"Some might struggle with the idea that protest and agitation can equate to progress and advancement. But the evidence is compelling."
The Taranaki Daily Times sees past the prejudice and foment whipped up by the Government over protesters like Lucy Lawless and produces this very good article on the subject of standing up for what you believe.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
It is also important to remember that in most cases protesters are disliked because they challenge conformity and and challenge authority. These are two things that for many are the hallmarks of a stable and properly managed society. We are indoctrinated to accept the directions of those in authority and "behave". We have to sit still on the mat, listen to the teacher and do as we're told!
Yet if you asked people if they supported the mass slaughtering of nearly extinct whales, the enforcement of apartheid, bankers earning millions based on unnecessary fees and unregulated practices, or that oil should be accessed from the Arctic with minimal safeguards, they will say no...but when people protest about them they feel uncomfortable because protesters challenge authority, make loud noises, and are being very "naughty"!
I prefer less need for protest, due to a lack of dumb things. Given the small likelihood of this happening, I agree we need protesters. In fact, I think I need to be more active in my protests.
bsprout - you make a very good point. It's not so much the issues that infuriate those who denigrate the protesters, but their 'naughtiness' - refusal to play by the 'agreed' rules around behaviour. Oddly, it's often those who claim they support the 'right to freedom of speech' and 'individual responsibility' - the fans of Paul Henry etc who most vehemently criticise those, such as Lucy Lawless, who take a stand and have their say and take responsibility for their actions and beliefs by protesting publicly.
It's a strange contradiction.
In the council on which I sit, I have received a lot of negative attention for my 'naughty' behaviour around challenging authority and conformity which both serve to strengthen a hierarchy that is in my view, self-serving and contrary to democracy. It's crumbling most satisfyingly though, and will soon be rendered harmless by mutual consent. One or two more meetings should just about extinguish it :-)
AC - the 'dumb things' breed and multiply at an appalling rate if they are not restrained. Protest, while annoying to have to initiate and maintain, is one of the treatments that have to be regularly applied to keep the place livable.
It is also important to remember that in most cases protesters are disliked because they challenge conformity and and challenge authority.
They are also disliked when the foolishly exploit a legitimate issue for there own selfish notoriety.
These are two things that for many are the hallmarks of a stable and properly managed society. We are indoctrinated to accept the directions of those in authority and "behave". We have to sit still on the mat, listen to the teacher and do as we're told!
Gee whiz, this is terrible! kids being controlled in order to learn!!
Yet if you asked people if they supported the mass slaughtering of nearly extinct whales, the enforcement of apartheid, bankers earning millions based on unnecessary fees and unregulated practices, or that oil should be accessed from the Arctic with minimal safeguards, they will say no...but when people protest about them they feel uncomfortable because protesters challenge authority, make loud noises, and are being very "naughty"!
No.
It is because they are being foolish, self promoting, and exploiting the above serious issues for their own fleeting notoriety.
I listened to Lawless the other day and she sounds like an idiot, end of story.
But you wouldn't see it that way because you probably share something in common with Ms Lucy.
Lucy Lawless sounded like an idiot to you, Shunda? And you believe she protested only for her own selfish notoriety?
That's not how I read it at all, so there's no point in us discussing her intelligence or motivations, is there?
I think you missed bsprout's 'sit on the mat' analogy. He was likening adult New Zealanders and their level of independence with children sitting on the classroom mat. No matter :-)
He was likening adult New Zealanders and their level of independence with children sitting on the classroom mat.
NZers aren't the same as Mid west Americans Robert.
The reason they don't like this sort of thing is because it seems (and is) a tacky stunt.
When Lucy and Robyn Malcolm came to the West Coast they were not well received because of their smug attitude and arrogant demeanour.
You may dismiss this as typical of my region, but consider this Robert, the West Coast was the highest polling rural electorate for the Greens, and the only electorate to take a seat off National.
