What can protests really do when only a few and not the whole country joins in, are people wasting their time?
A while back, there was a interesting documentary I watched about Russia's history starting with Ivan the Terrible all the way to the modern Russia. During the WW1 era, the Russian people were starving and blamed the czar for getting the country involved in a unnecessary war. Many Russians protested twice in front of the palace. The first time, the protests were peaceful but the second time when they tried to protest in front of the palace, they were fired upon from the military. That's when the Russian people felt they had enough and the radical Bolsheviks took control and killed the monarchy. I'm hoping something that extreme won't happen in the U.S. with all these protests. I support freedom of speech and the protests but I don't know what good is going to come out of this when only a few are protesting. These protests are starting to become a distraction and white supremacists like the Minneapolis umbrella man are taking advantage.
- 2 months agoFavorite Answer
If you look at the current protests that have taken place over the last 3-4 months, it has involved millions across the globe, including thousands in the United States. There is no doubting that the initial response to the death of George Floyd was nothing less than extraordinary. The truth about protesting is that it has been a historical mainstay within various societies from the global standpoint. Public dissent and outrage has been with humanity perhaps since the early days of governmental institutions. The reason for protesting has been to highlight what is perceived by the populous to be any form of abuse or sense of disenfranchisement.
Protesting within itself is a signal to the institution in question that a wrong has occurred in some way. Whether or not there is an issue of morality is debatable at times, but regardless, it is the option that most developed nations have and that is to disagree and do so peacefully. Does protesting always lead to actual changes within a system? No. For example, the Occupy Wall Street movement that took place back in 2011 was meant to draw attention to the amount of avarice and corruption that was occurring within Wall Street and the overall financial sector of the United States.
The OWS movement did not last very long, because it failed to maintain a level of relevancy and it was not exactly organized to the degree necessary to institute changes. Also, due to the amount of consolidated power within the governmental framework, it makes it more difficult to simply protest without going to much harsher measures (attempting to overthrow a government) which would get the attention of the bureaucrats who are holding the system hostage. I am not advocating for violence of the elimination of governmental systems, but due to the insistence upon maintaining corruption and unscrupulous methods, the inevitable consequence of outright anarchy as a response is quite likely.
The point being, protesting has a place within any society, but what makes it meaningful is when you have all individuals who are unified, rather than splintering with different objectives.
- Anonymous2 months ago
Here in America, civil protest won minorities their rights. Civil rights to be exact. That's the beauty of democracy and free speech.
- Anonymous2 months ago
America doesn't need BLM. It needs a Lenin.