yugoslavians were extremely happy when the dictator was overthrown, dancing and jumping on the streets. This clearly would not have been the reaction if people had loved ones injured or killed during the process. The method of a bloodless revolution leads to a happier ending for everyone. I don’t think that this revolution fits Crane Brintons anatomy of a revolution because the whole revolution is basically people protesting so the ruiling force resigns. It doesn’t get complicated with moderates ruling or violent actions. That’s why this is called the bloodless revolution. However, after the resign life returns to normal so that is probably a part of Stage 4 of Crane Brintons anatomy of a revolution.

The Orange Revolution

Harlin Lee & Eun yeol Ma 
The Orange Revolution started after the winner of the 2004 Ukraine president election. Viktor Yanukovych, was accused of manipulating the election by his close relationship with the Ukraine president - Leonid Kuchma – and Russia. On the eve of the second-round voting, the supporters of Viktor Yushchenko, Yanukovych’s rival, claimed that Yushchenko is the actual winner, and demanded the reason why the official count remarkably differed from the reliable exit poll results which gave Yushchenko a huge lead. Citizens rose up against the fraud. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine has just started now.
1. One remarkable characteristic of the Orange Revolution is that no violence was involved. The most often used method of showing protest was sit-ins, people occupying a certain place. The Yushchenko campaign policy asked the citizens to protest against the vote fraud on the dawn of the election day, November 21, 2004. From November 22, 2004, massive protests occurred in cities across Ukraine. 500,000 people gathered in Kiev's Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square), coloring the whole square into orange, the color of Yushchenko. Those people assembled again in front of the headquarters of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament), in November 23, 2004, and peacefully marched. The word “Orange Revolution” came out from the orange-colored masses of citizens gathered during the revolution. Millions of citizens wore or carried orange objects to show their support for Yushchenko. This effectively showed people’s opposition against Yanukovych’s vote fraud and support for Yushchenko. Meanwhile, Yushchenko took a symbolic presidential oath, which does not have any legal power but states that he is the true president of Ukraine. Furthermore, Ukrainians had general strikes which completely paralyzed the economy of the nation. They also showed their frustrations by civil disobedience, which is purposely disobeying to certain laws. But there was no violent involved. This was a way to show that the citizens did not support what the country is doing.
2. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine is different from the American and French Revolutions. The revolution in Ukraine was not a violent revolution that had injured or killed people. It was a protest in which the supporters of a candidate were protesting against the government. In American Revolution, there was a war between America and the U.K. This would have killed many people. The violent action was what solved the problem in the revolution. In the French Revolution, there was not a war. But the citizens of France rose up and had a very violent revolution which killed the King, Queen, and many nobles. And even when there was a protest, there was no violent action to solve the problem. Another difference is that this revolution was not about going against the previous leader. In all the revolutions that we had studied before, it was about going against the previous leader. However, in this revolution, it is not about the leader. It happened because of a vote fraud that happened to choose the next president of the country. On the other hand there are some similarities as well. For example, this was a revolution by the people. The normal citizens had rose up to get the things right. This was the case in French Revolution and People Power in the Philippines. Lastly, there is one special similarity with the Filipino People Power. This is that the next leader to be was attacked. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, the Filipino senator, was shot and killed. Yuschenko was also attacked, but did not die. He was mysteriously poisoned and the test came out that it was a dioxin poisoning. Many people think that it is done by the Russians, who supported Yanukovych.
