Final Blog Post!

After going back through what I originally thought a protest was, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one thing I would change in my original analysis and a couple things I would add. I still agree that a protest can happen anytime someone discontented with the circumstances around him or her takes the initiative to stand up for what they believe in to try to make a difference. But here, I would like to add that it doesn’t have to be something you are unhappy with, it can be something you are proud of, or want to encourage others to believe.

I also still believe that a protest can consist of one person or as many as thousands. My original example of a protest consisting of one person is the monk who lit himself on fire during Vietnam. This is still the first and most effective single person protest that comes to my mind, however, after this semester I have seen that there are others. Now, I think of the punk scene, all this takes is one person dressing differently to make a statement and stand out from the norm.

After looking through all the protests from PETA, to the guerilla girls, to civil rights activists I do want to take back one statement I made. In my original analysis I said “I believe most effective protests have large numbers of supporters,” now I believe that the most effective protests have not a large number of supporters, although that is helpful, but a dedicated and ACTIVE group of supporters. Anyone can agree with a cause, however, if there is no action no changes will be made. Numbers do help in garnering media attention, but that can only go so far.

One other point I would like to add to my original analysis is that almost anything can be made into a protest. The decisions we make everyday say something about what we believe. From African Americans in the civil rights movement deciding enough is enough with discrimination, to a comedic talk show host like Jon Stewart who talks about politics everyday. Even the artwork we see on the streets or in museums and the music we listen to on the radio can be protesting something. Most things have a meaning and are done for a reason, which means that quite often they are “protesting” something

"For What It's Worth"

Buffalo Springfield

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30W3iRL48gQ&feature=related

"There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down"



I chose “For What It’s Worth” by Buffalo Springfield, a protest song written during the Vietnam War. I really like this protest song because of the message it makes. It does not bash anyone or send out any hate messages. All it does is propose some really good questions that I believe we should ask ourselves more often. Like asking us to look at our surroundings and questions the decisions being made, in particular, those by our government. This applies to us today just as it did during Vietnam. Too often people just accept what is going on and trust those with power just because of their status. In particular I really like the lines “Nobody's right if everybody's wrong, Young people speaking their minds, Getting so much resistance from behind, I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound, Everybody look what's going down.” The whole song just really makes a lot of sense, and is powerful to me because it’s a peaceful protest song that really brings up good points.

Protest songs, in general, really are not that effective when it comes to really getting a message across or getting action. This is because they are often catchy and fun to sing, but messages are hard to read or understand. I do, however, feel that they can be effective in drawing up a lot of emotion in people if the message is clear and the music is good. Music can be a powerful tool when it comes to drawing peoples emotions and feelings about certain topics. I believe the song by Buffalo Springs is effective because it raises awareness about what the artist’s point they wanted to make: he felt that people needed to raise more questions about what was going on during the Vietnam War when so many young men were being drafted and sent to fight a war that seem to have no end or a good reason for the US to be there.

With Friends Like These...

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are from extreme sides of the political spectrum and speak up about what they believe. I definitely consider both individuals to be protesters in their own ways.

Ann Coulter is an extreme republican who is a famous writer on political topics. I consider her a protester, because whether or not you agree with what she says or how she says it, she definitely takes a stance on many political issues and voices her opinions loud and clear. She has written books, keeps a blog online, has written various political columns, and seems to never turn down a chance to be on TV or radio so her voice is heard. I believe that Ann Coulter has more so created a character that many people either love or hate and although she does make many points that people could agree with, I believe a lot of what she says is for publicity purposes and ensuring that her name will not fade out of the spot light any time soon. So although she is a protestor, she is at the same time somewhat of an actor almost who is craving media attention (which is not necessarily wrong seeing as she is an author and wants her books to sale).

