Period 8 only need respond to this blog. (Was optional for 3 priod to exams)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy
"A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets." Napoleon Bonaparte
Which of these two men do you think would present the more compelling argument?
32 comments:
Andras
I would assert that it is John F. Kennedy's assertion that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable" is the most apt of the two presented. Generally speaking, the bulk of humans will not have recourse to violent and potentially life-threatening courses of action when other equally or more viable alternatives present themselves. While a man may be oppressed and impoverished, it is unlikely that he will take up a firearm and march against the social order, exposing himself to retribution and his friends and family to the vicious turmoil of a revolution or civil war, if he is presented with the option to avoid all of these most grievous of risks through the formation of peaceful protest groups, political factions, petitions, supporting and lobbying appropriate officials and representatives, and so on and so forth. It is simple self-preservation, both for the individual and for the society/species (open bloodshed generally isn't too conducive to stability, prosperity, and easy survival). The path of least resistance will tend to be more popular than that of greatest risk and hardship. However, if the conditions necessary for a proper revolution- that is to say, suppression of essential liberties, deprivation, a climate of oppression or fear, the arbitrary elimination of opportunities and rights, inept or detestable leadership, etc. and the situation is at a point wherein no peaceful modes of effecting change or total restructuring remain viable without itself provoking violence or intolerable injustices, then, from the eyes of the desperate and miserable, the only means of self-emancipation out of a condition that can by no means be tolerated any longer becomes violence. Humans can only tolerate so much before they reach their breaking point, before they are forced into action, although how effective that action is (and consequently how much popular momentum it may develop) is another thing entirely, of course. While some fringe radicals might nonetheless pursue violent revolutionary means even under more liberal and reasonable conditions (those conditions being intolerably oppressive, backward, or hateful to their extreme ideologies and mindset), a popular and widespread violent revolution will not tend to arise under such conditions. Had the French Monarchy not squandered its resources and thereby contributed to want and starvation among its populace, precluded the advancement of the bourgeoisie, refused the counsel of the Estates-General for generations, maintained ancient privileges and increasingly oppressive social norms, and generally failed to present reliable means through which the common people could express their grievances and reasonably expect to see them acted upon, then it is unlikely that tensions within France would have built up to the point that one would encounter such things as the bloody Storming of the Bastille or the women's march on Versailles. Likewise, had Louis XVI not proved incorrigible and unpliable with respect to the development of a Constitutional Monarchy in France as the National Assembly initially proposed and had refrained from making the situation of the French revolutionary reformers untenable through his attempts to contact and petition other nations for relief, the even more violent revolutionary rise of the Jacobins and the King's execution would not have taken place. It is only because the French Monarchs closed first their governments and then themselves to a peaceful political revolution that they were faced with violence and contention.
On the other hand, I would contest Napoleon's claim that a Revolution constitutes "An Idea Which Has Found its Bayonets". Unless he describes merely the "idea" that "These conditions are unbearable and must be changed", I find that while many Revolutions have adopted and integrated complex political and philosophical concepts, my perception is that most are not fundamentally founded off of a complex core idea. Rather, most Revolutions appear to stem primarily from the interaction of various social, political, economic, and other ailments, injustices, irregularities, and flaws which press so strongly upon the relevant revolutionaries that they are compelled to respond to it in some significant manner. Those whom have already developed or adopted a significant and relevant ideology may more readily respond to such conditions because they might violate the core tenets of their ideological beliefs, striking more deeply at their being and thereby inclining them more strongly towards Revolution. However, while such individuals may, if they attain power, be capable of steering the greater revolution onto a course dictated by their ideals and are likely to crop up in any major movement by sheer probability, the majority of revolutionaries do not appear to stem from the support of a single idea or set of ideas. The Patriots acted during the American Revolution not out of some common devotion to the ideas of Locke or Rousseau or others, although devotees of various such ideologies existed within their ranks, but rather out of common economic self-interest, a reaction to perceived economic oppression. Likewise with the French Revolution. While the ideas of Rousseau, Locke, Voltaire, and others may have been supported by members of the National Assembly, National Convention, or Committee of Public Safety, the Revolution was not specifically oriented towards championing their ideals but rather sought to achieve a political balance more favorable to an oppressed majority and antagonized middle class that had too long suffered the yolk of traditionalistic and oppressive systems. Indeed, few of the significant figures of the Enlightenment actually advocated armed mass revolution as a means to achieving the optimal state of society that they proposed and expounded upon. A revolution may seize upon certain ideals in reforming society and government in accordance to its wishes. Likewise, new ideas as to the desired and optimal state of society will inevitably arise as the revolutionaries seek to attain victory or capitalize upon a position of ascendancy and power. Effective revolutionary reform and restructuring indeed necessitates the presence of developed concepts and ideals. Vast institutions cannot be reformed, society restructured, new governing bodies developed, new philosophies of government and policy maintained, etc. without guiding principles or sophisticated ideas. However, Revolution does not necessarily originate fundamentally from or embody such core complex idea as Napoleon posits.
John F. Kennedy once said that, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Napoleon Bonaparte once said that, "A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets." According to John F. Kennedy, it is possible to have a peaceful revolution, but this stands in blatant contradiction of Napoleon’s view that revolutions are violent by nature. Out of these two brilliant and charismatic leaders, I would have to say that Napoleon Bonaparte’s argument is the most compelling. Simply defined, a revolution is an overthrow of an existing government or social structure that is often radical. Whenever revolutionaries desire immediate change, people who are extremely conservative often oppose them. These conservatives are either content with the system they are currently living in, or view the new ideas of change proposed by radicals to be very threatening. Whatever the reason, conservatives would not sit idly by while radicals changed the existing system; that would go against the basic instinct of self-preservation. There are many examples in history of revolutions that had significant bloodshed within them; let us consider the causes of World War II.
Adolf Hitler had a vision that he considered revolutionary; he wanted to bring an end to democracy and create a new domestic unity. His ideas at the time can be considered radical, for many European nations were already living in fairly democratic societies (they can be considered conservative). At first, they refused to take military action when Hitler began building his army, but they took direct action after Hitler invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Even the United States participated in the struggle against Hitler by giving the British military equipment prior to the air strike on Pearl Harbor. One should also consider the American Revolution, which was also a bloody conflict because the American radicals disliked being under King George’s authority. When John F. Kennedy used the term “peaceful revolution,” it was an oxymoron. He was referring to the idea of assimilation by non-radicals into the newly created society because of the radicals having little or no opposition. There are very few examples in history where conservatives were not present in a society. In conclusion, Napoleon Bonaparte’s argument that revolutions are bloody is more compelling than John F. Kennedy’s belief that there exist peaceful revolutions.
