| barriozona |
| HISTORY IS ABOUT TO CHANGE Grassroots Journalism |
| Published by the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues |
From Phoenix, Arizona to the World Wide Web
Marches and Demonstrations Do Work,
For A Variety of (Good and Bad) Reasons
For A Variety of (Good and Bad) Reasons
Believers and doubters still debate on the effectiveness of marches and protests, but both sides
have to be willing to see the pros and cons, and decide if they can live with the consequences.
have to be willing to see the pros and cons, and decide if they can live with the consequences.
Text and photographs by Eduardo Barraza - Social Commentary
Phoenix, Arizona, January 13, 2010 - Almost every time a group of people is going to take the
streets to march and protest in favor or against any cause or issue, the question about the
effectiveness of demonstrations arises. It has become a cliché to hear arguments defending and
attacking the validity of the subject: “marches do work,” “marches don’t work.” Perhaps even this
commentary is part of that repetitive discourse to justify one side or the other, but for this
commentator, the debate is redundant, because marches do work. It all depends on what purpose
and on if those who advocate or oppose marches are willing to accept the price and acknowledge
the consequences that come along with a protest.
New generations have to live their own experiences, most of the time in spite of what history has
already taught us all. History will repeat itself, regardless. However, for the sake of some sense of
advance and accomplishment, we shouldn’t be discussing whether marches do work or don’t,
because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor that they work, though not only or always in the
way advocates and opponents of marches envision, want, or are willing to recognize.
Marches can work for both sides; those protesting and those being protested against. As a
journalist for many years, I have seen it first hand, having attended big and small demonstrations,
and having walked miles and miles along dissatisfied, angry, sometimes violent demonstrators. A
march, especially a large one, cannot go unnoticed and without some sort of outcome, good or bad.
In any sense, marches work because they have an effect, even if negative and counterproductive
to those who organized it.
I have attended massive, impressive demonstrations where tens of thousands of people pressured
the government to change their condition or situation. In every instance, these marches have
worked, whether it was in bringing attention in such a dramatic way to their pleas, generating
public content or displease, or backfiring on them when authorities and governments crushed
movements, arrested leaders, and even killed demonstrators.
Marches work, but not just in one intended way. They may work to help alleviate an issue or to
worsen it. Sometimes protests bring awareness; other times they result in repression and
retaliation. Groups organizing demonstrations do it because they are persuaded they will work, but
many times they fail to assess the full extent and consequences that will follow, and so often they
end up working against them. Those who are being protested against, particularly if they’re in
political or economic power, manipulate demonstrations for their own purposes, even to try to
prove their point, justify their policies, and demonize protesters.
In the early 80’s, when I was in the dawn of my career as a writer and photojournalist, I attended
some of the multitudinous marches teachers organized in Mexico. Those were monster marches,
not the junior demonstrations we see here in Arizona. They sure created awareness to their pleas
for better salaries and benefits; there were so many marching that it was impossible to ignore
them. They also made many people angry because they paralyzed Downtown Mexico City, blocking
streets for days and weeks. For them, their demonstrations worked positively but also negatively.
They achieved little progress and failed to see most of their demands met by the government. More
sadly, teachers saw one of their own killed, allegedly by the government.
Teacher and leader Misael Nuñez Acosta was gunned down on January 30, 1981. He had just
finished an organizing meeting to plan a national teachers’ demonstration to take place in Mexico
City. The march organized after his death was even more impressive (see the photos I took then);
the government’s repression continued. Those strong marches worked in more than one way, and
not always to benefit the demonstrators.
Most recently, I walked along one million people, again in Mexico City. Presidential candidate
Manuel López Obrador and his thousands and thousands of supporters from all over the country of
Mexico took to the streets several times. His protests were some of the most impressive, large and
peaceful I’ve ever seen. López Obrador claimed he was the legitimate winner of the 2006 election,
and that the incumbent government had stolen the election from him.
The massive demonstrations shook the city, pressured the government, and created a sense of a
grassroots movement among protestors. Yet, the party in power utilized the marches as a way to
prove López Obrador was a populist who preyed on Mexico’s poorest and gained them over
providing them with basic needs. At the end, those marches worked for more than one purpose;
not for López Obrador and his many sympathizers’ purpose.
