> Many of them believe that radical action, even violence, may be necessary to save it.
Too bad. I believe that change brought about through violence will only lead to a violent regime.
Too bad. I believe that change brought about through violence will only lead to a violent regime.
France is one that came to mind. Violent regime? Of course not. But they did have to tread through a reign of terror after their Révolution française.
Perhaps you eventually get to a peaceful regime. But it's hard to imagine power sweeping into control on a wave of violence suddenly shuttering that same violence.
Historians point to this behavior by George Washington as essentially one-of-a-kind in human history.
I'm reminded of the scene in "Seven Samurai" when the villagers bring the seven samurai armor and weapons from dead samurai and Toshiro Mifune's character explodes at the peasants — always pretending to be afraid, humble, powerless, but all the while hoarding weapons, food....
On one hand you have a brave but tragic resistance like Iran right now where dozens of young people have protested and been brutally cut down or publically executed.
On the other hand you have numerous times in history where a government has learned the phrase "Governments are supposed to fear their people". Usually fire is involved.
Both will eventually achieve their aims, but the first example is usually slower and more costly to do so.
Many conflicts start as the first type and become the second.