Activism Over the Years – Have We Lost The Art of Protest?

[Just Ash]

By Frederick C. Millett

Non-violent activism – the practice of non-violence to emphasize direct vigorous action

in opposition to or support of a controversial issue – has been around now for over 150 years,

ever since Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience.” Not until the last 30-40 years, though, has activism

become an integral part in our everyday lives, changing the course of history and creating

protesters and activists out of ordinary American citizens. In the 1960s and ‘70s, non-violent

activism was reborn, from Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement in the South to

the protests of the Vietnam War all across the country. It is quite obvious that activism is an

important aspect of American history – even today. With protests and rallies over nuclear

weapons, pollution, globalization, and animal rights going on today, many people believe that

activism is stronger than ever – concerned with environmental and global issues, instead of just

the civil rights of one country. However, many Vietnam-era protesters believe that activism

peaked during the 1970s and that these newer generation protesters have no idea what true

activism is about. Obviously activism has changed over the years – with this nation’s change in

values and laws – but have we forgotten about the overall goal of non-violent activism? Have

we truly lost the art of protest?

Non-violent activism began with Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” which was written in 1849 after Thoreau was thrown in jail for protesting the state’s poll tax during the

Mexican War. Thoreau outlines five main concepts of being an activist – most of which are still

apparent today. In the first part of his paper, Thoreau questions the type of government

established in America. He says that to be an activist means to believe that a better government

is possible – one that would command the respect of everyone under its influence – and that the

effort should be made to establish one of the like (486). He also mentions that an activist is

usually thought of as an enemy to the country – a man who is able to think with his conscience

and make moral distinctions. Heroes, patriots, and martyrs usually fall under this category and

are the most notorious activists (487). Thoreau says that unjust laws exist, and that it is the

responsibility of the activist to protest and try to abolish these laws (490). He also tells all activists and abolitionists that they should not wait for a majority in their favor to act – that they

should act immediately because only one man “more right than his neighbors constitutes a

majority of one already” (491). “For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be:

what is once well done is done forever” (491). The last point Thoreau makes in “Civil

Disobedience” is an important one – what activists must do about the possibility of

imprisonment. Thoreau writes that he felt freer behind bars, for a moral offense, than he has ever

felt before. That he, more than anyone else, felt that he paid his tax and did not for any moment

feel confined. “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man

is also a prison” (492). This last point will be followed and displayed over a hundred years later

by an activist by the name of Martin Luther King.

In 1963, Martin Luther King was arrested for parading without a permit and consequently

was imprisoned in Birmingham Jail. What resulted was King’s now famous, Thoreauvian piece,

“Letter from Birmingham Jail.” In this letter written to Alabama clergymen, King explains why

“direct action” is needed in Alabama and what direct action consists of – which happens to be

very similar to the thoughts of Thoreau. King first outlines the four steps to any successful

nonviolent campaign: collection of facts to determine whether injustice exists, negotiation, self-

purification, and finally direct action (594). King makes it specific that direct action is only the

last step to be taken in extreme circumstances only. He then proceeds to ask the two significant

questions every nonviolent activist should ask himself: (1) “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” and (2) “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?” (595). Only with these two

questions answered can nonviolent direct action proceed in King’s opinion. Next, King goes into

detail on the purpose of direct action:

‘Why direct action? … Isn’t negotiation a better path?’ You are quite right in calling for

negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action

seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has

constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. (595)

So what King is saying is that the purpose of direct action is to create tension – which will

therefore create a necessity for negotiation. King also mentions the important difference

between just and unjust laws. “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? … Any

law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (597). Any unjust law is no law at all, which gives activists the right to break such laws in order

to form a better society and government. In fact, King goes on to say,

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to

accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him

is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the

conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect

for law. (598)

This statement goes along almost exactly with what Thoreau had said 100 years ago, and was

one of the key aspects of nonviolent activism during the 1960s. King ends his letter with a hope

for the future – that the new generation of activists will help defeat segregation. He mentions

that at the time of his letter, college and high school students are already demonstrating

nonviolent direct action – planning sit-ins and rallies – and are already going to jail for their own

morals – anything to defeat the unjust laws of the South.

