What is a protest?...The Sequel

In my first blog of the semester, I came in with a definition of protest that seemed pretty simple. Looking back on it now, I can tell how much I didn't know then compared to what I know now. The basic idea of what a protest meant to me then is still pretty much the same now: a person who protests has to have a belief that goes against whatever they want to protest. They take action that will hopefully lead to change. Whatever that action is, it varies among different people.
I still believe this to be true, but with all of the things we've talked about and looked at in class, there is much more that I would add to the idea of "protest". Before I took the course, whenever I thought of "protest" I thought of picketing, boycotting, slogans, and speeches. The word protest made me see anger, resistance and people chanting and marching. Those were the thoughts that ran through my head. It was all I had seen on t.v. shows and in movies. When people protest, they do all of these "civil rights era" type things. However, over the course of the semester, it was cool to see so many different examples of protests that never crossed my mind before. It broadened my view of what constitutes as a protest.
Examples like art, movies, and music can all be used as forms of protest. My original idea was correct, but I just did not apply it to all of these different outlets. You can express a belief and challenge something in a song. You can paint a picture on a wall and make a statement that speaks louder than words. Shephard Fairey's work dealing with war really proved this to me. The movie about the Yes Men came off as a protest to me, but in such a unique way. It introduced me to satirical and documentary-based forms of protest. All of these various forms are things that I see everyday and, until now, it never clicked how much entertainment and art can create serious action.
Another thing I would add to my original blog would be the importance of who the protester is. Credibility is crucial and influence works best when that person is well-respected or highly regarded by people. It's not always the size of your protest, but rather, the quality of the individuals involved. 100 people could do a lousy protest boycotting the use of computers in universities, while a single music artist can release an anti-war song that impacts millions.
Nonetheless, I know that I will look at things differently now...and I guess I can blame rhetoric for that.

Music to my ears

The protest song that I decided to choose was "Mosh" by Eminem. I always thought it was pretty interesting because not too many rappers come out with songs that have such a strong message regarding the war, voting, and the presidency. It was released in 2004 right before the presidential election between John Kerry and George Bush. The song, and its accompanying video are extremely anti-Bush, anti-war, and pro-voting. The video has probably become more popular than the song itself, and its one of the main reasons I chose it. The animations are unique and, among the many depictions, shows Eminem gathering together several young people in order to go and vote (for Kerry). The lyrics of the song are pretty clear....Eminem hates Bush. He calls him a monster, claims he started the war selfishly for oil, and suggests that Bush suit up and go fight himself. Eminem stated that his main goal was to inspire young people to go out and vote because they could really be a force if united together. I don't particularly like profanity in songs, but it was surprising that there was hardly any in this one, considering Eminem is known for his language. He is still able to convey emotion and get his message through.
Overall, I feel that protest songs can be great because they make a particular statement while still providing music to enjoy. Effectiveness really depends on what the issue is and how important that issue is to people. If it is about a topic most people consider unimportant, there won't be much progress with it. Popularity rules the music industry, so relevancy is important. Songs regarding the upcoming election, or the current Iraq War would be considered relevant today. Also, the artists themselves might be a big factor in effectiveness. If they have a bad reputation with people or are relatively unknown, the song might not make much noise, so to speak.

Moore or less Coulter

Both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter have unique ways of getting their message across to the public. Their views and opinions may not always be agreed with but most people have a good idea of where they stand. Ann Coulter is very outspoken and uses television interviews and her books as a way to express herself. Her methods are controversial, as mentioned in the previous blog, but no one can deny her effect on the people. As far as being a protester, I would say that she is. She always speaks about the problems of the liberals and the 'liberal way' of thinking. Her style of arguing involves attacking the so called liberal party and then presenting her own ideas as the right way. This strategy makes it clear what she is protesting and what biases she has in terms of politics.
In a similar fashion, Michael Moore has a way of painting bad pictures of whatever/whoever he may be speaking out against. Coulter does this with her sharp words, while Moore uses film. The biggest example to me is George Bush. Fahrenheit 9/11 demonstrated how Moore feels about Bush, from the very beginning of the movie to the very end. He even sets the tone for the film by opening with the presidential election from 2000, claiming Bush's entire presidency was tainted from the start. This is just one of the many ways Moore tries to instill into our minds how 'horrible' the Bush administration is. He is crafty when putting certain scenes together, whether they were taken out of context or not. It doesn't matter to him because the ultimate goal is to convince us of what he's trying to convey.
I believe the popularity of these two figures comes from the fact that they stir up controversy. The things they say or do in interviews, films, and books are always thought provoking. Whether you support them or not, they spark something in the mind that causes interest. It's like a car wreck on the side of the road. It may make you sad, it may make you excited, or may make you frustrated. Either way, it makes you feel something and it keeps your interest enough to keep looking. Michael Moore's films present a lot of well researched information in a creative style. It makes me wonder what he is going to uncover next. Ann Coulter's ways are hated by many, yet t.v. stations continue to use her and the public continues to watch. I saw so many negative comments on her youtube videos and it made me think two things: 1.) A lot of people don't like her and 2.) Those same people are still viewing.

