Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just something I've been pondering today.

Once upon a time, it seems the 'yoof' of the day were forever protesting or rebelling against something, starting in the 50's (and arguably earlier if you count 30's Flappers etc upsetting the establishment with more liberal behaviour).

From banning the bomb, breaking the mould set by parents, protesting against Wars (Vietnam for example), womens lib etc, there appear to have been no end of things the youth of the day weren't going to tackle.

But not anymore. Youth today seem positively lazy, having grown up in a successful(ish) consumer culture, where the word 'no' is rarely uttered. Protest against the Iraq war was short lived (I went on a march though in Edinburgh) and it appears that the only ones really going for it anymore are the depressing 'rent a mob'.

So is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Are the youth lazy and greedy due to their being nothing less to protest, or is it apathy doing it's work?

Things are done differently now. Many of the "youth" don't march. Marches are pretty fething useless nowadays. The youth now design logos for political candidates they believe in, create blogs devoted to x cause, start petitions, write senators and congresspersons, etc. The youth have adapted to a digital age.

It's a very different situation where I live (Tasmania). We have this huge issue with a planned pulp mill in the north and there have been a lot of protests about it, including ones by students. Then again, I get the feeling that Australians and the British have very different ethics.

I think a big part of it is laziness and apathy. Kids would rather sit home glued to their Wiis and text till their thumbs fall off.

Those that do get involved do it online, because they think the the internet makes their voice be heard no matter what and everyone cares about what you have to say. But whatever you have to say will be spammed down 12 pages and probably not seen anyway.

If you really want to be heard, you gotta get off your butt and go outside the good old fashioned way.

Necros wrote:I think a big part of it is laziness and apathy. Kids would rather sit home glued to their Wiis and text till their thumbs fall off.

Those that do get involved do it online, because they think the the internet makes their voice be heard no matter what and everyone cares about what you have to say. But whatever you have to say will be spammed down 12 pages and probably not seen anyway.

If you really want to be heard, you gotta get off your butt and go outside the good old fashioned way.

Bull. Absolute bull.

The real problem is that, no matter how loud you make your voice heard...it doesn't matter if you're under a certain age. You can be the most well-informed 18 year old out there, have documented sources, research citations from accredited universities, etc...
And you'll get a "That's nice. What were you saying again?" reaction from anyone who is actually in power.

Kanluwen wrote:

Necros wrote:I think a big part of it is laziness and apathy. Kids would rather sit home glued to their Wiis and text till their thumbs fall off.

Those that do get involved do it online, because they think the the internet makes their voice be heard no matter what and everyone cares about what you have to say. But whatever you have to say will be spammed down 12 pages and probably not seen anyway.

If you really want to be heard, you gotta get off your butt and go outside the good old fashioned way.

Bull. Absolute bull.

The real problem is that, no matter how loud you make your voice heard...it doesn't matter if you're under a certain age. You can be the most well-informed 18 year old out there, have documented sources, research citations from accredited universities, etc...
And you'll get a "That's nice. What were you saying again?" reaction from anyone who is actually in power.

There's a reason for that...

The inherent discrimination that leads to the assumption that ALL young people are ill-informed on important matters such as elections, court cases, and just where Carmen San Diego is?

If you go to the streets though, then you must be 1) a christian 2) gay 3) a teabagger (see #2)

Aw, come on Frazz. Remember when the tribe elders wouldn't listen to your "put meat in fire" idea?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Aw, come on Frazz. Remember when the tribe elders wouldn't listen to your "put meat in fire" idea?

True that.

Part of the problem is that there is a distinct feeling now a days that it doesn't matter what you do nobody is going to give a damn. Protest all you want, march in the streets, do whatever but no one is going to listen. The people in power don't care. You're not likely to have voted for them in the first place and you aren't likely to have given them money so protest all you want, nobody who matters cares. And if no one who matters cares nothing is going to happen so why bother with it?

I don't think it's fair to paint the "yoof" as being universally lazy and not doing anything. Remember, for every person you saw back then protesting there were 100 at home hanging out with friends, working on their cars, and doing nothing of consequence.

There's a definite culture shift but I think this is largely looking back through rose colored glasses.

Which is the point. Who won?

Seemingly, 'The Man' won. Big time. People no longer protest due to the previous lack of impact. And it doesn't help that many former Protestors cop out and sign up with 'The Man' ostensibly to take it apart from the inside, but really becoming part of the establishment they wished to tear down.

And I suppose that as for Anti-War protests, with the end of drafting, most people are a bit more 'meh' as they are unlikely to have it directly affect them.

The man, because I don't think the angry young man accomplished much at all. The reasonable young men who spent time explaining their position to people capable of effecting change were the ones who got things done. The angry young man made a lot of noise and in general looked like a total jackass doing it.

I would agree with you, but would argue that the Angry Young Man enabled the Reasonable Young Man.

Take Malcolm X and Martin Luther King as good examples. The former preached 'by any means' and the latter 'by peaceful means'. Both wanted the same goal in general, and any Government would rather work with the peacable side than the militant side. However, how seriously would Doctor King have been taken had Malcolm X and his threat of physical means not been present? Not suggesting they were in cahoots together though!

