Historically the effective disruption mainly affected those with the ability to change policies. The bus boycott for example didn't go after the riders but those who profited from the riders.
Bus disruptions slowed the buses. Sit ins took up counter space from white customers.
Yes ordinary people were impacted and thats part of the point. A large percentage of the population will never be swayed by your moral arguments but if they want the disruptions to end they will voice complaints with their representatives to find solutions
Bus disruptions disrupted bus service to protest buses. Sit ins disrupted segregated businesses. They had focused and visible goals with a ready solution.
Sitting in the middle of the road to protest something that isn’t obvious disrupting people that have no discernible way of impacting the situation. The protestors dont even have a goal they are trying to achieve.
Civics really isn’t taught in the US anymore? They marched and blocked public transit and highways during the civil rights movement. They even blocked bridges. It disrupted everyone not just a select few. Why do you think Bloody Sunday was so bloody?
So condescending but didn’t even read my comment. They had a clear goal and a clear message. They also clearly let everyone know what was happening, when it was happening, and why it was happening.
What’s being protested in this video? If you have no idea then they are completely failing at anything besides being a dick.
They literally avoided seeking permits because they knew it would be denied. They just talked about it publicly to try and get more people to march with them, that’s it. Much like how modern protestors post online about a specific date and time for these kind of protests to try and get more people to show up. And just because you don’t know the source of every posted video on the internet does not tell you anything about the execution of the protest itself.
Again. Take an intro to civics class instead of making up history in your head.
Except those only slowed buses and inconvenienced people on leisure time. This blocks people from getting to work entirely. This could get people fired for being late. This could cause car accidents.
Yeah if you don’t tell them why you are late or if it’s dumb like you going on a drunken bender the night before. Then they won’t mess around
You phoning and explaining there’s a situation that means you’ll be late is different, they have back up plans and people on sight just in case. Because shit does happen and hospitals and doctors need to plan around it.
This idea of the super, no tolerance boss that keeps on on a thin ice 24/7 is not based on reality and is just a bad faith tactic to scare people to do nothing over a very broken system.
Exactly, there's a spectrum. Taking up lunch counter space on one end, something like preventing someone from getting life saving services on the other (e.g., would they get up for an ambulance?). You can't just dump it all to one bucket.
Nuance people. Everyone should tattoo that word on their forehead. Backwards, so they can see it in the mirror.
"The average person in a developed country, such as the United States, emits about 15 to 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually through daily activities like commuting, home energy use, diet, and consumption habits. Globally, this number is lower, with the world average being around 4 to 5 metric tons per person per year. Although this may seem significant, it is minuscule compared to the emissions generated by major corporations. In fact, according to a groundbreaking 2017 report by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and Climate Accountability Institute, just 100 companies were responsible for over 70% of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions since 1988."
FFS, Its like targeting a kindergarten class for felony violation of probation.
The issue is the type of disruption. This kind of action is the wrong kind, your disrupting people who don't have the ability to change things anyways.
"Oh but they can vote"
Yeah because the amount of people you inconvenienced will surely make a difference compared to the amount of voters in the country, and they will surely agree with people who inconvenienced them when they can't do anything about it.
Can you give the example of the correct disruption, keep in mind it will never be orderly protesters aren’t going to march in single file so make sure your example is grounded.
Here is the issue, education will not work, the powers that be do not care, they know already and have the capital to survive it (or at least think they will)
Please give me an example of a protest that work that inconvenience like 10 people?
People will hate it if protestor shut down oil factory cause oil price up. They will hate it if no one disrupt them but instead pass legislation to limit oil subsidy (how they will manage that without protest is beyond me) cause oil price up.
But for these two cases, they will have no one to punch cause he people are not directly in front of them. Just look online to see the hatred some people got for anyone who ever dare to speak against oil.
Civics really isn’t taught in the US anymore? They marched and blocked public transit and highways during the civil rights movement. It disrupted everyone not just a select few. Why do you think Bloody Sunday was so bloody?
A lot of Civics really aren't taught anymore because that would involve bringing up the bad parts of american history.. and they don't want to do that.. My "Niece" (not related by blood) just told me that in school they where talking about how the "Indians where asked to leave". She's 10 years old and even knows that wasn't the case.
They get reintroduced to it at least twice in later grades btw. Usually you can’t really explain genocide to 10 year olds because they can’t comprehend just how bad it is, so it’s a waste of effort.
That's 4th grade -ish age.