Coulter Coulter

While I was watching the Ann Coulter video clips, I found myself getting a little annoyed by her. My first impression of her when she began speaking was arrogance and disrespect. I disagree with some of her opinions that were brought up in the interviews, but my main issue is how she argued her opinions. One of the main things I noticed was how seemed to avoid certain questions which really hurts her credibility to me. I wasn't persuaded at all (if that is what she was trying to do). I've always thought that when a person avoids a question or immediately changes topics in discussions like those, it just shows how full of bologna that person is. If you are not lying, or have nothing to hide, why not give a straightforward answer? Another thing that bothered me was how she would cut off people when they were trying to make a point. She has so much to say, but can't seem to listen to or respect other people's opinions. In the MSNBC phone interview, she just goes off on Joe Scarborough without letting him get a word in.
In the conversation with Elizabeth Edwards, she justifies her rudeness and personal attacks on people (like Hillary) by continually bringing up something about bankrupting doctors and juries. What does that have to do with how you treat people? Her attempts at being funny in her interviews are childish and far from clever. One example is in the debate with Al Franken when she made a joke about how you could use paint chips for the skin color of Muslims. Maybe I misunderstood what she was saying, but something about that just didn't seem right to me.
Overall, her annoyingly sarcastic tone, poorly constructed arguments, and attention hogging really turn me off as a spectator. I do respect her political views, but there are better ways to go about presenting them. If selling her books is all she cares about then, according to her claims, she has succeeded.

Jesus Camp, Yes we can

When dealing with video protests, its always interesting to see how effective they are or what strategies it seems they go for. In class, the Will.I.am-Obama video stuck out to me because you usually don't see music videos like that during presidential campaigns. It wasn't a parody, and it wasn't taking shots. The diversity of the celebrities was also really appealing because you understand how different people, that you wouldn't normally see together, unite for a single cause. The video seemed to have a goal of gaining support for Obama and highlighting Obama's own personal ideas. The main idea was of course, 'yes we can'.
In contrast to the Obama video, I was less enthusiastic about the Jesus Camp film. For starters, I had a little trouble determining what the video was trying to do. Did the makers want Jesus Camp to be viewed negatively or positively? There were times when it seemed they were intentionally depicted as bad, and then at other times it seemed the depiction was aimed to gain support. Nonetheless, I can understand why people would be against the individuals portrayed in the film. They make some bold claims and present some pretty extreme ways of thinking. For me, I don't agree with alot of what they teach and practice, but I don't have anything negative to say about the people themselves. They believe what they believe, and many were taught the same thing their whole lives. It's really weird for me to see the smallest of children being conditioned to these beliefs at such an early age. Kids are very impressionable and will believe what their parents or other adults tell them. Many of them were crying, speaking in tongues, etc. Its just hard for me to believe that all of them fully understood what was going on. In fact, I could tell by some of the blank stares and wandering eyes during various 'sermons' and 'religious occurrences'. They should be given the chance to develop more and grow. Overall, I'm looking forward to seeing how the film ends.
(shout out to Churches of Christ everywhere) ; )

How do I write?

