Final Blog
At the commencement of this course, I considered a social movement just a protest in which people engaged themselves in activism to surface their voices. As this course concludes, I leave with extensive knowledge of the topic. I now recognize these movements harbor frames, emotion, tactics (structured and non- structured), collective identities, etc. In addition I have come to see that there are many other movements surrounding that of the anti- war in Iraq movement. There are movements that are protesting the use of torture, human rights, families with soldiers abroad, families who have lost loved ones, in addition to many more. It may appear that this movement has lost momentum, however I believe it has not. More is to come. With the recent “withdrawal “ of U.S troops there are quick concerns surfacing. This includes the protest of complete withdrawal of all U.S troops. “U.S. troop combat missions throughout Iraq are not scheduled to end until more than a year from now in August of 2010. In addition, U.S. troops are not scheduled for a complete withdrawal for another two and a half years on December 31, 2011. Rather, U.S. troops are leaving Iraqi cities for military bases in Iraq. They are still in Iraq, and they can be summoned back at any time.” (Dennis Kucinich 2009). I see this façade of U.S troop “withdrawal” will only fuel this movement. An article by United for Peace and Justice states “With the latest poll of Iraqis finding that 73% want the U.S. to leave and with U.S. defense costs exploding because of the war and occupation, we look forward to the day when we can celebrate with Iraqis a true victory: a complete end to the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq and the restoration of Iraq to Iraqis.” (United for Peace and Justice 2009).
From the start of the course I had very strong opinions about the U.S’s involvement in Iraq. I simply did not approve of it, seeing it as not very organized and/or thought of, as well as a sly excuse to get oil. I believed our troops should not be there at all. As the course ends, I in spite of it all, am walking away with the disapproval of our involvement. However it is in a much different sense. I now feel that president Obama has taken the right steps in withdrawing the troops. Although many troops still remain on military bases arguably within the city walls, I think this could prove to be a good move. The conflict in Iran could very much happen in Iraq, and I feel it would be best to have a few troops close by at hand to prevent chaos in case of an emergency. I thought about this after thinking of an article I read on Cuba and the legalization of cell phones. This took place at the time Raul Castro took over for his brother Fidel. Word was flying around of the intense reform that was to come (which really has not). Some people were analyzing this as dangerous claiming that rapid reform can be very dangerous. I wholly concur with this, thus being the reason why I feel Obama made a decent move. “Many observers have predicted that a post-Fidel Cuba will follow a cautious, incremental reform strategy rather than a more fast-paced approach-similar to those implemented by Deng Xiaoping, the architect of China's economic liberalization after Mao's death. Indeed, there are many voices urging Cuba to avoid the "shock therapy" pursued by the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and to copy instead the slower reforms pursued by China-"crossing the river while feeling the stones" in Deng's phrase.” (Raj M. Desai 2008)
It was said a rapid increase in reform could almost definitely be a poor decision and lead to disorder. This is the possibility at stake in Iran. I understand there is an economic issue at hand along with many other issues. However the United States allegedly was in Iraq to take out Suddam Hussein and promote a democracy. Even if there was not a democracy in Iraq, someone should be there to baby-sit in order to make sure things calm down. There are times when I think about George W. Bush’s administration and the people who supported the war as obtuse. On the other hand I feel these people really did have a desire to help the people of Iraq who were under Suddam’s rule. There was/is a large amount of destruction in Iraq. Then again when isn’t there after a war. I feel equally as Jed Morey when he states, “For better or for worse, the Bush Doctrine gave America something that it has been missing since the Cuban Missile Crisis—a little touch of crazy. This war proved that you can poke the bear one too many times. It showed that we will throw you out of your house, kill you in front of your friends, marry your wife and rename your kids. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but it’s a lousy way to win friends and influence people”. Bush could have definitely gone about the situation in Iraq more diplomatic (save for the Suddam Hussein issue, he was crazy).
