Professor Abdel Takriti Reconsiders Revolution

Revolution is understood as a grand, popular uprising calling for equality and freedom, as exemplified by the historic American, French, and Russian revolutions. These major social upheavals forged radically new political and social structures that altered the trajectories of their respective nations. They envisioned a brighter future for all, not just the established elite. These epic events are undertaken by destitute, exploited people against tyrannical governance. Yet, common knowledge, created by education systems in the West, is unconsciously and shockingly narrow in defining a revolution.   

In his visit to Georgetown, Professor Abdel Razzaq Takriti, Associate Professor and Arab-American Educational Foundation Chair in Modern Arab History at the University of Houston, argued that revolution is not merely a Western phenomenon, an idea that many of us subconsciously carry from our schooling. Citing the liberation movements in Algeria and Palestine during the mid-twentieth century as revolutions, Professor Takriti challenged the common conception of revolution and argued that anti-colonial movements during the Cold War fit the definition just as much as any other movement. The reason for not acknowledging these revolutions lies in the lack of acceptance of these movements as righteous, according to Takriti.

Labeling a rebellion as a revolution legitimizes the movement; the rebels become carriers of virtuous ideas that will rescue their nation. Professor Takriti pointed out the phrases used for anti-colonial movements, including “national uprising,” “war,” and “rebellion.” The Vietnam War, a conflict based on the ideas of independence and freedom, is not called a revolution. Neither is the South African independence movement. When considering the anti-colonial struggles in India, the Philippines, Algeria, Turkey, Kenya, and the plethora of other colonized nations, a disturbing trend arises. These campaigns affected as many people as the French Revolution and American Revolution, if not more. They entailed even greater social and political reforms. Their cause was more righteous. In every sense of the word, they were revolutions.  

Though official statements may have been made, or reparations paid, the West has yet to fully admit their wrongdoings regarding colonialism. Refusing to equalize anti-colonial struggles with Western social movements shows a refusal by Western educators, intellectuals, and historians to recognize these liberation movements for what they were. The Algerian War of Independence and the French Revolution are not viewed as equal, but they are akin in intention, belief, and scope. The same parallelism occurs between the American Revolution and the Vietnamese struggle for freedom. Revolutionaries fight against oppressors; in anti-colonial movements, the oppressors were European nations and the United States. To call a conflict a civil war, an uprising, or a rebellion characterizes it as disorganized and limited in scope. On the contrary, these movements were extensive, coordinated, and monumental. The West must come to terms with its previous role as colonial oppressor and recognize these anti-colonial struggles as legitimate, appropriate, and revolutionary.

Nabil is a freshman in the School of Foreign Service from San Antonio, Texas. He one day hopes to live his life among snow leopards in the forests of the North.