TheGreatSpaldino said:

if what you say is true... what "revolution" did the rednecks acheive through their blatantly racist ignorance? amazing that the only "revolution" that you listed that actually "succeeded" was the holocaust... and even then it was short lived because they got their shit pushed in. so... if you're going to try to show how correct and purposeful something is... get your comparisons and analogies and whatever else you need to do so straight or else you will look like a huge tool... well... a bigger one than usual.

First you don't achieve a revolution, you start a revolution or participate in one. You are having a problem with your logic. A revolution can only bring about true change through violence. Blood must be shed. If an individual commits an act of violence it does not mean they are taking part in a revolution. Rednecks were not part of a revolution. A revolution is happens when a group rallies to end injustice or harm being brought upon the human condition. Rednecks were not trying to change society. They were trying to "preserve" their way of life. Society already hated blacks and the lynchings were a byproduct of hate.

Second, the holocaust was not a revolution. The revolution was the nazis trying to being about societal change and better the lives of their fellow Germans who lived in poverty following WWI. Unfortunately, during such revolutions often groups are scapegoated and the purpose of the revolution can be shielded. The holocaust was an unfortuante and unnecessary byproduct of the German nationalist movement during WWII.