|
The big question being debated is the attention protests bring in America. My point is the message is being ignored, in large part due to the way which it's spoken.
The protests to prevent the invasion of Iraq were ignored because the majority of America supported it. It wasn't ignored by the media, it was ignored by the people. I remember the "mass" walk-out at our University to protest the War. One person in a class of 350 walked out of my class, media was covering it all over the place. I over-looked the mall in which the protest was done, there were almost as many reporters as students protesting. It was such a spectacular failure, they re-did the walkout to take place during between-class periods. The local media counted students walking to class as part of the protesters.
The message was ignored because it did not strike a chord with those it intended to strike to. It was not ignored by a government controlled media, it was simply those viewers cared more that these punk kids were holding up traffic than what was on their banners.
The truth is protests have the potential of growing exponentially as the new-media and social networks make it increasingly easier to gather groups of like-minded people. They haven't as their potential for political influence are squandered day in and day out. For example, the millions of dollars in damage with regard to the WTO meeting in Seattle. The average person's employment is determined by the WTO, so who do you think they'll side with? Some punks who burn cars unrelated to the whole event? Or the people who provide the employment which keeps a roof over their head and their kids in college?
Protesters are the ones to blame for the lack of effect protest have in America.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
|