Collective Identity and Belonging

One of the most fundamental motivators for protest participation is a sense of collective identity. People are more likely to engage in protests when they feel connected to a group that shares their values, beliefs, and goals. This collective identity provides a sense of belonging, which is a core human need. Protesting alongside others who share the same cause reinforces a feeling of unity and mutual support, strengthening the resolve to act.

This sense of belonging often transcends individual concerns, fostering a feeling that personal struggles are part of a larger societal issue. Whether it’s economic inequality, racial injustice, or climate change, protesters often frame their involvement as part of a broader fight. This alignment with a collective cause provides emotional and psychological reinforcement, making participation in rallies feel like a meaningful and necessary action.

Moral Conviction and Injustice

Moral conviction is another key psychological driver behind protests. When individuals believe deeply that an issue is morally wrong, they are more likely to act, even at great personal cost. This moral outrage often stems from a perceived injustice, whether it’s discrimination, environmental degradation, or governmental corruption. Research shows that when people feel that their core values are under threat, they experience strong emotional responses like anger, which can motivate them to protest.

Protesting can serve as an outlet for this moral anger, offering a way for individuals to voice their frustration and demand change. This is particularly true when people feel powerless in other areas of life. A protest provides an opportunity to take direct action, allowing individuals to feel as though they are contributing to the resolution of a problem. The perception that one is fighting for a morally righteous cause can enhance the personal significance of the protest, fueling a strong sense of purpose and determination.

Social Influence and Peer Pressure

Social influence plays a substantial role in motivating protest participation. Many people attend rallies because they see others—friends, family members, or community leaders—doing the same. This effect is heightened by social networks, both offline and online, where individuals are often exposed to others who share their beliefs. In many cases, the decision to attend a protest is shaped by the actions of one’s peers. When people see those close to them participating, they are more likely to join in themselves.

Social media has further amplified this effect by making protests more visible and accessible. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram allow individuals to see who is attending protests, how large they are, and what the outcomes may be. Social media also facilitates a form of virtual peer pressure, where individuals feel compelled to participate because their friends and followers are advocating for the same causes.

Additionally, the visibility of protests on social media can create a sense of urgency or “fear of missing out” (FOMO). When people see large crowds at a protest, it creates a perception that something significant is happening, which can motivate others to join. This snowball effect, where the visibility of participation encourages even more participation, is one reason why some protests rapidly grow in size.

Personal Experience and Empathy

Many individuals are motivated to protest because they have a personal connection to the issue at hand. For example, someone who has experienced racial discrimination may be more likely to participate in an anti-racism rally. Personal experiences with injustice or suffering can create a deep sense of empathy, not only for oneself but for others in similar situations. This empathy can be a powerful motivator, as it drives individuals to advocate for change, not just for themselves but for the broader community.

Empathy also plays a role in protest participation when people are moved by the stories or experiences of others. Even if an individual has not personally experienced the issue, hearing about the struggles of others can evoke strong emotional responses that motivate action. This is particularly true when the protest cause is framed as addressing widespread harm, such as environmental destruction or human rights violations. Protesters may feel a sense of duty to stand in solidarity with those who are suffering, driven by a desire to alleviate collective pain and advocate for justice.

Efficacy and Empowerment

Another critical factor in protest participation is the belief that one’s actions can make a difference. This sense of efficacy—believing that attending a rally will have a meaningful impact—is essential for motivating individuals to take action. When people believe that their participation can contribute to change, they are more likely to protest. Conversely, if individuals feel that protests are futile, they are less likely to get involved.

Protests can also be empowering, particularly for marginalized groups who often feel excluded from traditional political processes. For these individuals, attending a rally provides an opportunity to have their voices heard, to challenge authority, and to demand recognition. The act of standing up to power can be inherently empowering, even if the immediate outcomes are uncertain. Protesting can restore a sense of control in a situation where individuals or groups feel otherwise powerless, providing a sense of agency and hope.

