Over the history of our nation, protesting has been used as a form of persuasion for laws or ideas that were met with resistance by it’s participants.  As the years have passed these protests have taken shape in many different ways.  For a long time the only type of protest there was or that would be seen as effective were those that involved violence or upheaval. Peaceful protesting simply would not catch the attention of those in charge of changing the law or policies.  In modern times protests have been proven to be just as useful without the need of violence or any kind of damage of property.  Responsiveness to nonviolent protests has increased with progress in technology and a much larger percentage of educated citizens.  People are more inclined to listen to an argument presented with reason rather than a person who is making demands, without any regards to the ripple effect those demands may create possibly bridging the gap on their own problems but widening it for others’.  Through analyzation of past protests it can be seen that the only real, effective means of protesting come through those of nonviolence which propose a solution to a problem that a majority benefits from.  It utilizes a more thoughtful approach. Using this method of analyzation we will be able to demonstrate why protests regarding Trump’s presidency were either successful or unsuccessful.  We will see why protests involving reason are becoming more effective while violent riotous protests are dying out ending with negative results.  It is the difference between a child throwing a tantrum and someone who speaks with maturity and wisdom.  One will yield positive results while the other will just be looked at as irrelevant.  

Black clad activists made a point to protest in a violent manner the inauguration of Donald Trump as president of the United States.  217 of these participants were arrested over a short period of the afternoon. (Lawler, David.) As if they could have believed things would have been any different.  This protest was ineffective from the start because the thing being protested had already become moot.  Donald Trump was going to be elected on the day of his inauguration regardless of any kind of feelings of disdain.  In order for this protest to have been successful, the protesters would have been all the more wise to have put all their efforts into protesting the president while it was still uncertain of his induction.  If there was ever a time for a protest of this manner to be successful the time to strike would have been during the campaigning process.  This period heavily relies on the success of nominees to create or project a positive reputation and be in good stance with public opinion.  During this time peoples decisions on who to vote for is not fixed and can be swayed by or pushed toward a certain direction if the impact brought on by a protest group is big enough.  Perhaps the real motive by these black clad activists was only a desperate cry to hear their futile wishes heard. Whatever the motive there was never a chance that anything positive and more importantly, realistic that could have come from a decision to act at such a moot time.  Protests that are to be effective must be executed at the time when the issue at hand is at it’s peak of controversy, as this is the time most people will be listening for a reason to make a decision regarding who or what issues they are going to support or where they stand.  This protest fails because it occurred after the fact. In other words, timing is impeccable.

The Boston Tea party is an example of an effective, violent, and destructive protest.  This excursion was well thought out strategical and created attention towards the issue at hand.  It was carried out during a time when controversy was at a high point over release from British influence or control. (Bingham, Clara 97).  Also, the feelings of many citizens were in line with each other so having a majority backing made it easier to acquire sympathizers thus growing the movement making some sort of resolve or answer from the government more inevitable.  This protest was successful because it was a stepping stone for its cause that instilled confidence in the people that they no longer wanted to be represented by a parliament and for many became the deciding factor that they would meet that parliament with resistance.  It is good for a protest when the outcomes can effect all people, and in this case more so a success because a majority of those people felt they were being treated unfairly which is cause to provoke them to fight for what they believe is right.  The result of this protest prompted the beginnings of the American Revolution.  At this time some people were unsure if they actually wanted to go through with the troubles that would be necessary to separate from the ruling of British influence.  It started as a single act during a protest that became the foundation for the events that would ultimately establish America as a singular unit governed by itself.  It wedged a gap between the idea of the colonists looking at themselves as a people who would operate under the guidelines of Great Britain and viewing themselves as there own independent nation that could provide for itself without protection by England. (Bingham, Clara 101) The reason that this protest is an effective one is because it grabbed the attention of its adherents and united them under the single idea that the colonies would be better off on their own rather than as a constituent of a father or big brother country.  The majority backing of the protesters intentions by other citizens made way for the opportunity of unification which resulted in a war that won independence for America as a whole, who’s independence was the driving force and motive of the protest movement.  Again the era this happened in is also relevant.  This was a violent protest which happened in the earliest period of America’s history.  Violent protests in America generally were proven to be more successful when they were committed in these earlier times. The same violent strategies are still used today but to no avail, they lead to property damage and injury of the innocent.  In response to Trump’s victory many protesters hit the streets only to leave police officers injured and public damage and in some cases arsen. (7, ABC.)   In most modern cases these tactics would most likely be resolved with a lawsuit or otherwise frowned upon as an act of terror.

