The article “Civil Rights Activists Tap New Media” shows the launch of activism through technology. This includes Twitter, e-mail, Facebook, and blogs. A very successful website creator is James Rucker who has created a lot more awareness of the Civil Rights problems today. He created ColorofChange.org which has an email list of 800,000 people. This organization was able to raise $285,000 from donors to pay for lawyers for six young black men in Louisiana who were charged with attempted murder to a white classmate. With all of these people uniting together for the cause, the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor. It is thought that there was too harsh of a charge given because the men were black.
Color of Change also led a boycott against commentator, Glenn Beck when he called the president a “racist”. There was a large amount of controversy over his words and through this Beck realized he was wrong and made a public apology where he expressed his strong approval of the organization.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is another example of a successful media advocacy. Two years ago there were only a couple thousand followers of the website which was then revamped. Now, there are over 400,000 members of the online advocacy. NAACP created awareness of two black girls who were charged with double life sentences in 1993 for only an $11 armed robbery. Supporters of this cause through NAACP though this sentence was not fit for the crime because of their race.
Historically, this ties in with the “sit-ins”. The “sit-ins” happened during the early 1960’s at the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement. On February 1st, 1960, 4 black students from North Carolina sat down at the local lunch counter. The lunch counters were “white only” and blacks were not allowed to sit there. Although they were not served they sat at the lunch counter for the day. The next day twenty-three students showed up at the counter and by 1961, 100 southern cities were participating in lunch ins. This spread to “kneel-ins” at churches, “sleep-ins” in hotel lobbies, “swim-ins” at public pools, along with many other places that were segregated. Within a few months four theaters and six lunch counters were desegregated showing that this was making an impact. Between 1961 and 1963, 20,000 people were arrested for these non-violent acts and within just 1963, 15,000 were imprisoned. People participating in this, mostly young people were beaten up and arrested. They would be spit on by white people and even had shakes poured on them. Although all this mistreatment, they remained non-violent.
Probing Question: Do you think a public display of activism on the streets or an easier access to activism through technology is more effective? Why?
Sources:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/01/02/civil_rights_activists
http://socialistworkerorg/2010/02/01/sit-ins-that-ignited-a-movement
I think it's really easy for people to hide behind their keyboard. Public displays of activism on the streets is much more effective. It means a lot more to actually see people standing up for what they believe in than if you were to read what they have to say online. I think that people just think it's easier to speak through technology. It's easier to not take a risk.
ReplyDeleteI think that people who publicly display activism is far more affective. But technology will play a large role in an activist movement if people only do it publicly then it may only be a one time thing while if technology is used such as Facebook or twitter will be displayed forever. Without a public campaign you can't have a technology based campaign one has to find an equal balance of both forms. It also depends on what you are looking for people who are looking to change the FCC will not only display their ideas publicly but also through technology. Like I said before one must use both forms instead of limiting your options
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that activism through technology would be more effective because the majority of the world accesses technology every day. For example, website ads often catch people's attentions. The ads may not immediately be taken into account but if it continues to repeat, people begin to think about it. Knowledge of products are often known through ads so it should work the same for activism. To emphasize, apps on the iPhone often have ads to sustain their free price. If software can be kept free because enough people look at the ads, then technology could bring much attention to activism. Meanwhile, public displays of activism has a lower chance of grabbing attention because you rely on the news media to consider broadcasting your sit-in or sleep-in. In addition, the immediate audience for public displays are contained to the locals. Technology spreads farther and faster with guarantees.
ReplyDeleteI think that a public display of activism is more effective because it is in your face, and you can't scroll away or exit out of it. If it is public on the streets people can walk by it every minute of every day and possibly think about what the intended message is, and take action. There are many more rules to technology than there are to free speech on the streets. If the public display is in a major location, it is harder for people to find alternate routes compared to finding alternate technology sites to find information.
ReplyDeleteI think that a public display of activism would be more effective. This is because there is no simple way of avoiding it, and everyone notices it. If activism is displayed through technology, people will more than likely see it by themselves, resulting in them ignoring it. They will probably take the "let someone else do it" approach. I'm not saying that activism through technology is bad (it is definately better than no activism at all), I'm simply implying that, in my opinion, public displays are more effective.
ReplyDeleteI think that both ways of displaying activism are really affective, but through technology would be better. I think more people are online everyday and the iea gets spread out quicker, rather than a form of activism out on the streets. The only challenge I see for activism online, is how to make it appropriate to be posted on the internet, rather to activism out on the streets, because outside, there are no online filters to stop you from showing anything. Overall, I think both forms of activism are good, but I believe online may be more affective.
ReplyDeleteI think both ways are effective for getting the word out on activism. But the public display would be the most effective because along with that it could be covered by news stations and millions could see it happen. Although the web is more accessible you would have to search for what you were looking for so you wouldn't necessarily see it. Also if they take a the public approach I think it would seem more powerful and more moving rather than reading an article online about it. Publicly displaying activism it more effective then online.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be just as effective for the activism to be online instead of public display out on the streets. Although the internet has a pretty big role in our society, I feel that a public display of activism would be more effective, and it would show that the black communities have the courage to stand up for their rights in public. The sit-ins proved to be really helpful to gain more support and desegregate counters, theaters, and other places that were once segregated. The NAACP has really made a difference for the civil rights of black people everywhere, and as influential as the internet is, I don't think it would be able to take the place of a harder way in. Taking the easy way out isn't always the best solution, you believe in the fight less if you take it easy.
ReplyDelete