This reading was very interesting to me because of its relevance to what is going on in modern times, in Egypt. While reading about the peaceful protest in Russia that lead to Bloody Sunday, I immediately recognized a parallel between that and the peaceful protesting going on in Egypt; the difference being that the one in Egypt did not end with the military slaughter of 60 people like the 1905 revolt in Russia. At first, the fact that two similar protests could have such polar opposite ends was puzzling to me. However, after looking deeper into the reasoning behind both governmental reactions I was able to make some sense of it.
I believe that Tsar Nicolas II ordered the military to shoot the protestors because he thought that he had divine, superior power, that he was in no way ready to give up or share. Because he believed he should have power, he reacted to the protestors in such a way that would secure total control over the people. In contrast however, Mubarak had no intention of running to maintain his position this September, since he had already been in power for 3 decades. Because he had no intention of retaining power, any power grab through blood shed would not benefit him whatsoever, in addition to being counter productive to the country as a whole.
Do you agree with my reasoning that the different military responses are due to the leader's desire to remain in control of the government? If not, what do you believe is the cause of this?
V Peaceful protesting in Egypt
V Line of military shooting on Bloody Sunday
