Concluding Comments
I was looking at back at my introductory entry just two months ago and read “not only is my generation failing to express an adamant resistance to war, we are not making any of our political platforms and perspectives clear to our government officials and to the rest of the community. I will use this blog to . . . investigate why protests are losing value and power.” Not only did my investigation shift direction, but my thesis has completely changed. My generation is indeed making our opinions clear; we are just doing it using new methods that are equally as powerful, and more relevant than the methods of the sixties. A lack of personal connection to issues, such as a draft linking young people to war, may explain a decreased forceful opposition to war, but on the whole, students of today are as active as they ever have been. Media censorship limits coverage of this activism, and new protest methods have not yet been acknowledged. There has been a notable decline in physical presence, though, which may explain the judgment that we are not active. Indeed we are not out protesting with pickets and staging marches and demonstrations like we once were, but online petitions and blogs have skyrocketed. Anonymous methods of activism are huge among my generation who use them to articulate political platforms without attaching personally to those opinions. Internet blogs and petitions have replaced picket signs, coming to represent peace and politics in the minds rather than hands of my generation. If the vast size of the internet yields any predictive power, the voice of the youth will be heard loud and clear. Move On, generation now. Move On to great things.
MoveOn.org
MoveOn.org epitomizes modern political activism. Students no longer go out and stage marches and demonstrations, but they still work to get their voice heard using their most powerful tool: the internet.
MoveOn.org was created in September of 1998 in the wake up the Bill Clinton impeachment process. Joan Boyd and Wes Blades were frustrated with the issues the government was focusing on in that process and started this site that has since become one of the most powerful, influential Political Action Committees. They “launched an online petition to “Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard. They found their soundbox.
MoveOn.org has developed to support liberal progressives, working to defeat the right wing. Site visitors vote on issues they feel are most important, which become the issues that Move On works to support and/or protest.
The most important, and perhaps most powerful, aspect of Move On is that it is intended for and uses by average political participants. All of its proceeds go to support issues and democratic candidates. “Through 2004, MoveOn.org Political Action raised approximately $11 million dollars for 81 candidates from over 300,000 donors. In 2005, MoveOn.org Political Action grew to 3.3 million members and 125,000 members contributed $9 million to progressive candidates and campaigns (average donation: $45).” People do not need to supply hundreds and thousands of dollars to influence politics. When the people come together, as this site has encouraged, each little independent contribution adds up to make a huge difference. This site has brought people back into the American political process.
This thank you to Move On demonstrates the power and opportunity that has been given back to the people:
I can't thank you enough for providing the tools I've always wanted for social change. With MoveOn, I feel like I have a voice in the world and an organization fighting for the same things that are important to me. As a working professional and mother, I don't have time to look up whom to contact on what issues. You make it possible for me to fight against the infuriating things that I see either destroying or about to destroy our country.
Thank you all at MoveOn.org for your vision and your work.
Sincerely,
Laurie (Matawan, NJ)
MoveOn.org
MoveOn.org was created in September of 1998 in the wake up the Bill Clinton impeachment process. Joan Boyd and Wes Blades were frustrated with the issues the government was focusing on in that process and started this site that has since become one of the most powerful, influential Political Action Committees. They “launched an online petition to “Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard. They found their soundbox.
MoveOn.org has developed to support liberal progressives, working to defeat the right wing. Site visitors vote on issues they feel are most important, which become the issues that Move On works to support and/or protest.
The most important, and perhaps most powerful, aspect of Move On is that it is intended for and uses by average political participants. All of its proceeds go to support issues and democratic candidates. “Through 2004, MoveOn.org Political Action raised approximately $11 million dollars for 81 candidates from over 300,000 donors. In 2005, MoveOn.org Political Action grew to 3.3 million members and 125,000 members contributed $9 million to progressive candidates and campaigns (average donation: $45).” People do not need to supply hundreds and thousands of dollars to influence politics. When the people come together, as this site has encouraged, each little independent contribution adds up to make a huge difference. This site has brought people back into the American political process.
This thank you to Move On demonstrates the power and opportunity that has been given back to the people:
I can't thank you enough for providing the tools I've always wanted for social change. With MoveOn, I feel like I have a voice in the world and an organization fighting for the same things that are important to me. As a working professional and mother, I don't have time to look up whom to contact on what issues. You make it possible for me to fight against the infuriating things that I see either destroying or about to destroy our country.
Thank you all at MoveOn.org for your vision and your work.
Sincerely,
Laurie (Matawan, NJ)
MoveOn.org
Berkeley tree-huggers (update)
Following up on my mention of the Cal tree huggers, I found these reasons that the tree huggers provide for their protest that they distribute on pamphlets:
SEVEN REASONS WHY THE OAK GROVE SHOULD NOT BE DESTROYED
1. It is a Native American burial ground. Native American remains were found at the site in 1923 when the stadium was being built. UC Berkley tried to hide this from the public but documentation was leaked by a conscious UCB employee.
2. It is a World War I Memorial site. The stadium and the Oak Grove are named in honor of Californians who died in World War I.
3. Berkeley City Law prohibits removing mature Coast Live Oaks. Coast Live Oaks are Protected Heritage Trees in the City of Berkeley. If UCB, the largest landowner in Berkeley, doesn't have to follow city ordinances, why should anyone else have to?
