The Successful Protest

Final Thoughts about Protests...

2008-04-28T16:54:00.001-07:00

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?

2008-04-16T12:44:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-04-09T18:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-04T12:40:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-04-02T23:30:00.001-07:00

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.

"Jesus Camp" my personal reflection...

2008-03-26T17:32:00.000-07:00

The documentary “Jesus Camp,” shows a small sample of the Christian population. Speaking from experience I know that many Christians that consider themselves Evangelical but do not necessarily act like the people in the movie but many do. I myself was raised in a similar home to those represented in the movie. I was home schooled for five years, and was raised in a Bible believing home. I did not go to a Pentecostal Church, but I was however exposed to them. I knew many people that had these beliefs, including some family members. I went to “Jesus Camp” practically every year. So when I was watching this movie, I was personally torn between my opinion about the documentary. I think the movie is very true to fact, it really does a good job of showing the way many children are raised. I think this movie would not seem offensive to most people I know like this because they would agree with what those people believe and practice. I think the movie is trying to show the “extreme” lifestyle that some Evangelicals live. However, the followers in this movie, simply think they have chosen the life that God wants them to live. They don’t think it is extreme, they think it is right. (Side note: these types of followers exist in many different religions).

I understand what those kids are going through, I know what it is like to have parents that teach you what they truly think is the truth. I love my parents, and I think they trained me in the way they thought was right, but I have “strayed” somewhat from what they would want me to believe. In many ways I think those parents in the movie are simply so religious they forget that life is sometimes more complicated than “confessing your sins” and “avoiding the evils of sin.” I continue to practice the Christian faith but I am not in such a conservative denomination. The kids in this documentary may one day experience the guilt, confusion, and uncertainty of making their religion personal. Some of those children will continue with that lifestyle but some will not.

I appreciate that I was raised by loving parents and my home school curriculum was academically rigorous, and I was able to skip a full grade when I entered public school. I think many home school children are more academically prepared for college than most public school graduates, that’s one aspect I did not like about the movie. It made home school seem like a joke, it was not represented as educational. Even when I entered public school, I chose to continue supplementing my learning at home. Many home school students have a great love and appreciation for learning because home school allows children to get individual attention and explore areas they are interested more in depth. In public school there is more structure that does not allow students to individualize their learning experience. Home school is great, and I will always support it.

My Writing Process

2008-03-15T23:31:00.000-07:00

My writing style varies depending on the task but there are certain things that are always the same. For example I must be in a quiet place without music, tv, or people talking in the room. My desk is usually where I end up writing and I absolutely cannot write if my desk is not completely clean and neat. My roommate always knows when I am about to write a paper because she sees me filing away all my papers and move my books off my desk. I guess you can say I am fairly predicable... Once I establish my environment, I try to focus on the task. I read the prompt over and over, usually two or three times before I begin anything else. I ask myself what the prompt is saying and I begin to think of what direction I want my paper to take. Usually there is one specific thing that pops into my head and I begin to build off of that one idea. More often than not I will end up with other ideas. So I type out my paper in an outline form. This way I can expand on all of my ideas and move things around throughout the paper to make a logical order (the last thing I worry about). I am very careful to keep focused on the assignment I re-read the prompt throughout my writing to make sure that I am not getting off task. I never try to write the whole paper in one sitting. I usually focus on one or two paragraphs at a time, but I usually just go with the flow. Sometimes I have more to say than other times. Once I have written the entire paper, I proof read it and sometimes have someone else look it over. I guess I should check out the undergraduate writing center, I have never used it, which is embarassing but I haven't written too many papers in college so far. I always read my final paper out loud to make sure I have a nice flow and it helps me catch mistakes and akward wording. These techniques have worked well for me for quite a while.

