Thursday, July 2, 2009
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, July 1, 2009
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, June 26, 2009
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/
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday Assignment 3
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).
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Friday Assignment #3
What are the primary emotions that the Anti-American War movement appears to encourage in its members? Does the “face” the organization puts forth to the public differ from that presented to members or potential recruits?
In the Anti-American War movement, many emotions are involved externally and internally. Although the public is angry by reason of the economic situation, the movement has done a great job in trying to maintain peace, if not outside, most definitely inside. There are indeed various dimensions of emotions that are felt and they differ quite very much. Outside the movement, anger is plenty present. However I do not feel it is the organizations that are implementing this. The lists of emotions felt by civil society exterior to the movement are endless and some are similar to those who are within. These include suspicion, grief, loss, sorrow, shame, anger, mistrust, defiance compassion, pity and sympathy. The similarities in the few emotions that are shared between both inside and outside the movement further made this movement a success. Nonetheless the impression is given that the majority outside this movement feels mistrust and anger. “Generalized trust in the political system, furthermore, affects political behavior, usually dampening protest because of an assumption that the government will fix things without public pressure.” (Goodwin & Jasper). On the reverse end of this quote an increase of civil society involvement occurred due to the government not addressing the ever failing situation in Iraq. The people of the United States saw this issue developing into a poorer situation and took it upon themselves to do something about it. Within the movement there appears to be multiple organizations that are inducing analogous emotions. Many are focusing on sympathy, compassion, grief, loss, and sorrow. Loved ones have been lost and families broken. Take into account that it is not just U.S soldiers and their families who are receiving sympathy as well as empathy. What of the people in Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East)? Many seem to be focusing on this issue. Advocating awareness and visuals are extensively used. Although the economic situation was a large reason to pull the troops out of Iraq by June 30, the movement is attempting to use a less heated emotion. Can you imagine if the center of this anti-American war movement was the downturn of the economy? How much anger would be evoked? Let alone what various forms of protest would have been used? This movement could have easily moved into that of an enraged one. Violence could have been widely present. However I feel this movement used very positive and successful tactics. Civil disobedience, advocating awareness and visuals were the tactics used by this movement, I would say quite lucratively. The matters of violence, health, poverty, and human rights were used to evoke emotion from people external and internal to the movement. Therefore it took a more peaceful attempt in protesting the war in Iraq and it helped them immensely in recruiting. I found a very interesting a website (http://www.afsc.org/eyes/) of which belongs to an organization opposing the war in the Middle East. However this group was initially one comprised of friends with identical religious backgrounds. They chose not only to form an organization opposing the war in the Middle East, but also to also not associate it with their religion. I found this very intelligent, compassionate, and especially flourishing. Below are a few websites that are examples of the tactics that I claim this movement uses:
http://www.gsfp.org/
In regards to the Clothesline Project protestors of University of Maryland….
I believe, although a serious issue, that the school administration was in their right mind to prohibit such actions. I feel that the university was not denying the students of their right to protest against such horrible acts of violence, only trying to prevent more Perhaps these students were only attempting to prevent this to happening to others by demonstrating the offender’s name. However I would believe this to cause more violence. . I do not feel that all college students are mature enough for this (and that is a given when someone comes up with the idea to wear the offender’s name on your t-shirt). The method that would have been more effective is raising awareness about it as well as constructing seminars for safety and self-defense.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Wednesday Assignment #2
If you were to construct or choose the ideal figurehead for environmental activism 2009 going forward, what would such icon, or icons look like? What are the benefits and pitfalls?
