I thoroughly enjoyed the Poverty group’s presentation and simulation. It really did a compelling job of portraying the message of the reading in a practical setting and forcing us to examine how various factors – some of which we likely hadn’t previously considered, like geography – effect the level of poverty in various nations. I’m still a little pissed off about Yousef the Berber’s tragic death. The Sultanate of Marzuq has been in a constant state of mourning.
Anyways, I’d like to pose a question to you all:
What, in your opinion, are the effects of a protest?
My answer to the above question would be that, politically, the only effect of a protest is making legislators aware of the will of their constituents.
I ask this both inside of and outside of the context of the Proposition 8 protests in D.C. on Saturday. In regards to the Proposition 8 protests, I did not attend, for two reasons:
1. I had work. (I have since quit, coincidentally, so no more free pizzas for all y’all. Sorry!)
2. I don’t see the point.
Being a homosexual myself, I obviously am tremendously in support of gay marriage. But I just don’t really see the point of this specific protest, the one in D.C. As I stated above, I believe that the main point of a protest is to express to legislators the will of their constituents. But Proposition 8 is neither a D.C. issue nor, currently, a national one – it is a California issue. Protests in Los Angeles serve to inform the state legislators from that area that they will not be re-elected if they don’t vote how LAers want them too. But protesting a California area issue in D.C.? Pointless.
The reason this bugs me is that it is wasted positive energy. The tremendous amount of energy expressed on Saturday could have been directed towards, say, fundraising efforts for Californian pro-gay marriage groups. But it wasn’t.
So, where’s the flaw in my argument? Is it that there are more effects of protests than I believe? Is it that the protest does, in fact, make direct change? I invite all comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, mnadler, you should look at our comments on Michele's post from last week to find the answers to your questions. However, I will generalize my point here as well.
For me, the protest was to show my support for gay marriage, and to let legislatures here know that similar legislation here is not acceptable. People protested all over the nation to let their legislatures in their respective places know that a proposition like Prop 8 is not acceptable to them. I also hoped that it would show legislatures that there is a larger public support of gay marriage in order for them to be less afraid of losing elections if they come out and support it as well.
Is this protest going to repeal Prop 8? Was this protest even about Prop 8? Not really. California's passing of prop 8 just served as a symbol in the protests. It was, to a certain extent, expected that California would vote no. That it didn't, that a state known for being welcoming to the LGBT community said yes to banning gay marriage, is just a reaffirmation that the LGBT community is still treated like they are second-class citizens. If California didn't shoot down the prop, then what states will? That is a cause of outcry for everyone, across the nation.
And I think you assume that legislation has to be changed in order for a protest to have a point. It doesn't. You, who defined wealth as having friends and family who love you, should understand that a protest can show to people who have been persecuted directly and indirectly that they aren't alone. People, beyond race, sexuality, age and gender, care about them.
Post a Comment