How do you think the protest movements Foster describes in "Choreographies of Protest" act as manifestos? In other words, how do their bodies act, in a sense, like the written manifestos you read?
You'll find you have to consider/think about the following in order to answer the above question: a. what do all the written manifestos have in common (King's Letter is also a manifesto even though he doesn't use that word). In other words, what makes a manifesto a manifesto? b. what do the three protest movements have in common?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All of the written manifestos are explaining and advocating a cause that the author believes strongly about, though they all take very different approaches to get there. “The Gay Manifesto” is combating the issue of homosexual men seducing innocent boys into becoming gay in an attempt to dominate heterosexuals with obvious sarcasm to relay the absurdity of the ideas presented. “How They Created the Lie” advocates the author’s beliefs about feminism and masculinity as yin and yang rather than one or the other, and the role a woman should focus on playing rather than blatant equality- more of a know and embrace your place argument. Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter goes through great detail to explain why African Americans can no longer patiently wait on the wrong to see the light by counter arguing common points made about their efforts and further providing details about inequality and the actions enlisted by the wrong majority. “Choreographies of Protest” provides the details of three protest movements that are great examples of “living” manifestos. Each of the protest movements, like the three written manifestos, advocates an idea by offering an explanation on why this particular thought is the correct on. The sit-ins were used to argue the idea that black men and women were uncontrollable, unruly, and unfit people who shouldn’t be allowed the same service as whites because they were beneath them: by expressing control and dignity beneath scrutiny and ridicule provided by angry protesters, these sit-ins argued against the norms and portrayed which group was the one to really loose control and which one provided respect, as civilized people should do. The ACT UP protests emphasized the dangers and stupidity of ignoring an epidemic in the United States because of righteousness and wrongly based ideas about the disease’s origins. By symbolizing the reality of the situation through protest, the participants forced others to do exactly what they had been trying not to do- acknowledge the danger and get involved. The protesters in Seattle used technology and large groups of people to present their ideas to a mass of onlookers who used media and their numbers to ignore these problems. By using the weapons of the opponents against them, the protesters were able to make their points much better. I think these protests are better at getting the ideas out there than written manifestos are because they reach a greater number of people who get to watch the hypocrisy personally and the impact is, in some cases, more severe.
ReplyDeleteAll of the written manifestos basically spell out the ideas that they have for their ideal world and society. They all describe an end to the current discrimination and oppression of their respective groups. Manifestos typically can be considered radical ideas to many people in current societies because they call for such a deep reconstruction of society. The three protest movements act like a manifesto but with actions rather than words. Each separate group called for action to stop their discrimination and oppression not through violent acts but through peaceful demonstrations. They went out on a limb and tried new ways of gaining support and getting their messages across to the masses without any violent riots or words but with heartfelt demonstrations. They used their bodies rather than words to show the world that they meant business and desperately needed society to wake up so that they too could be free. Through the lunch counter sit ins, white America could see that blacks were not these ungodly creatures that were beneath them and undeserving of the same treatment that they received. They were mellow and thoughtful human beings who reacted with nothing but stoic expression even when abused and belittled by the people they were trying to make a point to. ACT UP was another example of fear causing oppression. Their demonstrations showed a community that was banded together even when others tried to tear them apart. Their support for one another was unending in their protests as well as in the fight against the AIDS epidemic. DAN gave the world a new view on protestors, and used the media to their advantage with this task.
ReplyDeleteWell, for one thing, obviously all of these writings deal in one way or another with injustices perceived and challenged by the authors of the manifestos. (I think the Swift manifesto is definitely my favorite. Hooray for sarcasm!)
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm reading it, I keep wondering something. It tends to happen that for all their good intentions even the men and women we deem great leaders have one or another shortcoming of sorts, like Thomas Jefferson owning slaves or something like that. I wonder as I read King's letter whether, had it been proposed to him, he would have considered the GLBT community included among those he felt the need to protect and deliver from injustices.
Just a thought.
As for Choreographies of Protest...wait, wait, how can there be 189 different ways to protest? I thought there were basically two: violent and nonviolent.