Michael Saxton
Elaine Charlebois
In my opinion, John F. Kennedy’s claim “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” presents a more compelling argument than Napoleon Bonaparte’s idea that “A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets”. Kennedy’s claim presents the idea that peaceful revolution is in fact possible, and can be used to avoid violent revolution. Conversely, Napoleon essentially argues that violence is inevitable in a revolution. If one looks back upon history, they will find that many violent revolutions have occurred. However, many important and effective revolutions have occurred without violence, which is why John F. Kennedy’s claim holds more truth.
A prominent example of a nonviolent revolution that disproves Napoleon’s quote is shown in the work of Mohandas Gandhi. In the early 1900’s, Gandhi worked to achieve Indian independence. He believed in using completely nonviolent means to achieve his goals, usually mass civil disobedience. Gandhi once said “In India a class war is not inevitable, but it is avoidable if we have understood the message of nonviolence.” Both this quote and the overwhelming historical evidence of Gandhi’s success and lasting impact in India clearly disprove Napoleon’s claim that all revolutions involve violence. Gandhi serves as an example of successful nonviolent revolution. This peaceful revolution had a lasting impact in India and remains a source of inspiration all over the world.
Another past of nonviolent revolution are seen in the Glorious Revolution in Britain. In more recent history, the fight for women’s rights, the work of Martin Luther King Jr. for racial equality, and even the Cold War can be seen as examples of peaceful revolution met with success. It is apparent that while many revolutions “found their bayonets”, successful change has also been possible through entirely nonviolent means.
I would say that John F. Kennedy’s statement that “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable,” is the more compelling argument than Napoleon Bonaparte’s. Kennedy’s view sees the good in human nature while Napoleon’s view considers only the violence of humanity. As John Locke believed during the enlightenment, people are known to be generally good. If there is a peaceful solution to the problem at hand they will take that course of action before anything else. Which are exactly what Kennedy’s argument shows. He is saying that if possible people would not use violent but once violence is the only option they will follow it to get what they want. Humans tend to follow the path that is easiest and most simple. But, as the statement says, if a peaceful way is not an option for solving the problem, a violent will surely present itself. Anyone would want to solve the problem anyway possible and if a violent solution happens to be the only way to solve the issue, then that’s how it will be solved. I believe that pure violence, like in Napoleon’s statement would not be used if there were a more simpler and nonviolent solution. Napoleon follows more of a Hobbsian view seeing that all people are evil in nature. His argument counts on the fact that human nature is bad and that they will be violent even if there is a nonviolent way to solve the issue. That is why I feel like John F. Kennedy’s argument is more apt to follow human nature as opposed to Napoleon’s making it the more compelling argument.
I believe that John F. Kennedy has the more compelling argument, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”. This quote fits perfectly with the French Revolution. The Third Estate tried to change things in a more peaceful manner, with the Tennis Court Oath and the National Assembly. However, once the radicals became more involved with the revolution, there was absolutely no chance that there would be a peaceful ending to the conflict. The Radicals wanted full change, not matter what the cost would be. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated this idea. The French Revolution quickly changed from one that could be stopped with nonviolence into one that they main focus was violence to get what they believed the people deserved. This idea has also been represented throughout all of history. Many of the wars that have been fought over time could have been resolved through nonviolent means, but they were unfortunately pushed to violent means. The world wars could have possibly been avoided if the leaders of the fighting countries could have worked out all of their problems. It is not always human nature to talk things out though. Violence is a huge part of the nature of humans. When something bad happens, men in particular, want to punch to hit something. The idea of making others feel pain when you are is universal to human society. A more modern day of example would be the situation currently taken place in Israel and the Gaza Strip. The rivalry between the two groups has been going on for a very long time. With the passing away and the subsequent installation of a new leader of these countries, hope is restored that the death and terror with come to an end. This has not happen so far, and it probably will not happen in the near future. This is the equivalent of a modern revolution that might have been able to be solved with a peaceful revolution. This did not happen and now people everyday are getting killed by the atrocities of those nations. John F. Kennedy was right when he said this quote and it still applies to the current day.
In my opinion, John F. Kennedy presents a more compelling argument than Napoleon Bonaparte who states that, “a revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.” I find Kennedy’s claim that “those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable,” to be quite enlightened and much more profound than Napoleon’s pessimistic declaration. Kennedy’s idea shines where Bonaparte bluntly overlooks the imperative concept that a revolution is a dramatic change in ideas or practice. The violence that is often associated with the word revolution is nothing more than the assumption of our naive society, which like Bonaparte, do not care to delve into the actual purpose of revolutions. That being said, the statements of both men do hold some truths, as throughout history we have seen an array of revolutions, both violent and non-violent.
Kennedy statement makes an indirect yet completely essential insult to Bonaparte, by saying that it is because of people like him that revolutions born in peace, often die, ruin, and decay in unnecessary violence. More contradictions to Bonaparte’s statement, past simply looking at the words of a former United States president, can be seen numerous times by simply taking out a book of world history. Among the numerous sadistic revolutions in the past, which Bonaparte argues are the most representative of all revolutions, there are a great deal of peaceful, yet sill radical revolutions which have ultimately changed history and encompassed the true meaning of the word revolution. The most immediate which comes to mind is the Indian independence movement of the early 20th century led by the renowned Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi effectively proved critics like Bonaparte wrong when he enforced his policy of satyagraha, resistance through mass civil disobedience, and spread it through out all of India. Notably, he advocated complete non-violence, and this peaceful revolution ultimate lead to India’s independence from Britain with not a single “bayonet.” Not only that, but Gandhi’s revolution exemplified the essence of idealist thought by resulting in the mass spread of aspirations of civil rights and freedom throughout the entire world. It proved to be one of the most influential revolutions of all time, its effects clearly seen in countries all over the world, and in the United States, a cause of great inspiration for the celebrated actions of Martin Luther King, an advocate for equality.
I can grasp where Bonaparte is coming from when he states, in effect, that revolutions are born in violence, because history has seen its share of blood-spilling revolutions, including both the American and French Revolutions. However I find his statement much too vague and restricting to really consider it a compelling argument. Kennedy’s statement on the other hand is insightful and provokes reflection on the revolutions in history and a positive outlook on the possibility of future revolutions. For these reasons, I believe that in this case, John F. Kennedy would have a more compelling argument than the infamous Napoleon Bonaparte.
