No Revolution

My argument why I think EDSA is not a revolution lies on the fact that it was a label given by elite intellectuals who wax nostalgic, others even deploying as defense that only those honed in Western constructs are critical of it.

Well, the people are already speaking. A vast majority no longer see it for what it was as painted by scholars.

So are these people wrong? Are they being politically incorrect?

If there is even some logic to the indigenous context of it being a "himagsikan" as counter-argument to my alleged Western lens, what is the theory behind it that would make it distinct from revolutions that happened in non-Western settings like Iran, Vietnam, Nicaragua and even China.

And who is saying that revolutions are perfect? That power elites emerge during post-revolutionary periods. Only the politically naive will argue they wont. Revolutions devour their own children. Power elites emerge.

But there is no revolution that restored the power of the old elites. They end up losing their heads in the guillotine, or in reeducation camps.

Not here. Not in the Philippines where the pre-Marcos elites immediately seized power.

And what goals? What revolutionary trajectories? The armed left was not even present in EDSA.

To follow Professor Contreras in Facebook, click above image.