Opinion Assignment #3

Klein argues in her article that activism today is far different from grassroots organizations of the past. Considering the many social movements we have followed this semester such as, the women’s movement, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement, I would absolutely agree with her assessment. To quote Bob Dylan, “The times they are a changin’,” and as we evolve as a society of people, so will our social movement strategies. Further, it has become increasingly easier for young people to “log-on”, accessorize, and attend concerts in hopes of creating change, when in reality, the most essential element of social movements is absent, personal involvement! My opinion of whether historical social movements are more effective than current ones is that, yes, grassroots organizations had more of an influence and likelihood of creating change. My intention is not to discredit current social movements, such as the ones referenced by Klein, (WTO protests & Live Aid) as these movements have utilized different outlets in order to create change, however, an essential element seems to have disappeared over time, a sense of personal commitment and dedication.



As we have read this semester, grassroots organizations have placed themselves in lines of fire in hopes of creating change. During the anti-war movement, young protesters were killed during the Kent State protest. On May 4, 1970 students of Kent State University joined together to protest the United States’ invasion of Cambodia. The crowd exceeded 1500 protestors hoping to have their voices heard that they would no longer stand for such an invasion. In response, Ohio National Guard fired 67 shots in less than 13 seconds killing four students and wounding an additional nine students (http://www.may4.org/4.html). I use this example to stress the level of risk members of the anti-war movement faced as a result of their participation in the anti-war movement. Klein argues that for many current social movements, protestors have turned to technology to have their voices heard. “The rise in blogging and on-line protests has taken the heat out of direct action. It’s safer to mouth off in a blog than put your body on the line” (Klein, 2007). Had the students of Kent state turned to a blog or other technological device, rather than physical protest, yes they would most likely be alive today, however, their impact on the anti-war movement would have been a fleeting bleep on the social movement radar. Instead, we remember the lives that were lost that day and the change their ultimate sacrifice created.



The Freedom Riders are another example of personal sacrifice for the betterment of social movement in creating change. On May 4, 1961 the first freedom ride took place. Seven blacks and six whites pursued change by riding two public buses headed for the deep south. By the second week of the ride, individuals involved in the protest were brutally assaulted, however, the violence these protestors experienced was not enough to stop them. The riders trudged on. Eventually, many of them even experienced jail sentences as a result of their involvement with the protest. Their work was not in vain, the following fall the Interstate Commerce Commission issued rules prohibiting segregation on public transportation. These individuals, willing to sacrifice their bodies and freedoms, were responsible for the change in public transportation laws. Without this type of commitment, and other similar protests, perhaps we all may be riding segregated buses, drinking from segregated fountains, and only see like-races in our schools (http://www.core-online.org/History/freedom%20rides.htm ).


Corporate America’s influence on social movements has been a key factor in shifting the element of personal involvement in social movements. As Klein alluded to in her article, companies such as American Express, Converse, Armani, and Apple sell “red-branded” products with a small percentage of profits dedicated to a specific cause. At this point of the reading, I was interested in researching a little deeper in this area. I first arrived at Apple’s website stating, “Play more than music, play a part” (http://www.apple.com/ipod/red/). By purchasing an iPod or other “red” products, 50 percent of the gross profit is then donated to the Global fund to help fund AIDS programs. What companies are creating is a detachment from personal involvement from social movements. Furthermore, companies such as Apple and American Express are asking us to buy more stuff! I find this particularly ironic considering that much of the money contributed from product red is going to countries such as Africa, where many citizens cannot afford running water. Large corporations are encouraging Americans to spend more money and consume more materialistic good while slapping a “do-gooder” label on the marketing scheme. It would be quite interesting to find how these companies have actually put more profit to their bottom lines while claiming to be helping others.
.



http://www.may4.org/4.html
http://www.apple.com/ipod/red/).
http://www.core-online.org/History/freedom%20rides.htm