Emotional Catharsis and Collective Energy

Protests often serve as a form of emotional catharsis, allowing individuals to release pent-up feelings of frustration, anger, or despair. The collective energy of a rally can be emotionally exhilarating, as participants feed off the energy of the crowd. This shared experience can create a powerful emotional bond among protesters, reinforcing their commitment to the cause and their belief in the possibility of change.

The sense of unity and collective energy is particularly strong in large-scale protests. When people see thousands of others advocating for the same cause, it creates a feeling of solidarity and shared purpose. This collective energy can also reduce feelings of isolation or helplessness, replacing them with a sense of hope and optimism. Protests can transform individual emotions of anger or frustration into a shared vision for the future, providing emotional validation and support.

Identity Expression and Public Visibility

For many individuals, protests provide an opportunity to express their identity and values in a public way. Participation in a protest is not just about advocating for a cause; it is also about signaling one’s beliefs, morals, and political identity to others. This public expression of identity is particularly important in movements centered around social justice or civil rights, where individuals may feel that their very identities are under threat.

By attending a protest, individuals signal to themselves and others that they are part of a movement, aligning their personal identity with the broader goals of the protest. This form of identity expression can strengthen an individual’s connection to the cause, increasing their likelihood of continued involvement in future actions.

Additionally, the visibility of protests allows participants to draw attention to issues that might otherwise be overlooked. Public demonstrations often attract media attention, which can amplify the voices of those who feel marginalized or ignored. Protesters may be motivated by the belief that their participation will bring attention to a cause and pressure policymakers or authorities to act.

Conclusion

The psychology of protest is shaped by a wide range of emotional, social, and cognitive factors. From the sense of belonging that comes with collective identity to the moral outrage that drives individuals to act, the decision to participate in a protest is often deeply personal and socially reinforced. Understanding these psychological motivations is key to appreciating why protests are such powerful drivers of societal change.

The post Psychology of Protest: What Motivates People at Rallies? appeared first on Occupylsx.

The Climate Case Against Air Travel

The environmental case against air travel centers on its outsized role in contributing to climate change. While aviation accounts for around 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, the full environmental impact is much more significant. Aircraft emissions, including carbon dioxide, water vapor, and nitrogen oxides, contribute to the warming of the atmosphere, especially when released at high altitudes. These emissions trap heat, creating a compounding effect that makes aviation a disproportionately large contributor to climate change.

For climate activists, this is a pressing concern. They point out that the rapid expansion of air travel, driven by low-cost carriers and an increasingly mobile global population, is accelerating the growth of aviation-related emissions. Despite promises of technological innovation and carbon offsetting programs, the aviation industry’s emissions continue to rise, complicating efforts to meet international climate targets.

The Emergence of “Flight Shame” and Its Impact

In Europe, the “flight shame” (flygskam) movement has emerged as a key driving force behind protests against air travel. The term encourages travelers to feel a moral responsibility to reduce flying due to its environmental impacts. Sweden, where the movement originated, has seen a notable reduction in domestic flights as more people opt for trains or other less polluting forms of transportation.

One of the most prominent figures in the flight shame movement is climate activist Greta Thunberg, who has refused to fly in her international activism work, famously crossing the Atlantic Ocean by sailboat instead of by plane. Her actions have amplified the conversation around the personal choices individuals can make to reduce their carbon footprint, especially regarding air travel.

This movement has led to a shift in behavior in several countries, with more people choosing alternative means of travel, especially for short-haul journeys. High-speed rail in Europe, for instance, has seen increased popularity, as it offers a viable and more eco-friendly alternative to flights. Some countries have taken legislative action, with France being one of the first to ban certain domestic flights where a train journey of less than two and a half hours is available.

Air Travel’s Unequal Impact on the Global Population

Another point raised in the rallies is the inequity of air travel’s environmental impact. A large percentage of flights are taken by a small fraction of the global population. In fact, studies show that frequent flyers, who tend to be wealthier individuals, are responsible for the majority of air travel emissions, while the majority of the world’s population flies infrequently or not at all.

