There's No "Right" Way to Protest

Or is there?

Photo by Lawrence Makoona on Unsplash

Many of us in the United States (and outside it) are bracing ourselves for the next administration. Protests have already taken place and I anticipate many, many more to come. Historically, protests have effectively raised awareness, pressured elected officials and corporations, and even helped overthrow oppressive regimes around the world. They are powerful tools of social change but the United States doesn’t want you to know that. Conservatives launch a variety pack of pre-made criticisms at protests to undermine their message. Unfortunately, it’s easy to criticise, so it is often the case that people who would otherwise agree with the ultimate goal of protesters end up complaining about the method of protest.

Whenever someone tells me they don’t like how protesters protested, I ask, “How would you have done it? How would you have shared this message if you were them?” They never have an answer. Just “not like that.” Typically, this response is from people unaffected by the issue that prompted protests. It often feels like there’s no “right way” to protest. Maybe there isn’t. You can’t please everyone, but frankly,

aren’t protests supposed to make people uncomfortable? Isn’t that part of the point?

The people protesting are already uncomfortable. They are fighting for their rights, their lives, their dignity—they are fighting not just for themselves, but also for their loved ones, for people who cannot fight for themselves, and all are fighting to make the world a better place, or even to keep it habitable. This should disturb the comfortable (just like some good art).

Let’s look at some examples of protest criticisms. Understanding common threads can help us design our protests with a clear message and help us create and maintain our own narrative. We don’t want others to define us.

You’re a hypocrite!

One that really makes my blood boil the kayak protesters of Portland, Oregon who in 2015, delayed the entry of Shell’s icebreaker, Fennica, trying to leave Portland after repairs to continue oil exploration in Alaska. This is a prime example of the necessity of controlling the narrative. People criticized the kayakers for using a petroleum-based product (kayaks are made of plastic) to protest the oil tanker. This “you’re a hypocrite” argument drives me up the wall because it implies you must be perfect before you can try to make systemic change—but as we all know, that is impossible because you cannot be perfect in an imperfect system. The Hypocrite Criticism is thrown around by conservatives who want to slow progress away from any environmental effort. Ironically, even if a protester or group of protesters are “perfect,” say, they live off the land and off the grid on a regenerative homestead, then they are extremists who want us to live inconvenient lives from a by-gone era—they want us to go backwards! Even if you’re perfect, you’re wrong.

So, the Portland protesters were wrong to use kayaks to stop Shell’s ship. But what else could they have used? Should they have carved canoes out of trees? Would they then not be criticized for cutting down trees to stop oil? And if we’re against burning fossil fuels, does that mean we should stop using all petroleum products immediately? What are we supposed to do with those perfectly useful kayaks, throw them in a landfill? This is the type of absurd logic conservatives use to control the narrative, to make it chaotic, and it doesn’t matter if it contradicts itself. Of course, those tree-huggers want you to stop all use of petroleum products overnight! You can’t use a kayak or a car or a sippy cup for your toddler anymore! If you do, then you love oil and can’t say a word against it.

This is the problem with seeing the world in black and white. The hypocrite criticism doesn’t accept the world as it currently is (flawed) and cannot understand nuance, like transitioning energy instead of overnight changes.

Destroying Property is unacceptable.

Another common criticism is “you shouldn’t destroy property.” It completely misses the point because, sometimes, the destruction of property is the point. When black people are murdered in the streets and in their beds by police, people should be more outraged at that than by the destruction of some storefronts. People who make this criticism often miss the point that human lives are more valuable than property. However, it’s understandable that they would miss this—in the United States, gun laws in various jurisdictions allow you to shoot someone for even setting foot on your property, making your right to exclude more important than their right to life. Yet, throughout the history of the US, protesters who destroy property typically go through phases of public approval. First, it’s awful and the protesters are awful; then, with hindsight, it was necessary and the protesters are patriots (think Boston Tea Party, Civil Rights Movement, women’s right to vote).

a mural I found while living in San Francisco.

