5 ms·

The Arab uprisings of 2011 are like the European revolutions of 1848

57 points by JacobAldridge 16y ago

phreeza 16y ago
Cringely made a similar point last week. http://www.cringely.com/2011/02/metternich-and-mubarak/ http://www.cringely.com/2011/02/metternich-and-mubarak/
jleyank 16y ago
Hopefully, not quite like 1848, as those revolutions didn't go anywhere. Things are different now (more religious issues, more communication, ...), and they seem to go faster. Hopefully, people there get what they want (and remember, it might not be what YOU want).
- tomjen3 16y ago
  The "revolution" in Denmark in 49[1] got us our constitution which kept the king, but removed almost all his power and made him a ceremonious figure head. [1] it's not much of a revolution when the king simply signs the damn agreement, but is a lot less bloody and there would have been much violence if he hadn't.
- lkozma 16y ago
  In most of Central-Eastern Europe 1848 removed the last traces of feudalism, catalysed the "awakening" of nations, leading to the formation of nation-states some decades later. The nationalism ignited in 1848 is such a strong force until today that we find it hard to imagine what was before that. 1848 in Hungary turned into a war of independence from Austria, which although defeated, led to the formation of Austria-Hungary, a largely multiethnic entity, with relative stability and strong growth for half a century, but which proved to be unsustainable and whose breakup ignited the first world war (EDIT: the end of which sew the seeds of a further world war which had inside the germs of the cold war that would follow, etc. etc.)
  - yread 16y ago
    Austria-Hungary was established in 1867
    - lkozma 16y ago
      Yes, but in many ways it was the consequence of 1848.
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      That was the formalization. Hungarian independence in 1848 was the catalyst (and is still celebrated today; I'm pretty sure that's March 17, but there are so damn many significant dates in 1000 years of Hungarian history that I frankly can't remember half of them). The Hungarian independence of 1848 was really pretty damned cool, actually. It would have changed the world had it survived.
  - jleyank 16y ago
    I'm not saying that 1848 wasn't significant, merely that it wasn't decisive in a local sense. The old order did not really recover, and the changes ultimately percolated to the surface. Changes in today's world might/will not be so slow.
- yesbabyyes 16y ago
  According to this diagram, they certainly did go anywhere: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Number_of_nations_1800-2003_scoring_8_or_higher_on_Polity_IV_scale.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Number_of...
wazoox 16y ago
Similar reference to 1848 here: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/dont-party-like-its-1989/ http://www.amconmag.com/blog/dont-party-like-its-1989/
petervandijck 16y ago
There's a kind of hidden sense of superiority in this statement. Plus, it's wrong.
- allenp 16y ago
  The opening paragraph of the article (since you just read the headline on hackernews apparently): "Each revolution must be assessed in its own context, each had a distinctive impact. The revolutions spread from one point to another. They interacted to a limited extent. … The drama of each revolution unfolded separately. Each had its own heroes, its own crises. Each therefore demands its own narrative …"
  - petervandijck 16y ago
    I was referring to the statement in the title, yes - it makes it seem as if those countries are now finally having the revolutions we had a long time ago, which is not what's going on (clearly).
JacobAldridge 16y ago
When I studied modern history in High School our text book was called 'Frankfurt to Fra Mauro'. Fra Mauro was a landing site on the moon (where Apollo 13 was headed, iirc); Frankfurt referred to the convention in 1848 which attempted to combine the German-speaking principalities and nationalities into a unified 'Germany'. While it didn't create that outcome (it took 23 more years), I guess the book saw that event (and similar European attempts in the same time period, with less alliteration) as being a key starting point. Of course, I'm not convinced current uprisings are comparable, (or aren't comparable for that matter, see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2239018 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2239018) but it's an interesting discussion.
valjavec 16y ago
In 1848 people were just tired and full of anger for the "world" they were living in. In 2011 people are not just tired and full of anger for the countries they're living in, but they also have communication they never had before, which means they can work with each other, and organize efficiently as they never could in past (anyone watched 300 movie how small but coordinated army defeated big one?). I wouldn't dare to predict what will happened in those countries after revolutions, but I dare to predict many more countries where people are tired of same bullshit years over years will take same path.
- iwwr 16y ago
  That's why governments of all stripes are scrambling to control communications and why it's vital they don't succeed in this endeavor.
- tarmstrong 16y ago
  > but they also have communication they never had before Funny you say that. People in 1848 also had "communication they never had before," and they could "organize efficiently as they never could in past". From _1848: Year of Revolution_ by Mike Rapport: > The speed with which the wave of revolutions swept across > Europe was due to the wonders of modern technology. In > 1789 it took weeks for news – carried, at its fastest, on > horseback or under sail – for the fall of the Bastille to > be relayed across Central and Eastern Europe. In 1848, > thanks to steamships and a nascent telegraph system, > reports were being heard within days or even minutes.
Vivtek 16y ago
A single event in Europe two decades ago? "The abrupt withdrawal of Soviet support for the local dictator?" True of, what, one country? Romania? Bah. The European 80's/90's were just as complex and messy as 1848.
- ugh 16y ago
  The point is probably that the withdrawal of Soviet support is what connects all the revolutions in 1989 and 1990. Soviet tanks no longer came rolling in and crushed the revolts like before, in 1953 (East Germany), 1956 (Hungary) and 1968 (Czechoslovakia). There is, like in 1848, no such a central fact that connects all Arab revolutions. I think that’s a pretty superficial search for similarities. We don’t yet know how the revolutions will work out and there are not that many examples in the history of revolutions spreading from one country to the next like wildfire. (I can actually only think of 1848 and 1989/1990. Does anyone know more?) To what extent comparisons to 1848 and 1989/1990 make sense at all is certainly questionable.
  - woodpanel 16y ago
    Some may argue, that there is a similarity between the 89/90 uprisings and todays arab revolutions: - 20 years ago the superpower USSR stopped to side with the opressors - nowadays the united states (and europe) stopped to side with the oppressors in both cases it might be out of weakness and/or a change in policy.
    - gloob 16y ago
      In Europe, the Soviets stopped backing the local princelings before the 89/90 revolutions happened. This time around, the relevant powers seem more to be backing whoever wins and congratulating themselves after the fact for supporting freedom/stability (as appropriate).
      - woodpanel 16y ago
        i think the relevant powers have used the same diplomatic tone back then as they do nowadays, because of the uncertainty of how things might turn out to be.
jsm386 16y ago
Instead of trying to draw parallels to one wave or another, just recognize that it seems like we are in the midst of a revolutionary wave. These things happen every so often: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_wave The Wiki article is in the context of Marxism; I never learned this concept from that POV but the concept holds. It's interesting to see the roles different technologies have played in these waves. Go back to 1848 and the industrial revolution and resulting urbanization are certainly one of many causes. SMS played a key organizing role in the Color revolutions, especially in Ukraine. And now we're seeing Twitter/Facebook play a role. I think some people are exaggerating that role, but the role is there.
presidentender 16y ago
I wrote about this last week: http://zerogov.com/?p=1538 http://zerogov.com/?p=1538

