Jim Jones taught his followers the words of Mao Tse Tung, "Change must come through the barrel of a gun." Jones was almost assuredly insane and orchestrated a mass suicide of his followers so, you know, grain of salt. However, I just finished watching a documentary about Hunter S Thompson that makes me think Mao and Jones were not just whistling Dixie.
Thompson's life story was kind of sad in one important way, it seems he became passionately political in his middle age and then completely fell apart when he realized he couldn't make a change. The same cycle of celebrity that ate the Hells Angels ended up eating him which he should have seen coming since he was the one who exposed the Hells Angels as more media creation than real-life threat. Thompson ran for Sheriff of Aspen, CO, in 1970 (I think, could be wrong, too lazy to look) on a platform of legalizing drug use. The hippies at the time were very in support of him. I think today he would be seen as a Libertarian. He was pro-gun and pro-drugs and anti-authoritarian all the way. He was soundly defeated in the election by the incumbent but at least he put his money where his mouth was and tried to enact political change from inside the system.
His Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas period came next where he "searched for the American dream." He wrote about the groundswell of change that was promised by the 60s that evaporated by the 1970s. It almost seems like self-selection but he surrounded himself with like minded people who wanted things to change and then he believed the whole world felt like it needed to change. If you choose to live surrounded by racists, you will probably become one. If you choose to live surrounded by hippies, you will probably start to believe that love can change the world.
Thompson went on to try and expose the dark machinations of the political system in his year-long tour with George McGovern as he ran for president in 1972. The height of Thompson's power as a journalist came when he began a totally unfounded rumor that McGovern's opponent in the primaries was on a Brazilian hallucinogen. His story was reported as real and the opponent lost his bid for the nomination. It seems like, coincidentally, this was the point where the press stopped leading and started following.
After McGovern was nominated, his shitty pick for a running mate took up all the press and the Watergate break in was pushed to the side. I don't think this represents a conservative bias in the press any more than modern news stories show a liberal bias. I think the press chases ad revenue by chasing readership by publishing whatever people want to read about. When the Lifestyle section (or whatever section is filled with fluff) is larger than the actual news, you know that your society is in trouble.
It gets me thinking about the methods of communication. If history is being rewritten every day and no one is getting real news...what are we basing our actions on?
Bear with me for a slight pop culture detour. In the Matrix movies (I knows, right?) the eventual reveal is that the machines allow a minor revolution every now and then to weed out the trouble makers. Every generation has a Neo and a Zion and it always falls and starts over. Say what you will about muddled plotting and anticlimax, the movie does make a decent point. Revolutions, especially peaceful ones, don't seem to end in any real change.
I know a lot of people point to Gandhi as an example of peaceful protest creating real change. As much as I wanted to believe that the Quit India movement forced out the British, it didn't make any sense to me. If the protests became so disruptive that the British lost money in some way, then I would understand. Doing some reading, there is a view of the British withdrawal from India that has nothing to do with Gandhi. The soldiers in the Indian army had (now, granted perhaps through the efforts of Gandhi) become more nationalistic. There had been a mutiny of the Indian navy in 1946 against the British. The Brits could no longer count on the Indian soldiers to fight for the Empire, only for their own nation. Britain saw the writing on the wall and got out before they had to clash with a military they themselves trained and supplied. So, hunger strike all you want but nothing gets butts in gear like the threat of war.
Which leads me back to the Mao quote, "Change must come through the barrel of a gun." We could only declare our independence after a war. We could only end slavery after a war. The lives of peaceful activists the world over end in murder and assassination. MLK's martyrdom was far more motivating to whites (I see a rich old white guy in a suit saying "Those ******s may riot if we don't give them what they want") than any speech he gave. It seems for real change to come, there must be a threat of violence.
I was thinking about the lack of media coverage of the Monsanto marches. It didn't surprise me at all. For one, Monsanto probably sponsors a big chunk of news in America. For another, who wants to hear about peaceful protests? The G8 summits only get coverage when there is violence. Maybe if some of the Monsanto marchers had clashed with police or rioted, we would have heard more about it.
Not to sound too bitter (too late) but it all just seems like Bread and Circuses at this point. I feel like the powers that be give us enough of the illusion of freedom to make us think we can make a difference. We can march and boycott and protest and, at the end of the day, change only happens when the powerful can profit from it or they stand to lose too much by not embracing it.
I think micro change is the only real power we have. I think we can use our actions and spend our money in conscientious ways. Sometimes we don't even have that option. I think I've said it before but I think just leading a good life and helping each other is all we can really do.
