The traditional cause for revolution is no longer needed as the American government has created democracy for its citizens. But once a society becomes democratized in its political system and more egalitarian in its social institutions, it is unlikely that it will ever undergo the type of revolutionary upheavals experienced by France in 1789 and England in the 164os. In a speech to the British Parliament, Ronald Reagan announced that the United States was about to throw its prestige and resources behind a program launched to strengthen “democracy throughout the world,” but he made no reference to the idea of democratic citizenship or any suggestion that democracy might need strengthening at home.

A democratic conception of citizenship, if it means anything at all, means that the citizen is supposed to exercise his rights to advance or protect the kind of polity that depends on his being involved in its common concerns. The liberal view was that citizenship is democratic in the United States because every citizen, regardless of cultural, social, economic, and biological differences, can equally claim the right to vote, speak, worship, acquire property and have it protected, and be assured of the elements of a fair trial. Unfortunately, the liberal civic culture never supplied any content to rights. The Constitution was not designed to encourage citizen action but to prevent arbitrary power, especially the form of power represented by the will of the majority. Among several of the states, the majority principle was being actively tested in the period from the outbreak of the Revolution in 1776 to the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. The Constitution was intended to shatter the majoritarian experiment at the national level by incorporating several devices that were supposed to frustrate the natural form of democratic action: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, the Supreme Court, indirect election of the president and Senate, and brief tenure for representatives.

At almost the exact moment when the liberal theory of rights was about to be given the material form of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, James Madison, who was the prime mover of that effort, also produced what came to be the classical formulation of the liberal theory of politics. In Letter 10 of the Federalist papers, he argued that one of the sternest tests for the proposed Constitution would be whether it could control “factions,” the distinctive form of politics in a society founded on freedom. Instead of playing the role of defender of rights, the government assumed a function more consistent with the politics of interest groups, that of “balancing” rights against certain overriding matters of state. Thus when wider latitude was given to the CIA and FBI to conduct surveillance, or when First Amendment rights of the press were limited by the prohibition against disclosing the names of CIA agents, the government’s justification was that there had to be a balancing of national security needs with civil liberties, as though the setting were simply another instance of having to weigh the demands of conflicting groups.

Throughout the nineteenth century and down to the New Deal, property rights, rather than civil or political rights, dominated American politics-even the issue of slavery was formulated as a matter of rights of ownership. But in the twentieth century, especially after World War II, it has been the civil rights of citizens that have been contested, not only in the courts and before administrative tribunals, but in the arena of interest-group politics. Rights to abortion, sexual freedom, freedom from censorship, public education free of religious influences, rights of privacy against sophisticated surveillance, affirmative action quotas-these and a multitude of other issues are an indication of how profoundly politicized rights have become, how unassured their status is. Beginning with the New Deal, liberals argued that political rights were formal and ineffective if citizens did not have jobs, social security, unemployment compensation, the right to organize unions and bargain collectively, access to higher education, and, in general, a decent standard of living. or more than three decades the thinking behind as well as the substance of public policies dealing with the poor, the unemployed, and racial minorities, have treated them as having a pariah status quite unlike other interests.

The tacit assumption of interest-group politics has always been that there was one common element among farmers, workers, employers, and teachers, etc.: they were all productive in one way or another. Those who are poor, unemployed and members of racial minorities can be treated differently, in ways that are divisive, that render them incapable of sustained political action. They are “targeted” by specialized programs that, in effect, fragment their lives.

The practical task is to nurture existing movements that can provide constructive forms for rejectionism and make it genuinely political. The most important of these are the grassroots movements that have become epidemic throughout the country. While it is of the utmost importance that Democrats support and encourage political activity at the grassroots level, it is equally necessary that the political limitations of such activity be recognized.

– A.S

Immigration as a whole can be seen as the foundation of the New York city that we see today. There are people from tons of countries all around the world, each bringing their own culture to the Big Apple. The Chinese were one of the most prominent groups of immigrants early 21st century. They ultimately grew from 33,000 to nearly 500,000 in 50 years. Many of the Chinese did not simply come to New York because of the opportunities; the environment in China also pushed for emigration. For example, Chinas Open Door Policy, as well as fewer emigration restrictions, made it very easy for the Chinese people to leave and come to New York. The rapid growth of the Chinese population in New York City was not always the case. For example, during the Chinese Exclusion Act, which began in 1882, many Chinese laborers were not allowed to enter the country. The ones that were lucky to arrive before this act had a very difficult life, often being forced to take jobs that no one else wanted such as household servants and laundrymen. Although laws such as the Chinese exclusion act and the War Bride act were repealed directly after World War 2, the true “surge of Chinese immigration began in the 1960s due to the passage of the Immigration and nationality act also referred to as the Hart-Celler act of 1965” (page 122). The traditional quotas were lifted and Chinese immigrants coming into New York reached nearly 20% of all of the Chinese immigrants in the United States.

