Final Thoughts about Protests...

After re-reading my original post discussing my perception of a protest, I think my ideas were reinforced through the course but did change slightly. I wrote that I thought non-violent protests, created a more positive environment for change thus making them successful. I still agree with this. However, I now realize there are many non-violent forms of protests that can be unsuccessful. For example, the non-violent protests of Cindy Sheehan, which I would not consider a successful protest for various reasons. I guess I realize now more than ever, that simply because I protest is non-violent, that does not make it successful. Likewise simply because a protest may seem violent (example the Animal Liberation group), that does not completely invalidate it.

I also wrote that a successful protest will lead to change. Although I still believe this, I have expanded my view of what we should consider change. For example, I used to think that immediate social change would validate a protest. After, participating in a Take Back the Night march (to protest sexual assault and raise awareness of these crimes), I realized that maybe “successful” is simply relative. By just having my voice heard by a few bystanders on the forty acres, I felt as though I had accomplished something. Maybe I did, maybe I changed one person’s view of the prevalence of rape in our society, but maybe I didn’t. I won’t ever really know. All I really know is that I felt like I grew as a person form the experience and that I stood up for a cause I thought was worthy. So I guess after analyzing all these various forms of protests and protest groups, it’s hard for me to label one more successful than another, protests aren’t as simple as I thought. This is why I might view the protests of some groups we studied as unsuccessful or maybe even pointless, but in reality protests no matter how big or how small, represent an important part of what unites us as humans. That is the need to have our concerns and thoughts heard, and the desire to create change, for what we as individuals think is right. Protests seem to me to be some uniquely personal statement about a person, something I hadn't thought of before.

Where is the Love?

When I first learned that we were going to be required to find a protest song, The Black Eyed Peas song "Where is the Love," was the first one that came to mind. The song has a mellow tone but a strong message against social injustice. The song addresses racial division "The Bloods and The Crips and the KKK," but the major theme of the song is the issue of world peace and acceptance of others. It addresses the issue of "nations dropping bombs, chemical gasses filling the lungs of little ones." The song similar reminds us to think about the promblems in the world and see that they are somehow connected to the lack of love we have for each other as humankind. The song asks us to consider "Where is the Love?" The song does a great job of reminding us that the issues of hate and intolerance exisist throughout the world - "overseas, yea, we try to stop terrorism but we still terrorists here living in the USA." The song shows that we are simply living in ignorance and denial about our state of intolerance and hate. The song warns us that "if you never know truth, then you never know love." The song wants listeners to admit that "most of us only care about money making." The song is blantly telling us that the main reason we still have these issues is because we are too selfish and worried about ourselves to notice the problems in the world, or we don't think we can do anything about them.

I think this song does a great job of getting the message out that people may think that issues of hate and intolerance don't exisist here in the USA or that they aren't really that big of a deal. The song does not use judgemental or angry words to say that we need to change, there needs to be a social justice revolution. The song uses examples that unite the world together in the fight against issues resulting from a lack of love and understanding among people. The song is clear, and easy to listen to, I think it is a perfect example of a modern protest song.

Micheal Moore tries too hard and Ann Coulter talks too much.

I’m not sure that I would consider either Moore or Coulter to be protestors. I mean they aren’t trying to do anything except promote themselves and their ideologies while ignoring the other side. They focus on making personal attacks against their opposition, which is juvenile and immature. They spend the rest of their time ignoring their opposition’s view or even their existence. For example, Moore doesn’t even consider that some people support the war. He basically thinks that absolutely no good could come from the situation and that Bush’s motives were corrupt from the beginning. In contrast, Coulter cannot admit that maybe she is fallible. She simply won’t consider anything her opponents say. It’s just too extreme for me. I cannot respect people that are so egocentric! Even though I would support some of the politics of both people, they just annoy me! I mean Ann just gabs on sarcastic tangents and Moore gets too emotional and sometimes hypocritical. Neither one of them has any real credibility for me. They don’t persuade me with their rhetoric (or lack there of).

