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.