The question is a very interesting one in that one must consider the audience to which the argument is being presented. Although Kennedy has the better, more knowledgeable thought, Napoleon’s thought that “a revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets” will appeal to a much greater extent to a majority of the public, who are too ignorant to acknowledge the unnecessary connotation of violence associated with the word and theme, ‘revolution’.
Kennedy’s quote gives a hint at the possibility that a revolution does not require violence, but usually entails violence simply because the revolutionary thinkers are too stubborn or too radical to consider peaceful alternatives. Kennedy asserted that, as long as people refused to negotiate through peaceful means, revolution would always be filled with blood. The interesting idea that Kennedy brings up, however, is the possibility to have a peaceful revolution to begin with. Over time, the connotation of revolution had evolved into the idea that a drastic change in power or social policy must be accompanied by violence in order to be successful; after all, all known revolutions up until that point had involved the deaths of countless people in order to achieve success.
Bonaparte took advantage of such a connotation and built on it. In order to maintain power, he had to make sure his followers did not even think about the possibility that there was another means of salvation in the war-filled era surrounding the French Revolution. As long as Bonaparte’s men “knew” that a revolution inevitably involved bloodshed, they would continue to fight mercilessly to gain victory. Such a thought process explains why Bonaparte’s argument would trump that of Kennedy. Almost everyone, at the time, believed that violence was a necessity of revolution, and therefore would have disregarded Kennedy’s ideas of how a revolution should take place.
All in all, although Kennedy has the better argument in my mind, Bonaparte would win simply because his view appealed to a far larger spectrum of the general population.
Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets." This statement is more compelling than John F. Kennedy’s quote "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." To me it seems that it is improbably to have a peaceful revolution like John F. Kennedy says can happen. It is, in fact possible, but most of the time there will be opposition to a revolution. When radicals demand immediate changes in society, the conservatives will nearly always oppose. This would happen for one of two reasons. Either the conservatives like the society the way it is or fell like the radical demands are too risky or threatening. Most revolutions are radical, and there have always been conservatives that oppose such drastic change. While Kennedy argues that a revolution can occur, he does not seem to realize that conservatives are probably never going to just sit back and watch the radicals overtake society and change all that has been done previously. There are many examples of violent revolutions in history. The American Revolution is one; the French Revolution is another example, even World War II with Adolf Hitler overtaking Germany could be considered a revolution. Conservative European countries took action against him as he continued to quench his thirst for power. Peaceful revolutions, on the other hand, are not so numerous, and the statement "A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets” is more compelling than "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Both Napoleon and Kennedy’s assertions about the nature of revolutions both bring up general truths about human society. Napoleon claims that all revolutions are ideas that have sprung into action by violent means. Kennedy on the contrary states that violent revolutions only occur when the revolutionaries turn the path of the rebellion in that way. Between the two I find Kennedy’s argument “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” the more compelling declaration.
Napoleon’s argument that “a revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets” is a very broad statement about the nature of a revolution. It claims that a revolution can only be violent and is never of a peaceful nature. This is not always entirely the case. The way a revolution turns out is essentially determined on the basis it was started upon. Sure the French and American revolutions involved a lot of warfare, but there have been revolutions that have proceeded without violence and have benefited of a greater outcome than those filled with bloodshed. The French and American revolutions turned out to be violent because they were determined to be that way from the beginning of their rebellions. Thus giving more truth to Kennedy’s argument that “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”
An example of a successful non-violent revolution would be the “Glorious Revolution” in England in 1688. Where the revolutionaries got what they desired in a constitutional monarchy and were able to do so without beheading their king. More modern and recognizable peaceful revolutions would be those led by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi. All of these nonviolent revolutions led to beneficial results. Whether it was a new government based on the people, freedom from a colonial power, or abolition of slavery; all succeeded through their revolutions. It is not to say that there was never any bloodshed in any of these revolutions, but they did not evolve into violent revolutions because they were based on nonviolent tactics to achieve what they desired.
Overall I find Kennedy’s argument more compelling because he does not deny the fact that revolutions can occur without any bloodshed. While Napoleon’s argument is generally true for the majority of revolutions, he does not leave any room from those revolutions that do not rely on violent means to achieve their wishes.
John F. Kennedy clearly presents a more compelling argument with his statement that, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” I disagree with some one who responded before me in how I feel that Kennedy’s statement is much more accepted by the majority of the public than Bonaparte’s statement. Napoleon Bonaparte stated that, “A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.” He is asserting that revolutions are bound to become violent and that the word ‘revolution’ must always be connected with violence. I find this to be misconstrued because no one truly wants a violent revolution to begin with, it just turns into a step that many people see as necessary to take. The majority of people would like to have a revolution remain peaceful but it is the people who do not see the change they wish to take place happening immediately whom resort to such violent tactics. Kennedy expresses his belief that a peaceful revolution is the path towards success and that a violent revolution is unnecessary. He recognizes that violent revolutions are indeed inevitable if people do not work to keep them peaceful, but he shows that a completely peaceful revolution is not impossible. In the political sense, the word ‘revolution’ actually means the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. No where in that definition does it include the word violence. The violence associated with the word revolution has been naively accepted by the public overtime based on past revolutions. Though history may prove revolutions as violent, in no way do they need to be. Kennedy’s argument for keeping a revolution peaceful is undoubtedly more compelling then that of Bonaparte’s.
Both Napoleon and John F. Kennedy have made very general ideas about revolutions in both of these quotes. Napoleon states that for ideas to be changed or become “revolutionary”, they are done so with violence. Kennedy claims that revolutions only are violent because of the unwillingness of the people to keep it peaceful. I believe, however, that Kennedy’s quote speaks more truth about the nature of revolutions and is a much more compelling argument than the one put forth by Napoleon.
Napoleon statement that a revolution is idea that was achieved through violence is simply untrue. Sure, there have been many examples where violence has successfully completed a revolution. Countless of wars have been fought and people have died to change an existing ideal, essentially creating a revolution. But history has shown us that violence is not the only means to change or revolt against oppression, and successfully complete a revolution. Although they may be fewer in number, several equally successful movements and revolutions have been accomplished through peaceful resistance. Take for example Gandhi’s work in India, Martin Luther King Jr.’s work during the civil rights movement, or the Glorious Revolution in England. All of these revolutions were non-violent, but yielded successful results. This discredits Napoleon’s assertion that revolutions are changed in a violent nature.
Kennedy says that the derivative of violent revolutions is when the option of achieving change peacefully is thrown out. This is generally correct; if people are not patient or do not think results will come through peaceful means, then the revolutionary cause has nowhere to go but to take a violent turn. The violent or nonviolent nature of a revolution essentially is controlled by the revolutionaries and their desire to make the revolution peaceful. As Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Kennedy’s argument encompasses revolutions as a whole, not just violent revolutions. Therefore Kennedy’s argument is much more compelling than Napoleon’s.
