It Takes a Nation of Millions...

The End.

2008-04-30T01:32:00.000-07:00

After looking back at my first post, I still agree with my definitions of a protest. I said a protest expresses opposition to something (policies, events, etc) through words and/or action. This definition is pretty flexible and after studying different examples of protests in the class, many, if not all, of the protests fit my definition in some way or another. I also said there are no specific requirements in order for an act to be considered a protest as long as it's protesting something. We've looked at Malachi Ritscher, who self-immolated at the side of a highway to protest the Iraq War; we've looked at Critical Mass, a monthly gathering of bike-riding people; we've also talked about Aliza Schvartz, who used abortion as a medium of art and many, many others. There's no common thread that goes through these acts other than the fact that each of them is protesting something.

However, I've changed my mind about what makes a protest successful. I said at the beginning that in order for a protest to be successful, it needs to raise the public's awareness about the issue at hand and rouse people to join its cause. I've learned that while getting people to join your protest (or change their minds) is nice, it doesn't have to be the primary objective of a protest. Gaining attention also doesn't necessarily mean a protest is successful. For example, Aliza Schvartz's "art" garnered a lot of attention. But what did it prove? Her intention wasn't really clear to me. If the person/group who is protesting feels passionate about his/her cause and believes that he/she is making an honest stance, I would consider their protest successful.

This Is a Protest Song Because...

2008-04-20T18:27:00.000-07:00

I picked "Mosh" by Eminem as my protest song example. Moshing refers to people shoving/pushing/slamming/whatever against each other at live music performances and Eminem's song is basically calling for a big mosh against George W. Bush and his administration. The song and the video accompanying it was released just a few weeks before the 2004 presidential election to inspire the younger generation to vote against Bush. Eminem says we put him in office ourselves 4 years before and that now it's our responsibility to put him out of it after all the things that have happened in Bush's first fours years in office.

Mosh pits outside the Oval Office, someone's tryin'
to tell us somethin' maybe this is God just
saying we're responsible, for this monster
This coward that we have empowered

Eminem also says Bush is waging the Iraq War for his personal gains and criticizes the government for condemning those who speak out against the war:

No more blood for oil, we got our own battles
to fight on our own soil, no more psychological warfare
to trick us to thinkin' we ain't loyal

"Mosh" is a scathing indictment of President Bush and the War in Iraq. It calls for people to vote and start the change on their own rather than waiting for somebody else to fix the situation. It is an angry, intense, and emotional call for people to come together for a same cause. The song was an admirable effort by Eminem and it certainly got me hyped up when I first heard it. But ultimately, I think it did little to bring about real changes he desired.

I think protest songs can be effective to a certain extent, but I don't believe they can bring about a significant change in the society. Songs like "Mosh" can get people amped up and make people think about certain issues, but that's about it. The 2004 election saw a significant increase in youth votes compared to 200, but as we all know, G-Dub won the reelection and the rest is history.

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore

2008-04-12T00:39:00.000-07:00

I don't consider either Coulter or Moore to be a protester. Like many Americans, they're from two opposite sides of the political spectrum who believe very strongly about certain issues and beliefs. Coulter and Moore just have very loud and obnoxious (?) way to voice their opinions. They're not protesting anything, but rather trying to persuade people from other sides to join their causes. However, Moore might come off as a protester because popular liberalism has been taking beatings in the recent years.

American public supports them because many people DO have exactly same opinions about issues that Coulter and Moore speak about and people are glad that someone is out there speaking out for the causes they believe in. They capture the public attention by using sensationalistic methods. Coulter is attacks anything and anyone who doesn't agree with her and is very rude about it. And some people actually enjoy Coulter's antics. Michael Moore uses jokes and seemingly incriminating evidence against his opponents, complemented by choice music. Neither of them bothers to acknowledge that there is another side to their stories. Even though their rhetoric is obviously flawed, many people, including myself, are fascinated by it because it's funny and entertaining.