Michael Moore is also absolutely a protester. Through his many documentaries he has made it clear that he is an extreme democrat, and has voiced his opinions, like Ann on many different topics. His documentaries have depicted many different issues today in a way that he sees fit. I believe both Coulter and Moore have used the mass media and their works to disseminate information into the public that they deem important, therefore they both are active protesters. I believe the American public supports their work because some people believe with what they have to say and others find them entertaining. I believe Moore and Coulter have created these personas of celebrity status that gives them not only the means to communicate with mass amounts of people, but also persuade them, and let them make money while they do so. One thing I do want to make clear however, is that both individuals are most “persuasive” to those who already agree with them; therefore preach to the choir rather then to who they want to convert.

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter’s style of argument is different from that of most conservative Republicans. I do not believe she is very good at debating, at least by scholarly terms, but her tactics and style do benefit her to the point that they have generated a ton of publicity for her and more importantly her books. In the clips we view she often doesn’t answer the question at hand, resorts to personal attacks, takes things out of context, and becomes very defensive when people criticize her work. Because of all of these fallacies she tends to not make her point very clear and also deter the prospect of those who don’t agree with her from ever listening or respecting what she has to say. All of this also leads to her losing some of her ethos because of the irrational statements she makes, like attacking Hillary’s legs, saying that she is the reason that Edwards raised some of the money he did, and other brash statements like these. I definitely believe that she preaches to the choir, and does not and will not convert anyone who doesn’t agree with her. I do not find her very persuasive at all, but I do find her charismatic and interesting to watch. I believe that she has formed a character for the media to follow and talk about, and may not truly always believe what she is saying. There is no doubt in my mind that she know how out there and extreme she is. But you have to remember that she is an author, that she wants to make money, and as the saying goes… “no publicity is bad publicity.” People know who she is, know what she represents, and most importantly know that she has 5 books out there, which puts her name in the media and cash in her pocket. Ann Coulter is a person of celebrity status, and although she may not always make sense and she can be very offensive, people know who she is, some know what she stands for, and she does make other conservative republicans look a little less crazy.

Jesus Camp

Jesus Camp is a film that depicts the lifestyles and opinions of a group of devout Evangelical Christians in Missouri. From what I saw, the film’s main points were that there should not be a separation between religion and state, that Evangelical children should be raised as devout as Islam’s children, and was also simply to show the lifestyles and beliefs of the people depicted in the film. The film portrays these points in many different ways, focusing on the views of a children’s priest along with a few kids and their families.

The way they talk about how Christian-Judeo beliefs are the only religions that are morally right really bothered me because I believe that this teaches their children to be close minded about others beliefs. For me this film did not exactly shed a positive light on the people portrayed, because I believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and that we should work, live and love each other despite the religion we choose to practice, the God we choose to pray to, or even if we choose not to believe in anything at all. It really bothered me when the boy in the film said that he was bothered and disturbed when someone who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ spoke to him and when the Children’s priest said she could go to a playground and convert non-Christian children within minutes.

I was brought up in a very open minded household since my dad is Jewish and my mom is Christian, which is maybe why I take some offense to those who are closed minded when it comes to religion. I am in no way saying that what the people depicted in the film believe and how they practice their beliefs is wrong, I just feel that this film was saying that if you don’t believe in Jesus Christ you are morally wrong and should convert. I think when we teach our children what to believe we should also teach them to be open minded and sensitive to others beliefs too.