Chinese immigration is culturally different than most immigrant groups coming to America. Due to its size, people were emigrating from both sides of China which often caused language barriers as well as cultural differences within the Chinese community in New York City. In addition, because of this, financial backgrounds were very different; some people came with a lot of money and some couldn’t even afford to eat. 

Just like all other immigrant groups, once the Chinese arrived in New York city, they clustered themselves together. People of the same origin like to stick together to preserve their culture and that is exactly what the Chinese did with the Chinatown development. The living conditions in China town were very inferior however it gave them easier access to jobs and services (130). This enclave clustered economy eventually led to social mobility for the Chinese people. The one problem with these types of clusters is that it very hard to move on to a job in mainstream New York City. Although many might think that the finances would hold them back, things like the cultural and language barriers would often restrict the workers in places such as Chinatown. Not everyone decided to move to the clusters. For example, people who came to New York City with more money were able to bypass mainstream clusters and buy their own homes in nicer areas such as Queens and Brooklyn.  

Contrary to common belief, China town was not the only Chinese cluster in the greater New York City area. For example, Flushing clustered many Mandarin-speaking immigrants as well as people from mainland China. In addition, Sunset Park also became a cluster for many Taiwanese people who spoke Mandarin. Through clusters like these, the Chinese people were able to work together to preserve their culture and improve their economic and social status in the community.

RR (Rom)

ACT-UP is envisioned to offer free access to antiviral drugs to help those who get infected AIDS and to raise more public awareness to stop the spread of AIDS. In the 1980s, the ACT-UP committed a series of actions to make the government, media, and pharmaceutical companies solve this issue. Protesting with the poster and other forms of art was the primary way of ACT-UP to spread their messages. ACT-UP chose the ‘sacred space’ like the City Hall and the White House as the place of the protest for a reason. Gay and people who get AIDS were people just like everyone else and this was written in laws and constitution of the United States. However, the people who got AIDS was not equally treated like other patients. Instead, they were under persecution and discrimination by the government and the public. They did not have basic human rights and were facing death because of lacking proper medical treatments. So, it is understandable that ACT-UP would go to the White House the spread the ashes of their loved ones to force the government and the public to respond and take actions. AIDS People were in danger and the Constitutions were supposed to protect them.

The reason why the public actions often so powerful was that it was a just war for the ACT-UP. People were fighting for their rights to survive because they were dying; People were fighting for their dead lovers because they deserved respect; People were fighting for their rights to live like a normal person as a gay. Just like the famous ACT-UP poster with a pink triangle means, if people do not speak up, they would die. Those driving forces produced great power of the people because it was urgent as lives were fading and gay and AIDS people’s feelings were long-depressed. They really wanted to fight for a good life.

As I learned about environmental racism for my topic, I knew about people protesting for government’s discriminating environmental policies and the big companies’ environmental crime. The communities’ environments were polluted and damaged by dangerous chemicals and waste. Even the air and water quality were too bad. People’s lives were in danger and the children’s health was being greatly affected. Just like the AIDS and gay issues of the ACT-UP, people’s lives and their sustainability were urgently needed to change, or they would die. People who opposed environmental racism tried to lay on the high way to stop the truck send the chemical waste to the community. This kind of radical actions was similar to the ACT-UP who opposed the ban of condoms by laying down in the church. It was without doubt that it had raised a lot of public attention, but behind the action was the eagerness for the people to survive.

Z.L

ACT-UP is an advocacy group working to impact the lives of people who have AIDS. Their goal is to bring awareness to leaders and people of power in order to achieve more solutions and hopefully find a cure for this disease. Many people passed away and are being affected by AIDS, however there is not much resource for the disease. So, ACT-UP directly uses sacred spaces, spaces that hold a lot of respect and importance to many people, in order to make their voice heard. We discussed protests in front of the White House as well as St. Patricks Cathedral. Loud noises and violence surrounds these sacred spaces in order to gain as much attention as possible, which made their group stick out and hold a lot of power.