4. The new proposed development is adjacent to the (recently active) Hayward Fault. Since the tree-sit started on Dec. 2 there have been seven earthquakes (ranging from 2.0-4.2 on the Richter scale) on the Hayward fault which runs directly under Memorial Stadium.
5. There are four lawsuits against UC Berkeley. A diverse group of institutions and organizations; the City of Berkeley, California Oaks Foundation, Panoramic Hill Association and Save Tightwad Hill are challenging the proposed development as being in violation of various regulations including CEQA (California Envoironmental Quality Air Act), the Alquist-Priolo Act (earthquake fault proximity), and laws regarding emergency access and response requirements.
6. Global Warming is the biggest problem we face today. Cutting down old Oak (and other trees accellerates warming and climate change. Replacing these trees with saplings does not come close to replacing the bio-mass lost.
7. There are other viable alternative sites for the facility. The athletic training facility can be built at Maxwell Field, with the playing surface maintained above. The parking lot at Bancroft/Fulton is another option. A third option is the building at 2223 Fulton St., which is in need of demolition. A further option is expansion at the Edwards Field site. These are only some of the many alternatives to building at Oak Grove.
WE CAN HAVE NEW GYMS AND OLD GROWTH
I can’t find very much information on this issue, but I heard on radio news that the tree huggers are being legally evicted this week and that the company has been given the permits required for the development. This means a defeat for the students’ issues, but a win for student protests. These student have essentially devoted this time (which some say has been as long as year of living in trees) in their lives to a cause. They earned national attention and gained a lot of support. I am glad that the Berkeley students are still living up to their sixties generation of political activism. Good for them!
http://12thstreetchatter.blogspot.com/2007/09/cal-tree-huggerscampers.html
SEVEN REASONS WHY THE OAK GROVE SHOULD NOT BE DESTROYED
1. It is a Native American burial ground. Native American remains were found at the site in 1923 when the stadium was being built. UC Berkley tried to hide this from the public but documentation was leaked by a conscious UCB employee.
2. It is a World War I Memorial site. The stadium and the Oak Grove are named in honor of Californians who died in World War I.
3. Berkeley City Law prohibits removing mature Coast Live Oaks. Coast Live Oaks are Protected Heritage Trees in the City of Berkeley. If UCB, the largest landowner in Berkeley, doesn't have to follow city ordinances, why should anyone else have to?
4. The new proposed development is adjacent to the (recently active) Hayward Fault. Since the tree-sit started on Dec. 2 there have been seven earthquakes (ranging from 2.0-4.2 on the Richter scale) on the Hayward fault which runs directly under Memorial Stadium.
5. There are four lawsuits against UC Berkeley. A diverse group of institutions and organizations; the City of Berkeley, California Oaks Foundation, Panoramic Hill Association and Save Tightwad Hill are challenging the proposed development as being in violation of various regulations including CEQA (California Envoironmental Quality Air Act), the Alquist-Priolo Act (earthquake fault proximity), and laws regarding emergency access and response requirements.
6. Global Warming is the biggest problem we face today. Cutting down old Oak (and other trees accellerates warming and climate change. Replacing these trees with saplings does not come close to replacing the bio-mass lost.
7. There are other viable alternative sites for the facility. The athletic training facility can be built at Maxwell Field, with the playing surface maintained above. The parking lot at Bancroft/Fulton is another option. A third option is the building at 2223 Fulton St., which is in need of demolition. A further option is expansion at the Edwards Field site. These are only some of the many alternatives to building at Oak Grove.
WE CAN HAVE NEW GYMS AND OLD GROWTH
I can’t find very much information on this issue, but I heard on radio news that the tree huggers are being legally evicted this week and that the company has been given the permits required for the development. This means a defeat for the students’ issues, but a win for student protests. These student have essentially devoted this time (which some say has been as long as year of living in trees) in their lives to a cause. They earned national attention and gained a lot of support. I am glad that the Berkeley students are still living up to their sixties generation of political activism. Good for them!
http://12thstreetchatter.blogspot.com/2007/09/cal-tree-huggerscampers.html
Modern Methods of Protest
There is a notion that the generation of students today is apathetic and uninvolved in politics, disengaging from issues and events. This is a misconception created in part by lack of media coverage, but mostly by changing means of protest and involvement. I asked Carolyn Knox about this misconception of an apathetic generation and she said,
"I believe there is a very strong opposition to the government at this point. Violence is never pretty and alternatives to violence are not obvious. A generally agreed-upon vision for how to make forceful opposition work in this country has not emerged at this point--neither has a grass-roots organization of people who can articulate even a half-assed version of such a vision." (1) Essentially students still have powerful, emotional commitments to issues they have clear opinions about, but they just do not know how to make those opinions clear to everyone else. The sixties and seventies are represented by youth activism and change, but the methods incorporated into that activism and change is not used today as result of laws and regulations and declining necessity. Students today no longer need to go out and make loud, perhaps even violent, statements. The student voice is no longer ignored as it was in the sixties. Those students earned a voice and we take full advantage of their successes, sharing our opinions in new ways.
