Protest

Really, anything that creates conversation about an issue or idea is a protest. Before taking this class I thought protests were characterized only by pickets and big groups of people, but now I see it differently. A protest can be a form of dress, an organized movement, or a lifestyle.

After studying various forms of protest during the semester, political or otherwise, it seems all are challenging the status quo. For example, the Punk Fashion movement protested popular consumerism and mainstream music. The Dixie Chicks protested against a widespread belief (supporting the war).

After analyzing Critical Mass I understood that not all protests have to be highly organized or have only one mission. This protest example really got me to realize that each individual entity is involved in a protest with regard to their individual thoughts, feelings, and preferences. This was also a prime example of how governmental intervention can spoil a really great and genuine movement.

Above all, I've learned that pretty much everything is a protest. We are all somehow pushing a certain agenda with the choices we make in our lives. Whether they are seen blatantly or not, we are protesters in our daily lives.

A Hippie Protest

"Imagine" is John Lennon's account of the perfect world. His ideas epitomize the hippie movement and reflect the thoughts and feelings of many during the late 1960's and early 1970's. He writes about everyone in this world living as one, sharing our world without boundaries we know as countries, or religions that seem to restrict universal understanding.

His plea for peace and brotherhood is captured in his lyrics:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.

I believe his song had a huge impact during this era. It was obvious that many (known as hippies) wanted peace, but Lennon's words bring a new perspective: he protests the notion that we need to eliminate frontiers that hinder our ability to be "brothers" and "share" the world. His lyrics are soft, but portray a loud message: this is our world, and its up to us to band together and create peace.

I also think Lennon was careful not to impose his ideas onto his listeners. He carefully asks us to "Imagine" and "hopes one day you'll join us." He was the poet who accurately reflected what society may have been calling out for during wartime.

I believe John Lennon was a major catalyst in the social justice and peace revolution, and "Imagine" was a main factor in categorizing him so.

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are definitely protesters. It is obvious that what they write and produce are not only informative but also highly biased and controversial. Michael Moore, for example, is a widely known documentarian who shows America the "real truth" behind the issues of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration. The reason for his popularity is based on the idea that he gives the American public some "inside factor" that isn't shared through the mass media. He craftily puts together a string of scenes which imply a certain point of view: The Bush Administration has failed to fight the war the way it has been widely perceived by the American people.

Ann Coulter is a renowned author with 5 or so best-sellers under her belt. She is clever with words and is forceful and adamant with her points of view. She makes statements which may appear to be outrageous to most, and then back up her statements with simple, and sometimes flawed logic. She appears to have no compassion as she has publicly offended Hillary Clinton and Elisabeth Edwards. Coulter stabs the Edwards with the death of their son, and uses it as a point against ... actually it's unclear what the relevance of that comment was. She coyly evades direct questions and often takes quotes and statements out of context to support her own claims. This is obvious as Elisabeth Edwards kindly asks her to stop directing hatred toward her family while Coulter says "the presidential nominee's wife is asking me not to write books?!" Clearly misinterpreted, clearly defiant.

I think Moore and Coulter appeal to audiences because they are portrayed as "knowing more" or "seeing through" the government. The people believe they have better logistics, better numbers, better facts. Not to be overlooked is the appeal to pathos. Both protesters are covering very relevant issues to our society. Matters of life and death.

I was very turned off by Ann Coulter. I can see she is widely read, informed, and talented. However, she comes off as rude, defiant, and omniscient. My opinions on Michael Moore are along the same lines. I have only seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but look forward to delving into more of his works to properly asses my feelings about him and his work.

Jesus Camp

The Jesus Camp video was very, very interesting to watch. It may be one of the most controversial pieces we have studied, but then again, mostly anything dealing with religion is considered controversial in our society today.

The video sets out to show that our nation is suffering a rough entanglement with religion. "What kind of lesson is that for our children?" seems to be the key idea. Jesus Camp promotes Christ as the only answer to all questions and encourages kids to seek Him and give their lives and ministry to Him.

I couldn't help feeling a negative twist to the film. Although some parts were portrayed in a positive light, others depicted the subjects as off balance and ill-informed. For example, Levi's mother lectures him about how global warming is "not a big issue" but rather a political stunt. Harry Potter was another big topic at Jesus Camp: "warlocks are enemies of God and we do not praise them." Leaders of Jesus Camp encourage campers to stay focused on the truth and goodness of this world (when forbidding them to tell ghost stories at night), yet the main female leader seems to use scare tactics to get her point across. She proclaims that we live in a sick, dark world where the devil uses tactics to destroy our lives.

The argument Jesus Camp makes is that our children under 15 years of age, make up one third of this world's population and they should be educated and prepared to fight Jesus' war: "Take prophecies and do what Paul said to do with them: go to war with them!" This is why the camp introduces them to the "realities" of the world on issues like abortion. I personally felt uncomfortable viewing this part of the film because I do not believe that 4-10 year old kids should be overwrought and preoccupied with the issue of abortion. I believe children need to maintain their innocence for as long as possible, and that introducing children to ideas like premarital sex and abortion only hinder their chance of remaining a child for as long as they can.

Jesus Camp seems to breed "small adults." During the process of camp these children learn to surrender themselves to God and speak and act like apostles. The negative undertone may come from children like Rachael, who obviously still has a childlike mindset (which she should, at her age) and who speaks to the fallacy of finality: "God just won't enter your church if you don't jump and act and sing."

