The Proper Protest
Recently, I have been fascinated as to how different forms of protesting are used in order for citizens to get their voices heard. From marches, to sit ins, to riots, to speeches, and everything in between, there are tons of forms of protesting (both peaceful and not) that have been seen in Los Angeles. Almost everyone involved in the protests are hoping for change, but not all rallies result in such. What do you think are the most effective or ineffective means of protest in Los Angeles as well as our own community? When writing your response, please include your experience at different protests that you have been a part of and/or knowledge about specific protests that have happened in Los Angeles as evidence to support why you think that form of protest is effective or not.
Marches have almost become a social event, bringing together like minded people and posting pictures to show your support. The first march I ever participated in last year was after the election. The night previous to the march, there was another one- one that seemed almost like a rally. It was much more aggressive and much less planned. Yet, I remember feeling empowered as I walked alongside people from all walks of life. I remember being excited about the impact that we were making. We weren't protesting anything, we weren't asking for anything specific. We were marching to be together and show that we aren't being silent. I think that the purpose of marching for me is showing that we aren't going to sit idly by. More recently, the walk outs and marches demanding gun control have been a little different. This time we want something. I think that while, yes, nothing is happening in the pursuit of getting what we want, it doesn't help to give up. It is the perseverance that will bring about change. I think of the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, all of these movements that in time brought about change. Maybe I am speaking from a hopeful place but losing hope is where we fail. With all of that being said, I have begun to see the "trend" of marching developing. A girl on a FB page for college says "I'm always down for a good march". That really got to me. I do not think that the act of marching should become a trend. But where is the line between it being a trend and it just becoming more popular and populated? I think this is a super interesting thing to dive into because protesting is now an active part of our everyday lives. Are the celebrities singing their hit singles after a march making it a social event? Are the various websites posting full articles on who has the best poster belittling the march itself? These questions and more flood to mind when trying to develop an answer to this post- but I look forward to discovering answers in class.
ReplyDeleteI find myself going to a lot of protests in Los Angeles, almost all of which being marches in downtown. Recently I went to the school walk-out protest and march near City Hall. I found this one to be one of the more impulsive marches I have attended. Organized by High School students, the march was seemingly childish and tangential to the main idea of the walk-out. We ended up wandering all around downtown with no end point. We went in several circles and backtracked multiple times. I noticed that some of the signs were also more regressive and pointless. This kind of march was not productive in my eyes. Although it was a good gathering of activist teens using their voice, the voice was not very strong or productive. I have not been to many sit-in style protests, so I cannot comment on the effectiveness of those. I think that it is easy to see change when protests come from inside the problem. For instance, workers going on strike. Los Angeles has a very large work force and many difference occupations, and I'm sure they could make a difference if they gathered to protest the issues that surround them.
ReplyDeleteI have participated in many of the recent marches that have taken place in LA. Yes, its true that I walk with my sign and chant with my voice and then go home a few hours later to world still unchanged. But instant gratification is no why people march. People march and protest because people are tired of the unchanged. Marching and writing letters and persistently protesting evokes change through a multi step process, but serve as platforms to instantly amplify the voices. I have seen mob mentality function as a disabler rather than an enabler for change. However, standing in solidarity is not always equivalent to a mob mentality. Standing in solidarity creates a united but distinguishable alliance against something that enough people feel should be changed. If we questioned our motivations every time something didn't change right away, then nothing would move forward.
ReplyDeleteI think that one of the best forms of protest are peaceful protest. The reasons as to why I believe that this method works so well is due to the fact that if you are to approach a person in a calm relaxing manner, they are significantly more destined to listen to your point of view. However the problem with peaceful is the fact that often times you may be dismissed by somebody if you do not approach them in a manner that grabs their attention. In examining the peaceful protest of Martin Luther King Jr., it was very good in promoting to white people that African American's were NOT savages and people who didn't know how to act. However in looking at the way he was treated, it was pretty bad. He was beat, spit at, thrown in jail and yelled at tremendously. For me personally, this would be an extremely annoying experience, getting what was seemingly nowhere in terms of our cause. Those who felt that peaceful protest weren't working then created the black panthers. This group was a group who felt that the only way to make real change was to be violent and aggressive and to there credit, they made just as deep of an impact on the civil rights movement when compared to MLK. This is another form of protest that I do endorse partly if one is not able to get their point across peacefully. However this form of protest also can cause a lot of tension and trouble to brew amongst those protesting and those listening.