Writing Process

To start writing a paper I generally begin by researching the topic that I am going to write about. To research I google the topic or use the library research tools. After this I usually write a quick outline of what I plan on writing without any details just broad topics. After this I generally free write as much as I can to get down as much information as possible. I try to make it the length or close to the length of what I am writing. This makes writing the paper much easier because I do not worry about what my writing sounds like I just get it all down and then reorganize it. This seems to work well for me. After I get done free writing I generally take a break if I have time and new ideas usually come to me. Then I go back to the paper, sit down and re-read what I wrote. Now I go back through and reorganize my thoughts, make grammatical changes and generally add information and re-write a majority of my paper. Once I go through and get my paper to sound like what I want it to I go back through and make grammatical changes. After this I print it out double-spaced and get out my colored pens and make lots of corrections. Printing it out helps because I see more errors and make more corrections. Then I go back through and fix the errors that I have found. After that I usually print it out one more time and let someone else read through it and give me tips on grammar and the way it sounds. If I have time I will go to the writing center if not then I will just fix the things that my friends have found and print it out one last time and turn it in. I generally get stuck and have a hard time writing papers if I do not know much about the topic or am not interested in what I am writing. I also have a hard time writing papers when the topic is really broad and I cannot find a narrow enough topic or viewpoint to write on. I generally write the first draft at home in a relaxed environment but do my second and third drafts at the library or coffee shop. I need it to be quiet after I get done with the first draft or I can’t concentrate. I also get stressed and frustrated if there is a lot of clutter around my writing space.

Protest Through Appearances

The appearances of the Yes Men and the punk movement culture vary greatly. The Yes Men are in a sense “copying” societal norms while the punk movement is straying as far away from them as possible. The images of the two groups do benefit their protests by enhancing their message and making it more effective.

The Yes Men copy the image of corporate America. When in public doing their presentations they are clean cut, wear suits, and are well mannered (to some extent). Besides their phallic suit prank, they display the image that you would expect from a politician or businessman. This image is not only effective, but also necessary to pull of their pranks and protest against the WIO. If they went into meetings dressed any other way their intentions and fraud would immediately be exposed and they would not be able to “represent” the WIO because no one would listen to them. They rely on people believing they are the men whose identities they steal to get their message across.

The punk movement on the other hand uses their image to make a statement against societal norms. With brightly colored hair, torn shirts, metal hanging from head to toe, piercings, army boots and ripped jeans they stand out from your average American. This style, however, benefits their movement. Although each enclave or subculture of punks varies greatly in what they represent and believe, they all have their outlandish styles in common, along with an overall goal of standing out and going against society. It seems like the most widely held belief throughout the culture in the past decades is that being a punk means going against cultural norms. The biggest way punks seem to do that is by wearing outlandish out fits from sex gear and bondage in the 70s to metal, army boots, and ripped clothing today. We identify them often through their clothes, just as they identify with their subcultures and beliefs through what they wear.

Guerrilla Girls

The Guerrilla Girls campaign stands out to me because they are different and break the stereotype of what you would expect from a feminist group. They are less radical and in your face and far more inviting to a fairly broad audience. The fact that they use humor in many of their campaigns definitely ads to their ethos because you can more easily relate to them. Also, the use of humor draws a wider audience because everyone likes a good laugh, and by making people laugh they are more likely to appreciate and listen to the message. On a more serious note, the humor gets more people to listen which in turn spreads their message. Besides humor, the fact that they use statistics also ads to their campaigns. They ability to give percentages of women and men in the art world along with percentages that talk about ads to their logos because they are backed by solid facts that can not be argued. I also like the gorilla suits, not only because they are funny, but it also ads to the anonymity of the groups members. They want to focus on the issues at hand, not on the individual members of the group. It also gives them something to identify with and be more recognizable. I felt that the group did have a few weaknesses. It seemed that when they were talking about events in other countries their campaigns made less sense, like the coffee ad, maybe because they were not educated enough on what was going on. Also I feel like their campaign against abortion wasn’t necessarily effective, because they were calling out the Catholic Church and scrutinizing their methods, which would immediately turn many people off. I do feel that they are an effective group overall with their attempts to spread knowledge on the discriminations going on in Hollywood and the art world.

Critical Mass

Critical mass seems to be more of a movement then a protest to me. Because of the fact that every individual can decide what it means and because there is no real leadership I don’t think it is technically a protest. While for some riders, they just go out to have fun and be social other riders are trying to make a point for change.

