Do you not believe that protests are a motivational force for societal change? If not, what do you believe does cause societal change?
If you’ve ever protested in Montreal in February (hint: -30C with the wind chill) you wouldn’t describe it as “fun.” If I think hard, I can still remember the pain in my ears. And yet, 100,000 people protested in Montreal against the Iraq war in February 2003, and 200,000 people turned out a month later when the weather was scarcely better. And that’s not the only dead-of-winter protest I’ve attended where people turned out in droves for something they believed in.
I think protests reflect dissatisfaction. How does a protest change minds, really? I mean, how many people here have changed their minds or ideals throughout their life? I’m willing to bet most of us felt a certain way about something in the past and no longer feel that way any more.
I initially supported President Bush pretty strongly, now I don’t so much any more (although I still support the Iraq War, and still wouldn’t have traded Kerry for Bush.) Protests against the war haven’t changed that, rather the actions of the President and my reaction to them have changed how I feel about the man.
As another example, there was a time when I felt a flat tax rate was ideal. Over many years, I decided a flat tax rate wasn’t a good idea. That came about through lots of life experience, reading various articles, et cetera. It was a gradual thing, I think most changes happen gradually.
For example with the Civil Rights movement, I think it was a very gradual process (that started in the 19th century.) I do not believe the protests changed minds. How would a protest change minds, anyway? As matt_mcl says, protests don’t convey nuanced thought. They just make noise to make a statement, I have a hard time understanding how that can change minds.
Is it really your assertion that protests are a major source of societal change? That just doesn’t make any sense, societal change takes a long period of time and a protest only takes up a few hours (or days, at most.) Protests may factor in, but as I said, I don’t think all the civil rights protests combined had as much influence as the NAACP’s lawsuits.
Cool, you came up with a counterpoint. I never said everyone protests for fun, so it was kind of meaningless to do so, but hey, you got to share your story, that’s always cool!
It might be worth noting that Canada didn’t really have any influence whatsoever on whether or not the war in Iraq happened, and I don’t remember Canada ever seriously considering involvement in said war–so I’m not really sure what kind of influence a protest in Montreal was supposed to have.
I believe that protests draw attention, and (to some extent) start people to think. Yes, I agree with you that there is more to it than that.
But let’s pretend I live in 1963, have shit for brains, and I have never heard of racial discrimination. (I apologize for taking this away from Vietnam; it’s just my best analogy.) I happen, while my kid is sitting in front of the TV and channel-flipping for me, upon a news report of the March on Washington. MLK’s speech does not convince me, but it does make me think, “What the fuck?” So I do some reading, some learning, and I realize the man has a point. There are then two things I do: I start voting for politicians who support that point, and I start to help fund the NAACP’s legal battles.
It’s about awareness, Martin. It’s about leading a horse to water and getting him to think.
To ensure that the Canadian government was dissuaded from participation in the Iraq war.
I’ll note that Canadian troops are serving and dying in Afghanistan even as I type.
Yeah, you can’t diss French fries and expect les Quebecois to take it lying down.
Oh? Really?
I’ll note that it’s night out where I’m at, as I type. One thing doesn’t have anything to do with another. While some people may view the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as being linked, I don’t.
Jean Chretien opposed involvement in Iraq from the very beginning, when the leader of a country is opposed to involvement in a war, it’s pretty certain said involvement won’t be happening.
Yup, really.
Protesting was not fun. There were groups of righties that were perfectly willing to beat marchers senseless. There was a lot of fear to overcome. In Detroit there was a heavily financed group called Breakthrough that would attack people leaving the marches when they were separated. The police will crack a head and enjoy it. Every march was dangerous and definately not fun. If you went to enough of them our government would start a dossier and investigate you. You could have trouble with any thing official They made it ugly.
Yeah, I’m sure the thousands of people who never ran afoul of the law and were drunk/high at all those protests (both during the Vietnam war and Iraq) weren’t having any fun. As everyone knows, protesting is serious business, to prove it, protesters are always sure to remind you how serious and important it is! Right before/after they chug down a fifth of liquor or light up another joint.
Some protests are probably pretty genuinely terrible (like most civil rights protests.) But a lot of people all throughout history have used protesting as a guise for just engaging in all kinds of other bullshit. In the 19th and 18th centuries it used to be much more common for protests to just be called riots, and the rioters, while usually set off by an unpopular political act (I think I read once that London had something like 50+ riots in a relatively short time span during the reign of George III) would result in the rioters/protesters making off with tons of looted property and such.