Here in the United States, I also attended the immigrants’ marches of March 24, and April 10, 2006,
and May 1st, 2007. Organizers brought out to the streets the, until then, “invisible” masses of
undocumented immigrants to dramatize the need for a comprehensive immigration reform.
Supposing that by seeing a combined amount of millions of immigrants marching across the nation
in cities like Phoenix, Chicago and Los Angeles, American citizens would be persuaded to accept a
reform to legalize about 12 million people without documents.
Organizers, though, failed to consider the potential negative consequences, the backlash that
followed against immigrants, and the stage created in Arizona, for example, for the volatile racial
atmosphere that is fueling politicians’ crackdown on undocumented immigrants, as well as the
immigration enforcement conducted not just by ICE anymore but –attention, not just from the
Maricopa County Sheriff Department (MCSO)– by half a dozen of Arizona law enforcement agencies.
These demonstrations worked to create the awareness about the issue, but also worked for
politicians to prove their points that immigration crackdown is necessary. Today, many people
believe that the main outcome of those impressive and intimidating immigrant marches was an
increase in policies against undocumented individuals, a resurgence of hate crimes, and a growing
opposition to an immigration reform.
Undocumented immigrant advocacy groups in Maricopa County have been protesting and
organizing demonstrations more regularly since 2007. They have their own claims of effectiveness
and their reasoning to continue taking their demands to the streets. At the same time, beginning
with a series of protests in December 2007 against a business owner that hired off-duty sheriff
deputies to patrol their premises, the MCSO launched, along the marches, a systematic crackdown
on the streets to stop motorists mainly for non-moving violations that lead to the arrest of
undocumented immigrants.
The sheriff department’s actions are too obvious to dismiss the idea that they are not using a racial
and economic profile to stop certain people based on their physical appearance, and that he is
retaliating those who have protested against him.
Once again, these local demonstrations worked. They created awareness against Arizona’s
crackdown on undocumented workers and their families not only locally, but in other states. At the
same time, these protests have worked for other purposes for the opposing side, by generating
more support for the Sheriff, also in other states, and with people who didn’t know about him
before.
Another march is scheduled to take place this Saturday, January 16, 2009 in Phoenix. It may
achieve its intended purposes, but it may also have its unintended consequences. Even before this
demonstration takes place, the head of the MCSO has announced, according to an article published
in The Arizona Republic, continued actions in the enforcement of Arizona laws against
undocumented immigrants. He will again counteract by closing the jails to visitors since the protest
is targeting the county’s jail complex in South Phoenix.
Since demonstrations do work, perhaps the real issue is not to debate about their effectiveness, as
some inexperienced analysts still do, but to consider if the consequences are worth the effort, not
for the organizers, but for the people they say they represent, and ultimately, will feel in their own
flesh the positive or negative impact of the protest others organized for them.
Those who claim to work on behalf of the people and encourage them to protest may be willing to
pay a price for their actions, but should not assume that other, more vulnerable people can afford
to pay the price of the negative consequences marches and protest may bring, and most likely they
will.
The short and long outcome of demonstrations may well benefit those who participate in them. In
the case of honest, hard-working and law-abiding workers and their families who are in need of an
immigration reform, hopefully their situation can be resolved and obtain legal status. This writer has
extensively written in favor of that. So far, my personal observation is that some actions have done
more harm than the benefit they have achieved.
Nevertheless, they also must be aware of the consequences and understand that there may be a
high price to pay. Instead of deciding if marches do work or don’t, organizers and those who
participate in the demonstrations need to decide if that price is worth it, and whether they’re willing
to live with the outcome, even if it boomerangs on them.
streets to march and protest in favor or against any cause or issue, the question about the
effectiveness of demonstrations arises. It has become a cliché to hear arguments defending and
attacking the validity of the subject: “marches do work,” “marches don’t work.” Perhaps even this
commentary is part of that repetitive discourse to justify one side or the other, but for this
commentator, the debate is redundant, because marches do work. It all depends on what purpose
and on if those who advocate or oppose marches are willing to accept the price and acknowledge
the consequences that come along with a protest.
New generations have to live their own experiences, most of the time in spite of what history has
already taught us all. History will repeat itself, regardless. However, for the sake of some sense of
advance and accomplishment, we shouldn’t be discussing whether marches do work or don’t,
because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor that they work, though not only or always in the
way advocates and opponents of marches envision, want, or are willing to recognize.
