₦airaland Forum

tctrills:
And for your post, many coups meet the definition of a revolution.

Many is not all. And I will say, some. In my own opinion, no coup in Nigeria has revolutionised much. Revolutions are after all judged by their eventual outcomes and not just because people revolted.

The French Revolution, which did have a coup, is required learning in Western liberal education. Perhaps study it so you understand why.

budaatum:
Many is not all. And I will say, some. In my own opinion, no coup in Nigeria has revolutionised much. Revolutions are after all judged by their eventual outcomes and not just because people revolted.

The French Revolution, which did have a coup, is required learning in Western liberal education. Perhaps study it so you understand why.

Again, let's stick to your definition.
The July 1966 coup for example meets all your criterion for a coup. Unless you want to change your definition.
Yes the french revolution also qualifies as a revolution and the Iranian revolution and the ISIS war and I can go on and on. Communism in Russia and China, Even Hamas taking over Gaza.
All these meet your standard. Unless you are no longer comfortable with that standard.
So back to my question sir should we list revolutions of the last 100 years to see if revolution is actually a good idea?

tctrills:
Again, let's stick to your definition.
The July 1966 coup for example meets all your criterion for a coup.

Explain to me how you have concluded that the 1966 coup meets the definition you read in wiki so we can see how you reason.

State the good outcomes from that coup please.

budaatum:
Explain to me how you have concluded that the 1966 coup meets the definition you read in wiki so we can see how you reason.

State the good outcomes from that coup please.

Sir from your definition of a revolution, the outcomes do not have to be good. In fact, you would not find that anywhere.
My point remains that the outcome of most revolutions is far worse that what it replaced.
Now let me use your wiki definition to see if the coup meets that definition.

In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society's state, class, ethnic or religious structures.[1][2][3] A revolution involves the attempted change in political regimes, substantial mass mobilization, and efforts to force change through non-institutionalized means (such as mass demonstrations, protests, strikes, or violence).[1]

1. Did the coup lead to a massive transformation of Nigeria? Yes.
2. Did it change the political regime? Yes
3. Was there mass mobilization? Yes. All across the north, soldiers and even civilians rose up to kill people of eastern origin.
4. Was it a forced change through non-institutionalized means? Yes. A coup is clearly non-institutionalized.
I guess this answers your question.

budaatum:
Nigerian independence was precisely a revolution against the British master, and June 12 was indeed a revolution against military rule, but if you don't think we are better off ruling ourselves and our democracy despite current hunger, then all I can suggest is you go fill the gaps in your history.

As Samuel Sharpe once said when he revolted, “I would rather die upon yonder gallows than live in slavery".

Nobody wants to die or be beaten in the street. The government just do whatever and hardly speak with the Nigerian people.

Everyone just suck it up and pretend all is well and look for alternatives.

Maybe clay can be used in place of garrium. It is rich in Iron...toh

armyofone:
Nobody wants to die or be beaten in the street. The government just do whatever and hardly speak with the Nigerian people.

Everyone just suck it up and pretend all is well and look for alternatives.

Maybe clay can be used in place of garrium. It is rich in Iron...toh

You saying no one in Nigeria wants to fight to free themselves from oppression?

Just imagine USA had the same attitude. They'd still be under British rule and black people would be slaves. But thank God they are not like Nigerians I suppose, because even Nigerians benefit from US' fight against oppression.

tctrills:
Sir from your definition of a revolution, the outcomes do not have to be good. In fact, you would not find that anywhere.

In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society's state, class, ethnic or religious structures. A revolution involves the attempted change in political regimes, substantial mass mobilization, and efforts to force change through non-institutionalized means (such as mass demonstrations, protests, strikes, or violence).

I guess the bold implies negative change, to you.

No one calls a negative change a revolution.

God1blessBiafra, we must revolt!

budaatum:
You saying no one in Nigeria wants to fight to free themselves from oppression?

Just imagine USA had the same attitude. They'd still be under British rule and black people would be slaves. But thank God they are not like Nigerians I suppose, because even Nigerians benefit from US' fight against oppression.

