Last Friday, Mr. Silton was talking about how a few years ago numerous Aragon students organized a "Walk Out" to protest the War in Iraq (At least that's what I remembered it to be). Well, not surprisingly, most students equated "protesting" with "burger eating."
When the next day rolled around, many students expected an excused absences for their worthy cause. The answer? No.
A question was raised, asking, "Why should the students get excused when more than half of them probably can't even point out the Middle East on a map?"
Which reminded me of THIS.
And, being the jumpy person I am, this all brings me to:
Remember the Tibet controversy? I was watching the news one day and a reporter went around the streets of San Francisco during a protest with only two things in his hand: A map of China and a microphone.
He then proceeded to ask everyone at the protest to point out where Tibet was on the map.
In fact, after some Youtube searching, I found the video of it.
I find both the walk-out Aragon students and the interviewed protesters in San Francisco to be kind of hilarious (but not the burger eating part though). I think the protesters should have done a little more homework on their part. I mean, really? To make some kind analogy, that's just like an Obama fanatic thinking Obama was born in Kenya. It makes you doubt how much that person really knows about the president.
Does the location of the place even matter? Is it really just enough to know the issues? How much does it take to be a qualified protester? What are some thoughts? I'm curious.
-Phoebe Chao
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Ahahahaha, I like the first link you posted Phoebe. It is true that many people like to get involved in things that they don't truly understand. It's an issue that you can see everyday, even at school, or now that I think about it, anywhere.
People just like to get involved so that they don't seem apathetic which may then lead to people thinking that they don't care and that they are insensitive jerks. Most of the people who then get involved with a movement, or some sort of protest don't actually research the issue enough themselves. Instead, they rely on the information provided by both the media, and the person who first asked them about their stance on the issue.
People try not to seem ignorant or insensitive, but in reality, by participating in an event such as the Tibet protests without even knowing where the country is situated can be an even harsher insult.
Anyway...I was ranting.
/end rant
-Victor Hung
Phoebe, I think you have an excellent point (and I'm not saying so just because you posted a link to The Onion). In my opinion, I think that many people recognize the importance of advocacy for a host of issues, but don't really put in the time to understanding what they're talking about. Also, I think that there is a certain glamor to being opinionated and active, which is why many people end up in protests without actually caring about the issue at hand.
I don't know if many people will get my reference, but it reminds me of an interview in a summer movie, "Bruno." Sacha Baron Cohen sits down with several ladies and wants to know what the "hot" issue is that he can advocate for. He's being highly ironic, but the ladies are taking him dead seriously, as they discuss what world crisis it is "cool" to care about. Some great satire from Cohen in that scene(alongside some... questionable... material in the rest of that movie).
I suppose the real ill effect of this faux-advocacy is that I see myself and others as increasingly skeptical about people when they rattle off opinions about Tibet, Darfur, Iran and other issues that have grabbed American media attention.
Good point, Phoebe!
This reminds me of:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/
This is a funny comment on the site "Stuff white people like" thats says that white people like to raise awareness, not actually do anything. Thought this ties in well...
-Riley G.
Onion News Network is always funny.
"Instead, they rely on the information provided by both the media, and the person who first asked them about their stance on the issue."
Exactly.
Most people get their information from hot air blown at them from journalists.
Yes, knowing the location of the issue usually matters a lot. Part of an issue embodies the culture and geography of that region. It's not easy to know the culture without knowing where it's at.
It takes well educated people to truly protest - not just mindless fanatics yelling at the top of their lungs in indignity. So uncivilized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpHGLXZ-j-Q
Just think of the implications if the people as geographically educated as the ones in the above video protested. They would make fools out of themselves.
I do not believe that being able to point out the location of the country at issue on a map itself is relevant to being a qualified protester or not.
However, I think a protester (if they are really so outraged as to find the need to protest), should be willing to look up where the location of the country at hand is on a map. If they are protesting, they should be willing to find as much information they can on the issue before protesting so that they can legitimately spread the word of the issue and why it ought to change.
So I guess I would say if someone
is to protest an issue, knowing where the country is on a map would make their protest more credible, and thus, being able to point out the location of a country on a map is important for protesting.
-Yuzo Yanagitsuru
"I suppose the real ill effect of this faux-advocacy is that I see myself and others as increasingly skeptical about people when they rattle off opinions about Tibet, Darfur, Iran and other issues that have grabbed American media attention."