3. After a week of protest, on December 3, 2004, a recount of the vote was ordered by the Ukrainian Supreme Court. On December 26, the results came out. Yuschenko had beaten Yanukovych in the recount of the votes. Yuschenko became the next president of Ukraine. After Yuschenko became the president of Ukraine, Ukraine has gotten much better in some points. Their economy, for instance, has improved a bit. The GDP has grown about 105 billion dollars, and the GDP per capita has grown about $3000. However, their economy growth is decreasing every year. People in Ukraine do not feel any significant difference between before and after the revolution. They say they are still poor and the political corruptions are not getting any better. They say Yuschenko got the effect of the vote fraud; people simply did not want Yanukovych the vote fraud to be the next president. In other words, if any other candidate was opposite to Yanukovych, people would have supported him. Yuschenko did not become the president due to his own ability, but due to people’s hatred of the vote fraud. Some people question whether Yuschenko could have win the election or not if the manipulation did not happen. Also, the Orange Revolution made the politics in Ukraine unstable. That kind of small and big protests is occurring now and then. In addition, Ukraine is politically stuck between Russia and Europe. In contrast to Yanukovych who had close relationships with Russia, Yuschenko promised his people to be closer to Europe and join EU. He succeeded in being separated from Russia and previous Soviet Unions, but Ukraine’s join in EU is still not clear. Now Ukraine is alone between Europe and Russia.
4. This revolution is justified. It was a revolution against a vote fraud that was committed by the government and a candidate. I believe that the citizens of a country deserve the true leader that they have picked. If someone else suddenly becomes the leader, the people would be furious. The Orange Revolution was not a revolution that one person came up in search of one person. It was a revolution that the people wanted. And if the people of a country want something, it is already 50% justified. The next is what happened after. The country has gotten better under the ruling of Yuschenko. Yuschenko did not commit any political crimes. This proves that the Orange Revolution was done for the better of Ukraine. It was not something that made the country go bad.
5. The Orange Revolution does not fit the Crane Brinton’s Stages of Revolution at all. There were no symptoms, no crisis, but only rising fever and convalescence. During the first stage of the Orange revolution, which is supposed to be symptoms, there were no economic restraints, inept government or defection of intellectuals. Since Orange Revolution occurred suddenly, there were no foreshadows of the revolution, and nobody expected that to happen. And Ukrainians didn’t dislike their country before. It was only the vote manipulation that made the people angry, and only that was what people were against. The second stage, rising fever, was the main part of the revolution. People rose up against the government by sit-ins, civil disobediences and general strikes, and the current government couldn’t shoot them away. But there were no new government. Although some people may consider the Yuschenko camp as the new government because Yuschenko took the oath, but they did not take any actions that was related to managing the nation. They were just the base camp of the revolution and nothing more. The crisis, the third stage, may be the most far-fetched assumption. One of the main characteristics of the Orange Revolution is that no violence was involved. Yes, there were radicals and moderates as usual, but the radicals never took over the power. And the revolution was still powerful since many people supported it and it was still December when crisis came. It doesn’t even seem to be appropriate to call it a “crisis.” Nevertheless, the revolution ended and stepped into the fourth stage, the convalescence. The workers started to work again and the life in the country returned to normal. Although Yuschenko seems to be economically disappointing his citizens these days, at that moment Yuschenko was the strong leader who could unify the nation under his commands, because everyone stood up for him during the revolution. Overall, the Orange Revolution does not fit into Crane Brinton’s Stage of Revolution, since there were no symptoms and crisis in during the two- month revolution. Maybe it is because Crane wasn’t alive then to see the orange waves in the independent square.
Bibliography
"Orange Revolution." Wikipedia. 16 Jan 2008
.
Quinn-Judge, Paul.“The Orange Revoution." Time Magazine 28 Nov 2004 16 Jan 2008 .

