Reference no: EM133321663
Prompt: Are protests practiced by members of disadvantaged groups more (or less) effective than protests by advantaged groups? What does this tell us about the prospect of legislative change?
Case: There is no one right response to this question because the answer is contingent on a variety of different things. On one hand, it is generally accepted wisdom that demonstrations held by members of oppressed groups carry more weight than demonstrations held by members of privileged groups. This is due to the fact that disadvantaged groups have a higher probability of being directly affected by the matter at hand, and as a result, they have a greater stake in the outcome of the protest. In addition, disadvantaged groups frequently have less power and resources than advantaged groups, which makes them more willing to take risks and utilize disruptive tactics in order to get their message across.
Protests organized by members of underrepresented groups may be more successful in terms of increasing awareness and attracting the attention of the media, but they are much less likely to result in changes to existing laws. This is due to the fact that more powerful and influential groups have greater power and are, as a result, in a better position to lobby for change. In addition, disadvantaged groups frequently have a lower level of organization and lack the financial resources necessary to maintain a campaign over an extended period of time.
In general, the efficacy of demonstrations is contingent upon a variety of different factors. On the other hand, disadvantaged groups are almost always at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to influence the change of legislation.