LUCIDO, Ma. Patricia M.

2013 60872

1911: Discussion Notes

In Dirlik and Pazniaks article, they argued on whether the Xinhai Revolution could count as a
revolution, considering that post-1911 and China was yet to transform into the nation that the 1911
revolutionaries originally envisioned to be; this event in the Chinese history was also overshadowed by the
subsequent revolutions that followed it, led by different great leaders (Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong)
and their differing party interests (KMT and CCP). Aokis article regarding Chinas (and Japans) economic
and political transition post-1911 supported the claim that the Xinhai Revolution was no more than (at the
very least) part of a chain of revolutions that truly transformed Imperial China into this Communist version,
and that this process of transformation is yet to be complete.
One of the principal reasons discussed in Dirlik and Pazniaks article on why Xinhai was an
incomplete (or failed) revolution was because they believed that the revolutions true goal was not fully
realizedthat the overthrowing of the Qing dynasty once and for all, was just a band-aid solution to Chinas
nation-building problems, and that it even worsened to a certain extent the case of China after 1911. This
is not a new concept or argument for me, because even here in the Philippines, the EDSA I Revolution is
still contested on whether it was a true revolution or not.
If we look at the EDSA Revolution, similar to Xinhai, we did manage to overthrow a regime
(Marcos) and ended a long authoritarian rule, but many claim as well that what emerged post-Martial Law
was a government still inhabited by oligarchs and not the kind of leaders that the EDSA Revolution
mobilizers envisioned. Although our economic growth was not as stunted post-revolution as was Chinas
post-1911, the mass migration of people with agricultural backgrounds to metropolitan areas for better
work opportunities still proliferates, and the rural-urban divide and inside the Philippines is just as vast as
Chinas.