Comments on: Early, Consistent, and Stubborn War Supporter Friedman Attacks American College Students for Supposed Lack of “Courage”

By: Jordan

Jordan — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:32:29 +0000

Great comment Zach. What I meant was that Friedman - and other notable foreign affairs commentators - loudly, repeatedly, and stubbornly proclaimed their support for the invasion of Iraq and its eventual success. This is instructive in that it involved a lot of bluster and rhetoric but the policy itself was flawed and poorly thought out. So, I think it’s odd that someone like that would criticize our generation for - essentially - not sufficiently publicizing our efforts to make a difference (and Friedman himself points out that we ARE making a difference). It seems like he is saying that what we are doing is good and noble, but it isn’t courageous because we haven’t engaged in mass public protest about it. In essence, I agree with your friend Abby, I don’t think that method has really proven effective at achieving major policy change and I don’t think the method Friedman criticizes has proven uneffective at all.

In sum, it seems odd to me that Friedman, with his record, feels qualified to comment on this subject, and it seems doubly odd that he feels the analysis he lays out leads to the conclusion that we as a generation lack courage.

By: Tehranchik

Tehranchik — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:50:20 +0000

There is no one who frustates me more than this Friedman guy. He’s spent much of his time in the middle east ooohing and aaahing over the people and the cultures and the children and then supports the killing of them.

I think these students not supporting the war takes much more courage than Friedman will ever understand.

By: Abhi

Abhi — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:19:59 +0000

First of all, let me say this: nice site. You all have done a wonderful job pulling this together. It’s well-designed and well-kept; I trust it will become well-read.

Now to more substantive issues…
I fear I must agree to an extent with Mr. Friedman. Of course, there are differences between our generation’s activism and his–we all agree on that. His further analysis, though, deserves more credit. Facebook is not Kent State. Put more clearly, simple online activism is not enough. Yes, the internet has fundamentally changed the way we communicate and collaborate, and its boons are unfathomable. Nonetheless, the nature of the internet is still impersonal. You–and me right now–are sitting behind a screen and typing. You post your content (to your blog, you wiki, etc), and then hope visitors come, agree, and then when what? Link to your blog from their blog? This is passive activism, and that is not activism. Sure, it can get a group of passionate people together, but change comes from the middle, not the extremes. It is the noble task of activists to actively seek out the disinterested and strike a chord, motivating them to do something–vote, preferably–not just switch tabs. Maybe, just maybe, a really well crafted blog post can do it…

Mr. Friedman’s arguments do have some shortcomings. He seals this fate when he cedes the increased volunteerism numbers. Yet, these things (volunteering in AIDS clinics, TFA, Habitat for Humanity) are mere variants of older traditions (Peace Corps, etc). The locations may be different, but so are our issues. The acts are still the same.

In sum, Generation Q maintains some vestigials from the baby-boomers, but regrettably we have overestimated the capacity of our new tools. Sure, facebook and blogs make for good outlets and even better procrastination tools, but surely, they won’t stop genocide, cure AIDS, or end wars. Those require action–in person and hands on. We all don’t have to be James Meredith, but I think we can do more to directly mobilize our peers and persuade our leaders. Let’s give them a message they can’t delete.

By: Wow

Wow — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:05:19 +0000

Way to devote all of one sentence to address what he says, and devote the rest to attacking him. This would be why he works at the Times and you don’t.

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:30:16 +0000

i’m down with hating on friedman for his positions on iraq, but i think you could have addressed today’s op-ed without diverting attention from his argument to personal attacks on his flawed record. as a blogger and future teacher, i pretty much typify the Gen Q college student of friedman’s mind. I “channel [my] national service impulses into increasingly popular programs at home like “Teach for America,” I “quietly pursue [my] idealism” through blogs, e-mail petitions and facebook groups, but I’ve never tied myself to a tree or held a sit-in (although i definitely get down with wearing black for Jena 6 and marching against the war during those oh-so-infrequent rallies).

So friedman’s column doesn’t bother me because he’s wrong so much as that i’m not sure what he is saying is a problem.

My friend Abby here at Yale puts it nicely:

“He points out that we’re focused on the right issues - ie climate change
- and that we’re taking action in the real world (”college students today are not only going abroad to study in record numbers, but they are also going abroad to build homes for the poor in El Salvador in record numbers or volunteering at AIDS clinics in record numbers.”) But despite that, somehow we’re still not active enough? What exactly does he want us to do? Apparently, we’re supposed to organize a big march (”Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall.”) Why? Well, he doesn’t really say. Presumably because that’s what his generation did? That may have helped end the Vietnam War, but I can’t think of an example in the last 25 years when a march or other dramatic photo-op has actually had an effect on major policy.”