One evident change in the way students today demonstrate the issues they are passionate about is not through marching. Marches were common ways of education and publicity from the sixties until as late as the nineties but are becoming less frequent and even less influential. Christina Larson wrote an article about this trend, arguing that, “While in the past a march was judged successful if it affected a political outcome; today's protests are judged on how they affect a protester's sense of self” (2). I think protesters are motivated by the drive to something, anything, to help the cause they are passionate about. As professor Knox explained, not very many people aware of how to make an opposition heard. People may use marches not as a forceful means of opposition, education, or aid, but more as a tactic to be able to say I did something. Also, the social value of protest marches is increasing as fast as the ineffectivity rate.
Silent, artistic demonstrations are gaining popularity, media coverage, and influence. People do not have to be present at these demonstrations to articulate the anonymous political standpoint. This is the second year that the University of Oregon had the anti-Iraq War flag demonstration on campus as pictured above. Each of the white flags represented six Iraqi people killed in war, each of the red represtned one American killed. The flags, even representing more than one person, still covered a huge portion of the campus grass. It was not publicized who posted these flags and sings, but the silent message was sent loud and clear. The scene was really rather tragically beautiful and impossible to ignore. Google searches for information and pictures of the demonstration yield hundreds of sites and articles, showing that the message is being carried further than the University campus. The issue is more important than the protesters in these types of demonstrations.
(1) Carolyn Knox, University of Oregon, interview
(2) Christina Larson, “Postmodern Protests: Why marches matter only to those who march”
Hiding the Truth with Media Censorship
Media and censorship have tremendously inhibited the public political sphere. Corporate ownership of media has limited free speech and censorship limits publicity and shows only partial truths. Carolyn Knox argues that, "corporate ownership of the media allows the information coming to Americans to be controlled much more than it was forty years ago. We rarely see real outlaw, underground journalism that appeals to young/concerned people in a big way. That's true even here in Eugene where the Weekly is as close as we get to an underground paper, and it is not really a true, strong voice of opposition." Mainstream media is centrally controlled and publishes the same stories with the same political bias while claiming to be neutral. CNN and FOX publicize support for the American government while a proven majority is in opposition. Groups such as CODEPINK show up at trials and interviews and speeches and could use the media to publicize their peaceful political aims, but are edited out of news reports. Scenes such as the courtroom scene in which a pink lady activist ran up to Condoleezza Rice with seemingly bloody hands screaming “there’s blood on your hands” are major enough to make national television but instead can only be found on YouTube searches. Political opposition has been increasingly pushed underground by the media. Blogs, YouTube clips, and internet sites are found by specific searches or by accident, and provide great outlets to share and learn about political activism and opposition, but are not mainstream or publicized. Even the statues quo and the mainstream majority may be in opposition to war (both Iraq and Vietnam) but the media continues to broadcast a different view.
Address by Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson on October 27, 2007
I have been researching and writing about political protests and the lack of risk that is involved in modern protests, but Professor Knox sent me a speech that directly contradicts my theory that people do not take risks anymore. This speech is not a typical protest; it’s a speech, not a demonstration, a march, a bombing, etc. The words are of value though, and hold the power to instigate change. Mayor Anderson used his political power to send a message, and perhaps a lesson, to the American people while risking his political office and career to criticize the presidency and the political institution that he himself is a part of.
I have included his speech here because I think it is worthwhile for everyone to read:
WE WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE
Salt Lake City, Utah -- Today, as we come together once again in this great city, we raise our voices in unison to say to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a majority of Congress, including Utah's entire congressional delegation, and to much of the mainstream media: "You have failed us miserably and we won't take it any more." "While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss." "You have breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty obligations, and betrayed the rule of law." "You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of the sort never before countenanced in our nation's history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American men and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications, without competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder." "We are here to tell you: We won't take it any more!" "You have acted in direct contravention of values that we, as Americans who love our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the most cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed the undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among the three presumed co-equal branches of government. You have helped lead our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of our nation's treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our Constitution, and the rule of law." "Because of you, and because of your jingoistic false 'patriotism,' our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far more despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever before. It has been absolutely astounding how you have committed the most horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense - when what you have done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling - and disgraceful. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand? What part of the "Golden rule" do you not understand? What part of "be honest," "be responsible," and "be accountable" don't you understand? What part of "Blessed are the peacekeepers" do you not understand? Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, many thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and millions have been run off from their homes. For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and sisters around the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, 'We won't take it any more!' " "As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings around the world, you justify, you deceive, and you cover up. We find what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and reputation of the United States, so appalling, so unconscionable, and so outrageous as to compel us to call upon you to step aside and allow other men and women who are competent, true to our nation's values, and with high moral principles to stand in your places - for the good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the good of our world." In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment and removal from office, without any further delay from a complacent, complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares more about political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic accountability. It means the election of people as President and Vice President who, unlike most of the presidential candidates from both major parties, have not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal, tragic, devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election of people as President and Vice President who will commit to return our nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from torturing human beings. In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who are diligent enough to learn the facts, including reading available National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard Congress's sole prerogative to declare war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to presidential requests for blank checks to engage in so-called preemptive wars, for legislation permitting warrantless wiretapping of communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible, saber-rattling legislation like the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment. We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country - and the world. They were enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and, ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people - 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks - a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets are wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by a government for which we need to take responsibility. As loyal Americans, without regard to political partisanship -- as veterans, as teachers, as religious leaders, as working men and women, as students, as professionals, as businesspeople, as public servants, as retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins, sexual orientations, and faiths -- we are here to say to the Bush administration, to the majority of Congress, and to the mainstream media: "You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have undermined our democracy, spat upon our Constitution, and engaged in outrageous, despicable acts. You have brought our nation to a point of immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic, unprecedented proportions." "But we will live up to our responsibilities as citizens, as brothers and sisters of those who have suffered as a result of the imperial bullying of the United States government, and as moral actors who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it when we say 'We won't take it any more.'" If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be principled, courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has demonstrated that our elected officials are not the leaders - the leadership has to come from us. If we don't insist, if we don't persist, then we are not living up to our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy - and our responsibilities as moral human beings. If we remain silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration - and to candidates running for office - and to the world - that we support the status quo. Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what's right and never letting down can we say we are doing our part. Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was entirely fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no danger to the United States. Our government, acting in our name, has caused immense, unjustified death and destruction. It all started five years ago, yet where have we, the American people, been? At this point, we are responsible. We get together once in a while at demonstrations and complain about Bush and Cheney, about Congress, and about the pathetic news media. We point fingers and yell a lot. Then most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months later. How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning about and opposing the outrages of the Bush administration as they have spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past five years? Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have indeed become the opiate of the masses. Why is this country so sound asleep? Why do we abide what is happening to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of peace and international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to put an end to this madness? We should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising hell on our campuses. We should be making it clear in every way possible that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don't cut it when presidential candidates and so many others voted to authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American men and women to attack and occupy Iraq. Let's awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across the country, as we ask others to join us: "We won't take it any more!" I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral breaking point is. How much will you put up with before you say "No more" and mean it? I have drawn my line as a matter of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as possible, from Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name. If we expect our nation's elected officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our support for granted - that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided, principled leadership. The people of this nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we won't let it go on one more day - that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral degradation, and the disintegration of our nation's reputation in the world. Let us be unified in drawing the line - in declaring that we do have a moral breaking point. Let us insist, together, in supporting our troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which our veterans gave so much, that we bring our troops home from Iraq, that we return our government to a constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring the fundamental principles of human rights. In defense of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of our shared values as Americans - and as moral human beings - we declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the insanity, stop the continued military occupation of Iraq, and stop the moral depravity reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture of people around the world.
I have included his speech here because I think it is worthwhile for everyone to read:
WE WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE
Salt Lake City, Utah -- Today, as we come together once again in this great city, we raise our voices in unison to say to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a majority of Congress, including Utah's entire congressional delegation, and to much of the mainstream media: "You have failed us miserably and we won't take it any more." "While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss." "You have breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty obligations, and betrayed the rule of law." "You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of the sort never before countenanced in our nation's history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American men and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications, without competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder." "We are here to tell you: We won't take it any more!" "You have acted in direct contravention of values that we, as Americans who love our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the most cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed the undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among the three presumed co-equal branches of government. You have helped lead our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of our nation's treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our Constitution, and the rule of law." "Because of you, and because of your jingoistic false 'patriotism,' our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far more despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever before. It has been absolutely astounding how you have committed the most horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense - when what you have done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling - and disgraceful. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand? What part of the "Golden rule" do you not understand? What part of "be honest," "be responsible," and "be accountable" don't you understand? What part of "Blessed are the peacekeepers" do you not understand? Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, many thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and millions have been run off from their homes. For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and sisters around the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, 'We won't take it any more!' " "As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings around the world, you justify, you deceive, and you cover up. We find what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and reputation of the United States, so appalling, so unconscionable, and so outrageous as to compel us to call upon you to step aside and allow other men and women who are competent, true to our nation's values, and with high moral principles to stand in your places - for the good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the good of our world." In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment and removal from office, without any further delay from a complacent, complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares more about political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic accountability. It means the election of people as President and Vice President who, unlike most of the presidential candidates from both major parties, have not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal, tragic, devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election of people as President and Vice President who will commit to return our nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from torturing human beings. In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who are diligent enough to learn the facts, including reading available National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard Congress's sole prerogative to declare war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to presidential requests for blank checks to engage in so-called preemptive wars, for legislation permitting warrantless wiretapping of communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible, saber-rattling legislation like the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment. We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country - and the world. They were enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and, ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people - 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks - a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets are wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by a government for which we need to take responsibility. As loyal Americans, without regard to political partisanship -- as veterans, as teachers, as religious leaders, as working men and women, as students, as professionals, as businesspeople, as public servants, as retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins, sexual orientations, and faiths -- we are here to say to the Bush administration, to the majority of Congress, and to the mainstream media: "You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have undermined our democracy, spat upon our Constitution, and engaged in outrageous, despicable acts. You have brought our nation to a point of immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic, unprecedented proportions." "But we will live up to our responsibilities as citizens, as brothers and sisters of those who have suffered as a result of the imperial bullying of the United States government, and as moral actors who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it when we say 'We won't take it any more.'" If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be principled, courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has demonstrated that our elected officials are not the leaders - the leadership has to come from us. If we don't insist, if we don't persist, then we are not living up to our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy - and our responsibilities as moral human beings. If we remain silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration - and to candidates running for office - and to the world - that we support the status quo. Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what's right and never letting down can we say we are doing our part. Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was entirely fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no danger to the United States. Our government, acting in our name, has caused immense, unjustified death and destruction. It all started five years ago, yet where have we, the American people, been? At this point, we are responsible. We get together once in a while at demonstrations and complain about Bush and Cheney, about Congress, and about the pathetic news media. We point fingers and yell a lot. Then most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months later. How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning about and opposing the outrages of the Bush administration as they have spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past five years? Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have indeed become the opiate of the masses. Why is this country so sound asleep? Why do we abide what is happening to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of peace and international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to put an end to this madness? We should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising hell on our campuses. We should be making it clear in every way possible that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don't cut it when presidential candidates and so many others voted to authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American men and women to attack and occupy Iraq. Let's awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across the country, as we ask others to join us: "We won't take it any more!" I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral breaking point is. How much will you put up with before you say "No more" and mean it? I have drawn my line as a matter of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as possible, from Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name. If we expect our nation's elected officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our support for granted - that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided, principled leadership. The people of this nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we won't let it go on one more day - that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral degradation, and the disintegration of our nation's reputation in the world. Let us be unified in drawing the line - in declaring that we do have a moral breaking point. Let us insist, together, in supporting our troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which our veterans gave so much, that we bring our troops home from Iraq, that we return our government to a constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring the fundamental principles of human rights. In defense of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of our shared values as Americans - and as moral human beings - we declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the insanity, stop the continued military occupation of Iraq, and stop the moral depravity reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture of people around the world.
Berkeley Tree-Huggers
I was watching college football today and during the first half of the USC v Cal game, cameras switched view from the action to outside the stadium. Students were posted in trees with signs and words for passersby. The announcers didn't go into full detail about what they were protesting, but apparently some business wants to go in and cut down the trees to build just outside the stadium. I felt an instant connection and admiration for these brave, devoted students. Eugenians and Oregonians are stereotypically the "tree huggers" but over in Berkeley the historically very active students were embracing this environmental issue. They are not being loud or violent, but obviously they are earning attention for their cause. I was actually pleasantly surprised that they were shown on national television.
Who can say that this generation is apathetic? This here is evidence to the contrary. I will look into this more to see what it is about and find out if the students are successful.
CODEPINK and Black Power: Idealism in their hands
Pink Ladies, Black Power Salute
There are not very many powerful existing grass-roots organizations, but one that was brought to my attention this term in class was CODEPINK, an organization that has grown in size and influence since its creation on November 17th, 2002 (1). According to their website, their mission statement is: “CODEPINK is a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the war in Iraq, stop new wars, and redirect our resources into healthcare, education and other life-affirming activities. We reject the Bush administration's fear-based politics that justify violence, and instead call for policies based on compassion, kindness and a commitment to international law. With an emphasis on joy and humor, CODEPINK women and men seek to activate, amplify and inspire a community of peacemakers through creative campaigns and a commitment to non-violence (2).” Part of the emphasis on peace, CODEPINK utilizes the simple peace sign to demonstrate their platform, as shown in the image of a CODEPINK member above. This simple hand gesture has astounding similarities to the black power gesture during the 1968 Olympics.
Tommie Smith and Carlos Jones were two athletes who competed and medaled in the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City (3). They had been asked to boycott the games in protest of continuing racism that the civil rights movement did not eliminate. The boycott never happened, but Smith and Jones had a secret plan to show support for the protest. They both ran well in the 200m race and medaled. During the ceremony they gave the famous black power salute. “Smith later told the media that he raised his right, black-glove-covered fist in the air to represent black power in America while Carlos' left, black-covered fist represented unity in black America. Together they formed an arch of unity and power. The black scarf around Smith's neck stood for black pride and their black socks (and no shoes) represented black poverty in racist America (4).” The scene was broadcasted live on international television and earned the two students suspension from the Olympic team and expulsion from the Olympic village. Their political message overshadowed their amazing athletic achievement, Today they are honored for not only great athletic ability but also for their bravery. It is interesting to note that the silver award winner, Peter Norman of Australia, a white athlete, also supported the movement that Smith and Jones supported by wearing an OPHR badge during the ceremony.
CODEPINK and the Black Power Salute are both silent hand gestures that embody major political ideals: peace and equality. The two gestures do not have equal fame or notoriety though, which in large part is due to media censorship. The 1968 Olympics were broadcasted live, so everyone watching the games saw the black power salute. The pink ladies are often censored out of trials, speeches, etc. I will dive into media and censorship in a different entry.
(1, 2) codepink4peace.org
(3, 4) John Gettings, Memorable Olympic Moments
Modern Universities: Teaching Conformity
This here is an image of the famous (at least at the University level) Mario Savio, one of my political heroes. Savio was a very outspoken UC Berkeley Student fighting for student and civil rights in the sixties. This photograph not only captures Savio's intensity and the anger of the police force, but beyond the focus point there are people: hundreds, maybe thousands of people. Savio and his peers united, coming together to protest and stand and fight for what they believed in. Our modern generation is at a loss for what to fight for. We often wonder what is worth fighting for, or even how to fight for that which we may be passionate about. This is not because the school systems, the politics, and the community are so perfect that we should not work for change. This is because we have been raised to be content with our surrounding environment and conform to the status quo.
