Arguably not in the recent past, but let us not forget that the suffragettes were very committed protesters. They did more than just organize symbolic protests though. They also carried out bombings and arson campaigns and one of them ended up cutting Winston Churchill’s face with a dogwhip.
The Suffragettes are certainly a good counter-example. I didn’t mean that people haven’t been protesting, just that I can’t remember any recent protests (apart from strikes which are something different) where the government gave in and made concessions.
The Suffragists were a group of men and women including MPs who worked within the political system of peaceful negotiation and consensus-building over many years, and had made some gains.
The Suffragettes were a paramilitary organisation tightly controlled by Emmeline Pankhurst, and rejected the involvement of men (and working-class women).
The cause of women’s suffrage was advanced by the Suffragists, but once the Suffragettes started burning, bombing and racially harassing Jewish MPs, those gains were fatally undermined, and public opinion turned against women’s suffrage. In more than one occasion, entire towns turned out to burn down the local WSPU HQ as reprisal for a burned school, town hall or cricket pavilion. Red lines were crossed with the murder of two naval sailors and two attempts to assassinate the PM. If they’d had proscription then, they’d probably have used it.
Eventually Pankhurst lost interest, as her main passion was British imperialism and racial superiority, and her efforts pivoted towards press-ganging young men into the army and later entering very right-wing politics (not for nothing that many of the more famous suffragettes became fascists).
The cause was only revisited after WWI, based on the actions of women on the home front and the new demographic realities. It had little to do with the suffragettes who were still poorly received on either side.
It was a rewriting of history by a couple of propaganda books in the 1930s (largely ex-suffragettes trying to whitewash their crimes) that eventually led to the modern confusion between suffragettes and suffragists.
Amongst other things, the Suffragettes attempted to bury 200 postal workers under the rubble of the biggest sorting office in London, attempted to flood a town by blowing up a canal embankment, left many bombs on commuter trains (now they have a TfL line named after them lol), attempted to kill the Prime Minister by burning down the packed theatre he was in, tried again by burning down his house, attacked MPs for being Jewish, and succeeded in murdering sailors in an attack on a naval dockyard.
And then much of the top echelons of the Suffragettes went on to be key members in British fascism, including one who became Mussolini’s pen-pal, another who became the registered owner of the bank account for the BUF, and another who was actually too anti-Semitic for Oswald Moseley, and denied the Holocaust happened because “there’s so many of them still around”.
The Suffragettes are always a bad example because they utterly failed in their stated aims (the height of their campaign of destruction ended up one of the years with the lowest insurance payouts in British history), went on to say and do horrific things, and there is a question as to how much of it was true commitment to a cause and how much it was people who got off on the violence.
Last effective protest was the women’s pay movement in 1968. Where all women at the factory strike. Plus many other female employees throughout the UK.
It was effective in that the law changed. Equal pay for women passed as a lawin 1971.
Question Then became is the legal requirements enough.
It was their last resort.
Eventually the regime won, but at the cost of really showing their true colors and who they stand with.
So the strikers were at least effective in that.
A lesson from history and for eternity.
They deserve respect and admiration.
Not every battle can be won, not every revolution succeeds.
But they can.
The only sure way to lose is to resign in your fate.
The British haven’t been too good at protesting in the near past
Arguably not in the recent past, but let us not forget that the suffragettes were very committed protesters. They did more than just organize symbolic protests though. They also carried out bombings and arson campaigns and one of them ended up cutting Winston Churchill’s face with a dogwhip.
The Suffragettes are certainly a good counter-example. I didn’t mean that people haven’t been protesting, just that I can’t remember any recent protests (apart from strikes which are something different) where the government gave in and made concessions.
The government didn’t make concessions to the Suffragettes either. The WSPU was a total failure.
? They got the women’s vote
The Suffragists were a group of men and women including MPs who worked within the political system of peaceful negotiation and consensus-building over many years, and had made some gains.
The Suffragettes were a paramilitary organisation tightly controlled by Emmeline Pankhurst, and rejected the involvement of men (and working-class women).
The cause of women’s suffrage was advanced by the Suffragists, but once the Suffragettes started burning, bombing and racially harassing Jewish MPs, those gains were fatally undermined, and public opinion turned against women’s suffrage. In more than one occasion, entire towns turned out to burn down the local WSPU HQ as reprisal for a burned school, town hall or cricket pavilion. Red lines were crossed with the murder of two naval sailors and two attempts to assassinate the PM. If they’d had proscription then, they’d probably have used it.
Eventually Pankhurst lost interest, as her main passion was British imperialism and racial superiority, and her efforts pivoted towards press-ganging young men into the army and later entering very right-wing politics (not for nothing that many of the more famous suffragettes became fascists).
The cause was only revisited after WWI, based on the actions of women on the home front and the new demographic realities. It had little to do with the suffragettes who were still poorly received on either side.
It was a rewriting of history by a couple of propaganda books in the 1930s (largely ex-suffragettes trying to whitewash their crimes) that eventually led to the modern confusion between suffragettes and suffragists.
Amongst other things, the Suffragettes attempted to bury 200 postal workers under the rubble of the biggest sorting office in London, attempted to flood a town by blowing up a canal embankment, left many bombs on commuter trains (now they have a TfL line named after them lol), attempted to kill the Prime Minister by burning down the packed theatre he was in, tried again by burning down his house, attacked MPs for being Jewish, and succeeded in murdering sailors in an attack on a naval dockyard.
And then much of the top echelons of the Suffragettes went on to be key members in British fascism, including one who became Mussolini’s pen-pal, another who became the registered owner of the bank account for the BUF, and another who was actually too anti-Semitic for Oswald Moseley, and denied the Holocaust happened because “there’s so many of them still around”.
The Suffragettes are always a bad example because they utterly failed in their stated aims (the height of their campaign of destruction ended up one of the years with the lowest insurance payouts in British history), went on to say and do horrific things, and there is a question as to how much of it was true commitment to a cause and how much it was people who got off on the violence.
I mean, half of the British population was living in a state of slavery. That is worth killing people over.
London really showed up for the Palestine protests a couple weeks ago
Basically not since the 18th century really.
Ask your parents about the miners
They were far from effective.
Which is the point, the last time the UK protested in a big way people were brutally masacred by the government.
Last effective protest was the women’s pay movement in 1968. Where all women at the factory strike. Plus many other female employees throughout the UK.
It was effective in that the law changed. Equal pay for women passed as a lawin 1971.
Question Then became is the legal requirements enough.
It was their last resort.
Eventually the regime won, but at the cost of really showing their true colors and who they stand with.
So the strikers were at least effective in that.
A lesson from history and for eternity.
They deserve respect and admiration.
Not every battle can be won, not every revolution succeeds.
But they can.
The only sure way to lose is to resign in your fate.
They used to be glorious though.