I feel like, historically, protests have beared fruit in America for leftist / progressive causes. Everything from Suffragettes and Civil Rights / anti-Vietnam to the Floyd protests of the modern day. Maybe they didn’t overthrow an entire government but the marked forward progress of each one is clear.
I feel there is currently a bit of of internalized propaganda about protests being stupid or worse. Witness any cause which involves protesting by blocking the street. You get an army of internet trolls talking up the idea that this is somehow evil.
In the civil rights era, events like crossing bridges on foot were a key feature, done by people like Martin Luther King. In the modern era, if you see a protest on the golden gate bridge as an example, they'll be called terrorists and people will advocate for violence against them.
Oh, there was plenty of internalized propaganda about civil disobedience being the "wrong approach" [0] - it is by no means a new phenomenon. Such criticism was common enough during the civil rights
movement that MLK addressed it in Letter from Birmingham Jail:
> You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.
> Oh, there was plenty of internalized propaganda about civil disobedience being the "wrong approach"
Yes, I'm aware of this. But I think it's surprising to me because decades later, MLK et al. are nearly universally accepted to have been right, but people using the same tactics are not.
But the cyclical propaganda lines do cross the decades. In the Bush 2 years I was rather taken by similarities between discussions of the Vietnam war or Watergate (which I read about in books or heard about from boomers) and what was then current events. A lot of the right wing stuff we've encountered more recently reminds me a lot of the 90s, when Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich bursted on the scene. All of the same talking points go in waves. Nothing new under the sun.
35 years ago, protesters blocked the Golden Gate Bridge.
I'm pretty sure they were protesting the war with Iraq (Bush the First) in response to Iraq's invasion and capture of oil wells in Kuwait.
But far more clear is my memory of the searing rage of a coworker that day. She was flying on it, the hatred coming out of her mouth.
It shocked me for a couple of reasons. She was close in age to me, just out of school. I think that my college years had led me to presume to most young people would be more sympathetic to opposition of general warfare. There was lots of talk of forcing military enlistment among people our age.
But the main reason was that the trigger for her rage was the temporary threat to her right to drive her car wherever she wanted to.
You think Americans are nuts about their guns, don't you ever threaten their right to kill people with cars.
Any sympathy she could have felt for the protesters' cause was gone because they blocked a highway.
Well, then I suppose feminism, civil rights (to say nothing of ending slavery,) labor rights and literally every other right you enjoy didn't deserve to advance because all of them are the result of some people at some point at the very least being a dick to others.
If society at large is being a dick to me and my group as a whole, I'm likely to be an even worse dick to society at large, which is why protesting doesn't work for people like me because protesting is generally about very nice and calm about outrageous things and causing a bit of inconvenience, that is to say being not as bad as what one is protesting with the hidden message you don't want us to make things bad (I decided to drop the dick metaphor before it would have to get graphic)
> Witness any cause which involves protesting by blocking the street. You get an army of internet trolls talking up the idea that this is somehow evil.
"Evil" is a stronger word than I would use, but I think it's fair to say that blocking the streets is both reckless and extremely antisocial. Making my life harder when I didn't do anything to wrong you doesn't make me more sympathetic to your cause, it makes me think "wow the people who support X are real dicks".
Also I like how you label this as a position espoused by "Internet trolls", as though no normal decent person could be irritated when they get screwed over by protesters.
I've been thinking about them recently. Did any of them "directly" threaten capital? I'd argue that Suffragettes and Civil Rights ultimately helped capital. Maybe anti-Vietnem since it directly affected defense contractors income streams?