For me, if someone were to do what we saw in front of the synagogue I belonged to, I would lose a lot of respect for the people rioting. This is one of the only places for people that are religious to come to and expect peace and quiet, and ruining that is over the top and downright disrespectful. I believe that there is a time and place for everything and many people might have been going to church for personal, also upsetting reasons and to hear shouting and violence right outside the door is immature to me. However, I believe protesting in front of the White House is fair game because its directly to the people that should be on top of this topic.

My topic is how cab drivers are suffering financially because of ride sharing applications like Uber and Lyft. What’s effective from history is using political art along with actual marches directly where it is necessary. I think cab drivers in New York City should learn from this, as I have not seen any protests, art or marches about this topic. Therefore, it makes it seem like it is not worthy of anyone’s time.

MN

As we finish the semester, we have finally arrived to the 21^st Century activism movements. Luckily, our generation has been able to see these movements come into fruition and spark change. The movements of our time have been monumental in the masses of people that have gathered for causes, and brought together all types of people.

Jaffe begins by discussing the “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) movement that took place in 2011. Occupy Wall Street emerged in a time period where activism was taking place domestically and internationally. In Spain, young people protested against job cuts and the government’s budget decisions. In Madison, Wisconsin, people protested the Republican tax and budget plan that would invade on the public sector of labor. In Cairo, Egypt, millions of people gathered in Tahrir Square to protest the sitting President Mubarak. The idea of having millions of people gather to strike change like the one in Cairo inspired the same movement across the Atlantic. OWS began in Lower Manhattan to express their distress and dissatisfaction with the direction of the US economy. Many were still triggered by the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008 that resulted in the saving of the banks but sinking of employment rates, rising in homeless people, and of course, the raising of salaries of executive members. OWS also brought several other problems to the table such as college loans, outsourcing, and environmental problems that were blamed on irresponsible corporations and a reckless government. The people united on the fact that life for middle class and working Americans was getting harder and the lives of the rich was becoming significantly easier. They utilized the slogan “We are the 99%!” to emphasize that such a small percentage is benefitting from the decisions made by corporations and the government.

OWS struck NYC harder than most protests. The movement persuaded thousands of depositors to move and estimated $4.5 billion dollars out of large banks, and into non-profit credit unions and community-based banks. Also, because social media was beginning to peak, OWS used platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to rapidly inform, persuade, and gather people. Something that was different about this protest is that it gathered people of all genders and races under the idea that it was the “people’s mic” not only one type of person’s turn to speak. As the protest carried on, facilitators had to ensure that women, people of color, and LGBTQ groups were receiving the same right to express their grievances as the straight white males that made up the majority of OWS. It is rather unknown what OWS accomplished with regards to the economy, however, the movement set the precedent for all the movements that were to strike New York City; #BlackLivesMatter, racial profiling, Women’s March and gentrification.

As seen in the articles we were given, several movements followed OWS. Black Lives Matter is a member-led organization whose mission is to build local power and to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. After the deaths of two men in Louisiana that were killed by forms of police brutality, the people of New York did not stay silent. Thousands on thousands of people gathered in Times Square and Union Square to grieve the innocent lives that were taken. Immediately after people began to arrive, the NYPD began to aggressively arrest people and detain them. Videos, photos and recordings went viral on social media which spread support for the movement even faster. When the public found a common enemy, people united and kept protesting even more.

Another movement is the WE ACT movement which builds healthy communities by ensuring that people of color and low-income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of environmental policies and practices. This organization mainly works in the low-income neighborhoods of New York City that do not receive the same access to cleaner air, healthy homes, and sustainable and equitable land. WE ACT conducts campaigns including their Uptown Chats which Uptown leaders networking and engaging with leaders and public officials on topics such as energy, economic development, and transportation.

The final movement that was mentioned was the New Sanctuary Coalition. The New Sanctuary Coalition has been led by and for immigrants to stop the inhumane system of deportations and detentions in this country. They work to provide person-to-person support to many hundreds of immigrants facing detention and deportation. With the help of donors and volunteers, the coalition is able to expand and continue to provide safe spaces for people in churches, businesses and homes. There are around 20 “safe spaces” designated as sanctuaries for immigrants and these places have managed to rescue thousands of immigrants from the grasp of ICE.

Movements like the one listed above are the stones that have set the base for activism in this century. People began to find common grounds and understand that change needed to be made. With inspiration from a movement like OWS, people have used platforms on social media, public performances, and gathering of thousands of people to get the awareness needed for their cause. The activism of this century is still continuing and our generations and the generations to come will be the sparks that ignite the activism in New York City because of the rich history ingrained here.

Sarah S.