I have thought of that a long time ago. I have since been on the edge with many such "humanitarian" causes.
Those "free-tibet" people would tell you about the violence against the Tibetans by the Chinese government, but they will never tell you about the riots that the Tibetans started.
Frankly, the person who this movement relied on, the Dalai Lama, didn't even want Tibet to separate from China.
http://www.dalailama.com/news.42.htm
But I digress from the main, general topic.
This is a very interesting topic in that there are two different things to consider. First off to be a protester and to be passionate about an arguement does not mean you need to know the certain location. On the other hand though, how much do you really know about whats going on if you aren't able to answer simple questions about the issue?
I definately agree with Kevin when he brings up the idea that many protesters only bother to research their opinion (if even that). It would be interesting to see how many people at a protest would be able to list the opposing arguements. How well do people know what they are argueing for and against?
First of all Phoebe, I always love your opinions ;) And the onion news network definitely made my day better. But other than totally agreeing with your original post, this reminds me of something I think you posted on Facebook last year during the election (jeez...don't I sound like a pathetic stalker?)It was about how so many students and people our age were just blindly following the Obama hype, and so little of them could back up their support with clear reasons. Many students that so vehemently supported Obama had no idea where he stood on important issues or why they even liked him.
I know that a lot of us were guilty of band-wagoning in this past election. It was definitely the "cool thing" to support Obama. The catchy slogans ("Obama for your Momma", helloooo!) and cool t-shirts definitely swayed many Aragon teens.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people paid more attention to politics, even if it was based more on a fad and popularity than substance. At least people were getting involved, right? But in a way, it took away from the legitimacy of real, informed supporters. For instance, I was constantly asked to defend my political views because so many people lacked evidence to back up their own. People just assumed that I was another uninformed band wagoner (even though I'll admit at times I was a bit of one...) But when it came down to it, I had informed reasons.
Anyways, I think this is a really interesting post. People definitely love to support and "save" whatever is the "in" thing. There are examples everywhere--Gap and Project (RED) for AIDs, Save Darfur shirts/slogans, etc. I think that a lot of time these "trends" can be super helpful to raise money and some sort of awareness, but that ultimately people should understand where their support/money is going. I just think it's a little embarrassing to be unable to locate Tibet on a map when your marching to "save" it.
p.s. sorry this post is like an essay! I am a bit long winded...
-Katie Jensen
"p.s. sorry this post is like an essay! I am a bit long winded...
-Katie Jensen"
It means you're thinking, which is good.
"Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people paid more attention to politics, even if it was based more on a fad and popularity than substance."
This is the perfect time to be bringing this up. The introduction of ch. 12 in our reading assignment mentioned lack of knowledge about party platforms.
"...(even though I'll admit at times I was a bit of one...)"
Sounds like an understatement.
Remember in Colglazier's class?
You and Anders were polarized over the election. I really wanted to see a showdown, but Colglazier would have none of that.
And THAT is why we don't have a direct democracy.
Francis Wang
that first video doesnt even seem reall!!!!!! the map they use has question marks on it hahahahahaha what ? im skeptical to believe its true but this is a true issue when people take sides on an issue they know barely anything about.
- i believe this is a flaw because if the person does not take time to research the post the information they heard might be biased or not even true (like the mistake of the location of a country).
- also i think if we are to aid another country or have a protest i believe its the leader or government to inform those involved about the issue before allowing them to participate, especially for the government.
Tim,
It's Onion News Network.
None of the news there is real. It's satire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOHjMwPTCXQ
You should watch more Onion; it's really good.
Reminds me of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
Minus the hilarity, it really is quite sad.
To answer your question, I think knowing the controversy constitutes needing to know the geography. Controversy is never simple; if it was, there wouldn't be any. I think that if someone was knowledgeable enough to truly understand a controversy, they should at least know something as simple as geography.
It seems to me that most protesters are as equally swayed by propaganda as anyone else (which is in no way a comment on my behalf of the legitimacy of any of the controversies, I'm just saying that those fighting for a cause will try just as hard to gain support as anyone else).
"Also, I think that there is a certain glamor to being opinionated and active, which is why many people end up in protests without actually caring about the issue at hand."
EXACTLY. That's something that was at the tip of my tongue, or in this case, my fingers.
I couldn't get it out for some reason, and I couldn't agree more.
Post a Comment