From January to May

My initial definition of a protest was very broad. Pretty much if anyone had any thought or feeling in his/her mind that was against the status quo, I considered it a protest. Now I believe that this "seed of dissent" must be present to qualify as a protest, but action must also be taken.

As we have seen in class, this action can be something as simple as piercing yourself with safety pins or as complicated as organizing a camp-out in Crawford, Texas. The lines between protest and art have also been blurred in this class...who can say for sure if letting a dog die in a museum is really a protest or the machination of some sick mind? One person's protest is another person's silly grasp for their 15 minutes of fame. But again, I say, as long as it is a protest in that person's mind (and they are more or less sane, not forcing their own miscarriages), then it is a protest. How it is perceived by society is another story.

Effectiveness doesn't make or break a protest either. It would be silly to attribute political or social change to a single protest, for only a few protests in history have shaken the world - Tiananmen Square, for example, or the recent monks protesting in Burma (and now Tibet). Generally speaking, protests serve as a catharsis for the feelings of society's minorities, and while protesters want change in the system, most realize that a single rally will not achieve their goals. Repeated demonstrations, as in the American Civil Rights Movement, can make change, but few would remember Dr. King if he only marched for one day and retired to watch the reaction on his black and white television set.

Also, size really doesn't matter! One person's protest, like Brian Haw's, can become the protest of an entire sect of people. As far as as I know, he didn't have many (or any) people with him outside of Parliament, but he is widely known. Sometimes the protest of a single individual can be even more effective than a protest of the masses. It shows the determination of a single person and gives the movement a strong, effective spokesperson.

Overall, I feel this class has refined my definition of a protest. Before, my feelings were much more scattered. I had a general idea of what I believed a protest was, but I could provide few examples to support my stance. Now I'm really thinking rhetorically...!

Obama/DiFranco '08

I get chills every time I listen to Ani DiFranco's song Self-Evident.  There's something about it...this beatnik attitude and sound that makes my blood boil with my loathing for the current administration.  It starts off with her just talking in beat (I'm sure there's a poetic term for this, but it's been over a year since my creative writing days) about 9/11, about being there in NYC whenever it happened and the nation's reaction.  This is moving enough, but then she also adds her criticism on society during this section...

"...the day that America fell to its knees

after strutting around for a century 

without saying thank you

or please..."

and

"...and every borough looked up when it heard the first blast

and then every dumb action movie was summarily surpassed..."

The second half of the song focuses on all the problems with the Bush administration.  DiFranco, a huge women's rights activist, praises "the nurses and doctors who daily provide women with a choice," and then moves on to tackle issues like the death penalty and the Patriot Act.  The part that really gets me, sends shivers down my spine, is, of course, an attack on Bush.

"...it doesn't take a weatherman to know the weather

Jeb said he'd deliver Florida, folks and boy did he ever

we hold these truths to be self-evident

number one: George W. Bush is not president..."

And, as her strongest section, it gives the song its title.  Another part that I just have to include in this blog combines DiFranco's stance against the war with her tendency to man-hate...

"...so it's time to pick through the rubble, clean the streets, and clear the air

get our government to pull its big dick out of someone else's desert

put it back in its pants..."

This song pretty much hits all of my beliefs head-on (apply directly to the forehead).  It reassures me in my political leanings and let's me know that I'm not alone in my criticism.  You can hear tons of (mainly) women cheering DiFranco on in the background in the version I have, and it makes her points even more palpable.  I don't think this song would recruit others to the liberal "cause," but it just reinvigorates those who already believe the same way.  In this way, I don't think any protest song will suddenly alter someone's opinion, but it can provide a point to rally around to those already convinced.  Also, protest songs let you know that you are being heard, even if only through someone else's song.  That is the beauty of it.

So if you're an angry liberal, definitely listen to Self-Evident.  Or if you just hate Bush, listen to it.  In that case, most of the country would enjoy it.

