I still agree with some aspects of my first blog. Mainly, that protests should be attention grabbing to get their issue across. I could take back that a protest can be small and still be effective. It is possible, but there are very few examples to provide as evidence for that. I can provide evidence against it, Malachi Ritscher’s protest was very small, just himself. Even though he committed suicide to prove his point, which you would think would be very attention grabbing, it really only grabbed negative attention. Some say, he could have done a lot more if he had stayed alive and watched things change. What I would also like to mention now is that a protest does not have to be simply a march or demonstration. They can be songs or art. Anything, really, that makes a point, and is trying to get an issue across, would be considered a protest. It is certainly more effective, if it is large in number, attention grabbing, and already has a lot of believers. And also, the protest doesn’t actually have to involve people, as much as just one person. It only takes one person to hold a sign, write a song, or paint something inspirational.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Your point about a protest only having to be one person is especially relevant in this day and age. Today, one person can make a YouTube video, for instance, and the next day over a million people have watched it. It's much easier today to make change by yourself than it was in days before.
I agree with what you say about how sometimes a protest can back fire and only gain negative attention if the protest is too extreme.
It's true that one person can be enough to stage a successful protest (or an unsuccessful one in Malachi Ritscher’s case). While I'm much more open minded to the multitude of protest formats that exist because of this class, I would qualify your statement that anything that makes a point or gets an issue across is a protest. For example, film or restaurant reviews argue for (or against) their topic, but are not necessarily protests.
I completely agree with you on the fact that a protest must be attention grabbing. If a protest has no impact whatsoever to society, then the protest was pointless. It's like nothing happened at all. Even when some people say "Oh, I agree with you," if nothing happens afterwards that will change what the protest is trying to change, then that protest is pointless. I guess I'm trying to say that protests should accomplish its goal or at least have a huge impact on society in order to be considered successful.
I disagree with your first thought on that protests need to be attention grabbing to get issues across. I do think that protest can be on a much smaller scale, for instance, an interpersonal one. For instance, if I had a tattoo that was protesting gun violence, I still feel that it would get attention, even if it was an approach that wasn't "attention grabbing"
Post a Comment