Napoleon Bonaparte’s statement that “A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets” would likely be more compelling to a general population or large group of people. When people call for changes or revolution, they more not there feelings can be described in the simple statement “we want change and we want it now.” This indicates that when there is a want for change among a large group of people they typically a drastic change to occur over a long period of time. People generally do not wish for the time consuming diplomatic approach that peaceful revolutions often entail. They will likely support a leader that promises a “hands on” approach to getting what they want. They will typically be of the opinion that leader who is willing to fight for their cause, understands its importance to them and recognizes that it is a cause worth fighting for. Napoleon suggests in his quotation that a revolution is an idea that he clearly indicates is worth fighting for by referencing bayonets. This opinion would be revered by the large group of people greatly appealing to the “mob mentality” that often demands change in the manners above mentioned, not willing to wait for the politics to work themselves out.
Although John f. Kennedy’s statement that “Those who make peaceful revolutions make violent revolutions impossible” is a sensible statement, it is not one likely to be heeded by a large group of people impatient for change. In his statement Kennedy clearly favors peaceful revolutions over violent ones. However, in times of desperation and resentment towards authority (which is generally when change occurs), people will be less likely to recognize the benefits of a peaceful change. There demands for action, more often than not, drown out the calls for peace among disagreeing parties. Reluctance to act violently could in theory enrage them more and further the general violent agenda. Therefore although in principle Kennedy’s statement is the wisest choice in realistic situations people tend to act in the way that will guarantee what they want in the quickest way regardless of the impending body count violence entails.
John F. Kennedy’s statement, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable,” seems to present a more compelling argument. This is because he mentions all options for a revolution; change can be successfully brought about while still being a peaceful revolution, or, as in most cases, it can be violent.
Bonaparte’s statement, “A revolution is an idea which as found its bayonets,” generalizes that a revolution is inevitably violent. It could possibly interpreted as bayonets representing more of a fight or struggle, however peaceful, to get an idea spread, rather than the literal meaning of a violent weapon. In this sense, his statement is true that a revolution is always an idea that must be fought for to cause change. However, Bonaparte most likely meant that revolutions are always violent.
Kennedy’s quote makes it seem as though Kennedy believes most people will support a violent revolution, believing it to be more successful in bringing about change. However, it seems as though he doesn’t believe everyone supports violent revolutions. There are some people that don’t “make violent revolutions inevitable.”
Because Kennedy addresses the two ways a revolution can be brought about, violently or peacefully, his argument is more compelling than Bonaparte’s. Bonaparte declares that peaceful revolutions are completely impossible, which is really not true. There have been successful yet peaceful revolutions throughout history, even if there are much less peaceful revolutions than violent ones. His statement might be seen as true for the most part, but it is too much of a generalization as there are exceptions. Kennedy’s quote takes into account all possibilities for a revolution, being peaceful or not, while still admitting that the majority of revolutions are violent. This gives him a better argument.
Grades are now closed!!
Of the two men quoted, I feel that Napoleon Bonaparte’s view on revolution would provide the more compelling argument to the masses. Bonaparte’s quotation, “A revolution is an idea which has found bayonets” strongly alludes to the idea that revolutions are by nature violent affairs. History appears to agree with Bonaparte’s view; few revolutionary movements have concluded without some form of bloodshed. This is due to man’s basic nature. Humans have incredible difficulty coming to compromise because of greed. Revolutions typically occur between those with wealth and power and those without. Those who have plenty are unwilling to take less so that those with less may share in modest prosperity simply due to the fact that doing so would mean they do not possess as much as they previously did. They are unwilling to part with even a portion of their wealth or power due to their greed. On the flip side, those on the lower end of society are always trying to find the means to obtain the wealth or power they so lack. Even if their current conditions allow them to live a life in modest comfort, often times greed will cause great discontent with their place in societal order. In essence, greed is the primary catalyst for revolution. A revolt of lower class citizens stricken with poverty will occur due to the fact that those in society who possess the country’s wealth and power are unwilling to part with either. A revolt of well off, middle class citizens will occur due to the fact that the revolutionaries desire more wealth and power, a goal unattainable with the current higher class in position. Greed overpowers any sort of compromise or sacrifice that may be made in order to avert a violent revolutionary movement. Even if a compromise is made between the two conflicting parties, desire to obtain more will eventually catalyze a violent revolt. Human nature simply will not allow for one to remain content with having less while there are others who have more. Because verbal persuasion and peaceful protest very, very rarely has effective results in terms of mass revolution, a revolution will almost inevitably end in violence. In fact, the concept of a revolution breeds violence. Those who are in power will never readily give away their status, for doing such would mean they have less. As a result, they must be forcibly removed through violence. I would like to think that John F. Kennedy’s views that humankind has the ability to revolt in a peaceful manner are true and that compromise may be made without bloodshed, but humankind’s nature leads me to think otherwise. We as a race are too unwilling to compromise and as a result are more than ready to obtain what we desire through violent means. As a result, I feel that Napoleon’s views would appeal much more greatly.
In my opinion, one cannot make a balanced argument as to wethery Napoleon or Kennedy makes a better point about the nature of revolution due to the differences in setting between the two quotes. Napoleon was speaking from the end of the French Revolution, a bloody affair that claimed thousands of lives, as did the American Revolution only a few decades earlier. The experience of his time period was applying the name “Revolution” to these conflicts: tumultuous wars that violently cast down current political leadership and resulted in an overhaul of the current order. There were simply no examples of dramatic change resulting from nonviolent action in his time for Napoleon to think anything but that the ideas of revolution demanded action from the bayonet brigade. In fact, the less radical elements of his time that advocated peaceful resolution of their arguments with the monarchy and ruling class were rebuffed and later eliminated by those willing to go to take more drastic measures to achieve their goals.
In contrast, JFK spoke from the middle of the 20th Century, after Gandhi had freed India through Satyagraha, and when the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement of the United States had begun to foment resistance against oppressive laws and practices in the South. He had the advantage of hindsight on 16 decades of human history that had yet to be played out when Napoleon asserted the necessity of violent revolution. Kennedy could speak of examples of success, and admonish those who first sought out violence as a means of change, while Napoleon instead admonished those who he saw as too weak to follow through on their commitments to change, too fearful of war to insist that their arguments were correct and would be backed up by rows of muskets. Each man spoke from his personal experience: a man of war speaking in a time of strife, reminding those in Europe that action, above all else, was needed to enact political upheaval, while a man of peace spoke in a time of peace with war a fearful proposition, asking that cooler heads could prevail and hoping to avoid the catastrophic potentiality of a third-world revolution escalating to nuclear war.