Marches can work for both sides; those protesting and those being protested against. As a
journalist for many years, I have seen it first hand, having attended big and small demonstrations,
and having walked miles and miles along dissatisfied, angry, sometimes violent demonstrators. A
march, especially a large one, cannot go unnoticed and without some sort of outcome, good or bad.
In any sense, marches work because they have an effect, even if negative and counterproductive
to those who organized it.
I have attended massive, impressive demonstrations where tens of thousands of people pressured
the government to change their condition or situation. In every instance, these marches have
worked, whether it was in bringing attention in such a dramatic way to their pleas, generating
public content or displease, or backfiring on them when authorities and governments crushed
movements, arrested leaders, and even killed demonstrators.
Marches work, but not just in one intended way. They may work to help alleviate an issue or to
worsen it. Sometimes protests bring awareness; other times they result in repression and
retaliation. Groups organizing demonstrations do it because they are persuaded they will work, but
many times they fail to assess the full extent and consequences that will follow, and so often they
end up working against them. Those who are being protested against, particularly if they’re in
political or economic power, manipulate demonstrations for their own purposes, even to try to
prove their point, justify their policies, and demonize protesters.
In the early 80’s, when I was in the dawn of my career as a writer and photojournalist, I attended
some of the multitudinous marches teachers organized in Mexico. Those were monster marches,
not the junior demonstrations we see here in Arizona. They sure created awareness to their pleas
for better salaries and benefits; there were so many marching that it was impossible to ignore
them. They also made many people angry because they paralyzed Downtown Mexico City, blocking
streets for days and weeks. For them, their demonstrations worked positively but also negatively.
They achieved little progress and failed to see most of their demands met by the government. More
sadly, teachers saw one of their own killed, allegedly by the government.
Teacher and leader Misael Nuñez Acosta was gunned down on January 30, 1981. He had just
finished an organizing meeting to plan a national teachers’ demonstration to take place in Mexico
City. The march organized after his death was even more impressive (see the photos I took then);
the government’s repression continued. Those strong marches worked in more than one way, and
not always to benefit the demonstrators.
Most recently, I walked along one million people, again in Mexico City. Presidential candidate
Manuel López Obrador and his thousands and thousands of supporters from all over the country of
Mexico took to the streets several times. His protests were some of the most impressive, large and
peaceful I’ve ever seen. López Obrador claimed he was the legitimate winner of the 2006 election,
and that the incumbent government had stolen the election from him.
The massive demonstrations shook the city, pressured the government, and created a sense of a
grassroots movement among protestors. Yet, the party in power utilized the marches as a way to
prove López Obrador was a populist who preyed on Mexico’s poorest and gained them over
providing them with basic needs. At the end, those marches worked for more than one purpose;
not for López Obrador and his many sympathizers’ purpose.
Here in the United States, I also attended the immigrants’ marches of March 24, and April 10, 2006,
and May 1st, 2007. Organizers brought out to the streets the, until then, “invisible” masses of
undocumented immigrants to dramatize the need for a comprehensive immigration reform.
Supposing that by seeing a combined amount of millions of immigrants marching across the nation
in cities like Phoenix, Chicago and Los Angeles, American citizens would be persuaded to accept a
reform to legalize about 12 million people without documents.
Organizers, though, failed to consider the potential negative consequences, the backlash that
followed against immigrants, and the stage created in Arizona, for example, for the volatile racial
atmosphere that is fueling politicians’ crackdown on undocumented immigrants, as well as the
immigration enforcement conducted not just by ICE anymore but –attention, not just from the
Maricopa County Sheriff Department (MCSO)– by half a dozen of Arizona law enforcement agencies.
These demonstrations worked to create the awareness about the issue, but also worked for
politicians to prove their points that immigration crackdown is necessary. Today, many people
believe that the main outcome of those impressive and intimidating immigrant marches was an
increase in policies against undocumented individuals, a resurgence of hate crimes, and a growing
opposition to an immigration reform.
Undocumented immigrant advocacy groups in Maricopa County have been protesting and
organizing demonstrations more regularly since 2007. They have their own claims of effectiveness
and their reasoning to continue taking their demands to the streets. At the same time, beginning
with a series of protests in December 2007 against a business owner that hired off-duty sheriff
deputies to patrol their premises, the MCSO launched, along the marches, a systematic crackdown
on the streets to stop motorists mainly for non-moving violations that lead to the arrest of
undocumented immigrants.
