YEA!
I enjoyed the in class part of final. I thought it was different way to take in all that we had learned this year and apply it. I think that there needed to be some directing the movements. Maybe not in charge but just someone managing time and asking the tought questions. I think that some of them were address or where eventually going to be dealt with.
After leaving the class i felt that some things were still left undone. There was a divide with in the class if weather of not blowing something up is a violent act or not. the majority felt that destroying property can be nonviolent.
I think these taught us that their might be more that one group with in a community. We could have broken off in to different groups like in Civil Rights movement. They all had different goals and stagties but where able to united. I feel like that was what dynamic we had.
I think we would have spilt up in different areas. It seemed like there were a few similar goal but some people had different interest.
It was hard to make sure everyone was heard. Because we had time restriction. In addition we want to the conversation to move us forwarded not us back. It did at times go around in circles and it was hard to get out of ruts.
It hard to get a agreement that everyone is happy with. We had goals but everyone had different ways in achieving those goals. Overall I think we were able to get a could game plan.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Nonviolence Movement
For the personal projected I wanted to do something but I could really think of anything. So I wrote a paper on the Singing Revolution. I thought that I should write my thoughts about weather or not sports are violent. I have come to the conclusion that over all they are not.
It is different for every person but in my opinion I see them a growing and learning experience. Sports teach people how to work with other people along with foster personal growth. While some sport do involving hitting but they are done in a control setting. As long as you keep the violence on the field, it is ok.
Sports don't become violence unless atheltes make them violent. There is an unspoken saying in sports that anything that happens on the field stays on the field. I think that is a good to have rule like that. Sport is suppose to be a way to let people get there agression out.
Sports give you a control setting to get angry out without hurting people. I think that sports allow for a control setting where violnce can be used.
It is different for every person but in my opinion I see them a growing and learning experience. Sports teach people how to work with other people along with foster personal growth. While some sport do involving hitting but they are done in a control setting. As long as you keep the violence on the field, it is ok.
Sports don't become violence unless atheltes make them violent. There is an unspoken saying in sports that anything that happens on the field stays on the field. I think that is a good to have rule like that. Sport is suppose to be a way to let people get there agression out.
Sports give you a control setting to get angry out without hurting people. I think that sports allow for a control setting where violnce can be used.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Media
Professor Worley came into to talk to our class. She just opened an entire new can of worms when it comes to figuring out what is and isn't violence. The new technology make it hard to see what is and isn't violent when it comes to the internet. Is hacking considered violent or redirecting website URLS.
Then there are the virtual worlds online , which I just find odd. Making an avatar and then just playing it. Your creating an alternate world for yourself. It just seems odd and then there was a report about some ones avatar being raped. It that violent though. It not a "real" person. Someone is controlling that person. I just don't think that something like that is violent, I just believe it wrong. First that someone would program a video game to do that and second that a person would feel the need to rape in a video came. I think that it portraying media violence.
Then there are sites that allow for people to make picketers and place them anywhere in the country. I don't consider that taking action. To be apart of movement you have to take action get involved. Just sitting in front of the t.v or computer does allow for that. I think that creating an online picketer is like supporting a cause on facebook. Your just let people know that you think it is an important issue.
However I do think that internet is good for getting the message out. It allows for mass emails to be sent out. You can promote your cause online. I think it allows for communication if anything.
Then there are the virtual worlds online , which I just find odd. Making an avatar and then just playing it. Your creating an alternate world for yourself. It just seems odd and then there was a report about some ones avatar being raped. It that violent though. It not a "real" person. Someone is controlling that person. I just don't think that something like that is violent, I just believe it wrong. First that someone would program a video game to do that and second that a person would feel the need to rape in a video came. I think that it portraying media violence.
Then there are sites that allow for people to make picketers and place them anywhere in the country. I don't consider that taking action. To be apart of movement you have to take action get involved. Just sitting in front of the t.v or computer does allow for that. I think that creating an online picketer is like supporting a cause on facebook. Your just let people know that you think it is an important issue.
However I do think that internet is good for getting the message out. It allows for mass emails to be sent out. You can promote your cause online. I think it allows for communication if anything.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Indivdual cases: India
The interesting point with this caseis that it started as a grassroots movement however larger NGO and companies eventually step in. I think that it is really important to look at can other people step in and take the leadership role.
It is interesting to read why other people stepped in. To my knowledge it seemed like the people who were involved good devote the time needed to the movement. They were unable to find the time or energy to put into this cause.
It was good that the NGO and other advocacy groups were able to step in a be the voices for the victims. I feel like we have to question thought are they doing it for the right reason. Do these groups have the best interest of the people or his there some kind of hidden agenda.
While they can advocate for the victims is it really what is best because they are not suffering like the victim is. It creates the dynamic of an outsider coming in. Will it be helpful for the group or just damage the cause more.
While the movement had some successful parts it did not resolve all the conflict. I thought it was interesting at the end of the article when it said " In India a real effective movement only takes off when a traditional community identity is involved"
I think that is interesting point about identity. It shows how important group identity is to a movement and how it is needed. Not only do you need a group but they need to have sense they are the same people and have group idenity to mobilize and organize.
That while this movement had outside support it still had a group think aspect to it. They is why parts of it were successful.
It is interesting to read why other people stepped in. To my knowledge it seemed like the people who were involved good devote the time needed to the movement. They were unable to find the time or energy to put into this cause.
It was good that the NGO and other advocacy groups were able to step in a be the voices for the victims. I feel like we have to question thought are they doing it for the right reason. Do these groups have the best interest of the people or his there some kind of hidden agenda.
