Serious Change: dress like you're going to the most important job interview of your life

September 30, 2007 11:10 AM

Seriously pissed? How about serious change? Decades from now, no one will accuse our generation of not protesting enough, but you'll probably be making excuses for how we did it. No offense to those who have protested this way- your heart's in the right place and you've probably given lots of time and money to doing the right thing- but what if you're not helping? What if hundreds of thousands of people turned out in their very best, most serious clothes, with no puppets, no "clever" home-made signs, and no instruments? It's worked before. As Matt Taibbi put it in AdBusters (previously on MeFi), "Next thing you know, you’ve got guys on stilts wearing mime makeup and Cat-in-the-Hat striped top-hats leading a half-million people at an anti-war rally. Why is that guy there? Because no one told him that war is a matter of life and death and that he should leave his fucking stilts at home." These things always start small, but who knows? This is serious- let's act like it. If you wouldn't bring it or wear it to your grandmother's funeral, leave it at home.
posted by paul_smatatoes (168 comments total)

Yeah, we should stop wars like the hippies did, all respectful like.

Oh wait, the hippies didn't stop the war. The body bags did.
posted by gwint at 11:17 AM on September 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

What, you mean people should protest NOT to show off for the media? Why?! Don't step on my right to carry puppets/wear make-up, or hold witty signs, you facist! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Sorry... my inner attention whore slipped out.
posted by SansPoint at 11:18 AM on September 30, 2007

If only Gandhi wore more silly hats he would have brought an end to British colonial rule even faster.
posted by Falconetti at 11:26 AM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I've been strongly opposed to the Iraq war since the beginning, but I still want to smack a lot of the protesters. When did protests turn into goofy drug-addled circuses?

I can't even imagine how people who support the war feel about the protesters.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:31 AM on September 30, 2007

What do we want? PEACE!! Wen? DELL!!
posted by hermitosis at 11:32 AM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Decades from now no one will care. 54' 40" or fight!
posted by Captaintripps at 11:34 AM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

So your point is that the civil rights protests worked because the protesters dressed like they were going to a funeral?

Even Dr. Martin Luther King said that the only reason whites listened to him was because of the shadow of a black man with a molotov cocktail standing behind him. Protests don't work because they're civil, or polite; they work because of fear that they might stop being civil and polite. A good protest should always hint that this is the last stop before lunacy.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:38 AM on September 30, 2007 [23 favorites]

Yes, but the right kind of lunacy. The current batch of protests don't threaten the violent breakdown of ordered society. They threaten continued drug use and promiscuity by worthless hippie scum.

Not quite as scary.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:40 AM on September 30, 2007 [15 favorites]

Well, yes, Black Panthers with rifles is far more effective. But a lot of those guys died.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:46 AM on September 30, 2007

they work because of fear that they might stop being civil and polite. A good protest should always hint that this is the last stop before lunacy.

I live in Foggy Bottom. Not a week goes by when I don't see some rag-tag bunch of college kids stumbling down Pennsylvania avenue. You're kidding yourself if you think there's some sort of implied threat in these revels.

Taibbi is right. The days of bucking authority are over. Authority has clearly won. However, thanks to political action of the past, authority is more penetrable. All change from here on out is going to come from the inside, so you'd best start making martinis with that bottle of booze, shine your shoes with that rag, and light a cigar with those matches. I agitated and protested for over a year before I realized that "being the change" involved becoming the man, not parading around in tie-die and shouting at him.
posted by The White Hat at 11:49 AM on September 30, 2007 [9 favorites]

Decades from now, no one will accuse our generation of not protesting enough,

there's no draft. no draft = whatever

the protests are little more than a blip on the screen -- and less than a nuisance for the US administration -- because there's no draft, the war is invisible, a universe away -- the body count is just that, numbers in some website one does not really read anyway. Iraq, unlike Vietnam, is an abstraction (not to mention the -- as John McCain proudly calls them -- "gooks" had not destroyed two skyscrapers in New York and a big chunk of the Pentagon, so if possible the Ayrabs are even more unpopular than the Vietnamese)

only volunteers, in the military and in various mercenary outfits, are doing the dying on the American side, and some of them are not even American citizens to begin with. Iraqi civilians are being slaughtered at a much higher rate but that's just not important for the great majority of Americans, and anyway they've been liberated so they're not to complain -- eggs, omelets, etc.
posted by matteo at 11:50 AM on September 30, 2007 [5 favorites]

Also, let's not forget the problem of mixed messages. I've never seen a modern protest from the left that didn't have some jackass with a "FREE MUMIA" or "LEGALIZE IT" sign. If it's an anti-war protest, keep it on the war.

And fuck Mumia, seriously.
posted by SansPoint at 11:54 AM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I agitated and protested for over a year before I realized that "being the change" involved becoming the man, not parading around in tie-die and shouting at him.
posted by The White Hat at 11:49 AM on September 30

Wow. A whole year?
posted by perilous at 11:55 AM on September 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

I agitated and protested for over a year before I realized that "being the change" involved becoming the man, not parading around in tie-die and shouting at him.

If you wanna beat the man you gotta be the man.
posted by Tube at 11:56 AM on September 30, 2007

I think this is a great idea, I guess that I think all serious political discourse should be reasonable dialogue. Not that I have a problem with drawing the media attention or self-expression in general, but I agree it is a good idea to make more serious statements. The problem that is really unacceptable is that politicians are making a similar song-and-dance shitshow out of campaigning for office.
posted by MNDZ at 12:00 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

You're the man now, dog.
posted by wsg at 12:00 PM on September 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

I stopped going to anti-war protests in Seattle because of this bullshit. Stilts, puppet heads, Rappin' Grannies, Free Mumia, Free Tibet, Free Bird, body paint, dudes in skirts, fucking LaRouchies and Socialists handing out their propaganda - it's a joke. I can't even take it seriously, and I'm marching - how is anyone ELSE supposed to?
posted by tristeza at 12:08 PM on September 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

No, that's not a strategy. That may qualify as a tactic. But a tactic divorced from strategy is just the 'noise before defeat.'

To make this really serious, you'd want to link it to an actual bill in the House or Senate, and you'd want to figure out who the swing votes are, and you'd want to find out who those congresspeople's own voters (particularly their swing voters) are, and you'd want to have those people get in touch with them. And maybe it's by marching wearing something specific, but if Rep. Whoever hates protests and loves, I don't know, Nascar? Then maybe you just need to convince one Nascar driver to make a comment on TV. The "how" needs to relate to an actual legislative goal, and needs to be associated with a more overarching strategy, and there needs to be some thought put into it.

Nine questions for evaluating advocacy campaigns. [pdf]
Planning and evaluating tactics.
posted by salvia at 12:08 PM on September 30, 2007 [6 favorites]

Yeah, I am totally down with this. For a long time I wondered if I wasn't some closet fascist for hating the current form of protesting: Clowns and silly outfits and routines and MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMELOOKITMECAMERALOOKITMEMA. And then I realized it wasn't because I wanted everyone to look the same, it was because I wanted the movement to draw respect. I wanted people to listen. And people don't listen to clowns, they laugh at them.
posted by schroedinger at 12:11 PM on September 30, 2007 [12 favorites]

The current batch of protests don't threaten the violent breakdown of ordered society. They threaten continued drug use and promiscuity by worthless hippie scum.

