On Protesting, Revolution, and the So-called Counter Culture.

Having recently been invited to a slew of protests against everything from the war to banning gay marriage, I've decided to expound a bit on why I haven't gone (despite my position on the event).

I will give a light disclaimer to begin, as it's important to note that I am not just being lazy, and I do realize that by not going I am effectively doing nothing for my cause. Therefore, I feel it unnecessary for any discussion to be raised on that particular point.

The protest, as a form of social change, has itself changed drastically over the years. In --and of course predating-- the 1920s, we had the riots of varied workers' groups and alternative government agencies (Anarchists, Socialists, Unions, etc.), as well as some peaceful protests. These gave birth to the next stage, the 1960s Civil Rights era. More peaceful forms of protest were rearing their heads, though we still did have, to a large extent, riots, violence, and other more "graphic" forms of expressing dissatisfaction in the same vein as some of the earlier era's precedents. Today, we've accepted a more peaceful approach, and violence has become a less dominating force in the sort of "vigilante" movements we see today, as well as our old friends the rights organizations and anti-war protesters.

There is, however, a big difference that goes largely unnoticed nowadays: Protesting is in vogue. The Industrial Revolution era social movements were excellent examples of this difference. In the earlier days, and even up to the '60s, when the swing of purposes began, there would be a protest or rally when a group felt that they could really cause some change immediately and show proof of the power that they, the people, had. The Anarchists protested because they felt the government was a fallacious institute of control that served no purpose but to dominate an unknowing mass of people. They were vocal. They were violent. They made noise and were recognized. Despite more gritty tactics, they gained recognition in the social spectrum (though they obviously didn't succeed on the political spectrum), and their numbers grew. The symbolism was there, and it was effective.

In the 1960s, we had people united under one belief marching the streets, doing sit-ins, making human chains, etc. to directly stand up to the "Man" for what they believed in and against the one thing that was blocking them from achieving their goal. Progress was an obvious motif. Even the violent protests and rallies, reminiscent of some of the more brutal incidents in the Industrial Revolution, were effective in gaining the attention they strove for. There was a certain sense of hunger and desperation. "If not now, never." People needed to see an immediate result, and with their varied means, got one.

The protest itself, however, was changing through its people. The actions developed and grew, but as we moved towards the modern era, we realized that not only could we stand up for what we believed in with our friends, we could be shown on TV. We could look like George Clooney. We could each go into a protest with our own goal of being recognized. Seeing people we knew. Feeling important. The protest became a place to make yourself feel good in as many ways as possible. If you went and stood in that crowd with your sign, you could feel like you were really making a difference, and that's where we are today. People go to protests now, not because they want to cause change, but because they want to feel like they're causing change. It's an opiate. People protest the war in droves all over the world, and yet we've only had a troop surge in recent months. Protests rarely make anything but the traffic report any more, with people telling us where to drive to avoid the mess that is 200,000 "angry" college students and baby boomers in the streets. There is no longer any purpose to the protest but to pacify and placate the people who participate in them.

I pose a question to you, my humble audience: How many people in every metropolitan area every year band together to "protest" the War in Iraq? Millions. Millions of people gather at varied points in varied places to feel like they are the difference. They will tip the scales toward peace by holding a sign.

I now pose a second question: How many Representatives in Congress voted for the total pullout of Iraq when it was suggested? Did the person who originally HAD the idea vote for it? The respective answers to those questions is 3 and no. There has been little political response to the social spewings of protesters and rally participants who, instead of debating, throw hate speech and threats at all those who disagree.

The protest is insignificant to the political scale because it no longer holds a symbol like it once did. It no longer stands up to anyone. Its message is convoluted and distorted, and because of this, it lacks the ability to change anything. Millions protest varied causes every year to say that they support a cause, but unless they really take action, their support is unverified.

Now, the wiliest of reader may note that this has been nothing but a long, wordy rant that offers no solution, and to you I respond "Oh yeah? Wanna fight about it?" I also offer you my solution.

There are two general ways to "fix" protesting. The first would be a reversion to the old style. More violence, I suppose. It would weed out the less committed protesters that corrupt the spectacle. This means, however, would be largely useless, though for the simple fact that anyone who performed a violent act at a protest would be labeled a terrorist and arrested. Also, it would alienate the more peaceful of the true supporters to condone a violent act. It'd be hard to keep the groups unified, thus rendering that particular movement ineffective.

The second way is, in my mind, much more effective. Drop protesting all together and instead, do one of the following: Advocate an individual movement, in which you yourself perform some act that directly counteracts the institute one may be fighting. Alternatively, one may combine every movement that strives for the same thing (all equality movements come together, etc.) and produce mass literature and education in support of one's newly expanded cause, effectively leading a revolution of knowledge that will cause the change by changing the society's viewpoint as a whole. The merits of each action can be debated to great ends, but in my analyses, these two have the least downfalls and are therefore, despite their vast differences, the most powerful means of change.

Revolution does not come easily. One may revolutionize oneself, thereby changing the world around him/her through the means of perspective, creating within that, a change in advocacy of the world in a sort of domino effect of "I see this this way, which causes it to function this way, which causes this event to unfold in relation to it, etc." One may also revolutionize the world around oneself through his/her perspectives. Egalitarian movements should actively support not the most symbolic causes, but the best ones. If a white, straight, male is the best candidate for president and running against minorities and females, they should advocate the original candidate for being the best. That is egalitarianism AND revolution. Combine the movements and choose the best solution to every problem. This may take the movement in a direction never before considered, educating, revealing, and inevitably enlightening those who come into contact with the message, which, inevitably is the goal of any movement anyway.

Therefore, if one wants to change the way the world works, one must first abandon the failed status quo's method of social action. It's as ineffective as voting. One must instead revolutionize and rearrange everything in order to achieve anything. Change is possible, but will it ever come?

"Protest songs in response to military aggression/ Protest songs, try to stop the soldier's gun/ Protest songs in response to military aggression/ Protest songs, try and stop the soldier's gun/ But the battle raged on." - Against Me!, "White People for Peace", New Wave