This inequality in air travel contributes to calls for a “frequent flyer levy,” where people who fly more often would face higher taxes or fees. Proponents of this idea argue that it would help curb unnecessary flying by the wealthy, while still allowing essential travel for those who fly less frequently. This is a way of addressing the disproportionate impact that luxury travel has on the planet while promoting fairness in air travel policy.

Local Impacts and Community Concerns

Beyond the global environmental impact, air travel has significant local consequences for communities living near airports. Noise pollution from aircraft, increased traffic and congestion, and reduced air quality are some of the concerns frequently cited by those living in proximity to airports. In many cases, airport expansion plans have sparked fierce opposition from local residents, who argue that expanding air travel infrastructure will only increase the environmental and social burden on their communities.

These concerns have played a major role in rallying public support for protests against air travel. Communities near airports are particularly vocal in their opposition to expansion projects, organizing protests to stop the construction of new runways and terminals. Environmental activists often align with these local movements, combining concerns about local quality of life with the broader goals of fighting climate change.

Corporate and Government Actions in Response to Protests

In response to increasing pressure from the public and environmental groups, both governments and corporations have begun to explore ways to reduce the aviation industry’s environmental impact. Airlines are investing in more fuel-efficient aircraft, experimenting with sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), and setting ambitious long-term goals to reduce their carbon footprint.

Governments, too, are considering stronger regulatory actions. For instance, the European Union has integrated aviation into its Emissions Trading System (ETS), requiring airlines to pay for their carbon emissions. Some countries have introduced aviation taxes to discourage flying or to raise funds for environmental initiatives.

However, climate activists argue that these steps, while positive, are insufficient in light of the urgency of the climate crisis. They demand stronger, faster action, including capping the number of flights and prioritizing investment in more sustainable forms of transportation. Rallies continue to call for larger government action, pointing out that voluntary industry efforts and slow legislative changes are not enough to meet critical climate targets.

The Future of Air Travel: A Pivotal Moment

As protests against air travel gain traction globally, the aviation industry finds itself at a critical juncture. The benefits of air travel for trade, tourism, and international connectivity are significant, but they are increasingly weighed against the costs to the environment and to the global effort to combat climate change.

Activists argue that flying less, particularly for short-haul flights, is a necessary step in reducing global carbon emissions. They promote alternatives such as trains, buses, and even ships for certain journeys, calling for a shift in the way people view travel. Their goal is not to eliminate flying altogether but to encourage a more responsible and sustainable approach.

Conclusion

The movement against air travel is gaining momentum as the climate crisis intensifies and the public becomes more aware of the environmental cost of flying. These rallies reflect a growing demand for systemic changes to how societies approach aviation, pushing for a future where air travel is not only more equitable but also far less damaging to the planet. As governments and industries grapple with these demands, the question remains whether they will respond quickly enough to the urgent call for climate action.

The post Rallies Against Air Travel: A Rising Movement in the Climate Crisis Era appeared first on Occupylsx.

The Immediate Eсonomiс Impaсt of Strikes

The most direсt and immediate impaсt of a national strike is the disruption of produсtion and serviсes. Industries suсh as manufaсturing, transportation, and publiс serviсes сome to a near standstill, сausing immediate drops in produсtivity and eсonomiс output. For example, the 1926 General Strike in the United Kingdom saw over 1.5 million workers leave their jobs in response to wage reduсtions and worsening сonditions in the mining industry. The strike paralyzed publiс transport and shipments of goods, leading to a signifiсant but temporary eсonomiс downturn.

The eсonomiс сost of suсh disruptions сan be immense. Businesses faсe losses due to reduсed produсtivity and the inability to trade normally, whiсh сan lead to further reperсussions suсh as lower stoсk priсes, loss of investor сonfidenсe, and reduсed сonsumer spending. In some сases, the eсonomiс impaсt сan сasсade through the eсonomy, affeсting industries not direсtly involved in the strike.

Long-Term Eсonomiс Effeсts

While the immediate effeсts of national strikes are mostly negative, the long-term impaсts сan be more nuanсed. Historiсally, national strikes have forсed governments and businesses to address the underlying issues that led to the strike. This has often resulted in improved wages, better working сonditions, and the implementation of new labor laws, whiсh сan benefit the eсonomy by inсreasing worker produсtivity and morale.