Fat Guy Takes On Skinny B@#$%

So in case you haven't realized that I'm a diehard liberal yet, let me just remind you - I'm a diehard liberal.  Maybe this influences my judgment on Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, because I believe Michael Moore is a protester and Ann Coulter is a silly goose who writes silly books for money and personal notoriety.  Sure, Michael Moore is a bit rough around the edges at times, especially with his scruffy beard and tubby tummy, but I'm pretty sure any American who seriously values his/her time would rather listen to him than to Coulter.

Moore uses the media in a serious yet comedic way, whereas Coulter uses it to personally bash people she feels are inferior to her.  Not a very good way to make friends (for Moore either...he has his fair share of opponents).  Maybe this is where I am biased again, since I'm an RTF-er and I'm more inclined to defend a movie than I am a book.

Still, I don't agree with some of the methods Moore uses.  I'm sure he has some twisted facts in his films (and books)...and that Patriot Act thing in Fahrenheit 9/11 was really obnoxious.  Otherwise I feel that my "Very Liberal" political views on Facebook prevent me from sinking my teeth into Moore's chubby flesh.  I'm a vegetarian, after all.

People like Michael Moore because he appeals to the masses for support.  Ann Coulter prefers to bash dead soldiers' parents, whereas Moore honors them (though some would say he uses them instead).  Moore also plays off everyone's subconscious biases - I mean, come on, who doesn't associate Bush with honky-tonk bluegrass and cowboy hats?  He's humorous, although at some people's expense, but it helps him spread his protest.

And do people actually like Ann Coulter?  I really don't translate book sales into a personal following.  Sure, there was that obnoxious kid at my church back home who read Godless more times than he read the Bible, but he doesn't count.  I'm actually pretty sure that Coulter's books sell so well because liberals want justification for their hatred of the right.  I guess this accounts for some of the sales of Moore's movies and books as well, although conservatives buy them to reaffirm their stances.

My theory - there is always a need for the extreme liberal and the extreme conservative.  Their true followings are small, their opposition larger.  Conservatives are just a bit more caustic than liberals.

Look Who's Godless Now

So just when we all thought we couldn't listen to anyone more annoying than Cindy Sheehan, here comes along Ann Coulter! I would honestly rather listen to Cindy Sheehan for an hour than listen to Ann Coulter for five minutes. This week's clips were nearly unbearable...I seriously considered skimping on the videos (but for the record, I didn't).

I have always loathed Coulter. She represents that "skinny bitch" that everyone loves to hate (I use that terminology only in an allusion to another new and ridiculous diet book with the same title...really!). To steal a phrase from my paper, I lean so far left that it's remarkable that I can stand at all, so obviously my reaction to Coulter is negative. But my distaste extends much further than that. I never understood why until I read the fallacies section in our packet and now everything seems much clearer.

Coulter reeks of fallacies. Any serious reader would find her arguments illogical and unpersuasive (my apologies if you're a conservative diehard who wants to father Ann's babies).

Coulter's arguments thrive on personal attacks. In the clip with Mrs. Edwards, it was obvious that Coulter's reasons against electing John Edwards were so weak that she had to resort to childish name calling. Furthermore, even if it's true that Hillary has chubby legs (she probably does), it has no place in an argument on policy. I'm more keen on trusting someone who eats a cookie every once in a while rather than someone who thinks eating should be done sparingly. (I'm definitely not endorsing Clinton, but...you know how it goes.)

I absolutely loved it when Matt Lauer asked her difficult questions and she just sat there stumbling over her words. I think she might have actually been trying to formulate a real answer without personal attacks and just couldn't. How sad that she's written, what was it, five New York Times bestsellers? I thought the Times had more pride than to include her in their list!

I especially refute her attack that liberalism is opposition to God. That's either/or reasoning. Either you're conservative and love God or you're a liberal and you have a tattoo of a pentagram across your forehead.

Besides being a shameless liar (as Franken pointed out), Coulter is also a poor debater. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it unacceptable to refuse to allow your opponent to speak? For the love of all that is good and holy, Ann, take a breath!