I do believe it is a movement in a sense that it does represent many different things, and may not protest against but does garner attention for several causes. I believe it is gaining awareness about bikers and sharing the streets with them. I believe they are promoting a healthier life style. I also believe that they are trying to show people that there are alternatives to driving. Finally, I think they are trying to take a stand against our reliance on gas. The great thing about Critical Mass is that each person can decide what is important to them and their reasons for joining the ride.

Because there is no form of leadership, I believe that it is not a true protest. With weak leadership it can become unorganized and fall apart easily, also they really are not protesting against anything in particular. The benefit to this, on the other hand, is that they really can not be stopped with no true leader. As we have seen in the video even arrests haven’t stopped people from getting on their bikes and enjoying the ride.

To me Critical Mass is a very interesting movement that serves many good purposes. However, whether or not it is a protest seems a little blurry to me and the basis of the movement is also confusing.

Ethos as a Means of Persuasion

The ethos behind Stokely Carmichaels and Fannie Lou Hammer’s speeches along with Freedom Marchers greatly differs from that of Malachai Richter and Cindy Sheehan, affecting the persuasiveness of their protests.

Stokley Carmichaels’ ethos revolved greatly on his previous experiences, eloquent language and wit, along with his educated speech to the Berkeley University Speeches. He strongly believed in protesting unfair treatment of blacks and demonstrated this by giving a speech that was well written, concise and well researched. Fannie Lou Hammer’s main ethos centered on her first hand experiences of discrimination and her simple rhetorical speech. She spoke on a level that was easy for a common person to relate to and described in great detail her horrible experience in jail, all in a strong willed manner. The freedom marches ethos revolved around the fact that they were extremely peaceful and the people who participated were dignified and patient, singing instead of yelling, praying instead of fighting, and sacrificing their lives to stand up for what they believed in. These previous examples were credible because of their very strong and positive ethos, which is very different, then the protest examples that were shown today.

Malachai Richter’s ethos was not as credible because of his past depression and lack of personal ties to the war. I believe that he stood up for a cause he believed in, but also lost credibility in the way he chose to protest. Instead of influencing people through speeches, marches, rallies etc., he sacrificed his life and wrote an obituary in his blog explaining his reasoning for his self-immolation. To me it is a horrible act to take your own life, so his ethos is not very strong in my mind. I don’t believe Cindy Sheehan had a strong ethos either. I can’t possibly even fathom what the pain of loosing a loved one or a child could inflict on a person, and I deeply sympathize with her situation. However, I do believe her way of protesting lacked a lot of ethos. After watching her speech I was greatly turned off by her form of protest, despite the fact that I don’t necessarily agree with the fact that we are still in Iraq. By beginning her speech completely off topic, talking about the materialism of our world today and criticizing the people who couldn’t make it to the rally, it was hard for me to keep an open mind to what she had to say. Also, she wasn’t a good public speaker and did not seem well educated on the war or what was exactly going on. To me, she was a mother crushed by the death of her son, seeking governmental action in the wrong ways. I am not completely against her protest, but I just cannot appreciate her style of speaking or rallying.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

The use of ethos, pathos and logos was evident in both Fannie Lou Hamer’s and Stokely Carmichael’s speeches. In various ways each aspect of rhetoric enhanced the speakers speeches and differentiated speeches that were based on the same ideas of civil rights. The use of ethos, pathos, and logos made the two speeches not only unique but very effective for their very different audiences.