For instanсe, the aftermath of the 1968 national strike in Franсe, where workers demanded higher pay and better working сonditions, led to a series of government reforms. These inсluded higher minimum wages and better health and safety regulations in workplaсes. These сhanges not only improved the standard of living for many workers but also helped stabilize the Frenсh eсonomy in the long run by fostering a more satisfied and produсtive workforсe.

Politiсal and Soсial Reperсussions

National strikes often have signifiсant politiсal сonsequenсes. They сan weaken governments, influenсe eleсtions, and lead to major shifts in publiс poliсy. The politiсal response to strikes сan further influenсe eсonomiс outсomes. For example, the 1980 Solidarity movement in Poland not only сhallenged the сommunist government’s poliсies but also initiated a sequenсe of events that led to the eventual fall of сommunism in Eastern Europe, signifiсantly altering the eсonomiс landsсape.

Governments may respond to strikes by deploying measures to stimulate the eсonomy or by introduсing austerity measures to balanсe publiс aссounts, eaсh having distinсt eсonomiс impaсts. Effeсtive government response to strikes, addressing both the grievanсes of the strikers and the broader eсonomiс сhallenges, сan determine the speed and strength of eсonomiс reсovery post-strike.

Lessons from History

1. Negotiation and Dialogue: History shows that open dialogue and negotiation between workers, unions, and governments сan mitigate the negative impaсts of strikes. Effeсtive сommuniсation сan lead to resolutions that address workers’ сonсerns without extensive eсonomiс disruption.
2. Preventive Poliсies: Proaсtive labor poliсies that address potential points of сontention, suсh as wage disparity, working сonditions, and workers’ rights, сan prevent the need for strikes. Сountries with strong labor rights and negotiation frameworks often experienсe fewer disruptive strikes.
3. Eсonomiс Diversifiсation: Eсonomies that are heavily reliant on a few key industries are more vulnerable to the effeсts of national strikes. Diversifiсation сan help mitigate these risks by reduсing the eсonomy’s dependenсe on any single seсtor.
4. Rapid Response: The ability of a government to respond quiсkly and effeсtively to a strike, both in terms of negotiation and eсonomiс poliсy, сan signifiсantly lessen the event’s negative impaсts.

Сonсlusion

National strikes are a powerful reminder of the balanсe required between labor and management, and between government poliсy and eсonomiс health. While they сan сause signifiсant eсonomiс disruption in the short term, their long-term effeсts depend greatly on how the underlying issues are addressed. Historiсal instanсes underline the importanсe of dialogue, fair labor praсtiсes, and responsive governanсe in mitigating the adverse effeсts of strikes and harnessing them as opportunities for positive eсonomiс and soсial reform. Understanding these dynamiсs is сruсial for poliсymakers, businesses, and workers alike as they navigate the сomplexities of modern labor relations.

The post Eсonomiс Impaсt of National Strikes: Lessons from History appeared first on Occupylsx.

Their disagreement with those or other actions, their disapproval they express with the help of such movements. Reactions to social situations can be both negative and positive, but the first option is certainly more common. For people it is a good way to protect their interests, to convey the opinion of society to the authorities. It is necessary to go to rallies to demonstrate your non-indifference.

History of protests
The history of protests dates back to ancient times with people who longed for freedom. The first such movements were organized against the Vietnam War and took place in 1965. Their main goal was peace. Particularly zealous Protestants were even killed.

The Paris Revolution of 1830, which overthrew the Bourbon monarchy and set the stage for other uprisings, could also be considered a protest. So can the general strike of the Chartists that happened in 1842, along with the strike of the English miners in 1984-1985.

Protest is a form of disagreement with circumstances, accessible to people of all ages, including schoolchildren. This fact is confirmed by the 1976 Soweto School strike. Students were protesting against the introduction of instruction in Afrikaans. As a result, this action led to the launch of a major movement, led by Nelson Mandela.