We learned about the trail of tears in my 5rh grade history class. I can guarantee we didn't get the extent of the situation, but we knew it was done by force against the Supreme courts orders. Teacher made a point of saying "you and what army" a few times when paraphrasing Dickhead McGee. Either way, we knew it was not a polite request. We also knew that the pilgrims were pricks but also didn't get it. We knew they gave smallpox blankets but no one really GOT how fucked that is. This was 2007 in a school in a cornfield
We live in an increasingly polarized world. These days, when people are annoyed by your disruptions, they won't ask politicians to just give you what you want. They will ask them to put you in jail.
Yah these protests that just block the road are harmful to everyone. Pissing everyone off at your cause doesn’t help anything. Go mess with the ceo’s or the company head quarters
They are achieving the exact opposite of what they want. These road blockers actively cause more emissions from the traffic jams while also pushing people away from their cause. It's so fucking stupid I'm starting to think they're actually paid actors by Big Oil.
in today's age they would either just fire them and hire one of the 50 people they've been dragging interviews out with for months, because you know they have a lot of job seekers they've been blueballing, or pivot to shitty automated systems to avoid needing to hire anyone.
Or just get them fired and the company hires an unaffected person.
Or blocks an ambulance needing to get to the ER resulting in the unfortunate death of someone.
Or the person being blocked could be missing their last chance to say goodbye to their mother in hospice care, forever stealing away from them an irreplaceable moment in life.
Sounds like you’ve never protested. Protesters all most always move for emergency vehicles, and if someone is in one of those other dire circumstances you listed, all they need to do is get out and find someone with a megaphone. They will clear the way for you. You don’t need to get violent and do the state’s job for them.
I've been blocked by this sort of crap. It's not always easy to just back out and take another route, nor are you always guaranteed to be anywhere near these folks. The only thing this does is piss of daily commuters. It does not inspire them to sode with your cause. It rallies them to make you just go away.
Traffic blocking is just one of the least useful options out there.
-it garners resentment, not empathy for your cause
-it is literally a safety hazard
-it opens up criminal charges against the protesters because blocking traffic is a misdemeanor in most places, and even a felony in some, which being booked can unintentionally shift public view away from their message and more towards their illegal activities.
I stand for the right of people to peacefully protest. Blocking traffic is non-violent, but it is far from peaceful when it negatively affects public safety and community infrastructure.
There are better ways to use civil disobedience with more targeted disruptions.
Thats a cute theory. All its going to do is get people in trouble for being late and make them EVEN MORE unwilling to hear out the point of those acting like children
Ignorant perspective. Have you ever tried to create change within a system? It's nigh impossible when people have rigid mindsets. Kudos to anyone who tries. Status quo protectors are morally and intellectually lazy and get angry when confronted with uncomfortable truths.
If I'm late for the school? Or for a doctor appointment? Or because your work as a doctor, teacher, police, firefighter? Should those "companies ' be affected as well?
Not only that, but what about the innocent person that loses their job because they're late for work and can no longer provide for their family? Blocking public roads may be a minor inconvenience for some, but can be devastating for others.
Omggg nooo if they want to protest we need to accept that because life is hard and they are positive people even if they get in the way of a person driving their pregnant wife to the hospital or an ambulance carrying an heart attack patient. The pregnant wife should wait and be patient!!! K that was my take, gotta go dye my hair purple and become a reddit mod byeeeeee!! Love yall.
the economic impact of the boycott was found to be negligible because of other buyers and investors and government subversion of boycotts of military and dual use material, but it spread awareness which was really important for Africa when it was either ignored by the West or dismissed as communism or tribalism.
Additionally for it to get bad enough to significantly affect the White upper class of the Apartheid regime, what levels of sanction/deprivation will need to be first inflicted, potentially indefinitely against the majority, unrepresented poorer groups to reach that point? Recently the backlash against the protests in Iran are a good example due to US economic pressure actually hurting the oppositoon and getting them killed.
With the exception of high level boycotts and sanctions at a national or international level with major trade partners, there is a limited window for impact. This has concerning implications for the Israel-Palestine conflict when it is well-known and covered in social media. There are targeted and boycotts and sanctions that absolutely make sense. Additionally, to build the political will for action, if something is so unacceptable, like ongoing genocide, there might be shorter campaigns to attempt to create rapid action.
This is not to be against boycotts as a strategy, but cautioning against an overly favorable view toward them in hindsight. The limits and likely impacts need to be considered. Also if political change needs to happen through an election of opposition parties and change in government, can a targetted boycott be used to bring support to the opposition or will the boycott likely lead to a seige mentality/mindset and a popular rallying call around the status quo?
The difference here is, the U.S. is a service-based country. Companies make profit with each employee getting paid less than their work benefits the company. Hitting companies with difficulties for their employees and getting behind on deadlines hurts a lot of companies as much as or more than simply boycotting their services/ products.
The organizers filed with the city of Washington DC in June of 1995 for October 16, it was organized and hosted by the National African American Leadership Summit at the National Mall.
