Tons of protests going on everywhere against Israel, but not a single government has changed their stance

  • Wogi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 个月前

    Notably, these movements had effective protests because they actually tried to force a change with their matches. The civil rights movement marching through Selma was to a registration office, because they were being denied the right to vote, and they were effectively saying “go ahead, tell us all no, all at once.”

    Suffragettes not only demonstrated but worked together to convince their husbands to embrace the movement, and even that only happened because Wilson had a stroke and his wife effectively ran the office while he recovered.

    Modern protests are skipping the most important step. They’re obstructing, being seen, but not actually trying to accomplish anything specific. Or if they are, their objective with each protest is so obscured by the media as to be rendered moot. What good did blocking traffic for half an hour do, other than to sour people to your cause?

    Every time a person is killed by a cop, fucking get 500 people to go to the police station responsible and have every single person demand the footage of the killing. One after another. Inundate then with requests, clog up their operation, get fucking arrested if you have to.

    Protesting alone doesn’t accomplish anything, unless you protest with some teeth.

    • Nevoic@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 个月前

      Building off this, people have to look at more than just the protests. “Radicals” shape the Overton Window, think Malcom X.

      In a world where nobody protests and nobody is participating in radical activism, nothing changes. In a world where there are protests but still no radical activism, there is usually no change, though the media and capitalists will feign care and “listen to the issues”. When the protesters become the moderates, the ruling class finally cedes some power to stop social revolution.

      In a world where there are only radical activists, no moderate protesters or passive bystanders, there would be social revolution, monumental change. This has happened before, and it’s why the ruling class concedes changes as the overton window becomes more radical.

      To a lot of people this looks like “protests work!” but it’s not the protests primarily, it’s the threat of social revolution, led by the radicals and supported by the new moderate position of protesting against the status quo.

    • Meron35@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 个月前

      This is an incorrect and rosy generalisation of the suffragette and many protest movements in general. Protest movements are inherently messy and disorganised. The suffragette movement itself was infamous for infighting, because they couldn’t decide whether they were only fighting for voting rights for women, or equality in general such as 8 hour work days for women.

      It took more than 50 years later for these workplace equality ideas to become more mainstream as second wave feminism in the 1970s. Even then, the second wave feminists were prone to infighting, due to feminists not agreeing on what a woman should be, usually by excluding lesbians and trans women.

      If you think modern protests are too disruptive and only work to sour people to your cause, remember that suffragettes literally committed arson, improvised bombings and attempted assassinations. The extreme violence was met with immense public backlash, to the point they were painted by the media as literal terrorists.

      Feminism - Suffrage, Equality, Activism | Britannica - https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism/The-suffrage-movement