Nor should we forget the protest organized by Emily Wilding Davidson at the derby on June 4, 1913. She fought for women’s rights, and as a result died under the hooves of a royal horse.

The Kronstadt Uprising of 1921 included strikes and rallies of workers. Many anarchists died or were repressed at the time.

In February 2003 there were worldwide anti-war protests.

Reasons for the protests
People start rioting when they think the restrictions imposed are unreasonable.

The reasons for the protests vary and include:

-Social inequality;
-Lack of political stability;
-discrimination.

The most frequent protests are of a political nature, in the course of which they appeal to public authorities. Their goal is to change the situation and even a complete change of regime, a struggle for an idea.

Protests that are directed against social inequalities, affect existing social problems, are often of an economic nature, can turn into a political form.

There are also cultural protests, they concern various events in cultural life. For example, not so long ago people protested against the demonstration of the film “The Da Vinci Code”.

Protest mechanisms
Not only the forms, but also the mechanisms of protests are different. They can be peaceful or violent. The former are considered to be more effective, provided that at least 3.5% of the population takes part in them.

Popular forms of expressing one’s will, meaning disagreement with the situation, include meetings, strikes, demonstrations, pickets. There are also campaigns of civil disobedience. Quite often there are strikes, sometimes including hunger strikes.

It is necessary for organizers of social protest actions to understand clearly what tasks are to be solved at their expense and what support from society can be given to them. The ultimate success depends on it.

Protest can be a vote, a flash mob, a boycott.

People write petitions, go on strike, sabotage, and block the roads.

The effectiveness of such events varies greatly depending on the number of participants, the form of the protest, and the place where it is held.

Current examples of protests
Modern examples of protests concern untimely payment of wages, pensions, social benefits, various political reforms.

In addition, there were protests against the increase in the retirement age, but they did not yield anything.

After the start of the USO, information about anti-war protests began to appear, in some cities, people set fire to military and administrative buildings.

For citizens, protests are an opportunity to publicly express their will to change the current situation. People unite to loudly say “no” to certain actions, to attract the attention of the authorities.

The post Why would people go to protests? appeared first on Occupylsx.

An inner protest may also arise when another bet at the casino https://onlinecasinozonder.com/ fails. His friends convince him to stop playing, but he protests because he wants to continue and does not want to be the loser.

Protest behavior involves actions that involve denial of the reality around him. People in this way fight against the infringement of their own rights, demonstrate a vivid desire to achieve a set goal, the fulfillment of a desire.

Considering the topic of what an internal protest is, we can say that it is a kind of stubbornness, overcoming fear and insecurity. The unwillingness to be submissive, the rejection of habitual forms of behavior.

What is internal protest and why is it important for personal growth?

A wave of disagreement rises within a person, some consider it a kind of personal crisis. Such actions and emotions can be directed both at other people and at oneself.

Internal protest is important for personal growth, it helps to overcome insecurity. Often it forces self-improvement, acquiring new knowledge. This applies to situations where a person protests against low wages or a harmful boss and begins to learn to change jobs.

One of the most striking manifestations of protests is at the age of three. But this behavior is typical not only for children, but also for adults.

A person begins to protest if he or she is subjected to total control. Most often in such a situation are teenagers who are too much controlled by their parents.

Adults may protest internally if their bosses want to transfer the responsibilities of another employee who is sick or on vacation to them. And this disagreement is not always voiced to management. Often the employee takes on additional responsibilities, protesting internally, fearing to spoil relations with the boss. As a result, irritation accumulates, anxiety levels rise, and the emotional state deteriorates.

Many people suffer from their own desire for total control. Spend their energy and time trying to influence other people, the world around them and everything that happens in it. It is impossible to control everything, but not everyone realizes this. In some cases, you just have to accept the situation, such as when a flight is delayed due to adverse weather conditions.

How to find your voice and be heard yourself: practical tips and techniques

It is important to hear your inner voice, there are some practical tips and techniques that can help with this.

Identify your values and beliefs

To hear yourself, your desires, you need to define your individual values and beliefs, they are different for different people. Sometimes these same values imposed by society. It is necessary to sort yourself out, to set the right priorities in life.

