Final Blog

In my first blog post I said; “We as people need change and protests are one of many ways in which to spur on such change.” I still believe with this statement, for every protest we have talked about in class has tried to initiate some sort of change. PETA for example tried to change people’s views about animal rights, Fahrenheit 9/11 tried to change people’s views about George Bush and the Iraq War, and so on.

In my blog I also said that “I believe that no matter how big or small a protest may be, what really matters is the amount of change that it perpetuates.” This is another statement that I found this class to reaffirm. For example, Critical Mass and The Yes Men are two forms of protests that are completely different but still effective. Critical Mass consists of thousands and thousands of people from all over the world who have so many different views. Many of them want more people to use bikes and stop driving cars, many are protesting for more bike lanes, and many are just having fun. No matter what their motives, it is still considered a protest. The Yes Men, on the other hand, consists of only two people. They both believe that the World Trade Organization is terrible and their protests focus on uncovering the organizations’ dirty truths. Each of these protests are completely different but they are effective in their own way. That’s why I think it is so hard to define a protest- because they come in so many shapes and sizes.

Protest Song

For my protest song, I chose “Be the Change that You Want to See” by Kat Edmonson, who is a local Austin artist. I had never heard of her before, but this song came on the radio the other day and I really liked it. I looked up her music video on myspace and it is also really interesting The title of this song alone is similar to the quote by Mahatma Gandhi that says “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” First of all, Gandhi definitely classifies as a protester for peace and change, and that quote is even on the front page of the website for our class!

In her song, Kat is protesting for people to take a stand and do something about all the troubles we see. It’s so easy to notice a problem (which a lot of people do) but more people need to start doing something about all the problems. Her music video consists of a bunch of images of people who are all different ages, genders and races each holding up a cardboard sign with something they believe written on it. Some of the quotes say “stand for change,” “empower ordinary people to do extraordinary things,” “paint the white house green,” “talk to our enemies,” “keep an open mind,” and so on. There are over thirty different quotes on cardboard each with something that we should strive for to make our world a better place. Kat’s song is a great example of a protest song because it tells you over and over again what she is protesting; which is to quite standing around and watch as bad things happen, but to take action and get involved and do something to help our society.

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore

I consider Moore to be more of a protester than Coulter. He focuses on certain issues, like Columbine, 9/11 and so on and makes a statement about them, protesting his ideas. Coulter’s arguments, on the other hand, are solely based on personal attacks against the Democratic Party. In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore edits his documentary in a way that makes Bush seem like a complete idiot and how the war with Iraq never should have happened. In doing so, he is protesting against the presidency and the war. His arguments are persuasive because he has so much physical evidence- from documents to film clips to interviews- regarding the topic.

I think the reason for their popularity and American support is based primarily on the fact that they are so extreme and one of a kind. There are people who make political documentaries like Moore, or extreme republican’s like, Coulter- but it’s their style and just something interesting about them that makes them so intriguing. For example, I don’t believe anything Coulter says, but I liked listening to her because I was interested in seeing what ridiculous thing she would say next and how defensive she would be in saying it. Moore is also popular because he is so extreme and even if you don’t believe in what he says, he does a very good job at making some interesting arguments. They both have completely different tactics, but since they are unlike so many other political figures, it’s hard not to find them fascinating!

Ann Coulter

I honestly don’t know how Ann Coulter has made such a big impact on the media. I think her arguments are weak, and I don’t understand how anyone can support someone who is so defensive and mean. Everything anyone says she just laughs off, pretending like it doesn’t get to her. In doing so, she maintains her insensitive and ruthless image. If I was a republican I would be embarrassed to have someone like her on my side!

First of all, I think she is terrible at debating. All she does is directly attack others; like John Edwards, Hilary Clinton’s legs, and the widow’s from 9/ll. Second, she is really rude. She doesn’t let anyone get a word in edgewise and then she just laughs at them. Then, when she says things like how the widows from 9/ll were happy about their husbands death, its ridiculous! Who could believe such a statement? Obviously these women were extremely grief-stricken, and by saying these things she comes off as completely heartless. Her arguments are also very fallacious. For example, Al Franken directly disputed one of the statements in her book by proving that one of her quotes was taken completely out of context. Not only is Ann a heartless person, but this proves how her arguments aren’t even valid. What I want to know is why we give someone like Ann Coulter so much undeserved media attention?

Jesus Camp

If anyone glanced over in my direction during any point in the movie, they most likely would have seen my jaw completely dropped. I found that documentary to be extremely fascinating yet unsettling. I have been raised without major emphasis on religion; my mom tried to teach my sister and me some things about Christianity and God, but we never went to church or really practiced it. My main religious influence has been Buddhism, since both my parents have found solace in that practice. I have personally found Buddhism to be a way of life that I feel the most connected with. Therefore, I don’t really understand much about Christianity, so seeing these children who are completely consumed by it is absolutely mind-boggling to me. It reminded me of a scary movie in which the minister Becky was brainwashing these children who would believe anything she said, and using them to start an “army” against non-Christians and the government. As a non-Christian I find this a little freaky.

