Throughout history, protests are a staple of liberal politics. Protest, however, never had a peaceful start, beginning from early Roman times, there has been political outrage. Or something I would class as a ‘social revolution’, assassinations, however, ignoring the gruesome political murder we must head further into time, the French revolution and the American revolution, these are no less violent. As the name suggests these ‘protests’ are rapid and violent upheaval of the political system to the point of change in the ruling parties or monarchy. Fast forward to the 20th century we have suffragettes, Black rights movement, SOS (save our sons), Mexico 68, stonewall riots, Tiananmen square protest, Anti-globalization Protests, Thai political protest, Hong Kong extradition protest and the list goes on. There seems to be a sudden spike in protest but that doesn't answer my question, it just proves that protest have increased in number over the years. Now we should split the arguments, are non-violent protest still alive, or are they running out of steam?
Non-violent protests are a commonality in the 20th and 21th century, adamant in the growing list of non-violent protest in these selected centuries, however it would be misleading of me (as a scientist(self-proclaimed)) to avidly say that when non-violent protest occur it is all their work. This is, I admit, going to end up as a biased piece. But I want to state my opinion and I'm open to hear yours. Back to the piece. Non-violent protest was effective, the black right movement was heavily dominated by peaceful marches and speeches that riveted the nations, Tiananmen square protest was a symbol to the government in China that people aren’t happy with a lower level of treatment when compared to rest of the world, it was in fact a stand in solitude for brothers and sisters who were lost because they wanted basic rights. Many political protests outlines that non-violent methods are critically influential in politics. It simple cannot be denied. Non-violent protest holds a place in society that, in the see able future, can’t be removed. In fact, they might hold more relevance overall in society than violent protest.
Despite this, it doesn’t answer the question that has been set out to be answered. What I want to approach is that non-violent protest has loss their effectiveness and it is not because they are used in the wrong manner, far from it, it’s that, overall technology has outstripped the human voice rendering it partial useless. You would never think about it, but we have been ‘silenced’, it is the best way to put it, yes, protest change things these days it’s just losing efficacy. They are not working. And that is the problem. You can say that extinction rebellion caused the ‘climate emergencies’, in spite of that it has done as much work as broken horse. I know we won't be able to see eye to eye, but I promise there is a method to my madness it just covered up with my consistent waffling.
I can’t propose a solution, I can point out ideas but I’m not going to do that either. However, I will state my radicalistic ideology to you. Cyber-protest, (ok it is anything with cyber tacked on front but. Who cares?) we are endorsed by a wreathe of technology that is inseparable from modern days life, and the constant exposure from the media drowns out the calls from current protest asking for change. If we could handle it in a way that blocks the effect of protest why not use it to help our protest. Hacking is a recent idea that has bloomed from the introduction of networking and internet. And I've discovered, unless used for black hat hacking, its white hat uses are very rare in the media. White hat hacking possesses so many ethical difficulties that it’s not right to bring it up. But it is the answer to my radical solution. We fail to grow when new tech arises, and we fail to compete against media and governmental power. It is true. We just need to learn how to use it.