I would recommend that, certainly.
What?
Oh, not for any political message. Just for lulz.
Let’s not forget the mass political movements of the 30s either. Lots of countries saw huge demonstrations and marches and political theater by various political groups, and some of those groups managed to radically transform their countries, and even influence neighboring countries.
I tend to think that the massive over-reactions to demonstrations in the 60s were by people who remembered the 30s.
Nowadays nobody cares if you march along the street holding a sign. It’s only interesting if you get a lot more people than you would expect to support a march for such-and-such. But I suspect that marches and political rallies used to be a lot more interesting back in the days when there was nothing interesting happening. People would go to political rallies to feel certain emotions, or just because they were bored. Nowadays if you want to be overcome by emotion in a group you can go to a musical or sports event, and there’s always plenty things to entertain you at home.
My opinion exactly. The Ferguson cops acted like it was still the 1960s, and got a 1960s reaction as a result.
Protests are no less effective today than they were then.
The issues being protested simply aren’t as critical, and mainstream America just doesn’t care.
And it is OK to shoot black men who are stupid? Would you also be OK with shooting people with Downs Syndrome?
Watching the Ferguson marchers being gassed by the police reminded me so much of 1968 I had to get in touch with people I hadn’t heard from for 40 years and more.
ANd one of the above posters said Nixon and Johnson ended the war when they wanted to, Actually it ended when the men in pajamas beat the USA at its own game.
Great post AHunter3.
A hundred thousand people in the streets has precious few causal mechanisms linking them to the levers of power. It’s unlikely you can shame or guilt trip the oligarchy. They might throw you a bone if they’re afraid of a Bastille storming moment, or if their stocks take a hit from bad PR.
Protests can be pretty effective for getting dates.
“I realized some time ago that I’m not separate from nature just because I have a primate brain - an upper brain - because underneath the primate brain, there’s a mammalian brain, and beneath the mammalian brain, there’s a reptilian brain; and it’s those two lower brains that made the upper brain possible in the first place. Here’s the way it works: The primate brain says, ‘Give peace a chance.’ The mammalian brain says, ‘Give peace a chance, but first let’s kill this motherfucker.’ And the reptilian brain says, ‘Let’s just kill the motherfucker, go to the peace rally and get laid.’”
– George Carlin
The Civil Rights Movement was extremely effective.
The Civil Rights protests of the 50’s and 60’s had the advantage of being morally just and right. The protesters knew that their cause was right, and knew that every decent person must agree with them. When their protests brought worldwide attention, their cause succeeded directly. Occupy Wall Street, in contrast, had no just cause. It was just a bunch of clueless people driven by emotion rather than sound moral reasoning. As others have said, it didn’t even have a clear goal, bit even if there was a goal, the occupy folks wouldn’t have been able to articulate a convincing case for it.
As a demonstration of what I’m saying, try reading Dr. King’ s Letter from Birmingham Jail, if you haven’t done so before. Can you imagine any leftist activist today writing such a clear, logical, hard-hitting argument?
Just saw Selma last night. MLK day, seemed fitting.
It reminded me, and should remind all viewers, that yeah, the protest marches of that time were a lot more effective. But those marchers sometimes got fucking KILLED, often got badly beaten. Having an array of armed people, representing the official government, run full-tilt at you in combat gear and beat you heavily and often with clubs and occasionally shooting at you is very different from being asked to disperse and then handcuffed with plastic twist-ties and released with a desk appearance ticket down at the police station. Different to you as the marcher, different to the world watching it unfold on television, different to the politicians, different to the cops who have to confront their own possible feelings about what they’re ordered to do, and so on.
Another parallel is the labor strike. The labor movement is moribund in part because strikes are sanitized; the unions aren’t acting with any expectation of paralyzing the industry, nor is the industry generally acting to disrupt, kill, or do much worse than ignore the strikers. Hence, they, too, are reduced to silly-looking people with signs marching in ellipses in front of the gates chanting “Four legs good, two legs bad”.
You know bloody well that it’s a logical fallacy to behave as if “Well, what’s your alternative?” is a viable way to discredit the assertion that something isn’t working. I don’t know what would work best nowadays; I only know that except when the establishment powers overreact and hence play into the hands of the protesters, (as, yes indeed, they did in Ferguson), protest marches don’t do much. Probably some kind of public education, and using humor, perhaps, to make the stance of the folk you’re up against look ridiculous and indefensible.
They have the attention span of a brain damaged slug. Too obsessed with giving their thumbs a workout on the latest Apple toy.
A major difference is the cases you’re talking about in the 60s and 70s were slam-dunk, almost idiot-proof convictions in State court that were only acquittals because of all white judges and juries. The cases in the 2010s are cases that likely would lose in State court and wouldn’t even survive a defense motion to dismiss in a Federal court. I think when they can get convictions the DOJ still does what it can in these cases, but where it wouldn’t even be able to sustain charges it doesn’t, which is essentially what I like to see from professional, government-employed attorneys.
The technologically-savvy young were the arbiters of Occupy Wall Street.
The rest of us just didn’t care and thought they were a bunch of whiny kids.
I agree that, however, that, in general, technology provides comfort and apathy.
The standards for a state court criminal prosecution of an officer use of force are lower than the standards for a federal civil rights claim–in the sense that a reckless or negligent, non-discriminatory use of force can be a crime, while the civil rights claim must prove both purpose and discriminatory intent. So it doesn’t make much sense to say, “The cases in the 2010s are cases that likely would lose in State court and wouldn’t even survive a defense motion to dismiss in a Federal court.”
Actually it does make sense. Because the prosecution is easier in State court a trial could perhaps happen, but would be a loss for the State (this is exactly what I said.) But because the prosecution is harder at the Federal level, if Federal prosecutors even tried to try the officers in these cases the case would be thrown out (which is again, what I said.)
I’m genuinely confused by this post of yours.
They are completely different kinds of cases. What you’re saying is like saying the JV golf team will probably lose at state, and will definitely lose the water polo nationals. Both things might be true, but for completely different reasons. That is, whether the DOJ can win civil rights cases is completely orthogonal to whether the state prosecutions could be won and should go forward.
That’s not at all an accurate description of the situation, these cases involve trying people for the same set of facts but in which the prosecution at the Federal level has to prove specific intent elements not present in State court. I’m not convinced you’re well informed on these issues given lack of basic understanding of them.
Heh. Ok.
nm