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.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos

The readings for this past week have included all three types of rhetorical approaches. The first, logos, appeals to the audience's logic. The second, ethos, refers to the credibility of the speaker. The third, pathos, is meant to evoke the emotions of the audience. In the readings, we have seen examples of all three rhetorical style approaches. For example, in Fannie Lou Hamer's speech, although short, ethos is mainly used to persuade her audience. She describes in detail the horrific events she has experienced, ranging from being verbally and physically abused and being taunted sexually. Under the wide "umbrella" of ethos, which is Fannie Lou Hamer's main approach, she also appeals to logos, as she uses short, simple words to describe her personal statement. She is very concise and detailed with times, dates, addresses, and experiences, which also adds to her credibility (ethos). Her overall stature provides the audience with an image of her being strong by overcoming enormous hardships, and not able to be deterred by anything less than torture.
Similarly, Stokely Carmichael mostly appeals to ethos. It is evident that he has "done his homework" as is suggested in the reading packet. He is well informed about the issues at hand, and having prior experience as an activist, he is skilled at connecting with his audience. One way he does this is by using humor to appeal to his audience. It is evident through applause and cheers that he is successful at reaching his target audience by using these primary tools.
The informational video mainly appeals to logos, as part of it is rooted in fact. There are clips of judges, courthouses, reasoning, and outcomes. On the other hand, there are some scenes of harsh violence as African Americans are beaten at a local diner. This, undoubtedly, evokes strong emotion within the viewer. I thought the video did a great job in remaining informational yet adequately showing what the hardships were during the Civil Rights Movement.