Today, laws and beliefs have changed, but activism is still an everpresent force in

American and global culture. In fact, activism still holds many similar aspects of the ‘60s,

combining them with the new principles of today. Activism today is comprised mostly of

liberal-minded idealists in their late teens and early twenties who are children of middle-class

families – much like the 1960s. The movement is once again gaining strength on college campuses and activists are taking their protests to the streets to be heard, like so many people did

during the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam in the ‘60s and ‘70s (3). Actually, campus

activism today has tripled since the 1960s, with many more students participating in some form

of organized demonstrations or protests (1). “They are doing exactly what we were doing in the

1960s, just throw in the environment,” says David Horowitz, a ‘60s radical (3). Activism today

is very concerned with the environment and globalization – showing how activism has evolved

over the years. Activists tend to be much more idealistic and concerned with the world, instead

of just labor or civil rights in America (4). Activism today is also much more informed than

activism thirty years ago – thanks to the Internet. People today are generally more politically

astute and are not mindlessly protesting as some did years ago. They are also more aware of

where the seats of power are and are more assertive and bolder in their actions. Today, the

Internet is allowing more and more people to access information and unite globally (3). So as a

result, activism has spread to global issues that will affect everyone in the world, causing many

people to believe that activism is stronger than ever.

The similarities between Thoreau and King are very obvious, but contrast drastically to

the ideas and beliefs of activism today. Thoreau and King both explain the significance of unjust

laws and the acceptance of imprisonment to fight these laws. They both believe that unjust laws

are not laws at all and must be broken to change the nation for the better. Both also believe that

prison is the only place a just man belongs in a system of unjust laws, and that the punishment of

jail for breaking these laws is really no punishment at all. Because of these beliefs, which were

the central ideas of activism for over 100 years, many people believe that activism today has lost

its prestige and main point, because activists today don’t believe in any kind of punishment for

their actions. Traditionally, activism has been thought of as the act of breaking the law – then

accepting the punishment, which in most cases would only be minor. Activists these days are

trying to avoid even these minor punishments. Daniel Waken, writer for the New York Times,

says the following about activism today:

During the protests in 1999 at police headquarters in Manhattan over the shooting death

of Amadou Diallo, organizers arranged the arrests a day ahead. The police gave

photographers a chance before arresting the demonstrators. Vending machines provided

ice cream and chocolate bars while the arrests were processed. The quid pro quo is that

in return for police accommodation, the protesters do not resist. (6)

This new way of protest defeats the purpose of activism. “The more the law is enforced, the

better for the true civil disobedient, because that is the way you make your point,” says Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar (6). By creating scenes and getting arrested, activists can showcase

the true injustice of the law to the whole world, while making more people aware of their cause

and gaining strength. People today have lost that aspect of civil disobedience and therefore have

caused many to believe that our generation has lost the art of protest.

Have we really lost the art of protest, though, or has activism just drastically changed

over the years? Although our cause has changed into something bigger and stronger, Thoreau

and King would have to agree that we have lost the main point of activism. King repeatedly

states that direct action is worthless if it does not create tension and that only a person who

breaks a law and willingly accepts the punishment is a true activist. For these reasons, activism

today has lost its point because activists today do not agree with punishment for protest.

Thoreau believed that the true place for a just man was jail, activists today believe the opposite.

Isn’t the goal of activism much larger than just punishment, though? I believe that there is so

much more to activism than just going to jail. Activism is about getting your word out and about fighting unjust laws. How can we fight the government if everyone is behind bars? Activism

has definitely changed over the years, in many ways for the better. We are now fighting the

world and trying to make the world a better place environmentally for the future. Although

many activists these days try to avoid punishment as much as possible, activism’s goal is much

stronger than ever, and protesters are more informed than ever. The nation’s laws and practices

have changed and with that, activism has also changed – still fighting for the rights and freedom

of all and now trying to make the world a better place.

Note: I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions the writer comes to in this piece, however I find the discussion regarding the change in activism to be very interesting. I agree with King and Thoreau, but also agree with the author in that if all the activists were behind bars it would be of little use. Maybe a balance of both ideas would be best? Applying the lessons of the past, to the knowledge of the present...

References

1.) Cowen, Tricia. “Student Activists: Still a Strong Force.” Christian Science Monitor. 27

March 2001: p.17.

2.) King, Martin Luther. “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” 16 April 1963.

3.) Miller, Sara B. “Radicalism Reborn.” Christian Science Monitor. 30 August 2001: p.11.

4.) Scherer, Rob. “Today’s Protesters Take on World.” Christian Science Monitor. 12 April

2000.

5.) Thoreau, Henry David. “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.” 1849.

6.) Wakin, Daniel J. “Arrest Me Please (But Jail? No Thanks) Rediscovering the Price of

Protest.” New York Times: 3 June 2001.

References (1) and (2) from: Geissler, K. and K. Waltzer. Making Connections: Reading

American Cultures. Michigan State University. Fall 2000 – Spring 2001. McGraw Hill.

https://www.msu.edu/~millettf/Protest.pdf

[Robbie]

Yes, getting the common mean between the two. One has to be pragmatic - after all, it the system gets all the dissenters out of the way, then a movement can't progressively further its campaign.