Protests Through Appearance

2008-02-27T11:12:00.000-08:00

Appearance is a silent protest. A person may not say anything at all but their outward appearance can symbolize some inward rebellion or it can make a statement. It is clear that the punk rock image started out as a form of protesting societal norms and I think that it was not very effective. The people that joined the punk culture often wanted to make some statement about politics, sexuality, gender stereotypes, or commercialism (all of which make noble causes for a protest, I think). However, the punk followers consistently imitated their leaders who were in fact muscians (i.e. the Sex Pistols or The Velvet Underground). I think that was the most entertaining aspect of the trend, it was not about the music or the talent, it was more about sending a message of rebellion to "the man" or to the older generations (parents). It is apparent that teens weren't too concerned with the quality of the music or singing, they were more concerned with the message and fitting the image of a punk rocker. I think this way of thinking still presist today because my younger brother tries to fit into this sub culture, but I know he does it just be a part of a group. I know that he does not actually know what he is protesting or why he is protesting, in fact I don't even think he realizes he is part of a "protest." I think he grows his hair out because he knows my parents hate it and he wears the clothes he does because he wants to look "tough" or fit in with his friends who all look the same. Then I remind him that he chooses his image so that he won't be conforming but in fact he looks just like evey other "punk rock/skater."

The other problem I have with the punk rock "protest" is the unclarity of the protest.
I honestly don't think that half of the fans actually knew that Poly Styrene (from X-Ray Spex) was singing about consumerism not sadomasochism in her song "Oh Bondage!" I mean really it's hard to know that the singer is protesting consumerism when she uses bondage metaphors while dressed in bondage garb. I respect that Styrene wants to make a political statement but I think her method is too misleading or too easily misunderstood. I think effective protests have a clear messages and lead to some positive action or change. I don't see any positive results of the punk rock "protests." I saw more people fight conformity and society as a whole more open to accepting different looking people but only in certain cities (New York, San Francisco, and London). I think there is a difference between rebellion and protest. I think that punk rock is somewhere lost in between the two ideas.

PETA and The Guerilla Girls

2008-02-20T16:11:00.000-08:00

I found that both the PETA and Guerilla Girls proved to have effective and creative approaches to reach their audiences. I had never researched or learned about PETA until this assignment. I had generally thought of PETA as an extreme and radical group that used controversial tatics to gain attention to animal cruelty. I was impressed with the professionalism of their website and I found it informative. I was surprised by the content in the videos that PETA used to show the animal cruelty going on in society. I watched one video that was so intense I could not finish watching it. I did not think that this assignment would have such an impact on my way of viewing the meat industry. I agree with PETA in that the meat industry uses inhumane practices but I do not agree with PETA that the act of eating meat is murder. I agree that the meat industry is wasteful but profitable. After watching the videos, I realized that I take my standard of living for granted. PETA did a great job of raising awareness of the health issues that are involved in eating meat. I mean the pictures of the over crowed, dirty, and sickly, worn out chickens made me re-evaluate my faith in the health benefits of eating chicken and eggs. I think PETA did a great job appealing to different audiences. I think they clearly appealed to people's sense of ethics by showing the misuse of animals. I think they also appealed to our human nature of reason and compassion. We don't like to see or hear any other creature being hurt. PETA also appealed to our responsibility to each other by showing that the meat industry is wasteful and increases the divide between the fed and the hungry. Then finally PETA throws in some facts about the unclean conditions and health hazards of eating meat, just for those strictly logical or practical people. I have to say that approach worked best on me... I think that for some people, like myself, the idea of eating meat is so normal that it's hard to think of it as immoral or irresponsible. Some people are just so accoustomed to it that PETA realizes they have to use a variety of approaches to get people thinking about animals and the meat industry, especially if they want people to make substaintial changes to their lifestyle.