Throwing soup on Van Gogh sits awkwardly between peaceful protest and property damage; the paintings are behind glass, so this direct action is symbolic but people tend to react as if priceless art was destroyed. The soup throwers, officially called Just Stop Oil, are following in the footsteps of past art activists who were fed up when traditional forms of activism, like petitions, rallies, and marches, were easily and repeatedly dismissed. The Dada movement and others used absurd acts to bring attention to absurd situations—like continuing to burn fossil fuels despite being fully aware of the climate crisis. Shock is seen as a necessary tool to shake society out of apathy. Unfortunately, such actions run the risk of only being remembered as shocking.

A New York Times survey revealed their readers were completely divided on Just Stop Oil: some thought soup throwing was pure genius while others thought it was criminal. In an interview, Pheobe Plummer stated that the point of the soup was to create outrage proportional to the outrage of governments doing nothing about the climate crisis. While many share their goal and passion, people are concerned that the message is lost. YouTube is full of videos calling out Just Stop Oil for being “dumb” or “destroyed” in interviews despite the well-recognised form of protests they are following. One video title calls Pheobe a zealot.

While Just Stop Oil’s methods are divisive, some argue they have achieved the goal of keeping climate crisis conversations in the public eye—even if that conversation is largely focused on balancing the urgency of climate with maintaining public support for their group.

We don’t like your peaceful protest, either.

Even peaceful protest doesn’t escape criticism. When the football player Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem it was painfully clear that the “property damage” argument was not about property damage. Taking a knee is an action on the opposite end of the protest spectrum from property damage, and yet it was still criticized to the point that the BBC called Kaepernick “one of the most divisive figures in the United States.” He told the BBC,

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.

People, including then-president Trump, found the peaceful protest unpatriotic and disrespectful. As more players joined by sitting or kneeling during the anthem, they discovered they had to explain their actions to be understood. Travis Kelse (Kansas City Chiefs) became the most prominent white player to kneel, expressing his hope that it would create conversation and social change. Eric Reed, one of the first team members to kneel with Kaepernick, was baffled that the message was lost and needed so much explaining. Trump and other conservatives who never served in the military tried to claim it was disrespectful to those who “fought for freedom,” which prompted many veterans to come out and say, Nope, it’s not disrespectful because protesting is one of the freedoms we fought for, carry on.

Famous people shouldn’t be political.

I’m sorry, I try not to judge, but this criticism is just stupid, especially coming from the conservatives who love making constitutional arguments. Why should famous people waive their right to free speech? So people can enjoy watching them throw a ball or listening to their music? If that’s the case, we are literally advocating for famous people to stay silent on important issues so that they can make MONEY from more people liking them.

Freedom of speech aside, it’s not like famous people and their loved ones are not impacted by political issues. Sure, money can insulate you, but not from everything. And shouldn’t we want everyone to care about each other, famous or not? People in the public eye have a unique opportunity to stand up for justice. Famous people are not one-demensional, which seems to be a leading perception: whether they are pop stars or athletes, famous people couldn’t possibly know anything about subjects nonrelated to their fame. This aligns well with American binary thinking—you are either brains or beauty, not both. How ridiculous. Kaepernick is one of many who destroy this stereotype, being both an athlete and deep thinker who, throughout his life and career as a star quarterback, read extensively about social justice, black diaspora, continued to take classes at the University of Berkeley, and he began Know Your Rights campaigns in Oakland, Chicago, and New York. (There’s a beautiful guest collum in The Athletic called The True Colin Kaepernick… if you want to know more about him.)

The issue is not how people choose to protest as black people or with black people, but that they are protesting at all. The criticisms are coming from people made uncomfortable by the protests because those protests force them to face a reality they do not want to see: that the USA is harshly unjust and racism persists.

