posted
In my WIP, the US city, permanently isolated from the rest of the country, has an election. We think it's dead close, but it's hard to say. The electronic voting system (some states use them exclusively now) gives incredible results.
There's a court case; a judge rules who won.
My problem is I want a revolt, but it's hard for me to picture Americans revolting. (Fortunately!) It's hard to imagine civilians shooting at police. It's hard to imagine police shooting at other police. It's hard to imagine police not getting involved.
What would push you to take up arms? If the court illegally appoints a candidate, would you? If the new mayor arrests the opposition, would you? And if you were a cop, what would it take to get you to disobey orders, or fight other cops?
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited February 10, 2005).]
posted
If someone were to violate the principle of the separation of church and state, and establish a theocracy, even just locally, I would be the first one there with a gun to cleanse the abomination from the face of the earth.
Posts: 2710 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
How can it be any harder to picture Americans revolting than it is to picture revolting Americans?
Humor aside, what about the LA riots not that long ago? I don't think it is so much about what would make people revolt as to who would lead them. Dissatisfied people need a leader before they would really go for it.
Sometimes that spark is a person who is outspoken. But more than outspoken. He has to be the kind of person people follow. He has to be intelligent, well-spoken, convincing, and some other word that I can't come up with right now. In other words, he has to be someone that is really quite normal--not some whacko with a loud voice. He has to be someone the people can relate to and empathize with. And he has to stir the pot with harsh, but easily understood, words against what he sees as wrong.
Sometimes the spark is an event that is SO shocking it absolutely pushes people over the edge. The reason we American's don't revolt against our government today is that we've been led along a slow road to tax slavery. We're like the frog in the pot. If, within the space of a few months or years, we had gone from the small central government the founders had intended to the monstrous behemoth we have now, revolution would have been a given. So, in order to spark a revolution this event MUST be so shockingly revolting to the sensibilities of the people that they would be eager to revolt. Something that would make them fear the result of this event more than they value their own security.
Another major spark for revolution is economics. This is a major factor in all revolutions--either the poor are sick of having nothing and no way to improve their own lives (Russia, Civil Rights Movement), or the people (mostly the upper crust of businessmen and leaders) are defending their right to make themselves wealthy without government control(US Civil War, US Revolution). The second is probably not as common as the first, though, it seems, every revolution has a segment of the second that fuel revolution in order to put themselves in positions of power afterward.
It also seems that the first kind of revolution is not as successful as the second in making real and lasting change in the lives of the people as a whole.
Just some thoughts on revolution. Anyway, I hope my rambling helps.
Americans these days revolt at the polls. The illegally appointed candidate would lose (at least hopefully) so overwhelmingly in the next election (he and his party members in other elections) that the angry people would have their day.
If we're talking about a city, rather than a whole country, I could more easily see it happening.
Whatever, you MUST have something occur that breaks down the complacency of the people enough that they will have no other choice but to act.
The media may play a huge role in this, especially if "their" candidate didn't win. They may cry foul, dig up allegations (true or false doesn't matter) and skeletons in the closet, stir up controversy -- all designed to influence public opinion.
They do this today anyway... but you can make the media in your story far more insidious.
Another thing is about riots and revolts: People do this only when they feel they have no other option and nothing left to lose.
Of course there is the mob mentality to consider: People that wouldn't normally do things, like riots, will do awful stuff if they're somehow caught up in the moment with a mob of people.
American sovereignty was founded with a revolt. I don't think it's too hard to imagine future revolts...
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited February 10, 2005).]
posted
Actually, thinking about it, if this city is permanently isolated from the rest of the US then these people are not really American any more. Just a technicality but one that could lead to all sorts of explosive situations. There is no country as unstable as a new one... or one with no MTV. There it is! No MTV - REVOLT!
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
Americans have a history of fighting over economics. Our founding fathers, for example, went to war over a 3% tax on their breakfast beverage.
Less than a century later, the Southern states revolted to protect the planter-class plantation economic system.