Fannie Lou Hammer’s speech shared her experiences and raised awareness about civil rights, in order to sit on the Credentials Committee in the Democratic National Convention and put the incumbent out of office. Many aspects of Hammer’s speech enhanced her ethos, giving credibility to her speech. One aspect that was effective in her speech was the use of her first person experiences, which vividly portrayed her harsh and unfair treatment in jail after being arrested. These first person experiences gave her credibility, by making people see that she knows what she is talking about and that she has experienced first hand what so many African Americans of the time were suffering through on a daily basis. The use of quotes and exact dates also enhanced her ethos, pathos, and logos alike. These enhanced her logos, because by giving exact facts about the events she experienced she showed that it really happened, for example, she explained that on “August 31st” and had “traveled twenty-six miles” to be arrested by Indianola Highway Patrolman. The fact that she tells us exactly who arrested her, when and why gives “facts” to the case enhancing her logos. Also, the vivid description she gives of her experience in jail enhances her pathos because her listeners could not help but feel sympathetic towards the beatings and rapeings she experienced. Her ethos was also enhanced by this because having facts, quotes, and events makes the things that happened more realistic and likely to be true adding to her credibility. Hammer’s style of speaking enhances her ethos because she speaks in a very common simple matter that is easy to understand by the Committee she is trying to persuade.

Stokely Carmichael was speaking to a small, liberal, predominantly white academic audience at Berkeley, California. Carmichael, like Hammer, has a strong ethos for different reasons. Speaking to an academic community, Carmichael formed a strong ethos by giving his background as an experienced leader; working for Martin Luther King Jr. and becoming a leader in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. To the academic community this was recognizable experience in leading for promoting activism through the SNCC and the “black panthers.” He also builds his ethos by making educated jokes to ease the tension throughout his intense speech. He is forwardly criticizing whites, and the treatment of blacks, so by throwing in jokes he becomes someone who is easier to relate to. To enhance his logos, Carmichael relates to various experts by name-dropping many existential philosophers. This not only showed that he was educated, but also shows that he has done his research on the topic. The fact that he shows that he is educated on the topic also enhances his ethos, along with the fact that he uses complex sentences and a vast vocabulary. Finally, he explains that African Americans are doing the jobs that no one else would do, and that the myths of the “American Dream” was full of lies and that it was only conceivable by wealthy white males. This effectively provides pathos to his speech to further convince his audience to change the way they act and make it easier for African Americans to have the same rights as white males do.

I believe...

I believe in love and hate and that a life of indifference has no passion. I believe in hard work but not to a point where you miss out on really living. I believe in being educated but believe that our education system has many faults. I believe that everyone should learn a second language and travel the world. I believe in warm sunny days. I believe that being on the lake or in the ocean is relaxing, peaceful and rejuvenating. I love the water and believe that wakeboarding and snowboarding are the greatest sports on earth. I believe everyone should find a hobby that they love. I believe in being active and trying to live a healthy life style. I believe we should support our troops but don’t know if I still believe in the war. I believe that music and friends are good for the soul. I believe that falling in love is one of the best things anyone can experience. I believe materialism is way to often worshiped but can’t say I am completely innocent of the crime. I believe in God and that when it comes to religious views no one has the right to be judgmental of other beliefs. I believe rainy days are soothing and cleansing. I believe in forgiving and forgetting. I believe drama is overrated. I think everyone should find something they are passionate about and pursue it. I believe painting and singing are some of the most therapeutic things you can do. I believe that love makes the world go around and that mankind is instinctively good.

What is a Protest?

According to the dictionary a protest is “an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid.” Acknowledging this definition, a protest can happen anytime someone discontented with the circumstances around him or her takes the initiative to stand up for what they believe in, to try to make a difference. A protest can start with one person or can consist of thousands, generally the effectiveness comes with numbers but one person can make a difference. For example, the monk that lit himself on fire during the Vietnam War sacrificed his own life to gain attention to his protest. With the help of the mass media his actions were seen worldwide. Most people could not acquire the amount of attention that he did, but it is possible. However, I believe most effective protests have large numbers of supporters. A protest is only as effective as the attention it gains. Numbers seem to be more effective because they garner more attention and can physically have more power. For example, the writers strike in Hollywood would not be effective if just a couple of writers joined, but with mass numbers, they have put many shows at a standstill, caused many people to loose there jobs, caused networks to loose dedicated watchers, and have even postponed major awards shows. Numbers give a protest the means to gain public attention, which leads to attaining more power, which in turn helps generate results. Attention garnered and results are what make a protest successful.