AllExperts > Current Events: U.S. 
Search      
Current Events: U.S.
Volunteer
Answers to thousands of questions
 Home · More Current Events: U.S. Questions · Answer Library  · Encyclopedia ·
More Current Events: U.S. Answers
Question Library

Ask a question about Current Events: U.S.
Volunteer
Experts of the Month
Expert Login

Awards

About Us
Tell friends
Link to Us
Disclaimer

 
 
 
 
About Dennis
Expertise
Questions concerning government, politics, elections, world events, and current events in the U.S.

Experience
Twenty-five years in Public Administration, former elected official, and educator.

 
   

You are here:  Experts > Homework Help > Current Events: U.S. > Current Events: U.S. > Follow-up To "Protestors" Question

Current Events: U.S. - Follow-up To "Protestors" Question


Expert: Dennis - 9/26/2009

Question
QUESTION: Currently, there are demonstrations going on at the G-20 in Pittsburgh. The news articles call the the demonstrators "anarchists", what ever that means. There have been similar activities at meetings all over the world over the years, as in London and Seattle in the recent past. But nobody ever tells us
what the group(s) are protesting. Surely they have an agenda, and they have funding, which enables them to take time off from work to travel to wherever they wish to meet for a protest. Can you tell us who these people are and what they are trying to do?

ANSWER: Originally, these protests began with the demonstrations wanting the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to stop interfering in developing countries. The IMF and the G-7, G-8, G-20 or whomever, would lend money to developing countries to enhance their economy. However, to do so meant the country would have to industrialize at the expense of the environment, and in some cases, the loan would actually leave the country worse off economically, since they now owed the World Bank (or someone) billions of dollars. To pay the loan the country would tax their citizens, sell-off natural resources, increase industrialization even further, and there would be an escalating spiral for that country - that could result in bankruptcy.

Since then, the protests have expanded to include every nut-job on the planet, from Anarchists who want no governments, to people protesting coal mining, to people wanting more money for AIDS research. It gives the whackos an opportunity to get together, shriek about something and break windows.

I don't know if they're funded as a group (it isn't likely because there are so many different groups), but the individuals involved may work for organizations that have a financial interest in fighting the G-20, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc. Groups like the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Acorn, and the like.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: The actual demonstrators, with their rocks and baseballs bats don't seem to be the "idealist" type. They seem to be far from intellectual in their manner of expressing their opinions on the myriad of issues you mentioned.
Their puppet masters, whoever they are, seem to be calling the shots from behind the lines without getting their hands soiled.
Obviously the "troops" are unemployed, since they seem to turn up all over the world at odd times, having little else to do but protest upon command.

My question: Do you suppose they are sent on their "missions" to do the violence that we see on the news broadcasts? Or are they supposed to be
peaceful protestors who get out overly enthusiastic?
 
Surely their leaders cannot believe that their causes are helped by the violence and destruction carried out along with their messages.

Answer
Oh yes, these protests (G-20, World Bank, IMF protests) are historically violent. I don't think they have ever been peaceful. These are the ones where everyone knows going in that there is going to be violence. So you could say that is their mission, but you are looking at it too seriously.

It's kind of like the "after the super-bowl victory" celebrations in big cities. The winning city knows that there is going to be violence, and there is no real reason except to have violence. There is the "pretense" that they are celebrating the victory, but its just so they can riot, maybe loot, mostly just get drunk and go crazy.

The same view is taken toward the G-20 protestors. No one really cares about their cause(s)(except maybe their true believers), but to everybody else its just another super-bowl celebration, just more violent. One thing about demonstrations is they have a life of their own once they get going. So as soon as someone does something violent and the police respond, the crowds escalate, then the police respond more forcefully, etc., etc.

The reason for the protest is forgotten (if there ever was a real reason), and the action is one "of the moment." The violence attracts the media, and that may be ostensibly what the "leaders" want so they can disseminate their "message," (whatever that may be), but for the folks there, its just an opportunity to meet old friends and torch a few buildings.

Add to this Answer   Ask a Question


 
User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Kids' Privacy Policy | Help
Copyright  © 2008 About, Inc. AllExperts, AllExperts.com, and About.com are registered trademarks of About, Inc. All rights reserved.