I protest so that I can be heard. I protest to celebrate what is good as well as rejecting what is bad. I protest to be part of something greater than myself—part of a community. A good protest should exhilarate, leave us connected to a greater community and ready to do more. Memories of an anti-war protest in Portland Oregon, with a Tyco drum band is 2003 still leaves me excited and engaged. But few protests manage to do so.
Yesterday’s DC rally disappointed me. We are becoming so media savvy (in some ways) that we are selling out the soul of protest and ultimately, that could do to protests what political consultants are doing to campaigns. Focusing primarily on what the cameras see and not on the experience of the protestors dissipates much of the energy and vitality, and turning protest from an experience people "want to" to an "ought to." I urge people planning rallies to look from the point of view of the participants as much (if not more so) than the TV camera.
Yesterday’s protest seemed like a wasted opportunity. So much emphasis was put on having a good product on TV, but focusing primarily towards the on-stage/camera component is counter-productive because what is most impressive on TV is not a good celebrity with a good sound bite, but anything that captures the energy of a dynamic crowd.
A 3 hour rally before the march dissipated most of the crowd's energy. (The march route was also awkward, but that’s beyond anyone’s control.) By the time the march started, some people, who had been standing for hours watching the speakers, many of whom were picked clearly to try and get on TV but not to appeal to people blocks away, had to wait over an hour to beging the march.
3 hours of waiting around to march is 2 hours and 15 minutes too much. If a 3 hour rally is necessary, have it concurrent with the march; give people active opportunities to participate. Organizers should craft a climax and make sure every speaker is vetted with an awareness of how something will play not to the 1,000 people closest to the stage, but also the people a block away. Specifically develop ways of including the crowd. Two examples:
Some speaker tried to start the refrain of "Green Goes out of Iraq." However, what most of us heard were "Gringos out of Iraq." The only way to know what was being said was to see the dollar bill he held up. I could see the speaker, but not the bill and debated with my friend why "Gringos" rather than "Americans" in Iraq were the problem.
A far better speaker, Rocky Anderson (mayor of Salt Lake City), gave an impassioned and compelling speech that tried to include the crowd. His refrain of "No More" was simple and compelling. However, he relied on his arm movement to clue the crowd, which meant that anyone half a block or more away didn’t know when to join in. He varied the number of syllables per call & response set, sometimes elaborating on the problem and sometimes keeping it quite short, usually asking the crowd to join in but sometimes forgetting about the cadence pattern he had established. Had he relied on rhythm, tempo and intonation, the entire crowd would have joined in as participants. As it was, the majority of us were, again, only spectators.
United for Peace and Justice asked us to bring noisemakers. People brought drums, castanets, shakers, cowbells, cymbals and tambourines. At no point did they include those in the rally. I nearly joined the group storming the capital, not because I wanted to be in a confrontation, but because I thought it was the real march; until we saw faces covered with black ski masks and fake riot gear, we just heard the drums, saw people moving and thought it was time to move.
Finally, I’m struck by how little new technology was included. What if, for example, UFPJ set up a conference call that anyone could call that would guide callers through unified chants to lead the entire crowd, simultaneously? What would tens of thousands of people all participating unified and yet in their own way feel like? What would it look like? Wouldn’t that be far more compelling? There is a reason that "What do we want? PEACE! When do we want it? NOW" and "The people! United! Will Never be Defeated!" are so popular 40 years later—they involve everyone and make everyone feel part of a group. We need more of these, more music and more participations. Don’t reduce us to passive spectators—much else in our society is doing that just fine. And, as a byproduct, would more of us come if it were joyous? Wouldn’t it make more compelling TV in the process? Wouldn't we have more energy for the next part of the struggle?
Standing around watching all these speakers for 3 hours, getting to give a few shouts of "No More" but not moving, not dancing, not singing, not participating or celebrating turns protest into a duty, rather than a joy. It means I have less energy for activism today, not more. It reduces my voice and means my only value is as a body in the body count, one of the "tens of thousands" disappointed we couldn’t make it "over a hundred thousand" but not vital or essential or enlivened. I urge all planners, whether it is a rally of 10 or tens of thousands, to plan from the point of the view of the average participant and not just the speakers and the media coverage.