“At their core, the principles of civil resistance are inherently democratic: nonviolent campaigns require mass public support and participation if they are to succeed” (26).

This is an Uprising critically explores the difference between violent and nonviolent revolts in an attempt to uncover why nonviolent uprisings bring more successful outcomes than violent revolts. Mark and Paul Engler reviewed a handful of civil unrest cases that sparked mass resistance from the Civil Rights Movement in the United States to the takedown of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. To this, I really appreciate the way in which the authors intersect the uprisings, stacking them on top of each other to compare and contrast their actions, as well as the ways in which they used the various theories to critique what might have worked better for each case. 

 One of the theories that Paul and Mark Engler discussed early on in chapter two which played a vital role throughout the rest of the book was from scholar and activist Saul Alinsky. Alinsky made the argument that social movements, like #MeToo, are not as effective nor as sustainable in creating long-term changes as creating a social organization, like Black Lives Matter. By this, Alinsky meant that creating social movements that include protests, marches, sit-ins, etc. are not able to be sustained long-term, thus making them only partial fixes. Alinksy supported the idea of building an organization that may take a year or two to come into fruition but that will be sustainable and able to push for social change long-term. 

This being said, it was still emphasized by other scholars that movements have the potential to be successful in their own ways, including being able to bring immediate acknowledgment of an issue as well as sparking large bursts of support.

Alinsky's theory was brought up time and time again throughout the book as the author’s critiqued and evaluated the other civil revolts. Initially, I thought to myself, “why wouldn’t it make sense to have both? Have social movements put on by the social organization?” The more I read, and the more I thought about discussions from my classes, this idea does seem to be the case with some modern social organizations, like Black Lives Matter, where we see an organization that will start, support, and participate in civil unrest movements. 

The second major idea brought up was that of “trigger events” (181). The authors define a trigger event as a “highly publicized, shocking incident that dramatically reveals a critical social problem to the public in a vivid way.” The examples were events like the Three Mile Island nuclear melt for nuclear safety, the Sensenbrenner Bill for immigrant rights, and the police killings of Black men for Black Lives Matter. This theory is relevant and often seen in today's social movements.

I did read this book for an Information Services for Diverse Users class and was asked to relate it to the course materials we had discussed that semester. Though it was a bit difficult for me to find direct relations to course materials, we did talk IN DEPTH about the need for community support and unity when making changes to diversity and inclusion. And though this book does not discuss topics of homelessness, diversity in youth services, or mental health, it still provides examples of how communities need to come together in order to make real, lasting change. I think this book can help show readers that unity within a community is the answer - as Alinsky said, we need “person-by-person recruitment, careful leadership development, and the creation of stable institutional bodies that could leverage the power of their members over time” to create that structured change.