John Kennedy's argument that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable" is more correct than Napoleon's argument that "revolution is an idea that has found its bayonets" simply because Kennedy's argument has a more expansive connotation.
Napoleon's argument is limited and narrow minded, though correct for its time. It implies that revolution require violence, and during the age of absolutism, revolution did require violence. There were no ways to go about a nonviolent revolution. If the people tried to tell King Louis XVI nicely that they didn't want a king anymore, King Louis would've looked at them funny, nodded his head as if he understood... and sent the traitors to the guillotine. As a result, true to John Kennedy's words, violence was the only option left to the revolutionaries.
We live in a time where peaceful revolution (on the part of the revolutionaries) is possible. Due to this, peaceful revolution is seen as a better option compared to death. People don't like to die. It generally gets in the way of living. When a peaceful revolution is no longer possible, violence is the only option. Plus, violence can solve everything, as much as we don't want to admit it. If the best person is the strongest person, and if they force everyone to follow their way, and if their way is the best way for everyone, then aren't they doing the right thing? In all likelihood, this person will never exist with all of these qualities. However, it does prove violence is an answer, it is always an answer, it just often as consequences we don't want. Due to those consequences, it is usually not the first answer, a peaceful way is.
Napoleon existed during a time when peaceful revolution was impossible, which made violent revolution inevitable. The French Revolution is exactly what Kennedy spoke of. The people thought peaceful revolution was impossible in the present system. It doesn't matter if peaceful revolution was possible, but they thought it wasn't, so violence was their only option. Kennedy's statement is the correct one because it is simply too general to be wrong.
I believe that the statement by JFK, where “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable,” is the more compelling argument. If you look at most patterns of human behavior you can see that many basic instincts are considered and followed when making a decision that has weight. In this particular instance, most people’s instinct would be to avoid a potentially life threatening situation by not seeming threatening in return. In a physical sense this applies. Clearly if an idea is to be defined as a ‘revolution’ and an attempt is carried out, it is a threat to the current order of the nation. Regardless, most people will avoid violence for a time. JFK says that opposed parties to the revolution would make a peaceful one turn violent. This is true and has been seen in our own history.
The civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr. is a perfect example of this. The civil rights movement is in opinion a revolution because it had advocated social equality and rights of all men, not just white men. It reformed laws and had also people by helping to make people more tolerant of others who were different from themselves. This notion of tolerating people is even still alive today. In any case, King stressed peaceful protest, and that is what happened. However, after King died and even before when pushing reform through got much harder some groups felt that nonviolent was not the way. Some began more violent approaches to make people listen.
What Napoleon said about revolution obtaining bayonets is only true when avoiding the struggle has failed, and people are either pushed into violence or don’t believe there is any other way that will yield quick results. A reiteration from what I said earlier, people don’t want to fight it out right in the beginning. Self preservation and keeping themselves alive is what is most important to them.
When comparing John F. Kennedy’s quote, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” presents a more compelling argument than Napoleon Bonaparte’s. In his quote, Kennedy mentions how man will first try to solve him problem through peaceful tatitcs, and then if this fails he will act violently. This statement which Kennedy made is infact completely true.
In his quote Kennedy, like Locke, shows his postive veiw on human nature. This quote demenstrates how he believes that human’s are naturally good and will usually try to do the right thing. When presented with a problem, humans will first try to solve it in a peaceful manner before acting violently. This is what Kennedy is stating in his quote and is similar to the idea that Locke had on man kind. There are many examples in history which demonstate how man can act in a peaceful manner and still be able to cause a revolution.
As stated, many improtant revolutions have been conducted in a non voilent manner. An example of this is the prostets that Mohandas Gandhi lead in hopes of India becoming an independt nation. Gandhi was known for his non-cooperation, non-violent methods of protesting. His methods, set a new precdent and others began to lead peaceful revolutions. One famous follower of Gandhi was Martin Luther King Jr. King lead marches and gave powerfull speaches to gather supporters to help put and end to segregation. Both King and Gandhi were able to succesfully cause a revolution without the use of violents which proves Kennedy’s quote to be true.
While the quote states that most people will try to take the peaceful route in solving a problem, it also mentions how if and only if the revolution can not be achieved peaceful that it will move to a violent one. When looking back in history, one can also find examples of this. One example of a peaceful revolution that turned violent is the French Revolution. The Third Estate began their revolution to change the government as a peaceful one. All the representatives of the Third Estate at the meeting of the Estates General, took the Tennis Court Oath, and then later formed the National Assembly. This group of men worked to develop a Consitution for their country. They did this peaceful, but were also unscessful in getting the revolutionary change in government that they wanted. It was from here that the French Revolution got violent, in order for the changes that the Third Estate wanted to be achieved. This revoultion holds true to what Kennedy states in his quote. It is for these reasons that I feel that Kennedy’s quote is much more compelling than Bonaparte’s.
The quote from Kennedy, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable,” makes the more compelling argument than Napolean Bonaparte. Kennedy is showing that he believes that if peace is not an option, then the only course available is violence. Kennedy seems to state that peace should be the first course of action, and after that fails, then violence will be the most likely course of action. It can be seen in history that men can be compelled to act in a peaceful manner to attain revolution. Take for example, Martin Luther King, who completely revolutionized society in relation to the social standing of African Americans. This was done through non-violent means, at least under his leading. To analyze this example further, take a look at those who opposed this movement, when ordering them to cease, or attempting to negotiate, and failing, they then turned to violent action. These violent actions are infamous in history, and display the very worst parts of human values. Kennedy’s argument leaves open the possibilities of both peace and violence, and therefore is a more compelling argument. The average person wants to avoid conflict as much as possible, not be the instigator of it, unlike in Bonaparte’s argument. Napolean states that if a radical idea comes into play, that anyone who supports that argument should basically violently revolt, no matter what the circumstances are. This presents only one possible outcome, and that is bloodshed. This is the major difference in the two arguments which I believe really makes Kennedy’s argument more compelling. Kennedy’s argument simply appeals more to human nature and will therefore be a more powerful argument when presented before the average person. Human nature will come into play in everyone’s life, and is an unavoidable thing. Therefore the argument relating better to human nature, Kennedy’s, will be more compelling.
I think John F. Kennedy presents the more compelling argument. His quote means that if people don’t try to be peaceful in the process of change or are limited to non peaceful means, there will be a hostile situation by using means of deadly force; thus a bloody revolution will occur. Humans are not naturally violent; only if they are put into a dangerous situation. Psychologists and sociologist have both found that it is human behavior to avoid confrontation, but history shows that most humans haven’t because a group has endangered their well being. Not all revolutions are brutal, but we have had images plastered into our brain like the "Reign of Terror" during the French Revolution, in which thousands were put to the guillotine by Robespierre and the Jacobins. What they don't tell us is that more people died in the areas occupied by the armies who felt threatened by the revolutionary disturbance in France. There are numerous examples in history where peaceful protests have succeeded, but most are not heard by the people. The Friedliche Revolution, or the Friendly Revolution, was a series of peaceful political protests against the German Democratic Republic of East Germany. It began on Monday, September 4.1989 and was the key component in the fall of the Berlin Wall and ultimately led to the fall of the East German regime. No one was hurt and a good deed was done; which was reuniting a country split by an authoritarian government who did not care about its people. This example is the essence of what JFK was referring to in his quote “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”, but in contrast Malcolm X was also quoted stating, “We will be non-violent to those who are non-violent to us." His quote is narrow minded like Bonaparte’s, because Malcolm X is referring to is the respect he has toward racists is the same as their respect to him; which is on a negative scale. That is why Malcolm X and his Black Panthers were in numerous riots which killed his own people and the innocent; and also why it lead to his murder.
JFK was one of the few people to realize that you don’t need to be violent or angry to have your voice heard. You need to speak up loud enough, confident, and chill so that people have more respect for you and feel comfortable; thus the human instinct of being aggressive when feeling threatened won’t erupt. This is why that peaceful protest is the best way to get your voice heard, but also bittersweet because if that power is restricted; then there will be blood.
Of these two men, John F. Kennedy presents the more profound and compelling argument when he states, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” While his counterpart Napoleon Bonaparte’s asserts that a revolution is violent by definition, Kennedy asserts that violence only occurs when peace cannot be maintained. Kennedy’s slightly altered outlook that maintains that a peaceful revolution should be the goal in preventing the type of revolution Napoleon supports presents itself as the more compelling argument, particularly in this day and age.
The term “revolution” very often brings with it the notion of bloodshed and death. Only in rare circumstances does it bring with it the image of men and women collectively creating change under peaceful measures. Violence almost always finds its way into a revolution. Whether Martin Luther’s peaceful march for the end of segregation or the French revolution, what begins as a peaceful movement very often takes a turn for the worst when their attempts at peace fail. John F. Kennedy sums up this phenomenon in his quote and thus presents the more compelling argument. If peace was only given a change, the violence that has plagued so many calls for revolution would not have had to have been shed.
Napoleon Bonaparte’s quote undermines the fact that peace is possible. His assertion that a revolution comes into being only when weapons and violence are attached has characterized so many of the revolutions of our world’s history. Although Bonaparte’s argument would create widespread excitement for a suppressed people group who’ve had their fill of a repressive government, the inevitable bloodshed that would follow is a harsh reminder that peaceful measures should be given an opportunity to work itself out.
John F. Kennedy’s argument that a peaceful revolution is possible is a compelling argument the world at large is ready to accept. Although history continually reminds us of the futility of combat and warfare, mankind seemingly always makes the same mistakes. Kennedy’s belief in the essential goodness of mankind is a breath of fresh air that is not only compelling but profound. If peace was only given a chance, imagine what our world could become.
It is evident that John F. Kennedy has the more compelling and assertive of these two arguments. Throughout history, this particular idea has been demonstrated in various revolutions and events. This is also particularly evident in both the American and the French revolutions. At the beginning of the French revolution there was a large focus on peace by sharing ideas and arguing for reason. However, as the revolution progressed this focus on a peaceful revolution disintegrated and therefore it was absolutely impossible for it to take anything other than a violent turn. By 1792 the King recognized that his position had been all but obliterated and chose to declare war despite the dysfunctionality of the government. The resulting anger and frustration through the country into chaos and violence erupted throughout France. Later, the reign of Robespierre helped to contribute to these frenzied times. The American Revolution, however, began when the original thirteen colonies chose to become self-governing independent states so they could escape harsh British command. The British then lost sight of this peaceful solution and chose to send equipped militias to the states and fighting suddenly broke out. In both of these revolutions, as well as many others, once the government’s power is suddenly challenged then violence is immediately implemented in order to protect their standing within society. This lack of control and peace is what ultimately leads to the eruption of chaotic violence. When a group or society begins to try to implement a radical or revolutionary change, then there is almost always ensuing violence. When a country or sovereign loses sight of this change in a peaceful manner, then there is no other option but for violence to result.
Throughout the course of human events, people have argued and fought for their ideas, usually ones that would overthrow preexisting ideas and ideals. These overthrows are known by us as revolutions and they have occurred in all forms throughout history. While the revolutions most recognized by people are usually bloody affairs, they do not always have to be; and this is why of the two quotes, Kennedy’s argument“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” is more compelling than Napoleon’s. Napoleon is right in the fact that a revolution is spawned from a specific idea which people believe strongly in, rather than the preexisting idea on that same topic. Napoleon’s argument, however, leans toward the belief that violence is necessary to make a large change to social structure and that is clearly incorrect. There have been many revolutions that have made drastic social changes without the use of violence. A popular example of this would be the work done by Gandhi to get the British out of India in which he used non-violent protest to have his ideas be heard. Rather than use violence against the obviously more powerful British Army, Gandhi just began to recruit followers and act in misdemeanors or other small crimes. Gandhi’s example inspired more people in India to rise up against their oppressors. In a famous example Gandhi and a large group of followers combined public demonstration and the use of misdemeanors by marching to the ocean to get salt in response to the salt tax the British had placed on them. The violent actions of the British army worked against them in this case since the martyrs of this salt march put both national and international preference on the side of the Indians. Boycotts and sit-ins are also very effective ways to non-violently revolt, as demonstrated by the equally famous Martin Luther King Jr. during his revolt against segregation. These methods hit a person’s bank account rather than actually hitting them; however it can be just as effective when trying to convince somebody. Even status can be used to get an idea across by using popularity to ascend through the ranks. In fact Napoleon used this method to gain power in France; rather than starting another bloody revolution like the previous French Revolution, all he did was use his popularity and everyone just accepted his coup with open arms. Napoleon had just reversed one of the major ideas people had been fighting for during the Revolution, a republic, in a single vote of the people and he did it bloodlessly. The methods for non-violent revolution exist but Kennedy is right in the fact that violent revolution will occur if the non-violent revolution can’t continue. During the revolt against segregation in the southern states in America there were a few who felt that the non-violent protests weren’t working. Those people, lead by Malcolm X, began to argue that the African Americans take a more forceful approach in their arguments. If Dr. King had not made as much progress as he did in his life there is no telling what could have happened during that movement. All in all, human nature does dictate a flight or fight instinct when it comes to feeling threatened and it can be inferred that the want to revolt against a disliked idea can come from this reaction. In recent times, however, it can be seen that the feelings created by this reaction can be diverted into other forms of fighting for what people happen to believe in, rather than just throwing punches to try and change someone else’s mind.