Fallacies and Ann Coulter

2008-04-06T13:31:00.000-07:00

I don't think anyone can Ann Coulter seriously, whether he/she is a liberal or a conservative. Some people might agree with her basic positions, but the way she presents those positions and the way she defends them does not lend much credibility to the audience. And her positions are what any typical right-wing conservative would take. The difference is that Coulter stirs up controversy by making rash, unfounded comments and constantly resorting to personal attacks and twisting what others have said, as proved by the video clips. When someone tries to rationally argue with her, Coulter just repeats what she'd been saying (begging the question) and keeps on making hasty generalizations. I think what people find interesting is the controversy, not the politics.

I don't think Coulter is very persuasive at all, especially to someone who does not know her that well. I'm somewhat familiar with Coulter's basic arguments and positions and I agree with some of them, but the way she argues them almost makes me want to switch my positions just to oppose her. People who might find Coulter persuasive are probably those who are staunch supporters of conservative values and do not trust in liberalism one bit.

However, one other thing you have to consider when watching some of the clips is who's hosting/presenting the discussions. On couple of the clips we've seen, she was on MSNBC, which is known for promoting liberal/left-wing values on its shows. Would the hosts or anchors have so contentiously argued with her were she on a different station such as the Fox news channel?

Jesus Camp

2008-03-27T10:09:00.000-07:00

Jesus Camp follows a group of Evangelical christians from a christian children's conference to a camp called "Kids on Fire" held in North Dakota. It shows the kids going through "born-again" experiences, with their parents and minsters as their guides. I thought it was very objective and allowed the viewers to form their opinions about the topic presented.

I found the documentary very interesting, but I was perplexed at the same time. Being raised in a devout Catholic family, I know what it is like growing up with religion and God as a major part of someone's life. But I think the families in the documentary took this to a whole another level. Seeing kids who aren't even in their teens almost obsessed with religion and spirituality made me feel a little weird. Granted, the documentary focused on the religious sides of the families, but I wonder how I would've taken such an upbringing. While I don't doubt the existence of such intense experiences (speaking in tongues, crying, feinting, etc) because I've witnessed/experienced them myself when I was in high school, I think it's wrong for the ministers and the parents to force the children accept that kind of life at such young ages. It was my choice to accept God and go to the conferences, not my parents'. I think the children should be given that same choice.

My Writing Process

2008-03-16T11:06:00.000-07:00

When I'm writing a paper, I like to be in my room with my headphones on. It really bothers me if my music isn't playing when I'm writing a paper, or any other assignments for that matter.

The first thing I do when writing a paper is research my topic. I usually go online to do my research, but if I can't find enough information on a given topic, I'll use the library services. After I have done the research and gathered enough information, I think about what direction I am going to take with the paper. Once I sort of have an idea of what I want to do with my paper, I take some time to develop a good thesis that'll guide my writing. Then I write a very rough outline that more or less serves as the backbone for the whole paper. Then I sit down and start writing using the outline as a guide.

The hardest part about writing a paper for me is starting the whole process--choosing a topic, thinking about a general direction of the paper, and just getting off my butt and doing the research. The easiest part is actually writing the paper. Once I have come up with a thesis and have made an outline, writing the paper itself is relatively easy for me.

How does appearance affect protest?

2008-02-27T15:46:00.000-08:00

The appearances of the Yes Men and those of the punk movement are very different. While the Yes Man cultivate a business-like image in order to pull off their pranks, punks construct their clothing, music, and lifestyle to oppose the dominant norms of the society. Both groups' appearances are beneficial in their own way and make their protests much more effective.

In the documentary, one of the Yes Men says that what they are trying to do is "identity correction." Whereas identity theft criminals steal citizens' personal information to commit crimes, the Yes Men hijack the identities of corporate "criminals" to humiliate them for conspiring against the public good. When they give fake presentations, the Yes Men impersonate the normal businessman; they wear suits and ties and generally look like people who we'd expect to be a part of corporate America. This appearance allows them to attend conferences and give presentations. No matter how outrageous their claims and statements are, no one really questions the Yes Men's credentials just because they look and talk like representatives from the WTO. I think that says a lot about the effect appearance has on people.

