The real trouble began when on the first of October 1789 women gathered outside of Paris and began a march to Versailles to get the Royalty to come to Paris and effectively be under their control. The made it to Versailles and stormed the area killing all guards in their wake. Eventually Marie Antoinette and King Louis XIV were taken to Paris. At this time the people had a lot of power in what was done and it was this time that people started questioning social systems and brought out radical ideas. The power of the church was greatly diminished and power to the people was brought out. New legislations were being passed and King Louis XIV was literally signing away his power. Eventually the King and Queen attempted to flee France but were caught at Varennes and escorted back to Paris.

Due to the flight of the King and Queen, moral dropped low among the people. Despite all the power the people had there were still many things that weren’t well standing with them. It was on August 10th 1792 that when troops stormed the palace and murdered the guards to the King and Queen that the next phase of the revolution began. At this phase bloodied battles where held across France and it all ended with the ultimate execution of the King and Queen. This shows that France has completely abolished a Monarchy (both absolute and constitutional) and started a Republic.

So in conclusion, the reason the French Revolution was so Revolutionary was that in a small period of time so much of France’s Political and Social System changed that marked the beginning of a new era for France. From a Monarchy to a Republic, from a poor minority with no say in legislations to an equal say in all, from a greatly deprived constitution to one that promoted equality and from one National Ideal to a completely different one. These are what make the French Revolution so Revolutionary.

            Injustice foments and revolution is imminent. The series of protests and demonstrations collectively known as the “Arab Spring” or “Arab Awakening” was predetermined. The oppression of dictators and unyielding governments seemed inescapable, and slowly but surely the populace accepted their predicament and yielded to their social and economic erosion. However, as the years progressed three factors gave hope for renewal and prompted this enlightened revolution of today. The dawn of the new millennium saw a rapid increase in Arab literacy, a falling birthrate, and a significant decline in the widespread custom of endogamy, or marriage between first cousins. This shows that Arab societies were on a path toward mental and cultural modernization in the course that the individual became more important than an autonomous entity.  The transformation of the political system, the spreading wave of democratization and the conversion of subjects into citizens are the products of this liberal movement, and the ensuing revolution was well under way.

            As the people became more educated and informed they became less complacent and unrest soon sat heavy on the shoulders of each nation. Though progressive reformists sought a national enlightenment, the political injustices and crimes of range of tyrants continued.  As a result, a decrease of nationalism and an increase in emigration sent up a red flag to the Western world. A new class of Western Arabs was born, and in due time, their homeland economies diminished further. Governments had begun to sense this growing unrest and they attempted to placate the poor and unemployed with bread and money but it was too late; the time for change had come.

            First went Tunisia, then Algeria. These leading cases of insurrection prompted the tidal wave of change, and the revolts of December 2010 shattered the dams holding them back. With the success of the protests in Tunisia, this wave of unrest sparked by the self-immolation of a Tunisian man struck Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, and Yemen and then spread to other countries. The largest, most organized demonstrations have often occurred on “days of rage”, usually after Friday afternoon prayers. Demonstrations of epic proportions shook the Middle East, and the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, and then Libya were overthrown. These uprisings took many lives, signifying the relentless determination of the people. Even some of the better off nations, like Lebanon and Morocco sought reform and an end to corruption. The geopolitical implications of these protests have drawn global attention, prompting further protests in Europe and Asia. Even the “occupy” movements were influenced by the Egyptian revolution. This tidal wave of change had far reaching repercussions which, in hindsight, was the result of decades of injustice with little to no change.

            King was right; change is inevitable. It only took a Tunisian spark to ignite people’s suppression and it all went up in flames. The Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s shared the same principles and desires of the Arab Spring; conformation is eventually succeeded by unrest and revolution. Voters are taking part in free and fair elections, newly elected lawmakers are issuing progressive legislation, and the morale is generally high in these post dictatorial nations. Though much work is left in the name of transition, the Spring was a success and it will surely influence multitudes of revolutions to come.