For the rest of us who are not famous, we may hear we shouldn’t get political because of a position we hold. The same argument applies: did we waive our freedom of speech? No. As I offer below, there are more or less appropriate times and places to protest or advocate. Not only do we want our efforts to be effective, but we also will have personal reasons for protesting in certain ways, related to our capacity. For example, we may protest differently when we are with a group of adults but be more careful when a situation arises while we are grocery shopping with our toddler. And that’s ok—everyone has a role to play, and you cannot be everywhere all the time. Maybe one day, you are placing your white body between black people and police as you march down the street and another day you are hiding your child behind you as you film a potentially dangerous encounter while shouting for help. As I wrote in Weaponise Your Privilege, there is a role for everyone—at least one role, if not many.

In summary, common criticisms of protests (and other forms of activism) are as follows (this list is not exhaustive):

• You’re a hypocrite.

• You’re an extremist.

• You shouldn’t destroy property;

• but you also shouldn’t protest peacefully because it’s disrespectful for *trending reason*

• You shouldn’t talk about this issue because you’re famous/your position as *insert just about anything*

How to Protest: a Guide (well, sort of)

There is no “right” way to protest, no one-size-fits all for a people or an issue. We must accept that we cannot make everyone happy and there are still certain news media outlets (if they still should be called that) that will report complete crap about your movement, your mission, your protests, etc. But with a little forethought, we can strive to make our protests as effective as possible. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I humbly offer this guide to help us get a step ahead of attempts to distort, misrepresent, and otherwise discredit our protests, activism, and efforts to make the world a better place. Any tactic can work in the right context—I hope this helps you find what is best for you and yours.

1. What is our Mission?

Try structures like this:

• To achieve {goal} in {place} through {actions}.

• To bring {thing} to the public’s attention by {actions}.

• To convince {those in power} to approve/stop {this thing}.

2. What are the best Strategies for achieving this Mission?

• Possible actions: Marching, speeches, concerts/poetry slams, taking a knee at certain events, holding up signs in specific places, craftivism in public parks, River or Beach Clean-Ups combined with putting the trash somewhere like city hall’s front doors or the State Senate’s front doors, get creative!

• Having a variety of strategies at the ready can allow for quick responses to current events that align with your mission and stay on message.

• How do we want to invite people in?

• What is the tone of our group/actions? Possibilities: Urgency (without doom), climate joy, empowerment, solidarity and community, rebellion, innovation, satire, radical visions, local pride, etc., or any combination. See annex below.

3. Is everyone involved that should be?

• Is anyone already working on this issue? Has anyone in the past?

• Communities most impacted by the issue

• Youth? Marginalised groups? Locals?

• Is it appropriate and effective to work with local organisations?

4. For each protest/event, have a clear goal and message that reflects your mission.

• Think of the Goal as a tangible step towards the Mission. Maybe it’s getting city hall to approve/stop something by a deadline. Use the SMARTER acronym as needed. (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely (within a reasonable timeframe), Evaluate, Reward)

  • Goals like this will build credibility for your work because they are clear and easy for news outlets to report on while speaking to the overall mission.

• The details of what, when, where, and how matter. What do your protest signs say? Does your action include a letter to someone in elected office or the board members of a company? What are you chanting? You don’t have to control every element, but make the goal and message clear to participants to avoid any confusion.

5. Consider permits for each protest/event.

Your local government can support freedom of assembly if you get permits for large gatherings. This reduces risks (both legal and physical) to participants. For example, in San Francisco, I attended Black Lives Matter marches through town, one that ended at City Hall. Traffic was blocked off for the march by police, so there was a safe, winding path through downtown. Once at city hall, speeches were given. There was no violence, no property damage, and the message of the event to the city and anyone who read about it on the news was clear. But that doesn’t mean permits are always appropriate: if disrupting business-as-usual is an important feature of your event, maybe you need to stop traffic.

Summary:

• Determine your overall mission and strategies.

• Have a clear message and goal for each event.

• Be inclusive—we are in a poly-crisis, we must work together.

You will be criticised. The opposition will try to discredit you, your movement, your ideas, your cause. But you are not trying to change the minds and hearts of trolls—you are trying to reach the public and others with the power to make change, to join you in caring about your cause and thus, create change together.