EDSA DOS REVOLUTION

1.) What methods did group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, also known as Erap, was voted into presidency by his popularity with the masses. He was a well known actor who often played the role of the tough guy from a poor neighborhood that defended the people. The Actor-turned-politician represented hope for the people. He was a president overwhelmingly elected by the poor. The Erap administration was rocked by scandal. The main event was that there was a bank account under a false name, with over 3 billion pesos in deposits, and that was traced back to Erap. Previous to this, he was criticized for his ostentatious personal lifestyle. Previous to that were the taped conversations between Erap and the Gambling Lord, Atong Ang. Erap’s mistake was to block the Senate hearing, causing the people to believe that there was no transparency in government. Moments after the pro-administrations solons stopped the opening of the second envelope in the then-ongoing impeachment trial of Joseph Ejercito Estrada, EDSA 2 was born. The end of the Erap presidency was 7 years ago, on Jan 20, 2001.Gloria Macapagal Arroyo took power from her disgraced predecessor. General Angelo Reyes withdrew military support on Jan 19, 2001. National interest took more importance than personal friendships, causing generals that were friends of Erap to join the defection. The media played a key role by exposing the truth about the Estrada administration. News channels such as abs-cbn filmed footage of the trials and important speeches to assist in portraying the facts. They featured all of his mistakes and flaws. They highlighted his gambling, drinking and immortality. Using surveillance cameras at a casino, the media documented Joseph Estrada gambling millions of pesos with Atong Ang. Due to the footage; Estrada was unable to deny the accusations. Additionally, a news station filmed Estrada saying the count down for the New Year how ever he was unable to do so due to intoxication. People from Estrada's cabinet and economic advisers as well as other members of congress withdrew their support. . Archbishop Cardinal Sin, the Catholic church, former Presidents Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos, as well as Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo deserted Estrada. The defection of the military and the appeal from Cardinal Sin (representing the Catholic Church) to the people prompted the support of a huge crowd in EDSA within hours. There people shared stories of discontent, played songs against the government, “Go 2 EDSA. Wer ol hir,” read the texts. Hours later, 50,000 people had jammed the intersection of EDSA and Ortigas Avenue, shouting “Erap resign!,” bringing with them all sorts of colors and banners. Much has been said about the role of texting and the People Power 2 uprising. It is known as the “texters’ revolution.” The Philippine Daily Inquirer, the nation's most popular broadsheet newspaper, printed exposes about Erap daily. He counteracted by charging them with "bias, malice and fabrication." His unpopularity was increasing. The defection of the military and the appeal from Cardinal Sin (representing the Catholic Church) to the people prompted the support of a huge crowd in EDSA within hours. There people shared stories of discontent, played songs against the government, “Go 2 EDSA. Wer ol hir,” read the texts. Hours later, 50,000 people had jammed the intersection of EDSA and Ortigas Avenue, shouting “Erap resign!,” bringing with them all sorts of colors and banners. Much has been said about the role of texting and the People Power 2 uprising. It is known as the “texters’ revolution.”What most other presidents used as a tool was no longer available to him. He had lost the respect of the media. No radio station broadcast except for “Radyo Bandido.” The 2-day EDSA shrine vigil was started by a move of Estrada’s 11 allies to vote against the opening of a document linking him to a P3.3 billion bank account. The government leaders tried to impeach him, claiming due plunder and immorality. Impeachment trial aborted by government prompted Cardinal Sin, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (his Vice President) and Corazon Aquino (previous president) to join the thousands of people at the EDSA Shrine. The EDSA 2 is best described by the words of the late Cardinal Sin, “there are only few evil people in the government. But there are millions of Filipinos that would fight (and even die) for the truth.” EDSA 2 was a successful call to the people to become involved. It was born from growing anti-ERAP sentiment supported by the actions of the church and his co-government people. It resulted in the Estrada family escaping on a barge from Malacanang, scampering across to the other side of the river. Estrada was convicted of plunder and was put under house arrest in Tanay Rizal until 2007. He was pardoned in Dec 2007
The defection of the military and the appeal from Cardinal Sin (representing the Catholic Church) to the people prompted the support of a huge crowd in EDSA within hours. There people shared stories of discontent, played songs against the government, “Go 2 EDSA. Wer ol hir,” read the texts. Hours later, 50,000 people had jammed the intersection of EDSA and Ortigas Avenue, shouting “Erap resign!,” bringing with them all sorts of colors and banners. Much has been said about the role of texting and the People Power 2 uprising. It is known as the “texters’ revolution.”The government leaders tried to impeach him, claiming due plunder and immorality. Impeachment trial aborted by government prompted Cardinal Sin, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (his Vice President) and Corazon Aquino (previous president) to join the thousands of people at the EDSA Shrine. It resulted in the Estrada family escaping on a barge from Malacanang, scampering across to the other side of the river. Estrada was convicted of plunder and was put under house arrest in Tanay Rizal until 2007. He was pardoned in Dec 2007 2.) How is your revolution similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
Between the American Revolution and the second people power movement of the Philippines, there are a number of similarities and differences between the two. Unlike the American Revolution against Britain, people power II in the Philippines was a four day, bloodless revolution that peacefully got rid of President Joseph Estrada. The American Revolution however took many years to get what they wished for and instead of opposing a leader; they were fighting for their independence as a country. There is quite some difference in the way the two revolutions began. The revolution in America first began when the lower classes expressed their economic restraints when Britain forced taxes upon the people. Although the revolution of the Philippines began when the truth about President Estrada’s gambling, stealing and corruption was revealed. In both situations, a group of intellectuals deserted the government. In the Philippines former presidents Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos withdrew their support as well as vice president at the time Gloria Macapagal arroyo. The Catholic Church as well as archbishop cardinal sin no longer supported Estrada. In America, colonists formed together to protest against Great Britain and secret societies such as the sons of liberty were formed.