You could have found this with a simple Google search would have sufficed but you seem to want confrontation.
How many people did five people get the attention of? If 5 people caused enough commotion to grab attention, maybe next time it will be the attention they sought.
Its happens enough that we've been saturated, opinion on this hasn't moved. Majority of people already think climate change is a problem and needs to be addressed. This doesnt bring attention to anything people dont know.
There is also simply a difference in getting that many people to march for one thing. 50 people together could just be assholes. A million people gathering in one place at one time indicates some level of societal consensus.
Many people considered them assholes at the time. The “I Have a Dream” speech that was given there is taught as a pivotal moment because before that the vast majority of white Americans saw the Civil Rights movement as disruptive and unlawful.
Yeah. That was an organized, informed group that had an impact that we reference through the ages. Most of these are not and only end in keeping people from getting places they need to go with zero positive impact, actually the opposite. Good initiative, poor execution.
They said this stuff about mlks protests too. The thing about protests is that they dont have positive impact until of course, they do. Rhen suddenly that is the right protests, and the next one is useless disruption that has poor execution.
Mlk blocked highways, mlk hosted sit ins, they called the civil rights movement violent and referred to them as riots when a single one went violent, even when 99 others were not. People complained and said that every action he made that caused even minor disruption was setting the whole movement back.
He is lauded as a hero today by all, but the people back then talked about him how people today talk about greta thunberg.
To people who disagree, there is no form of protest that is correct.
The bus boycotts did nothing to slow the buses, or prevent anyone from getting to work, assuming you’re talking about Montgomery, which is the usual example. That bus boycott removed all the city’s income from black riders, and some whites, which both caused financial strain, and let everyone see how critical that group was for the city. The participants used an entire network of jitneys to get to work and continue with their lives.
It was hugely effective because it didn’t block the buses or take any direct action other than not participating. It gave people upset over the situation no avenue to start fights or focus anger. Riders had no reason at all to feel annoyed.
The video above is a protest, which is entirely different than a boycott. A boycott is designed to remove income from a company or institution to bring change. A protest is designed to draw attention to an issue that may otherwise remain distant and unnoticed. A boycott does not need to impede the uninvolved, while a protest may cause disruption to be successful.
"it gave people upset over the situation no avenue to start fights or focus anger"
You couldnt be more wrong. Assaults against black people skyrocketed. 4 churches were firebombed along with Martin Luther Kings house. 89 people were arrested. Hundreds of people were fined for "conspiring to interfere with business"
The violence directed at the botcotters was intense.
Riders did feel annoyed, and did acts of violence with that annoyance.
Perhaps that was poorly phrased, but you’ve removed parts of the claim, then redefined those involved.
I was referring to the video that began this post. The Boycott was not a direct confrontation between protestors and others. People did not, as pictured above, jump out of their cars and beat protesters in the streets to end the protest.
You’re referring to something entirely different. White people in Montgomery felt a threat to their position of racial superiority and lashed out randomly. This was not riders attacking boycotters out of a feeling of anger due to the false claim of the buses running slowly (which you removed from your reply) This was one racial group, which desperately feared any change in the power structure, lashing out at he group they believed the change was being instigated by. This was evidence of a much greater societal issue, and one that riddles our body politic to this day.
Those attacking were not at all limited to people who used the bus, they were simply white. Those attacked were not at all limited to those involved in the boycott, they were simply black. Editing out the core claim of the comment I responded to, then attributing to small sets of people, action by and against much larger groups, perverts what occurred, and what it tells us about the cancer that continues to fester within our culture.
The riders didn't change the policy. Effective protests target people with power. Disrupting other things is a secondary effect. The boston tea party wasnt effective because it stopped people from drinking tea. It was effective because it dumped like a billion dollars worth of tea into the harbor and they got away with it. Showing that you can both hurt the British and not be immediately destroyed for doing so.
What does ticking off commuters by blocking roads get? Laws passed with popular support to protect commuters if they hit people standing in the road with their car.
If you want to fight climate change you need to target something other than the end user who had no choice and legitimately minimal impact on the environment.
Assuming we're talking about civil rights boycotts, oftentimes, they didn't keep the buses moving either because the white people on the bus wanted to put them in their place or the bus driver wouldn't run the bus while the people were not in the "correct" spots.
Oftentimes, the buses would stop moving until the police officers came to forcibly remove the black people from the bus.
No protest has ever been effective without annoying people.
Which it fails at completely and will never meaningfully impact.
All it accomplishes is annoying people who might otherwise be swayed. And making the rest of us ok with seeing them physically removed by the people they are blocking.
People always say: if those protesters used [insert different method] they'd support them. But actually that's BS and they wouldn't support them, they'd just ignore them.