Unfortunately nobody in Nigeria wants to give up their lives for just cause / bring changes etc

Easier for them to look for alternatives to survive.
They don't even like or trust each other.

armyofone:
Unfortunately nobody in Nigeria wants to give up their lives for just cause / bring changes etc

Easier for them to look for alternatives to survive.
They don't even like or trust each other.

We are waiting for Christ to come and save us perhaps, which is why I always say, in 3024.

I have tctrills trying to convince me that revolutions are bad. But there's also God1blessBiafra accusing me of not revolting, so, perhaps I'll go change my name to Kunta Nnamdi Kinte Kanu so they are more confused.

budaatum:
We are waiting for Christ to come and save us perhaps, which is why I always say, in 3024.

I have tctrills trying to convince me that revolutions are bad. But there's also God1blessBiafra accusing me of not revolting, so, perhaps I'll go change my name to Kunta Nnamdi Kinte Kanu so they are more confused.

Yes, they are waiting for the Lord to come do it.

Until then, they will continue to hide under the rock and find alternate garrium.
The rat race continues.

budaatum:
I guess the bold implies negative change, to you.

No one calls a negative change a revolution.

God1blessBiafra, we must revolt!

Sir a fundamental change can be negative or positive.
The word fundamental is neither negative or positive.
Let's look at the meaning of that word.
adjective. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
Hence a fundamental change is a change of essential parts.
If a government changed from democracy to dictatorship, that's a fundamental change.
Here are a few notable revolutions that lead more brutal dictatorships according to Wikipedia not me this time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Revolution
So unless you know something Wikipedia doesn't and that isn't supported by any dictionary, you are wrong.
Also, Wikipedia refers to Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and Libyan Civil War or Libyan Revolution (2011) as revolutions.
So could you please quote where it is stated that revolutions don't have negative outcomes.

Even the french revolution led to an economic recession and produced one of the worst dictators in the world, Napoleon Bonaparte. France's Hitler. Who led to the deaths of another 6.5 million people across Europe.

tctrills:
Sir a fundamental change can be negative or positive.

Indeed it can be, but when most people talk about a fundamental transformation, the often mean a positive change.

As for your revolutions mostly leading to negative change, I guess we'd need to beg to differ, and in my defence, I offer you Eve's revolution against those who would keep her ignorant and naked in the Garden of Eden knowing you would never accept that the change she bought about was positive.

budaatum:
Indeed it can be, but when most people talk about a fundamental transformation, the often mean a positive change.

As for your revolutions mostly leading to negative change, I guess we'd need to beg to differ, and in my defence, I offer you Eve's revolution against those who would keep her ignorant and naked in the Garden of Eden knowing you would never accept that the change she bought about was positive.

A few things here. Even if fundamental transformation is mostly used to indicate a positive change, it isn't so in the case of revolution. I gave you 4 globally acclaimed revolutions that only led to more sorrow, tears, and blood. The Chinese communist revolution, The Iranian Islamic revolution, and the Egyptian and Libyan revolution. All these took place within the last 100 years. Please look them up on Wikipedia.
Now to the case of Eve, let's even argue that you are right and her revolution was the best thing ever, how about the million others who daily revolt against their God and end up destroying their lives and cutting short their blessings? For every case where revolution led to a good outcome, a million cases have a negative result.

tctrills:
A few things here. Even if fundamental transformation is mostly used to indicate a positive change, it isn't so in the case of revolution. I gave you 4 globally acclaimed revolutions that only led to more sorrow, tears, and blood. The Chinese communist revolution,

And I gave you a few revolutions that have led to positive change, so it's rather dumb to presume all revolutions are negative or positive, especially since many wouldn't even agree on what is positive or negative.

Anyway, here's another popular revolution where many died too. Please argue that they therefore shouldn't have revolted if you may.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

tctrills:
Now to the case of Eve, let's even argue that you are right and her revolution was the best thing ever, how about the million others who daily revolt against their God and end up destroying their lives and cutting short their blessings? For every case where revolution led to a good outcome, a million cases have a negative result.

Eve did not revolt against her God. She revolted against the stupid ignorant instruction that Adam is said to have received from God. And the evidence is that Adam, and God, lied, since eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not kill her, but opened her eyes, and gave her wisdom, and freed her and her dumb Adam from slavery after which she became self employed and populated the earth and lived for almost a 1000 years, which is very positive indeed as far as I am concerned. In fact, if Eve hadn't revolted, we probably never have heard of her.

