Response to Sarah's, 'Critical Engagement Post #2'

Activism and what qualifies as being considered ‘activist’ in nature has been a common thread throughout this course. Being at the tailend of this semester, the readings, and speakers series, we have all been fairly exposed to a wide variety of activists, and activism. Therefore, regarding Sarah’s question as to whether or not iHuman could be considered activist in nature, I would agree that yes, it is. And looking at my own CSL placement with Freedom of the Lubicon Alberta, I’d consider FOLA to be activist as well.

In regards to Ted Kerr individual activism, he is what I’d consider to be an activist on a smaller scale in the grand scheme of things. Not everyone is aware of his work, and not everyone will receive the opportunity to view his work (unless they’ve heard of his residence, know of him, etc). On a more vocal and widespread stage, is Greenpeace. It is an activist organization that is worldwide, and known for partaking in riskier forms of openly criticizing people, governments, transnational corporations; by making their messages loud, blunt and public, they are deemed as radicals as they often break the laws with their demonstrations. But which way is the most successful in pushing for change? An individual with a subtle approach, or a group that only needs their name mentioned for people to either condemn or applaud their actions?

iHuman and FOLA are organizations that strive for change; be it with individuals or the community as a whole. Both use different methods to spread their name. iHuman uses the arts to motivate youth to change for the better of themselves and the community. FOLA has a documentary that was produced in order for the general public to hear the voice of the Lubicon Cree and educate those who are unaware or vague on the details in regards to their 30+ year struggle for equality and recognition of their rights by the Canadian government. The United Nations and Amnesty International have openly condemned the Canadian government’s apparent ignorance of basic human rights. Therefore in response to Sarah’s last question of ‘What do you think?’, I’d have to say that the fact we are considering what is and isn’t activist, that whoever we are trying to define as activist has already succeeded. By debating how successful their messages are, we have proven that they have achieved their attempt to be recognized and for the issues they stand for to be acknowledged. Be it with Greenpeace, the local iHuman project, or Ted Kerr’s photos... we are aware of their message, whether or not we believe in it.