There a whole lot of freedoms that you could take away, and not see so much as a shot fired. Mess too drastically with money or the middle-class lifestyle, and you'll see blood in the streets.
posted
A major factor for consideration is how effective your revolt needs to be. (I speak hypothetically for a reason I'll explain in a moment.) If you need your revolt to be sustained for more than a few days, you need a reasonable balance of power between the establishment and the revolutionaries. Remember China a few years ago? Thousands of students, however determined that their cause was just, stood no chance against modern tanks. One of several reasons why the Confederacy lost the Civil War was a decisive imbalance in weaponry. And an occasionally overlooked factor in the American revolution is that probably more of the colonists were using rifled barrels than the British, making their sharpshooters very effective. Today, most American citizens in your average city don't possess firearms at all. And those that do generally don't have access to automatic weapons, body armor, or any kind of artillery (much less effective anti-aircraft weapons). If your hypothetical city has even national guard or a strong police presence (much less active military), any revolt by the citizenry would probably be little more than suicide. Our national government has protected itself pretty well from armed internal revolution (and we'll leave what the founding fathers would think of that for another day). On a local level, I'm sure you can deal with this problem.
But your question was personal. I really don't know that I would take up arms in revolt against my government, whatever the provocation. This derives from my Christian principles. I'm not a pacifist, and would willingly support my country by serving in its military, even as a combatant. And I would without hesitation or remorse die or kill to protect my family. But my real citizenship is not in any country on earth. I fully expect any government made of humans to be flawed, and probably most governments in history have been opposed to my beliefs (including, in many respects, the one we live under now). Yet I find it noteworthy that neither Christ, nor any of the Apostles advocated the overthrow of the Roman government, even though it was directly responsible for the deaths of many of them. So I doubt that any political consideration would cause me to take up arms against my government, however flawed, and I don't believe in Jihad.
posted
I'm pretty sure that all of the slave revolts, prior to the Civil War, were led by ministers or religeous figures.
Nat Turner was a minister. Gabriel Prosser's rebellion was led by a preacher. Denmark Vesey, a slave from Charleston was a self-styled Biblical scholar--don't know whether he was actually a preacher, though.
Among other things, Nat Turner preached about black and white angels fighting each other for control of Heaven.
posted
I agree with almost everything that's been said so far and want to add my two cents: take a look at the anarchy and radical environmental movements.
Both groups feel government is a tool of oppressive corporations. To use that system, no matter how democratic that government is, puts power in the hands of corporate empires. Therefore, it's necessary for all actions to take place outside of the system (like smashing Starbucks' windows in Seattle, or assassinating corporate executives). It reminds me a lot of the Nazis and their view of the German government before they came to power.
As for showing a corrupt government, I know a lot of people who feel voting is a waste of time, even in local elections, because the people with the money will always get the position. I've also read essays by intellectuals who feel the Consitution has been altered and interpreted to the point where it has no meaning anymore and should be ignored. After all, they say, we're not the same country that created the document.
Lastly, even a force using primitive technology can win against a powerful enemy. Look at the PLO and the Vietcong.
Sorry if this post seems rambling. Very busy and don't have time to edit.
posted
I think a big factor that would contribute to a revolt is if people could not forsee change in any other way. The genius of the American political system is that we have a mini-"revolution" every four years...that is, there is the potential to change the leadership of the country every election cycle. If people don't like the current government, they'll just reason that four years isn't too long to wait before stuff has a chance to get better.
If Americans were to seriously revolt against a political decision, there would have to be absolutely no hope of change. That means getting rid of the election cycle and all other bits of governmental mechanism for change. Otherwise, people will just duck their heads and wait for the administration to "blow over", even if it was illegitimately installed.
posted
I haven't read all the other posts yet, so please forgive me if I'm being redundant.
First of all, consider what has been happening in the Ukraine over the last few months.
Second, watch "Red Dawn". I'm pretty young and didn't see this movie when it first came out. I saw it for the first time a few months ago and was really surprised.
Third, Americans will revolt if provoked. Consider the protests during the Vietnam War.
As for what would make me revolt and take up arms, blatant human rights violations.
posted
Now I've read the other posts. (I re-read this and it's a bit cheeky, no offense is intended )
Recipe for Effective Mob-Mentallity
10,000 party-goers on a patriotic holiday
Add 3 or 4 pints of Canadian beer for each (just to loosen them up)
Mix in plenty of loud, hard rock music (this builds up the adernaline quotient)
Continue mixing process for two or three hours, then turn everything off and expect everyone to go home.
Fail to inform local authorities as to the fervor likely to be created by this action.
Smash a beer bottle and start making lots of noise -- voila, within minutes you should be at the head of a mob ready to do whatever you put in their heads!
Variation: Instead of patriotic holiday, schedule your mob-army event to coincide with the undesired or unanticipated outcome of a hockey game. If in Europe you might be able to incite an even larger crowd if you plan things right at a soccor match.
