Protesting Protests
Our group chose a topic that is literally 'close to home'. The topic is the Republican National Convention, which is being held right here in St. Paul. This certain topic has not only shown up in the news recently, but it also made a brief appearance in our classroom today. I wanted to concentrate on what we talked about--the thousands of protesters who attended the event. The news today is that almost 300 of the protesters will be formally charged, many being held on felony charges. But like we discussed today, there is more press about the arrests than the thousands who peacefully protested. It was this discussion of protesters that led me to a question I had--what does a protest accomplish? It is an honest question, and one that I hope some people will be able to shed some light on. Do protests really mean anything? Or are they just an opportunity to unite with people who share your viewpoints and stand for a cause?
In my opinion, protests are usually ignored, and on a large scale, they don't accomplish much of anything (other than getting in the papers because a small group of protesters gets arrested). But that is just what I think. I have a certain ignorance about the topic, so if anyone could educate me, I would be more than willing to listen.
-Tyler
posted by Tyler @ 3:38 PM
8 Comments:
Despite your statement that you don't know much on protests, you probably due. Most histories classes cover the civil rights movement significantly and touch on the protests of the Vietnam War. Both are examples of protests that got large attention, so much that students still study them today.
Secondly, the fact that the march got covered at all is significant. The news media often decides to cover the event and takes an angle after the event. An angle is the equivalent to a thesis statement in an essay. Whether or not people got arrested was probably irrelevant to the coverage of the event.
To your other point that protests don't accomplish anything. I disagree with the civil rights movement and the protesting of the Chinese Olympics as supporting events. First the civil rights movement, mainly peaceful protests, created a trend that led to the desegregation of buses, schools and other public entities. The protesting of the Chinese Olympics also brought attention to the Chinese government's human rights violations, which got a lot of coverage.
In my opinion protests have brought to light many issues and do influence the thoughts of people around the world.
I agree with the Civil Rights and Chinese Olympic protests as being very effective. I probably should have said specifically "protests in elections". Do they have an effect on voting or perspectives on candidates? I am asking because I genuinely do not know if these protests affect the election.
I think that, while peaceful protests might not get a lot of media attention, they leave a better impression on people then those who are more extreme. I know that I would be more persuaded by those who are patient enough to march than by someone throwing bottles through windows. Those instances seem to make things worse, but maybe that’s not the same for everyone.
On the effect of protests on elections, I think it is harder to prove. There aren't polls out before a protest and after a protest specifically, so it is hard to say if the protest changed people's minds about voting. I do believe that if protests can change peoples' minds about segregation, I certainly think that protests can change peoples' minds about issues or who to vote for.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think that when you hold a protest for electional purposes you can gather enough media attention to show what and who you support, but the negative is if your protest becomes violent, or if it is not well represented in anyway, then you run the risk that you could possible discourage people to join you cause. They will characterize you as one sided, radical, and not open minded. The media can always skew what is shown, like the example of CNN commenting on only the arrests and not the peaceful marchers, but in the end I don't think that a protest here or there is going to make or break a candidate. Their main strengths are their positions on certain main issues that our country has different views on and perhaps their public image that they created from the very beginning of their campaign.
To be honest I think what Tyler is referring to is how numb we have become with the whole protest thing. It's almost like every day someone has something new to complain about, something new to battle for.
If any radical democrat thinks that a protest is going to affect a republican convention he/she is mistaken. People expect protests there, they are part of the plan. The big shot politicians will get some measley report and just shrug it off. McCain went to war, kids with bats and rocks aren't going to make him fear. Violent protestors underestimate the courage of people like John McCain. People who believe they have a just cause will stand before anyone even if the cause is not just.
Protests can be of value, yes history has shown us that, but only if the cause is there. Today people just go sometimes as an uneducated mob.
Protest all you want but I'm with Tyler, I think maybe 1 in 100 protests are worth it.
In order for a protester to be violent 9 times out of 10 they're going to think that there protest is full of justice.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home