Budrus And Freedom Riders Analysis
Comparison of Budrus and Freedom Riders
Both “Budrus” and “Freedom Riders” are documentaries that showed use of nonviolence actions. The term “freedom riders” referred to a group of civil rights activists, consisting of both blacks and whites, who tried to put an end to segregation by taking a bus down to the Southern states. The Freedom Riders planned to visit the following states: Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. They hoped to change people’s views on segregation slowly. There, the Freedom Riders would demonstrate peaceful, nonviolent actions. One example of this was when a black Freedom Rider sat in a diner and a white Freedom Rider sat next to him. The Freedom Riders practiced …show more content…
scenarios such as this and rehearsed how to act in nonviolent ways. The main goal of the bus ride down to the south was not to provoke the white residents of these places, but one Freedom Rider told us about how if there were to be violent, it would attract more media attention.
In “Budrus,”the setting was along the construction site of the Israeli barrier. The residents of Budrus, a town in Palestine, protested this barrier being built because it was on their land. People could not farm and felt their land was wrongfully taken from them. Ayed was the man leading these peaceful protests. He was quoted as saying “ If we use violence against the wall, the resistance would not last as long”. He goes on to say that the “strategy of the struggle is nonviolence”. At one point during the documentary, angry Budrus residents start throwing stones at the Israeli militia. The militia results by firing. This is evidence that violence only creates more violence. Ayed’s strategy is similar to the freedom riders’ in that both are nonviolent, however there are several differences between them. Ayed is using nonviolence to try to stop the barrier from taking away the rights of the Budrus citizens. The Freedom Riders tried to challenge segregation laws. The main difference I saw in these documentaries was that in “Budrus” people fought to protect their rights but in “Freedom Riders” people fought to create new, equal rights.
According to V.K Kool (2008) , nonviolence has been shown to work throughout history many times but the problem is the relationship between the amount of work that is put into being nonviolent and the results.
I feel that this was true for Budrus especially because days and days went by and the barrier was still being built slowly. However, the residents of Budrus showed determination and did not give up. They continued to stand up for what they believed in after setbacks, including getting arrested. The leader of the group Ayed said he knew he had kids but did not know what they looked like until his release. He said that his personal sacrifices will hopefully amount to a greater benefit for the people of Budrus. Kool goes on to talk about heroes in “The Nonviolent Individuals”. Kool describes them as being courageous and doing selfless acts, which I believe that Ayed did. The Freedom Riders encountered several acts of hatred. Angry Southern residents slashed their bus tired and cornered them. The bus eventually exploded and a mob of people beat some of the civil rights activists. The Freedom Riders knew they were going to face dangerous situations but they still rode the bus to fight for a bigger picture. They were heroes as well because they put their safety at risk in order to lessen or end
segregation.
Van Zomeren et. al (2008) discusses collective action in “ Exploring Psychological Mechanisms of Collective Action”. They talk about how collective action is the appropriate response to collective disadvantage. Both the residents of Budrus and the black people living in the South were disadvantaged groups. The Freedom Riders inspired others to take collective action. For example, students had sit-ins where they locked themselves in cafeterias in order to fight against lunch room segregation in response to the Freedom Rides. At the end of the “Budrus” documentary, we find out that because of the 55 protests from Budrus residents, the separation barrier was moved to the green line (the line separating Israeli and Palestinian land) for the majority. These protests also inspired other towns to protest and defend their land. Both of these documentaries showed how change can be made by using nonviolence. Ayed was just one man and his words led to a major change. The actions of the Freedom Riders facilitated equality for people no matter their skin color.
Work Cited
Van Zomeren, Martijn, Russell Spears, and Colin Wayne Leach. "Exploring Psychological Mechanisms of Collective Action" British Journal of Social Psychology 47.2 (2008)
Kool, V.K. "The Nonviolent Individuals: Who Are They." 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2013.
Both “Budrus” and “Freedom Riders” are documentaries that showed use of nonviolence actions. The term “freedom riders” referred to a group of civil rights activists, consisting of both blacks and whites, who tried to put an end to segregation by taking a bus down to the Southern states. The Freedom Riders planned to visit the following states: Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. They hoped to change people’s views on segregation slowly. There, the Freedom Riders would demonstrate peaceful, nonviolent actions. One example of this was when a black Freedom Rider sat in a diner and a white Freedom Rider sat next to him. The Freedom Riders practiced …show more content…
scenarios such as this and rehearsed how to act in nonviolent ways. The main goal of the bus ride down to the south was not to provoke the white residents of these places, but one Freedom Rider told us about how if there were to be violent, it would attract more media attention.
In “Budrus,”the setting was along the construction site of the Israeli barrier. The residents of Budrus, a town in Palestine, protested this barrier being built because it was on their land. People could not farm and felt their land was wrongfully taken from them. Ayed was the man leading these peaceful protests. He was quoted as saying “ If we use violence against the wall, the resistance would not last as long”. He goes on to say that the “strategy of the struggle is nonviolence”. At one point during the documentary, angry Budrus residents start throwing stones at the Israeli militia. The militia results by firing. This is evidence that violence only creates more violence. Ayed’s strategy is similar to the freedom riders’ in that both are nonviolent, however there are several differences between them. Ayed is using nonviolence to try to stop the barrier from taking away the rights of the Budrus citizens. The Freedom Riders tried to challenge segregation laws. The main difference I saw in these documentaries was that in “Budrus” people fought to protect their rights but in “Freedom Riders” people fought to create new, equal rights.
According to V.K Kool (2008) , nonviolence has been shown to work throughout history many times but the problem is the relationship between the amount of work that is put into being nonviolent and the results.
I feel that this was true for Budrus especially because days and days went by and the barrier was still being built slowly. However, the residents of Budrus showed determination and did not give up. They continued to stand up for what they believed in after setbacks, including getting arrested. The leader of the group Ayed said he knew he had kids but did not know what they looked like until his release. He said that his personal sacrifices will hopefully amount to a greater benefit for the people of Budrus. Kool goes on to talk about heroes in “The Nonviolent Individuals”. Kool describes them as being courageous and doing selfless acts, which I believe that Ayed did. The Freedom Riders encountered several acts of hatred. Angry Southern residents slashed their bus tired and cornered them. The bus eventually exploded and a mob of people beat some of the civil rights activists. The Freedom Riders knew they were going to face dangerous situations but they still rode the bus to fight for a bigger picture. They were heroes as well because they put their safety at risk in order to lessen or end
segregation.
Van Zomeren et. al (2008) discusses collective action in “ Exploring Psychological Mechanisms of Collective Action”. They talk about how collective action is the appropriate response to collective disadvantage. Both the residents of Budrus and the black people living in the South were disadvantaged groups. The Freedom Riders inspired others to take collective action. For example, students had sit-ins where they locked themselves in cafeterias in order to fight against lunch room segregation in response to the Freedom Rides. At the end of the “Budrus” documentary, we find out that because of the 55 protests from Budrus residents, the separation barrier was moved to the green line (the line separating Israeli and Palestinian land) for the majority. These protests also inspired other towns to protest and defend their land. Both of these documentaries showed how change can be made by using nonviolence. Ayed was just one man and his words led to a major change. The actions of the Freedom Riders facilitated equality for people no matter their skin color.
Work Cited
Van Zomeren, Martijn, Russell Spears, and Colin Wayne Leach. "Exploring Psychological Mechanisms of Collective Action" British Journal of Social Psychology 47.2 (2008)
Kool, V.K. "The Nonviolent Individuals: Who Are They." 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2013.