So I feel like I've been attacking her personally...but maybe she deserves it. No, not maybe. Definitely.

Jesus Christ!

I grew up in the Church of Christ, a small and extremely conservative denomination, and I believed in all of its teachings until the age of seventeen, when I strayed from the "straight and narrow" in pursuit of something else, something more. When I describe my previous church to those unfamiliar with it, I call it "just a little less conservative than the Amish." There are no musical instruments, no female leaders, no salvation without baptism. The only thing worse than being a fornicator is being a homosexual fornicator, and the only thing worse than killing your neighbor and three kids is killing a microscopic fetus. I am harsh on my previous beliefs, I know, but I still believe religion can be a good thing. The Church of Christ, I hope and believe, is about to undergo a fundamental change with the leaders of my generation - my friends who stayed in the church are surely more secular and understanding than the seventy year-old generation before us. The same can probably be said of any major religion within the United States.

For nearly ten years I attended summer camp with my church in a forgotten crook of Texas countryside outside of Bandera. It was week of Bible lessons and competitions, where "mixed bathing" in the river was forbidden and the watermelon was always ripe. Emotional sermons were a daily tradition, and it was in response to one of those sermons that I was baptized at the age of 11 in the murky river that has since run nearly dry.

My camp was certainly conservative, but it was nothing in comparison with the church in Jesus Camp. Well, first of all, we don't believe in speaking in tongues, but we also didn't pray over a cheap cardboard cut-out of W. We had those sermons against abortion and even some counselors who forbid Harry Potter in their cabins (and a girl who was ridiculed and called a sinner for having a thong and a push-up bra in her suitcase). We were told we were living in a wicked generation, and we girls were also told to return to our cabins to change if we were wearing anything "suggestive," meaning shorts that didn't go to our knees or spaghetti strap tops.

Now that I'm writing about this, I'm realizing how little different my camp was (and is) from the camp in the film. This scares me. Perhaps such Christian fundamentalism is more widespread than we believe.

I really do salute Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady for their film. It exposes the dangerous close-minded way many of America's religious leaders are leading. I see nothing different between Reverend Wright's ill-advised statements and Becky Fisher's sermons. There is always a way to take an idea to an extreme that hurts society.

Some parts of the film especially moved me. I really appreciated (though I didn't enjoy) the scenes that interspersed Fischer's sermon with the cries of the children. It was an excellent montage that heightened the tension and highlighted Fischer's immorality. It was a good filmmaking move to keep the diagetic music (with that woman kind of crying or yelling or singing or whatnot), and in other sequences the music choice was point on with the mood.

I believe Becky Fischer is wrong, yet I believe her branch of extremism will live on for centuries to come, just as any other kind of fundamentalism will. I do believe that she thinks that she is doing what is right, just as I believe that everyone in my previous church thinks the same. However, this does not make either of them right. Anyways, who is in charge of determining right and wrong in the first place?

Writing About Writing

I pretty much just wing it every time I write, or at least it feels that way.  Typically I listen to some music, usually something mellow along the lines of Jack Johnson, Damien Rice, or Broken Social Scene, or just anything that is subtle enough to enjoy but not distract me.  As you can see, I think the music I listen to is the most important part of my writing process as it changes my mood and helps me focus on the paper.

Other than my music choice, I really don't put much thought into my writing process.  I've been writing since I was a kid so now it all comes naturally to me.  Occasionally before I write I'll consider the points I need to hit, but sometimes these points change as I write so I don't usually take much stock in them.  As I write, I naturally try to pace myself so that I hit the page requirement or word count.

I guess my biggest problem with writing for other people is that sometimes I find it difficult to ensure that others can follow my thought process.  My writing can tend to be a bit choppy (as evident in this blog) and I can jump from idea to idea without considering my reader.  I also tend to write a bit less formally than is sometimes desired, but at the same time I consider that to be my voice as a writer instead of a crux.