All things considered, I am not sure where I am at. I do not want to say I am in the middle. Perhaps I am. All I know is that I do not highly approve war, especially when the government cannot give a valid basis for it. I also do not support violence as a manner to resolve conflict. I did not support the war in Iraq when it occurred, but I do support the stationing of a few troops on military bases. That is if they do not involve themselves with anything while being there unless asked to do so. I hope for peace in Iraq and a government that their people approve of. It is not our choice. Good luck Iraq! May the future bring you happiness!
Scholarly Resources:
http://www.longislandpress.com/2009/07/02/war-is-over/
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977726801&grpId=3659174697241980
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8741/
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/28/lessons-for-raul/print/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/iraq.kirkuk.bombing/index.html#cnnSTCText
Wednesday Posting #4
As it has been observed in class, researchers generally define a social movement as “a collectivity with some continuity to promote or resist a change in the society or organization of which it is apart…” (Turner and Killian). In addition to the definition, the terrorism movement includes many elements of a social movement such as frames, tactics, “faces”, and even arguably possesses a collective identity. Terrorists, as Pape states “are seeking to establish or maintain political self- determination.” This is similar to the gay rights movement, civil rights movement, and many others. Furthermore, although the terrorism movement is fighting to shut out democracy and maintain traditionalism, they are using their culture within their organization. The manner they use it is by their religion Islam, in which they take it to the extreme. As a result, they use religion to assimilate many people and this sequentially leads to the use of “motivational framing” with emotional approaches (such as the love for Allah). This frame encourages and/or pressures members into activity/ and or action (terrorism). Although very radical in approach it is very much a movement just as all the others we have read about in class. Pape’s article fully interconnects with my conclusion theory of the natural and scientific forest. He makes a case that terrorism is indeed a social movement and its suicidal attacks are not just meant to provoke fear. He considers these attacks to have established goals as well . Pape argues that the root of terrorism is not Islamic fundamentalism, but rather it a response to foreign occupation. The natural and scientific forest theory further explains why this crisis in the Middle East has transpired, and possibly elucidates why this terrorist movement exists today.
First, let us think of the scientific and natural forest. The scientific forest is a natural forest controlled by man or man-made. Managed along with many other aspects are flora and fauna, where they will be placed, what various types will be present, as well as the number. In the natural forest, man does not control it, letting mother nature and the natural mechanism to flow freely. The natural environment is not interrupted and each organism possesses functions that contribute to it. As a result, the natural forest is more capable of dealing with disease, population, along with many other predicaments . We see this theory in the crisis of the Middle East. Who are we as Americans to say that democracy is the best form of government? Do not get me wrong, I love democracy and its freedom, however it is crucial to understand these people have never lived under one. We are intruding onto their land to instill the same blue print as ours to replace their own. The United States went in without fully understanding their culture, their religion, their lives, or ethics. Therefore turmoil has unfolded. Perhaps the best thing to have done was to give people the knowledge of how a democracy works. This would have the intention for them to apply their own culture, ethics, etc. to the new formation of their government. Through this they could have decided to use all, some or none of the democratic principles. We also could have gone Pape’s route where suggests we could have kept our forces close enough to the Middle East in order to deploy in the case of an emergency. This is like the natural forest where man at times only interrupts when there is a conflict such as extinction. Although this theory of the scientific and natural forest is used to explain the emergence of the terrorist movement and/ or anti- Americanism sentiment in the Middle East, it does not approve of the extreme radical tactics in use. It is comprehendable that these people are fighting for their beliefs. However to use Malcom X’s farthest end of “by any means necessary” is unacceptable. While Tilly points that many Americans see terrorism as mindless acts of violence to induce fear, it really is not. It can be converted into a very powerful tool to extort resources and political power. I agree with Tilly and Pape that terrorism is a movement. However there are better means, and further diplomatic ways of handling issues. Communication is one in which I feel the terrorism movement has not wholly attempted to do. I believe this is due to a lack of education, propaganda and former politics in where there was high anti-american sentiment. This group I feel is using terror as a tool to overthrow the government. This is very wrong to do because it makes them illegitimate to create a new one, or even put their two cents in. They are not only committing acts of violence to Americans but to their own people as well.