The writing process for me starts with knowing exactly what it is I am going to write about. I plan a little in my head on how it will be structured, such as what my main points will be and maybe what order I should put them in. I find that I don't use the outline or brainstorm methods, but rather, I just write. Brainstorming and outlining has helped me in the past and I think it is something I should do more, even when I think I have everything figured out in my head. Outlines give me a better guide as to what I need to focus on, and when I need to focus on it. Sometimes I find myself going off on tangents and have to re-focus to stay on the main idea.
With that said, I think the reason I don't use outlining as much is because I feel more comfortable free writing. New ideas pop into my head all of the time when I write and it allows me to just flow with it instead of constantly checking if I have satisfied the contents of my outline. This helps me and hurts me in some ways. Sometimes when I write and write and its all flowing, I may lose my sense of structure. Structure is important with college papers (as I have learned). Nonetheless, this process helps me in the sense that I can get all of my ideas out more easily and my voice can come across more in the paper.
The hardest parts of writing for me would be writing about a topic that I don't like. Ever since grade school, I hated when the teacher gave topics that were uninteresting or even worse, that I knew nothing about. Free write will always be my personal favorite because I can choose something that I feel good about writing.
As far as the environment, the best conditions for me depend on what kind of writing I am doing. If it is a 7 page research paper that counts a lot towards my grade, I will definitely be more stressed and require few distractions. The harder the paper or the more uninteresting it is, the more mind wandering I do. I usually take small breaks in between by watching a little t.v. or surfing the net. Music while I write can be helpful but it has to soft. I sometimes find myself concentrating more on the songs than writing.

Yes, Punk

Looking at both the Yes Men and Punk culture was interesting. I felt that the Yes Men movie was entertaining as well as informative. I never really knew anything about the WTO, so this was my first impression of them. The way these men went about their cause was creative. Humor is always a good tool to use when getting a point across, something I also admired about the Guerilla Girls. The satirical methods of the Yes Men captured my attention and lured me in to what their ultimate goal was, which was to make the people aware of the absurdities and faults of the WTO. Appearance, as far as fashion, was not as big of an issue for them as it was for the Punk article. The only real 'appearance' related idea was the gold suit that Andy (or Mike) wore in the first conference. That was meant to be a joke and to expose the ridiculousness of the WTO's ideas. The Punks used appearance as a part of their life and it was the main angle of their protest, besides the music itself. The Yes Men seemed to be less concerned with fashion.
Despite some successes, I still feel the Yes Men could have given more facts and actual evidence to go with their satire. The last 'bit' they did in the movie was more serious and definitely more factual then their previous escapades. This could hurt their ethos for people who are very fact-oriented and more serious. Overall though, I enjoyed their tactics.
The Punk culture on the other hand was also pretty cool to me because I know very little about the rock genre in general, so that was some nice history. I feel that it was admirable how the Punk followers started out. They went against the ideas of what society deems normal and popular. To be yourself and stand up when others are following the crowd is a cool thing. I am however a little questionable about the intentions of people who dress like that and falsely claim their punk lifestyle. There are always posers and fakes in every group, so its not surprising to me. The claims and ideas have to match the lifestyle in order to be respected and taken seriously. People should dress how they want, whatever style fits them. The only thing is you shouldn't call yourself something that you're not.

Don't eat the gorillas!

Looking back at the two protest examples of PETA and the Guerilla Girls, I can definitely say I had a more positive feeling about one more than the other. For me, the Gorilla Girls definitely has an advantage as far as strategy and overall appeal to the people.First off, my reaction to reading about PETA was mixed. I had a good idea of where they were coming from as far as the cruelty done to animals. No animal, I feel, should be tortured and killed in the manner that is practiced in many factories around the world. Not to mention the horrible conditions of those places. There are just better ways to go about getting your meat. I however disagree with their bold beliefs that a person who eats meat or wears material made from animals is careless and cruel. Who are you to judge people (that you don't even know) when everyone has different views and opinions about different issues? I eat meat but I have a respect for animals. I wouldn't harm or torture them, but I see nothing wrong in eating meat that has been packaged, processed and cooked for me. That's just life. There is a food chain, and I guess humans are at the top of it.
Either way, PETA and their supporters should have the respect to respect other people. It's good that you believe what you believe, but do not attack. One celebrity quote I read said 'anyone who wears fur is an a-hole'. That's pretty extreme.
In contrast to this, we have the Guerilla Girls. I felt this group was definitely less hostile and preachy. They do have their strong beliefs, but they present them in a way that is not as demanding. They are not trying to tell you what to do. I liked how this group presented facts and figures. Its effective because they are indisputable. Looking at the billboards and posters, I was interested in what they had to say. There was a nice humor present in alot of them which kept my attention and eased my initial skepticism. The 'anatomically correct' oscar idea was great to me. They were basically just giving you the truth, but in a comical way. Guerilla Girls understand the idea of logic and reasoning more than PETA. They don't make claims about the Queen eating her subjects, or dogs not being interested in voting. Also, I liked how this group wasn't just about feminism, but also race. It really reaches a broader audience this way.

