Paper One

The question is, “Do the benefits of revolutions outweigh their costs?”

Some might say yes, some might say no. I would like to direct this question to the subject of the Philippine “People-Power” revolution. The Goldstone text covers this topic in the minutest way, briefly mentioned and explained, dwarfed by essays on other countries with their bigger and more substantial revolutions. In comparison to the multiple essays on, for example, the Russian revolution, only the bare facts are presented here explaining the People Power movement.

Is this even a revolution worth mentioning in this context? Even without immense knowledge on the subject, I know that the Philippine revolution was peculiar in its ways. Goldstone even mentions that the revolution was “unusual in several respects” (page 245). It was a revolution that did not fit perfectly with the common definition of a revolution. I feel that for a revolution to even be valid there must be… violence, long periods of suffering, and forceful overthrow of evil powers. But what do we make of a revolution that remained somewhat peaceful? That is not the point here, however. I want to give the Philippine revolution a little time a little time in the sun, a chance to be known. What were the advantages and disadvantages of the country’s pursuit of change? But even more importantly, what caused the need for a change at all?

The Philippines gained their Independence from the United States in 1946. This new found freedom came after centuries of rule by other international powers. On their own, the Philippines came into conflict with issues such as how to deal with their own government, on their own terms, for the first time.

and i’m really not all that tall, just compared to you i guess i am.