(Providence, Rhode Island) – I want to talk about Ferguson, Missouri this week. No, I don’t want to rehash the Grand Jury decision. I’ll leave the pros and cons of that to others. What I do want to look at are the protests that followed. They got me to thinking about the history of protests in this country over many decades, and why some protests succeed, while other fail. Let’s “brunch” on that this week!
“Boston Tea Party” – This may be the classic, defining American protest. It was simple in its message; easy to understand; evoked public sentiment and sympathy; and was colorfully carried out. A group of colonists – some dressed up as Native Americans – boarded British ships in BostonHarbor and dumped all the tea overboard. They were mad that Parliament was taxing their tea, but not providing any representation for colonists, back home in England. It was a major stepping stone to the Revolutionary War, which the colonists won! Grade: Success.
“Montgomery Bus Boycott” – After a black woman named Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in 1955, civil rights advocates staged a 13-month boycott of the local bus company. It was effective because it was peaceful; it elicited public sympathy across the nation; it brought economic hardship on the bus company and the city; and, it led to a successful court fight. It worked because the protest created leverage with sympathy, economy, and legality. Grade: Success.
“Selma Bridge” – Among the most iconic protests of the 1960s Civil Rights movement were the three voting rights marches from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in 1965 (photo above). In the first march, demonstrators were attacked on the PettusBridge with police night sticks and tear gas. In the second march a white minister from Boston – sympathetic to black marchers – was severely beaten and died days later. On the third march, demonstrators were protected by U.S. Troops and National Guardsmen, and succeeded in reaching Montgomery. Media coverage of the initial brutality reached across the nation. Unlike many of today’s protests, these were successful because the protesters were the victims and not the aggressors. Images of marchers being beaten and gassed on national TV only created more sympathy for their cause. Grade: Success.
“Civil Rights 1960s” – The main reason the Civil Rights movement succeeded in the 1960s, was because a minority of people was able to convince the majority of society to change. That’s not an easy task. And for all the consternation we hear about the separation of church and state, it is critical to note that the Civil Rights Era of the 1950s and 60s was largely a church-based movement. I would go as far as to say that without the churches that helped spearhead the effort, it would have failed. The other place where it succeeded was in the courtroom. Lawyers, such as NAACP counsel Thurgood Marshall, won 29 of 32 key U.S. Supreme Court cases. The cause succeeded because it carried moral, legal, and Constitutional clout. The arguments were made out of compassion and legality, not anger. Grade: Success.
“Afghanistan & Iraq” – It’s almost hard to recall, but there were protests after the launch of both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. Despite the fact that Afghanistan openly harbored members of Al-Qaeda – which launched the 9/11 attacks – there are people in this country who are simply, anti-war, for any war. There were more protests against the Iraq War, simply because its formal role in worldwide terrorism was less established than Afghanistan‘s. Still, these were cases of the U.S. defending itself, or preempting itself from further attack. It’s hard to successfully protest when your own nation is the victim. Grade: Fail.
“Anti-Globalization & Occupy”” – In the early part of this century, there were protests against “globalization” at world trade conferences, including a huge riot at one conference in Seattle. Then came the “Occupy” movement, including such offshoots as Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Providence. They were largely public relations disasters. Why? For one, they rallied against, (and in some cases), vandalized such global villains at McDonalds and Starbucks. The problem was, many people like global companies, including the aforementioned. The bigger problem, though, was that these protests had little focus and no real agenda. Here in Providence people camped out in a city park for months on end, including through a brutal winter. But most people – then and now – still have no idea was the objective was. To succeed, you much have a message! Grade: Fail.
“Ferguson & Nation” – As a practical matter, local violent protests do little to endear people to the cause. It’s not as if the Grand Jury will reconvene and suddenly change its mind. Destroying local business, with shopkeepers who had nothing to do with the incident, or decision – and who, in fact, may be sympathetic to the cause – tends to backfire since innocent people are harmed. Nationwide protests – like the one in Providence where dozens of people walked out and blocked I-95 — don’t do much good either. That’s because they generate more anger at the protesters instead of sympathy to their goals. It becomes counterproductive. Grade: Incomplete.
“Why all this Matters? – Protests are not just about displays of displeasure or anger; they are also about persuasion and the desire to make change. Anger is an emotion; it is not a political philosophy or a public policy road map. Unless protest anger is challenged in a way that, a) changes people’s minds about the issue; and b) leads to policy making where substantive public change occurs, then it is simply an exercise in venting, and is not constructive. My prediction about the Ferguson protests – both there and across the nation – is that they will lead to little meaningful change, other than police departments buying more video cameras for their patrol cars and officers.
What do you think about protests? Why do some succeed while others fall flat? Just click the comment button at www.MarkCurtisMedia.com.