Are we traffic?

The critical mass is a very interesting topic to me because it was something I knew nothing about before. Seeing the We Are Traffic' video was cool because it was amazing to see so many people coming together doing the exact same thing...riding bikes. It was like a parade, but it wasn't a parade. It was this giant movement of free flowing individuals, some of whom wanted to make a statement, while others just wanted to ride their bikes. Looking at something like this made it kind of hard for me to determine if it was a protest or not, but then I realized (after someone mentioned in class) that they said in the video, it was just a celebration and they did not want for the members to come in with angry protest intentions. I have some mixed feelings on the whole event. I like the fact that so many people are doing this and seem so united. It is fun to just look at. Most of them seemed to be just having a good time doing what they love to do. The signs on the bikes are also pretty funny as well. However, I do feel there was a point in the video where they just seemed inconsiderate of the people with cars, knowing they were blocking traffic. I can see where some frustrated drivers are coming from when they get upset. People might be in a hurry to get home, make an appointment, attend to an emergency, etc. That is hard to do with a hundred bikers slowing you down.
At the same time, you can look at the bright side of the whole thing and appreciate the mass for what it is. I really see it as a movement in which people join and ride for purposes specific to them. There is no one reason to ride for the critical mass. If a person wants to do it strictly for enjoyment or strictly for raising awareness, it doesn't truly matter. Also, the lack of established leadership allows for more freedom, such as thoughts and ideas about what a rider wants to do. For me personally, if I was a bystander watching this movement, I would probably be smiling because I enjoy watching events where large groups of people are moving together towards a common goal, ideally or physically (parades, races, flash mobs). I guess, as long as the riders are being safe and respectful, just keep on moving.

Ethos, and its Appeal

Looking specifically at the two recent protests we examined, I would say that both had their positives and negatives as far as ethos is concerned. Starting with Malachai Richter, his protest was not as successful due to some damage to his credibility. Here is a guy who was known by those around him as a loner and a guy who seemed to not have a desire to form close relationships with people. Though his beliefs were strong, his final act of suicide is questionable. He was not a well known public figure, particularly outside of the Chicago music scene, and it was proven when the news media did not even cover his story until a week after. Many people who hear of his suicide might pass him off as crazy or someone who was just seeking attention. His own son even claimed he was an alcoholic and battled depression. Not to say that Richter had no passion or cause, but there could have been better decisions made.
In contrast to Richter, we have Cindy Sheehan. A woman whose ethos is a little stronger, and whose voice is a little louder. This does not excuse her from her mistakes however. The thing that helps her case the most is her first-hand experience with losing a son to war. The emotional connection with her and her supporters is present and allows for her to have a good level of credibility. Despite this, she does go overboard in certain instances regarding her protest. She comes off as overbearing and overcritical at times, especially when it comes to George Bush. She once claimed that he was an even bigger terrorist than Bin Laden, which is pretty extreme considering what the latter did to this country. It is one thing to feel passionate and emotional about a cause, but it is another to attack without good logic. This ties in with 'emotion without logic'. Her logos was not as strong as her pathos, which in turn may have hurt her ethos. Nonetheless, she garnered much attention and many supporters, through her courage, powerful voice, and ability not to back down.
Both parties, Richter and Sheehan, were not without faults, but each could be looked on as admirable for their strong beliefs and die hard support for a cause.
I feel as though in order to have the best ethos, one must have a good reputation with the people. This includes someone who is looked upon by others as a respectable, trustworthy person. Also, it is important for the individual to have experience with the subject of their protest. For instance, Fannie Hamer's first-hand experience with prejudice and abuse, or Stokely Carmichael working with Dr. King. This lends the emotional connection and establishes stronger credibility.