I think the reason they are so popular is because all people are innately egocentric. People are naturally bias and born weak thinkers. People will identify with one of the two people and they will support some of their views and then pay attention to them. Neither Coulter nor Moore is “fair minded” which is what I come to believe is the mark of a true, credible, and strong critical thinker!

I think Coulter and Moore could benefit from taking a look at the “Traits of a Disciplined Mind” that Dr. Raney taught me: Intellectual Humility (opposite: intellectual arrogance), Intellectual Courage (versus intellectual cowardice), Intellectual Empathy (versus intellectual self-centeredness), Intellectual Integrity (versus intellectual hypocrisy), Intellectual Perseverance (versus intellectual laziness), Intellectual Reason (versus intellectual distrust of reason), and Intellectual Autonomy (versus intellectual conformity).

Oh and I know this is dragging on with lists but I also think Coulter and Moore should consider using the Intellectual Standards in their arguments. These include: Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, Depth, Relevance, Logicalness, Significance, Breadth, and Fairness. (Once again props to Dr. Raney). People that employ these standards deserve to heard and they earn the right of being called critical thinkers. They are the people America should be concerned with not Coulter or Moore.

Ann Coulter

I've read Ann Coulter's book "Godless the Church of Liberalism," before coming to college. I thought she was a little bit extreme. Her book really is entertaining, sometimes I'm not sure if I was laughing at her or laughing with her...

Ann Coulter pretty much says whatever she feels like, whenever she feels like saying it. She lacks tact. She really thinks she has clout in the media because people read her books, she thinks she has some real ethos. Well, after watching the video clips I realized that her attitude and tone are condescending and defensive. You get the impression that she hates anyone that thinks differently from her, and that she believes others hate her because she is different.

When Mrs. Edwards called in and politely asked Ann to stop making personal attacks against her husband, Ann response is confusing for me. She says something about a joke she made six months ago and how they have been making money from it. I didn't really understand that. Then, she denies ever talking poorly about Mr. Edwards. She then says something about the Edwards choosing to exploit poor people or something, nothing relates to what Mrs. Edwards called into the show to say. It was clear that Ann wouldn't admit that she made a mistake or that Mrs. Edwards could have a valid point. I was really surprised that she just kept rambling on about how Mrs. Edwards doesn't support her freedom to speak. It was clearly begging the question and using cirular claims about the Edwards. She even threw in something about the Edwards' making money off of her website. It's clear that Ann was just avoiding the original issue of talking poorly about Mr. Edwards.

Jesus Camp, I defend the harsh reality.

Well, I know I already wrote a long blog about my view of the Jesus Camp movie, and I read everyone's blog posts. I just really relate to what those children are experiencing, so I guess I just feel the need to voice my opinion once more.

Most people thought the movie portrayed the group as extreme and that it gave them a negative reputation. I disagree. I think the movie was so accurate I wanted to cry, almost everything those kids are shown doing I went through. I know plenty of children that are taught to pass out evangelism tracks (I did it myself). I know that church leaders HATE Harry Potter, even though they probably never opened a single book. I know kids that get up and preach to others. I've seen kids cry with emotion or guilt. I've seen adults prompt kids to speak in tongues, I've been in those services. I was raised believing ghost stories were immoral. I have seen people pray over the seats in a chaple "in Jesus name." All these things are very real for some people. That is why I loved this movie! It is basically a mini biography of my childhood, my old reality. The same reality that so many kids go through. I think the reason so many people thought the movie was negative was because it seemed so extreme, so different from the reality you may have been raised in. It makes these people seem intolerant or maybe even ignorant. For me the movie was true to fact about the nature of these people. Sure the music and editing added affect but I really think this movie describes my childhood and the life many people live. I now watch the movie and realize how much I've grown, how much I've changed. I now can see why the movie is so uncomfortable and controversial, but I still defend it as an accurate depiction of some sects of Christianity. I certainly know this film does not accurately represent all Christians, but that would simply be impossible to do. So while many think this movie portrays this group in a negative light, I think it shows the true colors of the group.