The last time I went to a march*, which was one just prior to the invasion, I saw thousands of middle class couples pushing kids in strollers. Kids in Cat In The Hat hats were in the >1 percentile. The only paper mache creation I saw was a globe of the Earth being tossed around by a small crew of people in matching t-shirts. The globe part was not the part of that I found irritating. Now if you were bitching about matching t-shirts or banning families with kids in strollers, I might sign on. But bitching about cliches no one really seems to be observing at marches anymore is so old, you know what I mean ?

And if the media focuses in on the miniscule few twerps who do show up at marches in such garb, what are you going to do ? Send some security guards in matching brown t-shirts to beat them up ? Dress codes for marches. Oh, that's going to work....

I will say this about marches--if you do go on one, you might get the feeling you might be part of something larger than just you yelling at your tv or monitor.

*But, on the other hand, you made me remember the coolest part of that march--which was how the monorail drivers were honking their horns every time they passed overhead. Man, that was such a lift.
posted by y2karl at 12:12 PM on September 30, 2007 [7 favorites]

Step one is getting ANSWER the fuck out of the protesting business.

There has to be a better alternative than a Communist organization for putting these things together.
posted by empath at 12:16 PM on September 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

Photos from an anti-war rally in S.F. on March 17, 2007.

"ZombieTime Hall of Shame" of lefty rallies (some of which are not specifically anti-war).

The last time I linked to these here, I was accused of "carrying water for the neocons." Yeah, whatever.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:17 PM on September 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

i say we hire a goon squad to break heads and teach those undisciplined punks how to exercise their freedoms properly
posted by pyramid termite at 12:18 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's not so much the crazy costumes. It's that the people, when you talk to them, are obviously there to garner attention to themselves rather than the problem. I've talked to people who hardly know what they were protesting about, and people who go to every protest, no matter what it is about, to gather attention to their pet problem (which may not even be related to the one at hand). And don't even get me started on the ridiculous people who consider themselves 'professional activists'.

I've given up on the thought that protest works at all. Better you take that time and energy and take over your local government and make it do what you want. Mostly when I bring that up I get get blank stares or snorts of derision. That would require hard work. And less silly costumes.
posted by overhauser at 12:21 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Which is a longer version of the The White Hat said.
posted by overhauser at 12:26 PM on September 30, 2007

i have participated in more protests than i can count. there were occupations of offices, marches, performance art, sit-ins and sit-downs and kiss-ins and die-ins, blockades, and lock-downs. i've done them all, and i loved participating in them. i've been arrested. i've refused to pay fines. i've spoken out and written letters and lost sleep and skinned my knees and hands and avoided tear gas, gone hungry and been shouted down and spat on and ridiculed.

however, i challenge anyone i've ever participated with (or anyone else really) to show me one thing we accomplished *besides* a sense of solidarity. we won a few to our side, but they were usually mostly on our side anyway. we alienated more. we never closed the ELF site in Wisconsin, it became obsolete. we never stopped a forest from being logged--we saved a few trees for a little while at best, while lawyers did their work. we never stopped corporations from polluting--that happened, if at all, in courtrooms. we didn't stop nuclear bombs or police brutality or preserve abortion rights.

even the argument that it creates awareness--the idea of "consciousness-raising" leaves me a little chilled, because the ones who count are already aware. they just don't give a damn.

i have now come to the conclusion that protests are for those who can't think of anything else to do (in regards to a particular issue--i don't mean that they should "get a real job"). organizing for real change is quieter, more frustrating and truly a lot more about lifelong drudgery than anything else.

Vietnam was stopped by the fact that they were losing. same goes for this war--we've had the biggest protests in the history of the planet. not a thing has happened except the politicians got a wee little bit louder. (but are any of the viable candidates going to stop the war? no.) protests only work in places where they can be seen as shocking and new. (naked protesting in Africa, for example. or the Civil Rights Movement.) there is no way to make traditional protesting work in the US today. (and witness the horror of Burma, where it seemed for a moment there... but no.) even in Jena recently... getting a guy out on bail happened because someone with a lot of cash decided to help. okay--consciousness raising. it worked that time. but if they continue in Jena, it will only mean the townsfolk get bored with it. and don't get me started on the acceptance of "protest zones."

protesting is fun. i am happy people do it. but i have that boring old drudgery to do, the kind that might actually save our asses from the fire. god, i miss believing in it. i miss the thrill of the drumbeats or songs echoing between the canyons of a city, or the feeling of change just around the corner. but something has to be around that corner besides another street.

so when the young and tear-gassed eye me up like i'm some sort of traitor for staying home...
oh, who am i kidding? i was one of them. i understand the belief and the frustration with the old and apparently tamed.

so i don't say much, because i have work to do before i die.
posted by RedEmma at 12:43 PM on September 30, 2007 [88 favorites]

i should add, i guess, that as much as i have a romantic sort of nostalgia for the idea of a "resistance" or the backup of violence to stop corporate fascism, i don't think that works either. the government will always have better guns and technology.

we have to go around them, using all our talents and knowledge to make the world more free, and make it less possible for them to stop it. make freedom something they try to grasp and control and fail because it's like water in a gloved fist.

protesting in suits is just another costume--same game, different dress-up.
posted by RedEmma at 12:50 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Even Dr. Martin Luther King said that the only reason whites listened to him was because of the shadow of a black man with a molotov cocktail standing behind him. Protests don't work because they're civil, or polite; they work because of fear that they might stop being civil and polite. A good protest should always hint that this is the last stop before lunacy.

A dipshit on stilts or a bunch of aging overweight naked chicks covered in paint and overgrown body hair are not nearly as menacing as a shadow of a black man with a Molotov cocktail. Especially when juxtaposed on a row of cops in full riot gear. I fail to imagine panic in the streets when a guy wearing a fucking Yoda mask stops being polite.
posted by c13 at 12:54 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

The response we received before, during, and after the protest has been astonishing. Our articles were featured twice on the front page of reddit.com ...

Oh my, the masters of war must be quaking in their boots. Internet != doing something, people.
posted by scruss at 12:58 PM on September 30, 2007

You cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools.

The value of having those smelly hippie protesters out there on the barricades is that it makes those suit-wearing advocates for change look so much more reasonable. Dr. King's backup (the molotov-throwing black man) was not simply a violent threat, but also acted as a counterbalance: Dr. King's demand for civil rights becomes quite reasonable when those farther out on the pendulum's swing are rioting for free love, education, and an end to capitalism.
posted by rtha at 1:00 PM on September 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

We're missing something obvious. I don't know what it is, but somehow I feel that future generations are going to wonder "why didn't they simply do X?". I don't know what X is, and I know that we're probably going to be ashamed of us not doing X when our grandchildren tell us what it is.

My only hope is that the next generations know what X is, so that this shit doesn't happen again.

Different shit will probably happen, but it will be slightly better than the shit we have happening right now, and this way, in small steps, humanity grows.

After all, making people wear yellow stars on their clothing isn't going to work anymore, right?
posted by DreamerFi at 1:06 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Stilts, puppet heads, Rappin' Grannies, Free Mumia, Free Tibet, Free Bird, body paint, dudes in skirts, fucking LaRouchies and Socialists...