Image via Wikipedia

A growing amount of internet companies including Google and Wikipedia are striking and enlisting a blackout in protest against a new bill entitled the “Stop Online Piracy Act” or House bill 3261 and PIPA (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act).  If new legislation passes, the government and corporations would be able to take greater action in protecting intellectual property and copyright laws.  Offenders of this bill could receive a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison.  While there are legitimate claims as to how individuals lose money from knock off brands or not receiving money from songs and other infringements, these must be viewed as insignificant to the larger cultural and historical impact.

                Another country once tried a similar policy and tried to stop a group of people from smuggling ideas without payment and the smuggling of cheaper goods despite the higher quality of the goods produced in the home country.  This country was losing all sorts of money based on the illegal actions by the other country.  However, this country had previously ignored these infringements and only cracked down when the country was at a loss for money.  The results led to the American Revolutionary War.

                While the Americans smuggled physical items for the most part, the situation is relevant to the precursor of the American Revolutionary War.  Why couldn’t England enforce the laws it has enacted since the founding of the colonies?  The reason?  England had left America alone for about 100 years in which Americans frequently smuggled in foreign goods and England had done nothing about it.

 In the present situation, the government allowed for the internet to be free and after about a decade or so, the government now believes it can change the internet and make people pay more money to protect the interest of, for all purposes, a foreign entity.  SOPA would be a completely retroactive law and would most likely result in similar fashion which led to the Revolution.  This is not to say that the United States would split over a cheap internet, just as the United States did not break from England based on customs duties alone, however, the failure of the Navigation Acts completely undermined the legitimacy of English rule.  With so much ideological smuggling going on in the internet, it is virtually impossible [no pun intended] to completely enforce this bill if all internet sources chose to disobey the government.  Further, if the government did try to crack down, it would lead to the government spending tremendous amounts of money to find everyone to the point where the government might as well pay companies for their “losses” than to arrest and fine anyone who violates these laws.

In conclusion, the SOPA and PIPA are against the American tradition.  While intellectual property is important, cracking down has only a negative precedent to it and should be abandoned.  The internet is still a new phenomenon and requires special considerations regarding property rights.  Solutions regarding the internet should focus more on providing methods of giving legitimate companies a shot at selling their merchandise than dominating in a brutal crackdown on the internet culture. 

 -Be an American, don’t support PIPA and SOPA

Why is it that when cuts need to be made — it’s the poor or the seniors that have to pay the price? Why is social security the ‘entitlement’ that republicans always target? We the poor — barely recognizable ‘middle class’ have bailed out the rich — year after year. We bail out their banks — we bail out their corporations — we pay them not to plant crops — we pay them to drill for oil and gas the richest resources that we have — then turn around and pay them the highest prices for the final product. Why do we constantly hear that Medicare — Social Security and Medical Coverage is too expensive — but the research and development of better war toys is something none of us can live without? I am so sick and tired of the entire political circus. We have idiots running for president and idiots stopping any forward progress that our first decent president in years is trying to implement.

When Bush won the presidency in 2000 I predicted that America was on its way to “hell in a hand basket.” And sadly to say, I was right. Visions of France when the peasants were told to eat cake come to mind. The French Revolution (1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and indeed all of Europe. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside. Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy – of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority – were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights.(Wikipedia)

Is that really where were headed? Probably not but then again I know the first list of aristocrats I would line up at the guillotine. (Yes, I admit it — I am that angry — and I don’t think I’m the only one!)

The ‘aristocrats’ are killing this country — the people with the most — have the least compassion, or empathy — a new class of sociopaths (someone whose personality makes them behave in ways that are dangerous to other people). This is more dangerous and frightening to me than any crazy mass murderer that ever lived because it applies to such an influential group of individuals. These are people who have mastered the art of propaganda. They simply lie and sadly millions believe it. I always thought education was what made people less sheep like — somehow we have failed to teach folks to think for themselves. Not all folks of course, but a great number — a number that will make this election more scary than the last one.

