If change signifies the shift from one dominant elite to another in expense of the oppressed then should we as a society be reaching it? Throughout history, monumental changes have taken place in order to make room for improvements which is a vital part of an advancing society. Changes take many forms. This coupled with the varying length and the influence of change make this hard to pinpoint. However, some changes are too great not to be recognized. Furthermore, all changes prove a level of significance to society; however, political changes have by far impacted the world most significantly, and among these changes a revolution is the strongest and most efficient form. For instance, the American Revolution saw a huge influence in the shift
…show more content…
and in the global society. Lastly, the Vietnam War, a revolution against communism, defied the Monroe Doctrine and involved the U.S. into the politics of Asia. All of these revolutions shaped the history of the world in one way or another despite have positive and negative effects. With an abundant amount of similarities, the differences are negligible; however, the most prominent difference stands out like a sore thumb: the origin of the revolution. For decades historians and philosophers had argued endlessly about whether change should stem from the oppressed or the oppressor. In an attempt to resolve the age old debate author Paulo Freire wrote the book Pedagogy of The Oppressed exploring the development and depths of change throughout time. Through the lens of reason coupled with the analysis of history the question is easily …show more content…
Change needed within the oppressed class is best understood by those whom these limitations fell upon; thus, it makes the most sense for the oppressed to take the charge in revolution movements. Additionally, the negative backlash of such revolution will cost the oppressors greatly; therefore, why would they want to benefit the oppressed in the expense of their own good? The issues with the presidential election in Venezuela perfectly exemplified the idea expressed in Freire’s novel. In the recent presidential election Nicolás Maduro was re-elected for a second six-year term. All seem fair until it was exposed that bans were placed against his competitors: they were banned from running for the presidency against Nicolás. Despite the government’s democratic name, it manipulated society to such an extent in which it acted more like an autocratic rule. Furthermore, the promises of freedom, liberty, justice, and prosperity soon became empty promises made to be broken. Such tendency from leaders is labeled as false generosity where the oppressor act as to sympathize with the oppressed to further exert their control. It is important to recognize that this isn’t a new phenomenon
and in the global society. Lastly, the Vietnam War, a revolution against communism, defied the Monroe Doctrine and involved the U.S. into the politics of Asia. All of these revolutions shaped the history of the world in one way or another despite have positive and negative effects. With an abundant amount of similarities, the differences are negligible; however, the most prominent difference stands out like a sore thumb: the origin of the revolution. For decades historians and philosophers had argued endlessly about whether change should stem from the oppressed or the oppressor. In an attempt to resolve the age old debate author Paulo Freire wrote the book Pedagogy of The Oppressed exploring the development and depths of change throughout time. Through the lens of reason coupled with the analysis of history the question is easily …show more content…
Change needed within the oppressed class is best understood by those whom these limitations fell upon; thus, it makes the most sense for the oppressed to take the charge in revolution movements. Additionally, the negative backlash of such revolution will cost the oppressors greatly; therefore, why would they want to benefit the oppressed in the expense of their own good? The issues with the presidential election in Venezuela perfectly exemplified the idea expressed in Freire’s novel. In the recent presidential election Nicolás Maduro was re-elected for a second six-year term. All seem fair until it was exposed that bans were placed against his competitors: they were banned from running for the presidency against Nicolás. Despite the government’s democratic name, it manipulated society to such an extent in which it acted more like an autocratic rule. Furthermore, the promises of freedom, liberty, justice, and prosperity soon became empty promises made to be broken. Such tendency from leaders is labeled as false generosity where the oppressor act as to sympathize with the oppressed to further exert their control. It is important to recognize that this isn’t a new phenomenon