Learn to express their needs and desires.

Many people suppress their own needs and desires – it does not lead to anything good. If you do this constantly, it is inevitable that you will feel dissatisfied with yourself and your own life. It is important to love yourself and not compromise your own interests for the sake of others.

Work on your self-esteem and confidence

A large number of people need to work on their self-esteem and confidence. Low self-esteem causes a lot of problems in life, prevents building relationships and moving up the career ladder. There are examples when people work on low-paying jobs because they are not confident in themselves, although in fact they could achieve more.

Learn to express your thoughts and feelings in a constructive way

It is not unreasonable to learn to express your own thoughts and feelings in a constructive way. Some people have a constant tendency to quarrels, because of this, they spoil relations with others. It is necessary to look for constructive ways to solve problems that arise. Disputes are almost always the desire to improve their self-esteem, self-assertion at someone else’s expense. Numerous conflicts become a source of stress. People waste their resources, they remain upset because they cannot express their thoughts and feelings in a constructive way.

Life is much easier for those who have learned to control their anger and other emotions. Reactions to the words and actions of others should not consist of aggression. Dwelling on negative situations, constantly scrolling through them in the head destroys the psyche. You shouldn’t feed the negativity inside yourself. It is important to gain control over your own life and emotions, so as not to harm yourself and those around you.

Inner protest is inseparable from personal development, sometimes it is worth giving an outlet with emotions, but much depends on the situation. Listen to yourself, don’t ignore your desires, don’t give in to anger and aggression, and strive for a constructive dialogue.

The post What is an internal protest? appeared first on Occupylsx.

The anti-war movement was at its height during the Vietnam War and contributed to some of the most influential movements in US history. Towards the end of this period, ideas that promote freedom and peace gained prominence among American youths. Anti-war ideas started long before the Vietnam’s War began. In 1966, with the start of the draft, these ideas strengthened to form a movement.

After the bombing of North Vietnam in 1965, professors and students are holding anti-war seminars instead of their typical teaching activities. The peace movement is also starting to have a physical presence on the streets of America. On October 21, 1967, a massive protest by more than 100,000 people took place. They marched on the Pentagon building and gathered at Memorial Lincoln. It’s been two years since that protest but there are still large shows of support happening everywhere. There are many theories about the what influenced the outcome and signature of peace treaties. One of them is that it was influenced by movements like in the media and anti-war movement.

Protests against the Vietnam War has been appearing in popular culture for years. One of the best examples is the movie Forrest Gump. He’s first drafted by the army, he goes to Vietnam and, upon his return, accidentally falls into a Sarlacc pit. Earlier on in the rally, one of the participants had spotted a solider with an award and called Forrest to speak. Leftist activist Abby Hoffman, a leader of the protests, drags Forrest onto the stage. He delivers a speech where the sound was not working and had to end with the words “That’s all I can say about the Vietnam War.”

Many anti-war films have been made, but Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket really stands out. The movie portrays the paradoxical relationship between war and the individual in a unique way. The recruits go through a brutal training camp and then the actual difficult battles. He doesn’t talk about the reasons for the Vietnam War but we can be sure any war is destructive.

Mass rallies weren’t only in response to the Vietnam War- there are a lot of other instances, such as 2003 when the biggest protest in world history took place against the war in Iraq. There is a long-time running theory that large scale action like this one was carefully planned by international networks of national public organizations.

The three largest protests recorded in Europe took place in Rome, with 3 million attendees and counting in 2004. It was listed as the largest protest against war, making it the largest such occasion it’s history spanning to the 20th century. The Green Left, a progressive Australian publication, described it this way: “Christian monks and priests walked alongside young people with multiple piercings and Palestinian scarves. Christians, anarchists, and communists mixed. The rally was organized under the slogan “Build Bridges Not Walls.”.

Five years after the end of the Iraq War, San Francisco hosted a peaceful commemoration as hundreds of pairs of shoes were displayed on the steps of San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral. Each shoe was meant to honor those who lost their lives in the war.