In both revolutions, there was an escalation of anger where the people rose up against the government. In America, colonists who disguised themselves as Indians, boarded a ship and tossed 342 chests of tea into the Boston harbor as a challenge to British authority. They additionally decided to stop al trade. However in the Philippines, large masses of people gathered at the EDSA shrine to protest against Erap and standing grounds for his resignation. Additionally, unlike the Philippines the American Revolution included two main battles at Lexington and concord where people were injured and killed. EDSA dos, on the other hand did not include any bloodshed whatsoever. People power II occurred at a rate so rapid that it was difficult for a new government to step in. Although in America, a new government called the continental congress was formed. After both revolutions had ended, strong rulers came to power and stabilized the country. After the American Revolution, the declaration of independence was formed and America became its own country, no longer under the British rule. George Washington then became the president of United States of America as constitutions for the whole country were formed. After the revolution in the Philippines, the government did not change however. President Joseph Estrada had stepped down and vice president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo became the 14th Philippine president.
3.) What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution?
Estrada today claims to be a victim of the church and the elite. Because of the outrage of political abuse, EDSA 2 took place. The common Filipino joined forces to form a collective voice. Has the basic driving force, that of transparency in government dealings, been betrayed? Has the present government really managed to live up to the expectations of the masses that placed them there? Has the political international rating of the Philippines improved? At this point in time, the main person that triggered EDSA two is free. The Estrada Administration was kicked out due to plunder. The existing president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was appointed president to fill the vacuum. The GMA party was initially described internationally as Mob rule, an elitist backlash against a president that had risen from the masses. But, the new administration, the Arroyo government, was plagued by the “Hello Garci” scandal. This pointed out the rigging election results during her 2004 second term. There has been political unrest and instability, coup attempts and impeachment actions in Congress. Is GMA setting aside the very movement that put her into power?
Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin received an order from the Vatican; Rome played a major role in EDSA 1 in 1986. But had Cardinal Sin had followed the church’s order, the revolution could have failed or become a bloody war. Sin’s strength in leading the people comes from the public’s perception of him as being a man of honesty and high moral value. An absence of such a strong, spiritual leader is being cited as the reason that the recent Trillanes (rebel-turned- senator) coupe on November 29, 2007 failed. The church plays a strong role in the Philippines. Does the existing government have the critical mass support? Erap said it is the day democracy died in the Philippines. Not all allies support the president. Since GMA took power, they stopped celebrating EDSA 2. Senator Loren Legarda is still questioning legitimacy of Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidency. She claims that GMA and De Castro cheated during the 2004 elections. Have the Filipino people learned that a system is needed to monitor government deals? Has political corruption decreased from the time the people joined forces to oust the president? The Filipinos succeeded in removing a leader that committed obvious crimes. Have they managed to remove such practices from the Philippine government system?
4.) Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked?
The Philippine revolution was justified because nothing they did was violent. This sets a good example for the rest of the world that they can still change what is wrong in their country by getting involved and letting their voice be heard. In the Philippines during EDSA dos, no body committed any acts that threatened Joseph Estrada (Erap) which would’ve been an unjustifiable act, but since no one did, and then it is just another reason to why this revolution was justified. Since the army did not shoot anyone, or fire anyone this would be another reason to why this revolution could be a justifiable one. A method that could have helped this revolution could have been a petition, and since so many people went to the EDSA shrine, they could have all signed it for their soul purpose. In the end, this revolution was justified over all because they got what they wanted without performing any acts of violence. 5.) Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton’s Stages of Revolution.
5.) Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton's states of revolution.
The EDSA II revolution does fit the Brinton Crane’s analogy of a revolution although it does have its similarities and differences. For example, in phase one of a revolution, the middle class expressed their anger by having protest occuring almost every week. Additionally, in phase one, the Estrada's administration was ineffective because Erap was keeping money for himself and taking it from the savings of the Philippines, which would be a chronic money shortage. Lastly, intellectuals, or the military left the government, which is exactly what the military of the Philippines did. The Philippine revolution also fits into phase two, for example, the middle class’ anger escalades. It also doesn’t fit here because there was no battle, which would have been against people power and how they promote nonviolence. It works in the third phase because the revolution was fragile since the Philippines had less money than they should’ve had. But it also doesn’t fit into this phase because this phase says that acts of violence need to be preformed, but since none were it simply won’t fit. Last but not least, this revolution fits into Brinton Crane’s analogy of a revolution because it also fits into phase four, which would mean that the revolution ends and that the Philippines entered a period of recovery. It also means that a strong ruler comes to power, and that would be Gloria. Not only that, but also life in the country goes back to a normal state, which is what we live in today. In the end, EDSA dos does fit into this analogy and is proven a revolution.


Bibliography

"EDSA Revolution of 2001." 5 February 2008 . 5 Feb 2008 .

Hahn, Lorraine. "Former Philippines President Joseph Estrada TalkAsia Interview." 4 Feb. 2005. CNN. 5 Feb 2008 .