The punk movement just goes against most of the established societal norms. They wear torn shirts, dog collars, "aggressive" jewelry, etc. The movement's alternative fashion is meant to be subversive, but I don't think it achieves anything other than creating shock value. I doubt many people outside of the group particularly care about what message punks are trying to convey nor will be swayed by their opinions. I do think the punk movement's fashion is a protest, but not a particularly effective one.

Staging Protests In Different Mediums

2008-02-20T15:36:00.000-08:00

Guerrilla Girls are a group of feminist artists that work to promote women and to a lesser extent, people of color, in various forms of art. When making appearances as a group, they put on gorilla masks and assume names of deceased female artists. Gorilla is usually associated with more masculine qualities and it's interesting that a group of feminists decided use gorilla masks to distinguish themselves. I think wearing gorilla masks serves couple purposes. First, it draws a lot of attention. I think I'd take more interest in gorillas wearing skirts voicing their opinions than traditional feminist women passing out flyers on the street. Also, as mentioned in the FAQ section, wearing gorilla masks makes people concentrate more on the group's message and ideas rather than who they are. Overall, I think wearing gorilla masks is a clever idea.

Guerrilla Girls use "guerrilla" methods to promote their ideas--putting up billboard in hollywood, posting posters at film festivals, putting stickers in bathrooms at movie theaters, etc. The one that stood out to me the most was the "anatomically correct Oscar." I actually remember seeing this billboard when riding through Hollywood many years back. I thought it was pretty amusing then and still think it is. It was simple, sarcastic, and revealing. The billboard didn't use spectacular visuals nor burdened people with too much information. Guerrilla Girls' version of the Oscar was funny and the ad got their point across with simple statistics. I think the fact that their campaigns aren't too serious makes people more open to what they have to say.

Critical Mass

2008-02-13T18:16:00.000-08:00

Critical Mass is an event held once a month where bicyclists hit the road to claim their right to the road and just enjoy riding bikes in different cities. There are no leaders in Critical Mass and everyone who is participating is free to suggest routes and make/hand out fliers to promote the event. At first glance, the riders' goal(s) seems to be to protest against cars and to obnoxiously force their views on motorists. But CM's leaderless structure allows its goals to take on different meanings for different riders. Because of the lack of official leaders and clearly defined goals, I wouldn't call Critical Mass a protest. The interviewees in "We Are Traffic" gave different opinions on what they thought Critical Mass is about and it seems to me that Critical Mass does not have a centralized purpose.

Watching the documentary, I thought Critical Mass was a pretty cool idea and something that would be fun to be a part of. But to be honest, if I was riding in a car and hundreds of bikes were slowing me down, I would be pretty mad and annoyed at the same time. From the riders' standpoint, their tactic is perfect for what they want to accomplish--promoting riding bicycles, asserting their rights on the road, and helping the environment. It's unfortunate that the police progressively got more involved, but I think Critical Mass is something that's worth sustaining.

Ethos as a means of persuasion

2008-02-06T18:05:00.000-08:00

Ethos is a rhetoric technique used to appeal to an authority to lend more weight and support to an argument. To establish ethos, a speaker has to display expertise, knowledge, and/or high moral character. The authors of the speeches and accounts we have examined in class successfully establish ethos and they all seem to elicit strong responses from their audiences.

Malachi Richter, an anti-war activist, was a noticeable presence in the Chicago underground music scene; he devoted his life to music and other hobbies after having a divorce and being estranged from his family. On many nights, rain or shine, he could be seen in clubs supporting local acts and recording their shows for free. Over the years, Richter made acquaintances with fans and musicians alike, but he never developed a close relationship anyone. A lot of people who knew him thought he was detached from the world, maybe depressed. And I think this lack of connection with people around him who could vouch for him and his sketchy background weakened ethos when he self-immolated off a Chicago highway.

On the other hand, in the other examples we looked at (speeches by Fannie Lou Hamer and Stokely Carmichael, Freedom Marches, etc), the authors establish strong ethos by demonstrating respectable and upstanding backgrounds. Hamer experienced first-hand the brutalities of Jim Crow semislavery and told a simple, to-the-point account of the experience. Carmichael comes off as well-educated, citing famous philosophers. And his standing as one of the most influential leaders of the militant movement adds to his credibility.

