I don't see them in any way since the only lens I have are interested parties filtering them for a political effect one way or the other. I doubt there is any one way to characterize the movements in question--I typically follow James C. Scott in thinking about the revolution within the revolution. In this case, the two descriptions you offer as diametrically opposed or mutually exclusive are a false dichotomy. There could just as easily be regressive and progressive (from some absolute point of view yet to be described fully in relation to the current regime in question) in the same set of movements. Add to this the presumption behind the US characterization (govt, media, etc.) of the revolt--which has its own set of interests in mind--and it is difficult to see how can anyone get all moralistic about which side they are supporting in the debate since the sides are shifting all the time. It is this competition for being able to personally justify sanctimony such as that you've just exhibited that seems most ridiculous in the debate at hand. And it is that which I object to rather than necessarily seeing these protests as the opposite of the one thing you claim they should be understood to represent.
> Of course, the "bickering" over these important issues wasn't "banal", as
> was the effort to reduce them to the right to wear a bikini in public.
It is banal in so far as it is basically an attempt to use events about which we are basically ignorant to back up one ideological interpretation of history or social reality over another. Bikinis seem to be the logical starting of this kind of debate since it is really more like people fighting with each other over drinks at the beach, i.e. intellectual onanism. Like all kinds of onanism, it has its place, but after a while I get bored watching it.
s