Last day of Class

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Outside involvement

The 1960 was time for change and I that the government and media help played into. During the 1960's election each party was on a thin line when it came to the civil rights movements. A prime example is when King was thrown into jail. Robert did the right thing my working behind the seen to get King out of jail.

The other successful thing was when Robert sent down Seigenthaler with the Freedom Riders. He was able to bring attention to the movements. Espically because he was hit unconscious.
I think the media attention was good for the movement.

At the same time the media can twist things. I think that the coverage that was shown was well balanced. I think that the both groups played into the media. With Civil Rights movements had one man in the spotlight MLK. Do I support their descision I don't know. I do know that that their were so many more people behind the movement than just MLK.

I think it is easy for school to just focus on MLK. While he was seen as evil man then, we have made him a hero in modern days. We idealism him and forget about the other leaders in the movement. I personally had never heard of Diane Nash before reading her article or seeing the movie. It just frustrated me that the other leaders are overlooked. You can't change it in the Elementry to high school education because then you would have to omit something. We already have to rewite the history every few years. The answer comes down what will you cut to teach more about the civil rights movements.

Civil Rights Movements and SNCC

The SNCC group came from a student movements. They group started at Fisk University in TN. I found it interest that Jim Lawson a professor there taught Nonviolence Workshops. His aim to prepare students for the ridicule that they would be recieving from onlookers.

I think that they were important to have because people who do nonviolence have to be able to conceal their emotions. They are having peple hitting them, throwing things at them, or yelling at them. They just have to sit there and be nonresponsive. It takes a lot mentally to deal with that.
Personally I know I have trouble keeping a straight face, but to have someone just yell at me i know i would break down. At the same time they were realy passionate about this. It was was something that meant to alot to all the people involved. I know that if I cared about something that much I would want to fight for it.

The people involved had to have a discple. Do to what they did they had to have a lot of self-determination. It not easy to sit back and be hurt. They knew that by not fighting back it was going to help then win in the long run.

It was also easy to why student movements were successful. They had an captive audience at their disposal. It was easy to rally people behind them. Also it was easier to spread the word because the people where at the same place. It was like when church rallied together. The congrecation was mass of people that could support a cause.

MLK

The first two chapters in this book give an overview of his early work. The main thing that stuck out to me was "He could feel how the church operated at the heat of community life in the South and how, in the region's rapidly growing black urban community".

I feel like this might have been a reason why MLK went into the church, he saw how it was a in to a leadership. I know that has a child you really don't know what you want to do. It was clear that he was unsure as what career path he should take.

He came from a line of Reverend but was usurer if that was his right career path. His father really tried to push this off on him.

It was not until he had the personally experience of seeing segregation that he dove into taking this career path seriously. Just knowing what I know about him I think that he realized from a young age that ministers had the ability to reach a larger number of people.

I think I just get annoyed with MLK because he is so main stream. The school system just focuses on him. They overlook so many different movements’ leaders. Nothing is wrong with him or his practices but I think too much of the spotlight is put on him.

The Good War

I really enjoyed the title of this movie. I thought it was interesting how they agreed with the war but refused to fight it. I think in a way the experience that they went through were very sociological damaging as the ones fighting in the war. They had to deal with a lot of negative attitudes from their fellow country men. It is hard to image believe for something so hard and only have a few people back you up.

The thing I most appreciated was that they were trying to make a social change. When they were placed to work at the mental institutes that witnessed first hand they horrible conditions these people were placed in.

They one thing I question though is if all wars can be fought peaceful. Is there no need for violence and war. Is there always a peaceful option. I don't full agree with the idea behind Pacifism. Is it OK to use violence if the "ends justify the means".

There are some conflicts were hands down I believe their could have been a peacefully alternative. Some war I look at and think that they needed to be fought. My biggest Question is could Hitler be brought done with just peacefully negotiations. In all honestly I think not.

My point is that no two conflicts are the same so it is hard for me to agree that violence does not have to be used. I feel like sometimes the only way to stop conflict from spreading is the use of violence. Some leaders will only give up power if militarily strategies are used against them.

I don't agree with some critics when they say Pacifism is an act of cowardliness. These few men and women who choose these roots are usually a small percent of the population. The majority of people especially in WWI and WWII had support for the war. They were applaud that these men were not serving their country in a time to of need.

I think that the Pacifism has it pro/con. Sometimes war is not the answer, it really never should be the first choice of how to end a conflict. On the other hand sometimes war is the only answer at time of need.

Woman Suffrage

In Thursday class with a movie about how women got the right to vote. It wasn't my favorite movie I feel like it did do a good job explaining the movements of these women. During school many kids just learn about Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony.

I think it was good the movie branched a taught about the other key players. Because women Suffrage lasted a long time. I think the determination was a key in helping this women gain the right to vote. I feel with a lot of nonviolence movements you have be able to have endurance. You won't see the results immediately.

This movie made me think that part of nonviolence is running down the the other party. You are damaging any property but you are wearing down their stability.

These women were putting pressure on the government ( not in an illegal way), they were really trying to make them break and concede their wishes. It was almost like a standoff on who could last longer. The Government tried to but these women in jail and work house but they just came back with more resilience.

I just think the key into a nonviolence movement is that you have be determined and willing to continue to big yourself up from defeat on multiply occasions.

January 26, 2010

Wink brings up a valid point in he writing. When some is being mean or "slaps" us we should not react. It is just best to turn the other cheek. I see where he was coming from in a historical context. However I just don't think that reasoning hold up in the modern world or when dealing with conflict that are between two people of within a group. I just can't see a resistance movement like this working between two countries. That is where I have my biggest problem with Wink's argument.

I think that when looking at just turning a cheek or being a doormat only week if the conflict is a small scale. A person or group and continuously pick on you but can't physically take you over. Unlike a country that is trying to ignore another countries has the threat of war possibly.

While Wink does have an interesting suggestion on how to use nonviolence, it not a favorite perspective of my. I still haven't found model I like.

Week One