Lets fast forward to an earlier period in the history of American protests.  With the civil rights movement came a very successful protest that not only united an entire group of people and unfolded at a relevant time, but demonstrated that peaceful protests could prove to get peoples attention in a stronger way than those that exercised violence and property damage.  200,000 people showed up to join hands in a march from the Washington Monument, to the Lincoln Memorial.  They were there to protest inequality.  The huge rally of people all coming together to stand for their rights as equals was headed by Dr. Martin Luther King.  His peaceful plea of a speech influenced the minds of so many that it eventually led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This caused an uproar amongst college students as well, most of the youth supported the movement and loudly spoke out in it’s favor, showing change at a generational level. (Interfaces, Innovative.)  This was a landmark victory for racial equality, which began as scattered bunches of people that all felt the same way towards it and became successful once those people were unified and stood together as one. (Raqib, Jamila.) It incorporated no violence and made a point that we can live together peacefully.  It was successful due to its large numbers of participant’s, its appeal to a majority, the time it was executed,  and more importantly as an act of peace.  This protest humanized people effected by segregation and made them seen as they actually are, as no different than any other person with a body and mind.  Martin Luther King’s efforts inspired many other African Americans to stand up for themselves.  One of these incidents occurred in Charleston where hospital workers there went on strike over unfair working conditions.  They stood united in non-violence together and were compensated in the end because of the traction they created.  Working class African Americans were inspired across the nation.  (POINT, TU NE TUERAS.)  The aspect of peace is crucial here because it accented the humanity of African Americans.  Segregation was largely driven by a mass misconception, almost to the point of delusion, that African Americans were less than a person.  Being seen in this light that was emitted by this large civil rights protest it made it hard for many to deny that African Americans were anything less than anyone of any other race.  Due to it’s issue’s large call for intervention, significant backing by a majority group, response to controversy, and peaceful approach, this protest from the get go had the makings of a strong and feasible chance of success.

After seeing the triumph of the civil rights march, it would be yielding to compare it with another peaceful protest, which failed to complete its purpose but was also one that had a majority backing and has a very humane, compassionate, and empathetic stance for it’s motivations. Protesting of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war.  A huge number of people marched on Washington to protest America becoming involved in the war.  Even though the protesters mainly remained nonviolent they were criminalized and provoked by police forces in order to maintain public relations. (Potter, Will.) Other large rallies broke out in other places across the country to.  Despite the high number of people and morally right intentions of the protesters, the war went on for six more years.  It had so many qualities going for it, such as a large backing and common ground to be unified under, which was the protection of Americans. (Network, The Learning.)  Since a majority of people believe we should protect the citizens of this country then why did it fail?  Timing was a big concern.  There was a limited amount of time for the protesters to effectively convince or gain the backing from people who were in a position to influence the prevention of a declaration of war.  Its almost as if the government was in a position to filibuster their way into the Vietnam war and thats exactly what they did.  Whether their intentions were just or only practical it can’t be said for sure, but there’s no denying that these large protest groups grabbed the attention of everyone on a political agenda.  Even though some protests can exhibit many of the standard reasons for it to be valid there can still be some sort of wild card reason which causes the whole movement to collapse.  In this case the wild card was the jurisdiction of the government.  Even though a popular majority of citizens disagreed with US efforts to join the war, the decision ultimately lied in the hands of those who had power in the political sphere.  