Dr. King did a lot of protest marching, and got jailed doing it. He was nonviolent, but those protests seemed to work out pretty well.

I think the reason us 'Yoof' has given up is because we know the establishment won't listen, so why waste the effort? They'll stay as corrupt as ever and do what the feth they like as long as it benefits them.

The OC-D
A 'Yoof' of 16.

I get letters back when I write to my senators and congressional representatives. They're generally form letters, but they relate to the specific issue I wrote to them about.

Clearly they are receiving my communication, are aware that one of their consituents holds my opinion, and take the time to respond to it. Given their need for reelection, it seems likely to me that they keep some sort of track of communications like this that they receive, and hopefully use that to inform their opinions of what their consituents think and desire.

When I call the offices of my senators and representatives (or occasionally other reps, if I'm passionate about something they're doing or failing to do) about an issue, I talk to actual people in their office. I express my opinion politely but strongly. I make it as clear as possible. Sometimes they don't want to engage, but other times I get some actual dialogue. It feels pretty good, and I've seen some legislation go the way I want. It may be a coincidence, or maybe other people are expressing the same opinion, and the system (shock, awe) occasionally works.

One thing to keep in mind is that the causes fought for by the youth of previous generations were a lot more clear cut than any issues are today. Things like sexism, racism, conscription absent the vote, rampant pollution... those things are pretty generally bad.

The issues of today are more nuanced.

I am not a young man any more seeing I am almost out of my twenties. I have taken part in a lot of planned protest. When the illegal immigration legislation in Ca was going through there was a protest that everyone buys a toilet brush and mail it to Sacramento. It was suppose to be symbolic of yes I can clean my own crapper; mostly it pissed them off because several hundred thousand toilet brushes showed up. Another fun one was mailing them bricks. They had around forty-five tons worth of bricks sent to the State Capitol. It was to protest the driver’s licenses for the illegal’s. They got the message and the bill was killed.

Reasonable (or so they say) Young Man posting here.

I'm in Australia. Life is good. What would I be protesting?

I can only think of our immigration polocies, and that doesn't seem to attract even CLOSE to as much public uproar as peadophiles being release from jail or whatever the media dishes out.

Polonius wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that the causes fought for by the youth of previous generations were a lot more clear cut than any issues are today. Things like sexism, racism, conscription absent the vote, rampant pollution... those things are pretty generally bad.

The issues of today are more nuanced.

I agree with this but I would also add that the reality was that many of the things listed were not lead by youth either. MLK was not a youth, nor was Eleanor Roosevelt. Same with the guys who started Greenpeace as well as anti-Nuke advocates.

Another part of it, I suppose, is both lack of cohesion as well as general goofiness. How many times during Iraq protests did you see a guy on stilts or a fella dressed as a clown. Then you have the ones that cover their faces completely. Hard to take someone seriously that won't even show their face.

There have been a number of major protests of different kinds in the past couple of decades (UK.)

Reclaim The Streets
Swampy and the anti-road protestors (several camps)
Stop The War marches
Pro-Tibet/anti-China
May 1st anti-capitalism

The ones I remember specifically lead by students were pro and anti vivisection. The others involved many ages and classes.

There's an idea that back in the day when the youth was protesting and rebelling, that it was a movement across the whole of the youth generation. It's a false idea, the numbers who fully enter a youth sub-culture have always been very small. While the hippies got lots of news coverage and movies about them, most kids went to school and then got jobs just the same as their parents.

And when a cause came along that people really cared about, there was no shortage of protests in the streets. In fact, more people protested the invasion of Iraq than had ever marched for any other cause... and it did about as much good as it ever does.

I think there are a couple things going on.

I think people or more cynical now. Most people have seen "their guys" in power and feel totally let down. They feel protesting/demonstrating doesn't change anything. In the US their is widespread frustration and anger at the huge deficit/debt we are running up and at the healthcare bills the government is looking at passing. The politicians don't care though and most of the media (along with the politicians) ignore or try to discredit the demonstrations.

I would say another thing is the education system we have is not that good either. Things are not taught or are false/misleading. To be educated on the issues people have to do research. That's why when there is a protest, it seems many protesters don't have a thorough understanding of the issue they are protesting against/for.

I was not around back in the day, so I can't speak intelligently about much of the actual events that occured. I do now that in the main it was often supported by the media/academia. Much of what people protest now is not.

In addition, I think people (youth in particular) protest in different ways.

I think a lot of things the angry young man protested about blew up in his face and he perhaps got gun shy about being taken advantage of.