FYI: I've written this blog without listening to any music and I feel that it is my weakest.  I'll be back on the music next week.

The Shape of Punk to Come

When I was a freshman in high school I probably wore black every other day and wore my hair in my eyes (which were covered in black eyeliner and heavy mascara). I was filled with angst against my parents, my religion, my school, even my friends at times, and bands like the Swedish group Refused used the political rhetoric I espoused.

Looking back at pictures of myself, I must admit that I am a bit embarrassed about my fashion sense in those early days of high school. I was also able to travel to Sweden this summer and tried to listen to Refused as I rode the train to Stockholm, but the scenery did not match the music. Sweden is one of the most beautiful countries I have ever seen and such a grungy, discontent sound described my hometown more than it did the Swedish countryside. I listened to Sigur Ros instead.

However, during high school I believed my fashion sense to be a form of protest. It thrilled me to wonder what the older people at church thought when they saw me clad in only black (after all, they had watched me grow up). I'm sure not many even gave me an extra thought, but it satisfied me nevertheless.

Punk and its many offshoots serve as a method of contentment for the wearer; they do not necessarily serve as expression to others. This may have been different in the early days of punk, when it was fresh and the mainstream hadn't realized the market potential it had. But today, when stores like Hot Topic specialize in non-leather dominatrix outfits, punk, in general, has become yet another example of groupthink and adherence to social norms. Some punks may believe in the rhetoric they spout, but most are probably just drawn into it because of its association with social deviance, or "coolness."

This is really a difficult issue to tackle without taking both sides. Punk can be what you want it to be. Punk can be everything or nothing. Punk, really, just is.

I'll end this with some lyrics from the song "Refused Are Fucking Dead" that I think capture the punk spirit.
A naive, young secret for the new romantics
We express ourselves in loud and fashionable ways

PETA/My life story

I am a vegetarian.  I have not eaten meat (knowingly) for about four years.  I prefer soy milk to cow's milk and eat eggs from free-roaming hens when I have the opportunity.  I am quite the cheese-addict though, but I've rounded that off in my conscience with my newfound appreciation for soy pudding.

 

PETA didn't convince me to stop slaughtering animals with my dollars.  I convinced myself.  I had known for a long time that eating meat hurts not only animals but also the environment and my health, and I had also known of the corruption of the meat industry.  I had heard of PETA and maybe seen a few of their videos, but it was me who made the decision.  One summer day, I figured I was tired of contributing to such negativity and ended my association with such an archaic and unnecessary practice.

 

Being a vegetarian, I can't understand how people don't buy PETA's arguments.  To me, logic dictates that kindness to animals is kindness to yourself and harm to animals is harm to yourself.  There is little difference between a human and an animal, so how can people justify their acts?  It irks me when I ask people how they can eat meat and they say "because it tastes good."  Antifreeze tastes good to dogs, but that doesn't mean they should eat it (that will be my version of a stretched PETA argument for this blog; and by the way, vegetarians live longer than meat-eaters).

 

However, there are arguments that PETA makes that I do not completely agree with.  One of the reasons why I'm not personally associated with the group is that they typically endorse a vegan lifestyle; vegetarians are second-rate to them.  In this case, I share PETA's mainstream views but accept only modified versions of the specific arguments.  I believe that in order to gain more adherents, PETA should downplay its vegan aspect so it won't seem so extremist.

 

Overall, PETA is just one of those groups that I love but won't run around naked with.

Critical Mass

I thought the concept of Critical Mass was genius. It gathered a group of incredibly outgoing and uncanny people together and let them release their creativity in a positive manner. I actually don't see their actions as a formal protest. It was actually more like a flash mob, or a group gathered online (like through Facebook) to do weird things (like have coughing fits on the West Mall). In a way, flash mobs and Critical Mass are informal protests, going more against the status quo than against a specific aspect of that status quo.

I think the spirit of Critical Mass mattered more than the rides. It was that essence of freedom and unconventionality that can only thrive in a free society that kept it together, not the shared affinity for bicycles. Perhaps such is the same with conventional protests - it's not the issue at hand that matters but the mindset of the protestors.

