Opinion Assignment #4

I agree with Naomi Klein’s assessment of activism today. The article, “Bon-ization of Activism,” describes this generation that is more likely to buy a wristband and ticket to Live Earth than hit the streets in protest.

The internet is a new form of protesting. The article mentions how on-line protests and blogging has taken the heat of direct action. This form of protest takes away from followers to get out of their homes and join street demonstrators; it is safer and eliminates direct contact with other people.

The event of attending concerts to raise money for the cause, in this case to end poverty, to me it’s a way of how people can directly incorporate to the cause. Klein believes, “I think people go to concerts because its fun but I don't get a sense from anyone I talk to that it's effective politically." I agree and disagree with Klein about this. Yes, many people will go because a popular celebrity (that they happened to like) is singing in the concert. But, concerts are used as tactics to attract people (possibly to recruit) in to joining and raise money for the cause. Concerts cost money and this money is contributing to the anti-poverty campaign. Klein explains, “It was the stadium rock model of protest -- there's celebrities and there's spectators waving their bracelets. It's less dangerous and less powerful (than grass roots street demonstrations).”

I believe that in certain movements it’s appropriate to have certain kind of protests which some belong on the streets and others on the internet and/or both. In this case, the Bono-ization does not have the government involved and in order to recruit and have people engage into the anti-poverty protest is to actively promote through television commercials, internet websites, and attend concerts. I don’t see this social movement actively out protesting on the streets. I believe the Bono-ization campaign is not a form of protest, but it brings a solution to the problem by asking people to donate money. This campaign will not end poverty, which claims it will, but it will certainly help a lot of people that are fighting poverty.

In my opinion, the reason that people of this generation are less likely to be out in the streets protesting is that there are many social movements that many people believe in. This class gives a good example of how there are many social movements going on today and people are less afraid to talk about them. That’s why many actively join and talk about their issues on the internet. I believe, it’s easier to have people come together and blog on the internet about a social issue, than try to gather people together in a location to protest an issue.

I don’t think there is enough evidence that today’s activism is less effective. The message is still clear and gaining attention. There are still media coverage of campaigns and other social issues that are televised. The use of the World Wide Web is a great tool that many social movements use to contact others to discuss these issues. I do agree that activism today is less dangerous because it gets out of harms way. We are able to speak our minds on the internet, such as use of profanity and hateful language that will not cause us physical harm to ourselves or others.

Technology is the major factor in which why activism by young people today is different from that of the Freedom Riders and/or anti-Vietnam protests. The use of the internet by computers and cell phones created a new way of protest. It gives us a new way to connect with other people in the country and everywhere around the world. The ability to connect with others anywhere around the world is potentially powerful. Video clips that are used in class are all from youtube (the internet). Media coverage is a forced view of what is to be seen. For example, the video clip on WTO anti-protest showed how the media wanted to portray these protestors as violent individuals, but in fact they were not violent. The internet allows the individual to watch whatever we please. The clip on youtube of the WTO anti-protest showed us in fact what really happened during these protests. Media coverage as they described is biased and showed the view in which major corporations (that partially own the televised networks) wanted to show.