And yet, suicide bombings and guerilla warfare in general may be more effective in revolutions. Look at the recent revolutions and uprisings: how many of them succeeded without violence? Not Libya, not Syria, not Egypt. Israel requires constant violence to maintain its nation. The US required violence and guerilla warfare for its independence. And it needed martyrs. As did Ireland. And Bangladesh. And the Chinese Communist Party.
> After the rebellions died down, more moderate reformers, such as the political partners Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, gained credibility as an alternative voice to the radicals. They proved to be influential when the British government sent Lord Durham, a prominent British reformer
(from that article)
It was not the violence that lead to change, but diplomacy... unless I'm missing something.
Regardless, it doesn't counter my point, unless you want to point out the revolutionary wars Australia and New Zealand had...
You could see it as developed through diplomacy, but the reality was that the british colonies were all given responsible government _after_ the american revolution.
The unrests in Canada merely proved the point that the empire could not adequately control the colonies and they needed to become more self reliant.
This might sound generalist, but I don't think it's fair to look at America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as separate reforms. They were all in the same empire that fell apart.
Anyway, I don't think there's ever diplomacy without at least _threat_ of violence.
Comments
And yet, suicide bombings and guerilla warfare in general may be more effective in revolutions. Look at the recent revolutions and uprisings: how many of them succeeded without violence? Not Libya, not Syria, not Egypt. Israel requires constant violence to maintain its nation. The US required violence and guerilla warfare for its independence. And it needed martyrs. As did Ireland. And Bangladesh. And the Chinese Communist Party.
New Zealand, Canada, Australia... All became relatively independent of the UK without warfare, suicide bombings or any kind of violence.
You don't need violence to be effective.
> Canada
umm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837
> After the rebellions died down, more moderate reformers, such as the political partners Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, gained credibility as an alternative voice to the radicals. They proved to be influential when the British government sent Lord Durham, a prominent British reformer
(from that article)
It was not the violence that lead to change, but diplomacy... unless I'm missing something.
Regardless, it doesn't counter my point, unless you want to point out the revolutionary wars Australia and New Zealand had...
You could see it as developed through diplomacy, but the reality was that the british colonies were all given responsible government _after_ the american revolution.
The unrests in Canada merely proved the point that the empire could not adequately control the colonies and they needed to become more self reliant.
This might sound generalist, but I don't think it's fair to look at America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as separate reforms. They were all in the same empire that fell apart.
Anyway, I don't think there's ever diplomacy without at least _threat_ of violence.
Uhhh, New Zealand was never conquered by the British as far as I'm aware. They had to sign a treaty with the Maori no?