57 points by JacobAldridge 16y ago

Cringely made a similar point last week. http://www.cringely.com/2011/02/metternich-and-mubarak/ http://www.cringely.com/2011/02/metternich-and-mubarak/

jleyank 16y ago

Hopefully, not quite like 1848, as those revolutions didn't go anywhere. Things are different now (more religious issues, more communication, ...), and they seem to go faster. Hopefully, people there get what they want (and remember, it might not be what YOU want).

tomjen3 16y ago
The "revolution" in Denmark in 49[1] got us our constitution which kept the king, but removed almost all his power and made him a ceremonious figure head. [1] it's not much of a revolution when the king simply signs the damn agreement, but is a lot less bloody and there would have been much violence if he hadn't.
lkozma 16y ago
In most of Central-Eastern Europe 1848 removed the last traces of feudalism, catalysed the "awakening" of nations, leading to the formation of nation-states some decades later. The nationalism ignited in 1848 is such a strong force until today that we find it hard to imagine what was before that. 1848 in Hungary turned into a war of independence from Austria, which although defeated, led to the formation of Austria-Hungary, a largely multiethnic entity, with relative stability and strong growth for half a century, but which proved to be unsustainable and whose breakup ignited the first world war (EDIT: the end of which sew the seeds of a further world war which had inside the germs of the cold war that would follow, etc. etc.)
- yread 16y ago
  Austria-Hungary was established in 1867
  - lkozma 16y ago
    Yes, but in many ways it was the consequence of 1848.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    That was the formalization. Hungarian independence in 1848 was the catalyst (and is still celebrated today; I'm pretty sure that's March 17, but there are so damn many significant dates in 1000 years of Hungarian history that I frankly can't remember half of them). The Hungarian independence of 1848 was really pretty damned cool, actually. It would have changed the world had it survived.
- jleyank 16y ago
  I'm not saying that 1848 wasn't significant, merely that it wasn't decisive in a local sense. The old order did not really recover, and the changes ultimately percolated to the surface. Changes in today's world might/will not be so slow.
yesbabyyes 16y ago
According to this diagram, they certainly did go anywhere: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Number_of_nations_1800-2003_scoring_8_or_higher_on_Polity_IV_scale.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Number_of...

