Just because we might think it should happen, doesn't mean that it will. When they come about, the point is not to denounce them or to encourage people not to be in the streets but instead to vote.
We see people doing that; that's an attempt to contain rebellion and to channel it back into the existing system, not to resist it. They don't just stay as they are. Get the Teen Vogue Take. Sign up for the Teen Vogue weekly email. Want more from Teen Vogue? Is revolution possible? Or is it too dangerous? Keywords resistance politics donald trump black lives matter protest civil rights movement. Such a perspective reveals, for example, how the peasants of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania — the self-proclaimed true heirs of the Revolution — peacefully, and then violently, opposed the national elite; an elite that did not approve of any form of resistance to the type of representative government which the former English colonies had become.
Two different concepts of popular sovereignty were at play in the opposition of the peasants' interests with those of the banks and merchants. One of the protagonists of the American revolution, Thomas Paine, responded to the requests of the peasants of Pennsylvania with his Dissertations on Government, the Affairs of the Bank and the Paper Money , claiming that while rebellion against the English crown might be legitimate that against the republic was not.
The republican representative system, in which changing social and economic practices are continuously institutionalized, did not leave any space for insurrection, because the system as such absorbed any of the revolutionary principles of popular sovereignty. Rudan does this through a close analysis of the Discurso de Angostura , presented at the opening of the General Congress of , convened to outline and draft a new constitution for the Republic. Due to the eruption of civil war after the declaration of independence, the constitution promulgated in never entered into law.
Spanish absolutism had reduced the Americans to passive citizens; the Republic still needed to transform them into active citizens capable of offering their service and allegiance.
The constitutional model that would serve to overcome the chaotic situation of internal conflict and civil war was however offered by Jeremy Bentham. Here I will only discuss the third, and by far longest, section of the work: pages [5] out of a total of The section is subdivided in 34 chapters with the addition of one containing Mandar's observations on the six chapters immediately preceding it.
It is worth noting here that for Mandar revolts do not occur in the context of a free people [6]. The third chapter examines cases which necessitate insurrection and the motives for which it can be justified and legitimized. For lack of space I will not discuss the passage's content with regard to the Catholic-Protestant relationship, even though it would certainly be merited.
In an absolute monarchy, Mandar tells us, those who are oppressed and defend themselves appear too much as rebel. Reading Mandar, who references Sidney, or better yet, reading Sidney directly «The General revolt of a Nation cannot be called a Rebellion» is section XXXVI of the third chapter of Discourses [13] , after having read texts written long before Sidney that were the expression of events and problems long preceding the English Revolution [14] , it is impossible not to recognize an age-old problem, despite it being expressed in Sidney's new language of the nation or the even newer significance given it and which it had at the time by Mandar.
That which Sidney — and as a consequence also Mandar, around years later — immediately underlines as the foundational problem at the beginning of the chapter is quite simply the question of legitimate self-defense in the face of oppression by an unjust and arbitrary government, as well as the criminalization of that legitimate self-defense by imposing false names on things: «As impostors seldom make lies to pass in the world, without putting false names upon things, such as our author [i.
Robert Filmer, Patriarcha ] endeavour to persuade the people they ought not to defend their liberties, by giving the name of rebellion to the most just and honourable actions that have been performed for the preservation of them; and to aggravate the matter, fear not to tell us that rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft» [15]. Defining just and honorable actions carried out in order to preserve a people's liberty as rebellion, and comparing it to the sin of witch-craft: i.
Il problema del reato politico alle soglie della scienza penalistica moderna , remains fundamental and indispensable: Sbriccoli In its discussion of numerous opinions in favor of passive obedience and against self-defense, the history noted: «I cannot here but take notice of a Passage of Scripture that has been egregiously wrested by our Non-resistance Men, that which was spoken by the Prophet Samuel to Saul upon his not obeying the Command of God when he was ordered to destroy the Amalekites , viz.
The tone and arguments of the History are not so different, in my opinion, from those which characterize a text - although different for various aspects and written in a different period and context - like the pamphlet that John Donoghue uses as a central source for his essay. After fleeing from England across the Atlantic in in search of freedom of religious conscience, Gorton was condemned of sedition for having refused to conform to clerical Puritan orthodoxy and was exiled from Massachusetts two years later.
Gorton provides a narrative of his trial in the form of a pamphlet containing the court records, publishing it in London in as a full account of his self-defense against the arbitrary action of the Massachusetts government.
Here, I cannot go without mentioning an extraordinary source which I have analyzed elsewhere [21]. The task at hand — as recently underlined in an analysis of the justification of resistance in English Puritan thought between the end of the Elizabethan period and the beginning of the English Revolution — is to find and analyze «the re-emergence of resistance theory» [Burgess , ] in particular moments of history. It is an investigation which cannot be carried out primarily «in terms of influence … or in terms of continuity » [].
The task is rather «to understand the conditions that activate a dormant body of discourse or theory» []. Resisting is on the defensive. So I think the big difference is that [The Resistance] is even more cornered. That does not sound like the grand victory people imagined for the Rebellion after the end of Return of the Jedi.
So [the backstory] was a collaboration. I was born in Guatemala. This takes place 30 years later. Which is close to my age. He could be from there, that rebel base. I always thought "The Rebellion" referred to the movement, while "The Resistance" refers to the group of people serving that movement under General Organa. In other words, people on planets throughout the galaxy might be part of "The Rebellion" without actually fighting with "The Resistance".
Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams?
Learn more. What is the difference between the Resistance and the Rebellion? Ask Question.
0コメント