Antiglobalization is also a large cause for people to protest.  Many believe it widens the gap between the rich and poor.  In 1999 the WTO held a meeting which was met with fervent groups of wild protesters that started smashing in windows and damaging property of corporate business’s that promoted international business and globalization.  Though the protesters were successful in delaying the meeting which was taking place, they still failed to bring about any lasting change. This example is useful because it shows another failure of a modern day violent protest.  This particular protest seems to only be somewhat of a large scale tantrum.  The only real result or effect that was had here was the relative low costly fees that had to be paid for repairs by the business effected.  The meeting simply took place at a later date and business went on as usual.  The reason for this protest’s failure is of a strategical error.  It seems they  knew they wanted to protest the meeting but they had no plan for what would come next.  There was no change enacted from this protest.  All it did was disrupt the business and areas of Washington state for a short time.  If anything, even if the protesters were right about the gap between the rich and the poor widening, their method proved to be unsuccessful.  Its almost as if they came up with only half of a plan, and their’s had only a small chance of success from the start.  The timing seems relevant, and the issue seems to have an appeal to anyone that could be affected by a gap in wealth classes.  If the protest was only a cry saying “that’s not fair”  then it’s not really valid.  A widening gap between the rich and poor is only a potential threat,  it is somewhat hypothetical.  Though it could be a result, there is no way to predict for certain that that is how things would play out.  The fact that it can’t be proven that a widening gap would occur makes the protest somewhat hollow and less of a sense of urgency for anything to be done about it.  Sometimes lack of momentum can be the stab in the gut which drains a movement.

The Occupy movement was started to protest corruption found in the US government and in the financial system.  The Occupy Wall Street protest involved in this movement did generate some hyperactivity,  but to say it would have any lasting effects would be somewhat of a stretch.  The idea of “We are the 99%” seemed to stick in some peoples head creating some sense of cohesion but the real flaw with the movement, is that there really is no identifiable solution to this problem without massive deconstruction followed by reconstructive processes to our government, which is improbable.  Without adopting a socialistic system of government it seems unlikely that a solution for the wants of Occupy sympathizers will be met.  If what must be done in order for change to come can’t be done without extreme measures, than more than likely the protest will not be successful.  Though the group appears to represent “99%” of all Americans, a much smaller percentage than that has actually taken interest in what Occupy is trying to do, simply because it’s demands are outrageous.  They are impractical because the huge amounts of change that would have to take place are somewhat of a risk to our economy.  The reason the Occupy protest gained so much traction is because its easy for people to relate to being in the 99%.  That idea took hold, and got a lot of people fired up, but in the end the momentum died.  Though there is some truth to the fact all the wealth is being held by a small percent of people, but the other 99% varies greatly in terms of financial wealth so this lack of cohesion explains why there are not 99% of Americans rioting throughout the country demanding a redistribution of wealth.  This protest is also not as urgent as others and doesn’t have as much of a need for a call to intervention.  Though for the most part these are peaceful protests they still lack effectiveness because though they point out the problem that is occurring they offer no solution.  Any protest that is not lobbying for a specific, realistic solution that can be made without shaking the entire base of our nation, will not be feasible and will not have any sort of success.  It seems unreasonable to protest something without an answer to what your protesting and then expect someone else to figure out what that answer is and put it into action.  This protest fails because of it’s ambiguity.

Through analyzing all these different instances of protests, it is clear that movements which appeal to common interests will get more backing.  Those that are punctual and address a certain controversy will gain more attention.  Issues that have a certain urgency are more likely to have a plausible outcome.  We can see that the majority of protests that pose no solution to it’s problem will not be successful.  As is the case with many of Trump’s protesters, they are protesting something which cannot be undone without a valid reason.  Timing is impeccable, and being anything other than current will have negative results.  Protests which are approached with peace are more likely to be listened to.  Gathering all this we can come to the conclusion that protests which appeal to a majority interest are more likely to be heard.  This specific point is crucial for a protest to even have a chance.  As for presidential protests, since they are arguing against a decision that is already made they will most likely come to no use.  All factor should be taken into account.  In the end a protest that makes things better for everyone will always be more successful and effective than one that just redivides wealth and power.
