Category: Uncategorized

“In every struggle for liberty and justice, we are weakened when we shape our strategy to keep powerful interests onside.” I believe this quote, from the introduction of Eamonn McCann’s War and an Irish Town, perfectly exemplifies why true change is so difficult to come by in our society. The whole point of social change – to disrupt something powerfully ingrained in our lives – is nullified because our society is structured to protect power. Power makes reputations, furthers careers, and writes paychecks. Although powerful people are highly scrutinized, they are also protected from mainstream society because of the power that defines them. To ask someone to give up their power (whether politically, financially, or other) is to ask them to put down their shield. However, social change is impossible without someone losing some type of power. Something has to give.

In the early 1900s when Ireland separated from Britain, Britain didn’t budge on granting the six counties of Northern Ireland independence. Many believe this reluctance was influenced by Belfast being a valuable port city. Belfast rewarded the British power in the form of profit, and regardless of the social upheaval that the partition of Ireland caused, the British had interests that they deemed worthy of defense. Today we see something similar in many struggles for social change, including with gun laws in the United States. Despite horrific mass shooting, the intertwined web of interests at the top level of the country has prevented major change from ever occurring. Which is why, as Emory Douglas stated, and quoted by McCann, “real change, if it comes, will come from below.” The power struggle at the top will never sort itself out in time for social change to happen. As a result, it’s the people who don’t have these competing interests that need to lead the charge.

People don’t want fiery rhetoric thrown at them with nothing to back it up. Mr. McCann likened it in our class discussion to being at a Bruce Springsteen concert by yourself; it would be terrible, because so much of the experience is being alongside others feeling the same excitement. People don’t want to be told that they, as an individual, have the powerful politicians on their side. They want freedom and liberty, and to experience these alongside their peers. In order for this to ever happen, we must recognize that those with power might not be the strongest allies.

A lingering question that I have had on my mind after this week has been the question “Why does turning to violence become something we do even if we know it doesn’t work?” I’ve also been thinking about this in conjunction with our discussions over how a central figure/leader of a movement can affect and impact the actions that one takes during a movement and how desperation can lead to violence.

I wonder if the lack of a leader can permit more violence because without a central figure, those without leadership or direction might resort to actions and choices that are destructive to the cause itself. When there is no leadership, it is easy to split off and have different sub-groups that each have their own priorities and intentions in a movement. When this is the case, it is easy to see how some might turn to violence for their own gain. Although it is important to clarify that not all violence is a product of placing self-interest before the interests of a group, it is interesting to think how the representation of a group as a whole is changed by the actions of a few. I offer the thought that a central leader or figure might help to sort through these separate interests and re-align the group with their original intentions and goals.

Similarly, just as desperation is possible in any movement, when there is no central figure to help unite and continue to push the interests and concerns of the group, it is possible that desperation could cause the parts of the group to go their own way and resort to violence to help make their concerns known. I think it is interesting how the human mind works and how when we want or need something, we often do whatever it takes to get that thing. I think personally we often need someone to help guide and lead us in our decision making and process of making a plan and similarly, I think movements need this person as someone to help redirect and aid in the choices that a movement makes. Without this, violence becomes an option rather than something to try to avoid.

When we talked about the similarities of civil movements between 1968 and 2020, it became clear that history repeats itself. The ability for the story of The Informer, both the novel and film, to be uprooted with a and set  to a totally different country and context in Uptight, and still use a similar plot and underlying themes, and have it still be very applicable, stood out to me even more. History definitely repeats itself. Watching Uptight, it was shocking for me to understand how a story about two former Irish Republican Army members, and their story about ideology, betrayal, and poverty be so applicable to two black revolutionaries in Cleveland, Ohio almost 30 years later. If you watched Uptight without knowing about its creation, you would not even be able to tell that it was an updated version of the Informer. You would think it was original story based on the protests after the assassination of MLK. The Afro-American and Irish situations were not the same, however, there were shocking similarities. Every country is connected, making it inevitable for history to repeat itself. 

The hopelessness of Afro-Americans felt in Uptight, I believe, is still felt today. MLK was the leader of The Civil Rights movement in 1969, at least as how history and media portrays it. I believe there is hopelessness in the current BLM movement, because there is no ‘face’ of the movement. The protests nation wide, beginning with the death of George Floyd has seen very little success in instilling any kind of long-lasting policy change. We see police violence against blacks and deaths of protesters everyday, and it is heartbreaking to say that it surprises no one. While social media has been instrumental in informing the world about the BLM movement and the injustices felt by Afro-Americans currently, social media cannot be the leader of the BLM movement. There have been many influential people to speak up about the importance of ending racial injustice in America, but there seems to be no change. It saddens me that in the current political climate, leaders of the country are more interested in being re-elected than addressing and correcting the racial injustices plaguing Afro-Americans. 