By way of example I offer the Vietnam war you mention. I was a kid in the 60's listening to my older hippy sisters talking of all the atrocities being perpetrated by the U.S. in that area. At the same time I also talked with people that fought there seeing what the V.C. and NVA were doing to the people.
One of my uncles was a bomber pilot that flew missions over Hanoi and told of rules that forbade bombing the docks even though they saw ships in the harbor unloading military supplies, or railroad tracks where the same thing was happening. An Air Force general was dismissed for complaining about these rules.
People like Kennedy were saying not to bomb the dikes in the city because he said it was inhumane.
The harbor was mined and supplies were significantly cut down and the North's military effort was actually beginning to falter and Hanoi was actually considering abandoning the war effort.
The protestors, however had caused the harbor to be demined so humanitarian supplies could be reestablished.
I told my sister and her friends from what I learned talking to people that had been there if the Communists took over things would get really bad. The answer to that was that I was listening to propaganda and that the Comminists would make things better because they were for the people in all those countries over there and that they just really wanted peace.
We all know the "peaceful" history of Cambodia after the Comminists took over, and I worked with people from Vietnam and Laos that had some potent horror stories ofwhat went on after the takeover there. I'll be first to admit that it was bad with the other crew, also, but I don't think you would have seen the killing fields like in Cambodia if things had gone the other way.
After seeing what the Comminists had done there, my sister and her friends didn't have a lot to say protest wise.

Relapse wrote:I think a lot of things the angry young man protested about blew up in his face and he perhaps got gun shy about being taken advantage of.

By way of example I offer the Vietnam war you mention. I was a kid in the 60's listening to my older hippy sisters talking of all the atrocities being perpetrated by the U.S. in that area. At the same time I also talked with people that fought there seeing what the V.C. and NVA were doing to the people.
One of my uncles was a bomber pilot that flew missions over Hanoi and told of rules that forbade bombing the docks even though they saw ships in the harbor unloading military supplies, or railroad tracks where the same thing was happening. An Air Force general was dismissed for complaining about these rules.
People like Kennedy were saying not to bomb the dikes in the city because he said it was inhumane.
The harbor was mined and supplies were significantly cut down and the North's military effort was actually beginning to falter and Hanoi was actually considering abandoning the war effort.
The protestors, however had caused the harbor to be demined so humanitarian supplies could be reestablished.
I told my sister and her friends from what I learned talking to people that had been there if the Communists took over things would get really bad. The answer to that was that I was listening to propaganda and that the Comminists would make things better because they were for the people in all those countries over there and that they just really wanted peace.
We all know the "peaceful" history of Cambodia after the Comminists took over, and I worked with people from Vietnam and Laos that had some potent horror stories ofwhat went on after the takeover there. I'll be first to admit that it was bad with the other crew, also, but I don't think you would have seen the killing fields like in Cambodia if things had gone the other way.
After seeing what the Comminists had done there, my sister and her friends didn't have a lot to say protest wise.

It is very true that a lot of the things those protesters were passionate about turned out to be really bad. I think many of those protesters still believe in that stuff to this day, and that a lot of the youth of today can look back and see how wrong they were.

Another reason you don't see protests as much is the hatred and vitriol you see directed at people who don't blindly follow "the man." Especially now, in the US if you aren't on board with the government you are a racist or terrorist or something like that. The establishment has become expert at namecalling and avoiding any honest discussion.

When I was in undergrad (back at Flintstone University-only a six month program back then). I'd sit in the Quad with a box of fries and watch the weekly protest. They had a protest for something every Friday, regular as clockwork. It was great entertainment. It was California. If the scenery was particularly nice I'd even join in, but my reasons were not altruistic

Dorns Fist wrote: They feel protesting/demonstrating doesn't change anything. In the US their is widespread frustration and anger at the huge deficit/debt we are running up and at the healthcare bills the government is looking at passing. The politicians don't care though and most of the media (along with the politicians) ignore or try to discredit the demonstrations.

Anyone protesting healthcare reform now has a) no clue how (badly) our health insurance system works or b) so much profit from it that they don’t give a feth. The ignorant and aggressive folks at the town hall meetings this summer were very depressing to see. For the most part no sense of how the legislative process works. The Daily Show took the piss out of them pretty well.

Mannahnin wrote:

Dorns Fist wrote: They feel protesting/demonstrating doesn't change anything. In the US their is widespread frustration and anger at the huge deficit/debt we are running up and at the healthcare bills the government is looking at passing. The politicians don't care though and most of the media (along with the politicians) ignore or try to discredit the demonstrations.

Anyone protesting healthcare reform now has a) no clue how (badly) our health insurance system works or b) so much profit from it that they don’t give a feth. The ignorant and aggressive folks at the town hall meetings this summer were very depressing to see. For the most part no sense of how the legislative process works. The Daily Show took the piss out of them pretty well.

Ya I guess I am an idiot because I can cover my family. Boo hooo 10% of the US can not. I like my health care just fine. Ignorant at the town halls? How about the ignorance our elected officials showed when challenged with the actual document they failed to read. I cant stand you fething Liberals trying take what I earned and give it to the undeserving. I loved every minute of it. I know I know I am evil because I like what I have and wil be damned if I have to pay more taxes so the trash and unwanted of this Nation can reap even more entitlements off my dime. The Daily Show is gak BTW.

I see a different part in cali. People are to violent here about there causes. Why dont people understand that makes there cause worse and the greatest 3 in this world movements were done peacefully. I like the daily show. oh and im republican.