That's not a protest. That's Burning Man!
posted by ericb at 1:08 PM on September 30, 2007

protesting is fun. i am happy people do it. but i have that boring old drudgery to do, the kind that might actually save our asses from the fire. god, i miss believing in it. i miss the thrill of the drumbeats or songs echoing between the canyons of a city, or the feeling of change just around the corner. but something has to be around that corner besides another street.

so when the young and tear-gassed eye me up like i'm some sort of traitor for staying home...
oh, who am i kidding? i was one of them. i understand the belief and the frustration with the old and apparently tamed.

so i don't say much, because i have work to do before i die.

Quoted at length just so I could add a resounding 'yes'.
posted by jokeefe at 1:11 PM on September 30, 2007

The reason professional attire would be more effective is because the immediate reaction to seeing such a protest on television, or in a newspaper, would be to think that the nation's lawyers, schoolteachers, insurance agents, engineers, bankers, and secretaries have decided to lay down their work and take to the streets in a show of no-confidence for the government/war/what have you. Basically, people with jobs and livelihoods and bosses, immediately and simultaneously deciding to suffer the consequences of leaving their desks for a few hours. I look at those pictures of the San Francisco and Berkeley protesters and the first thing that comes to mind is that those people do not have jobs. Perhaps an unfair assumption, but still. I know that my civil-spidey-senses would tingle watching a solemn march of well-dressed, serious Americans slowly making their way toward the White House at 2:00 on a random Thursday afternoon.
posted by billysumday at 1:13 PM on September 30, 2007 [13 favorites]

And then I realized it wasn't because I wanted everyone to look the same, it was because I wanted the movement to draw respect.

Real anger has been known to get results.
posted by ericb at 1:15 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

ericb, I'm not arguing against real anger. The work of ACTUP indeed represented real anger in a powerful, meaningful way. People speaking their minds forcefully and eloquently are not what I'm arguing against. However, naked people on stilts painting themselves with peace signs and wearing clown wigs are slightly different from the AIDS sufferers and civil rights marchers who got results.
posted by schroedinger at 1:21 PM on September 30, 2007

Well, if the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran I will travel from Missouri to D.C. for my very first protest and I promise to dress age appropriate.
posted by wrapper at 1:24 PM on September 30, 2007

You cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools.

That's one of those protest aphorisms that, frankly, makes no sense to me. Maybe by calling all the tools "the master" uses "the master's tools", you're not leaving yourself any tools? Maybe if you used them, instead, without using them for what "the master" uses them, you might make a difference? I mean, in the most literal sense, if you dismantle the master's house, that fucker doesn't have a house any more, right? And some of those tools can probably be used to build houses out of all that lumber that's suddenly going to waste.

And in the more abstract sense, the country doesn't look like the protests that have taken place, which leads to lots of people feeling as though, while they oppose warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons, and torture, open opposition is a "fringe" position. If millions of people across the country turned out looking like average people doing their best, it could bring a lot of people together. Maybe it'd even help end the day-to-day outrages against the constitution and the bill of rights.

Sure, any real change is going to come from boring day-to-day work in local politics, but I think it doesn't take much to reclaim protests for real life-or-death seriousness while you're doing that, and it certainly couldn't hurt.
posted by paul_smatatoes at 1:24 PM on September 30, 2007 [7 favorites]

There was a vid at YouTube, I can't find the exact URL currently (*ahem* can't get there from here at the mo) but I think I favorited it. This guy was describing how police dress up as protesters and carry rocks then try to force a disturbance and make it look like the protesters started attacking the cops. All they gotta do is blend in and then make the first move.

When you send a call out for a volunteer protest rally, you never know who you're going to get. Essentially you think numbers are all you need, but unless those numbers consist of robots and sheep, you're not gonna have a crowd of like-minded individuals. You'll have scores if not hundreds of people, each with their own agenda. Each with unique approaches to bringing attention to their own perspective.

Some people go to them in (often futile) search of like-minded individuals, in a world where they feel out of place. It's a social gathering for some. Not everyone's trying to save the world, but just cling to their little piece of it. If they can help somebody else save the world while they enjoy their place within in, all the better. If their presence doesn't make a difference, they won't know, will they?

I find protests both beautiful and meaningless, but they are meaningful for those who are inside them and perhaps that's the important thing.

I once found myself in downtown Dallas one cheery spring morning soon after GWB had taken that left turn in Alberquerque and heading for Afghanistan we wound up in Iraq. I witnessed close to a thousand people gathering for an anti-war parade. This is Texas, mind you. GWB came from here (although really he was born in Connecticut and this being a Texan thing is a lie, but that's splitting hairs).

I wasn't a part of the protest myself. I was on my lunch break. I was just observing because as I said, I find protest marches beautiful if meaningless.

I noticed that from the crowd about twenty or thirty dark-skinned men began congregating. They were looking about and some of them were carrying bundles. A racist streak in me instinctively assumed I might be witnessing a 'problem' developing, but I couldn't have been more wrong.

It was near noon. They were looking for a place where in unison, they could kneel and pray to their God. When they were looking around, they were trying to determine which way was Mecca.

There was something almost hypnotic about the melodic drone of their prayers in their native tongue, and the uniform look of their actions which sent shivers down my spine. With the chaotic hubbub of a thousand noisy liberals not ten feet away. Prostrated upon mats they carried with them just for this purpose, twenty-five or thirty some odd dark men in comfortable-looking clothes aimed themselves towards Mecca and prayed. A few nonmuslims in the crowd looked over to see the placid meditation happening in their midst, but most were too busy with their signs and stilts and puppets and various strange costumes and megaphones to watch these devout men appeal to their god. Pearls before swine. Diamonds in the rough. In all honesty I couldn't tell if they were there to bless the parade or beg god to rain hellfire and brimstone. It's just that the noon hour was there, and they stopped what they were doing in order to obey their holy allegiance.

Like I said. Beautiful.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:24 PM on September 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

I have been saying this forever and am delighted to see this movement take shape. I have been to nearly every major anti-war rally in DC since the war started, and always dress like I am serious. I am always appalled at the childish street theater and the conjoining of irrelevant other issues to the anti-war movement's momentum -- but especially the pro-Mumia and anti-Israel issues and the anarchists. It looks silly and undermines the serious purpose and broad coalition of the anti-war movement. And Mumia killed a fucking cop, so whatever you think of his sentence, you are not going to win hearts and minds holding up free Mumia signs if your goal is change a broad swath of public opinion.

Yay.
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:37 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Decades from now, we'll all look back and laugh at all this. Maybe shed a tear or two.

Or maybe we'll all be too busy fighting to care.
posted by Balisong at 1:38 PM on September 30, 2007

I used to hang out with really political people- generally people with very similar politics to mine- and it drove them nuts that I wouldn't protest. I kept saying the same thing- it doesn't fucking accomplish anything because the authorities don't give half a damn what the populace thinks and they sure as fuck don't care what peaceful protestors think.

Their response? Protesting "radicalises" people. Well, fuck, if all that does it get them to go to protests, what's the fucking point to begin with?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:44 PM on September 30, 2007

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, it wasn't the hippies who stopped Vietnam. It was the bodybags. I'm not aware of a war in history which was stopped by peace protests.

Don't think for a heartbeat that an anti-war rally is going to change the course of history; especially if you only do it in 'free speech zones.' Even if a thousand people were to 'congregate' on the lawn of the whitehouse, all you would do is get yourselves hurt.