Scholarly resources:
http://www.bepress.com/ngs/vol2/iss3/art2/
The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts
Blowing Up an Assumption by Robert A. Pape
Violence, Terror, and Politics as Usual by Charles Tilly
Friday Posting #4
JUS 430 OPTIONAL POSTING
THIS POSTING MAY BE DONE IN SUBSTITUTION FOR EITHER THE FOURTH FRIDAY POSTING (DUE JUNE 26) OR THE FOURTH WEDNESDAY POSTING (DUE JULY 1).
Answer one of the following in a blog posting of no less than 750 words. Please cite to at least 3 articles or web-based sources (i.e. blogs, Facebook, myspace, etc.) in your answer. Please use proper grammar and proofread carefully as usual.
How do we see technology changing the face of social protest as demonstrated during current protests in Iran?
I believe technology has very much altered the face of social protest and has been a key element in the voicing of Iran’s opposition. Through social networks via the Internet, articulating the conflict has been quite successful. Twitter up to this point, has been the largest use of technology by Iranians. The media for the past week or so has been extensively using the word Twitter. CNN is crazy about it. Although plenty of information to be found on Twitter was unconfirmed, Tehran and many other cities used it as a mechanism to organize. As a result, Twitter allowed for all citizens of the world to get a feel of what was taking place. The opposition, hostility, the violence, everything can now be voiced and seen. Of course technology has been around for quite sometime and it has been known that one can fake a video and/ or photo. However the view of “A sea of protesters, the faces of young people demanding their votes back, handheld and chaotic video of teargas clouds in the streets of Tehran, and ultimately the death of a young woman” would be difficult Renay San Miguel claims. I entirely concur with him. If one watches the video of the death of Neda Agha Soltan, it is clearly not a sham. The shrieking voice of her father, the screaming of the people, brings that reality from their grounds to yours. I get chills even sitting here writing about it as when I watched the video I cried and gloom took over me. Within one day of her shooting by military officials, the conflict in Iran was well known all over the world. This was done through technology, and without it I do not believe the opposition could have felt so confident. By this, I am referring to the support that was given to them through technological social networks. The Iranians seem very smart and perhaps do not need the world’s support as they are strong enough to fight for what they are now calling their “revolution”. However I believe these technological social networks only helped them to voice their views. It was said in one article there were businesses that work with allowing people in various countries whose governments censor the media, to uncensor it with their software. It is said there is no political predilection but the only goal is “to enable users to be private and secure on the Web, and to have access to the Web”. This allows for the Iranian opposition to view news outside of their own which mostly supports their opposition. While technology has been a useful mechanism for Iran, I feel it is safe to say that it may only be useful in a certain circumstance. That is, what country is using it? As I do not know much of Iran itself or their economy, people, and life I cannot say for sure, but it appears that it is not a third world country. Therefore the change of “face” in social protest by technology is overall successful but limited. One man noted, “Many of the Iranian protesters appear to be from the social elite”. In addition from what I have seen in the media there are many protestors, which leads me to believe that there is a pretty decent education given. The reason why I say this is due to the fact that this “revolution” happened very quickly. In another country whose education is poor, it seems to take a while for people to stand up to their government. Take Venezuela, Cuba, and Egypt for example. When I was in Cuba to study music, there was absolutely very limited technology. It seemed the only place you can find a computer let alone one with Internet access was in a hotel. Civil society does not have a way or unrestricted access to the Internet. For the two weeks I was there I saw enough people to count on one hand who had a cell phone. This further proves my point that the change of social protest through technology is limited. Furthermore, when I was in Venezuela many people had cell phones and Internet access. However the Internet was censored just as in Cuba and their phones are generally old models without cameras or video. How are these people supposed to voice their opinions without technology? Sudarsan Raghavan claims “For years, Egypt's democracy movement has used Internet technology, banners and slogans to galvanize its supporters, rallying often against U.S. policies and taking the lead in championing core Arab causes such as the plight of Palestinians or opposition to war in Iraq. Today, the movement is facing a crisis of leadership and vision and is torn by internal disputes…” This new technology change in social protest did not just stem from Iran, it has been used before. Yet it might be more successful in Iran due to the extensive use of Twitter, which is fairly new. All the more Egypt is considered a third world country. Perhaps their citizens are less educated. As a result, it could be that it was not only technology that helped revolutionize Iran but their education. I believe it is a mixture of both. Technology really did help people come together, voice their opinions, raise awareness and support all the easier. Media critic Adam Reilly also believes that it was not technology entirely which helped the Iranians get their word out. He claims due to the veteran journalists being constrained by the Iranian government or forced out “Twitter would have not had as much clout.” In addition he does not view the social network as a populist tool stating that it could very well be used to “co-opt” by “forces of state”. These are two comprehensible views. However all in all what I feel that we need to see is that Iran is a strong nation who is going to fight for their rights. Technology has changed the face of protest overall, especially in the Iranian conflict. It has raised emotion, awareness and support. But we need to keep in mind this technology is not on hand by everyone in the world. Therefore we have to not only think of the conflict in Iran, but those of other countries as well who are also trying to get their voices out but do not have the means to.