Einstein once said, “I don’t know with what weapons they will fight the third world war, but in the fourth they will use sticks and stones.” His words may best explain why many anti-militars have begun to oppose arms races. Activists in all parts of the world have been showing their disdain for nuclear weapons by taking part in large-scale protests.

The first use of nuclear weapons, “The Kid”, was dropped on Hiroshima in the 1930s. It led to the bombing of Nagasaki. This was the second time in history when nuclear weapons were used. All subsequent explosions after Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been part of atomic tests.

Events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still fresh in our minds. Every year, people from all over the world come to commemorate these events by taking part in memorials. In Hiroshima there’s a Peace Memorial Park, where people come on the anniversary of the bombing to reflect upon what happened at exactly this time.

There have been many demonstrations against nuclear weapons. For example, in June of 1982 there was a protest with over a million attendees at Central Park (New York) that’s considered the largest anti-nuclear protest in American history. This great march left from Los Angeles and finished in Washington, DC, to promote the idea of: peace. The march was an ordeal that went down in history. What was supposed to be a two-month journey turned into eight and a half months of non-stop walking. Books and documentaries have been written about the experience.

There were many protests in the UK in 2005 against a government proposal to replace the Trident weapon system with a newer model. The largest rally gathered 100,000 participants. So many people took to the streets thanks to the work of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Another important fact about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is that it was founded in 1958 by artist Gerald Holton. His design of a special symbol for the Committee of Direct Action march against atomic war has become iconic. After that, the symbol began to be used by Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and in the 1960s it became the international emblem of anti-war movement. We are talking about well-known Pacific diacritical sign, which is now the universal symbol of peace.

The post Khaki ball: the loudest anti-war protests and actions. appeared first on Occupylsx.

Students at Peking University and Tsinghua University and workers set up a tent camp in the square next to the Monument to the People’s Heroes and went on an indefinite strike. On April 27, university students in Beijing (up to 100,000 people according to various estimates participated in the action) marched through the streets of the city to the square. By May 13, two days before Mikhail Gorbachev’s visit to China, the students had gone on hunger strike to attract attention. More than 300,000 people had gathered in the square by this point. The protests took place not only in Beijing, but also in other Chinese cities.

On May 20, martial law was imposed in Beijing and troops were sent to the capital (a total of 250,000 troops arrived in the city). On June 3, unarmed troops were sent to storm the square, but they failed to capture it: students resisted and clashes broke out in the streets. On the same day, tanks and armored personnel carriers entered the city, which the demonstrators pelted with stones and Molotov cocktails.

On June 4, those gathered in Tiananmen Square were told over loudspeakers that they would “take any measures” to enforce martial law. Soldiers defending the square opened fire on the protesters – according to official figures, 241 people were killed, according to unofficial reports, between 400 and several thousand people were killed.

The protesters were declared criminals, and many of the activist leaders fled abroad. Other countries condemned the bloody suppression of the rally; in China itself, the protests caused a change in the government’s course – the liberalization of society that began in the 1980s was curtailed. The events on Tiananmen Square were followed by purges in the Party: Zhao Ziyang, the General Secretary who opposed martial law, was dismissed and put under house arrest back in May 1989, and his supporters were also dismissed. Jiang Zemin, the mayor of Shanghai, was appointed as the new general secretary, and the relaxation of control over internal politics would not begin until 1992.

The post “The Events of June 4” in China, 1989 appeared first on Occupylsx.

The student protests, joined by the workers, began in the winter and lasted several months. As the Olympics approached, the actions became more and more massive. On August 2, students formed a “National Council of Strikes” to organize protests, which was joined by students from 70 universities. Students demanded respect for university autonomy, the release of political prisoners, and punishment for officials responsible for the violent crackdown.