As I have gotten older and more confident in myself, I have firmed my personal and political perspectives. I will now confidently affirm that I am a self-defined leftist liberal (non-violent though!). I was having a conversation with a friend last year when I admitted that a career in politics might interest me. After saying that I added: “Even if I want to be a politician I will never get voted into any office; not without softening my political platform first.” I thought about that statement when I was reading several of Mario Savio’s speeches this term. I knew that I could not stand as an individual with strong, maybe sometimes radical, political goals and earn votes. I could not strive to make the political changes from within the political sphere unless I changed my goals to fit the status quo. EVERYTHING is about the status quo. Uniqueness does not fit in; does not get in, a concept taught, enforced, and maintained by politics and the university systems. As Savio said back in the sixties, "the university is well structured, well tooled to turn out people with all the sharp edges worn off, the well rounded person." Students were, and still are, generally taught not how to be individual and unique, but how to fit in with society. By abandoning our positions to join the majority, we accept what is the majority and blind ourselves to what needs to be changed. There is a veil over our eyes, held by the status quo. Mario Savio lifted that veil in the sixties, but since then it has fallen back, increasingly heavier. He taught his peers and perhaps the whole student generation of the sixties to deny the goals of the status quo and fight for what they personally believed in. This generation now still holds specific issues at heart that do not conform to the status quo but are either too timid to make that opinion clear or just do not know how.
Carolyn Knox On Protests
As a person with very close personal involvement in politics and political protest, Carolyn Knox has powerful words of wisdom to share on this subject. Regarding anti-war protests, she said, "People make such a risk when they feel they have no choice. This feeling can come after tangible/personal trauma or as a result of perceived/shared trauma within a group. Obviously, we do not have a draft--that keeps the American middle class from feeling the cost of this war in a personal way. In our time, we have not quite hit the line where--as a group--we identify with Middle-eastern people who are victims of our governments' imperialism. The Vietnamese were easy for us to feel close to: They were fierce but peaceful, agrarian, peasant people who believed in democracy and had great respect for women. Middle eastern people are relatively wealthy, male chauvinist, homophobes, who are easy to make fun or/and demonize. That fractures grass roots organization on their behalf and confuses us in general. I believe that issues around American torture and off-shore prisons are the clearest issues that Americans can feel strong opposition to right now. As/If Homeland Security invades personal space more in this country and evidence of torture off-shore grows--we may see more people in the street."
There have been far fewer anti-war protests occurring for Iraq than for Vietnam (at least physical protest, ignoring written works, etc). Knox offers a couple reasons why, according to her perspective. First, a draft no longer exists. Men and women who go to war go by choice. During the Vietnam war generation, there was huge concern that those who declared war (or didn’t officially, in this case) were acting on a highly controversial cause and would bring in people to fight who did not support the war in any way. There were much higher potential personal costs during Vietnam, proving stronger incentive to protest actively.
Second, an interesting thought, is that American people identify easier with the Vietnamese than the Iraqi people. Stereotypically, the Vietnamese are more peaceful and democratic (ideals America associates with) then the Iraqi people who we tend to demonize. The Iraqi people represent our opposites who we are less likely to protest in support of. American people may be adamantly in opposition to the war, but not necessarily in support of Iraqi politics, which I can see how that may inhibit some grassroots movements that support change, but not through war.
Carolyn Knox, University of Oregon, interview
There have been far fewer anti-war protests occurring for Iraq than for Vietnam (at least physical protest, ignoring written works, etc). Knox offers a couple reasons why, according to her perspective. First, a draft no longer exists. Men and women who go to war go by choice. During the Vietnam war generation, there was huge concern that those who declared war (or didn’t officially, in this case) were acting on a highly controversial cause and would bring in people to fight who did not support the war in any way. There were much higher potential personal costs during Vietnam, proving stronger incentive to protest actively.
Second, an interesting thought, is that American people identify easier with the Vietnamese than the Iraqi people. Stereotypically, the Vietnamese are more peaceful and democratic (ideals America associates with) then the Iraqi people who we tend to demonize. The Iraqi people represent our opposites who we are less likely to protest in support of. American people may be adamantly in opposition to the war, but not necessarily in support of Iraqi politics, which I can see how that may inhibit some grassroots movements that support change, but not through war.
Carolyn Knox, University of Oregon, interview
Johnson Hall Sit-In
The preceding two documents stem from the Johnson Hall sit-in at the University of Oregon in 1970 (1) in which protesters established a congregation place in the University building and remained there after hours to express their opposition the the war in Vietnam. Sixty three students were arrested (2). That 1970s generation of students faced the same risks that me and my peers faced in 2002: authority opposition, trouble with the University, legal repercussions, etc. They did not back down like we did though, they followed through with their sit-in. Two factors may have made the difference between the success of their sit-in versus the abandonment of ours. The Vietnam generation students had a more personal relationship with the war due to the draft, and they also had some authority support in President Clark.