Dress however you like when you go to your rallies and protests. I hope you find yourself a little misses and yall go off and make little protesters.

Live your life. Make it beautiful. Some things are slightly more important than whose in power and what they listen to.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:45 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Even Dr. Martin Luther King said that the only reason whites listened to him was because of the shadow of a black man with a molotov cocktail standing behind him.

There was more to it than that. African American leaders wanted protestors dressed in Sunday best, or at least like they were going to do business. The reasoning was twofold. First, it was part of the overall "we must represent ourselves with dignity" meme -- that is, African Americans must always show that they are not only willing to self-improve, they are self-improving. Second, it was to make the protests look formal and serious, because these were formal and serious issues. In a sense, it was to make them look like good churchgoing people (which they were anyway).

If African Americans had shown no passive resistance streak and only went for militancy, then White Middle America wouldn't have batted an eye at military action against them. What King meant in that statement was that he gave people of conscience a reason to have a conscience and a reason to consider the petitions of the NAACP/SCLC.
posted by dw at 1:49 PM on September 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

brilliant!

*irons socks*
posted by sexyrobot at 1:52 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

For some reason I am reminded of this.
posted by moonbiter at 1:54 PM on September 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, it wasn't the hippies who stopped Vietnam. It was the bodybags. I'm not aware of a war in history which was stopped by peace protests.

Yes. it's that simple. the massive nationwide protests did absolutely nothing. I suppose the "hippies" in the civil rights movement had no effect on anything either.

it's amazing the lengths people will go to to convince themselves that smugly sitting back and doing nothing is somehow right and noble.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:59 PM on September 30, 2007 [5 favorites]

However, naked people on stilts painting themselves with peace signs and wearing clown wigs are slightly different from the AIDS sufferers and civil rights marchers who got results.

Agree with you 100%.
posted by ericb at 2:01 PM on September 30, 2007

- but especially the pro-Mumia and anti-Israel issues and the anarchists. It looks silly and undermines the serious purpose and broad coalition of the anti-war movement. And Mumia killed a fucking cop, so whatever you think of his sentence, you are not going to win hearts and minds holding up free Mumia signs if your goal is change a broad swath of public opinion.

Agreed. i think these protests are pretty analogous to craisglist- started with noble intent and full of good stuff, but the low bar to entry that makes them a soapbox the insane and incoherent just can't pass up.
posted by drjimmy11 at 2:02 PM on September 30, 2007

And just because I was looking at these two images at the same time:

Selma, 1965.
San Francisco, 2007.
posted by dw at 2:02 PM on September 30, 2007 [8 favorites]

it's amazing the lengths people will go to to convince themselves that smugly sitting back and doing nothing is somehow right and noble.

Nice strawman. You're right--I don't throw on tie-dye clothing, carry a sign that says "IMPEECH BUSH NOWZ!!!", so that means I don't care. Fundraising isn't important! Working behind the scenes isn't important! We don't need people who run the lobbying groups and act as secretaries for the ACLU and coordinate food drop-offs at the local food bank and try to organize donations and clients for the annual Christmas giving tree! These people are important! The topless women, the people with signs saying "Kikes out of Lebanon", these are the freedom fighters. These are the guys making a difference.

I have said the same thing in another AskMe question. You people who smugly sit back and call the non-protestors traitors and lazy for not marching--what are you doing besides marching? Running for city council? Perhaps organizing a neighborhood watchgroup? Maybe running a tutoring program for local poor urban kids? No, those things aren't necessary, because you have your boombox playing the third-string punk rock bands with the two-chord anti-Bush songs and you are out marching and making a REAL difference.
posted by schroedinger at 2:05 PM on September 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

Live your life. Make it beautiful. Some things are slightly more important than whose in power and what they listen to.

Tell it to the dead.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:06 PM on September 30, 2007 [9 favorites]

(Also--posted before I read your second comment, so I apologize as my response is probably off-base after reading your clarification)
posted by schroedinger at 2:07 PM on September 30, 2007

hey, i never said it had to be about the war. dressing very seriously for a massive protest against, say, warrantless wiretapping, torture, and secret prisons would probably do a shitload of good.
posted by paul_smatatoes at 2:11 PM on September 30, 2007

Ah yeah, because what any political movement really needs is petty infighting and pigeon-holing between "hippies" and "hipsters."

If I had to pick one reason, though, I'd say that the largest penal system in human history is able to swallow any real civil disobedience without flinching an eyebrow.

The key to civil disobedience isn't dressing pretty, it's shutting down the system--a large part of which means flooding the prison system until it breaks. Ever see a picture of Gandhi before the salt march? Who do you think the Brits took more seriously, a lawyer, or a dude dressed in rags? He was really dressing to speak to his fellow protesters, so I suppose there is an argument to be made for the importance of dress, but you're not dressing to impress the powers that be, you're dressing to bring in more ground-level support.

In any event, the media is going to focus on the most outlandish people attending. The vast, vast, vast majority of protesters are already attending in normal, mainstream respectable clothing. Unless you're willing to have an exclusive movement and the threat of force necessary to back that up, you're always going to have goof-offs.

Not that Serious Change doesn't make a good point about creating a safe protesting space for professionals, but the poster here clearly didn't read their own links. Serious Change is advocating a diversity of tactics, not infighting.
posted by Skwirl at 2:17 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Protesting works. It just has to be done on topic, consistently, and with uniformity of message and purpose.
posted by tkchrist at 2:19 PM on September 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

a) Since the dawn of time, the hippies and smartly suited individuals have worked hand and hand. See the bevy of lawyers volunteering to do legal support for antiwar and campaigning cases, for example. Trade unions give us funding for the buses.

b) A demonstration has always been filled with what we now refer to as "hipsters." (Or is it that the hipsters avoid the protest? I can never remember.) But they serve the more important purpose of keeping a certain group of people trained and practiced at mobilising public opposition in the centres of power. Dozens of different skills - publicity, organising, book keeping, reporting, web design and more - go into any protest.

c) Solidarity is the primary purpose of the demonstration. People start there, and then they get the opportunity to learn about all kinds of ways of being part of the solution. One hopes that many of these young people will go into work helping people in need or fighting for change through politics. I think I like the fact that these essential people will have learned their politics at demonstrations!

d) The people on the inside need the demonstrators to keep them honest. Access to power leads to compromise, personal politics get in the way and thus many a charity, NGO, etc. is corrupted.

e) We are a generation of adults who like Legos and get our popular culture off the Internet. There'[s going to be Billionaires for Bush and various other memes. I am fine with it, but then I like Talk Like a Pirate Day, too. :)
posted by By The Grace of God at 2:34 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Agreed, tkchrist.

Beats bitchin' on teh internets, that's for goddamned sure.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:35 PM on September 30, 2007

maybe these people can help
posted by pyramid termite at 2:36 PM on September 30, 2007

The biggest problem with modern American liberalism may be the word itself. There’s just something about the word, liberal, something about the way it sounds – it just hits the ear wrong.

