One of the themes I have noticed throughout many of the texts we have recently read is the idea of “martyrdom.” This usually does not mean actually dying for a cause, but instead displaying oneself as a victim of something. This is especially evident in the last two texts, Voices of the Chicago Eight and Trial of the Catonsville Nine. In both cases the defendants do not seem to be very invested in actually proving their innocence, at least that is the way the authors portray the trials. Instead, it seems that the point of the trial was really to display injustice to the general public. This seems clear to me; however, I am not entirely sure if this was their mindset before all the events took place. Did the Chicago Eight and the Catonsville Nine intend on becoming “martyrs,” or was it something that they were simply willing to accept as a side effect? You could certainly argue that they set out to be “martyrs” because this would draw more attention to their causes. There is no doubt that suffering for a cause you believe in is more powerful in the public eye. In fact, we probably would not be reading about them right now if they weren’t these “martyrs.”
This power from “martyrdom” also requires the role of an author, or at least someone to tell your story. The point of being a martyr is to amplify your message through the idea that you are willing to suffer for it so that others can be drawn to your message, and therefore the actual dispersion of your message is critical. These authors are critical for actually carrying the message, but they also profoundly impact the message itself. A lot of people might say that is bad thing, and that authors and journalists should not put their own analysis on things. However, it seems to be more complicated than that. Analysis is important, but it’s impossible to analyze anything without skewing the original idea or message. Is the cost worth it? Does analysis provide a more narrow-minded message, or does it add layers to the discussion of an issue?
I’m with you on the idea that if it hadn’t been for the “Chicago Eight” and “Catonsville 9” playing the role of martyrs, we probably would never have heard of them. I have no doubt there were countless cases surrounding civil rights and draft card burnings in the late 60s and there’s a reason these ones have stood the test of time. These people in these trials were skilled protestors who were very methodical in what they did, so I am of the camp that they did intend to become martyrs as it was the way to make the absolute most of the stand they were taking. On the flipside, people would probably argue that this was still during the rise of television and video in media, so its possible the Chicago Eight and Catonsville 9 did not understand the full power their actions could have through TV broadcasting.
As to your point about analysis, I think journalistic analysis is essential for making the relevance of news accessible to the public. I agree with you that it is often laced with biases, but as long as consumers of information are aware of that analysis is a valuable tool that allows the common person to become much more educated in much less time.
I agree with this idea of martyrdom that the people in the trials suffered, but I do wonder if there are different levels of martyrdom? As you said, we don’t know for sure if the groups of the Chicago Eight and Catonsville Nine intended to be martyrs or if it just happened, so can we compare these groups to the Huey Newton and the the Black Panther Party? It seems that Huey and his group were well prepared to die for their cause, so would the people of Chicago Eight and Catonsville Nine have been just as willing, or did they mainly want to get their messages out? I also wonder how biased or skewed the two trials plays are given that both were written by authors who were actually part of the groups. Did this make an even bigger difference on how events were viewed?
You make a lot of really good points and I think that in both of the trials you referenced the participants can be categorized as martyrs. I think that the groups definitely planned on making a statement as a group of individuals beforehand. If they hadn’t, why would they choose to be tried together? Especially in the case of the Catonsville Nine where we see diversity among the nine with regards to the role they played. Going “down” together makes it much more difficult to forget what they stood for compared to one person being tried and found guilty. I think that the participants being involved with the story telling of the events is a good thing, regardless of the biases they might have. It is important to get a clear understanding of their motivations.
I think that this is a really interesting insight that you bring up. I think I have also noticed the theme of martyrdom throughout the most recent texts that we have been studying. I would agree that it is not traditional martyrdom in the way that we as a society and especially those studying the past would consider it. However, you make a really great point that the true focus of martyrdom is to bring attention to the issue at hand and thereby the writings that we have discussed make it apparent that there is almost a new age of martyrdom, and while the outcome isn’t death, rather incarceration, it is most certainly similar in the eyes of the author. It was also very interesting to me how you brought up the issue of objectivity in these pieces, and how messages can be skewed by those writing about them.