I guess to me Becky just seemed like a huge hypocrite. She kept talking about fasting and focusing all one’s attention on God, yet she obviously hasn’t fasted in a while and she didn’t look too concerned with God while she was using all that hairspray and make-up. It really troubled me to hear that boy Levi say that his soul felt “yucky” whenever he was around a non-Christian. I don’t understand how they he can claim to be accepting of people, when all others who aren’t exactly like him are considered “yucky?” I don’t think it’s fair for these kids to be put under such pressure at such a young age. Like for example that boy who felt so guilty for having a hard time believing in God that he stood in front of the whole crowd crying and repenting his sins. I personally don’t think a child should have to deal with stress like that! These kids aren’t even allowed to act like kids (tell ghost stories… read Harry Potter- come on, really!?). It seems to me like these kids are going to have a lot to deal with when are older and have to face the real world. I’m really sorry if my analysis of this movie has offended anyone who is Christian. I am very accepting of all religions (especially since I believe in different parts of many); I just found this documentary to be very shocking.

My Writing Process

For me, the hardest part of writing a paper is starting it. I sat for such a long time on this paper thinking over and over again about which prompt I should do, which protest I should write about, and what I should say about the protest. Once I finally decide what to write about, the next hardest part is to write a thesis. I like my papers to be really organized, and having a good thesis is the best way to make it so. My high school English teacher used to say we needed three “thesis pieces” and that phrase has stuck with me ever since. I try to make a thesis that has three “pieces” so I know exactly what I need to talk about in the body of my paper. Once I get my thesis down, I usually write a really brief outline. I break down each part of the thesis into its own paragraph and then write a few points under each topic. This really helps the organization of my paper, and gets my ideas flowing. After writing a short outline, I just start typing and let my ideas pour out. When I am done, I usually re-read my paper over and over again out loud to see if I notice any mistakes.

The Yes Men

I thought the Yes Men used great tactics in presenting their protests against the World Trade Organization. They were hilarious, which definitely gave them a certain amount of ethos, but they were also very knowledgeable about the WTO. However, they didn’t always display this knowledge in their presentations, and relied way more on shock value and ridiculousness. For some groups this tactic was very ineffective. It was ineffective for the older men and women that witnessed the gold suit, for they just went along with it and clapped. I found this really discouraging for society because out of all the people that were listening to their presentation, not one seemed to notice it’s ridiculousness (even the electronic chip in the worker’s shoulder). It was as if these people have been brainwashed by the WTO to believe everything the organization said. Even though Mike and Andy may have discredited their ethos by lying, the point that they get across (which is that the WTO has waaaay to much power over us) makes all the lying worth it. I was really happy to see the presentation to the college students, not only because it was hilarious, because it proved that not everyone has been brainwashed by the WTO. It proved that the human population has not completely lost against the WTO, and that there are still people willing to take a stand against something that they don’t believe in, even if they are the only ones. I found the Yes Men to be very inspiring for they showed how you can care enough about an issue to spend your life trying to expose it, even with the possibility of getting in trouble. I feel like these are the kind of people our world needs more of and it will be a terrible time when no one else is willing to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of our society.

PETA and The Guerrilla Girls

I think PETA is awesome. I am all for animal rights, and any organization that gets people thinking about animals in that sort of way definitely has my support. PETA uses a very effective strategy to make their arguments by taking the readers question and completely turning it around and putting it under a different light. For example when the questioner asks why it’s unethical to have dominion over animals if the bible says so, PETA responds by saying the humorous line about how even though the Queen has dominion over her subjects, that doesn’t give her the right to eat them or wear them. PETA also uses celebrities as a way to capture their audience. I kind of think this is an easy/obvious approach, but hey, if it gets people changing their views about animal rights then why not?

I also thought the Guerilla Girls campaign was great. I love their use of humor, and find it to be a very effective tactic. I like their protest so much because they aren’t shoving information down your throat or making you feel bad about yourself, but instead they are making clever jokes about the realities of society while also providing shocking statistics. Their strategy is effective because they grab your attention with the ridiculousness of their pictures, but then prove their point through the use of logos.

Critical Mass

Critical Mass is an organization formed by hundreds and thousands of people all across the world who want to make a difference. They believe in challenging societal norms and benefiting the earth while doing so. In the documentary, “We Are Traffic” many of the Critical Mass members criticize our society as being too materialistic. We are constantly worrying about what we need to buy or have in order to be accepted and we are forgetting about the things in life that really matter, like a community. In the documentary someone says that we don’t have a community anymore, “just a place to drive in.” The members of Critical Mass are peacefully protesting against what our society has become and encouraging people too get off their “assphalt” and do something better for the environment, like riding a bike.

I think this group’s tactics perfectly match their purpose. They are benefiting the environment by riding their bikes, and proving to everyone else in the cars that riding a bike isn’t only helpful but its fun! I think this is a wonderful protest and if I ever had the opportunity I would love to join. Anything that gets people together and fights for a common good should never be discouraged.