The problem isn't the way it sounds, it's the relentless, decades long campaign conservatives waged to turn it bad.
posted by delmoi at 2:39 PM on September 30, 2007 [7 favorites]

it's the relentless, decades long campaign conservatives waged to turn it bad.

which is now turning into a relentless orgy of self-blaming and self-conscious preening before the hard conservative gaze so we won't get judged so harshly

we may as well be hung for wolves as for dogs
posted by pyramid termite at 2:41 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Live your life. Make it beautiful. Some things are slightly more important than whose in power and what they listen to.

I think the Iraqis might disagree with that view.
posted by delmoi at 2:48 PM on September 30, 2007

TKChrist: "Protesting works"

Protesting SO doesn't work. If ever you were given that impression, it was coincidental. Oh and by the way, Santa Claus isn't real, Star Wars is just a movie, and Angelina Jolie would never have sex with you. Sorry to crush all of your dreams, but it had to be done.

DrJimmy11: "it's amazing the lengths people will go to to convince themselves that smugly sitting back and doing nothing is somehow right and noble."

Right and noble? Goodness no. Whatever gave you that impression? Nowadays I go out of my way to avoid being right and noble. Who wants to be a hero? Being a hero can get you killed. Right and noble gets you shot at. Puts a target on your chest. Builds you up just to knock you down. Uses up calories and diminishes body fat. Just ask Martin Luther King. Oh wait, you can't. Why? Cuz he got shot at, and now he's dead.

Not sure where you get your information, Doctor Jimmy. You think it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, but you have it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees. Smugly sitting back and doing nothing is far from noble. It's oh so deliciously wrong, but it feels so good. It guarantees I'll die from heart failure due to my sedentary lifestyle, but I won't die of lead poisoning, or getting trampled on during a peace rally that turns into a police action. You guys'll get trampled on. I'll be watching CNN, probably while eating popcorn.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:50 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

pyramid termite- i hate putting it this way, but re: wolves/dogs, who gets closer to the sheep?

the word "liberal" might be easier to reclaim if liberal protests looked like "hard-working people who want to make the world a better place" instead of "attention-starved people who think they'll blow ur square mind with painted boobies and/or a che guevara poster".
posted by paul_smatatoes at 2:53 PM on September 30, 2007

Careful there Cool Papa your going to spill the water.

overhauser said "don't even get me started on the ridiculous people who consider themselves 'professional activists'."

Don't even get me started on the ridiculous people who call themselves professional politicians. Voting in all those democrats who said they wanted to stop the war didn't quite turn out the way it was supposed to. You can't even show the body bags from this war in the media.

If you require a suit and tie to protest you will end up looking like this or this or this.

Free Huey!
posted by Sailormom at 2:55 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Protesting works. It just has to be done on topic, consistently, and with uniformity of message and purpose.

And in support of what the authorities were going to do anyway.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:02 PM on September 30, 2007

Blogs tend to be the legitimate, reasonable form of protest now. Look at the political power DailyKos wields.

Of course, the problem is Kos is too much a Democratic Party blog right now.

The commentators on the site talk about how cowardly the democrats in congress are for not defunding the war, but how long are the democrats going to refuse to act before Kos decides to defund the democrats? It's not going to happen, so why should congress give a fuck what Kos wants if the money is never going to dry up?

I think the left would be much better off now if their main online hub wasn't so determined to support the democrats no matter what.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:02 PM on September 30, 2007

DelMoi: "it just hits the ear wrong."

Liberal hits the ear wrong nowadays. So does Conservative. So does pretty much anything political. I don't see how either side won in their shirts vs skins skirmish. I can't tell which ones are wearing the shirts. Oh wait. That's right. They're all on the same team. We're the ones losing our shirts. Silly me. I forgot.
posted by ZachsMind at 3:05 PM on September 30, 2007

completly disagree. Matt Taibbi can suck my stilts.

Hey, Matt, why don't you and all your friends go to a protest dressed in uniform? You could wear nice brown ones, and I hear truncheons make for a very clear path before you.

You are everything wrong with the left and the anti-war movement today, you fucking lifestyle leftist.

Is it saying that current protests are ineffective that makes him a fascist, or just that you disagree with him?
posted by Snyder at 3:06 PM on September 30, 2007

And in support of what the authorities were going to do anyway.

How does this apply to the Civil Rights movement?
posted by Snyder at 3:07 PM on September 30, 2007

Live your life. Make it beautiful. Some things are slightly more important than who is in power and what they listen to.

Pop Guilty: "Tell it to the dead."

Make me.
posted by ZachsMind at 3:09 PM on September 30, 2007

wolves/dogs, who gets closer to the sheep?

they're too busy fighting each other to get close to the sheep - in fact a good many of them seem to have completely forgotten there are such things as sheep
posted by pyramid termite at 3:11 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

telstarsays: "Hey, Matt, why don't you and all your friends go to a protest dressed in uniform? You could wear nice brown ones, and I hear truncheons make for a very clear path before you."

taibbi's essay is about how your attitude weakens the left, and comparing him to a Nazi Brownshirt (!!!!!) for saying that just makes you look like the greater ass. who else do you call a Nazi for disagreeing with you?
posted by paul_smatatoes at 3:13 PM on September 30, 2007

Captaintripps: Decades from now no one will care. 54' 40" or fight!

For you maybe. As for me, I'll never recognize Canada's claim to Vancouver Island.
posted by Kattullus at 3:19 PM on September 30, 2007

The last time I linked to these here, I was accused of "carrying water for the neocons." Yeah, whatever.

Someone get him a band-aid.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:20 PM on September 30, 2007

Excellent and important idea! Thanks for your post paul_smatatoes.

I'm so glad somebody has articulated this and taken action to improve the clout of the anti-war protesting and make protesting something most people can see themselves doing, without putting on some histrionic outfit, which, for the most part, trivializes the significance of speaking out against war.

When I was a kid protesting the Vietnam War, I remember very few people dressed up in costumes. The great majority of people were sober, respectful and there wasn't a circus atmosphere at all. If somebody did on occasion dress up in a costume it was specifically to make a political point. In those days not dressing in a suit was a kind of political statement for educated white folk. Whereas wearing a suit for black Amercicans was another kind of political statement.

These days Westerners take for granted wearing all kinds of clothing, which up to the 60's were considered taboo for one reason or another. So I don't think wearing wild clothing to an anti-war protest is of any constructive significance.

The police, onlookers on TV, will, I think, definitely respond differently to people dressed in business clothes. Wearing a business suit sends a specific message, that the people who make money, adult taxpayers dressed in the clothing of making their living, do not want war.

Seconding the opinions of MNDZ and schroedinger.
posted by nickyskye at 3:21 PM on September 30, 2007

Protesting SO doesn't work.

Orange Revolution.
posted by rtha at 3:41 PM on September 30, 2007

Okay, to be serious. I once took part in organizing a sit-in at the Icelandic Ministry in support of a teachers' strike. It was me and the youth division of a communist organization. I had to fight the whole time go keep things on message. Not everyone, but a sizable number of the young communists wanted to use the opportunity to agitate for a general strike. That's right, a general strike. After a lengthy debate I finally managed to convince everyone else to stay on message. And things went pretty well, we got into all the major newspapers and tv newshours and managed to counter the governing political parties' spin that the students didn't support their teachers.