I rather like the idea of thinking of protests as being choreographed in a manner of speaking. As for how they act as manifestos– in all of the manifestos that we were shown, someone(s) declared, basically, a refusal to accept some form of injustice or other, and demanded change. Swift and King used words (in the examples) to do this; the protests mentioned in Foster’s piece used bodies. Gestures as simple as standing together, straight-backed and stoic, for hours on end and never moving no matter what those in positions of authority or those who stand for whatever injustice is being perpetrated is like a manifesto in that it is a symbol of the refusal to lay down and take it, so to speak. By simply standing arm in arm in massive waves of bodies you’re saying hey, I’m not going to stand for this. You’re not going to do this to me. I demand that you change what you’re doing and I won’t stop until you do– which is what the authors of those manifestos are saying.
- Epiphani
Manifestos are a way for someone to put into writing their beliefs. This usually contains a call to action. I think "The Gay Manifesto" uses sarcasim when presenting their beliefs to make it clear that it is a false stereotype. "How They Created a Lie" portrays a man and a woman create a sort of equilibrium. All these manifestos portray what the writer believes to be the right thing to do. They use these writings to make a point and gain respect and a following.
ReplyDeleteI definitely saw a distinct difference between Michael Swift's writing as opposed to the powerful but calm voices of the Gay Manifesto and Dr. King. Swift's writing is vicious and full of anger, understandably after years of being put down and treated like an unequal compared to heterosexual men in society. One quote that really struck me was after a rampage of talking about overturning the "norms" of society as we know it he states, "we may be sleeping in the same bed with you." He wants to get it through society's heads, as do the other manifesto writers, that the LGBT population is here to stay and one can only pretend they do not exist for so long; soon, everyone will have to face the obvious truth and acknowledge their rights as citizens lest the "unity" in our delicate capitalist society fail due to economic "drought" via LGBT boycotting. Gays and Lesbians deserve the rights others have and taking rights away is a hypocritical move on anyone's part who calls themselves an American.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike Sam, I believe that all manifestos are basically how people believe things should be. The Gay manifesto and King's manifesto are both asking for equality. The Gay manifesto states that homosexuality is normal orientation and has always existed throughout human evolution and demanded equality in every area in life. King's manifesto is talking about how the white power in his city left no alternative for blacks, he too was fighting for equality, to end segregation.
ReplyDeletePrimarily, like Epiphani, I questioned the 189 ways to protest, thinking that violent and non-violent were the only two ways. My thought of the ways to protest changed after reading the 12 that Gene Sharp identifies as "physical intervetions" in Foster's manifesto. Like the others Foster's manifesto includes her thoughts and other's thoughts about protests. It's also talks about differents protests that took place including those in favor of King's and Gay's.
I agree with Taylor, there is a definite difference in these writings. The idea of gay men seducing young boys and convincing them to be gay made me laugh. It's sad to think that some people may believe that it works that way.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Choreography of Protest, sit ins can be likened to Dr. King's letter. They are a very simple and calm approach to physical protest, and though this may not be an outright goal, they make those being protested look silly. These people they so violently oppose are doing nothing to get back at them, they are just patiently waiting for change.
More violent forms of protest are definitely more widely noticed, but at what cost? If we return violence for violence we are no better than those we stand against.
Manifestos are ones written beliefs. In the "Choreographies of Protest" it’s a manifesto because it speaks on a movement for different things. Manifestos are used to inspire people to do something. Sometimes they may be violate and rude and vogue but they all want some kind of motivation in it. Sometimes one might express their anger in Manifestos. They can be used to start wars, peace or just to get everyone on the same page. I notice that the gay manifesto have a lot of hatred in them for non gay people. With all this anger coming from one person, why can’t straight people feel the way they want to about gay people? I have writers block I’m done.