ReplyDeleteRecently, it seems like the role that social media plays in protest culture (if you can even call it that) has risen greatly. The way that I have been noticing it has been "hip liberal teens" going to protests solely for the reason to get a good picture to prove to people that they are as active in American democracy as they claim to be without ever really acting or caring about the issue at hand. I don't have a great idea of the history of protesting, but it seems like they have become too popular. Certain things tend to lose their power when they aren't used in moderation, and I think that's what happened with peaceful protests. When different marches and walk outs happen every two weeks, they begin to lose their power. It used to be a big deal when people would gather in the heart of downtown and march through the streets with people on the borders protesting their protest. People refuse to have any discourse if they have any differing opinions, so it's really hard to replenish any power within protests when they are too often and too one-sided. I think what is really powerful is when a conversation occurs rather than a mass of people agreeing with people spouting out facts that they already know. For me personally, different marches and protests can be very empowering, but its a fleeting empowerment. I'm excited to enact change for a very brief amount of time after the event and then it quickly goes away. I don't know what sort of change in protest style could change that. It might just be me.
ReplyDeleteJust a few days ago we had a very similar conversation in my statistics and social justice class. Something that myself and other people noticed through this discussion was that people will always find a way to disagree with the way you choose to use your voice or the way you choose to "protest". I think the idea that "i dont like your form of protest so I can't hear what you're saying" is something I have noticed a lot lately. In my opinion, it is a distraction from the real issues at hand. Instead of discussing these issues the conversation has changed to "well i dont like how you're trying to get your point across." I also do not believe that marches/riots/protests have been ineffective ways in igniting change. I think some of the most powerful movements have been lead by people on the ground engaging in these very things. Those who participate in protests are often those with little to no voice, and this is their way to break the silence. In my opinion, that is revolutionary in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteOver the last few years, I have grown more and more aware of all the protests, marches, and rallies that take place in LA. While I have never been able to attend one (although I desperately wanted to, the logistics and timing just did not work out), I absolutely see the value in being a part of a movement and experiencing a common drive and pursuit of something, whether that be public/local awareness, international recognition of an issue, or actual governmentally induced change. While I am not so sure whether one form of protest is actually more effective or ineffective than another, I do believe that the size of the protest/rally/march is some indication of its power to enact change or achieve its desired goal. The downside of this (or maybe not downside, just something to consider) is when celebrities decide to join a cause and then announce that they will give a speech or sing a song at a protest, because it tends to draw in more people and cause a great commotion, often for the wrong or unintended reason. In fact, their showing up to a protest and drawing in others can often help a cause and show lawmakers that powerful voices in the world are passionately fighting alongside the people to create change. I personally enjoy the idea of a march more than a rally or protest just because when everyone is on the move, more energy is flowing and it means that roads are blocked and traffic is stopped and more unaffiliated people are generally affected so then word spreads and people are more likely to find out about what is going on or even join in. Walk-outs also seem particularly powerful, especially since it means students have to leave school or employees have to leave work and make sacrifices in order to fight for what they believe in.
ReplyDeleteI think analyzing riots and protests in Los Angeles is a very interesting topic to discuss. Historically, Los Angeles has been known for their numerous riots and and protests for change. Honestly, I think it’s kind of hard to really judge which types of protests are effective and ineffective as far as change because there are so many different factors and circumstances to take into account. Back in the 90s with the LA riots, these riots were very violent and aggressive because people were tired of the unchanged world they were living in and tired of putting up with injustice and racism coming from the police force. Not saying that SO MUCH was changed because of those riots but I honestly believe that their voices would be amplified or that the world would take them seriously if they weren’t violent. I think that this is mostly because of the time period and the situation that the aggression was almost necessary. I think this paved the way for other protests and riots in LA in the future and made it so the protests we have today don’t have to be violent to be heard, which is much more effective in my opinion. Even though much change isn’t made immediately, I think the protests like the Women’s March or about gun legislation are very effective because they are gradually implementing change even though it may not be easily noticeable at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking a lot recently about new-age protests versus those that took place, say, in the 60s. Recently, on a college admitted students page, one girl said "I am really into activism-- so I'm always up for a good protest!" I think this statement exemplifies how some view protests nowadays-- as pastimes, as hobbies, as photo-ops. While the Women's March, March for Science, and March for Our Lives came out strong in terms of numbers, they all reflected this trend. People post pictures on social media. On the one hand, this gets the message out. But I wonder if it is superficial. Back in the 60s, people risked their lives to march for what they believed was right. They didn't do it to get a number of likes.
ReplyDeleteLast year at the Women's March, there were photos of white women (in Los Angeles and other) high-fiving police officers. On Locatora Radio-- a station based in Boyle Heights-- one of the hosts, Diosa Femme, points out a paradox. First of all, the fact that those women felt safe enough to be that close to police officers is very unlike the feelings of immigrants, trans people, and people of color and low income backgrounds (groups who were also present at the march), who are often abused by police. Not to mention, as Mala Munoz says, "police have higher rates of abuse and domestic abuse than any other group" in the nation. So to be at the march "on behalf of women and survivors [of assault] theoretically but high five-ing police officers" is self-contradictory and hollow.