However, we didn't have to deal with American media. The Serious Change people have a lot of faith in the media. I think that if there's a million people wearing suits and ties, and ten people wearing clown suits, the media's gonna take pictures of the guys in the clown suits.
posted by Kattullus at 3:42 PM on September 30, 2007

Eh, that's bullshit. Any attempt to adopt conservative tropes will do nothing but strengthen the status quo. Any submission to the ruling class, no matter how trivial, invalidates the entire movement and brings the conflict back into the tit-for-tat domain of politics. Only those revolutionary movements that have adopted extra-political principles and aimed at the complete elimination of the ruling class have ever achieved real, lasting change.

(And using the Civil Rights as an example of a successful movement? Yes because modern American blacks have come so far, all the way from the gutters of de jure segregation to the gutters of de facto segregation.)

The absolute worst thing the liberal movement could do would be to give in to propagandistic notions of 'seriousness'. There is simply nothing more effective at keeping the bees in the line than this threat of being branded as 'not serious' in the face of 'matters of life and death.'. This is conservatism's nuclear gesture, the revealing of the true mask of reality before which any and all serious criticism and change is simply impossible. If you want to see the effect of adopting such an understanding then you need look no further than the modern Democratic party which has been completely and hopelessly neutralized by the mere threat of being branded 'unserious.'

The only problem with the liberal protest movement is that it fails to mount a comprehensive, sustained, violent critique of the center. The 'thousand little causes' of the left are just meaningless noise compared to the right's remarkable, decades-long campaign involving everything from bombing abortion clinics to taking over the GOP's state operations. Such a campaign requires a clear understanding of an enemy and it's here where the conservatives really shine and the liberals lose. While the right has no shortage of bogeyman to unite against the left consistently refuses to engage anything or anyone. It operates on the naieve belief that is can do politics without scraping its knuckle
posted by nixerman at 3:44 PM on September 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

Ok. I agree with the thrust of this post and the sentiment of many in this thread. And I would never wear such a shirt because it speaks of a certainty I don't think is warranted or reasonable, but the Mumia situation is a little more complex than "fuck Mumia". Although I understand the sentiment.
posted by psmith at 3:50 PM on September 30, 2007

Protest of 100,000 people in Japan this week who wanted the truth to be known, not edited.
posted by nickyskye at 3:52 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

paul_smatatoes: That's b/c that quote is misquoted so very often. Basically, Audre Lorde was saying "Hey, straight, white, middle class feminists, you know how you are all 'straight, white, middle class women are people too?' And then you turn around and exclude poor women, lesbians, & women of color? Dude, that's not cool. Differences between women should be celebrated and embraced not just tolerated or denigrated as is done in mainstream society."

Most of her speech is here. Here is the relevant part:
As women, we have been taught to either ignore our differences or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change. Without community, there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor that pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist.

Those of us who stand outside the circle of this society’s definition of acceptable women; those of us who are poor, who are lesbians, who are black, who are older, know that survival is not an academic skill. It is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those other identified as outside the structures, in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support.

posted by nooneyouknow at 3:52 PM on September 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

metafilter: give in to propagandistic notions of 'seriousness'
posted by paul_smatatoes at 3:55 PM on September 30, 2007

just pointlessly writing a comment in support of RedEmma because "+1 favorite" doesn't seem to say it strongly enough.

I gave up believing in protests after the london marches. A HUGE proportion of the entire population - around one person in every 60 in the country - travelled there to march. In polls 80% of the population were opposed to the war. There were probably more than a million marchers in London, millions more in other cities around the world, most of them not wearing normal clothes and marching quite solemnly (in London, at least, there were so many people there wasn't room to do much else).

As RedEmma said, all it did was fill the marchers with an illusory sense of their power and the warmth of solidarity. It did nothing to stop the march to war which rumbled on, barely pausing. The most lasting effect of the marches has been a collapse of faith in political processes, despair and apathy.

Blaming the failure on silly hats is just avoiding the obvious fact that protesting like that just doesn't work anymore (In the west, at least). Protest marches started to become effective with the rise of the mass media, and worked while those in power were still naive about how to use the media. not anymore.
posted by silence at 4:00 PM on September 30, 2007 [5 favorites]

Here's what I think the issue is:

I don't WANT a revolution. I don't WANT 'change'. Bush and the neo-cons WERE the revolution, the invasion of Iraq WAS the change. I would just like a return to sanity.

There's no possible way those crazy fucking lefties and anarchists are going to get us anything approaching sanity. Sanity doesn't come from some guy walking on stilts and giant puppet heads.
posted by empath at 4:02 PM on September 30, 2007 [7 favorites]

Protesting SO doesn't work.

Orange Revolution.

An excellent example, rtha - not sure it it's in the way you meant it, though. Look at this image from Kiev, notice how the willingness to adopt a single colour and the singular message of the protests creates not just a spirit but an image of real solidarity. For the many reasons being enumerated here - from stilt walkers to Free Mumia banners - that image (and I'd argue to some extent that feeling) of true solidarity is absent from contemporary antiwar protests.

Think of the symbolic power of even just a general agreement on colour. White, say, for peace. Buy a bunch of used t-shirts by the pound from Goodwill, hand them out at the front of the march.

Could be doubly effective. Because beyond solidarity, the only lasting power of the modern political protest seems to be at the level of the image and soundbite, which is why cohesion and clarity are so important. A sea of white - no way to guarantee how it'll look on CNN, but that's way more likely to resonate in ten seconds or less than some showboating jackass wearing a ten-foot-high puppet head.
posted by gompa at 4:04 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

And, by the way, if you want a protest to really work, you need to be able to disrupt the economic system. In the US that would take protests of almost unimaginable scale. The major religious groups and labor unions would need to organize it. There would need to be a general strike. Factories and government buildings would need to be occupied.

I'm not even sure a nuclear first-strike by us against Iran would cause that to happen. MAYBE if elections were suspended.
posted by empath at 4:06 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

paul_smatatoes' point that "the country doesn't look like the protests that have taken place, which leads to lots of people feeling [...] open opposition is a "fringe" position" is worth repeating. Open opposition should be something that everyone can feel a part of, else freedom of speech and of assembly are meaningless.

Building a successful campaign should be about creating accessibility and lowering barriers to mass participation. Unlike some people here, I do believe that direct action can be a useful tactic, but that it's useless unless it takes place in the context of a strong participatory protest movement. I think that's what far-left groups don't get (or want to encourage, because it implies a loss of control).

on preview: silence - the London stop the war march should have been the start of something extraordinary. The failure of the Stop the War Coalition to build on that event (and their subsequent horrific infighting) borders on the criminal.
posted by patricio at 4:07 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

nooneyouknow, it makes more sense that way- it's just it's not the first time that talking about dressing like the subject at hand matters has gotten me that response, as if the mere existence of that quote refutes treating dire matters with seriousness. "wear a suit? why not carry a whip and wear a solid gold miter!"
posted by paul_smatatoes at 4:07 PM on September 30, 2007

The mention of the Orange Revolution is oddly salient, since Ukraine is having another election -- today. Seems like a ongoing stuggle there.

One could compare those protests and their effects to the "people power" movement that toppled the Marcos' in the Philippines (successful) or Tienanmen Square in China (not). Whether there is a valid comparison to Western street protests regarding the war is another question, and one that I can't answer.

Anyhow, put me down in the "doubtful" camp on the effectiveness of most protests in the US. Singleness of mind and purpose, moral authority, good media, and lots of luck come into play for these things to achieve their stated aims.
posted by Robert Angelo at 4:14 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

For some reason I thought of this fantastic rant from the Peep Show sitcom in the UK when reading this.

