This blog will focus on the articles B and C. Article B discussed the long standing dictatorships in the arab world, and how revolutions have started to break out in those countries recently. The revolutions of the past are being studied to give us clues about when revolutions might occur again in the future. There was three reasons listed by the author on why people obey dictators for so long. They were historical prestige, the charisma of the ruler, and the fact that dictators maintain order and justice. This explains why people will obey dictators, with the historical background of a leader a major point. The historical background of a leader is a major point because many arabic countries have leaders that are from dynasties of families. But the revolutions recently are pointing to the internet as a catalyst, because people can now see compare their governments to those of the rest of the world. When these countries receive news and see what is happening around the world, they want to see a change in their government, so the three reasons for the people to follow their rulers is slowly losing strength. People are starting to no longer care if their ruler is from a dynasty, or if their ruler has a lot of charm and charisma. They see the economies of other countries from the internet and want changes to happen. The internet has allowed these people to see the world around them and has allowed them to communicate with people all over the world. Once the revolutions have started, the article states that it is up to the rulers aggression whether or not the revolution will be successful. If the ruler is willing to shed blood and hold its ground, then the revolution could be halted, whereas in the case of Mubarak in Egypt, the leader was easily overthrown because he was not willing to attack.
The article also made the interesting point stating that every revolution is different, in the sense that every revolution has its own leader taking the country in a new direction, even if that direction is a radical one, like the Russian revolution of 1917 led by Vladimir Lenin. Lenin drove the Russian monarchy out of Russia and installed a communist regime to replace it, a very radical step. The article finishes by saying that the recent uproars in the arab nations is signaling more revolutions to start, but it is hard to predict what will happen next. Facebook and twitter is giving people the ability to communicate like never before. The online digital media is also opening many peoples eyes who may be on the verge of joining a revolution but do not know exactly what is going on.
The second article, "Small Change," counters what the first article says, saying that the change society needs cannot be satisfied by social media sites. The author used the Russian Revolution and a sit-in protest at a restaurant in 1960's North Carolina to prove that the largest, most impacting changes were brought about without the internet or digital media. Even though twitter has been linked to a revolution in Moldova, but the author states that in reality few people in Moldova- and in other arab countries to be exact, have twitter or Facebook accounts. The civil rights revolutions of the 1960's, along with other revolutions like East Germany, are not the same revolutions that are being created on twitter or online. This is because the revolutions in the past formed with people that they knew, making them more prompt to join in the fight and discuss joining up. The author states that the reason changes have occurred on Facebook is because not much was asked of the person. A revolution asks a lot of somebody, and the author states that joining such a cause with people you do not know is unlikely. A revolution puts out some serious personal risk, and joining with someone you do not know makes it hard to join in on the fight. The author states that the internet is increasing the amount of motivation it takes to join in a fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment