There's a long-running hubbub about 'Twitter revolutions'. Some contend that this is a totally new thing and that social media has revolutionized revolution. Others contend that revolutioning was a going concern long before social media.
Both are correct. It's like this: how do you define an army? Today, we think of armies as a bunch of guys with guns and modern weapons. But there were armies before guns. So having guns doesn't define an army--but it does significantly change how an army operates. It doesn't change everything, not even all of the finer details; a Marine and a Roman legionary could swap tips on packing a ruck for marching.
Same deal with revolution. Placing instant communication and broadcasting into the hands everyman can't not completely overhaul how people rise up against their government. At the same time, it still comes down to citizens who are willing to stand in front of tanks.
Both are correct. It's like this: how do you define an army? Today, we think of armies as a bunch of guys with guns and modern weapons. But there were armies before guns. So having guns doesn't define an army--but it does significantly change how an army operates. It doesn't change everything, not even all of the finer details; a Marine and a Roman legionary could swap tips on packing a ruck for marching.
Same deal with revolution. Placing instant communication and broadcasting into the hands everyman can't not completely overhaul how people rise up against their government. At the same time, it still comes down to citizens who are willing to stand in front of tanks.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
Since I didn't make the edit time, here's the special gold star I tried to whip up after the fact. Oh well, thanks for playing you win x 1000.
(Well said, especially your last paragraph. Well said indeed.)