wazoox 16y ago

Similar reference to 1848 here: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/dont-party-like-its-1989/ http://www.amconmag.com/blog/dont-party-like-its-1989/

petervandijck 16y ago

There's a kind of hidden sense of superiority in this statement. Plus, it's wrong.

allenp 16y ago
The opening paragraph of the article (since you just read the headline on hackernews apparently): "Each revolution must be assessed in its own context, each had a distinctive impact. The revolutions spread from one point to another. They interacted to a limited extent. … The drama of each revolution unfolded separately. Each had its own heroes, its own crises. Each therefore demands its own narrative …"
- petervandijck 16y ago
  I was referring to the statement in the title, yes - it makes it seem as if those countries are now finally having the revolutions we had a long time ago, which is not what's going on (clearly).

JacobAldridge 16y ago

When I studied modern history in High School our text book was called 'Frankfurt to Fra Mauro'. Fra Mauro was a landing site on the moon (where Apollo 13 was headed, iirc); Frankfurt referred to the convention in 1848 which attempted to combine the German-speaking principalities and nationalities into a unified 'Germany'. While it didn't create that outcome (it took 23 more years), I guess the book saw that event (and similar European attempts in the same time period, with less alliteration) as being a key starting point. Of course, I'm not convinced current uprisings are comparable, (or aren't comparable for that matter, see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2239018 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2239018) but it's an interesting discussion.

valjavec 16y ago

In 1848 people were just tired and full of anger for the "world" they were living in. In 2011 people are not just tired and full of anger for the countries they're living in, but they also have communication they never had before, which means they can work with each other, and organize efficiently as they never could in past (anyone watched 300 movie how small but coordinated army defeated big one?). I wouldn't dare to predict what will happened in those countries after revolutions, but I dare to predict many more countries where people are tired of same bullshit years over years will take same path.

iwwr 16y ago
That's why governments of all stripes are scrambling to control communications and why it's vital they don't succeed in this endeavor.
tarmstrong 16y ago
> but they also have communication they never had before Funny you say that. People in 1848 also had "communication they never had before," and they could "organize efficiently as they never could in past". From _1848: Year of Revolution_ by Mike Rapport: > The speed with which the wave of revolutions swept across > Europe was due to the wonders of modern technology. In > 1789 it took weeks for news – carried, at its fastest, on > horseback or under sail – for the fall of the Bastille to > be relayed across Central and Eastern Europe. In 1848, > thanks to steamships and a nascent telegraph system, > reports were being heard within days or even minutes.

Vivtek 16y ago

A single event in Europe two decades ago? "The abrupt withdrawal of Soviet support for the local dictator?" True of, what, one country? Romania? Bah. The European 80's/90's were just as complex and messy as 1848.

ugh 16y ago
The point is probably that the withdrawal of Soviet support is what connects all the revolutions in 1989 and 1990. Soviet tanks no longer came rolling in and crushed the revolts like before, in 1953 (East Germany), 1956 (Hungary) and 1968 (Czechoslovakia). There is, like in 1848, no such a central fact that connects all Arab revolutions. I think that’s a pretty superficial search for similarities. We don’t yet know how the revolutions will work out and there are not that many examples in the history of revolutions spreading from one country to the next like wildfire. (I can actually only think of 1848 and 1989/1990. Does anyone know more?) To what extent comparisons to 1848 and 1989/1990 make sense at all is certainly questionable.
- woodpanel 16y ago
  Some may argue, that there is a similarity between the 89/90 uprisings and todays arab revolutions: - 20 years ago the superpower USSR stopped to side with the opressors - nowadays the united states (and europe) stopped to side with the oppressors in both cases it might be out of weakness and/or a change in policy.
  - gloob 16y ago
    In Europe, the Soviets stopped backing the local princelings before the 89/90 revolutions happened. This time around, the relevant powers seem more to be backing whoever wins and congratulating themselves after the fact for supporting freedom/stability (as appropriate).
    - woodpanel 16y ago
      i think the relevant powers have used the same diplomatic tone back then as they do nowadays, because of the uncertainty of how things might turn out to be.

jsm386 16y ago

Instead of trying to draw parallels to one wave or another, just recognize that it seems like we are in the midst of a revolutionary wave. These things happen every so often: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_wave The Wiki article is in the context of Marxism; I never learned this concept from that POV but the concept holds. It's interesting to see the roles different technologies have played in these waves. Go back to 1848 and the industrial revolution and resulting urbanization are certainly one of many causes. SMS played a key organizing role in the Color revolutions, especially in Ukraine. And now we're seeing Twitter/Facebook play a role. I think some people are exaggerating that role, but the role is there.

presidentender 16y ago

I wrote about this last week: http://zerogov.com/?p=1538 http://zerogov.com/?p=1538