Is gathering, marching, chanting and waving cardboard signs still an effective form of activism?

[CAustin]

Inspired in light of the abortion protest in Washington today.

We're in an era where most people get their political news through social networking (when they don't get it through pundits and bloggers calibrated to their pre-existing political views). Modern politicians no longer look out their windows or check their mailboxes to get a feel for public sentiment; they check the same readily available public opinion polls we do, and keep pulses on Twitter and Facebook for trends not yet visible in polls.

In the past four years, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and Moldova all held successful political protests via sites like Facebook and Twitter when oppressive governments successfully prevented physical gatherings. The Irani and Egyptian protests, in particular, used proxy technology instrumental in online Chinese resistance orchestrated a decade earlier.

Yet, many people seem still convinced that "activism" is something you do with a parade route, a chanted slogan and a lot of cardboard. Is this just imitation of historical activism, with the out-of-context hope that what worked in the past is still effective today? Or is there some reason a message is more effective when chanted from a public square than when spread virally from an established acquaintance or friend?

[?]

No I never pay attention to those losers.

[buccibeaver]

I don't think it was ever effective. Whatever changes are made were going to be made anyway...the marching only brought attention to it.

[Lois L]

Protesting is a lot more peaceful than war.

[Thomas]

I still think public demonstrations can make a powerful statement, as long as there are enough people that bother to show up to them. For example, the recent media attention in India(the tragic gang rape(s), probably wouldn't have made such an impact without people protesting in Delhi. However, it doesn't seem to be doing them any good, but at least India's archaic and corrupt government is getting the embarrassment they deserve on an international level.

Social media is very effective, but it can't always be totally relied on.

[anon]

That form or protest is a display of sheer numbers, it lets people in power know that, "This is how many of us your acting against" Within the group itself it becomes selfsupporting, When people get hyped, others get hyped, fueling its own fire.

Also something to note, within our democracy that sort of activism gets votes, It gets government to take action, It causes substantial change in how business is willing to run.

[SmilingSwami953]

Yes.

Marching and protesting draws attention to an issue.
Governments are well aware that if they ignore protests for too long, they become violent. It helps them and the rest of society understand the severity of the issue.

[Beer]

Sure...though, we all do it for different reasons.
http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/201...meland.jpg

[pow]

Interesting question Austin ...

I would say yes it is.

You need both today. One does not replace the other. They complement each other. If you feel strongly about a cause, I would say that you do need to get off Yahoo or other discussion forums or social networking sites, and go out and meet flesh and blood human beings, and deal with the issue in your community.

This digital stuff has its place. Right now we are talking regardless of barriers. You and I might oppose something. But politicians can not SEE the human impact, that they can if they see our faces in a picture, as we address the issue.

Good question ... I think we need both.

[Incubus]

Very well said.

But I do think some traditional, in-person activism can help. I took part in the Occupy Wall Street protests when they first started up, and one thing I was amazed by was how little the mainstream media was willing to report on what was actually going on. Another surprising thing was that there were many people from across the country who were fascinated with this movement and knew the media wasn't giving them the correct information about it and wanted to know for themselves (this was before the Occupy Movement spread to other states). I was surprised at how swiftly people would follow me just from posting my own experiences as comments on sites like Huffington Post, because I wanted to make sure the truth got out. I didn't get thousands of followers or anything, because I only posted a few comments and I wasn't a HUGE part of the movement. But there was a clear swiftness to people's adding me after reading my comments, and a clear desire to learn more information that wasn't being reported. I think one thing that helped was that the information I was giving them was that we were getting support from people all over the country, which was true. The media was still trying to portray it like nobody was listening to us back then.

One protest in particular that I remember was so crowded, it looked like Woodstock. If you were there, you just would not be able to believe the numbers of people who showed up, because it was completely inconsistent with what the media was reporting. What I was able to see was the huge plaza I was in, and everywhere you looked, there were people everywhere, it looked like you were at a Sting concert almost, from all the people. I later saw satellite images showing the crowds stretching for miles, with the caption "This is the movement that the media claims no one is paying attention to."

Now, yes, these movements were organized on Facebook and Twitter. But the point I'm making is that just having those pictures of all the people showed up went a long way, in my opinion. It says a lot to know that this many people support the movement. And the place we were protesting in was right outside City Hall. The politicians might have been able to ignore us for that one day, but I really do think they would have had a hard time ignoring us if the movement had been there doing that every day. So yes, I do think that actually showing up for a protest makes a big difference. One problem is probably that many people equate civil disobedience with following the law. That isn't the case. Civil disobedience means you protest peacefully, but it doesn't mean that you register a permit first and protest where the city says you can protest. Civil disobedience is very much about holding your protest exactly where the government doesn't want you to hold it, and that's something the Occupy Movement was very good about in its early days.