If I had to choose the more compelling quote--and the choice was between Kennedy and Napoleon—I would chose the quote belonging to John F. Kennedy.
The logic of Kennedy’s quote appealed to me the most—though I’m not sure if it goes the same for other readers. His use of the words “peaceful” and “violent” can be changed and applied to many other situations and not just a revolution. For example, those who make a business proposal impossible will make a tempestuous company rivalry inevitable. I like the fact that the general message of Kennedy can be easily understood. Though I do not know the history behind this quote, it sounds to me like Kennedy is condescendingly warning a crowd of people. He sounds like he is scolding a certain group for their uncontrolled behavior, and that they are causing an unnecessary problem.
All the while, Kennedy addresses to his listeners and readers the fact that he wants to make peaceful revolution possible. Napoleon Bonaparte’s quote does not express his own feeling about the possibility of peacefulness but does give a negative perspective on the idea of revolution. A revolution, in his belief, is violent. I disagree with this quote so that was why I wasn’t compelled to it. But I do not blame him for his belief. He lived during and through the French Revolution therefore he must have seen horrible things, and this most definitely effected his beliefs. But Kennedy addresses the “peaceful revolution” can be possible if violent revolution is avoided.
A revolution is, in all essence, a change. And not necessarily one that is carried out by violence. Kennedy knew this. Both Kennedy and Bonaparte were leaders, and it’s not surprising how they had different beliefs, given their disparities in history. I find Kennedy’s quote more compelling because the leader possesses optimism, and I think that’s always a good thing.
Napoleon once said that "A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets." However, I would disagree with this argument. The statement is greatly flawed in its assumption that a revolution has to be violent or military. I would argue that a revolution is any conflict between ideas or norms that results in the shift of the status quo. This conflict does not have to be fought on a battlefield, but can also be fought within the established government, in universities, schools, businesses, homes, even in the very minds of the people. Take the Scientific Revolution, for example. During the Scientific Revolution, a few great thinkers completely altered the way the western world thought and perceived the universe. This drastic shift in the status quo can certainly be called a revolution, though no swords were drawn nor artillery fired. The same can be said of the Industrial Revolution. During the industrial revolution, the entire foundation of Western society was permanently altered, though no military battles were fought. Instead, the battles were cultural and economic. Indeed, it seems that violent revolution usually occurs only when external forces prevent the said revolution from occurring peacefully.
Thus, I would agree with John F. Kennedy’s statement that “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It is quite possible to drastically shift the status quo without resorting to the use of violence. However, conditions will sometimes arise that force any change of the status quo to be taken by violent measures. As history has shown time and time again, change is inevitable. However, repressive governments will sometimes enforce such restricting measures against change that the only way for such a shift to occur is direct, violent confrontation with the ruling power. This is evident in the French Revolution. The Revolution began as a rift in the government, one that could have been resolved through non-military measures. Indeed, the violence really began because the French people were so impoverished and oppressed by burdensome taxes that violence was the only means they had of obtaining food. Then, as more and more repressive forms of government took power, the only way to change the status quo, or even disagree with the status quo, became violent dissent. Soon, all of French society was consumed by fighting and violent rebellion.
Indeed, it is often evident in history that “those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It often occurs that tyrannical governments that impose censorship and strict, violent enforcement of restrictive laws fall to violent revolution. This pattern can be seen in the Russian and Chinese communist revolutions, as well as the guerrilla warfare so common in many African countries.
Therefore, Kennedy’s remark shows much more historical insight than Napoleon’s. History has shown time and time again that non-violet revolution is possible and that violent revolution is usually a result of repressive governments that leave no course but violent change.
In my personal opinion I believe that John F. Kennedy makes a more compelling argument with, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” As opposed to Napoleon’s, "A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets." I find that Napoleon’s argument is very narrow-minded, it states that revolutions are only violent and are in no way peaceful. While JFK’s comment states that a revolution has the opportunity of being peaceful as long as people have open minds. JFK presents that if people are willing to allow peaceful protests then the community can continue to stay peaceful, but violent revolutions are caused when people are closed minded to peaceful means. In this case the only way to get the revolutions views across is for the revolution to become violent. Napoleon’s statement suggests that the only way a revolution can be conducted is through violent means.
In the history of the world there have been many revolutions, some violent and some nonviolent/peaceful. Since this is the case JFK’s comment seems to be true. JFK’s comment seems to see through the violent exterior of people and into the inner soul where people are less violent and more willing to be tolerant. It is human nature for people to take the easy route and sometimes this results in violence, however, it takes a more mature and intellectual person to see the error in automatically resorting to violence and attempting more diplomatic solutions.
When one looks at a book on history you see many many revolutions over the course of history. At quick glance most would simply look at the violent and bloody revolutions and point out that those were the most radical/successful. While in many cases this is not true, for the number of violent revolutions there are just as many peaceful revolutions that are in some cases more powerful and more successful. For instance, a great symbol of peaceful yet extremely successful movements is Gandhi during the 1900’s. He represents all that is good in human life and he accomplished a multitude of important and influential things during his lifetime, and all without any semblance of violence. Gandhi is truly all that is encompassed in JFK’s quote, both are men that we should admire and view for their amazing work on this world.
In both Napoleon and John F. Kennedy’s quotes on revolution, I believe it is Napoleon who makes the more compelling argument. He states that, "A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets." Kennedy, on the other hand, states that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
First of all, I think Kennedy’s quote does not make any compelling idea. It is obvious that if peaceful revolution is impossible, then violence will ensue. Those who do not believe in peace will resort to violence to make a point or argument. To me, Kennedy’s argument is too idealistic. He is basically saying that all “bloody” revolutions are because those who fight in it do not believe in peace. Yet, that is not the case. Take the American Revolution. The American colonists were pushed into a bloody revolution even though they had originally advocated for peace with Britain. Yet, as is with most cases, peace is just not an option when fighting for something that one believes in.