(Original recipe courtesy of Molson's Canada Day Party in Edmonton in 2001; Variation courtesy of the Vancouver Canucks Stanley Cup loss in 1994)
[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited February 11, 2005).]
posted
Vietnam and Kent St. were not "revolts", they were protests. Silly though it may sound, there is a difference.
An outright rebellion is something else entirely. Americans are NOT apt to rebel because our comfort level is quite high, we have a government that allows for completely new leadership and control every 2-6 years depending on which branch you look at, and even the local government officials are, essentially, not corrupt.
(I said ESSENTIALLY...don't go giving me any examples of the exception, as there ALWAYS are exceptions to the norm).
For a town which has been isolated (why?) to revolt against a simple election "scandal" would require some real tention BEFORE the election occured. People would have to have been hotly divided all through the campaign and there would likely have to be the sense that one side or the other has been horribly repressed, finally has a chance to change it come election time, and then had that chance stolen from them. THIS is where a highly charismatic leader can take this band of loyal and angered followers and ignite a rebellion of sorts.
posted
I agree completely that Kent State was not a rebellion. I brought up Kent State as an example of circumstances wherein citizens and cops might conceivably trade gun shots. None of the protestors at Kent State were armed...that we know of.
Most of the rebellions I can remember from my history class have been extremely small, with the exception of the Civil War. Except for the Civil War, Shay's Rebellion, and a few others, most rebellions in the US involve religious and/or ethnic groups. Specifically, a religious fringe group with strange practices isolates itself from the rest of society and rejects civil authority--sometimes with justification.
When the civil authorities attempt to re-assert their jurisdiction over the fringe group (i.e., attempt to collect taxes, enforce gun laws, enforce unlawful cohabitation laws, enforce child welfare laws, etc.), armed rebellion can occur.
I agree with previous posters that the comfort level is too high in this country for wide-spread rebellion to occur. However, there are still ample opportunities for rebellion on the nut-ball fringe.
[This message has been edited by Corpsegrinder (edited February 11, 2005).]
posted
If you want it to come to open fighting, then either the lives or livelyhoods of the combatants must be plausibly threatened.
I know that other people have said this, but it is an important point. Both mob violence and most deliberate recourse to violence by civil authorities depend on raw emotions, usually based in fear, real fear of losing something worth fighting to keep.
That fear can be a rational fear, but usually at least one side in a conflict is listening mainly to irrational fears based mostly on incorrect and untrue perceptions. On the other hand, a single formerly American city cut off from the rest of the nation would be a place of much uncertainty and quite a bit of fear (which leads to anger...yoda yoda yoda).
There will always be a small percentage of people that fight simply because they enjoy it. Such people are usually the only ones capable of fighting for something as abstract as a principle. The more or less "well-integrated" ones control their impulses to kill except when there is a definite (even if abstract) reason to do so. Others are already sociopathic criminals (as opposed to normal criminals, who act out of percieved self-interest no matter what retoric they may spout about fighting the opression inherent in the system). But both types are quite rare. Most humans need to have something that scares them worse than a battle before they'll volunteer to be in one (it helps if you can get the odds heavily stacked in your favor, of course).
posted
There is one aspect of a rebellion touched upon in the previous posts but not quite emphasized: there needs to be an organization in place.
The most likely result of the unfair verdict would be rioting, but that would peter out in a few days at most. A strong reaction from the government that continued to flame the emotions (such as by killing a number of the rioters) could keep it going for a while longer, but without an organization for the rioters to turn to, they would soon be overwhelmed by trained forces.
For a successful rebellion, IMO, you need an organization to, well, organize the people/troops. When the rioters want to do more than just destroy things and actually hurt the government, they need someone or soemthing to turn to to provide direction. I think this is why the previous rebellions cited were religiously motivated--the religion provided the needed organization to effectively oppose the government.
posted
It's done, now. I let it be a crisis of authority in the police dept. The judge ordered a new mayor installed; the new mayor appointed a new police chief; the old police chief and mayor refused to vacate; new police chief and staff started shooting. Looters recognize that the police are in no position to stop them for the time being.
As I read it, I immediately thought of this topic and some of the discussion within it. While not completely relevant to this topic, it does address a few things that are relevant.
posted
I would think the likelihood of a revolt would depend on the personalities involved. There are always those individuals that live on the edge of radicalism, whether they are involved in groups or individuals. Many of these folks talk the talk and some will walk the walk.
With a strong enough leader, they would follow. Sounds like this is going to be a character piece.
RobynHood, Red Dawn came out when I was still in High School. The Cold War was in full swing and suddenly everyone was talking about this scary movie. It made quite an impact then too.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
)