If no policy changes occur to aid the BLM, history will keep repeating itself.

         Mirrors reflect the attributes of their subjects. Dark mirrors, then, reflect the negative aspects. We saw, this week, revolutionary groups in action in both Ireland and the U.S. as they grappled with themselves and their enemies. After watching and discussing these movies I believe Uptight specifically displayed that this kind of dark mirror is present both between the movie’s black revolutionaries and the IRA, as well as between the movie’s underground government and the very governments it meant to oppose. These dark mirrors reflect not only the historical recurrence of violence between the different revolutionary groups, but it also how revolutionary groups, in their opposition to governments, begin to take the form of the very government they rebel against.

            I have talked about the historical repetition of violence before, but that was in reference to ’68 and today. What Uptight shows, however, is that ’68 itself reflects violence even prior to itself. Even back in 1922, the IRA was a group that, fed up with peaceful compromises to their goals, resorted to violence to achieve them. The black revolutionaries in Uptight were exactly the same way, stealing guns and preparing for armed rebellion in response to the perceived failure of peaceful compromise. From this, we can see ’68 is an inheritor of a legacy of revolutionary violence. In this sense, a dark mirror of violence as a means for change is made between the IRA and black revolutionaries.

            Perhaps most interesting is the reflection between the black revolutionary underground government, and the government it hoped to oppose. The black revolutionaries saw the American system they found themselves in as corrupt and systemically opposed to them. A kind of society where blacks were excluded as not wanted, and violence was used to suppress them. However, they respond in turn the exact same way as their oppressors. The revolutionaries start to exclude white allies, and plan to use violence to achieve their goals. They even hold mock court to try members they believe committed betrayal organizing just like a government would. Here, there exists a dark mirror between the group and the very entity it wants to oppose.

            Ultimately, I think these movies have better contextualized ’68. Both in relation to other revolutionary times, as well as attitudes toward governmental authority. I am excited to further explore ’68 and find what other dark mirrors exist within it.

This past week we debated whether or not the BLM movement had or needed a central leader. The question was raised whether or not social media and its ability to connect millions across the country with information instantaneously had replaced the need for a leader. When comparing the BLM movement with the civil rights movement I think that a central leader is not needed nearly as much today because of social media, but that’s not to say that a leader is not needed.

One thing I’ve noticed about the BLM movement in comparison to the civil rights movement is that there is less consistency when it comes to the approach protesters have taken. The civil rights movement for the most part utilized nonviolence under the guidance of Martin Luther King. BLM has had a large number of peaceful protests, but also a number of protests with widespread looting. These occurrences of looting have been met with criticism which not only has been used to focus attention away from the issues they are protesting about but has turned some people off from the movement. Perhaps if they had a central leader to organize protests and the approach they were taking consistency would reached and the movement would be stronger. On the other hand, social media has given way for a multitude of people to be a leader of the movement. I know that numerous NBA stars such as Lebron James, Chris Paul, and Jaylen Brown have been vocal in their support of the movement with Brown specifically driving 15 hours from Boston to lead a march in Atlanta. It is up to the people with power on social media to use their platform to promote change and perhaps find a consistent approach. I do not think that there is a definitive answer as to whether or not a leader is needed.

The thing has surprised me the most about this week when talking about The Informer and Uptight is how important the theme or message is to writers and directors. Although I enjoy movies, I would not even attempt to claim to be a movie aficionado. So, during my research for the presentation and looking at correspondence between the writers, I was surprised, maybe naively, at how important the true message is. In addition, in our discussion during class, I realized that I had never dived so deep into the connections between different works of digital art. I’d like to think that I can understand the minute differences between works such as The Informer and Uptight, but I know that I was not as informed as I wanted to be on the importance of these minute details. Because of this, I think I learned a lot about the connection between the films; however, I think I learned even more on how to properly critique and connect digital multimedia. I look forward to doing my research not only on what small details writers and directors wish for the audience to see, but I also want to learn why they do this. From examples such as John Ford with The Informer, it is clear that the why is most directly affected by the opinions and lives of the writers, a fascinating connection I have never really considered. I think that this realization can really enrich the movie-watching process. Furthermore, by being interested in these small details, more coherent dialogue can be formed on how movies today and in the past address social, racial, and economic issues present in society. Although these discussions should certainly address texts and events happening in real-time, movies can be a way to work on issues while also enjoying a well-made movie. Although I still wouldn’t call myself a movie aficionado – and I don’t ever think I will be – this week made me appreciate movies more than I ever had before. 

Over the past week’s discussions, a question was proposed regarding the importance of a central leader during times of serious change, like the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Dr. Martin Luther King is the person that everybody thinks of when they talk about this time. He was always the one delivering the speeches, marching in the front of the pack, and pushing the people of the movement further to continue to demand change. For this reason, Martin Luther King will forever be remembered as one of the most important people in the history of the United States. The question that I pose now is, who will be remembered from our generation? Who is our central leader? 

