Seminar Essays for Blaine Foley

From digmovements

1 Response to Tilly Social Movements
2 Response to Ostertag People's Movement People's Press
3 Response to The Art of Protest part 1
4 Response to The Art of Protest part 2
5 Response to Communication Revolution
6 Response to Insurgency Online
7 Response to the New Transnational Activism
- 7.1 Links

[edit] Response to Tilly Social Movements

In reading Social movements by Tilly, I found it very interesting how social movements have progressed over the years. It seems from examples that the author laid out the fact that certain movements in very early years had bold ideas but not too many demonstrators. On page 23 he talks about the number of people that resisted British rule. It seems like there were not that many people but they still had a cause behind them. They would go around stopping carriages and cutting down pieces of cloth as a protest. Although they had a cause behind them it did not seem that they were that connected or organized. As the book progresses the numbers in causes increase. On page 69 he talks about how in 1968, 40,000 students in Canada protested on behalf of an independent socialist state. It would seem as the years went on that the numbers increased. Also during the Philippines protest of 2001, 200,000 workers walked off the job to protest the president. I would like to think this is about communication. If a person wanted to start a movement back in the 1700’s then they would probably make pamphlets and talk to many, many people. Now in the technological age you can make a movement very easily and have it proliferate right before your eyes. There are good and bad aspects to this.
If I wanted to fight for something in this new technological age, I would find a very popular website and post a Blog on it. I would then find a way to send that Blog to as many people as I could. Instead of having to copy the Blog 1000 times and send out 1000 letters with 1000 stamps, I could just send it to 1000 other people on the internet. Now to many this would seem like a very good thing. Technology has allowed anyone with a voice to shout into a virtual crowd and have many listen. But what if what this person was protesting was very racist. What if they were a white supremacist and wanted to get their word out via the internet. They would have no problem at all.
The point that I am trying to make is that although movements have been greatly helped by the technological age, some probably do not deserve to be brought into the computer age. But then again who am I to talk about censorship? Because the second that certain websites are taken off the internet is the second that democracy fails. We should all have the right to post whatever we want on the internet and give everyone a chance to view any and all of it. With computers we can start any kind of movement we want but it is still up to that person whether the movement succeeds or doesn’t even begin.

[edit] Response to Ostertag People's Movement People's Press

In the previous books that we have read the authors talked about the many social and political movements that took place in history. But what I believe is different about Ostertag is that he asks you to take a look at world without technology and see how people got along without for so long and were able to be successful without it. The main thing that stood out for me in this was the extreme violence that was so easily thrown into the text. This made it seem like it was just part of history but I think there is a big difference between then and now. If you were to go onto the internet and look up any kind of social movement you could find a lot of information and it would be free. Not only free but legal to look at. From what Ostertag tells us certain information was illegal in the past, so much to the point that someone could get thrown in jail simply for distributing information.
The examples of violence in this book were purely shocking because I don’t think anybody really looks at the freedom we have nowadays to protest and talk about protesting. On page 55 it talks about the $20,000 that was offered for the head of one of the movement members. This seems incredible compared to today’s standards because never would someone’s life be held in jeopardy instead they would get jail-time and all of their liberties taken away.
The one article that he talked about that I thought was extremely effective was the “1,112 and Counting.” This article was incredible because of the effect that it had on people. He named it as to single most influential article in history. If one small piece of text can have such a profound effect that this one did, it is inspiring to realize what one can do with the written word.
3.