I feel the environmental movement highly differs to other movements (gay rights, women’s rights, and the civil rights movements). As a result of this, it would be much more difficult to identify just one figurehead. In relation to others, the environmental movement is one that comprises of all ages, races and genders. However it does give the impression of predilection in politics, of which are mainly democrats and liberalists. With that in mind, it would be essential for this movement to have multiple figureheads in order to assimilate all people. I feel that for environmental activism it would be best to have a figurehead very much like the ones within the civil rights movement. We want someone that we can look up to such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. If I were to be responsible for selecting figureheads for the environmental movement I would choose Captain Planet and Al Gore. Captain Planet would market a great deal to the youth of the world, while Al Gore would market to a mature group. Captain Planet could be a prospect because he does not have a racial, political or religious bias. His political standing is that of environment. He does not belong to any race of people as he has blue skin and green hair. Furthermore he is not associated with any political or religious groups. Captain Planet is part of the Earth and can only be beckoned by a group of multi-racial kids. These children each possess control of a different element such as fire, wind, water, earth, as well as heart. He would be the perfect figurehead of environmental activism, however he does not appeal much to a mature crowd. Thus, for the more mature I believe Al Gore would be a great figurehead. His projects include Live Earth, An Inconvenient Truth (a book and movie), The Alliance for Climate Protection, and Generation Investment Management. Gore is very engaged in environmental activism and I feel that he is the individual that everyone around the world can look up to. However there are some potential pitfalls. Although Gore is no longer associated with any political party, he was the former vice president under former president Bill Clinton. While many republicans do not appear to be concerned on the subject of environmental issues, it might be best to have a figurehead who has not had a political preference. This could perhaps increase further engagement from the republican side if there was someone who could fully understand both sides (mainly industrialism and environment). As Crenshaw’s article on intersectionality stated “The problem with identity politics is not that it fails to transcend difference, as some critics charge, but rather the opposite – that it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences.” Using Al Gore as a figurehead can be potentially unsuccessful as he is of a social higher class. What of the people who do not have the extra money to install solar panels or buy an alternative fuel car? As for the aspect of race and gender, I do not feel that these are large factors in this movement. It was very crucial to address all races and genders in the equal rights movement, but this environmental movement is already global. The environmental predicament is not only here in the United States but all over the world. Furthermore, I do not see Al gore being able to attract many people to this movement. He has great credentials, but I feel perhaps a figurehead that is more “suave” and has more sex appeal might be a better constituent. Please keep in mind, where our older crowd has not, our youth today is being immensely educated on the issues of the environment.
Do you think the civil rights movement might have developed differently if Claudette Colven had been chosen spearhead of the Montgomery Bus Boycott instead of Rosa Parks?
First, let me just say that I feel Claudette Colvin was too young to be involved as a figurehead in the movement. The movement could have possibly had a bad connotation given that Colvin was a “highly emotional 15-year-old 11th-grader about whom there were unsavory stories” (taken from Paul Hendricksons article “The Ladies Before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women”). Not only that (taken from the same article) “E. D. Nixon, in an oral history years later, said that Colvin was pregnant out of wedlock and could not be backed”. “’Mrs. Parks’—as so much of black Montgomery respectfully thought of her—was a small, modest, ascetic-looking, wholly untainted 42-year-old seamstress and civic activist and youth leader: a perfect and righteous symbol for igniting not just a year-long boycott but an entire movement.” If by some means Claudette Colvin was one of the spearheads of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, it could have been looked at as illegitimate. It would have been very much like the case of the equal rights movement and the involvement of Mormons. It was stated in Neil Young’s article “The historiography of the Equal Rights Amendment has largely ignored the Mormon Church’s role in the political battle.” (The ERA Is a Moral Issue: The Mormon Church, LDS Women, and the Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment). This example further shows the Montgomery Bus Boycott could have been proven illegitimate due to Colvin’s possible role in it. It would give the opposition to fight back with “why give these people rights when they are uneducated, insalubrious and pregnant by elderly men?” It could have given the opposition to prove their group all the more inferior.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Friday Assignment #2
§ Review regarding “framing”
There are 3 different types of framing. The first is called “diagnostic framing” which is a movement that convinces probable converts that an issue needs to be addressed. The second is called “prognostic framing” and the intention is to convince people of apposite strategies and tactics concerning the issue(s). The third is “motivational framing” in which the movement attempts to encourage or pressure people into activities (this is mainly done by arousing emotions).