There are ways and means to appeal to reasonable people, tacky shallow activism is too easily called out in this country to be really effective.
But I suspect that Lucy had a bigger more gullible audience in mind, you know, people that believe that Xena may actually be real.
How was Lucy's protest 'tacky', Shunda?
Did she wear revealing clothing?
Was she sponsored by a sex-shop chain?
Did she behave in a licentious manner?
Do tell.
What was she trading upon Robert?
She expects to be listened to, on what basis do you think I should listen to her?
She is famous for one thing only, and I loath such a tacky, shallow approach to such important issues.
Your friend Dave made it quite clear that you can't be a 'proper' environmentalist unless you embrace this protest.
Well I think that stinks.
I think you should recognise that a New Zealander was willing to jeapordise her future prospects by protesting publically against something she genuinely believes in. The protest didn't look comfortable and she is likely to suffer sanctions and the criticisms of people like you.
As an aside, do you not consider drilling for oil in the icy waters of the Arctic, unnecessarily risky for the environment?
I think you should recognise that a New Zealander was willing to jeapordise her future prospects by protesting publically against something she genuinely believes in.
Hmmm, I think it will open more doors than it will shut, it's hard to see the Hollywood elite having a problem.
The protest didn't look comfortable and she is likely to suffer sanctions and the criticisms of people like you.
Just as well that Lucy has already dismissed people like me as evil haters.
As an aside, do you not consider drilling for oil in the icy waters of the Arctic, unnecessarily risky for the environment?
Lucy is a long way from the Arctic.
Perhaps she could have devoted some time to our appalling record regarding marine mammals, that is something I could support.
Hmmm, I think it will open more doors than it will shut, it's hard to see the Hollywood elite having a problem.
You think so? Sh'es being charged with burglary and the possible penalties are stern. She seems to be taking a risk, but if you don't think she is...
Just as well that Lucy has already dismissed people like me as evil haters.
That's a nonsense comment there, Shunda.
Lucy is a long way from the Arctic.
Perhaps she could have devoted some time to our appalling record regarding marine mammals, that is something I could support.
You are dismissing Lucy's protest because the subject is 'a long way' away?
Goodness Shunda! Does that exclude you from commenting on any issue outside of Greymouth?
You can't be seriously suggesting that Lucy should keep it local and not speak on global issues - surely?
It's all about how it is done Robert!
What do we want? people that support environmental causes because Xena says so or people that do the right thing because it is the right thing!
Which one do you think is sustainable long term? the fleeting fame of a second rate actress or a genuine understanding of sustainable resource management?
It's all about how it is done Robert!
What do we want? people that support environmental causes because Xena says so or people that do the right thing because it is the right thing!
Both, Shunda. Both. Some people, as you well know, cannot easily become familiar with environmental causes through everyday means. They don't move on those circles. A celebrity who they respect can direct their attention to a good environmental cause and give them motivation to follow its progress. I welcome such newcomers to a cause. Would you turn them away? Not I!
Which one do you think is sustainable long term? the fleeting fame of a second rate actress or a genuine understanding of sustainable resource management?
Why do you demean Lucy Lawless by calling her 'second rate'? What's wrong with 'actress'?
Your question doesn't make sense anyway. You are comparing two disconnected concepts.
Your objections to Lucy and her protest don't stack up, Shunda. Perhaps I've missed something in your explanation, but it just seems to be negative prejudice on your part.
Robert, do you really think it is that unfair for me to hold a negative view of Hollywood, it's "employees" and their tendency to tell us how to live and the expected "awe" we are supposed to have in their presence??
Robert, do you really think it is that unfair for me to hold a negative view of Hollywood, it's "employees" and their tendency to tell us how to live and the expected "awe" we are supposed to have in their presence??