Basically, you and I have a fundamental philosophical difference. You would not revolt against those who oppress you, while I most definitely would revolt even if you don't revolt with me and even if it means I die in the process.

I don't believe I can force you to revolt with me, but neither can you stop me from revolting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2W3aG8uizA?si=HG442uhD8wzyOD2j

budaatum:
Eve did not revolt against her God. She revolted against the stupid ignorant instruction that Adam is said to have received from God. And the evidence is that Adam, and God, lied, since eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not kill her, but opened her eyes, and gave her wisdom, and freed her and her dumb Adam from slavery after which she became self employed and populated the earth and lived for almost a 1000 years, which is very positive indeed as far as I am concerned. In fact, if Eve hadn't revolted, we probably never have heard of her.

Basically, you and I have a fundamental philosophical difference. You would not revolt against those who oppress you, while I most definitely would revolt even if you don't revolt with me and even if it means I die in the process.

I don't believe I can force you to revolt with me, but neither can you stop me from revolting.
And great song from Bob. But standing up for your rights is not the same thing as revolution.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2W3aG8uizA?si=HG442uhD8wzyOD2j

Our discussion has not been about my personal beliefs. I only stated the fact that revolution is most often a bad idea. Please ask the people of Iran.
I don't need to look to Eve's example when I know many people who revolted against God and it never ended well.
Now are there more successful alternatives to revolution? Yes.
Every day, people change our world and communities without revolutions. If you ask, I will give you a whole lot of examples.

budaatum:
And I gave you a few revolutions that have led to positive change, so it's rather dumb to presume all revolutions are negative or positive, especially since many wouldn't even agree on what is positive or negative.

Anyway, here's another popular revolution where many died too. Please argue that they therefore shouldn't have revolted if you may.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

Yes, the American Revolution is one of the very few good ones. But if you notice, all the examples you give are older than 100 years and far in between. That only tells you that revolution is not a smart move. And I never said all revolutions are negative, I said most. It was you who felt all revolutions must be positive. But it seems you have changed your mind about that so good for you.

tctrills:
Yes, the American Revolution is one of the very few good ones. But if you notice, all the examples you give are older than 100 years and far in between. That only tells you that revolution is not a smart move. And I never said all revolutions are negative, I said most. It was you who felt all revolutions must be positive. But it seems you have changed your mind about that so good for you.

My objection is against your sweeping statement that revolutions are bad. Whether revolutions are good or bad depends on the person revolting, is what you can't seem to accept. And you fail to recognise that even good or bad is subjective.

If I revolt against oppression and die in the process, you might think that is bad, but as I stated in this very conversation, some would rather revolt, and even if they died in the process, it could still be considered good for them and for others who might live. Examples are Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Anyway, as I said, I always revolt against those who would oppressor me. My dignity alone would make me revolt, as I'd lose respect for myself if I don't. And that's probably why I don't get oppressed. It's like standing up to bullies. If you don't revolt against them they'd just keep bullying you.

As for your many other ways, they are included in revolution for me, which is standing up against the status quo in order to effect change. And there's no reason why that standing up needs to be bloody, which is why peaceful revolutions effected by Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi and Eve are mentioned.

And to that list I add Jesus Christ, and revolutions that come into effect due to the peaceful practice of democracy. If Nigerians had dumped APC and PDP at the last election, we'd likely be talking about a peaceful revolution now.

budaatum:
My objection is against your sweeping statement that revolutions are bad. Whether revolutions are good or bad depends on the person revolting, is what you can't seem to accept. And you fail to recognise that even good or bad is subjective.

If I revolt against oppression and die in the process, you might think that is bad, but as I stated in this very conversation, some would rather revolt, and even if they died in the process, it could still be considered good for them and for others who might live. Examples are Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Anyway, as I said, I always revolt against those who would oppressor me. My dignity alone would make me revolt, as I'd lose respect for myself if I don't. And that's probably why I don't get oppressed. It's like standing up to bullies. If you don't revolt against them they'd just keep bullying you.