§ Review regarding retention and burnout
One example of retention by using the tactic of cognitive belief is that of the article by Neil Young “The ERA Is a Moral Issue”: The Mormon Church, LDS Women, and the Defeat of the Equal Rights Movement”. An additional further extensively used example was that of communes. Rosabeth Kanter conducted studies on communes and found that retention came from being “simultaneously cognitive, affective, and moral- it involves people’s beliefs, feelings, and moral judgments.” Communes sheltered their members from the outside world which they saw as too opportune and temptacious. They feared losing members to this force therefore controlled relationships and contact with the external world. Although the great deal of commitment requirement by communes further retained members, it is seen in most other movements to be the cause of “burn outs”.
Erick L. Hirsh argued that escalation of conflict and polarization may increase group solidarity. One great example of escalation of conflict is that of the model used by Kimberle Crenshaw of ever increasing reports of immigrant women who were abused by the American citizen husbands. This escalation in conflict brought a group together that was more able to bring awareness and amend the weaknesses of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Can the Anti- U.S involvement in Iraq movement be said to have a particular collective identity or “frame”?
I believe that for many people the culture of the United States is to protect nations who otherwise cannot protect themselves on their own, be a mediator, as well as exercise just and fair decisions. For a period of time the United States was seen as the world hegemon. However due to arguably poor decisions/ actions by former president George W. Bush’s administration, the opposition was augmented due to a conflict in the nation’s collective identity. It should be considered that this collective identity of a just nation is what primarily fuels this antagonism to U.S involvement in Iraq.
The U.S’s involvement in Iraq is not limited to just one frame. It has had steps as well as interconnection between these frames. The diagnostic frame was first observed when the external world (by this, meaning outside of the U.S) was mainly the foundation in establishing disapproval of the U.S’s actions. Many people in various countries were making huge efforts to convince others that a problem needed to be addressed. When realized, a prognostic frame was used due to the prolonged occupancy of American troops in Iraq. Ever more on the rise were people assembling to conjure strategies and tactics in order to get our nation-state out of it’s predicament. Last but not least is motivational framing that appears primarily used today. Protestors have done an exceptional job in raising emotion in human rights and personal stories which come from both Iraq and the U.S. Two cases in point are Pat Tillman, the families of soldiers place in Iraq, as well as the current issue of torture.
§ Compare and contrast the framing of the Anti- U.S involvement in Iraq movement with the pro-life movement and the environmental movement
I in addition believe that the environmental movement is using all frames just as the movement that abhors American involvement in Iraq. However they are being used to different extents. The escalation of conflict occurred very quickly for the war on terrorism. It is fairly new (at least publicly) of the various conflicts that are happening in the environment today. Contradictory to American involvement in Iraq, extensive work was required in the diagnostic frame of the environmental movement. In the 80’s many people were trying to engage people in the environmental conflict, however there was not enough scientifical evidence for people to support it. I deem prognostic framing a new application to this movement as scientific evidence (such as global warming) has been amplified. Working along side that frame also is motivational framing which is put place in schools today to further educate students of environmental issues.
The pro- life movement is much more differed to that of the anti- U.S involvement movement. It appears that the diagnostic frame was omitted, differing from the anti- U.S involvement in Iraq. I believe diagnostic framing was not used due to this being a movement, which included people with cognitive beliefs (and by this I mean religion). Therefore the action of convincing people that a problem needed to be addressed was not essential because in organizations such as churches, many people share the same principles. Consequently, recruiting members was not awfully crucial. Motivational framing is most used in the pro-life movement. Accounts of people who have regretted previous abortions and pictures procedures further arouse the right emotions that this movement needs to stay fervent.
§ Does the U.S involvement in Iraq movement have an iconic “face”?