Maybe I am thinking myself into a corner and justifying my non-participation in politics. Hunter Thompson exposed the emptiness of the American dream, the corruption of the political system and the power of the press but he ended up howling at the wrong target. He believed Nixon was the big bad guy but I think he was way off. Nixon is just the guy out front. He is the middle manager who has to take the heat from the people and answer to the directives of those with real power. Just like every modern President. Thompson swore he was what was wrong with America but I think he found out too late that it went far beyond Nixon. Everything after Nixon's reelection in 72 seems like the actions of a broken man who believed his own myth. He threw himself against the wall and broke. That isn't something I am eager to do. No Don Quixote I.
Is there efficacy in peace? Do the roots of liberty have to soak in blood? Is forcing someone else to martyr us a better position than fighting for what we believe in?
I don't have any answers. I wish I knew how to make the world better but I don't. Any input would be appreciated.
Activists (on the left and right) frequently lament the lack of news coverage of their protests and events, blaming media bias. They feel very strongly about their particular issue or ideology and, I think mistakenly, assume the majority of others feel the same way, thus, the lack of media coverage must be the result of bias or the fault of some insidious conspiracy against them and their cause. But the reality is they're not in the majority. Most people who watch a Tea Party rally think to themselves, get a life. When folks see an Occupy rally they think, take a shower. And when they see a handful of granolas blaming the problems of the world on Monsanto, they roll their eyes and don't care.
ReplyDeleteAs for violence in protests, sure it gets you news coverage, but does it really earn you favor among the public. To the extent the whack job anarchistic G8 protesters actually have an agenda or want anything, has throwing bottles at cops helped that cause any? I doubt it would do the Monsanto folks any good either.
(All this is notwithstanding the fact that without companies like Monsanto, millions of more people would be starving to death, but that's for another discussion.)
As I've written previously, I don't have a horse in the Monsanto race (mostly because I am not convinced there is anything wrong with GM foods).
ReplyDeleteI am constantly wondering what is scarier: a grand conspiracy or the idea of no one at all at the wheel? There is just this inertia to the human race where we don't want anything to change unless someone forces us to change it. Whether perpetuated by a sinister cabal or just the result of human laziness, it still seems like violence is the only way to get things done.
Anyway, to address the G8 thing, that is my point exactly. You are either ignored as a peaceful movement or given publicity as a bunch of psychos. It seems hard for people to get their messages out to the wider public in an unadulterated manner.
Change is scary. I really like the chicken parm at OG. Sure, something else on the menu might be better, but there's probably a greater chance I won't like it as much. So I always order the chicken parm. I'm old now. I get pissed every time I'm forced to change Windows or the version of Office. I don't like change.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't it easier now than ever before to get your message out to the public? 20 years ago you had the mainstream media and that was it. Now you have blogs, social media, twitter, etc. Getting the message out isn't the problem. Getting people to care is.
And I don't say that last comment as a slam against the public at large. Most causes are silly and don't deserve the attention of the public at large (see the Tea Party, Occupy and GMO comments above). The ones that catch on (eventually) are usually the ones that were probably the most deserving. Gay rights comes to mind - took a while, and has a ways to go, but it's pretty inevitable at this point.
I think society changes about as much as it should. Which isn't fast, but isn't completely static either. If you disagree (not you, Josh Dean, but more of a generalized "you"), that probably puts you out of the mainstream, either to the left or right, depending on your reaction.
I think with the diffusion of media you also get a lot more "preaching to the choir." I think people just seek their media niche and stay there. Kind of like Haight Asbury in the 60s, when all you read is liberal blogs you think the whole world agrees with you. It is like we need a meta-news service to sift through all the opinion and just tell people facts.
ReplyDeleteI would probably say that people who were enslaved or denied their rights would argue that society does not move very quickly at all. I mean, homosexuals have existed as long as there has been sexuality but we are just now getting around to viewing them as people. Now, as a straight white male, things have gone just hunky dory for me and mine. Like Louis CK says, "If it were an option I would sign up every year." The mainstream is kind of a lumbering, apathetic beast. Or, more accurately, a giant boat that is difficult to change the direction of. I am curious what the nation will be like after the baby boomers pass on.
I totally agree that most people are pretty apathetic (look at voter turnout). I don't see that getting any better as people become more insulated in their groups. Sigh...it is probably what people have been talking about for hundreds of years.