The Young Lords Party was created in hopes to bring attention to problems such as social inequality. They were heavily inspired by groups such as the Black Panther Party as well as Malcom X. Their legacy has been not exactly the causes they fought for, rather the way that they did it. They mainly fought for better living and health conditions for people in (primarily) East Harlem. They created a wave of Puerto Rican activism- something that continues to inspire people today.

The Young Lords Party matter today as they are a clear example of activism and it’s effect in the past. The importance of history is to learn from the lessons and understand why things happened. The acts of this group explains a lot about the circumstances in the mid-late 20th century. While their actions were not extravagant in terms of money, they were powerful and had an impact due to the passion and drive that these individuals had. This passion is inspiring for generations today and gives them hope that they can make a difference as long as they persevere.

The film does a good job of framing these questions by setting up a plot that is very realistic today. The film shows how generally people are unaware about who this group was, but as they learn they become more passionate. The film also shows the Latino community in similar situations to the time of the Young Lords Party, which made their ability to make a difference today even more applicable. The situations of the characters are perfect in order to get inspired by the legacy of the Young Lords Party and to make them feel as if they can make a change.

-R.Rasheed

Sacred space are locations considered to be of great importance, either due to their symbolic representations or religious significance. Interestingly, ACT-UP, the LGBT awareness group, used these sacred spaces as a key role in their protests. They were strategic in how they planned out their trips to places where the most people were going to see them. As seen from the video clips watched in class, the group performed public rituals in locations like the White House and St. Patricks Cathedral, where people would get “triggered” and vocally react towards. In their protest in front of the White House, I especially found their public actions to be moving yet hard to watch. The symbolism behind their actions spoke to great significance. Those in attendance of the event were either sick patients themselves or relatives of those who had lost their battle with AIDS. By bringing their ashes to the scene and dumping them in front of the White House, it not only gives the victims a final means of showing their resilience but makes their voices stay immortal. For all the years when the government stayed silent regarding the AIDS crisis, these victims did not let their voices go unheard and left a final mark on the front steps of the White House. It is hard to imagine how the families probably felt because they were letting go of their loved ones to those who did nothing for them.

In the St. Patricks Cathedral though, I felt that ACT-UP might have taken it too far. The people in the cathedral were there for a day of praying and worshipping. They were probably not expecting the public action to begin. As mentioned in class, the action would probably not change the attendees’ opinions. For example, in the White House public action, it carried a heavy weight due to its symbolic metaphor, allowing it to have a major impact on the viewers. However, in the case of the St. Patricks Cathedral, I feel that it is hard to change someone’s mind who has grown up learning a set of values and beliefs through the means of a religion. By entering their place of worship and beginning to make a very public statement, you might be scaring the people rather than getting them on your side. Even though their actions were effective in gaining publicity and attention from people everywhere (before the times of social media of course), I believe there is something not right about doing a public action in a religious setting. In places of symbolic representations, there is a certain universal meaning revolving the site. By protesting that very idea, it makes one’s argument stronger. For example, in a case that recently occurred, where a woman climbed up the Statue of Liberty to protest Trump’s wall, she effectively used the idea of sacred space to get her message across. Lady Liberty is known to welcome immigrants from all over the world. By climbing up that historic site and denouncing the wall (which is preventing individuals from seeking aid and being separated from families), she was effectively able to get her point across. The use of sacred space should be strategically performed to ensure that people also don’t get extremely offended.

In the case of my topic (Affirmative Action), there have been many different protests that have occurred in the past. From calling out the unfair quota systems to bringing cases up till the Supreme Court, there is still a long way to go to ensure that freedom and equality is guaranteed for all. Even today, both sides of the table argue for and against the legislation. If Affirmative Action activists are to learn something from the ACT-UP’s actions, one thing they should definitely take note of is how to make a scene. With every public action they did, ACT-UP knew that the cameras would need to be rolling. They would need to leave a lasting impact on their crowd. If in the future, Affirmative action activists of either sides are to perform their own public actions, they need to be sure of how to get the most amount of people to respond and understand their message. In today’s time, maybe it can involve the means of a social media movement or so (as an idea). Or it could be a public performance or protest in the front of a building or school. There are many different things activists can do, but they just need to remember one thing and one thing only: make every action be unforgettable.

-SK

ACT UP is an organization that works with many members of the LGBT community to fight for unethical issues in our country such as the HIV/AIDS Crisis. The LGBT community, as well as other groups in the community, feel as if there is not enough being done to help prevent and cure the horrendous disease known as AIDS. Millions of people around the world are dying every year and according to them, the government is not doing enough to help.