In the case of the Guerilla Girls I think that they use a more light hearted approach. I mean they cannot expect to be taken seriously wearing gorilla masks? They take a serious topic of women's role in the art world and put a humourous spin on it. They give us startling statistics and facts but they add funny pictures or witty slogans to their advirtisments. I think that they are trying to raise awareness to the fact that women have a stereotypical image in the art world. They also bring to our attention the lack of female influence in the creation of art and film. The Guerilla Girls shy away from the typical "in your face" tatics that feminist have been know to use. The girls break the stereotype of a feminist while trying to break the stereotype of the role of women in art. I really like the approach the girls use, in fact, I want to read on of their books. I realize that some people find the masks weird or even creepy, I personally find them creative and effective. The masks represent a stereotype too. The idea that big beastly creatures are male and that females should not seem intimidating. Another reason I like the mask is because it conceals their identities. Many people think they know what a feminist is or what one should look like but if you can't see their faces, it sort of prevents that stereotype from prepetuating. It shows that you can't always tell who a feminist is, and it shouldn't even matter because its about the issues facing women as a whole not about any individual. The masks help unify the girls in their cause.

Critical Mass Reflection

2008-02-11T21:29:00.000-08:00

Although we have not finished watching “We Are Traffic,” I found the documentary very interesting. My initial reaction was: what is a Critical Mass??? I could not figure out exactly the purpose of hundreds of people riding their bike through the city. As the film progressed, I realized how unique their “protest” was because there was not one sole purpose. Honestly now that I don’t have a car to drive and I walk everywhere or ride public transportation, I feel all around more relaxed and enjoy the journey to my destination. I know that might seem cheesy, but it’s true. It’s so much more fun walking with friends and socializing on the E-bus late at night, (especially when you are the only sober person). Anyway, every time I go back home and have to drive everywhere, I notice that I get aggressive and stressed when I travel in heavy traffic and when I reach my destination I tend to feel anxious or annoyed. I can relate to the people that are part of the Critical Mass that say they like riding their bikes because they feel like they are part of a community. Some of the people in group viewed the Critical Mass as a means to take back public space and make it more personal enjoyable.

It seems like it would be enjoyable to be a part of something so big and spontaneous. I think the lack of organization makes the “celebration” as they call it, so much more pleasant. The group for the most part functions as a mass of individuals each with their own personal motivation for riding but they are all working together in a spirit of good will. I mean they use humor to keep the atmosphere light. I especially liked the signs that said “honk if you like bikes.” I think that group as a whole was successful because they were able to gain such large numbers, mainly because anyone was invited to join. Once people joined they were given the individual freedom to use the rides to spread their own message, mainly through the use of flyers and signs. I think that is only central theme, the fact that Critical Mass supports individuality and creativity through using alternate transportation.

Ethos as a Means of Persuasion

2008-02-05T18:32:00.000-08:00

It is clear that people can use radical forms to protest and deliver a message. Both Cindy Sheehan and Malachai Richter used extreme methods of protest. Richter decided that self immolation would portray his political stance against the war in Iraq. As well Sheehan devoted her time to camping out in front of the President’s private residence and refused to leave until he agreed to speak to her. When he denied her request she bought property near to him, just to be there when he decided to come home.

I think Richter’s form of protest was radical and created shock value. I think that it was his way of self sacrificing himself for what he considered a worthy cause. In contrast his personal moral character (ethos) is in question when he makes claims like “I wish I killed Rumsfeld when I had the chance.” I mean what sort of image does that give of his personal values? I think the fact that his suicide was harmless to others makes it “peaceful” in a way. I mean he was only hurting himself not anyone else, which was his choice and in some ways is respectable in that not many people are willing to die such a painful death for a cause. However, there is never any justification for infringing on another’s rights, especially taking another person’s life. Richter did something so shocking that it did demand attention, but I don’t think it accomplished much else. I mean there are no “Richter Anti-war” legislations being debated in congress. There are no memorial parks dedicated to him or his mission. I just think that suicide in itself is a selfish act and that aside from being dramatic and calling attention to the issue it won’t accomplish much. Wouldn’t someone rather work to progressively change and have the satisfaction of seeing results if that is possible? This is what I respect about Cindy Sheehan...

Now I think that Sheehan did so many things wrong with her method of protest but I also think she did many things right. First of all, who would make a better leader for a peace cause then a heartbroken mother of a deceased soldier? She is the epitome of ethos, she is a “stakeholder” in that she was directly affected in a personal way by the war in Iraq. Who is more trustworthy than a mother of an American soldier? I mean people would just naturally trust that alone as making her a reliable person for the cause. I just think that Sheehan was asking a lot of the public. She suggest that we leave all our “stuff” behind and sell our houses and cars in order to protest the war. I mean many people may agree with her and want to protest with her but she didn’t really offer any practical options for people.