Appeals to Ethos

The Freedom Marches we viewed this week appealed largely to ethos by demonstrating themselves as good, peaceful people. In each march they protested in a nonviolent manner putting themselves under a good light, while all the white people were viewed as extremely violent and irrational. They were very patient and submissive, even asking the police if they could pray, which gave them even more credit for not wanting to cause any harm. These marches gave African-Americans a great deal of ethos, for it showed that they are truly good people who do not deserve any of the hardships they have had to overcome. Even after being beaten, criticized and sent to jail, they continued to fight for what they deserved, proving their perseverance (which is another very credible trait).

Cindy Sheehan also created a strong ethos through her extensive knowledge of the Iraq War, and her perseverance in protesting against it. She set up camp outside President Bush’s Ranch in Texas for weeks protesting against the war. That kind of determination definitely adds to her credibility. However, after watching her demonstration in front of the White House, I found the Freedom Marches to be more appealing. I agree with a lot of what Cindy Sheehan had to say, but I felt like she expressed her views in a more aggressive way. I felt as if she was almost attacking the audience for not giving up all their “stuff,” even though I highly doubt she has, which in turn decreased her credibility. Even though Cindy Sheehan and the Freedom Marches both protested in a non-violent way, I think the Freedom Marches established a greater appeal to ethos, which in turn has made me more supportive of their protests.

Ethos, Pathos and Logos

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are three very effective rhetorical tools that can be found within every piece of writing. Fannie Lou Hamer and Stokely Carmichael both use these tools in their speeches to capture and convince their audience. Fannie Lou Hamer touches on each of these rhetorical strategies, however she appeals to pathos the most. In her relatively short speech (compared to Stokely Charmichael’s), she mainly describes her brutal experience in jail, and gives a detailed account of everything that happened. The vivid imagery that she depicts appeals to our pathos, for it creates a scene in our minds and makes it seem as if we are there watching this wickedness occur. While this appeals to our emotions, she also uses direct quotes and writes her speech as if it were a testimony in order to appeal to our logical capacity. And finally, she appeals to ethos by creating herself in the eyes of the audience as a peaceful woman who has endured terrible hardships that no one should have to go through. Stokely Carmichael’s speech, on the other hand, appeals mostly to ethos. In the reading “Ethical Proof,” two of the criteria for establishing good ethos was proving intelligence by doing one’s homework, and creating good character. Carmichael definitely proves he has done is homework, for he is very knowledgeable about the issue and has a lot of experience as a leader and activist. He also establishes good character by connecting with the audience and making them laugh. They are constantly applauding him which proves that he has apparently won them over. While these are two very different speeches, they each use ethos, pathos and logos as rhetorical strategies for solidifying their arguments.

I Believe...

I believe that being barefoot is a wonderfully simple way of connecting with nature. I believe in taking naps on the grass with the sun as my blanket. I believe in the goodness of all mankind. I believe in spirituality. I believe in peace and serenity. I believe in karma. I believe we must strive to relinquish our desires, for they are the sole causes of our unhappiness. I believe that laughter is essential for our well being. I believe that we are who we choose to be. I believe in the moon and the stars. I believe in traveling for it not only broadens our minds, but makes us more appreciative. I believe in love but not hate. I believe in cat stevens. I believe that everything happens for a reason, there is no such thing as a coincidence. I believe in friendship. I believe in the seasons, especially when the leaves are falling or flowers are blooming. I believe that even though smiles are simple, they can work wonders. I believe in skipping rocks across a perfectly calm creek. I believe in nap time, and that kids should appreciate it while they still can. I believe in playing Ultimate Frisbee on a crisp sunny afternoon. I believe in never going to bed angry. I believe that happiness is not found in having what you want, but wanting what you have.

The Purpose of Protest

Protests come about through our innate human desire for change. If we lived in a world where nothing ever changed, we would not be able to grow or experience new ideas. However, ideas are constantly evolving and one example is the idea of women in our society. Before the 1920’s, women were treated as inferior to men and were therefore unable to vote. Many prominent women took a stand during this time, and by protesting their beliefs the 19^th amendment was ratified, and women were finally able to have a say in their government. Think about how our world would be now if nothing had ever changed. Perhaps the colonists never would have protested against England, and America would not be the free nation it is today. Perhaps the union wouldn’t have protested against slavery and Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t have announced it’s abolishment in the emancipation proclamation. We as people need change and protests are one of many ways in which to spur on such change.

I believe that what is important about a protest is not the size, but the result. For example, a strike with hundreds of people protesting against a tax increase could very likely have no effect whatsoever. On the other hand, one person who decides to give up driving their car in order to do their part to help global warming could have so much more of an effect. Even though it isn’t much, that person is helping to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and the more people he or she tells, the more are affected by that simple act of protest. Therefore, I believe that no matter how big or small a protest may be, what really matters is the amount of change that it perpetuates.