One such ‘aristocrat’ is a man that I will not name but he owns his own television stations, newspapers etc. and has more money than sense–he tweets that Santorum is a great guy. Suddenly his campaign is making a million a day. A man who is clearly a bigot, a homophobic, and completely clueless to the needs of a nation fighting for its life — yeah that’s what we need for president. Although the way it looks some folks would vote for a robot as long it was made from white metal and not black metal.

I hope I’m wrong — I hope those that folks that slept through the last election — the one where all the republicans won — wake up and make their voices heard! If you snooze through this one our country will sorely suffer!

            Even in the years preceding the adoption of this new calendar, rising discontent with the Gregorian calendar was becoming increasingly noticeable. In their Cahier de doleances, the Third Estate of Chateau-Thierry addressed the idleness of the people especially during religious holidays. They complained of that the supposedly holy end of the week, Sunday, was not being observed as what it should. They stated that the removal of a few unimportant holidays would increase production and reestablish Sunday’s holiness. The Third Estate would be expected to propose this change as it would be better for the common people. Shortly after the adoption of the revolutionary calendar, officials of the National Convention declared the end of “incoherence and inexactitude” and a new uniformity of date and time. They claimed that the old system had brought many errors due to the credulity of the people as well as superstitious routines and this new calendar clearly embodies the ideals of the Revolution. The Convention would be expected to support in this way and they could also be exaggerating to make it seem more appealing to the people.

Another great proponent of the revolutionary calendar was the desire to eliminate all the vestiges of the old regime from France’s new republic. Members of the National as well as the Constituent Convention desired drastic, if not radical change. Gilbert Romme, head of the calendar reform committee, in his “Report on the Republican Era” speech, declared that the Gregorian, or the Church, calendar was born of ignorance. He claimed that it was a source of religious fanaticism and was a source of power for cruel despots to restrict the rights of their people. In this very promising speech, he declared that this new calendar would open a “new book for history” and uplift the nation. This propaganda can clearly be expected as Romme himself was the head of the calendar reform committee. The new months of this calendar would be simply and beautifully named to attract support and months were named in accordance with each season, for example named Floreal and Fructidor to establish spring and harvest. Furthermore, proponents of this change would illustrate each month with a smiling “model of the people” living her life through each new month. These new influences did actually meet some towns and villages with support, and the village of St. Quirin wrote to the National Convention of their splendid espousal of the Decadi, the last day of the ten-day week (a day of national regeneration). They claimed to “have much joy” over reading of new republican accomplishments and martyrs of liberty. This admiration seems strange for that of the average village; these citizens seemed to accept these changes more than the average townsperson. It is clear that this republican propaganda did have a key effect on some of the population. However, in 1797, 4 years post adoption, the Minister of the Interior, Francois-Sebastian Letourneux presented the general populace’s disapproval to all departments and municipalities. He claimed that people spurned the calendar and complained of the long interval between the days of rest and of its unnatural division of time. Letourneux uses these arguments to strengthen his argument in support of the calendar. He snubbed this opposition and called it laziness and ignorance to not accept the change with open arms while industrious citizens would be grateful to their legislators for the lack of rest. This rebuttal was clearly not accepted and discontent grew as time progressed

            Even as the new calendar was proposed, it met with shaky response from some ministers. Abbé Sieyès expressed the belief that it was unwise to adopt a new calendar because Gregorian was far too established and customary to change and the revolutionary calendar would break some ties with neighboring nations. In 1794 peasant discontent had begun. In a letter to the National Convention a peasant claimed the nine days of hard labor to be unbearable and he counters Letourneux’ arguments stating that it is not fanaticism that roused discontent but education and culture. By 1798 government officials were reporting the “defacement” of republican temples (former churches converted to celebrate the Tenth day). Citizens would decorate the temple with symbols of the church instead of those of liberty, equality, or the republic. The final years of the calendar were upon France, and finally, in 1806, it was abolished by Napoleon. An article in the Gazette de France claimed Sundays heavenly and the Tenth Day temporal. The article ridiculed all aspects of the calendar and it declared a “festival of the ground” on the day it died.