Did the marches change anything? You better believe i. Part of the reason the Viet Nam war got rejected was the reporters in the country on their own. They got stories up close and personal. They were free to write and take photographs.
This time the reporters were embedded. read ,under control, know where they bare every second and in a way become part of a unit losing objectivity.
Everyday briefings given on TV by Rummy and the chosen general of the day. Showing military pictures from a military point of view. They were not letting that happen again.
Protesting can not be done near the White House anymore. There is a huge zone isolating it and protests are forced into specified areas. Suppose that was an accident.?:
TV control of the war was all the same. They ran the reporting of the war like a business. No coincidence there , war is business. They control it all.
By using the hell out of existing soldiers and not drafting ,they eliminated another field of protest. They lowered taxes to make people think the war was free of stress.
Yea there were a hell of a lot of changes.
I offer a hard news story and you give me an op-ed piece written by a fucking WHITE HOUSE STAFFER - that’s right, Peter Wehner is the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives?
Okay, dude.
From the summary of your piece (I’m not registering to read 'Pubbie porn):
And yet, May 2007 was the third deadliest month for US troops since the war began.
I’m happy to note that US troop deaths have trended down for June & July (at least so far), but before we celebrate too much…
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Iraqi deaths, while down in June are already greater for July than June. Same source
Back to your op-ed “cite”…
Same source as above:
Back to Peter Wehner’s world (oh, and did I mention that Mr. Wehner works for the White House? I did? Just checking.)…
Followed immediately by the death of more than 75 people in two separate car bombing attacks (do I need to cite this too? - oh okay)…
But don’t worry, that was just an isolated event right? Well…
Yeah, things are just fucking peachy in Iraq.
I’m not interested in shoveling troll food, but I’d like to point out that the Communists involved in the anti-war movement were under party discipline, and were not hippies. They were directed to wear shirts with collars, and no facial hair, according to William Edward Leuchtenburg.
They were the people who, according to one hippie, would “go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao.”
Where do you get this shit. Protests were sober events. The marchers represented a slice of society. They were from every walk of life. I never saw people getting stoned. i wont say no one did . I can not speak for every one
However I was at many. I
I think you are confusing the campus sit ins against draft laws and on campus protests. Those were a bit different. That was not what fueled the anti war demos all over the country.
Martin Hyde,
Earlier you claimed that you graduated from West Point in 1978. I believe we discussed that year elsewhere. But then, you said you weren’t really an undergraduate. I personally don’t care. But I believe that would put you in high school when the war in Vietnam ended. You do seem to be very confused on your history and to have a penchant for thinking in stereotypes.
You are trolling. How cheap.
Gandhi demonstrated that peaceful demonstrations of the people could even change a militant system the British Empire.
In America we used it to fight for the rights of the blacks in America. That is where I first got involved. It shows that people of concience will act to assist the downtrodden. There are many in the world who actually do care and wish to have equality and peace. You come in direct conflict with the people who make profit off an existing system and resist change. The police are the army of the powerful If you do not believe that, you have not seen their actions against marchers. Ask any old peace demonstrator about the brutality we faced. But the seeds of black and white equality were sown with busted heads and faces.
But when it became obvious that Viet Nam was being waged against the wishes of the people ,we took to the streets to show how many wanted change. The government always pretends to speak for the mass of the population. Nixon called them the silent majority. It became necessary to show him and Johnson did not speak for us. It is time again.
Amen again!
The methods of Gandhi were proven effective in South Africa and in India. Where are his proponents today?
The world is in such a crazy state today because NO ONE (in power) is espousing Ganghi’s view of non-violent, irresisatable peaceful revolution.
As an aside, I had a discussion with my (Baptist) pastor about Gandhi. I told him that if Gandhi didn’t make it to Heaven, I don’t wanna go. He responded by telling me that the Jewish leaders asked Jesus what it means to be a good Jew, and he responded by giving an example of a good Samaritan. If anyone asks you what it means to be a good Xtian, tell them you aren’t sure, but you know of a good Hindu.
No ,the protesters were not high. They were just citizens that cared about helping us all. They were definitely not high. Where do you get stupid crap like that. You get Fox channel where you live. There was no boozing and drugging. You are confusing the protests for weed legalization.