I know the constant worry of radicalism and assimilation has in deed been a constant worry for the social movement progress. It is however, hard to state which tactic is more valuable. I will be discussing the diverse difference between each movement based on the provided course readings this week. It will be intriguing to compare these components to other protests and see the distinctive outcomes of which they better. To start out with the Chicano movement in the 1960’s through the 1970’s the public watched as this social topic captured people’s thoughts. After reading The Origins & History of the Chicano Movement by Roberto Rodriguez, it was clear that this movement was structured very similarly to the gay rights movement along with woman’s rights movement, we will touch more on those issue later on.
To start with the anti-Vietnam war movement founded in 1960’s through 1970’s Wells examines groups who engaged in assimilation, or those who used brutal protest for their strategies. This groups used aggressive attacks as their way of protest, trying to get their message across with the use of endangering peoples lives in order to gain followers. Killing innocent military officers for attentions and frightening people into committing themselves to follow this movement was a true tactic used to cause fear within the public to gain control. Even though this did heighten people attention, students organized protests and marched to move forwarded in the anti war movement, gaining more followers not by force but because of their passion and strength as a whole. However because of the strong courageous move of the students from Kent State, many of them lost their lives fighting for what they held true. The government did not respond well to the students defense and this curved peoples opinions right back around making it clear to them that anti-war rights where those to follow.
More about the women’s rights and gay rights movement it was clearly coherent for the format and foundation of the Chicano development relied solely on academic writings and findings to support Chicano’s rights with no harsh treatment, terrorization, or hostility of any kind was present. The modern gay rights movement on the other hand has enlarged with support from its followers primarily because of majority of representative, homosexuals representing large forms of mass media. For example, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”, which demonstrated that in order to get the straight man in shape, in regards to fashion, grooming, interior design and overall likeability. Came to the heart and homes of America in 2003. This show also was some of the first exposed acceptance of being openly gained through network mobility. People watched the show and ratings went through the roof, having a positive affect on the culture exposed to these highly innovatively gay men helping to better the “average Joe”. This show helped people warm up to the idea of watching and accommodating this new generation and sub group to their lives. This was one of the perfect ways to gain approval and nudge their way into people’s area of normality. This does not stop with television, comedians, films, and writers are all becoming more and more present as gay acceptance is coming to life. This act or movement has truly made a place for its self and is here to stay. As you can see though, that gay rights would never have been so widely accepted had it not have been for the thoughtfully light introduction to the public through comedy and humor. Things could have been surprisingly different had this new way of life had been broadcasted or introduced another way.
The key to all of these movements has been strong leaders and innovative idea for introducing an uncertain new way of life to people. All of the point’s discussed previously all have one thing in common, student research and campus protest, without violence or discrimination of any other viewpoints. It is clear that the students have used their intelligence over strength to show examples of their protest and to gain followers by this way instead of forcing views upon people. When new things come along to introduce to people and protest about people will listen and not shut down new ideals because of the way last protest have underwent.
I must agree after examining the readings, Carson’s way of life in which he believes to better yourself and ideas to people without violence and radicalism and recognized as more efficient. In order to have a well played out protest it is almost mandatory for both sides protesting to uphold this agreement of none violence or discrimination if everyone is willing to let bygones be bygones and just hold true to their beliefs the people will decided which ideas to follow and digest. In the readings of Coretta Scott King, Malcom X’s theory comes to life. A conversation they are having is about how the white people do not want to listen or even grasps King’s speeches then maybe they will listen to a more persuasive approach, meaning violent measures.
As you may have noticed, my blog is pushing for the rights to band animal cruelty. The conflict that stands out the most is that animals deserve proper care and treatment and many people sadly do not follow these measures. I believe in the case of animal testing and food distribution processes these testaments are the most fluent in animal torture. Resulting in injured animals and ultimately death. In which case I feel that these issues are where I believe Dr. King and Malcom X’s teachings unite. The two founded teaching protest styles are very different, Dr. King believing that the voice and strong words will infinitely case change amongst people or help them to better understand ones thoughts, where as Malcom X’s believe in punishment for power. In this case of animal cruelty I believe that both of these measures of protest should be used. Yes, words do go along way but how far have they really got us? Animals are still facing torture and abuse, if somehow Malcom X’s theory were made possible I believe the inhumane treatment to animals would stop. Not being one hundred percent sure as to how this would go, however it would still go to show that what ever abuse you implement on an animal should happen to you. Passing a new law or making some sort of new boundaries for humans against animals is what is still need and will ultimate change the cruelty associated with animals.
I know that there are a lot of people out there that consider P.E.T.A. to be a radical group. In a way I would have to agree, though that does not make them bad in my opinion. Malcolm X saw his actions and the actions of his supporters as doing whatever it takes to get done what needs to get done, be it violence or destruction. People associated with PETA have been known to vandalize animal testing centers and other establishments they see as abusing animals. Splashing paint on people's fur coats is another example of destructive activity that come to mind. I do not know if this influences anyone to change their ways but it is certainly more associated with a radical tactic as opposed to a "integration" tactic.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree, I think the example you used in terms of the Malcom X theory with PETA and throwing paint on fur coats is the perfect example of violence in this case. Thanks for your input, I'll take your thoughts into more consideration when writing the next prompt.
ReplyDelete