Overall, Jesus Camp pits itself as "us against them." The children are new recruits "from Jesus" who are instructed to "break the power of the enemy"--- the government. Although I am Catholic and agree with many points in the film, I still feel a bit uncomfortable after viewing this film.

Punk Fashion

Punk fashion is just that--fashion. I think characterizing the apparel of the "punk" movement is relatively easy to do. Usually "punks" rebel by wearing tattered clothing, sporting tall and/or colorful mohawks, adorning themselves with chains, hoops, dog collars and the like. However, they're purpose still remains somewhat unclear to me. If it means so much to them to form their own "subculture" based on rebellion, anti-authoritarianism, and anti-consumerism, why care so much to stand out the way they do? The very tactics they use to "stand apart" are giving right back into the consumer movement. The idea that they "don't care" and are "so grungy" are incongruous with all the time it takes to look as weird as they do, spike their hair, buy and adorn themselves with jewelery and act "different" and "failed."

Call me old fashioned or naive, but I also feel like their tattered and torn image negatively affects their ethos. Their image is, to say the least, expands on their values: punks value things like "anti- authority, not giving a f%*k, and anti-conformity." However, if these are things they believe in, why should anyone pay attention to them anyway? To make myself more clear--and excuse the foul language-- if they don't give a f%*k, why should we give a f%*k?

I think their "movement" lacks substance. I think it is ineffective, as the ways of the world will always be based on structure, commerce, and order. I think too that "new" punks pride themselves in being different and/or rebellious during their teen years as a result of hardening relationships with their parents and virtually lack the understanding of what the punk movement stood for back in the 70's. There is no link back to that era, as these new kids have taken on their own "emo meaning" to the word. I also believe it can be categorized as a phase. How many 35-60 year old "punks" or "goths" do we usually see?

Altogether, the so-called punk movement has changed from what it originally stood for-- challenging societal norms of gender and sexuality-- into simply fashion. It calls one to wonder if the "punks" out there today really believe in the deeper issues behind their dress, or are simply going for a look which has become all too much accepted by our society.

Critical Mass

My initial reaction to Critical Mass was "what the hell?" Honestly, If I were a citizen trying to get home on a Friday afternoon and was essentially pushed off the road by bicyclists, I'd be really annoyed. I understand Critical Mass' purpose: to regain control of the road. However, I think it's impractical to assume that such a movement will shape the public opinion that bicyclists also have a right to the road. Times have changed, and our society now uses motor vehicles for transportation. Incorporating bikes into our already established car and bus transportation system will make traffic go a lot slower. This is very frustrating to many, many people. Think about the road rage that's out there today with just cars and trucks alone. Now add bikes, which cannot travel higher than 30 mph, into the equation. It just doesn't make sense to do such a thing in our American society where time is money.

I understand their environmental concern: in today's day in age, there is obviously a huge ozone crisis. Eliminating gas and fossil fuels from as many sources as possible is ideal. If Critical Mass were running based on this factor alone, I think it would be plausible to assume more people would agree with their protest. However, it's no secret that citizens need to become more "green." Car companies know this, too. That's why they have been increasingly producing hybrids, Smartcars, and solar panel vehicles to alleviate the strain on natural resources and the ever depleting ozone layer. Which would you choose? Creeping slowly to work on a bicycle while saving the ozone or riding in a comfortable car, which accomplishes the same purpose?

Despite my negative reactions to the idea overall, I believe Critical Mass has a unique quality that other protests groups do not: they seem to have disorganized organization. Their protest runs on almost complete chaos, but surprisingly enough, that's the key ingredient to making it work. I also like the fact that each rider has his own type of "ownership" over Critical Mass. It genuinely means something to each individual, and that "something" may be different for the next rider, and the rider next to him.

Altogether, I thought it was a really interesting protest. I don't support it, although I agree with their claim that we should help our planet go green. I just happen to believe there are more advanced and efficient ways to do so based on the technology and advancements we've made. Afterall, it is the 21st century.

Ethos as a Means of Persuasion

I believe that using emotional tactics to connect with one's audience is the most effective way to be persuasive. In the Freedom Marches clips, we have seen how awfully African Americans were treated during their protests for equal rights. We saw how submissive African Americans were to Caucasians, as they were subject to unfair, and sometimes cruel treatment. I really felt empathy for the marchers as I saw they walked almost sixty miles to have their voices heard. Along the way, they had to stop and ask the white men if they would be allowed to pray. This scene in and of itself captured my emotion. Seeing hundreds of people, black and white, joined together in prayer for the same purpose was truly engaging. The Freedom Marches clips also really engulf viewers with the sense that all African Americans were peaceful, sane, patient, good people. This image of the submissive group helps to show that African Americans didn't deserve the unfair treatment, torture, and setbacks they received. It also goes to show that the marchers were very determined to gain their rights and would stop at nothing to get them.
Cindy Sheehan's speech was very informal, and not very informative. She used her son's death coupled with her personal opinions about Washington politics to persuade marchers to march down Congress on a Monday afternoon. What makes her credible is that she has undying support for the cause she believes in, and has evidence to support her claim that all war is evil. She is credible as a leader of this cause because she obviously is not afraid to take a strong stand and protest using colloquial words and phrases that her audience can connect with. She says "George Bush has shit on us, and I'm tired of being shit on!" Although this is not the most proper way of describing the situation, I'm sure her audience agrees, and is evoked to act after hearing her speech. I thought it was altogether effective.
I'm still chewing on the Malachi Richter protest but can say that any self immolated martyrdom shows absolute support for a cause and is to be revered with the utmost admiration.