As for your many other ways, they are included in revolution for me, which is standing up against the status quo in order to effect change. And there's no reason why that standing up needs to be bloody, which is why peaceful revolutions effected by Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi and Eve are mentioned.

And to that list I add Jesus Christ, and revolutions that come into effect due to the peaceful practice of democracy. If Nigerians had dumped APC and PDP at the last election, we'd likely be talking about a peaceful revolution now.

I never said revolutions are bad. I said most revolutions end up with negative outcomes. I never made such a sweeping statement.
Also, by our agreed definition of revolution, Nigerians dumping APC is an election not a revolution.
Let me ask, do you call the 2015 election a revolution? We dumped PDP for APC remember?
Going back to the definition of revolution.
A revolution involves the attempted change in political regimes, substantial mass mobilization, and efforts to force change through non-institutionalized means.
So an election can never amount to a revolution.
Let's stick to definitions.

tctrills:
Let me ask, do you call the 2015 election a revolution? We dumped PDP for APC remember?

No, I wouldn't, since there was nothing groundbreaking about it in my opinion, despite it being the first democratic change of governing party in Nigeria.

Electing my Obi on the other hand would have definitely required a transformation in the psyche of the majority of Nigerians to the extent that I would have called it revolutionary. I however would not have been surprised if I were not agreed with.

R

budaatum:
No, I wouldn't, since there was nothing groundbreaking about it in my opinion, despite it being the first democratic change of governing party in Nigeria.

Electing my Obi on the other hand would have definitely required a transformation in the psyche of the majority of Nigerians to the extent that I would have called it revolutionary. I however would not have been surprised if I were not agreed with.

I think you have so watered down the meaning of revolution that anything can be seen as a revolution. So by your new definition of revolution, I have to agree with you. I support elections hence, I support revolution.
You happen to be doing two things at the same time. You have watered down the meaning of revolution and complicated at the same time.
It's hard to argue when a definition becomes very vague so I give up.

tctrills:
I think you have so watered down the meaning of revolution that anything can be seen as a revolution.

If that weren't true, I'd be here arguing that the so called Iranian revolution was just a coup, but since some call it a revolution, arguing it isn't would be ridiculous.

tctrills:
You happen to be doing two things at the same time. You have watered down the meaning of revolution and complicated at the same time.

This earns my utmost respect.

Revolution is a complex word. Its why I offered the more complex wikipedia definition and not just some simplified meaning from a dictionary. The wiki shows the complexity and the varying meanings of the word while also showing the various arguments about what constitutes a revolution.

Its in the eye of the beholder. I mentioned Eve as an example of a revolutionary person, but you said she was just being disobedient. The objection to South Africa's apartheid was a revolution, but some call those revolting terrorists. Jesus Christ was a revolutionist, but he died in the process. And when we consider the outcomes, like the millions who died in China's Cultural Revolution, you see it as bad, while many look at China's resulting rise today in envy. That, is how complex this is.

Anyway, after all that. Thank you very much for the interesting respectful discussion. You are appreciated.

budaatum:
If that weren't true, I'd be here arguing that the so called Iranian revolution was just a coup, but since some call it a revolution, arguing it isn't would be ridiculous.


This earns my utmost respect.

Revolution is a complex word. Its why I offered the more complex wikipedia definition and not just some simplified meaning from a dictionary. The wiki shows the complexity and the varying meanings of the word while also showing the various arguments about what constitutes a revolution.

Its in the eye of the beholder. I mentioned Eve as an example of a revolutionary person, but you said she was just being disobedient. The objection to South Africa's apartheid was a revolution, but some call those revolting terrorists. Jesus Christ was a revolutionist, but he died in the process. And when we consider the outcomes, like the millions who died in China's Cultural Revolution, you see it as bad, while many look at China's resulting rise today in envy. That, is how complex this is.

Anyway, after all that. Thank you very much for the interesting respectful discussion. You are appreciated.

Welcome bro

[quote author=BucketHat post=130341342][/quote]your conscience

nikz:
Oatmeal is 6k for custard rubber. I buy 3 rubbers for my mum at 18k. Na God go help us

Please where do you buy the oatmeal in custard rubber for 6k