Last edited Fri May 19, 2017, 08:01 AM - Edit history (1)
And those that were effective shared two things in common:
1. A clear goal or desired outcome. In the 1960's, civil rights protesters specifically wanted Jim Crow laws overturned and segregated facilities integrated.
2. Those inconvenienced by the blockages were mostly the people most likely to be opposed to the marchers. They would either change their minds or not, but few additional enemies were generated.
This is why I think road blockages related to Black Lives Matter and the Trump election were not such a good idea. There's no clear goal - for example, BLM wants to make people aware of violence against African Americans, but there are no specific legislative goals in mind. What, exactly, were the blockages supposed to accomplish that other forms of protest could not? The blockages also inconvenienced a lot of people sympathetic to their cause; had I missed a flight because the exit ramp to the airport was blocked, I would probably lose sympathy for those blocking the exit. In that sense, they were absolutely counterproductive.
The interstate near my home was blocked by protesters following the November election. Local coverage focused on a couple of families who were trying to visit relatives in the ICU at a local hospital; they were upset at the results of the election, but they were just as upset at the people who prevented them from getting to the hospital when their loved ones might have been about to die. In terms of the message sent, the blockage backfired very badly.
Added on edit - I am not, in any way, in favor of laws allowing drivers to run over protesters. I'm merely pointing out that not all forms of protest are effective in all cases.
= new reply since forum marked as read