Photo by Duncan Shaffer on Unsplash

Don’t feed the trolls. Do leave a comment about the successful tactics you’ve seen/used to protect the narrative of your activism and create successful change. Also, don’t forget how much Tara loves Coffee.

Annex: Tones to Set in Your Activist Group

Mix and match to create dynamic, multi-faceted campaigns that reflect your mission and cause while resonating with different audiences.

1. Hope and Empowerment

Focus: Highlighting positive actions, successes, and the belief that change is possible.

Examples: Celebrating local sustainability projects, showcasing community resilience, or sharing stories of policy victories.

2. Gratitude

Focus: Encouraging deep appreciation for nature and the planet.

Examples: Events like nature walks/clean-ups, ceremonies honouring natural elements, or artistic showcases of the Earth’s beauty in person or as social media campaigns.

3. Solidarity and Community

Focus: Building connections and emphasizing collective action.

Examples: Community gatherings, mutual aid efforts, or cross-movement collaborations (e.g., climate justice intersects environment and social justice).

4. Rebellion and Defiance

Focus: Taking bold stances against perceived injustices and systems of oppression.

Examples: Protest marches, direct action campaigns, or symbolic disruptions of business-as-usual activities.

5. Mourning and Grief

Focus: Providing space for processing loss related to environmental degradation or climate impacts.

Examples: Vigils for lost ecosystems or species, storytelling circles for climate-affected communities, or public displays of loss and remembrance.

6. Celebration of Innovation

Focus: Highlighting technological, scientific, and cultural solutions to climate challenges.

Examples: Showcasing green technology, hosting hackathons, or holding exhibitions of sustainable design and art.

7. Education and Curiosity

Focus: Encouraging learning and critical thinking about environmental issues.

Examples: Workshops, lectures, panel discussions, or interactive exhibits.

8. Humor and Satire

Focus: Using humour to disarm opposition, engage audiences, and make issues relatable.

Examples: Comedy shows, satirical performances, or parodies targeting climate-denying entities.

9. Urgency Without Doom

Focus: Combining a call to action with a sense of agency, avoiding despair.

Examples: Campaigns emphasising timelines for achievable goals; city-level planning like publicly owned utilities, community gardens/food forests, plastic bag bans, improved public transport, etc.

10. Radical Visioning

Focus: Imagining and showcasing utopian futures where sustainability and equity are the norm.

Examples: Interactive events like climate futures workshops, speculative art, or festivals simulating life in a post-carbon world.

11. Courage and Resilience

Focus: Empowering individuals to face challenges and persevere.

Examples: Storytelling from climate activists or survivors of environmental disasters, emphasizing strength and determination.

12. Outrage and Accountability

Focus: Channeling frustration to demand action and expose wrongdoing.

Examples: Naming and shaming polluters, investigative campaigns, or dramatic demonstrations in high-visibility locations.

13. Local Pride

Focus: Centering specific communities and their unique contributions to sustainability.

Examples: Showcasing regional traditions of environmental stewardship or rallying local action around place-based identities.

14. Playfulness and Creativity

Focus: Engaging audiences through fun, interactive, and artistic methods.

Examples: Flash mobs, street theater, or art installations.

15. Intergenerational Wisdom

Focus: Bridging generational gaps to share insights and responsibilities.

Examples: Events with elders sharing environmental knowledge and/or youth-led discussions envisioning the future.

16. Spiritual and Ethical Reflection

Focus: Inviting participants to consider their personal and collective moral responsibilities.

Examples: Meditations, prayer gatherings, or ethical debates.

17. Critical Analysis

Focus: Examining systemic issues and root causes.

Examples: Panel discussions on economic systems, workshops on decolonizing environmentalism, or in-depth policy critiques.

18. Radical Inclusivity

Focus: Centering marginalized voices and ensuring diverse participation.

Examples: Events co-led by frontline communities, multilingual gatherings, or accessibility-focused efforts.