![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Lit theory was twenty minutes long today, because Ambreen Hai decided that everyone should be allowed to be involved in the walkout/rally if that was their choice, without missing class time. I respect her decision to do so, although I wasn't planning to walk out. At one-thirty I walked home and took a shower. My window is open and outside I could hear chanting but the words were unintelligible. Which says a lot about the nature of most loud "activist" Smithies, imho.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
citricbaba already made an excellent point about the irrelevence of such a protest on the Smith campus. I agree with her, and furthermore, I'm generally skeptical of loud, foot-stomping, catch-phrase-shouting, platitude-mouthing "protests," regardless of where they take place. I believe there is potential for intelligent civil disobedience and visible disagreement; I think we as a country are lucky to have the right to disagree with our government. But so often it seems that walkouts, protests, rallies, vigils, etc. etc. etc. etc., become empty gestures, more symbolic than thoughtful, if they're symbolic at all. What does it take to stand in a group and cheer?
Perhaps I'm instinctively opposed to such things since I'm skeptical of large groups of any kind, of any thing; I don't know that things can really be accomplished en masse. I do know, however, that I'd rather read a well-written, thoughtful letter in the editorial section of the Times that I don't agree with than listen to tired, vapid, worn-out speeches in a crowd of like-minded individuals. So many people seem so eager to prove that they're active and concerned and politically correct. But at the expense of thinking? What does that accomplish? What does it prove?
Perhaps my father's style of conflict resolution, in which I was ignored when emotional, when I raised my voice, when I defended myself with anything less than a calm, mature, rational, well thought out argument, has marked my thinking permanently. I'm certainly not unemotional, and it's seldom my first instinct to be rational, but I have definitely come to expect a certain level of rationality and objectivity when it comes to difficult matters with no easy answers. I feel anything less is an insult to the sensitivity and multifaceted nature of such issues. I always want better from Smith women, but frankly, I no longer expect it.
citricbaba already made an excellent point about the irrelevence of such a protest on the Smith campus. I agree with her, and furthermore, I'm generally skeptical of loud, foot-stomping, catch-phrase-shouting, platitude-mouthing "protests," regardless of where they take place. I believe there is potential for intelligent civil disobedience and visible disagreement; I think we as a country are lucky to have the right to disagree with our government. But so often it seems that walkouts, protests, rallies, vigils, etc. etc. etc. etc., become empty gestures, more symbolic than thoughtful, if they're symbolic at all. What does it take to stand in a group and cheer? Perhaps I'm instinctively opposed to such things since I'm skeptical of large groups of any kind, of any thing; I don't know that things can really be accomplished en masse. I do know, however, that I'd rather read a well-written, thoughtful letter in the editorial section of the Times that I don't agree with than listen to tired, vapid, worn-out speeches in a crowd of like-minded individuals. So many people seem so eager to prove that they're active and concerned and politically correct. But at the expense of thinking? What does that accomplish? What does it prove?
Perhaps my father's style of conflict resolution, in which I was ignored when emotional, when I raised my voice, when I defended myself with anything less than a calm, mature, rational, well thought out argument, has marked my thinking permanently. I'm certainly not unemotional, and it's seldom my first instinct to be rational, but I have definitely come to expect a certain level of rationality and objectivity when it comes to difficult matters with no easy answers. I feel anything less is an insult to the sensitivity and multifaceted nature of such issues. I always want better from Smith women, but frankly, I no longer expect it.
no subject
i was walking back from lunch today and i could hear and see people marching down elm street yelling something unintelligible, and then when i went into town there were people there too. and all i could think was: yeah, because there are so many people in northampton who don't oppose the war.
jesus.