Comments on: #Jan25 The myth of ‘non-violence’

By: Shaista

Shaista — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:59:06 +0000

AND WHAT about the violence against women ???
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/08/rival-protesters-clash-women-tahrir

By: Muddy

Muddy — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:04:27 +0000

There are basically types of revolutions.
1. Actually, armed revolution where the revolutionaries actually beat the government on the field of battle, the Libyan revolution is taking this path.

2. The social disorder revolution, where the revolutionaries strike, protest etc so much the economic cost becomes too high for the elite to continue supporting the government.

In the second, violence is not the primary method of governmental change, but there can be massive violence in the process. The key difference that the military forces of the government are not defeated, or in most cases even met in the field. I would say that the Egyptian revolution is definitely type two.

By: blacklisted

blacklisted — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:18:29 +0000

(It was sarcasm)

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:52:43 +0000

I hope s/he wasn’t. I wasted all that energy otherwise ;) Anyway, there are too many people out there who would say it in all seriousness. So if not “to blacklisted” then to the rest of those people.

By: Fares

Fares — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:38:07 +0000

@eatbees – I think so too…

By: eatbees

eatbees — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:21:27 +0000

@Joe — When blacklisted said Arabs are “inherently crazy and violent” it was sarcasm I think.

Hossam keep keeping it real!

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:20:35 +0000

To Blacklisted:
Name me one place in the Arab world (or the world in general I would say), where demands were not first presented peacefully? Take Palestine, which is the one that usually gets painted as violent. They tried hundreds of non-violent ways but then, like the Egyptians, resorted to violence to protect and defend themselves. Eventually, when all non-violent means are cut off, Libya is a case in point, then violence becomes the main form of resistance. In Egypt, the regime began to crumble before the protesters could really take to arms. Also, the regime did not use heavy arms. They sent thugs who came out with unconventional means (like camels). So the response was rocks and molatov cocktails. had the army opened fire it might have turned into further violence eventually.
To say the Arabs are inherently violent is orientalist and racist. Of course, you aren’t alone to think this and I’m not blaming you, especially if you are Arab. I would just ask you to look at the Arab world today and rethink your assumptions. What is happening today in our region is not new, it is just happening successfully. But we have been trying for decades, even more than a century, to do what we have done these last months. And we have tried violence and non-violence. As Arabawy said, the two are not mutually exclusive and often feed from each other.

By: Karim

Karim — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:18:57 +0000

This point needs to be reiterated. The Gene Sharp & Otpor angles have become central to the way the story is told in the US media. The Frontline documentary from a few weeks ago has probably made that permanent in the mind of most viewers.

By: blacklisted

blacklisted — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:18:36 +0000

I think that when the media says that the demonstrations in Egypt were peaceful, they mean that the protesters initially presented their demands peacefully; they only became violent when the government made them have to defend themselves. And that is really commendable considering that Arabs are of course inherently crazy mad violent, yet this time they managed to curb their barbaric urges until it was the right time — which is why we deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

The truth behind your ideas is so simple, yet it’s still lost on people for some reason. Thanks for writing it.

By: Nihal

Nihal — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:07:27 +0000

This revolution, dubbed the “White Revolution” was touted as the bloodless revolt, bloodless at the hand of protestors, but we know that of course is not entirely true, as you described in your post. I however was under the impression that the factor that had a huge impact on the success of the revolution, was the pressure created by the labor strikes that were increasing every day in the days leading up to Februay 11, in essence crippling the regime and forcing the SCAF into action. I would like to think that violence is not the recipe for success in a revolution but your post seems to suggest that it may be the sine quo non of one. I hope that is not true.