Whenever this feeling of freedom generates a following, those in power will feel threatened. They may not fear for their literal position - mayor, senator, president - or for their lives; what they fear is change. Even in such a liberal city as San Francisco this fear will be present, so even in our city of Austin it will emerge (as seen in the video). As long as members of the group do not allow the brutality of bureaucracy affect them, their movement will continue in strength.

Ethos and Cindy Sheehan

I've always wondered why the mere mention of Cindy Sheehan's name can incite violent reactions in many Americans. I always assumed that it was because many people felt as if she were using her son's death to her advantage, as if being the mother of a fallen soldier and a war protester at the same time made her an instant celebrity. While this may be why many people dislike her, I believe the way she presents herself establishes an unflattering ethos for many listeners.

Throughout her speech she derides everyone not present at the protest. While she quotes (or, more accurately, paraphrases) great minds such as Emerson and Thoreau on materialism, she comes off insensitive to the lives of everyday people. Sheehan argues that if you can't bring yourself to sell all your possessions and follow her, you're not a true believer in the cause. She fails to take into consideration the responsibilities people have within families and communities. Furthermore, her words encourage angry words that are almost counterintuitive to a nonviolent protest - her followers shout out unflattering epithets at the White House and embellish her speech with rash comments of their own.

Sheehan's movement would be better served if she were to urge positive action instead of focusing on her hatred of the Bush Administration and mainstream culture. While I understand her anger and sense of betrayal that came as a result of her son's death, I question her ethos. Strangely, I find myself in agreement with plenty of what she said but I would never call myself her follower. Perhaps many other Americans feel the same way. If so, her polarizing character is a bigger hindrance to the movement than help.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

As we learned in class, each person has a personal preference as to how to conduct a protest.  However, no matter the method, the modes remain the same – appealing to pathos, ethos, and logos.

 

Fannie Lou Hamer primarily used ethos to fuel her speech to the Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Convention.  She began by giving her address, a move that established her existence as an everyday person regardless of the color of her skin.  By telling her story with concrete details and exact dialogue, Hamer proved her trustworthiness as a witness to and victim of racial discrimination.  Her argument for equality works because she came individually to the meeting instead of in a crowd.  The politicians could not shrug her off like they could the large groups of black protesters - denying one person her freedom is much more difficult than denying an entire race.  While Hamer's entire speech worked to establish her ethos, she simultaneously appealed to pathos with the details of her ordeal.  She trusted in the human nature to empathize with victims of violence and thus emotionally charged her audience while using simple diction.

 

Stokely Carmichael took a different approach in his speech at the University of California at Berkeley.  While he developed his ethos by indicating the work he had done with the SNCC, he also developed it by his sense of humor, however dry.  Using humor in a speech can relax the audience and remind listeners that the speaker is intelligent and socially aware.  However, his humor evolved as his speech developed to become more cynical and, in a way, this humor alone is a form of protest.  When Carmichael called President Johnson a buffoon, for instance, he appealed to pathos by invigorating the crowd with dislike for the current administration.  In fact, most of the applause throughout Carmichael's speech is a result of his impassioned statements.  Although Carmichael never attempts to get his audience to sympathize for him, he does incite them to action by creating feelings within them.  This point, however, ties in to Carmichael's appeal to logos, such as in the section of his speech where he argues that all civil rights laws were made for white people.  He develops this segment using logic (black people know they have equal rights and white people need the law to understand that) and then ends it with humor that appeals to pathos.  He somewhat taunts the audience with his statement, "If you believe in integration then we're going to start adopting us some white people to live in our neighborhood."

 

The civil rights protestors who sat in at the diners had yet a different approach to their protest.  Their protest had no words (other than the marches when signs were used) so their rhetorical appeal had to come from almost purely ethos.  By using nonviolent methods, the protesters were able to portray their intelligence and rationalism to the world.  However, once they were oppressed and abused by the white activists, audiences around the country began to feel for the students.  In effect, the white activists inadvertently created an appeal to pathos for the opposing side.