When looking at a revolution like the French Revolution, it can hardly be called a “peaceful” revolution. It embodies all that Napoleon talks of. It is indeed a revolution that began with the idea of more representation for the French people and limiting the power of Louis XVI. Though the French Revolution started out peacefully, it ended in bloodshed not believe people did not believe in peace, but rather the people believed bloodshed to be a process towards revolutionizing a country. At first, peace was believed to be possible, but in order to truly “revolutionize” a country, peace must sometimes be sacrificed in order for change. Realistically, a “peaceful revolution” is impossible. If one truly wants to completely change the structure of society and start anew, blood must be shed in order to build a new society.
Thus, according to Napoleon, there is no thing called a “peaceful revolution”. Take two “peaceful revolutions”: the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. Both the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution are not what I would consider “Revolution”. They are merely changing ideas in the people and revolutionized the way that science and industry operated. They are not real revolutions in that it completely overthrew some fundamental, established idea or an existing institution in a short amount of time. Both the Scientific and the Industrial Revolution were merely advancements or an existing society. Yes, the Scientific Revolution changed the way people thought of and studied the earth and nature. Yet, it was not just one idea that was the basis of this revolution, but rather a conglomeration of years of studies of different areas of science and new advancements in science.
In both Napoleon’s and Kennedy's quotes about the ideas of revolution, I would have to say that Kennedy's "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable" is more compelling than the other. I find Kennedy's point of view on revolution doesn't always have to be the bloody fight resulting in hundreds of thousands dead that is more known to happen in history, but JFK introduces another approach of a revolution that is more likely disregarded. One thing that doesn't seem to change between the past and the present is the initiative of violence to resolve conflict and issue. There are rarely incidents of a peaceful revolution or solution to any variances. But unlike Napoleon who has a more pessimistic and sadistic outlook on revolutions, Kennedy addresses the possibilities of a peaceful revolution that will hopefully solve a problem with no blood shed and no lives lost.
If we look back into history, there are countless wars and revolts that lead to wars. But if there was a different approach to solve a disagreement in a more nonviolent approach, there might be a change in the way people instinctively resort to violence. As for the French Revolution, the Third Estate tried to attain order and to calm the aggravated revolutionists not by violence but through laws and the National Assembly to possibly lessen the revolutionist’s anger. But the revolts refused a peaceful solution and instead looked upon violence to get what they were after.
This quote by Kennedy approaches the nonviolent protest that Gandhi represented in the South. This is an example that shows that there are other means of objections except violence.
When one is to look at the major revolutions of the world, one general outcome seems to arise; a bloody and devastating war. There are many optimistic democrats, such as John F. Kennedy, who truly believe that peaceful revolution is possible; that, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” However, history has proven that Kennedy’s statement is entirely false, and that Napoleon Bonaparte, who believed that “A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets”, holds more truth.
Napoleon’s beliefs on the topic of revolutions are supported by all major revolutions that have occurred in the past. An obvious example of this would be the French Revolution, which only changed the course of history after thousands of Frenchmen were sent to the guillotine and an era of war. It was apparent that the French Revolution would not be peaceful as the revolutionists were generally extraordinary radical, but other revolutions that appeared at first to be peaceful became radical. The American Revolution began with unanswered pleas to King George, but it ended with the American Revolutionary War. Even in revolutions less controversial, violence appeared in some manner. When looking at the Scientific Revolution, which could or could not be considered a revolution, it immediately appears to be peaceful. However, the resistance to the Scientific Revolution turned to violence, as the Inquisition executed or punished several scientific leaders.
Many revolutions are neither entirely violent nor peaceful; there are many revolutions that have encompassed a bit of both. Though not quite a revolution, the Civil Rights Movement is a prime example of the conflicts between violent and peaceful radicals. Martin Luther King and his supporters may have avoided violence, but other groups, such as the Black Panthers, were not so successful in doing so. The Civil Rights Movement was a movement in its entirety that encompasses both the violence and peace; therefore it was not a revolution without violence as Kennedy believes is possible.
To believe that violent revolutions can be ignored is to believe that all people can just get along; that two groups with entirely different beliefs can just sit down and come to a compromise. An ideal world where conflicts can be avoided is unobtainable, and the search for idealism, such as communism, has brought more chaos into the world than if the thought was ignored entirely. However difficult it may seem to accept, the human race has used violence to solve all conflicts and will continue to use violence whenever the urge may strike them. There will always be many out of a group of revolutionists that will resort to violence, and without those many a revolution would never occur.
I find John F. Kennedy’s statement,“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”, to be more compelling than Napoleon’s assertion that “A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets”. Although revolutions are usually violent, they are not violent by nature. Take the Glorious Revolution, also known as the “Bloodless” Revolution, which had minimal violence but still meant enormous religious change for England. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. both led revolutions, and did not need to use violence. While we often automatically associate the term revolution with violence, as Napoleon did, Kennedy believed in the possibility of peaceful revolutions.
Kennedy believed in the essentially good nature of mankind, and he was essentially a good person. Napoleon believed in the essentially depraved nature of mankind, and he was essentially depraved. The characters of these two men is reflected in their quotes, and both make compelling arguments. I have a generally positive outlook on mankind and believe, like Kennedy, that peaceful revolution is possible.
I believe you have to look at the time period, and what these two men accomplished individually to really define who has the more compelling argument. JFK really did have to try and sustain somewhat of a “peaceful revolution”. With his country in danger of a nuclear strike, he to peacefully keep his people from coming to arms. I’m sure, if a nuclear weapon was to be used to attack the U.S. during the Cold War, he would have definitely not been able to contain his people from overthrowing his government that had failed to protect them. So, he was obviously referring to the fact that the USSR was a constant threat to the society in which he lived in during the late 50’s and early 60’s. His leadership allowed two of the major powers in the world at the time to not go to war, so his words did carry some power.
However, Napoleon was responsible for the rise of one of the most prosperous military empires in the history of the world. He truly made the “pen mightier than the sword” during his leadership of the French Empire. He was able to raise his entire country to arms and lead a nation that conquered most every other nation in Europe. It is obvious that his words were more powerful in his time period. His ability to conquer was totally and completely due to the fact that his ability to rule and to lead were leaps and bounds among any other leader France had seen in their history. The fact that even when he was exiled, the country of France yearned for the humiliated Napoleon to return to his rightful place at the throne, which is a remarkable feat. Even a greater feat, the fact that, as Napoleon was making his way to Paris, he was able to turn and command all of the soldiers that Louis XVIII sent to turn Napoleon back to exile. He truly is a man admired by history, and I believe his actions condone the assumption that created the more compelling argument, saying, “Revolution is an idea that has found it’s bayonets”, for he was one who had successfully commanded one of the ideological overthrows. JFK< however, did not have that luxury.
Post a Comment