Protest and war have changed. Autocrats have even been uprooted by a series of tweets. Some might say that protest has not changed and that war is not so much different than it ever was. Sure enough, one will always include the killing of people and the other public dissent. However, the way in which war is reported and the way in which protests are organized, and are dispersed, has shifted. In a lot of ways, it’s obvious to everyone.
The history of protest, and its bodybuilding sister, revolution, is basically a collection of people under the age of 30. These days, people under 30 use social media. The worldwide web is also the reason why documents are easier to transfer and international sympathy easier to garner. It doesn’t really need to be spelled out.
However, there is more to this detail and more details to the state of our confrontations. First, what does it mean to have an entire revolution broadcast by Twitter? What does it mean to have videos of the Syrian conflict on YouTube? It means more than the fact that electronic media is primary. Think back to the people. In the past, only a couple of the protestors or the fighters would be in charge of press. The French Underground had its writers and they were not always its insurgents. However, with the rise of social media, every person can be in charge of a personal press and give their, sometimes minute-by-minute, account of what is happening. This means that there is no unified statement of our modern movements. There are thousands upon thousands of sentiments against a government, a person or a system.
Similarly, the communication between countries has restrained the actions of individual states. There are dozens of examples. The international community’s urging against chemical warfare in Syria, the tightening focus on Iranian and North Korean nuclear capability and the universal concern for Israeli/ Palestinian affairs all come to mind. The idea of sanctions issued by the UN and inspections by the same body was simply nonexistent before 20 years ago. Even then, it’s only in the past five to seven years that wagging your finger at Russian attacks on Georgian soil will do something. You could blame it on the same engines of connectivity, albeit in less popular forms, that fueled revolution. These days, the threat of a hampered economy, or frowns from several large countries, will cause anyone to mothball their war machines.
Some of this has even happened right in the American backyard. Protest is nothing new to the American political system. It marched under the banner of anti-Vietnam and Massive Resistance, alike. However, the highly politicized movements of our time are of a slightly different grain.
First, lets take the Tea Party. As a Republican powerhouse, these social conservatives have had a long lasting influence on elections. Some might say that a dozen conservative movements before it had the same effect. However, the thing about those movements was that they were incidental. You put the right person in the right office to vote against the wrong bill. The Tea Party is more cyclical and seems directed more toward a certain set of political ethics. The right person has to prove their righteousness to keep from getting kicked off the island.
Now, lets look at their polar opposite: the 99 percent. There was very little in the way of political objective with the 99 percenters. Rather, it was a sort of mass awareness campaign screaming to high Heaven about the nation’s wealth disparities. Eventually, it proved effective, bringing attention on the national stage to tax exemptions and write-offs that made the investor mightier than the bricklayer.
Both of these movements, despite their differing objectives seem to have their similarities. For one, neither is completely and totally unified. Each might as well have a different message for each of their members. After all, it’s the personal stories, not the platforms, that really give these movements power. Yet both of these bundles of motivated objectors are responding to the issue of the day.
In similar ways, governments have evolved in their combat of protest. In the past, hard was the method of choice. Take Tiananmen Square where lethal dispersal was the first and final solution. Kent State is a lot closer to home and a lot more uncomfortable. Today, we have grown tired of live rounds, partially because governments prefer not to alienate their allies and citizens, partially because of a genuine moral shift to the contrary. Today, laws are passed to protect the area of private buildings and softer tactics are enacted.
Finally, if we are to discuss war as much as protest, we have to discuss drone strikes. The use of intelligent arsenals has been perfected since the seventies. However, with drones, there is a use of a small remote controlled airplane. It’s a simple idea and inexpensive. Yet, at the same time, they have come under scrutiny. First, they pose the issue of distance from the action. Does the kill mean as much if it’s tantamount to a video game? Second, the increasing usage of drones has caused the deaths of persons Afghan or Pakistani with no affiliation to the Taliban. You just have to be a man of a certain age to die.
The world is always bound to change and now, as we look onto the state of modern warfare and its sometimes precursor of protest, we have to decide what to keep and what to throw away. Sometimes, though it will never be a conscious choice. The influx of ways to disagree or ways to kill will cycle in and out of usage. It is nothing any person can control. All we can do is comprehend, contain or use to our heart’s content.
