By bring attention to a foreign power it's easier to "rally around the flag" because 'they' (whatever country you want it to be) are evil and want to keep you in their power. It's harder to bring patriotism to a revolution when you have no one to blame for all your problems. Examples would be America blaming the British for their problems and thus giving reasons for a revolution; Iran blamed America for helping and supporting the Shah thus legitimizing their takeover of the American embassy.
2006-12-14 11:41:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by geglefty 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
adversary |ËadvÉrËserÄ| noun ( pl. -saries) one's opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute : Davis beat his old adversary in the quarterfinals.
Soo, explain why revolutions, in Iran and elsewhere, often direct attention to a foreign enemy/opponent. Does this make sense with the article? I wouldn't know, since I don't have it. Good luck!
2006-12-14 19:33:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by person 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Iranian revolution against the Shah was also a revolution against western influence on the part of some of the participants as the US supported the Shah, who had a repressive police force. Jimmy Carter indicated to the Shah we would support him and then reneged on that, letting the revolutionaries take over. Then the Iranians took the US Embassy people hostage.
2006-12-14 21:56:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by kadel 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Something to the effect of "We are better than you, now that we have . . . . " Consider the American - Russian foreign adversary relationship, especially during the industrialization of our country. Was there any indication of a "foreign adversary" to Iran in the article?
2006-12-14 19:35:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by I think, therefore I broke it? 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It means that revolutions in a certain country direct attention to their opponents, or others against them. When revolution occurs in a certain country, attention then turns to other countrys similar to it and people question when revolution will occur in that country. If that country can have a relvolution and better itself, why can't the others in similar situations or with similar democratic problems, economic problems, etc. You know? Thats the best I can come up with, I hope it helps and good luck!!
2006-12-14 19:35:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by TheHottestChristinaYouKnow 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ok, so when there is a revolution - a fight among the same group - why do they start getting everybody fired up about a bad guy from another country?
Example: If you were fighting with your brother, why might your mom try to get you both mad at the neighbor kid?
2006-12-14 19:37:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by yellowbugchickoh 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it means that wars or revolts draw attention to negative influences, in this case foreign opponents, as opposed to publicizing good ideals, role models, or positive events.
Sometimes by protesting and fighting against a group increases the sense of fear or helplessness and serves instead to reinforce and empower its authority to oppress further.
2006-12-14 19:33:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by emilynghiem 5
·
0⤊
0⤋