Ethos, Logos, Pathos...

2008-01-31T12:45:00.000-08:00

It is clear that different protests emply different appeals. The appeals are one of the following three: ethos, logos, or pathos. Now I'm not going to debate that one is more effective than another, because that is simply relative to the situation and the audience.

The past weeks reading shows multiple examples of appeals through logos, pathos, and ethos. In particular, the Stokely Carmicheal speech at the University of California at Berkeley uses strong appeals to emotion and feeling. The speech is lengthy but effective for his audience, who he so bluntly describes as "the white ghetto of the West."

Carmicheal points out that white supremacy is the idea "that white people can give anybody their freedom." Carmicheal continues, "a man is born free. You can enslave him after he is born free. And that is what this country does." Now Carmicheal is completely correct in his statement, it is logical (falling under the logos appeal). However, Carmicheal moves on to further his argument using a more emotional arguement.

Carmicheal uses the Vietnam war (an already controversial and emotionaly charged issue at the time) to further his emotional argument supporting the oppression of blacks. He describes the people fighting in the war as "black mercenaries," those creating a sense of division among the whites and blacks. He makes it sound as though the black troops are not fighting as Americans but simply being used by the Americans.... These are harsh ideas, and surprisingly enough actually results in applause.

Carmicheal makes statements that invoke strong sense of duty for whites when he repeats the "racism must die." He also creates a sense of duty for the black community when he claims that "black people must be seen in positions of power, doing and articulating for themselves." This appeals to the sense of ethos, or personal responsibility.

My Egocentric and Sociocentric Thoughts

2008-01-23T16:43:00.000-08:00

I believe Jesus Christ gives salvation. I believe that hollywood is its own sort of cult, constantly preaching its beliefs. I believe pornography is degrading and dehumanizing toward women. I believe we are responsible for our actions. I believe that all children are a gift from God. I believe in a child's innocence. I believe in a loving embrace. I believe in the power of our words. I believe in a person's ability to change. I believe in trusting friends. I believe tears and laughter are the best medicine. I believe there is global warming. I think Janet Jackson and Micheal Jackson are the same person... I believe that Area 51 exisits. I believe that the pyramids were built by the Egyptians. I belive that nature matters more than nurture. I believe there are ghosts. I wish Santa was real, I never got to believe in him. I think all news is biased. I believe the beauty of a smile. I believe in the smell of Christmas morning. I believe in the look in my grandma's eyes when she says she loves me. I belieive in the comfort of my best friends arms. I believe in the satisfaction of earning my own paycheck. I believe in the sunset. I believe in the tranquil Hawaiian beach in the evening. I believe in the cool breeze on a hot day. I believe in the significance of reaching a goal. I believe in long horn pride. I believe in romance. I believe in miracles. I believe in my little sister's hugs. I believe in life.

Successful Protests...

2008-01-15T12:11:00.000-08:00

So what makes a protest successful? At first thought, I concluded that a protest must lead to change in order to be successful or effective. I also thought in order to be effective there should be many people involved.Is this always true? Well, many protests especially violent protest (such as the riots in Watts, California), do lead to change but it is not necessarily a positive change. I think destroying buildings is a successful way to draw attention to a matter, but it may prohibit people from seeing the true issue. In other words, the observers may be more focused on the form of protest instead of the reason for the protest. Sure there were a lot of people involved and yes they has a significant impact on the community, but none of that was positive.
This is why non violent protests have proven to provide more positive results. For example, sit ins of the 20th century, which were often dangerous but remained effective. The civil disobedience route tends to draw more attention to the matter at hand and less attention to the way the protesters are portraying the message. I think this is what constitutes a successful protest. It is a protest that clearly sends a message in the most civil way possible, so that the focus is on the reason of protest.