            In conclusion the National Convention cited two main reasons for the adoption of a new calendar, including the implementation a more reasonable and efficient system and the ridding of  any remnants of the old regime. Although the Convention viewed the calendar as a necessary reform, the general people did not. Eventually the new calendar, along with the republic, was brought to an end by Napoleon I.

The word revolution brings with it stereotypes. Depending on how you view revolutions, in particular or in general, you will see the people of the revolution as of certain character. These clichés can cloud the historical character of the real person, whether rank and file or a leader. If one is against revolution, which most Americans today are, they would see a revolutionist as a “seedy, wild-eyed, unshaven, loud-mouthed beatnik, given to soapbox oratory and plotting against the government, ready for, and yet afraid of, violence.” (Brinton 93) However, if one saw revolution as a positive thing and as my aunt says, “The only revolutionists left in America are college professors.” (She, herself, is a college teacher) They would see the revolutionists as “ a sturdy, broad-shouldered steel-worker, uncorrupted by the falsities the bourgeois call education, but well-versed in Marx and Lenin, strong, kindly, a warrior spirit with just a redeeming touch of Shelley about him.” (Brinton 93) Neither of these views are right, not the “scum of the earth” view or the “heroic” view.  The true nature of the revolutionist can not be stated in a generalizations above. For every person, these do not apply, and that is why these clichés most be ignored in the study of the revolutionists.

During a revolution, one set character of person does not carry through to all. One type does not exist for the rank and file, and the leaders, neither does it apply to just the rank and not just the leaders. In both, there are many different types of people; these types form what is called the revolutionists. In the case of the rank and file, or common people of the revolution, there was no set social class. In the French Revolution, “the Jacobin was neither a nobleman nor beggar, but almost anything in between. The Jacobins represent a complete cross-section of their communities.” (Briton 97) By this, the author means that the average revolutionist was not a wealth off noble or a peasant. Most of the French revolutionists were middle class, and a still some of the working class.  This is quite contradictory to the English Revolution. The English or Puritan Revolution saw only land owning gentry over throw the monarch. In fact, “ The English lower classes, (not of gentle birth) or at least the most proletarian and peasant elements as opposed to the independent artisans, on the whole stood aloof from the conflict” (Brinton 98)  Few of the revolutionists of  the Puritan revolution were of the working class.

The leaders of these revolutions, also, were of varying classes. “The leaders are substantially of the same social standing as the rank and file.” (Brinton 101) The leaders, especially in Russia’s case, seem to have been considered failures. They were not poor due to lack of ability, but lack of acceptance. They were artists and artisans whose works were ignored. By the time of revolution, these men are ready to destroy all of the established government and culture that rejected their works. In the English revolution, these men were noble, land owning gentlemen who were the “highest in the land.” Most of these leaders came from the Parliament’s House of Commons.  In France, the leaders were not of a different social class of the old regime, they were literate upper bourgeoisie. The leaders were intellectuals. Robespierre was a lawyer, Danton was a barrister and journalists like Marta. These intellectuals transferred their allegiance and became the voice of the revolution. 

Besides the class of the revolutionists, both economically and socially, the disposition of them was studied in this book. Brinton classifies them into five categories. The first being the gentlemen revolutionists. These were mostly in the English Revolution. The “ ‘misguided superior’ the man born on top, but perversely unwilling to stay there.” (Brinton 107) The English Revolutionist was most likely a member of Parliament, in somewhat a position of power. The gentleman revolutionist is not satisfied with his limited power, he “sees the possibilities of a better world.” (Brinton 108) The second category is the failure. Marat is a prime example of the failure who becomes a leader in the French Revolution.  A self-educated man, the  philosophers never accepted him, and, “rejected by these admired leaders opinion, was in 1789 full to the brim with envy and hatred of everything established and esteemed in France.” (Brinton 109)

Intolerable Acts – A large number of reasons was caused by what the colonists called, the “Intolerable Acts”. The colonists believed that these acts invaded their privacy, and is threatening their freedom as well as making their lives more inconvenient as it is.

