<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Rich And Gladwell, Wallflowers At History,&nbsp;Ctd]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="410" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z8iV3S2FLxw" title="YouTube video player" width="515"></iframe></p> <p>Yesterday I <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/rich-and-gladwell-wallflowers-at-history-i.html" target="_self">discussed</a> how new forms of media have helped foment revolutions:</p> <blockquote> <p>Of course, strong connections like unions or political parties or churches or mosques and simply the courage of masses in the street are essential for revolutionary action. But this was true for decades - and yet the 1979 Revolution in Iran was indisputably galvanized by audio-tapes of Khomeini sermons smuggled in from abroad; and the 2009 Green Revolution was originally triggered by young people using Twitter and blogs and cellphone cameras to broadcast their numbers and outrage and courage.</p> </blockquote> <p>Another example is the role that television played in catalyzing the Civil Rights Movement, particularly the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign#Images_of_the_day" target="_self">Birmingham campaign of 1963</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>[T]he campaign was a major factor in the national push towards the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... Television cameras broadcast to the nation the scenes of fire hoses knocking down schoolchildren and police dogs attacking unprotected demonstrators. Such coverage and photos were given credit for shifting international support to the protesters and making Bull Connor &quot;the villain of the era&quot;. Kennedy called the scenes &quot;shameful&quot; and said that they were &quot;so much more eloquently reported by the news camera than by any number of explanatory words.&quot;</p> </blockquote> <p>In Malcolm Gladwell&#39;s 4400-word case against social media, &quot;<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all" target="_self">The Revolution Will Not Be Twittered</a>,&quot; he relies on the Civil Rights Movement, namely the Greensboro sit-ins, to buttress his case for strong ties. &quot;These events in the early sixties became a civil-rights war that engulfed the South for the rest of the decade—and it happened without e-mail, texting, Facebook, or Twitter.&quot; He continues:</p> <blockquote> <p>The drawbacks of networks scarcely matter if the network isn’t interested in systemic change—if it just wants to frighten or humiliate or make a splash—or if it doesn’t need to think strategically. But if you’re taking on a powerful and organized establishment you have to be a hierarchy. The Montgomery bus boycott [that began in December 1955] required the participation of tens of thousands of people who depended on public transit to get to and from work each day. It lasted a <em>year</em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Gladwell&#39;s italics. Now consider the <a href="http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_birmingham_campaign/" target="_self">timeline</a> for the &#39;63 Birmingham campaign (April 3 to May 10 - <em>five weeks</em>):</p>]]></html></oembed>