In his letter to President Clark, Attorney General Lee Johnson blatantly ignored the cause and goals of the protest, focusing only on the legal issues. He described the sit-in saying, "students are singing and making music and loud noises" (3). He devalued the admirable action of the interested, active students. He was not curious about the students' messages, but only in the violations of the laws that he listed as the trespass statute, disorderly conduct statute, and unlawful assembly statute that "can result in arrests and criminal prosecutions" (4). The 1971 University of Oregon students risked lot in violation of multiple laws to get the attention of people in power, such as Lee Johnson, but the attention being given was strictly in reaction to the illegal actions. The students had their attention, not their messages.
President Clark worked to reverse the type of attention his students were getting, standing in support of their non violent action. My fellow class officers and I had worked to find a school authority who would provide value, support, and our credibility with no success, but President Clark filled this role for his students. While not necessarily condoning the illegal aspects of the protests (certainly not those violent actions that a few students engaged in) he wholeheartedly admired and supported them (5) for their activism and probably put his job on the line to do so. He assured his students that "if we are forced to take police action, we should take it reluctantly and in sorrow" (6). Police action ended up being taken and more than sixty students were arrested, but the students sent their message. They could not bring the troops home themselves, but they were certainly going to articulate that that was what they wanted.
Sources:
(1, 2) A Brief History of the UO, http://www.uoregon.edu/~uocomm/newsreleases/facts/history.html
(3, 4) Lee Johnson, letter to President Clark
University of Oregon Archives
(5, 6) Robert Clark on the Johnson Hall Sit-In
University of Oregon Archives
In his letter to President Clark, Attorney General Lee Johnson blatantly ignored the cause and goals of the protest, focusing only on the legal issues. He described the sit-in saying, "students are singing and making music and loud noises" (3). He devalued the admirable action of the interested, active students. He was not curious about the students' messages, but only in the violations of the laws that he listed as the trespass statute, disorderly conduct statute, and unlawful assembly statute that "can result in arrests and criminal prosecutions" (4). The 1971 University of Oregon students risked lot in violation of multiple laws to get the attention of people in power, such as Lee Johnson, but the attention being given was strictly in reaction to the illegal actions. The students had their attention, not their messages.
President Clark worked to reverse the type of attention his students were getting, standing in support of their non violent action. My fellow class officers and I had worked to find a school authority who would provide value, support, and our credibility with no success, but President Clark filled this role for his students. While not necessarily condoning the illegal aspects of the protests (certainly not those violent actions that a few students engaged in) he wholeheartedly admired and supported them (5) for their activism and probably put his job on the line to do so. He assured his students that "if we are forced to take police action, we should take it reluctantly and in sorrow" (6). Police action ended up being taken and more than sixty students were arrested, but the students sent their message. They could not bring the troops home themselves, but they were certainly going to articulate that that was what they wanted.
Sources:
(1, 2) A Brief History of the UO, http://www.uoregon.edu/~uocomm/newsreleases/facts/history.html
(3, 4) Lee Johnson, letter to President Clark
University of Oregon Archives
(5, 6) Robert Clark on the Johnson Hall Sit-In
University of Oregon Archives
University of Oregon Johnson Hall Sit-In: Letter to President Clark
Stand up for a cause! Without making a scene of course...
Sometime during the spring of my sophomore year in high school, my fellow sophomore class officers and I decided to petition our leadership class into planning and carrying out a sleep-in protest to Bush’s war. We were very gun-ho about this exciting and powerful message we wanted to express. We wanted to tell our school, our parents, our community that we did not support the war in any way. We had plans to hold a free speech platform in which anyone could speak about the war. We wanted to invite the media to help spread our message. We wanted anyone and everyone to come participate in the sleep-in. The first step we took was trying to gain support from our school teachers and administrators. We knew that by adding the involvement and support of authority our ideas would be more valued and respected. We found unwilling teachers and an unrelenting administration.
Attempts to corral authority support only yielded warnings about the risks our protests held. My parents pleaded with me to not risk my potential for earning college scholarships and offers by getting into trouble. We could not find a single teacher willing to put his or her job on the line to protest the war. Our administration threatened me and my peers with suspension of expulsion if we carried out this sleep in. My school was afraid to ruffle any feathers within what I viewed as a liberal city.
Being fourteen and very influenced by my authority figures, I personally decided to abandon our plan, and eventually everyone else followed suit. We were too afraid to lose what we had worked for thus far in our lives. We were still equally as opposed to the war, but no one knew.
We elected to hold a picket protest on a Saturday afternoon rather than hold a sleep in with speeches and interviews, and a solid media presence. We had a large turnout with at least two hundred students and family members, most of whom held signs expressing their opposition to the war. We stood at a major intersection for two hours yelling and picketing. That night we reflected on the day, feeling little to no accomplishment. We were so passionate, so determined to influence the government and scream to the world that we were adamantly opposed to war, but we had no idea how to do so without risking too much. Cars drove by and saw our signs and heard our yells, but did they really hear us? It sure did not seem like it. We knew high risk protsts sparked strong reactions, and our riskless protest yielded no reaction.
Generations of the past often overcame their fear of taking risks and held sit-ins, seized buildings, etc. The Johnson Hall sit-it at the University of Oregon exemplifies this.