The U.S involvement in Iraq movement does have a “face” though contradictory to those of other movements. Former President George W. Bush is definitely a “face” for this movement however connotatively poor. The “face” of this movement definitely differs to that of Rosa Parks in the civil rights movement and Cindy Sheehan of the anti-American war movement. When one thinks of the civil rights the people most thought of are Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. When one thinks of the war in Iraq, George W. Bush pops into mind.
§ Does the social movement appear to have strategies for attracting and retaining members?
I believe the pictures of humans’ rights being violated as well as the economic down turn are huge factors in retaining this social movement. The recent torture issues have conjured many feelings, as has the media with stories of soldiers’ families.
§ Who might be the people responsible for starting this movement?
Many higher educated people have been highly involved in the start of this movement. It appears the higher educated one is the more global- minded they are. Therefore I believe it is the people who are very global-minded who started as well as pushed this movement
§ The people who might join this movement?
There are 4 groups of people who would join this movement. The globally minded, the people who have lost their jobs due to the economic downturn, families of soldiers placed in Iraq, as well as religious organizations who contain many pacifists.
§ What are the consequences of the movement you are studying being framed in this particular way?
I believe overall this movement is doing well. They have accomplished a lot because they have incorporated all frames. Although the United States is still involved in Iraq, it is not because the movement has not done enough. Resources are huge, however it is the circumstances in Iraq that are a result of this. Lastly this movement most likely cannot be reframed because it uses all.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Wednesday Assignment 1
Radicalism and assimilation have played out over various movements. It has been observed in the anti-Vietnam war movement, women’s movement, the gay rights movement and the Chicano protest movement. When one thinks of radicalism, Malcom X may well be thought of. Assimilation may perhaps conjure the contemplation of Martin Luther King Jr. Although these two are nearly opposites in approach, the theme “different circumstances call for different solutions” can be seen in many movements of the past as well as those of today.
People were both radical and assimilated in the anti-Vietnam war movement. As the situation in the Vietnam war further deteriorated, civil disobedience was at a peak. An upsurge of partakers took place as well due to the socioeconomic conditions as a result of the war. This was shown when numerous blue-collared workers joined antiwar activities. Seeing that U.S troops were coming home, anti-war protests declined save for the remaining activists who protested the prolonged U.S. bombing, the dilemma of South Vietnamese political prisoners, and U.S. funding of the war
The Chicano movement has been and is assimilated as they are very quiet and peaceful. They use emotional and cultural approaches. An emotional case in point would be in the article “The Origins and History of the Chicano Movement” by Roberto Rodriguez which says “The reasons: lack of historical memory, regionalism and sectarianism, but also government efforts to destroy this nascent movement.” Here, Rodriguez is using an emotional tool to engage the people. The cultural approach can be seen in the process as it began as the movement for self-respect and dignity, to the struggle of being recognized as a people. This is great, however it appears that the African-Americans primarily fought the fight for civil rights. This could be used to argue that assimilation is not prolific.
The women’s movement uses assimilation. They used it through resistance based on persuasion, voter support, and legislation. However there is disagreement on whether women did this on their own accord or by those of the Mormon Church who called for equal rights between women and men. Therefore it could be said that organization involvement was present and it really was not the women fighting on their own free will, rather they were fighting for something that was instilled in them by religious beliefs.
The gay rights movement in the beginning seemed to use radicalism. The reason appeared to be that the community was only trying to get the message out. That equality is part of our law and supposedly our culture so why were homosexuals excluded from this? However today, the gay rights movement has moved in an exceptional direction using assimilation at its finest using legislators, education and more to prove their cause.
Overall, one should not be thought of as more valid when it comes to Dr. King and Malcolm X’s strategies. The reason being different circumstances call for different solutions. In protests of war (such as the movement against U.S involvement in Iraq), it might be best to use peaceful strategies. A group of people should not protest in violence towards another group who is committing it, as it brings them into disrepute. An additional example is that of the civil rights movement in which there was more variation between radicalism and assimilation. Although a peace advocate, Dr. King addressed President Kennedy following the death of four young African-American girls in a church bombing. He advised the president of the ever-growing frustration between the African-American community and indirectly called for a solution. Whether it was a threat or an honest estimation is one thing, nonetheless the African-American community felt like it was being pushed to use violent approaches.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Assignment 1
Assignment 1
In the United States’ involvement in the Iraq, the chronology is split into three periods. The first period is the time prior to invasion in Iraq. The second is the actual invasion up until the fall of Baghdad. The third period is after the fall of Baghdad. These 3 periods along with other aspects were and still are huge factors in the social movement in the protest in the United States’ involvement in Iraq.