Note: It is now much more difficult for governments to oppress their people as a result of advanced technology.
Scholarly Resources:
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/25/second-guessing-twitters-effect-on-post-election-iran/
I feel that there are 2 different types of “radical”. The first radical we will designate as “radical 1 ”. I recognize this as an action being taken that was highly thought of and well organized. Some people might view it as radical, however it is necessary for the movement to get their point across. The second form of radicalism we will designate as “radical 2”. I recognize this as an action that is not very well thought of and/or organized that may not have the approval from members of the same movement. A great example of the “radical 1” is from the article in which Maxine Wolfe of ACT UP was interviewed by Laraine Sommella. There appears to be quite a few “radical” tactics that were used in the ACT UP organization. They not only picketed around the front of a building Wolfe explains, but they actually broke into one. She claimed, “half the time we would go to dinners that were held by Republicans, we’d go in [Republican] drag to get in… There was this whole idea that you would do what you had to do to get in somewhere, and that you would get into it; you wouldn’t be on the outside looking in, asking people to take your leaflet but you would be demanding that people pay attention to you had to say….”. I believe this is radical, however it was a necessary mean for them to get their point across of AIDS and it’s affect on lives. In addition I felt that even though it was radical, it was used in a very smart organized way; it helped raise awareness of the responsibilities of straight men, not just women, prostitutes and gay men. However, in the Republicans view it perhaps was viewed as extremely radical. I can see this standpoint as understandable because you have people who are coming to you, face to face, trying to persuade you of something you do not believe, thus do not care (such as the opposition of homosexuals). An example of “radical 2” is the Clothesline project. I saw this as extremely radical because it did not seem very well thought up. It is wonderful to raise awareness of the rape issues on campus. However I believe many people of that movement (who are outside the campus) would not have approved. What will putting the name of the violator on your shirt accomplish? It even says in “rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes” in the article “U. of Maryland Correct to Deny Clothesline Protestors a Forum to Publicly Name Alleged Rapists”. This did not seem to be very well planned out on the organizations behalf. It was not thought if that could be a legal issue. The people who were accused have rights as well. As for the pro- life movement, I believe that the picketing is viewed as “radicalism 1”. I consider it radical, as I am pro- choice, and do not like people forcing their opinions on me (not just with this issue but all). However I can see where they are coming from. They truly with all their hearts believe that there should not be abortion, and perhaps they see it as the only way to get to people. However I find their use of words (such as the steps of an abortion) and visuals in their websites to be more emotionally arousing. Perhaps they do it to get more to the political side of things, and I think it is a great way. I believe “outing” is acceptable because it is only freedom of speech. However I do not see it as prolific in the political sense, but as a unifying tool that could lead to it. “Radical” circumstances should be limited like most of the readings have been. However I do think it is necessary at times. This is when a social movement (such as the gay rights movement, and the wish of the right to marry) would like for something to be a law and if politicians are dong nothing about it (which I believe is the case in Iran as of right now).
