Okay well what about the fucking Reagan Revolution? The Teddy Roosevelt Revolution? Those do anything for you?

A) Reagan didn't really shoot for much violence, but he did have popular violent policies.
B) I've literally never hear of the Teddy Roosevelt Revolution, but I know he was progressive and willing to mediate the violence necessary to progress society, though he also acted as a reactionary at times. Fighting the most economically powerful people in the country required the violence of the workers.

Examples of conservative revolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Revolutionary_movement
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2015/08/04/the-coming-conservative-revolution/#8ed2c4953612
http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Revolution-Cory-Bernardi/dp/1922168963

Change achieved by violence is tantamount to a dictatorship of the minority. Social change comes about naturally as the values of the public change. Only those who believe they know better than others seek to disrupt the peace to promote their desired change. Everyone has a different sense of what is progress, and seeking to impose one's own perception of progress on others is never justified.

@Brainbomb Merriam-Webster, which I hope you will accept is a reliable source, has 3 definitions for revolution:

: the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one
: a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.
: the action of moving around something in a path that is similar to a circle

The first 2 apply to our discussion. Neither the Reagan nor the Roosevelt Revolution overthrew a government or had an extreme impact on the way people lived, worked, etc. Therefore, the terming of those two as revolutions is a dramatization by the media.

TrPrado, when did the workers act violently under Teddy Roosevelt?

On a side note, I find it amusing that a thread that has been deemed as spam has received almost 100 replies.

Since when are revolutions violent. get that notion out of your head asap. There was very little violence in Ghandi's revolution. And also very little violence in the Overthrow of Honsi Mubarak considering it was an Islamic Leader being overthrown, how many deaths were there? not that many, nor was is a coup.

Wait, you mean you have to ask? That was actually pretty huge in the Progressive Era. Have you taken a full American history course?

Yea leon and I was warned by the mods to stop posting on the forum or face the consequences. If you wanna start a revolution, start a brainbomb revolution

"There was very little violence in Ghandi's revolution."
The Indian Independence movement had violence. Considerable violence.

@brainbomb I have also never heard of Gandhi's movement called a revolution. Anyways, I concede that a revolution might not have to be violent after all, but none of the examples you have given can be considered revolution.

#overthrowthemodarchy

@TrPrado I have taken a high school US history course, and we learned about a miner's strike. The violence was primarily directed at the strikers rather than perpetrated by them.

@TrPrado Violence that was directed at the protesters, not by them.

The Pullman Strike as the first example. The strikers engaged in riots, sabotage, and violence.

And the Anthracite Coal Strike, which I believe was what you were talking about, threatened violence from both sides.

How about the desegregation of the public schools by Eisenhower. A Republican president did the best he could to integrate african americans into the public schools with minimal violence.

That was under President Cleveland, not Roosevelt.

^The Pullman's strike

The Coal Strike had no actual violence. That's the point. In the end, Roosevelt intervened because of the onset of winter

brainbomb +1

Executive Order 10730: Desegregation of Central High School (1957) was Eisenhower bruh

On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education that segregated schools were "inherently unequal" and ordered that U.S. public schools be desegregated "with all deliberate speed." Within a week of the 1954 decision, Arkansas was one of two Southern states to announce it would begin immediately to take steps to comply with the Brown decision. Arkansas's law school had been integrated since 1949, and seven of its eight state universities had desegregated. Blacks had been appointed to state boards and elected to local offices. It had already desegregated its public buses as well as its zoo, library, and parks system. In the summer of 1957, the city of Little Rock made plans to desegregate its public schools. Little Rock’s school board had voted unanimously for a plan that started with the desegregation of the high school in 1957, followed by junior high schools the next year and elementary schools following. In September 1957, nine African American students enrolled at Central High School in Little Rock. The ensuing struggle between segregationists and integrationists, the Governor of the State of Arkansas and the Federal Government, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus became known as the "Little Rock Crisis."

On September 2, the night before school was to start, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out the state's National Guard to surround Little Rock Central High School and prevent any black students from entering. The Governor explained that his action was taken to protect citizens and property from possible violence by protesters he claimed were headed in caravans toward Little Rock. President Eisenhower, who was vacationing in Newport, RI, arranged to meet Governor Faubus to discuss the tense situation. In their brief meeting in Newport, Eisenhower thought Faubus had agreed to enroll the African American students, so he told Faubus that his National Guard troops could stay at Central High and enforce order. However, once back in Little Rock, Governor Faubus withdrew the National Guard.

A few days later, when nine African American students slipped into the school to enroll, a full-scale riot erupted. The situation was quickly out of control, as Governor Faubus failed to stop the violence. Finally, Congressman Brooks Hays and Little Rock Mayor Woodrow Mann asked the Federal Government for help, first in the form of U.S. marshals. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, was presented with a difficult problem. He was required to uphold the Constitution and the laws, but he also wanted to avoid a bloody confrontation in Arkansas. With Executive Order 10730, the President placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent 1,000 U.S. Army paratroopers from the 101st Airborne Division to assist them in restoring order in Little Rock.

The Progressive Era as a whole came to conclusion and achievement of progress of the worker because of violence, which is the point.

Also, ha, Brown v Board was a step in progress, it solidified nothing and achieved little. The violence that ensued alongside the need to produce violence to ensure it was what kept the progress in flow.

I was responding to TrPrado and got cut off by you.

THEY HAD TO USE THE MILITARY IE A THREAT OF VIOLENCE

A threat of violence is violence all the same.

y'all pick the most bizarre 'revolutions'

Okay well nobody died in desegregation. Use the example of the Arab Spring in Tunisia, and the Arab Spring in Egpyt. How many people actually died?

@TrPrado Workers' rights benefited from the election of a series of progressive Presidents, not violence. As I pointed out, the pullman strike came before the Progressive Era.

Brown v Board achieved the desegregation of public schools. No violence was needed to uphold the decision.

The threat of violence played no part. Reasonable people do not respond kindly to threats.

Progress is not reasonable. Progress is a necessary inevitability achieved through violence. :)
Workers would not be considered as highly unless they had gone and performed strikes, and strikes inherently turned violent because of the efforts of the time.
And there was a violent reaction to Brown v Board. The military had to be used to desegregate. If violence were unnecessary in the pursuit of progress, then the students could have just walked on into the school after that ruling and all would be well, without any sorts of necessary threats.

@ATC ""People will +1 whatever the mods say."

This has ....not been my experience :)"

Says the mod whose been liked nearly 1,000 times.