In the UK it is now a rite of passage to go on a protest. You go to T-in-the-Park or Glastonbury (tick the box), you spend your gap year 'helping the natives' build an unwanted latrine (tick the box), you buy an ironic t-shirt from Urban Outfitters so you look like a mid 80s truckdriver from Arkansas (tick the box). You are now a rounded person who will be able to bore people in years to come with your xerox tales of rebellion. The result of all of this is that protesting becomes commodified where people are more bothered about what they wear than why they are going and what they want to achieve.

I think the situation in Iraq is truly horrible and when I see some news report from a shitty hospital where a wee baby is lying with no legs because some fucker (on whatever side) has blown them to bits, I feel terrible and totally helpless. No amount of wankers wearing tutus juggling their egotistical way through Hyde Park is going to change that though.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 4:15 PM on September 30, 2007

Protesting SO doesn't work. If ever you were given that impression, it was coincidental.

Not all protests are created equally.

Civil disobedience works if it can achieve critical mass and interrupt implementation of policy.

"A march" won't do it. Neither will one hundred marches. But a march to occupy the Mall in DC for six months would indeed impact public policy.

Civil disobedience is the most effective form of protest. It worked in India against the British. It worked in South Africa. It has worked in France.

The nuclear freeze movements, especially in Europe were fairly effective in getting the Reagan administration to approach arms limitation talks. At the time they appeared dismissive. But it truly did worry them. So eventually they used the movement to head off Gorbachev from using it.

Protests against fur. Against sweatshop labor and child labor. Against animal cruelty sure as shit HAVE worked. Many of these industries have changed radically in the last twenty years.

For example. A small example. Last week at a dinner I sat twenty feet from Martha Stewart. She told an anecdote about a Spy magazine article the satirically implied she killed animals or something. it launched a series of misguided PETA protests. Now she has always sympathized with animals causes, but this really struck a nerve with her AND her stock holders... who came asking "so what about you and running over kittens in your Bentley?" Immediately she implemented a HUGE and sincere inter-corporate campaign with media "empire" to be as animal friendly as possible. She disposed of her furs. She reformed an entire internal corporate culture to be animal friendly. When asked if PETA had not raised this stink would she have gone to this effort? "No. Because I already THOUGHT I had done enough. It took them to show I hadn't"

The earmarks of all the successful forms of protest/civil disobedience in history have been that the message was singular, clear, unwaivering and it appears supported by the mainstream (and also the the policy holders COULD be swayed by democratic process or international pressure).


And where the protest doest immediately work it provides a wedge for other democratic processes.

It doesn't work over night. But certainly does work.

Yes the peace pot luck didn't work. No shit. But a two or three day occupation of yout federal building? Well. It won'r do much over night. But enough "normal" people demonstrate that kind of committment and it DOES work.

It's sad that so many of you are so easily swayed by cynicism and apathy. You do indeed get the government you deserve.
posted by tkchrist at 4:36 PM on September 30, 2007 [10 favorites]

Want to know what people in suits protesting looks like? Try here.

That was in March, they were protesting again yesterday. I can't believe no-ones mentioned it in this thread yet, given the timing.
posted by Helga-woo at 4:37 PM on September 30, 2007 [3 favorites]

I think the "Serious Change" methodology is awesome, but I'd also like to point out that most demonstrations are not wild, drug-riddled, off-message raves. It should be no shock that what gets cycled through the media has largely been selected for sensationalism. Most of the crowd, most of the time, is ordinary folk.

I'm never sure what people mean when they say "protests work" or "protests don't work." What do you think they're supposed to do, exactly? Seasoned organizers understand that street demonstrations only bring attention to a particular topic from a particular point of view. Every time you get someone to think, consider, question, that's a victory.
posted by zennie at 4:56 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Even Dr. Martin Luther King said that the only reason whites listened to him was because of the shadow of a black man with a molotov cocktail standing behind him. Protests don't work because they're civil, or polite; they work because of fear that they might stop being civil and polite. A good protest should always hint that this is the last stop before lunacy.

Hey, Matt, why don't you and all your friends go to a protest dressed in uniform? You could wear nice brown ones, and I hear truncheons make for a very clear path before you.

For the many reasons being enumerated here - from stilt walkers to Free Mumia banners - that image (and I'd argue to some extent that feeling) of true solidarity is absent from contemporary antiwar protests.

Assemble one hundred thousand people wearing white shirts and khakis and the logistical support required to place them on the Mall for a month, and you can write any law you want.

What effect the protests of the sixties had was generated more or less by their novelty and totality. 1968 in particular was scary if all you wanted was the establishment life. King's assassination and the ensuing riots, university administration takeovers the world over, the very real possibility of the fall the government of at least one major Western European nation. All brought into your Republican living room by that TV you almost certainly had by now. The threat was a real one. While there was no unity of purpose, the nonconformance and noncompliance itself was a threat.

Fast-forward forty years and nonconformance is a commodity. You can buy it at the mall, and are indeed encouraged to do so. There is no threat from the left now. If you want results from protest, the threat must be made real again. Show that you, as a group, can command a unity of purpose and of action from your members and you will be taken seriously.

Actually, there's the problem. I take that back. Nine Eleven Changed Everything, remember, so assemble one hundred thousand people wearing white shirts and khakis and the logistical support required to place them on the Mall for a month, and I'll show you a prison camp in exurban Maryland built by DHS of surplus FEMA trailers.
posted by Vetinari at 5:17 PM on September 30, 2007 [7 favorites]

In the US it is now a rite of passage to go on a protest. You go to New York or Boston (check the box), you spend your abroad semester 'helping the natives' build an unwanted outhouse (check the box), you buy an ironic t-shirt from Urban Outfitters so you look like a mid 80s truckdriver from Arkansas (check the box). You are now a rounded person who will be able to bore people in years to come with your xerox tales of rebellion. The result of all of this is that protesting becomes commodified where people are more bothered about what they wear than why they are going and what they want to achieve.

I think the situation in Iraq is truly horrible and when I see some news report from a shitty hospital where a wee baby is lying with no legs because some fucker (on whatever side) has blown them to bits, I feel terrible and totally helpless. No amount of wankers wearing tutus juggling their egotistical way through Hyde Park is going to change that though.
posted by psmith at 5:19 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

(with thanks to ClanvidHorse)
posted by psmith at 5:19 PM on September 30, 2007

Also, let's not forget the problem of mixed messages. I've never seen a modern protest from the left that didn't have some jackass with a "FREE MUMIA" or "LEGALIZE IT" sign. If it's an anti-war protest, keep it on the war.

So true. The anti-war movement has a hard time staying on message, and instead prefers to throw everything but the kitchen sink into their rallies...At every anti-war rally there are placards that also exhort the powers that be to end the genocide in Darfur, wipe Israel off the map, stop harassing poor old Hugo Chavez, use natural deodorant, and eat tempe rather than beef, and use hemp napkins to wipe your mouth afterwards. All these messages compete with a more important message: end the war and bring the troops home.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:31 PM on September 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I attended and helped organize some of the largest war protests in the in the country during the lead up to the War with Iraq. I stopped, in part, because I couldn't stand working with the Bolsheviks over at ANSWER Coalition. But mainly I stopped because I realized that my work wasn't affecting change. The largest protest in the history of the world took place in London before the start of Iraq War. It changed nothing. I was no political novice back then. I understood that change is incremental, but I couldn't help but realize that my actions were having no effect on policy, whatsoever. So I stopped.

