[flagged]
Also the fact that so many in the US claim they remember he died in prison should say something about the media landscape.
From the European perspective I recall the concerts that were held to free him and then also the concert that was held after he was free. Simple Minds even made a famous song for it [1]. I don't know if those concets were a big show in the US, we only had a few TV stations and this was always a big thing.
While Euro countries tend to be a tiny bit better than the US on the issues, they are generally much more restrictive in terms of protected speech.
You say "Euro countries" but let's be clear - it's only Germany.
They have been effective for millenia, even before democracy. The only thing ineffective now is people saying so. With all the evidence in the world that protest works, people bizarrely disarm themselves.
The targets of the protests take great pains to convince you of it; that should tell you something. They'll bluff until they lose.
If people are going to quit, then quit! Stop coming to the meeting and talking about you've quit!
It has been ineffective. We've seen peaceful protestors smeared, and beaten and harassed by the police. We've seen counter terror laws abused to smear and arrest leaders. We've seen clampdowns on what protests are allowed to go ahead, and at least on the UK they are pushing and pushing for "tougher" laws to crush protests.
Protest movements are only effective when they present a viable alternative to a more radical movement with a will to violence at their flank. We saw this clearly in the indian independence & american civil rights movements, and the fall of apartheid. Iraq war and climate movement are what you get without the credible threat of violence behind or beside your peaceful protests.
One important lesson of the iraq war protests now that we can see with hindsight: we were right, and we were justified in using much more radical tactics than we actually did. Those horrors lay partially at our coward feet so let's not allow ourselves to be convinced to repeat it with palestine.
You are your opponents' dream. They couldn't write a better script for you - quitting and self-defeating, at the same time!
It's only ineffective if your measure is immediate, complete victory. You don't win everything, you face defeat, and you quit? Then I agree, your protest is useless. You think you are somehow entitled to results? Yes, your protest is worthless, a pantomime. Protest isn't a ritual you perform - a raindance that you do - and then the gods respond with whatever it is you asked for. Protest compels results - it's embracing that you are the agent, you are the power, you make it happen; the enemy will give you nothing. If you don't understand that, if you aren't planning for it, if you have no strategy that will compel victory, then you're just entitled. (I think the latter is the problem with most of the protests now - they're doing raindances.)
And you go around telling people how hopeless it is? Have you ever accomplished anything? Has anyone who has ever said those things? People saying those things are the first problem - if they were on my team, I'd tell them to never say that again or simply don't come back.
Regardless, the protests have altered behavior, including by European leaders and by the most powerful person in the world (POTUS) and a candidate for that office (Harris). They may cost Harris the election by denying her enough votes in Michigan. And though nobody can say for sure, they arguably have altered the Israeli government's behavior, though the protestors will certainly and understandably say, not nearly enough.
Finally, to evaluate protest, compare it to the alternative: silence. Imagine horrors went on and society responded with silence. Imagine how demoralizing that would be to the ordinary person, who does have a moral conscience. Imagine how crushing to public morality if nobody said anything. Protestors are essential.
[0] There was some research, I think from 10-20 years ago, that showed that it succeeds at a high rate. But I don't recall what kind of protest, etc., so I hope someone else knows about it.
We still have no meaningful movement on climate change, an antidemocratic political system, no social safety net, Palestine, etc.
Can you give any examples?
You haven't achieved more because you and all these other people quit. Of course you're not achieving anything.
I’m not sure if that would be an ethical course of action outside the country where the oppression is actually happening.
I mean bombing government buildings (which is what landed Mandela in prison) is definitely what most people would consider terrorism, or treason, or similar things. Now you can argue that Mandela's actions were justified because Apartheid was evil (and I agree that it was evil) but that's entirely different than arguing that he was just a poor victim of the racist SA government who was imprisoned because he wanted to end Apartheid.
The problem is that people feel morally uncomfortable arguing that it's ok to bomb government buildings (and similar actions) when your cause is just, because that raises all sorts of other moral quandaries that most people don't want to (or refuse to) face. So they pretend like Mandela and his party were perfect angels practicing non-violent resistance like MLK so they can avoid the moral quandaries raised by suggesting that terrorism is ok for a just cause.
I mean, what you are describing is just war theory, and pretty much every government in the world subscribes to it.
I don't think anybody has any moral quandaries about it when it is THEIR cause. Only when it is someone else's cause. Name one freedom fighter/revolutionary (even a perfectly non-violent one) who is not a 'terrorist' to the regime theyre trying to overthrow. I don't think anyone 'pretends' Mandela was a 'perfect angel' anymore than anyone pretends the founding fathers were beacons of unblemished moral rectitude.
They were far from it, then again, the ANC campaign killed less than 100 people (excluding their sorta-civil-war with Zulu which isn't what people think about) and ultimately played no role in their victory.
Why do you think it should be illegal to make documentaries critical of Hillary Clinton?