Protests all over the world from September 2002 to March 2003 in the first period that we will call “prior to invasion”, were occurring. It was said to be one of the largest protest before a war truly broke out. It was also immensely compared to the Vietnam War. At the start, these protests were politically aimed by a diminutive amount of organizations, some in which joined together. In October 2002, Barrack Obama, as senator of Illinois made a statement, which would later be used, in his 2008 presidential campaign to show good judgment, “I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars”. The Guinness World Book of Records recorded on February 15, 2003, the largest anti-war protest (which occurred all around the world). In attendance were Reverend Jesse Jackson, London mayor Ken Livingstone, as well as the Liberal Democrats leader Charles Kennedy. Overall during this period, there were peaceful protests. However as the war raged on, and the fall of Baghdad came to pass, protests slowly became further violent.
In the period that will be named “invasion to the fall of Bagdad”, protests were becoming more involved as well as violent (although in a slight sense). An example is that of in March 2003, in which worldwide many people attempted to shut down their cities in protest. They started to take different measures from which we saw in the first period. In the United States this included parts of closed cities due to traffic. Another event that took place was in March 2003 where the media reported students in Hamburg, Germany throwing rocks at police, who then replied with water cannons. As a result of the United States still within Iraq, there was more involvement from people who were ever more disagreeing on this war. Therefore since there were more people in attendance to these protests, law enforcers and protestors were increasingly coming into conflict. During this time, many comments were being openly made, such as Susan Sarandon’s giving the peace sign and Michael Moore’s public denouncement of George W. Bush when receiving an award. Also seen was the gradual increase of aversion to the United States. Further proving this was the protest conducted on March 28, 2003 in Tehran, Iran where some 10,000 people (who were supported by their government) chanting “Death to Saddam” as well as “Death to America”. This period appears to be the most intense of all the three.
Following the period of combat is “after the fall of Baghdad” in where in there was a decline in intensity. Protests continued, however they were and still are becoming more detailed. Some instances include the opposition to torture and abuse, calls for withdrawal, support for military resistors such as Lt. Ehren Watada, as well as opposition to military and corporate contractors. However there were still many protests that were initiated by organizations (just as we have seen from the beginning) as well as an increase in people openly and publicly speaking out against the Bush administration. However, arrests were progressively occurring. Most of these arrests were due to civil disobedience. 23 were arrested in Tacoma Washington due to protestors who strived to prevent the U.S military from shipping 300 Stryker armored vehicles to Iraq. All the more, the amount of protest within the United States was increasing. Beforehand it was more of a global protest.
In the view of the Mass Society Theory, one can say that there was not a lost between “intermediary” organizations. There never was one. There is not a federal or international organization/institution that mediates between the individual and government. Therefore there is a “lost of agreement” between the two that could have been the factor of this social movement.
As for the view of Resource Mobilization, formal organizations were very much involved throughout the second period as well as the first. Due to this being a global protest (not just a nation-state one), resources were more readily available and open to nourish it. Discontented people were and still are all around this world, not just in the United States. This makes it a larger protest.
Taking a look at the “Political Process” the economic downturn of last year played greatly onto the problem of the involvement of the U.S in Iraq. There is less repression of protestors also due to the concentration of the government on not the lost of the war, but of the next steps to take thus making it effortless for this movement to be stronger.
In this social movement it should not be believed that one is stronger than the other. They can all be seen as interconnected, each one crucial factor in this social movement in the protest against U.S involvement in Iraq.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
