In her piece, the Bono-izaton of activism, Naomi Klein calls many of you, “the Pro-Logo generation that is more likely to buy a wristband and ticket to Live Earth than hit the streets in protest.” Even those of you who are close to 40 like I am probably have at least considered wearing a rubber wristband or pink ribbon at some point! Klein argues that this “corporatized” form of protest is “less dangerous and less powerful" than grassroots demonstrations. Looking back on and incorporating references to the movements we looked at this semester either in readings or on the internet, please give your opinion as to the following:
Is Klein correct in her assessment of activism today? Is it really less effective? Less dangerous? If Klein is correct, what factors do you think have made activism by young people today different from that of the Freedom Riders or anti-Vietnam protests? If Klein is wrong in her assessment, what is it about today’s social movements that you think has the potential to be powerful?
No, I do not think Klein is correct in her assessment of protests/movements in today’s world. The reason protests were so common in the 60s and 70s can be attributed to many fatcors. The first important factor was the babyboomers (BB) becoming young adults. For example, music around this time period totally changed with the presence of Bob Dylan and the Beatles. Parents of the BB despised this music since they were accustomed to the popular Frank Sinatra, but the BB protested and revolted against their parents because they loved the Beatles. Sure, the Beatles opened the doors for future artists, but it is the BB who allowed them to open these doors by: protests and revolts. The same BB’s helped fight for Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay and Lesbian Rights, and the Vietnam War movement because they realized how powerful they could be if they just banned together. Protesting also achieved the end of the Vietnam War.
Perhaps nothing has been that important in an overall societal view lately? But if there was an issue that was detrimental to our society or the majority of society’s belief’s? I know Americans would protest. For example, when the idea was on the table regarding Iraq and the possibility of a draft, people became horrified. It would have been a non-gendered draft meaning that even women 18-25 would be drafted along with the men of those ages. There is no way in hell that our parents, majority of which are a part of the BB, would just let their children be drafted. They have seen first hand what Vietnam has done to their friends, familiy, and society. The possible draftees had also learned from Vietnam, but through history books and not personal experiences.
The reason protests have dimisinshed is because the majority of citizens in the United States are happy or content. Protests occurr when the government or people in charge are not listening to their citizens wants and needs. Unequal treatement by the government has been the basis of the majority of movements which occurred in the United States. The Civil Rights movement happened because black citizens were displeased with their government treating them unequally. The Gay Rights movement and the Women’s movement are other movements also based on unfair applications of law . Lack of protests during the last few decades should be viewed positivley since now the majority of citizens are content with laws and government treatment. If Klein wants to see protests, then she must want to see a socitey who is discughsted with some aspect of their lives. I’m not saying the period of protests has ended, I just think that nothing ‘big’ enough has occurred where the citizens of the United States need to ban together to change something. When something is not affecting you and/or your community directly, for example Darfur, then protesting is not as necessary because the people areoung you are not in immediate danger.
The internet has also helped alter the ways in which people decide to become active with movement. Since communication can be done faster than ever, people know of injustices from the beginning; before riots, protests, and rallies need to be resorted to. Rallies are still useful ways to protest and they have not been totally scrapped. For the Save Darfur movement, rallies only occurred in big cities like NY, CA, Washington D.C., etc. Just because people changed their way of protesting and becoming involved in movements does not mean they are less effective. Our approaches to conflicts have evolved overtime.
Although I have stated the many reasons why Klein is wrong with her defition of protestors today, I do think there is a problem. I think that people are scared of their government and democracy. People elect those individuals in charge and the government should be afriad of its people, and not the other way around. I think young adults are a lot more selfish in todays world and focused on their little problems in stead of thinking about the big picture. The new commercial advertisements for the army have the slogan “An Army of One.” But isn’t an army a group of people? The government and army has realized the change in its peoples wants/beliefes and have changed accordingly. “An Army of One” attratcs people who want to be independent, but we are suppose to be working together. Even though I believe Klein is wrong, I also want people to ste-up, even though their lives are busy.
5 comments:
I agree with your argument regarding self centered youth and young adults. I also agree with your perspective on individuals afraid to act because they are scared of our government. However, I think people should have respect for our government and government officials who are not in gross violation of basic human rights. Elected officials who are afraid to act because they fear public rebukes or disapproval are hazardous to the legislative process and impede justice. Also, I believe the Army slogan..."An Army of One" is an attempt at unification not separation. I think they geared it towards feelings which surfaced after 9/11. Great blog!
Lisa--
Great posts this week. I also am near 40, and I have thought about buying a bracelet or racing for the Cure (partly to get a cool gift bag!). You bring up a great point that, perhaps, we simply haven't been challenge enough in recent years. You may be correct that a draft would have brought about protests simlar to those in the Vietnam era. I know that is what many liberal people have called for in order to mobilize an end to the war. I would be curious to see how your classmates would answer that question.
Best.
--Francine
You bring up an interesting point, “Just because people changed their way of protesting and becoming involved in movements does not mean they are less effective. Our approaches to conflicts have evolved overtime” I didn’t really think about that.
I agree that young people need to step-up, I’m one that should. Just like you said if the social movement is something that is not affecting me and/or my community directly, I will not participate in the protest.
I don’t necessarily think it’s bad; I just don’t want to be part of something that I don’t feel strongly about.
A few things.
The fact that you referenced music as a complimenting catalyst behind a reconstruction of activism is very interesting, as many people overlook these influences. Also, when asked the same question, few students mention the fact that Americans are tolerant or content with how things are going now. This mention is often implied, but rarely stated. Now why are they content? Perhaps, just as you say, individuals are more concerned with issues affecting their immediate life. I am interested to know what your opinion might be on how we can use these modern advancements to connect immediate concerns and human rights, to make such things more appealing.
If the way that people are protesting has transformed, but the effectiveness has not, then I ask how you define effectiveness. While defining, consider what has changed before Diet Pepsi and after Diet Pepsi.
Although I agree with most of your viewpoints, I did agree with Klein in the aspect that today's protests are less powerful. They are less powerful because (as you pointed out) today's society does not have the motivation that large movements have had in the past. It's hard to measure exactly what it would take for a large movement to develop- a draft- possibly.
Nice Blog! Liked It!
Post a Comment