In Foucault’s “Useless to Revolt”, he first starts off by stating that revolts belong to history and in a specific way, they escape from it. When a group of people or even one individual decides that they will no longer obey the authority, they put their life at risk for something they consider unjust. To them, this situation is not something that can be brought to a certain form. To these people, no authority is capable of making it possible for them. A revolution marks the moment when people think that death is a necessary response to injustice and is glorified as an accomplishment rather than a failure. I think that this signifies the break with history and a distinction between revolution and resistance. When a revolution occurs, it is a moment in life where life becomes a sacrifice. In a revolution, death is more likely the outcome…show more content… I oppose the idea of Foucault comparing his opinion to only one revolution. I think that he should have incorporated other revolutions that have occurred throughout history. First, not all revolutions have ended in death. Although whenever one does revolt they make a sacrifice in order for change, they don’t have the intention of seeking death. For example, the Glorious Revolution also known as the Bloodless Revolution, which took place in 1688-89. This was a revolution in history of England and Scotland. King James II was strongly disliked by the people of England and Scotland because he would not give them voting rights or practice the religion of their choice. So they overthrew King James II and the establishment of William III of Orange-Nassau and his wife Queen Mary, as monarchs. This was called a Bloodless revolution because no one was killed and no violence occurred. This specific example contradicts Foucault’s definition of Revolution because death was not intended and it did not occur in the Glorious