There is no definitive answer to this question, but if I had to theorize about some of the most notable faces of the Black Lives Matters movement, one person that inevitably comes to mind is Collin Kaepernick. Although he has not spent much time in the public eye within the past few years, I still believe that his story is something that will be remembered and even compared to some of the actions of the leaders from 68. Looking back, we view the leaders of this time as heroes and show immense amounts of respect and gratitude for their passion towards the Civil Rights Movement, but I am sure that during the 60s they were not treated the same way. I believe that the same will be said for Collin Kaepernick. He first took a knee in 2016 and was met with fierce criticism, but he did not waiver in his actions. His situation got so bad that he ended up losing his job and hasn’t played another game in the NFL since. Now, four years later, players across all professional sports are taking a knee to show their support of the BLM movement. This idea was conceived by somebody who met extreme criticism for his actions, but he persisted and will now be remembered as a leader of our time and this movement. 

How does a leader, like MLK, impact a movement? This question led to many different answers and a long conversation. The argument was directed at the idea of whether or not a leader significantly impacts a movement or just plays a role in the face of it. After a long debate, many argued that a “leader” provides momentum and ideals that people can follow. I agree with this statement because a leader allows people to unite under a set of ideas and actions and act on their frustrations together. This creates “the movement” and gives people something to fight for. Altogether, these actions create this momentum and desire to fight for the people.

A classmate then initiated the conversation about social media being the main leader for the BLM movement. This idea is very interesting considering the consistent media converge on the recent movements. Social media apps provide constant information, whether its accurate or not, and influences its users to a very high degree. The idea of social media being the current leader of BLM, I believe, is very accurate. Social media has provided videos and ideas that have fueled the momentum of the movement and a place where people can unite and fight together. Various social media accounts have created certain pages that allow people to follow the ideas they resonate with and rally under the frustration they personally are facing.

During the conversation, I argued that events lead to the fight and fuel of the movement. I still agree with my point but have other ideas on the subject. I believe that certain events, like the recent deaths and violent arrests, have led to further fire and momentum of the BLM movement. These injustices have led to greater frustration and angry from the followers and allies of the BLM movement. Although these events have fueled “the fire”, the people of the movement and their actions of uniting with each are the ways that the momentum is maintained.

Having read several of Liam O’Flaherty’s short stories, I was struck by the power of his novel, The Informer, and its ability to place a reader back in this time of great shadow and darkness. I noticed, throughout the book, that setting is a huge part of the writing and influences the mental journeys of each character, especially Gypo. The darkness enveloping Gypo in several scenes throughout the novel was comforting to him in his rage or his mental confusion. The influence of setting in O’Flaherty’s writing lead me to think about the influence of our surroundings on our lives and our mentalities and ideologies today. Across the world, different cultures are affected by uprisings, riots, war, peace, or political changes. Each country, and each neighborhood, even, is subject to major differences. What people in rural France felt about Charles de Gaulle and the revolutionary movements would have been vastly different from those living in Paris, just as the ideologies of farmers in America differ greatly from individuals living in cities such as Chicago or New York.

With the different settings influencing our everyday thoughts and mentalities, what are we called to do as unique individuals? Are we meant to place ourselves outside of our comfort zone and learn about other places, or are we called to be people of our homes and our surroundings? Are the homes and places we grew up in supposed to influence our ideologies, and how do we change these ideologies if they do?

After reading and discussing this week, what really stuck with me was the dichotomy between the good of the group and individual survival. In both The Informer and Uptight, one character, out of desperation, chose to sacrifice another in the movement for money. Their willingness to give up on the movement for money to survive and start a new life demonstrates the desperation that poverty creates. Guilt over the deaths of their friends has an interesting effect on both of these characters, though. Although they both originally intended to use the money to get out of their current situation and start a new life with their significant others, they both use the money to get drunk and cause chaos throughout the night. At the end, they both claim that they had no idea what they were doing, and did not know the effects of their actions. Both still want to be accepted back into the group and try to be loyal to the movement, even after their mistake.

The behavior of the characters in both The Informer and Uptight elucidates the inner conflict between the individual and the good of the group that seems to exist in all movements. Movements are born out of chronic problems within a society, and economic issues are usually always a factor. One of these movements’ goals was to end the cycle of extreme poverty and economic inequality in these communities, but the poverty that they were fighting drives some of the members to act out of desperation.  The members are loyal to the movement and are willing to do so many things to be accepted back into the group, but they also give up on it when they are offered a way out of their poverty and problems. Most of all, I think these works  perfectly demonstrate that individual need will always take priority over the human desire to be accepted and belong to a group with a greater cause.