The Proclamation of 1763 - It limited settlement past the Appalachian mountains.

British: The British made this proclamation so that land would be the Natives, wanting to prevent the Native Americans having another revolt such as Pontiac’s rebellion.

Colonists: Colonists had bought land for investment. Many had hoped to move to the fertile soil of the Ohio Valley. The population in the thirteen colonies were getting too high for agricultural revenue.

Stamp Act 1765 – This act required all documents, both legal and commercial to contain a stamp, that will only be given, when a tax is given. Unlike most tax acts, this tax affected the colonists instead of just the merchants. You had  to have a stamp on newspapers, diplomas, wills, and practically anything that was made out of paper.

British: The British passed the act to try to pay of the country’s debt of almost 130,000,000 Euros, at the time of 1764, which is about 15,000,000,000 Euros in today’s standards, more than the debt of the United States as of the end of 2011.

Colonists: The act was a sign of restriction and may cause even more taxes, as Samuel Adams said “Why not our lands? Why not the produce of our lands and, in short, everything we possess and make use of?” 

Boston Massacre 1768 - The British opened fire on the colonists and killed Crispus Attucks, an African American sailor, Samuel Gray, a worker at rope walk, James Caldwell, who works on a ship, Samuel Maverick, a seventeen year-old male, and Patrick Carr, and feather maker. Soon, Paul Revere drew a picture depicting the Massacre, calling it the “Bloody Massacre”, and published it in the Boston Gazette for propaganda. But what really happened? Both the colonists and the soldiers were yelling insults at each other, it is unclear who started the insults first, the colonists called the soldiers “lobsterbacks” and the soldiers called the colonists “yankees”. 

British: The British were sent to maintain order in Boston, however, on March 5, a group of boys started throwing snowballs at them. More people gathered, soon a crowd throwing ice at them. Soon weapons were involved such as throwing knives, clubs, and bare hands. The commander ordered the troops to not shoot, however, the troops were scared, and finally, shot wildly at the crowd.

Colonists: Honestly, there’s none.

Tea Act 1773 – You would think this is just another tax, but it wasn’t. It was designed to help the financially burdened East India Company who also had eighteen million pounds of unsold tea through direct sale of tea via British agents.

British: Just merely trying to help the East India Company back on their feet.

Colonists: Radicals believed that this was meant to buy support for the taxes that the British had imposed.

Quartering Act 1765 - The quartering act forced colonists to house British soldiers and provide them with supplies.

British: They were using this as a cost saving measure.

Colonists: Invaded their privacy, and the colonists should of had the right on whether to house British soldiers. Imagine yourself forced to have three soldiers housed at your home that were against you in a war. 

As you can see, the British were trying to get the colonists to help pay their debt that the colonists partially caused. They also had propaganda used against them such as the Boston Massacre (aka. Bloody Massacre). The colonists were being taxed without their consent, and had privacy taken away. British caused them inconvenience, and had their freedoms restricted. With what you learned, it’s now your choice to decide for yourself whether the Colonists or the British were the good guys, and which were the bad guys.

