Not sure what you mean. While Martin Luther King was demanding civil rights, he had the full support of the Washington establishment. Once he started protesting the war, his support vanished. Then they murdered him.
On the contrary anti-Vietnam activism was successful: US popular sentiment entirely shifted from pro- to anti-war between LBJ and Nixon (from minority progressives to majority support as the war dragged on), which pushed Washington to end the war.
Re: MLK, yes he was successful in getting civil rights passed due to support of Washington elites (mainly LBJ's cajoling of dems + liberal republicans), but as ZQ Li suggests: the reason Washington elites assisted was due to the will of the people. Civil rights was going to happen sooner or later precisely because popular sentiment was trending that way, and that's at least partially due to activism.
No argument with you on sensitive topics being verboten and extralegal silencing happening, both in China and in the US (though still **way** harsher in China)
But think history shows in the US activism and protest works, and the system there is set up to allow national sentiment to be expressed on a mass scale with limited casualties
Did US activism against, say, the Iraq war "work"? How about activism against election fraud? Last I heard, there were still quite a few Americans locked up for that. In China by contrast, all of the recent protesters who were detained were released and most were never arrested in the first place.
Is that cherry picking? Perhaps, it's hard to say. After all, such country to country comparisons are quite difficult because the comparison is never between apples and apples. With regard to events which go farther back, opinions on both the back story and "what really happened" tend to diverge even farther.
In summary, you and the author of this piece may have to agree to disagree.
Overall I'm in agreement with this position by Austrian China, but we have to look at the dynamics of the Western protests effectiveness' overtime. Protests used to be an effective tool to influence the situation and to change the course taken by the government. They have helped to change many things and to even stop wars throughout 1960s, 70s, and even 80s. But from the 1990s onwards first of all there were fewer protests, as the West reached an economic and geopolitical power apogee with a massive influx of the resources that were previously inside of the Soviet system (USSR and satellites) and the living for the average consumer in the West was never as good until 2008. After 2008 there were some protests but their effectiveness in influencing government was in a gradual decline. As an example, let's remember Yellow Vests protests in France, how persistent and massive they were and how little did they achieve. In 2020 and later we have reached the phase when people's protests were basically squashed or ignored. "Elites" felt confident enough they have all the tools (media and tech giants) to shape a majority public opinion, and they were not hesitant at all to use these tools. Any dissenting voices were (and are) simply ignored or if they become too loud - they are silenced. I wish I could share enthusiasm with Austrian China about the wisdom of Chinese authorities that listen to people's voice, but I can't. Time will tell. Let's continue watching, as it looks like the world has finally woken up to the fact that main problems with human rights in China is not in Xinjiang-Uygur Autonomous District and not in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, but all over China mainland.
Wisdom is not a word which comes to mind in connection with Chinese authorities. What motivates them is the fear of public displays of discontent. This is because their legitimacy derives not from elections but from the perception that they enjoy public support. This is why they care much more than their Western counterparts about public opinion.
Indeed, the Yellow Vests seem to have achieved pretty much nothing. Another obvious example which comes to mind is the resistance in Europe against the illegal Covid-related mandates (masks, vaccines, testing). Thousands of demonstrations, millions of demonstrators, yet no sign of any concession until February 24th, 2022.
right now, Hong Kong small/cheap hotels are filled with Chinese nationals who cannot return home because they work or their children go to school in Hong Kong and border crossing involves losing a week each time. not sure why there are no protests but perhaps they don't feel like there will be a positive outcome in any case.
I think they might have to wait at least a few more weeks, but a few spirited protests towards the middle of the month might help speed things up. The government's face saving strategy seems to be give local governments leeway to slowly relax their restrictions bit by bit. Slowly could actually end up meaning no more than a few weeks, but I don't think that the opening vis-à-vis Hong Kong can come before that.
National activism in the US has worked (civil rights?)
Did it really? Some would argue that it succeeded thanks not to popular support, but rather to the support of some very powerful people.
