An Anti-War Culture, or the lack thereof....

Politico has an article on the lack of an Anti-War Culture inspiring the Anti-War Movement. It appears that anti-Iraq war songs and movies have not caught on to mass appeal as it did during the 1960s when music and movies created and reinforced a Culture of Protest. For example, if you get the opportunity to watch Berkeley in the 1960s about the Free Speech Movement and the Anti-War movement, you will see the correlation between the protesters and the culture, especially in the way they formed a "listening community."

Yet, for the current war, there is not an influential culture of protest. The articles suggests that, unlike the 1960s, the reasons why there have not been mass protests on campus and politics have not worked in popular culture include that there is no military draft to oppose, a relatively low amount of casualties (not including civilian deaths), and the fragmentation of communication in culture. While some movies have been popular, there have not been appealing. For example, Fahrenheit 9/11 made money at the box office but presented a terrible argument. Syriana was good, but arguably confusing. I have yet to see Rendition, Redacted, and many more of the Iraq War movies. And the fact is, I do not know if I will see them as I do not need to see them to know that I oppose the war or I do not need to see them to know what horrors have been committed.

As far as music goes, even I am in the dark about the current anti-war songs. I remember the "Not Ready to Make Nice" controversy and used it in class but the students seemed unsure of what to think at the time (2006/2007). We listened to a few pro-War songs, such as "Where Were You" by Alan Jackson but even this song had no effect on the students. Recently, a 30 song anti-war concept album was released to go along with the movie Body of War. This album features such artists such as Neil Young and Eddie Vedder but I did not even know about this album until today. Oh well, times change.

But, is the argument of this article correct? Here are four questions to think about:

First, because there is a lack of material interests involved with the war, (i.e. no draft, hence no risk to the nation; no financial sacrifice; no rationing), there is no need for the vast majority of students to protest?

Second, since there are little material interests involved, does this mean that there is little chance for the people to persuade the government to stop the war, except maybe through elections. The 2006 midterms show that even this is not possible because there are not enough votes to stop the war. This reinforces the notion that persuasion is not necessary, only the votes for the war or against the war matter. Debate does not occur, just people following the ideas they have in their heads.

Third, how does the role of technology interfere with a listening community? As I walk around campus and see students listening to Ipods, as most students do on many college campuses, this alters our perception of the student community but it does not preclude students from engaging one another. Students can "share" their experience via You Tube but not participate. In both cases, students may choose to isolate themselves rather than engaging in a discussion or they may get information but may not be active with that information.

Further, people can use technology to "intellectualize" about the war, "protest" the torture in the war, or sign a "petition" to end the war, but all of this has little effect as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base still exists and the practices still continue. With technology we may find out more about the war but that does not mean we are any closer to ending the war or stopping the torture.

Finally, have there been any songs or movies that have persuaded people to be against the war and do something about ending the war, even if it would mean voting for an anti-war candidate?