[edit] Response to The Art of Protest part 1

This book I felt was easier to read than Tilly’s book. Even though this presented the history of social movements it was able to do it in an interesting way. One of the things that I wanted to talk about here is White Man’s Guilt. After reading these chapters and seeing what the White man has done to so many people in history I cannot help but feel chagrin towards my ancestors. Learning that over 200 Million Black people have died and countless other persecuted makes me feel horrible to be white, but at the same time I ask myself if I really should be feeling this way. Personally I do not think I should because I was not there and I had nothing to do with it. I believe someone should only be held responsible for the actions THEY take. I don’t want my grandchildren feeling bad because of some good or bad choice I made today. Branching away from that and looking at the book more I found some very interesting chapters. The entire chapter on how poetry is vital for the women’s movement was simply pleasant to read. The list that is presented at the beginning of the chapter most people would take for granted nowadays because it is common knowledge that “Women as a group have a right to earn as much as men.” But some would say that women still do not earn as much as men for doing the same job. On pg. 90 the paragraph that emphasizes what women can write about was really quite I opening. “Poems about changing diapers and changing lives, poems about pain of abortion and pain of childbirth.” I thought these statements rang true on so many aspects of women’s lives. Because of this I feel a deep concern for if the women’s movement still needs to be alive. It’s not like these problems have gone away, I think they have just been muffled down. When looking at the AIM movement I thought the funniest part was when the author stated that “Perhaps the most unambiguously positive thing I can say about the films in which AIM is represented is that Kevin Costner was not involved in any of them.” The Chicano/a movement which has roots in murals where so many beautiful pieces of art were made is really quite gratifying because if I was driving down a road and saw a mural I would know that it had an entire story to tell, but here at Evergreen when I see mindless graffiti I know that the person who tagged the wall only had one very biased thing to say. Perhaps students here at Evergreen should pick up a paintbrush and try their hand at a Mural because according to this book at least, it says more about a person and culture by what they do to the walls.
4.

[edit] Response to The Art of Protest part 2

The final chapters of the book seemed to sum up what Reed was trying to state. In chapter 6 he critically analyzes the way that Rock music has played a role in Social movements. Although his view is negative because of the political and social aspects of the charity for example “we are the world” he spells as “we are NOT the world”, Reed still understands that a very large sum of money was still raised for charity. He does bring up an interesting point though. To say “we are the world” makes us the same as them. We in our ivory towers are the exact same as them and we need to help them out so that they can be better. This is especially true when he states that they don’t need our charity or pity. In chapter 7 I thought is was also interesting to find that when the group ACT UP was founded to fight AIDS they did not give any consideration to the Lesbian aspect of their cause. Feminists had to fight for their right even to get into that club. Throughout this book women really have had to fight an uphill battle, but I think what is more important is that even in this social movement which one would think encompasses all gay rights activists fought against prejudice, they still forgot about the female aspect of it all. It seems slightly hypocritical that an organization like this would not include all people of all backgrounds. The chapter 8 part of his book was to me confusing. After reading the entire chapter I still had no idea what the author was trying to get across to the reader. I do understand that certain racial aspects have played a big role in environmental movements but I failed to grasp Reed’s entire idea. The battle for Seattle chapter was very eye opening at first from a historical standpoint and then from an analytical internet standpoint. Once again I had no idea that so many injustices had occurred during that protest. But that is not really important, what is important is the analyses of how Reed looked at how the groups came to gether throught the internet and organized in such a way that no matter what the police did they still failed in their attempts to clear the streets, despite having so many weapons at their disposal. No matter what happened to the crowd they still banded together and stopped the conference from happening. This shows that social movements are very successful and can be thought of because people like this were willing to be tear gassed and even arrested. Even though a very small number of people chose to be violent they did not let that fact demean their overall cause. As one of the final chapters in this book I think this was an excellent way of showng how powerful social movements can be.
5.