Sacred space can be interpreted as a place of importance to people whether it be because of religious reasons or general places that the community values and deems sacred. The use of these places to riot and fight for various causes can be seen as very controversial in today’s society. For example, many individuals feel that although the protestors might be fighting for an important cause, rioting in a sacred place is disrespectful and can actually escalate the issue in a negative way.

Throughout the years of ACT UP, they have definitely taken advantage of the importance of sacred spaces in their protests. For example, one of their most famous protests was at St. Patricks Cathedral where more than 4,500 members of ACT UP entered the Cathedral and acted very disrespectfully towards the people of the Church that were praying. Many of them were shouting and laying on the floor, doing anything to draw attention to themselves and what they are fighting for. Ultimately, I do not think that this was the right way to go about solving the issue. The St. Patricks Cathedral was not the best choice because it is a place of utmost respect and worship and as I previously mentioned, many of the protestors were being very disrespectful during the prayers. In addition, going to a place that has many people that heavily disagree with you will not help the issue; the people of the Church are very much against homosexuality due to the Bible and it would be nearly impossible to change their minds. Although I do believe that their choice of sacred space did stir the pot in the media and overall community, I believe that there are far better places that would benefit their cause in the fight for more AIDS treatments and research.

Moreover, one place that was very effective in my opinion was the White House. Thousands of people went right up to the gate of the White House Lawn and disposed of the ashes of their loved ones who perished due to the lack of government actions. This was a much more effective protest because although the White House is considered a sacred space, it has more people that are on the fence about the issue and would consider the change. In addition, the ashes proved to show physical damage that has been done in society rather than just explaining theoretical casualties or plain numbers.

All in all, I believe that sacred spaces can be either positive or negative depending on the situation at hand. These types of spaces have been used by activists since the beginning of protesting and it is important to understand when it is effective versus when it goes overboard and ruins not only the willingness of people to cooperate but also the message that the protestors try to convey.

RR (Rom)

Location plays an integral role in the conveyance of a message. Activists group deliberately handpick the site of their demonstrations to provoke a certain emotion, or reach a certain audience. ACT-UP, or AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, is a universal nonprofit advocacy group working to better the lives of people with AIDS, attempting to bring about new legislation, medical research, policy change, and medical treatment. With a motto such as “Silence Equals Death”, ACT-UP followed through with their promise and collectively spoke out on matters that were previously silenced. Their choice of utilizing “sacred space” also serves an amplifier for their already prominent voices. Certain institutions carry an air of respectability and convention, where one would intentionally soften the click of their heels upon entering the establishment.  By intruding on the stern atmosphere and spreading awareness about topics that at the time were considered to be “taboo”, a juxtaposition naturally forms which propels ACT-UP’s message even further.

On March 24, 1987, ACT-UP held its first action on Wall Street to, “protest the profiteering of pharmaceutical companies on AIDS drugs” (actupny.com). An article in the NY Times described a 1986 Fortune Magazine cover photograph, encapsulating the atmosphere which surrounded Wall Street at the time: a young investment banker with an enormous cigar and smug look spread across his face (nytimes.com). By bringing reform dealing with AIDS to such a platform the controversy would spread the message even farther.

On December 10, 1989, ACT-UP followed through with an action that was labeled to be the most “audacious protest” where over 4,500 protestors disrupted Sunday’s morning mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. They protested, “the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York’s stand on sex education and condom distribution in the wake of the AIDS crisis” (thestarryeye.typepad.com). The Catholic church teaches that homosexual acts are “violations of the divine”; thus, by speaking out about the church’s homophobic and misogynistic policies, while located directly in the church, the impact ultimately becomes heightened.

Ultimately, activism becomes more effective when it occurs as close to the root of the problem as possible. ACT-UP’s acts were labeled as “rude, rash, [and] effective”. They blocked traffic by Wall Street by laying down with cardboard tombstones over their heads, they spread ashes of AIDS victims on the front lawn of the White House, they chained themselves inside pharmaceutical corporations, unafraid of being jailed or what social stigma will surround them afterwards. This boldness oversaw the limitations that were hauled their way, which is something today’s activism could benefit from, even in the Uber vs Yellow cab matter. Their activism did not condone violence against other people, but against the institution. With a collective consciousness, protestors calculated the weakest spots in society and targeted them, with each demonstration tailored to each location seamlessly. Activism is not sexist, nor is it racist; if there is a pressing concern in society, it applies to all of its citizens equally.

V.B.