George Washington and Simon Bolivar are both very unique people who greatly influenced the revolutions they where part of. One major effect on both of them was the pressure the Europeans pushed on them and forced them toward revolution. These two have many similarities, Bolivar even considered the South American George Washington. But with all similarities there are differences that can influences a person and how they revolt. Overall both where extremely important to the revolution they where part of.(1)

Like all revolutions the ones in the Americas had a spark that started it all. In Latin America Bolivar had been limited his entire life due to where he was born. This feeling was throughout he people of Latin America due to the social system the Europeans placed(4). This same limitation system was in the Colonies and was an overall dislike. Another factor that lead to the revolution for Latin America was the Napoleonic Wars that focused Euro powers to look homeward. For the Americas just a pure pressure and limitations the British put on them was enough to push them to the edge with some encouragement from people such a Thomas Paine. In America George Washington had a great impact by singly starting the French Indian war. The war forced Britain to buckle down on America and this didn’t hep the dislike toward them. Bolivar personally had control of the army and worked to start a revolution. Without these people the revolutions in the Americas might not have had the same effects.(2)

Washington and Bolivar had many similarities that showed how great mind think alike. With Bolivar being called the George Washington of South America then there is no need for explanation. Both leaders where born in the Americas, as well as had their parents die at a young age, leaving them to friend that were very wealthy.Well at a young age both became very well versed in the sport of horseback riding. Once the revolution started both found that they where leading the underdog army. With their army both fought for independence from their controlling power. Once the revolution was over both assumed the position of leader the very first of each of their country’s. As with all similarities there are differences, and these two where very different in some aspects.

Bolivar may be the Southern George Washington but that doesn’t mean he is the same in every way. One of the major differences was that Washington owned slaves and Bolivar didn’t. One thing that influenced Bolivar was that was taught in Europe well Washington never left the colonies.(3) Once the revolution had ended Washington was elected by the people to server as their leader while Bolivar wasn’t. After eight years Washington gives up power and is loved by the people. Bolivar on the other hand was forced into exile from his home country. Their differences my be what separates them but it truly binds them closer together as similar people.

Works Cited
1: “George Washington.” Supercomputing ‘94. Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://sc94.ameslab.gov/tour/gwash.html>.
2: “George Washington.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington>.
3: Hamre, Bonnie. “Simon Bolivar, El Libertador.” South America Travel Guide – Travel in South America. Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://gosouthamerica.about.com/cs/southamerica/a/VenBolivar.htm>.
4: “History of Simon Bolivar.” Welcome to Bolivar Missouri – Local Interests, Business, Schools, and News! Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://www.bolivarmo.com/history.htm>.

The North and the South developed out of a united revolution against British rule based on a common principle that people should be able to establish the rules and government of the areas in which they live.  But from that united front, significant differences quickly appeared between two regional areas of the Union.  While both areas were originally agricultural, the North producing grains and the South producing cotton the economies of the two regions, along with the culture and the traditions of those areas evolved in very different ways.  The North moved towards industrialization while the south remained agricultural.  The regions took opposing views on issues such as temperance, nativism and slavery.  These different ways of thinking, exacerbated by the growing Union and the acquisition of new areas such as California and Texas, became increasingly contentious. 

One of the primary differences between the Northern and Southern territories was the way in which labor was done.  In the South, the cotton growing industry was made possible by large plantations staffed by slaves.  In contrast, the North had free but often underpaid and impoverished workers supporting its growing industrial economy.  There were many politicians and rabble raisers that sought to make slavery itself a central issue between the North and South.  Historical records suggest that early on it seems that the conflict was not really about the moral dilemma that slavery presented, but rather the fear that the North might try through the unified government to force its way of commerce/labor on to the South or vice versa.  That fear was in some ways true.

The North believed that their system of free-labor was superior to that of slavery and were concerned that the South would try to extend the influence of slavery; a concern highlighted as the country grew to include more territories and debates were staged as to whether those territories should be free or slave states.  The South, on the other hand, believed that slavery was a much more civilized system based on a master slave relationship that was more humane than the industrialized Northern treatment of workers.  This issue of slaves versus free labor raised a moral issue regarding the validity of slavery as a model, but also created a divide in how the cost of labor would impact the regional economies.

