Friday, April 22, 2011


The 1960s were a momentous decade with rebellions occuring all over the world, each one trying to change their country, discarding the old, bringing in the new. Two large events occuring during that era were the Cultural Revolution in China and the Counter Culture revolution in America. I thought I would explore what these two crucial movments had in common, and how they differed.

The chinese and americans both wanted to get rid of the old traditions, and bring in a new era. In 1966, Chinese universities were closed and students were rallied to destroy the old habits, customs, culture and thinking- or the " Four Olds". In the process of doing this, man of China's buildings, works or art, and other cultural icons were damaged. Violence also broke out, with people attacking figures of authority such as teachers and communist party members. In a way the student protests of the 1960s were similar. The majority of students who protested were speaking out against the vietnam war and the more conservative society of the 1950s. Like the chinese cultural movement, violence did ironically also break out during these anti- war demonstrations. On May 4th, 1970, the National Guard began shooting at student protesters at Kent State University, killing 4. This understandably riled up the protesters even more, prompting them to boycott classes and set off a smoke bomb in the Old Capitol.

The Tiananmen Square Protests in China, although they did not occur in the 60s, had many similar aspects to the Ken State Protests. Tiananmen Square took place in 1989, when more than a million people, many of which were students, gathered into Beijing's Tiananmen Square to protest the increasingly corrupt Chinese Government. The military intervened, and tanks entered the square. After the wave of violence and executions subsided, over 700 people were killed. The destruction of the Tianamen Square protests were much more so than the Kent State University killings, but both are eerily similar.

As we can see, the 60s ushered in a time of revolution, a time when people began to question old traditions and corruptions. They were willing to risk anything, even their lives, to usher in new eras.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Satyagraha



Throughout this entire unit on India the same question continued to run through my mind “ Would Gandhi’s method of satyagraha (peaceful protest) actually work?” In my heart, I really wanted to believe it would, but then I doubted whether it was too idealistic. Do humans inherently become violent over disputes?This question is close to my heart, as I am researching the peaceful people power revolution for my spring paper. So I know it is possible to make an immense impact on society without violence…but not many revolutions occur this way. Does humanity naturally incline towards brutality? I thought I’d explore these questions.

First of all, what is satyagraha? It translates directly to “soul truth” and was Gandhi’s philosophy of non violent resistance that he attempted to teach the people of India. We know that in the end, Gandhi’s satyagraha campaign was not successful, juding on the fact that The Partitioning of India caused huge strife between the Muslims and Indians, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Even Gandhi himself thought he was a failure.
I belive that Satyagraha does have the possibility to be successful, however, a country has to be in a certain amount of political and social stability. If a nation is in a state of chaos, the people are already aggravated and violence will breakout. I believe it is a part of human nature. We are not pacifists at heart, yet some of us choose to be.