Hollywood? No. It's "employees"? Yes, of course. Actors and actresses aren't corrupt or stupid or lacking in credibility as a matter of course - surely you don't believe that they are - that would be a serious prejudice, Shunda. Lucy and any other actress is quite able to speak with a genuine voice on issues that she has good knowledge of, You are dismissing her and her message because she has connections to Hollywood. That is unreasonable, in my view. Lucy is not able to cause you to be in 'awe' - that's up to you.
Robert a prejudice is all about 'pre judging' I have not based my opinion on Lucy Lawless on this event alone, I don't like the way she does things and I think it is quite counter productive. You yourself seemed to indicate that most NZers don't 'get it' which to me would indicate a failure to communicate appropriately and a failure (at least in NZ) of her mission.
I prefer to communicate with reasonable people, not offend them or insult them as your friend bsprout did in the first post on this thread.
Aren't you insulting Lucy by calling her a 'second-rate actress'?
You are familiar with her work then??
Shunda, you really jump to some rather bizarre interpretations of what I said.
"Your friend Dave made it quite clear that you can't be a 'proper' environmentalist unless you embrace this protest."
While I don't disagree with the protests I certainly would promote the view that direct action or "protests" should be a last resort.
Shunda, you seem to have forgotten the history of protest action in New Zealand; Save Manapouri, South African Rugby tours, Vietnam, The Land March, Bastion Point, nuclear testing in the pacific. Many of those protests involved a cross section of New Zealand society and all occurred because all other avenues failed.
Your claim that "they are being foolish, self promoting, and exploiting the above serious issues for their own fleeting notoriety" discounts the fact that all these protests are now recognised as pivotal in forcing a changing of policy or poor decisions.
We decided against nonviolent direct action against Solid Energy at our Mataura Camp in January, deciding instead to provide important information to the local community. However if reason and science fails I will be one of the first to lie in front of any bulldozer that starts the next opencast lignite mine.
How about reading more about oil drilling the Arctic and the lack of environmental protections and you too may join Lucy.
So RG you think the thugs that rioted outside the Eden Park Springboks game were legitimate? You think that fool Marx that put his own life and those at the game at risk by flying below the hieght of the stands was desirable?
You don't have to be a prat to be a non conformist.
Paranormal
"So RG you think the thugs that rioted outside the Eden Park Springboks game were legitimate?
Thugs? I don't support thugs anywhere, paranormal. Did you think I might?
You think that fool Marx that put his own life and those at the game at risk by flying below the hieght of the stands was desirable?
Someone put their own life and that of a crowd of sports fans at risk? I don't support that, if it is the case. I'm for harmless but effective protest. How about you paranormal? Or are you a 'lie down and take it' kind of guy, happy to have authorities of all stripes do as they will with you, no matter what your objection?
You don't have to be a prat to be a non conformist.
Shunda, you've opined that Lucy's actions were somehow based on promoting "her own selfish notoriety". Like Robert, I doubt this will help her career, but rather hinder it. And ya gotta admit, she wasn't flashing boobs or covered in make-up.
I too despair of the celebrity culture; until one of them uses their often unwarranted mana for something I agree with and then it's fine :-)
RG anyone that knows me, knows I am a non conformist and there is no way I am a "lie down and Take it" sort of person.
The majority of the protestors I saw at Hamilton and Eden Park during the protests were thugs. i cannot understand the adulation you lefties now pour upon them.
If you want to peacefully protest that's all well and good. I prefer to achieve things by identifying the source and communicating directly. The likes of Lawless and the Eden Park rioters are nothing more than criminals endangering others for their own gratification.
Paranormal
Lawless endangered others for her own gratification?
I didn't know that!
Who had to go up there and get her down then?
You have to admit the whole 'protest' was a publicity stunt.
Paranormal
No one had to.
Did she struggle with them, did you hear, or try to push them down the ladder?
Publicity stunt?
I'd hope so!
Hardly worth going up there if the message of your protest didn't make it into the viewing lounges of the people, is it?
Do you think that's bad, para?
Post a Comment