Politicians did nothing to calm the conflict brewing between the North and the South, from the “fire-eaters” representing the South in Congress threatening secession and the effective collapse of the bipartisan political system, tensions over which region would represent the values of the United States grew.  In 1857, there was an economic downturn that more adversely affected the North.  In addition, the Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott v. Stanford case that slaves were not citizens and thus not able to participate in the judicial system or take advantage of any other rights given to citizens.  Taken as a whole these conflicts rose to what was thought to be irreconcilable differences.

Some believed that war was the only answer to preserve the economic and social traditions of their regions.  Some believed that war was the only way to end the inhumane practice of slavery.  Others believed that war was the only answer to preserve the right to rule themselves.  As with all wars, those who decided to enter into the civil war would have to have considered all of these causes even if they only chose to speak to the one that suited their purposes at the time.

Often misconstrued as a war solely about the moral values of slavery, which was no doubt a battle cry of many at the time of the conflict, the Civil War was less of a referendum on slavery than it was on two critical issues:  (1) was the union going to find a way to stand together in finding common ground on economic/labor issues, including the extension of those economies to ever expanding territories and (2) were the people of two distinct regions willing to give up one of the essential underlying principles of the American Revolution, namely the right of individual to live with and be governed by the  people and traditions in their jurisdiction.

Basically, the religions around the world do support, advocate and believe in the occurrence of this day. For this matter, they would dig out few verses or writings from the religious books, that were composed few thousand years ago. One of the strongly believed prediction is that of Mayan Calendar. This civiliation existed around second to fourteenth century A.D., and they have calendar devised by themselves, that is understood to be ending on the day of 21st of Dec 2012 in our Gregorian Calendar. This prediction is also supported by China’s I-Ching. Even few other religions too predicted or supported this idea. Most of us wonder why?, while we scare about the unknown event that is due to happen.

To the best of my knowledge I could recollect that the year 2011 began with the string of events called “Arab Spring“, that toppled the ruling regimes to establish democracy. It started with Tunisia, where the tyrant leader Mr. Abidine Ben Ali was overthrown for the establishment of democratic rule. This was followed by the Egyptian revolution centered at Tahrir Square of Cairo, in which Mr. Hosni Mubarak was overthrown. Later, the Libyan revolution, where the tyrant and nepotist Mr. Muammar Gaddafi was brutally killed for a democratic rule. Recently, the President of Yemen, Mr.Ali Abdulla Saleh has abstained his powers and accepted  the demands of the opposition for  democratic reforms. Now, the Syrian President, Mr. Bashar Al Assad, is under pressure from the International community and internally to abstain his powers. These events are all the result of people’s anger towards their governments for democratic reforms.

On similar lines of the above events, we observed the mass movement or ‘August Revolution’ in India, to enforce the strongest anti-grafting law. The motive of this movement differs from that of the Arab Spring. It is the Indian people’s anger against corruption that led to such a huge outcry, resulting in the drafting of the strongest anti-corruption bill to-date.

Lately, the US has been observing its own people participating and coming out on roads in support of “Occupy Wallstreet” movement. The motive of this movement is against the bailouts to banks and corporate giants. Eventually, it has spread towards the western part of US, where a renowned major sea port had to be closed for a day or two. It has been more than three months by now, and it is still growing in strength.

What do we understand by all these events? Its simple yet tough! People around the globe, want change in their systems of governance, and are seeking effective and transparent form of democracy. There are no such proven facts that the 21st of Dec 2012 would be the doom’s day. Its just our delusion that keeps us scary and curious about the unknown.

Its clear by now, that the change that was  meant to be drastic and horrifying would not happen. Unfortunately, even in this technological society, we still believe in the predictions and prophecies based on religious emotions.

The world is going to change, but not the way that is claimed by the religion heads or movies. We have to visualize the change in an optimistic way. This would help us believe that mankind would be alive even after the 21st of Dec 2012. The positive attitude always prevails,  and drives us to exist in this world.