Module 1 Discussion
What is a revolution?
After reading the texts by Kumar and Arendt, think about what you find compelling, and what you remain unconvinced by, in their discussions of how “revolution” should be understood. Then, drawing on the readings, propose in your own words a definition of what “revolution” should mean. Drawing on specific examples from the texts, explain how your proposed definition is related to their arguments; explain why your definition is better than other ways we might use the term; and give some specific historical examples of events or processes that count as revolutions, according to your definition, and others that don’t.
Module 2 Discussion
Think about the way Hobsbawm characterizes revolution (and think back to Arendt and Kumar too, if you found their approaches compelling). In view of these approaches to understanding what revolution is, do you agree with Marx and Du Bois that the American Civil War should be understood as a revolutionary process? If so, what aspects of the Civil War best exemplify “revolution” as a category? If not, what distinguishes the Civil War from other conflicts that were revolutions?
This is intended as a very open-ended discussion prompt. You do not have to draw on all of these authors to support your own analysis, but you should engage with at least a couple of them in articulating your own ideas.
Module 3 Discussion
After reading the texts from this week, think about how the political ideas of Gandhi and King fit into the dichotomy between “conscientious nonviolence” and “pragmatic nonviolence” that Stiehm presents. Do you see them aligning clearly with one or the other category? (With both? With neither?) In other words, do you find Stiehm’s distinction useful for understanding Gandhi and King, or would you prefer a different conceptual/theoretical approach?
Discuss with reference to specific aspects of the texts from this module by Gandhi and King, citing your sources as appropriate.
You are NOT expected to draw on outside sources; the texts from this module are sufficient.
Module 4 Discussion
This about the competing approaches to defining “violence” that the authors from this week’s texts discuss and present. Which approach (or definition) do you find the most compelling, and why? Which do you find the least compelling, and why? What factors do you think are the most important in deciding between competing definitions of a concept like “violence”? Discuss with reference to specific aspects at least two of this week’s four texts.
To receive full credit, you should also respond to someone else’s discussion.
Module 5 Discussion
Using the lecture and readings, discuss the key differences between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought. In your own words, why was Maoism not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America? What was Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology, and what led to this belief? Make sure you note some specific examples and references from the readings.
Module 6 Discussion
Drawing on specific aspects of the readings from this module, offer your own view on this question: Will political nonviolence remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past? Why or why not?
The scanned version of Nepstad’s book omits the page numbers, so if you quote from that source, please just indicate which chapter you’re quoting from. Any quotations from the other sources should include the relevant page numbers.
Module 7 Discussion