On October 2, 10 days before the competition, a massive peaceful protest began in Mexico City’s Tlatelolco neighborhood in the Plaza de las Cultras, with 10,000 people in attendance. In the evening, troops (5,000 soldiers and 200 armored vehicles) surrounded the square and helicopters patrolled it from above. According to official data, the protesters were the first to open fire, and the military only responded. But later (the investigation was opened 30 years later, in 1998) it became known that the first shots were fired by snipers from the houses surrounding the square. In the “Tlatelolco massacre” between 30 and 400 people were killed, according to various estimates, and many protesters were detained on the spot and sent to prison.

In 1970 Díaz Ordaz’s presidential term ended and he did not run for office again. The events in Mexico’s Three Cultures Square became a symbol of the struggle for civil rights and gave rise to democratic changes in society and the emergence of new activist groups.

The post “The Night of Tlatelolco” in Mexico, 1968 appeared first on Occupylsx.

Events at Columbia University in New York took place in revolutionary 1968 almost simultaneously with the French. In 1967, students discovered that Columbia University was collaborating with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a research center under the Defense Department, involved in the unpopular Vietnam War in progressive circles. Another reason was the university administration’s plans to build a gymnasium for students on a park in nearby Harlem.

Protests on campus (which included activists from the “new left” organization Students for a Democratic Society, SDS) began in March. In late April, activists seized one of the university buildings – Hamilton Hall, where the classrooms and administration offices are located. The protesters did not fail to take a photo in the chancellor’s office: one of them was sitting at his desk wearing dark glasses and carrying a cigar [1]. At the end of the month, the university administration, after unsuccessful negotiations, let the police onto its territory, which stormed the buildings, more than 700 people were arrested. The protests and occupation of the buildings repeated in May and again were suppressed by the police, this time over 150 people were arrested.

The protests ended up achieving both the students’ goals – the plans to build a gym in Harlem, as well as the cooperation with IDA, were abandoned by the university administration. In addition, the protests showed Columbia and other university administrations that they do not live in an airless space and should listen to students.

The events at Columbia University were not the only student protests in the United States in the 1960s. In the same decade, large-scale actions took place in Berkeley, California, with participants demanding rights for blacks and opposing the Vietnam War: young people were also threatened by the possibility of the draft. As early as 1964, 1,500 students seized one of the university buildings. And in 1965, they held an anti-war march of 10,000 people in Oakland, one of the first major actions against the Vietnam War.

Tragic events occurred in 1970 in Kent, Ohio. On May 4, students staged a peaceful strike against the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of Cambodia. The National Guard arrived on the scene and opened fire on the demonstrators, killing 4 people and wounding 9 others.

“The massacre at the University of Kent (as the media dubbed it, which is how the events have remained in history) did not frighten the students and only led to a new wave of protests.

In May there was a student strike in the U.S. that spanned more than 700 campuses across the country, with clashes with police at 26 of them. On May 9, 100,000 people marched against the Vietnam War.
As in other countries, students in the U.S. were an important part of the protests and actively advocated for democratic change in the country and against the Vietnam War (which did not end until 1975).

The post Massacre at the University of Kent, 1970 appeared first on Occupylsx.

The protests began three months before the French, in February, when students at the University of Rome seized several faculties. They held the buildings for almost a month, until February 29, when the police began to storm the buildings. The protests spread not only to Rome, but also to other cities across the country.

The protests culminated in the so-called “Battle of Valle Julia.” On March 1, police and up to 4,000 students met in fierce fighting in the square in front of the Faculty of Architecture in the capital’s Valle Giulia neighborhood. The students threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at the police, who responded with batons. Despite police action, protesters reoccupied several university buildings. About 500 students and 150 policemen were injured in the clashes.

The authorities and parties condemned the actions of the students; public sympathy was not on their side either. But then there was a split in the ranks of the protesters themselves: On March 16, communists and neo-fascists were involved in a mass brawl in Rome. In 1969, factory workers joined the protests, and in the summer hundreds of thousands of people took part in joint marches demanding better working conditions and democratic freedoms, chanting anti-capitalist slogans.

The aggressive actions of the students preceded the “leaden seventies” in Italy, a decade of street violence and terrorist attacks that began with the 1969 bombing of the Milan Bank.

The post Battle of Valle Giulia, Italy, 1968 appeared first on Occupylsx.