[edit] Response to Communication Revolution

In reading this book I found it difficult to really understand what the author was trying to state in the first 100 pages. Robert laid out the history of his own life where he went to college, (at Evergreen!) and then onto graduate school. He mastered in communication, which he states many times throughout the book that it was a weak field of study because nobody really thought it was all that important. The first 100 pages though, especially the 2nd chapter didn’t really seem to get across any point except that it laid out his history in the field. Although the rest of the book was excellent I fear that anybody reading this book would get turned off and not want to finish it, to their great regret. The last pages of the book after pg. 100 actually brought up some very good points. On page 109 a fellow colleague asked him “I think we are going through a similar moment to the 1930’s with the internet today. We cannot afford to blow it this time. Our goal should be to make it impossible for you to write a postmortem for this era like you did the early 1930’s.” I think this is a wonderful statement because it shows that people have learned from their past and want to actually change and prevent what happened to media in the past. Another statement I found profoundly interesting on pg. 120 is: “If the economic system cannot accommodate the legitimate democratic demands of the citizenry, then the system should be changed.” I believe this to be the basis and most innate fact of our country. Our country was founded on no longer allowing tyranny and oppression to continue. He states here that if anybody see that the system is wrong they should have it in their power to change it. If the system, which he means media is faulted in some way, either they should adapt to meet OUR demands or we should get a new system of media. I don’t think people realize the power they have in this statement, but it rings true to everyone. Later in the book the author writes on how capitalism is the driving force of our society, but it is not the ONLY force. He writes on how property versus democracy is a driving force in that if one grows too big the institutional corruption grows. He later wrote on how much money the communication and technology firms spend on lobbying their bills and how much they want to protect their interests. They do not want you to the see the man behind the curtain because if you do “they see that the entire rationale for our media systems rests upon a fairy tale about free markets. Overall I enjoyed reading this book, although the first 100 pages like I said were difficult for me to understand really what the author was trying to get across. I believe the Author did lay out some very interesting topics like the free market system and how corrupt the media can be. I always thought that the system was flawed and that if you really believe you can change something you can. In this book he proves that point by showing how much individual people can do by giving specific examples of their efforts.

[edit] Response to Insurgency Online

In reading Insurgency Online despite the most abbreviations used in any book I have ever read, I believe that the author was trying to get across the point that small “non-state” actors can use the internet as a tool to get across their message. While most of his points were not made clear until the end of the chapter, in that he would present an entire history of an organization and then tell us what they were doing, most of his statements made sense. He does talk about how Web activism alone will not transform politics, and I think this is true. I also think that although the web is a tool used by us humans I still believe that it is the most incredible means of free thought ever conceived. His rant about how most of the world is not even online and the Web is still able to have such a profound impact is very interesting because I like to think that everyone IS online at all times. But I am learning through the many books that we read that the actual numbers are very low. Interestingly he notes that most of the RAWA people for whom the website is dedicated are not even online. If this is true than it truly is just a tool with which the privileged use to get their point across. While I do not like to think of myself as being privileged at all, I suppose the point is that not everyone in the world uses it and therefore it cannot be referenced as the all encompassing tool that is so commonly is used as. I think the book organizations do provide an excellent point in that small non state actors can have profound political implications and effects towards political super states, simply by logging on. Even though everyone in the world does not use it, the internet is still a tool and should be feared and respected. Nobody knows what effects the internet will have on the world but currently at least to the privileged few who have power and a computer it is very clear that the power of politics can be shifted very easily with the Internet.
7.

[edit] Response to the New Transnational Activism

Besides be very difficult to read because Sidney Tarrow likes to make up new terms as you read along in his book, but there were some ideas that were presented that actually make some sense. In Chapter 6 he talks about diffusion of ideas and how fast modern ideals can take shape. There was a very interesting point that I believe will start a discussion in class, and that is non-relational diffusion. This is how he talks about movements that are started or propagated except they are not done by normal means. The Jihadist movement was helped by the Internet in a very big way. My question is this. Would the Jihadist movement been able to do what they did on Sep 11th without the internet? Sidney does state at the end of the chapter that all three elements of diffusion that he has discussed are horizontal, but what would merit a vertical change? I would think that most people believe the internet to be a great thing, giving information to all who look for it, but it is true that it has not been used as a vertical shift by these movements. Those who have used the internet for these purposes have been simply to extend technology to those that they cannot actually speak to, or call on the cell phone. This is why I think Sidney is correct in that these people have not used the internet to vertically improve themselves, but have instead used to it to further their cause. Later when he talks about the Battle of Seattle he cites instances where people during the protest would stop what they were protesting about because of the people getting violated, and shift their focus to human rights. In a situation like this I have to be skeptical because I wonder what is the real reason that these people came together to protest? Was it for their cause, or after the situation starts to disintegrate, do they fall back on human rights? Obviously all humans should be free, but I would think that something would be lost when a protest disintegrates to this level. Random people coming onto the scene would no longer see a group of people protesting what they wanted to protest, but instead reacting to the police. This kind of situation would be very volatile. I don’t think I can state whether or not this is what the police would want but I can be very confident in seeing that it would at least be beneficial to the police administrators to have reason to stop a protest and regain control.