 

Personally, I do not feel as if there is any one rhetorical appeal that dominates all of the examples.  Logos, pathos, and ethos all relate to one another in such a way that one can argue that all three are present in a single sentence.  However, I believe that if one wanted to persuade me on any general subject, he or she should use logos and pathos arguments, pathos first to make me want to get more information and then logos to spur me to action.  Appeals to pathos only remain in the consciousness for so long – the public is notorious for obsessing over certain hot topics when the emotions are ripe and then forgetting it ever occurred just as quickly.  Yet if someone becomes informed on an issue instead of jumping on the emotional bandwagon, he or she is more likely to remain active for long periods of time.  While ethos is still important to me, I am more strongly affected by pathos and logos.

Belief

I believe in birdcalls and grasshopper serenades on dew-filled mornings.  I believe that peace comes from contentment but that few people are content.  I believe in John Lennon more than I believe in the Beatles and that the British royal family is overrated.  I believe in tea more than I believe in coffee and in Macs more than in PCs.  I believe in tofu, mismatched socks, and bamboo.  I believe in a woman's right to choose and a child's right to live.  I believe living 21 floors above the ground makes you miss the earth beneath your fingernails.  I believe sex can be love, lust, or art.  I believe the Dalai Lama is my brother and that George W. Bush is not my president. I believe that there can only be legal downloads.  I believe we reincarnate, sometimes only as the smell after the rain.  I believe in baby bottoms, short hair, and crow's feet.  I believe nature is not my mother but myself.  I believe musical instruments have souls and that the cello has the same color aura as I do.  I believe in indie films, late night IHOP runs, and indoor plants. I believe in no kind of marriage but in all kinds of love.  I believe happiness is life.

The Nature of Protest

My version of protest differs from the mainstream view of picket lines and boycotts, hunger strikes and rallies. While I do believe those examples are instances of protest in visible action, I consider the most important form of protest to be the variety that lies in the individual and his or her mentality on life and society. To make a change in society, one must first protest the status quo within his or her mind. Without this seed, visible dissent, the hunger strikes and picket lines, would cease to exist.

I understand that my judgment on protest is a bit impaired because of my personal life. I grew up in a very conservative (and very Christian) household with parents who were (and still are) the kind who mark “moral values” as the prime issue on their exit poll surveys. For many years I believed in everything they believed and placed myself on the right side of the political spectrum, just a bit left of Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter.

This is shocking to the people who know me. After all, I’m a tree-hugging vegetarian hippie who plans to join the Peace Corps after graduation – nothing like the middle-school Laura who could recite lengthy Bible passages and spoke of the ills of abortion for the semester final in speech class. What transformed me was the music of political punk/rock bands like Refused and System of a Down. (I guess those of the religious persuasion are correct when they say that punk leads you away from the straight and narrow!)

When I first discovered this genre, I was both appalled and intrigued. I was a bit tentative about the common use of profanity but felt that the overall message was too important to ignore because of some silly four-lettered words. Listening to “New Noise” by Refused activated a passion within me that was stronger than anything I had ever felt before, a passion that surpassed my selfishness and drew me toward fighting for positive change.

I’ve since moved on from punk and rock to more of an indie style in music, but I still find those songs that play to my passion for protest. I got chills when Connor Oberst sang “When the President Talks to God” on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and fell even more in love with Arcade Fire when their lyrics on Neon Bible spoke against the current state of affairs in America. But throughout my transformation (I won’t say evolution because I still respect those who believe differently than I), the constant spirit of dissent has remained the single most powerful force in my life. This is why I champion personal protest over group protest – anyone can wave a flag and cheer in a crowd, but it takes a discerning mind to believe wholeheartedly in a position.

A protest is, therefore, much more than organizing rallies at the State Capital or passing out leaflets at the West Mall. It is an intangible force within the individual that desires change.