Image: sophomore class officers, '03
Source: Sheldon High School yearbook
Attempts to corral authority support only yielded warnings about the risks our protests held. My parents pleaded with me to not risk my potential for earning college scholarships and offers by getting into trouble. We could not find a single teacher willing to put his or her job on the line to protest the war. Our administration threatened me and my peers with suspension of expulsion if we carried out this sleep in. My school was afraid to ruffle any feathers within what I viewed as a liberal city.
Being fourteen and very influenced by my authority figures, I personally decided to abandon our plan, and eventually everyone else followed suit. We were too afraid to lose what we had worked for thus far in our lives. We were still equally as opposed to the war, but no one knew.
We elected to hold a picket protest on a Saturday afternoon rather than hold a sleep in with speeches and interviews, and a solid media presence. We had a large turnout with at least two hundred students and family members, most of whom held signs expressing their opposition to the war. We stood at a major intersection for two hours yelling and picketing. That night we reflected on the day, feeling little to no accomplishment. We were so passionate, so determined to influence the government and scream to the world that we were adamantly opposed to war, but we had no idea how to do so without risking too much. Cars drove by and saw our signs and heard our yells, but did they really hear us? It sure did not seem like it. We knew high risk protsts sparked strong reactions, and our riskless protest yielded no reaction.
Generations of the past often overcame their fear of taking risks and held sit-ins, seized buildings, etc. The Johnson Hall sit-it at the University of Oregon exemplifies this.
Image: sophomore class officers, '03
Source: Sheldon High School yearbook
Getting Started...
Everything seemed normal to me as a changed into my regular clothes following an early morning basketball practice before class started. I hustled over to my freshman introduction to health class to meet a few early arrival students gaping at the television. I was worn out from practice and not the least bit interested in whatever movie or show was holding their attention. I took my seat and prepared myself to take advantage of my spare two minuted by closing my eyes and resting while absorbing the noises of the television. First I noted the urgency in the voices, realizing that this was not staged. When I heard that it was a news report on some horribly tragic occurrence, not some movie or show, I opened my eyes to see what it was about. I anticipated a reporting location in Israel, or London, but I too joined the gaping students when I first witnessed the unreal images of what became of New York City.
The September 11th terrorist attacks prompted George W. Bush to declare a “War on Terror” which fueled strong opposition comparable to opposition against the Vietnam War. Demonstrations of this opposition were not comparable. The majority of the United States does not support the War on Terror/ Iraq, yet protests do not measure up to protests against the Vietnam War in effort or effectiveness. Not only is my generation failing to express an adamant resistance to war, we are not making any of our political platforms and perspectives clear to our government officials and to the rest of the community. I absolutely will not argue that we are apathetic or uninvolved in protests, but times have changed and our methods of protest have as well and are losing efficiency. I will use this blog to demonstrate protests of today compared to protests of the sixties during my parents’ generation and investigate why protests are losing value and power.
Bibliography
“A Brief History of the UO,” University of Oregon, uoregon.edu
“Cal Tree Huggers,” 12th Street Chatter, September 3, 2007, http://12thstreetchatter.blogspot.com/2007/09/cal-tree-huggerscampers.html
Anderson, Ross, “We Won’t Take it Anymore,” October 27, 2007. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28179
Clark, Robert, “Johnson Hall Sit-In,” 1970, University of Oregon Archives, October 2007.
CodePink4Peace.org, 2002.
Gettings, John, “Civil Disobedience: Black medalists raise fists for Civil Rights Movement” Memorable Olympic Moments, 2007. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-mexico-city.html
Henry D. Sheldon High School Yearbook, 2003, 176.
Johnson, Lee, “Letter to President Clark,” April 22, 1970. University of Oregon Archives, October 2007.
Knox, Carolyn, University of Oregon, interview, November 8, 2007.
Larson, Christina, “Postmodern Protests: Why Marches only matter to those who march,” Washington Monthly, March 2005. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0503.larson1.html
MoveOn.org, 1998.
Savio, Mario, “An End to History,” The New Left: A Documentary History, copyright (c) 1969, edited by Massimo Teodori, used by permission of the Publisher, The Babbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
“Cal Tree Huggers,” 12th Street Chatter, September 3, 2007, http://12thstreetchatter.blogspot.com/2007/09/cal-tree-huggerscampers.html
Anderson, Ross, “We Won’t Take it Anymore,” October 27, 2007. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28179
Clark, Robert, “Johnson Hall Sit-In,” 1970, University of Oregon Archives, October 2007.
CodePink4Peace.org, 2002.
Gettings, John, “Civil Disobedience: Black medalists raise fists for Civil Rights Movement” Memorable Olympic Moments, 2007. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-mexico-city.html
Henry D. Sheldon High School Yearbook, 2003, 176.
Johnson, Lee, “Letter to President Clark,” April 22, 1970. University of Oregon Archives, October 2007.
Knox, Carolyn, University of Oregon, interview, November 8, 2007.
Larson, Christina, “Postmodern Protests: Why Marches only matter to those who march,” Washington Monthly, March 2005. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0503.larson1.html
MoveOn.org, 1998.
Savio, Mario, “An End to History,” The New Left: A Documentary History, copyright (c) 1969, edited by Massimo Teodori, used by permission of the Publisher, The Babbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)