What it is same revolution? In this text I have the intention to display the recent democratic conquests gifts in the Arab world of form to contextualizar them as a complementary step to other moments lived in the recent history of ocidente, applied now, to that reality. I try to only demystify the impression of that this revolution fell of parachute in history, supposedly introduced in it for a factor: the digital interatividade. Childbirth of the premise of that history can even though give to wide steps or great jumps, but it always part of some place, being inevitably the complement of previous conquests. The first months of 2011 go to be known in history as the period that spread a wave of revolutions and protests in sedentas nations for democracy in the Arab world. The question that if makes on such events is: of that it forms we will interpret them and for which version of the facts we will loan really? Yes, therefore any register of a historical fact is always an interpretation on the same for which we not necessarily loan to the truth concept and the truth in itself. Therefore who will probably write history will be all those that, arguing on the facts, to agree to concepts on the occurrence in quarrels that can coincide or not with what there it became. Unjust? At last? How will be known this revolution? A revolution without leaders? But revolution is revolution if the put down system after comes back the revolt with new roupagem? This wants to say that they will have to exist leader? at least in the process of democratic reconstruction, that in my opinion is at least so important how much the deposition of a dictator. It will be known as the revolution that reinventou the methods of democratic performance by means of the digital interaction? To answer these questions a questioning must be made priore: of where it appeared? Already to be able to extend such concepts and she applies them it realities (nor so ditatoriais, nor so democratic thus) as ours, we must ask: how we can make equal? 1? Civil disobedience and the law of the convenience Henry Thoreau, in its treating on the civil disobedience affirms: ' ' All recognize the right to the revolution, that is, the right to deny loyalty and to offer resistance to the government whenever they become great and insuportveis its tyranny and ineficincia.' ' The definition of civil disobedience, for it, initiated in the choice of the motivation that governed each action.

So far there's (just?) 0 comments on this post - join in and add one »