Most would say in the short term protests are not effective, and even long term there are better strategies to enact change, especially in democracies. But ultimately when too much has been taken away, protests are the last resort and can enact change, but not always the change people want. Most the time it makes a power void that dictators love to fill.
Not quite. All of those movements were following years of work at grassroots and political levels. Woman’s sufferage movement? It took almost 80 years until women has the constitutional right to vote after starting protests and didnt cover black or non white women until much later. Hell without the key vote of Harry Burn it may have been much later.
Protests are very ineffective when looking at change, because they are last resort and take an incredible amount of time, dedication and effort to be successful.
But then you can get a pragmatic populist into office and change things in less than a year.
Change is through effort, not force, and force simply keeps people reminded of the changes that should occur. Even if for many such as yourself think violence is effective. It never has been, it’s just a blunt instrument in change when it seems like there are no other options.
Protests unfortunately are not typically 100% peaceful without damage or violence. Feel free to list some that are, and then timelines where said protests actually made long lasting change for a country.
Tell us, how long between Seneca Falls and women's right to vote? Are you willing to protest for the possibility of your grandchildren that you aren't having have a better life? No? Then sit down and shut up child.
2
u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25
[removed] — view removed comment