One other thing about the Women's March is its lack of direction. The most successful marches tend to have been those with specific goals. The Women's March was pretty vague-- there was no legislation, nothing it was aiming for after-- so in terms of effectiveness of protests, that's something to consider.
Protests have become a way to validate liberalism and not actually fight for a cause. The only way to avoid such scenarios is to make most protests violent. With this idea all the "activists" who are there for the snapchat geotag will not be included and only those willing to put their carreers, and personal well-being on the line. If the police are not forcibly removing people from the protests than it is not a protest. If I am not bleeding after a protest, I know nothing has gotten done. Im sick of people treating the idea of being liberal as trendy and real shit needs to happen.
ReplyDeleteI don't have great insight on the nuances of marches or protests, as I have not participated in one, but my opinion is that marches and protests are ineffective as a whole. From my perspective, the recent marches in Los Angeles look like fun ways to rally around a cause, but don't usually get anything accomplished. People show up early in the morning with signs to march and protest for a couple of hours, but once the afternoon hits, everyone disperses. The real question that needs to be asked is if after everyone has left the march, has anything gotten done? Will change ensue? In my opinion, the answer is usually no. This post is not a knock on people protesting, as pretty much everyone who participates is well intentioned, it is rather a suggestion to mix things up that may get more people involved.
ReplyDeleteI think that marches can be beneficial towards drawing attention to a certain issue. They can bring it towards the public stage via the news and media the cover the protest. Of course this can lead to change, but it is critical that along with these protests, actual change and action are initiated. While I do see the purpose of peaceful protest, if not to just draw attention or reminders to the subject, they do little in creating percivable change. One could argue that someone with power to create change may be inspired by these protests, but it is such a shot in the dark of that happening.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that peaceful protest, along with many other forms of mass attention (media, social media, arts) of the best ways to help bring about change. While it does have its cons( perhpahs no immediate change etc...) I think that in general that it is favorable over violent protesting. My probelm with violent protest is that it can often get 'off brand' from the message of the movement, and that it allows the opposition, to easily deamonize the cause. It can also lead to two warring sides, that fight just for the purpose of fighting, neither is the 'good' guy or protagonist for they all commit equal amounts of violence and mal practices.
With this being said, sometimes it is necessary to cause some damage, property damage. It can make a statement and because nobody is physically getting harmed, it can still make more of statement than just beating people up. I think that for any movement, it takes a mixture of the two too create visible change and that some are better than others depending on the time, movement, and location.
I personally am of the opinion of being against marches, rallies, protests etc. partially this is because somewhere along high school and the college application process, I have lost the will to create, and am about to become a future neocon poster child. I remember I used to be really left leaning in freshman and sophomore year, and would love to go to these protests and rallies because they were super fun. However, I slowly became jaded and cynical about the entire process of making short signs that are incredibly vague to protest against issues that I don't particularly understand. This is not to say that protests are alway failures because some of them do occasionally lead to change.
ReplyDeleteFor example voter registration at the Women's march probably leads to more people registering to vote which makes an actually concrete political impact. However, most protests lead to nebulous sign waving and protesting against some unseen free floating "institution" that somehow oppresses them i.e. the occupy wall street protest, after which sales of derivatives and non asset backed securities went up. or the Women's march which if you look at the description of it on their website, is a solid paragraph of just straight gibberish and assorted buzzwords tossed together.
Absent a clear description of the problems wrong with the world or an explanation of how you want the world to look like afterwords and specific policy recommendations to implement change, protests dissolve into people crossing their arms and saying No, I am dissatisfied with the current state of the world.
I do not know what the most effective means of protest is. I have not thought about the topic enough to come to any meaningful conclusions, but I do have a couple thoughts. I recently went to a DACA demonstration, and the event made made me slightly cynical. There were for sure people there who knew what they were protesting and wanted to get into a politicians office to demand change (as they did), but at the same time the event started to feel so sensationalized that I wondered if everyone there was protesting for the dreamers. The way the event was recorded and people documented themselves (in addition to acted) seemed to show some sort of satisfaction in protest for protests sake. That's not to say people did not have good intentions, I just felt as if social media was maybe creating an unhealthy relationship with protest.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the greatest example of protest for protests sake was the school walkout. For example, no one was protesting for the same reason. The reasons for protest ranged from end gun violence, specific gun control policy, honoring lost students, etc. That meant that no one was walking out for the same reason, begging the question of what people were trying to achieve and how students can ever create political change if they are not unified. Moreover, the walkout was also turned into a brand. For Poly and our colleges, it was a means to show how woke they were by not getting students in trouble for walking out. Not only does that take away the meaning of the protest (as then you are not protesting anything, you're just doing what's convenient), but it let's change get commodified. Now protest is a selling point (proven by brands like Pepsi), which for me doesn't seems like the way to create effective politics.