Why powerful people would support it if there is no or little national activism?
Not sure what you mean. While Martin Luther King was demanding civil rights, he had the full support of the Washington establishment. Once he started protesting the war, his support vanished. Then they murdered him.
On the contrary anti-Vietnam activism was successful: US popular sentiment entirely shifted from pro- to anti-war between LBJ and Nixon (from minority progressives to majority support as the war dragged on), which pushed Washington to end the war.
Re: MLK, yes he was successful in getting civil rights passed due to support of Washington elites (mainly LBJ's cajoling of dems + liberal republicans), but as ZQ Li suggests: the reason Washington elites assisted was due to the will of the people. Civil rights was going to happen sooner or later precisely because popular sentiment was trending that way, and that's at least partially due to activism.
No argument with you on sensitive topics being verboten and extralegal silencing happening, both in China and in the US (though still **way** harsher in China)
But think history shows in the US activism and protest works, and the system there is set up to allow national sentiment to be expressed on a mass scale with limited casualties
Did US activism against, say, the Iraq war "work"? How about activism against election fraud? Last I heard, there were still quite a few Americans locked up for that. In China by contrast, all of the recent protesters who were detained were released and most were never arrested in the first place.
Is that cherry picking? Perhaps, it's hard to say. After all, such country to country comparisons are quite difficult because the comparison is never between apples and apples. With regard to events which go farther back, opinions on both the back story and "what really happened" tend to diverge even farther.
In summary, you and the author of this piece may have to agree to disagree.
Overall I'm in agreement with this position by Austrian China, but we have to look at the dynamics of the Western protests effectiveness' overtime. Protests used to be an effective tool to influence the situation and to change the course taken by the government. They have helped to change many things and to even stop wars throughout 1960s, 70s, and even 80s. But from the 1990s onwards first of all there were fewer protests, as the West reached an economic and geopolitical power apogee with a massive influx of the resources that were previously inside of the Soviet system (USSR and satellites) and the living for the average consumer in the West was never as good until 2008. After 2008 there were some protests but their effectiveness in influencing government was in a gradual decline. As an example, let's remember Yellow Vests protests in France, how persistent and massive they were and how little did they achieve. In 2020 and later we have reached the phase when people's protests were basically squashed or ignored. "Elites" felt confident enough they have all the tools (media and tech giants) to shape a majority public opinion, and they were not hesitant at all to use these tools. Any dissenting voices were (and are) simply ignored or if they become too loud - they are silenced. I wish I could share enthusiasm with Austrian China about the wisdom of Chinese authorities that listen to people's voice, but I can't. Time will tell. Let's continue watching, as it looks like the world has finally woken up to the fact that main problems with human rights in China is not in Xinjiang-Uygur Autonomous District and not in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, but all over China mainland.
Wisdom is not a word which comes to mind in connection with Chinese authorities. What motivates them is the fear of public displays of discontent. This is because their legitimacy derives not from elections but from the perception that they enjoy public support. This is why they care much more than their Western counterparts about public opinion.
Indeed, the Yellow Vests seem to have achieved pretty much nothing. Another obvious example which comes to mind is the resistance in Europe against the illegal Covid-related mandates (masks, vaccines, testing). Thousands of demonstrations, millions of demonstrators, yet no sign of any concession until February 24th, 2022.
right now, Hong Kong small/cheap hotels are filled with Chinese nationals who cannot return home because they work or their children go to school in Hong Kong and border crossing involves losing a week each time. not sure why there are no protests but perhaps they don't feel like there will be a positive outcome in any case.
I think they might have to wait at least a few more weeks, but a few spirited protests towards the middle of the month might help speed things up. The government's face saving strategy seems to be give local governments leeway to slowly relax their restrictions bit by bit. Slowly could actually end up meaning no more than a few weeks, but I don't think that the opening vis-à-vis Hong Kong can come before that.