I think having a credible, respectable background is the best way to establish strong ethos. Without such background, no matter how much homework or research a speaker does, there is a high chance that he'll be dismissed by his audience as just another speaker whose character can't back his words.

Logos, Ethos, Pathos

2008-02-01T20:54:00.000-08:00

In her speech, Fannie Lou Hamer tells her story about trying to register to vote in Mississippi to the credentials committee of the Democratic convention. From the beginning, ethos is the most prominent appeal in her speech. To start, she gives out her exact house address and dates of the events about which she speaks. This shows that she has nothing to be afraid of and that she has nothing to hide. Hamer's style of speech, which is plainspoken and very calm, backs up her credibility as well. She says what is needed to be said in a simple, easy-to-understand manner, and does not add any unnecessary information. Hamer's detailed account of the police brutality she experienced further establishes her credibility and this appeals to pathos as well, evoking strong feelings from the audience.

Stokely Carmichael pushes for the radical idea of Black Power and talks about how the civil rights leaders of the time have lost the younger generation of blacks who were becoming increasingly militant by catering to the middle class whites. In his speech, Carmichael mostly uses ethos to back up his opinions and claims. His experience as a civil rights activist and his position as a leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee make his claims more believable to the audience. Also, he refers to the philosophers Camus and Sartre in the beginning of the speech, which adds to his credibility. He uses common sense to expose America's failure to treat everyone equally ("Be it inside the United States, Vietnam, [...] wherever America has been, she has not been able to make democracy work.") and offers up solutions to his problems using logos. He appeals to the emotions (pathos) by making jokes and evoking feelings by describing African Americans' plights.

In the speeches we examined, ethos seems to be the most dominant type of appeal. This is probably because African Americans were looked down upon by the White America and in order for them to be heard, African Americans needed credibility. No matter how strongly they appealed to logic or emotion, if they didn't have credibility, they would most likely have been ignored by the society.

I Believe...

2008-01-23T23:56:00.000-08:00

I believe in the inherent goodness of all beings. I believe in forgiveness. I believe in good music, but I don't believe in the music industry. I believe in falling asleep with headphones on my head. I believe in Texas Longhorn football and I believe in Colt McCoy. I believe in Murphy's Law. I believe in sheer blind luck. I believe in the sanctity of human life, but I believe in the death penalty. I believe in sitting in the bleacher seats at baseball games and futilely waiting for a home run ball. I believe in Frodo, Sam, and Gandalf. I don't believe in Harry, Ron, and Hermione. I believe in running in heavy rain. I believe in playing hide-and-seek with small kids. I believe in buying CDs and taking five minutes to peel the top spine stickers. I believe in buying five-dollar coke bottles on a hot day at theme parks. I believe that jumping into a swimming pool on a hot summer day is the best feeling in life. I believe in the reunification of the two Koreas. I believe in comfortable silence among people. I believe in the compassionate God who cares about me and everyone else. I believe in the angry God who will send everyone to hell. I believe in myself.

What is a Protest?

2008-01-16T20:45:00.000-08:00

A protest expresses opposition to events, policies, or any other circumstances through words and/or action. A protest happens when a person or a group, dissatisfied with a certain policy or a situation in their world, decides to take action to let their opinions be heard and to bring about change. Demonstration march, destructive riots, petition letters--these are just a few examples of protest.

I don't think there is any specific qualification to be met in order for an act to be a protest. A protest doesn't have to involve a big group of people. It can be someone going on a personal hunger strike; fans of a college football program signing a petition for a coach to be fired; a musician making a song expressing disapproval over something. Anything can be called a protest as long as it calls for a change in a manner that can be noticed by people.

In order to be successful, a protest has to heighten the public's awareness about the issue at hand and rouse others to join its cause. Because the result--whether the desired change occurs or not--will depend on whether the protest has garnered enough attention and support to mount a serious campaign to bring about the wanted change.