"Myriad names are documented in the manuscript of revolutions. Many an individual are to be defined as the main source of manipulation to start a rebellion leading to a change in the "system". My admiration goes to all who delivered a message of a cause through literature, music, and actions such as demonstrations and protests.
             The widely spread utterance revolution is, most of the time, received with massive misconception. A revolution does not necessarily signify violence. It is not a "producible" article nor is it an action. It is an aspect that takes place. This implies that a person cannot "make" a revolution, but one can lead to or provoke a revolution. Individuals, nations, or groups that commence a path that leads to a rebellion are usually ones who have tasted the bitterness of oppression or the acidity of existing as the minority. A revolution is a change. A change does not have to be to a positive state. Therefore, a revolution could lead to an inferior negative situation. In this case the one behind that particular "negative" revolution probably looks at the aspect through another window from which he sees the inferior cause as a superior one."
            
            
             The question mostly inquired is: does the revolution introduce and stimulate the individual or does the individual introduce the revolution? I find this specific question to be coming from a source of skepticism and of underestimation to the potency of individuality. As we all know, people can be divided under 2 categories: activists and pessimists. Activism is simply defined by people who stand up for what is right, regardless to there "quantity" in society or other objectives that may be as obstacles. This implies that an activist believes in the power of an individual, for, one thing can lead to another and a change might develop. This does not denote that it is a task of ease. It could be thorny to the maxi...