Are Protests the Best Way to Say Nay?

Can Mobs Make the Change They Want to See?

Dear Classical Wisdom Readers,

We decided to change course... The throbbing crowd was headed our way and it was making dear daughter (as well as dear husband) a bit uncomfortable. The police cars lit up the moving mob which was blocking off the streets downtown; they chanted, shouted and cried while waving large Palestine flags in the air. Perhaps it’s a familiar scene to readers around the world... but for us, it was dark and cold and we were in an unfamiliar city. The scene felt... unstable.

Whether in Melbourne or Miami, London or Lahore, or famously across universities in the US and abroad, people are taking to the streets to express their discontent... both now and throughout the ages. 

When thinking about the history of protests, modern examples quickly flit to mind. Tiananmen Square and the Arab springs, BLM and Occupy Wall Street, Hong Kong Umbrellas and the Civil Rights movement. Clearly, it’s a popular way to make a group’s feelings known.

In the ancient world, too, public demonstration was a regular occurrence. In 508 B.C, for instance, Athenians took to the streets to protest the system of archons or chief magistrates allowing the rich to “enslave” the rest. Their hopes of revolutionizing politics were actually successful, as Cleisthenes, the founder of Athenian democracy, took their concerns seriously. It went down in history as the Athenian Revolution, which overthrew the ruling aristocratic oligarchy and tyranny. 

While it certainly happened plenty in ancient Greece, the ancient Romans took it to another level. They were extremely prone to protest and riot, as is evidenced by the fact that from 200 BC to 375 AD, there were at least 154 incidents that could certainly qualify as protests. Indeed, in that 575 year period, one could expect riot every 3.7 years.

There are so many famed protest stories to fill the history books (indeed, we could easily go on), that it is often a remarkable sign - and recorded as such - when there aren’t any protests. Historians were sure to note, for instance, that no one rioted when Agrippina and Nero took to the imperial stage... and it was a sign of Cleopatra’s leadership skills that her reign saw so few protests, especially compared to her predecessors. 

What’s interesting to note is that when there were protests, they could (and many times did) include people who usually don’t make the history books. 

Perhaps one of the most striking examples was in 195 BC when the women of Rome took to the streets to repel a wartime austerity law that was no longer relevant. During the Punic wars, the lex Oppia was imposed to specifically restrict women’s refinements. Even after the situation no longer necessitated such measures, the laws were still intact, presumably held by stingy husbands who found it a convenient excuse... and so the ladies were livid. Both from the city and from the countryside they made themselves heard in what Cato the elder called ‘an insurrection of women, of panic stricken matrons'...

Generosity of Roman matrons (Louis Gauffier, 1790)

…but it worked. The laws were finally revoked. 

The history of successful protests perhaps hides the many that accomplished nothing... to say nothing of those times these mob revolts resulted in deaths, destruction or turning the rest of the community against their cause.

So where does that leave us today, dear reader, when we view the crowds that will inevitably take to the streets, after one cause or another? 

Are protests the best way to say “nay?” Can the mob make the change they want to see? Or is it a regular recipe for disaster? 

Write in or below with your thoughts! You can email me directly at anya@classicalwisdom.com, reply to this email or join in the comment section, below... 

Now, onto an eclectic mailbag... From the value of stress and the magic of language to whether or not Oedipus was a bad man... below. 

All the best,
Anya Leonard

Founder and Director
Classical Wisdom 

Monday Mailbag

Re: Stoicism and Stress-Free

Hi Sean, 

Thanks for the article on Stoicism.

You and Van and perhaps the Stoics give stress a bad name.

I addressed an auditorium full of parents recently. I asked them to raise their hand if they thought that raising children was stressful. 

All hands went up.

Then I asked the audience to raise their hand if they wished that they had not had children. No one raised their hand.

People across the world work hard to get promotions that present stressful new challenges. 

Living a stress free life is not really a goal for anyone. The only place where you have no stress is in a box at the morgue.

Of course there are 'bad' stress scenarios. If you get beat up on the way to school every day or can't feed your children dinner, that's bad stress.

Leading a stress free life is not a goal of mine and I suspect it ain't one of your goals either.

Best regards,

Richard H.

Alto NM

Re: Do You Believe in Magic? 

Words cannot really be magic but language evolves from the depths of time and from our collective subconscious. Therefore, language can easily appear like a magical tool, playing on our unknown subconscious. Words often have double and side meanings which even the speaker himself is not aware of, so that meanings and effects are transported by words which were not intended but which nevertheless are real. 

Really magical is also that a language is the most democratic product of all. Almost all attempts to manipulate language by prescriptions and commandments failed. Even the Norman invaders in Britain sooner or later adopted the language of their new people. Languages evolve by themselves, you cannot stop it. The real magic in language can never be artificially produced but it derives its power from the dark and unknown process of collective language evolvement over time. Artful authors mostly draw on these effects instead of producing new effects. Coining a language is possible only by the work of a genius, and if the recipients agree, and it rarely happens in history. Dante’s Divina Commedia, the King James Bible, Luther’s Bible, or the Quran are examples. 

On the other hand, the Arabic language also shows that language often has not the magical effect we would expect. While the Arabic language knows no grammatical genders, the Arabic culture is known at the same time to support a very clear distinction between men and women. It is obvious that the magic in language cannot be commanded as easily as the djinn of a magic lamp.

Thorwald C. F.

Frankfurt am Main / Germany

Re: Was Oedipus a Bad Man?

Although your article is well-written, I think that the point of the story is not necessarily about fate, but rather hubris because Oedipus's temper gets the best of him, and like Romeo, this has fatal consequences for all involved. That is the flaw in both heroes. 

However, Pyramus and Thisbe (the original story for Romeo and Juliet) are more victims of circumstances since they are not overly proud, only quick to draw wrong conclusions, which makes them as rash as Oedipus when it comes to good judgment. All in all, these characters do not check their own consciences and act prematurely, ending in death and tragedy, for which they are remembered, and whether or not it is their fate or their own flaws have taken them there, it is a matter of their free will that they chose to act rashly under the circumstances, and thus, could not avoid their tragic destinies.

Thank you,

R. Wall

-

He took the red pill? Free will or predetermined?

A good article. I consider all truth seekers good men even if when they grasp the truth it kills them or gets them to kill themselves!

Randolph H.

-

Oedipus was "everyman" not a "bad man". That's what makes the myth important.

Ask Freud.

What Oedipus did was not literal. It's internal. All people have an unconscious desire to kill their same sex parent and sleep with their opposite sex parent.

How does that strike you!

Rick B.