The sheriff department’s actions are too obvious to dismiss the idea that they are not using a racial
and economic profile to stop certain people based on their physical appearance, and that he is
retaliating those who have protested against him.
Once again, these local demonstrations worked. They created awareness against Arizona’s
crackdown on undocumented workers and their families not only locally, but in other states. At the
same time, these protests have worked for other purposes for the opposing side, by generating
more support for the Sheriff, also in other states, and with people who didn’t know about him
before.
Another march is scheduled to take place this Saturday, January 16, 2009 in Phoenix. It may
achieve its intended purposes, but it may also have its unintended consequences. Even before this
demonstration takes place, the head of the MCSO has announced, according to an article published
in The Arizona Republic, continued actions in the enforcement of Arizona laws against
undocumented immigrants. He will again counteract by closing the jails to visitors since the protest
is targeting the county’s jail complex in South Phoenix.
Since demonstrations do work, perhaps the real issue is not to debate about their effectiveness, as
some inexperienced analysts still do, but to consider if the consequences are worth the effort, not
for the organizers, but for the people they say they represent, and ultimately, will feel in their own
flesh the positive or negative impact of the protest others organized for them.
Those who claim to work on behalf of the people and encourage them to protest may be willing to
pay a price for their actions, but should not assume that other, more vulnerable people can afford
to pay the price of the negative consequences marches and protest may bring, and most likely they
will.
The short and long outcome of demonstrations may well benefit those who participate in them. In
the case of honest, hard-working and law-abiding workers and their families who are in need of an
immigration reform, hopefully their situation can be resolved and obtain legal status. This writer has
extensively written in favor of that. So far, my personal observation is that some actions have done
more harm than the benefit they have achieved.
Nevertheless, they also must be aware of the consequences and understand that there may be a
high price to pay. Instead of deciding if marches do work or don’t, organizers and those who
participate in the demonstrations need to decide if that price is worth it, and whether they’re willing
to live with the outcome, even if it boomerangs on them.
SYMBOLIC CASKET In a very large
demonstration in Mexico City in 1981,
teachers dramatized the death of one
of their own. Seeking better salaries,
the unintended result was the killing of
teacher Misael Nuñez Acosta.
demonstration in Mexico City in 1981,
teachers dramatized the death of one
of their own. Seeking better salaries,
the unintended result was the killing of
teacher Misael Nuñez Acosta.
MONSTER DEMONSTRATION In the
early 80s, teachers organized massive
marches in Mexico. Not all the time they
achieved the goal of their
demonstrations.
early 80s, teachers organized massive
marches in Mexico. Not all the time they
achieved the goal of their
demonstrations.
MEXICO'S STREETS Thousands of
defeated 2006 presidential candidate
Manuel López Obrador’s supporters
marched to pressure the electoral
institute to declare him winner. At the
end, they saw their demands ignored.
defeated 2006 presidential candidate
Manuel López Obrador’s supporters
marched to pressure the electoral
institute to declare him winner. At the
end, they saw their demands ignored.
ARIZONA'S IMMIGRANTS In 2006 and
2007, Phoenix and other U.S. cities
witnessed large marches where
thousands demanded an immigration
reforms. A backlash would follow.
2007, Phoenix and other U.S. cities
witnessed large marches where
thousands demanded an immigration
reforms. A backlash would follow.
| Hispanic Institute of Social Issues © 2006-2010 All rights reserved. webmaster@hisi.org |
Eduardo Barraza is a journalist and writer,
Barriozona Magazine's editor, and director of
the Hispanic Insitute of Social Issues.
E-mail: editor@barriozona.com
Barriozona Magazine's editor, and director of
the Hispanic Insitute of Social Issues.
E-mail: editor@barriozona.com
| Operation Immigration Arrests, Protests, and Turmoil in Maricopa County |
| Price: $19.95 + s/h $3.80 Total $23.75 Length: 47 minutes EAN: 978-0-9797814-6-9 |
| RELATED ARTICLES: Thousands of Immigrant Families March to Protest Arpaio and Remind Obama his Promise of Reform En Español: Marchan Inmigrantes por Reforma Migratoria Por Eduardo Barraza (Publicado en La Crónica de Mexicali, Baja California) |