ReplyDeleteI think that manifestos can be used for a myriad of reasons. But overall, they are pieces of work by a writer used to send a message, as are most art forms. I really enjoyed reading the gay manifesto. I really enjoyed how the writer took all of the ridiculous fears that people have about gay people and turned it back on them. It was rather satirical. At least that's how I took it. Very “A Modest Proposal.” I mean in reality it’s ludicrous for anyone to think that Michael Swift seriously believes in what is written because it exemplifies a rather monstrous type of person, gay or straight. But I like how he used extremes to get the reader’s attention. I mean when you read it, he definitely has your attention from the get go. “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies.” Talk about a hook. That manifesto kind of reminded me of the poem that my group had to read in one of the last classes. The one by June Jordan. It had that similar feel of a call to action. Like she was rallying people to realize that was is happening is wrong and that they shouldn’t put up with it anymore, so was Michael. He was using a satirical piece talking about all the absurdities that society has used to portray homosexuality. I am a fan because I realize that it is wrong for people to believe such atrocities about me. My absolute favorite part of the Valentine manifesto is the part before it even began. “If you don’t like this, you should have your weakly sentimental head split open by an apache-dancing tramp with a pistol.” I sometimes feel this way about people. But then I realize, no that’s illegal.
ReplyDeleteA manifesto is the writer asking for equality. Each of these manifesto seem like the author believes in something and is saying that that is how it should be. A manifesto is a call for change. I agree with those above that said the gay manifesto did have a lot sarcasm to it and also with John in saying that there is a lot of dislike toward heterosexuals. A lot of people may find this sarcasm in that manifesto funny but a lot of people do believe that straight people can be "turned out" by homosexuals. At least that's what I figured the author was getting at when about gays seducing young boys. Dr. Kings manifesto was way different from that one. I take Dr. Kings more serious because of the way its presented. But both are manifestos because both are seeking a change.
ReplyDeleteAll the manifestos I read, were about the change the writers wished to see within the community. They wanted to make their readers aware of what was going on and how they could change it. In Swift's manifesto, he promotes violence and physical attacks to get his voice and issues heard. These kind of approaches usually don't work and it is a contrast to Dr. King's manifesto. He promotes peace and taking silent approaches like sit-ins. In Foster's Choreographies of Protest she says, "the process of creating political interference calls forth a perceptive and responsive physicality that deciphers the social and then choreographs an imagined alternative." This really stood out to me and says that people who really care for what they are doing will do something about it and go out into the world and change it. That is what the manifestos mean to me. They are asking people to go out into the world and change what they think is wrong. Whether that be protesting with violence, sit ins, or just speaking about a topic, you can get your voice heard if you go out into the world and do something about it.
ReplyDeleteManifestos at their core convey a message and intent. When viewed from this standpoint one can very easily understand how these protesters were in effect presenting manifestos. Their passivity and their rhetoric are the message. What they express using their bodies are that we are present. We may not be filled with active force or even resistance, but we’re here and needed to be heard. They’re showing that you can win battles using your voice and not your fists. I agree with everyone else that all the manifestos are pretty much describing some form of injustice and the ways in which these injuries can be rectified. So in essence a manifesto is on one hand like a mirror showing what is happening and on the other a window showing how things should be. The common thread among the protest movements is the commitment to non-violence. Which I think is paramount to success. People don’t respond to the requests of groups who have the potential to do just as much harm as the aggressors that they fight against, so by maintaining a strict environment of non-violence these groups succeed far better than those who don’t.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though manifestos are a declaration of what needs and will occur in the writer's power to see change. Manifestos do express outreach to the reader; actually, maybe a call-to-action is the most expressed. It is a statement (except way, way longer) of hope to see a better time. A manifesto can be more passive thank aggressive as well, as Andrew stated in his post above. They can convey a message saying, "Hey! This is what I believe and I just wanted you to know!" Manifestos can actually connect people with the same beliefs just by being read. It shows the hope the writer has that one day things will be changed for the better.
ReplyDeleteIn comparing the manifestos, I found the old men attracting younger boys ridiculous. A boy may be sucked into whatever older men are doing while they are younger, but once they are old enough and a decision for themselves, they will figure out their true sexuality. Not any person can have the power to make a person straight or homosexual. I have always been a big fan of Dr. King’s manifesto – I believe in nonviolent protest as a way to see peaceful change. I feel that even believing violent protest will result in victory to those whom harm others is erroneous. In order to get what you want heard across and understood, you need to think about your audience and how you can obtain their attention long enough to have them actually listen to the issue and help solve it.