A thought:
Do those who label themselves "activists" REALLY want a solution to the cause they fight for, or do they simply crave the attention and positive reinforcement that often comes during the quest/struggle for a solution? (see Jesse Jackson) Is their identity and lifes-purpose so tied to the "movement," that a solution would leave them with nothing to do but find the next thing to fight for/complain about? Could this have anything to do with the fact that, at any given protest, literature/speeches/signs can be found that are devoted to speaking out about/for/against 10 other things THAN THE PLANNED TOPIC, as well. Is this some kind of activist panic?
I am fascinated by protest, in general, and just thought I would ask.
Let the brow-beating commence...
Posted by colrus at June 7, 2004 12:28 AM | TrackBackI went to a protest against lactose intolerance once and there were a bunch of people there protesting some other thing. I couldn't tell what it was, though.
Posted by: podge at June 7, 2004 01:09 AMI remember in high school how most of the cause heads were always going to one rally or another. The groups involved in the local SADD movement were the same kids that blonged to the ACLU, Green Peace, Audobond Society,Sierra Club, Amnesty International, and on and on. Don't get me wrong, I believe in basic human rights and environmental awareness. Hell, I've fought for my share of good causes. I think, and perhaps I'm reaching, but I think these folks are more concrened with fighting than the cause for which they fight. Any chance to protest the establishment is a worthy cause. Because when you think about it, it's not the "thing" that is protested so much as the establishment behind it. Call it the ubiquitous "They". I'm sure you get my drift. If you ask me, all this protesting stems from a problem with authority, not from some narsicistic need to be the center of attention. I think where the coincidence lies in Michael Moore is that since he's an entertainer and narsicistic to begin with, his need for attention out-weighs his anti-social behavioral traits. The anti-establishment leanings are part and parcel of his greater propensity towards public adjulation.
Posted by: Chuck Echenique at June 7, 2004 10:00 AMIt is actually a pretty interesting dynamic that has come up in our culture. I have a couple of family members who are always protesting something or another and they really don't have an answer to what would make them quit protesting. There general response is, "There will always be something to protest." That is the gist at least.
A interesting response to the protesting is these guys. There whole mission is to go to protests and rallies and protest for things like freedom and just basically watch "peace protesters" get violent at them. Interesting.
Posted by: crabby at June 7, 2004 07:04 PMIs everyone on this blog THAT Republican? =o
Posted by: rueyn at June 8, 2004 10:02 AMSorry...everyone keeps using the term "right-wing," which I associate with Republicans. What is your political affiliation?
Posted by: rueyn at June 8, 2004 01:26 PMI am an independent. I feel strongly about many conservative-backed theories, not so strongly about others.
I TRY to think outside the left/right box...it helps to see a bigger picture. That said, however, I like to speak passionately about what I believe in, and many of those things are labeled "right-wing," "conservative," "Republican," etc...
While we could debate endlessly about the legacy of Reagan, one of his best qualities, at the end of the day, was to remain civil with even his biggest ideological opponents...Something I am trying to do, as well...America in 2004 is a decidely partisan and polarized place.
I did not vote for Bush.
Posted by: Bill Colrus at June 8, 2004 01:59 PM