Logos, Ethos, Pathos

Going back to the two speeches, I believe each one had some form of all three different appeals. First off, there was the speech given by Fannie Lou Hamer. Her approach was very raw and to the point. She connects with the audience mainly through pathos and ethos. Her details and exact accounts allow her to have great credibility because she was there throughout the experience first-hand. Who better to trust than someone who actually went through it? For example, she makes a claim, "I was in jail when Medgar Evers was murdered". This historical reference adds more verification to the speech. Not to mention the fact that she gave word for word quotes when telling her story, which just further solidifies this credibility. As far as pathos goes, Hamer was able to use her vivid accounts to appeal to emotion, allowing for a sympathetic connection. "I laid on my face and the first Negro began to beat." You can just picture these awful images in your mind and better understand what she went through. The way she puts herself out there creates more trust between speaker and listener. She isn't afraid to open up.
As far as Stokely Carmichael goes, he definitely took a more radical approach, but I felt his speech used a great blend of pathos and logos. He had a good emotional appeal with his sense of humor and his bold claims. The connection to the younger audience was made possible through this. You wouldn't be too serious and methodical when dealing with college students, and Carmichael understood this. Nonetheless, that exciting emotional content was not without some serious logic, which is where he nicely blended in the logos aspect. He makes statements about how a person's freedom can't be given because freedom is something you are born with. This makes great sense because the idea of a person having the ability to 'bestow' freedom on another is ridiculous and goes against the ideas of what this country is supposed to stand on.
It is hard for me to say which of these appeals is most dominant because they all bring something different to the table. I would probably say pathos has a more lingering effect because of that emotional connection. What we feel and what touches our heart goes deeper than 'facts and figures' or who has a better reputation. Hamer is the best example of this because of the way she persuaded her audience through emotion, as did Carmichael. To me, it just makes the speaker/author seem more human, and less robotic when they have this particular appeal.

Believe me when I say....

I believe in God and that he sent his Son to die for me. I believe life is a battle, but we don't have to fight each other. I believe in my family and that they will always have my back. I believe little brothers have it harder, but benefit from a paved road. I believe the internet will overtake the television. I believe the days of the family sitcom should return, but reality t.v. still keeps me glued. I believe people should season their words with salt because you never know when you have to eat them. I believe the word love is often misused or not used enough. I believe the Oscars are a joke and Heath Ledger will be a great Joker. I believe in originality. If you can't be you, who else will? I believe popcorn is best with extra butter and a good movie.
I believe its been hard to be a Dallas sports fan lately, but a championship is soon to come. I believe soccer is truly underrated over here. I believe in staying humble because anything gained can be lost. I believe the biggest room in the house is the room for improvement. I believe Obama is going to make history and the current war should be history. I believe the 90's was the greatest decade and good cartoons should make a comeback. I believe "good" hip-hop has become a minority and useless celebs the majority. I believe time on Earth is short, so why waste it being sad? I believe the children are the future and role models do make a difference. I believe the golden rule is the most broken rule. I believe I will always be afraid of heights, but will never stop reaching for the top.

What is a protest?

The idea of protest has been around for centuries, probably since the beginning of humans first coming into contact with each other. With this being an imperfect world, full of people with differing views and opinions, protest is inevitable in society. To protest something means that you have a belief that goes against whatever that 'something' is, and you take action through your belief. This action can be small, such as verbally protesting, or, it can become something large, such as organizing a rally full of sign-carrying, chant-crying supporters. Whatever your form of action, the idea of it all is that you want your point to come across, which hopefully will lead to some change of whatever is being protested.
To qualify something as a protest can be subjective, but I believe, in general, that a protest involves at least one person taking a form of action to show their beliefs against something that they feel is wrong or needs to be changed. In history, we have seen different forms of action taken by people in protest. One example is a recent one, in which the television business is experiencing a writer's strike. Examples of the writers' protest could be seen with people gathering outside studios with posters. These writers felt strongly about how they felt mistreated and did not hesitate to show it. Even further back in history was Rosa Parks and the famous bus incident in which she refused to give up her seat. I believe her action of not getting up was a form protest, though quiet and more subtle, led to greater things. Leaders such as MLK took charge, boycotts began taking place, and everyday people began to feel what Rosa felt and took action. This is another aspect to protest: The domino effect. Though it only takes one person to protest something, it takes even more for that cause to be successful. More people will join in and emphasize the saying, 'there is strength in numbers'. People are influenced by other people everyday in the most simple of ways, and protest is no different.
All in all, if a person wants to protest something, it should be because of what they truly believe is right and wrong. Whatever your form of action is, be safe, be respectful, but be strong.