I didn't stop being an activist.
And I didn't stop protesting.

Protests CAN make a difference. It just depends on how you protest. I'm amazed that 90 or so comments into this, no one has mentioned any of the Immigrant's Rights Rallies. I had the distinct pleasure of helping to organize the one in Washington D.C. (2006) that attracted over 500,000 peaceful demonstrators. There were few, if any, puppets. and thankfully ANSWER played only a marginal role.

Going along with the recommendation of a theme, was that American flags were EVERYWHERE! The young men and women wore white t-shirts and we all made sure that everyone had a flag. Sure, some also had flags of their own nation, but that's a good thing. We, the organizers, heard people's anger about demonstrators displaying only their homeland's flag at the previous protest in L.A. We saw that orange-headed Lou Dobbs was throwing a tantrum about something silly. That tantrum blocked any discussion on the issues, so we responded. Did we think the ranting and raving over El Salvadoran & Mexican flags was silly? Sure. But we knew that no one wouldn't hear our message unless we overcame that block and gave them their silly visual representation of our commitment to the good ol'U.S. of A. And everyone was ok with that.

That day, Americans and especially Congress saw half a million men women and children marching peacefully for their chase to live the American dream. Workers took the day off to show their impact on the economy. Businesses closed in solidarity with their immigrant brothers and sisters and because they had no labor. Whole families came. It was a beautiful thing to see.

On the cover of every major paper in the country the next day, there were pictures of half-a-million brown people on the National Mall wrapped in American flags peacefully demanding their rights. And Congress listened. Comprehensive immigration reform finally became a real policy goal. Democrats realized the power of the Latino vote and the GOP marginalized themselves for a generation by advocating unattainable nativist policies.

Those protests made a difference. Too the point of the poster, we didn't wear suits. Have you tried marching in summer for miles while chanting and waving signs in a suit? It's a recipe for exhaustion. Of course, we didn't wear stilts either. I guess my point is that this doesn't have to be a dichotomy. There's a happy medium between wearing a suit and not wearing clothes at all.

Also, for the record, that Reddit protest got over 800 votes. Probably thousands if you count the repeat postings. Nothing ever happened. Not one city. Not one person. Nothing...
posted by willie11 at 5:35 PM on September 30, 2007 [14 favorites]

that Reddit protest got over 800 votes. Probably thousands if you count the repeat postings. Nothing ever happened.

"Typing in ALL CAPS is not a viable form of protest"
-T-shirt I never got around to making
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:40 PM on September 30, 2007

So the strategy is further sanitization? Ensure even less visiblity for things which make average Americans uncomfortable? This is going to help?

Protests, in Sunday best or not, rarely do a damn thing. They're called demonstrations, but rarely anymore are they ever demonstrating anything other than a desire to assuage guilt or get on TV. That's because there's so little to demonstrate these days - viable movements, real communities, strong visions, a body of political work.

Every once in a long while, though, they do make a difference. I honestly think history will show the Seattle protests against the WTO in 1999 to have been a watershed moment in the West.

Amidst the coverage of those days - which were hardly focused on one single issue, as some here are suggesting is the solution - a lot of people woke the hell up in a serious way and started paying attention. While many of them probably became the clowns being decried here, a sizeable minority have gone on to do real, meaningful work in their communities. Chances are you know at least one, or know someone who does, and chances are they've changed your life for the better, even if in a small way.

The reason those protests happened, and the reason there were so many otherwise neutral or undecided people receptive to the message, was years of work behind the scenes, both inside and outside of official channels, on everything from global trade policy to concrete community issues.

That's what's needed now. When that work comes to a head, the fashion sense of those protesting won't matter. Until we start priveleging that work again, it's protests that don't matter. This discussion is cute, but it's the wrong one.
posted by regicide is good for you at 5:45 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

They threaten continued drug use and promiscuity by worthless hippie scum.

Not quite as scary.

Not to go by what the conservatives fear most, I reckon.
posted by davejay at 5:56 PM on September 30, 2007

On the cover of every major paper in the country the next day, there were pictures of half-a-million brown people on the National Mall wrapped in American flags peacefully demanding their rights. And Congress listened.

but nothing got DONE

and that's the problem - name the issue or the controversy and odds are you'll find out that congress hasn't done a damn thing

i was impressed with the immigration demonstrations

i am utterly underwhelmed with congress' response to that or anything else
posted by pyramid termite at 6:02 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think significant progress was made. Comprehensive Immigration Reform was defeated only by a razor thin margin and i think it would have passed has it not been a hot-button political issue for the right-wing. Our protests brought the subject to the forefront of American political discourse, showed that immigrants had power and numbers and moved our Congress to come as close as they ever have to passing real immigration reform legislation.

Yes, the McCain-Kennedy bill failed. But its next incarnation will pass.

The life of legislation as seen by me: Legislation fails, fails some more, goes back to committee, fails again, finds some new sponsors, gets promoted by some expensive lobbyists, and then fails again! Eventually, it passes after riders giving the appropriation committee's son-in-law a fat federal contract for garbage collection and naming a few bridges after Congressmen are included.

Our demonstrations shifted public opinion and scared the shit out of Congress. They now recognize the significance of the immigrant community in this country and that's bigger than passing any legislation. As I said earlier, comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation will pass eventually, I guarantee it. And when it does, it will be due in large part to the efforts of its advocates and the millions of immigrants who took to the streets and protested.
posted by willie11 at 6:38 PM on September 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

You people who smugly sit back and call the non-protestors traitors and lazy for not marching--what are you doing besides marching? Running for city council? Perhaps organizing a neighborhood watchgroup? Maybe running a tutoring program for local poor urban kids? No, those things aren't necessary, because you have your boombox playing the third-string punk rock bands with the two-chord anti-Bush songs and you are out marching and making a REAL difference.

QFMFT.
posted by The Straightener at 6:57 PM on September 30, 2007

Thank you willie11 for your comments and for the work you've been doing.

As for the protest of lawyers in Pakistan, and the "Want to know what people in suits protesting looks like? Try here" comment, I bet that protest will effect change.

The fact that lawyers turned out to protest Musharraf re-electing himself would most definitely mean something in a very conservative country like Pakistan. The lawyers followed their protest with a boycott too.

In NYC I've always got a kick out of the use of the pro-union rat used to demonstrate bad employment issues.
posted by nickyskye at 7:13 PM on September 30, 2007

Ugh. Sure the stilt brigade can be annoying. But what about all the issues-hangers-on? Last anti-war rally I was at, there were the wage-freeze people, the transit fare hike people, and a fair number of people protesting lord knows what but certainly nothing to do with the war.

This seems to me profoundly disprespectful. I mean, at least the clowns (the ones in makeup I mean) are out there for the same cause; they just differ in their ideas about tactics. These other people think it's all just an opportunity to air MY GRIEVANCES and to hell with anyone else.

On preview, I see some others have made this complaint. I'm sorry. I needed to get that out of my system.
posted by dreamsign at 7:16 PM on September 30, 2007