While they can advocate for the victims is it really what is best because they are not suffering like the victim is. It creates the dynamic of an outsider coming in. Will it be helpful for the group or just damage the cause more.
While the movement had some successful parts it did not resolve all the conflict. I thought it was interesting at the end of the article when it said " In India a real effective movement only takes off when a traditional community identity is involved"
I think that is interesting point about identity. It shows how important group identity is to a movement and how it is needed. Not only do you need a group but they need to have sense they are the same people and have group idenity to mobilize and organize.
That while this movement had outside support it still had a group think aspect to it. They is why parts of it were successful.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Nazi Resistance
I was really glad we watched that movie on Thursday. I really enjoyed hearing more about that story. I new that the Dutch had banned together to help move there jews to Sweden. However I was unaware of some of the other resistance movement they held.
While they used violence I feel like it could still be seen as a nonviolent movement. They did not hurt anybody rather they used violence to destroy property. They went on strikes during work. They helped lower the productivety that the Dutch produced.
I just there tatics were different than what the civil rights leaders did. They did use some violence but it was necessarily. They were up against Hitler. Hitler had no problem killing people. The Dutch had to make a point and I think by blowing up railroads and factories. Was still using nonviolence in a way that was useful.
I think I just like how everyone in the country rallied together. The tatics they used were successful in that it united the people. The mobilization that happened was quite sucessful.
I just like seeing a success yea it took awhile but by the end they were better off than some other countries. They were able to have have high morality and unite as a country.
I just like that we were able to see that nonviolence can have some acts of violence in it.
While they used violence I feel like it could still be seen as a nonviolent movement. They did not hurt anybody rather they used violence to destroy property. They went on strikes during work. They helped lower the productivety that the Dutch produced.
I just there tatics were different than what the civil rights leaders did. They did use some violence but it was necessarily. They were up against Hitler. Hitler had no problem killing people. The Dutch had to make a point and I think by blowing up railroads and factories. Was still using nonviolence in a way that was useful.
I think I just like how everyone in the country rallied together. The tatics they used were successful in that it united the people. The mobilization that happened was quite sucessful.
I just like seeing a success yea it took awhile but by the end they were better off than some other countries. They were able to have have high morality and unite as a country.
I just like that we were able to see that nonviolence can have some acts of violence in it.
Civil Rights
The question I want to raise is one we have looked at for women movements. In womens movements we look to see if men are need to make the movements sucessful and I feel like you can look at that with the Civil Rights movement to. Did this need to be primarily a movement jsut within the Black community. On the other side did this movement to include white supports to.
I think one of the reasons for its success was White support. The whites help got media attentions and news. When the got hurt or went missing it was able to get media news. I like that the majoraty of the leaders and followers were black. It really showed how much of a grassroot oppation that Kings movement was.
It was just one of the things that was on my mind. I know that Sara Beth and i looked at this some in India. It has been at the back of my mind sense the beginning of the class.
I don't think it makes as big of an impact as it does in Women movement. But I think the power issues still comes in to play. The people who want the change really need to step up and take control. I feel like the Civil Rights movement did a good job with that.
I think one of the reasons for its success was White support. The whites help got media attentions and news. When the got hurt or went missing it was able to get media news. I like that the majoraty of the leaders and followers were black. It really showed how much of a grassroot oppation that Kings movement was.
It was just one of the things that was on my mind. I know that Sara Beth and i looked at this some in India. It has been at the back of my mind sense the beginning of the class.
I don't think it makes as big of an impact as it does in Women movement. But I think the power issues still comes in to play. The people who want the change really need to step up and take control. I feel like the Civil Rights movement did a good job with that.
Civil Rights
Chicago: 1965 to 1966
I think it is important that King took the movment north. While it might have not been the sucess he was looking for it was important.
The north ridiculed the south for there segreation against the black. However things were not much better in the north. There were obvious economic difference between the blacks and the whites. You could see with jobs held, school, and neighborhoods.
I think it was interesting the MLK took his movement up north to point out these flaws. He was showing how the north still had problems. It was really difficult to take the movement north but was needed. King for the most part realized that.
Picking chicago was a strategic thing. He looked at other cities but finally settled on Chicago. It was wise to stay out Philadelphia because that were the NCAAP president. I think that King should have seperated his movement from there. D.C was an unlikely chice because allot of legal movement were there.
Attention need to be brought to the north and there policy towards blacks. I feel it was witnessed when riots broke out during the protesting the neighborhoods. White made it know that they did want blacks to leave in there comunities. They were fine to judge the southerns but not themselves.
I think it is important that King took the movment north. While it might have not been the sucess he was looking for it was important.
The north ridiculed the south for there segreation against the black. However things were not much better in the north. There were obvious economic difference between the blacks and the whites. You could see with jobs held, school, and neighborhoods.
I think it was interesting the MLK took his movement up north to point out these flaws. He was showing how the north still had problems. It was really difficult to take the movement north but was needed. King for the most part realized that.
Picking chicago was a strategic thing. He looked at other cities but finally settled on Chicago. It was wise to stay out Philadelphia because that were the NCAAP president. I think that King should have seperated his movement from there. D.C was an unlikely chice because allot of legal movement were there.
Attention need to be brought to the north and there policy towards blacks. I feel it was witnessed when riots broke out during the protesting the neighborhoods. White made it know that they did want blacks to leave in there comunities. They were fine to judge the southerns but not themselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)