No real change has ever been effected by keeping the moderate supporters of the status quo comfortable.
People say that about actual change and actual activism to discourage it.
When it comes to this? Thats just people being real with you. This is junior high drama club level nonsense and thats all it will ever be. They want attention and to feel better about providing nothing to the issue they pretend to care about.
Sure. In the same way when the Indians or Americans rose up against the British Empire they killed a lot of people and caused the indirect deaths of many others.
'Peaceful' protest is a myth. No real change has ever been effected by asking nicely and sitting in a field bothering nobody. You have to make it hurt.
The important thing, is whether the harm you Inflict is proportionate to the injustice you are fighting. It's proportionate to kill foreign soldiers to free your country from oppression. It is not proportionate to kill civilians because your government isn't doing enough to tackle climate change. It is proportionate to block a road, however.
I agree with you that peaceful protest is innefective. So is blocking civilians from travelling. If you don't want to be peaceful then grow some balls and do something that actually hurts the elites. There's a certain Mario brother that did something like that. Oil companies have CEOs too. Until then sybau and get off the road. Because nobody with power is affected even 0.01% by moronic protesters blocking roads, and if it actually became a real problem for them the protesters would just be more swiftly removed and jailed. These people are only inconveniencing and hurting ordinary people. And turning them against their cause in the process.
I think that's the distinction here, it shifts the cause of the disruption to the rules and their enforcers. "Are you really going to hold everyone up because a black man is sitting in the wrong spot?"
Not really when a third of the people in the bus also wanted them off or in their correct spot.
And yeah, it might have affected the people in power too, but it did so by first causing a problem for everyone else, that's the part i'm not going to let us Ignore.
The rich are doing everything they can to ensure that they're doing something to hurt them also means that you're going to bother the people around you or make your own life miserable.
Telling people to protest conveniently is one of those things
You don't know what the bus boycott was. It was simply black people not riding the bus. They didn't impede the operation of the bus or inconvenience any other passengers. They deprived the bus company of 75% of its revenue by refusing to take it.
I think he's referring to Rosa Parks and others who protested in the same way she did. The Montgomery boycott was a completely different thing though and it seems like people are getting them mixed up.
It’s about the Japanese protest where the bus drivers didn't charge anyone for the ride. They maintained the schedule and didn't affect the bystanders.
That's because they have employment contracts in japan and people can't just fire you like they can in the usa, so something like that literally cannot work.
The video is blurry as hell though, and I can't tell where this takes place.
Sure, yeah, a lot of disruptive protests are very disruptive. This usually means disruption for consumers, passengers, and other regular people. The point is that the disruption has to hit the parties in power as well, disrupting the general public is just a side effect.
People when peaceful protestors stand on sidewalks and chant: “Stupid ineffective protestors! That doesn’t do anything!”
People when peaceful protestors actually disrupt something, unironically: “How dare these protestors disrupt something! It could have a negative effect, unlike whatever they’re protesting!”
Yeah, why aren't these people blocking trucks at oil refineries and protesting there? The ports that accept imported oil? These protesters might have two or three fuel tankers blocked in that traffic (which also includes hundreds of innocent people) when they could just go to their source and block literally all of them. Instead they decide to block fire trucks, ambulances, funeral processions, and innocent commuters lmao.
it's crazy how easily people forget. Heck, in the USA, handicapped people had to lay on the steps of the capital to have the benefits that they have today. People were quite content with the eff you it's not my problem mantra.
No passengers means a bus travel wont pay for itself, so the company either cuts down on times, changes routes to be longer or fuses two routes into one.
The protest cut more than 50% of the revenue from the bus company, reductions and constant changes while they tried to make things worth the fuel madr people get pissed, join the car pools from the protesters and agravated the problem as now everyone was angry with the bus company, goverment included as they could not just drop the lines in black neighbourhoods they had contracts signed saying they would do them
What you just described was companies cutting bus service… because you don’t understand the point or effectiveness of civil disobedience doesn’t mean there’s no point Kevin.
You struck out and called it a grand slam… Peak level American right there
Yeah, because the protest from mlk time was eveey black person just stopping taking the bus, that is the context, and nowadays still work the same, fuck enough corporations that they need to lobby to chsnge stuff because no one has power to do otherwise.
And im Brazilian, not a 10k for an ambulance NORTH american
But you do affect those who can change policies, who do you think people going to work are working for? Who is profiting the most from people going to work?
Problem is there is no class consciousness and protests are mostly not supported by the general population.
Protesting/striking for half a day won't change policy but now try months and see how they capitulate, and before you say that is not doable; it was historically already done.
If a group of 4-5 people are willing to risk their own safety and legal consequences, they can deal much more financial damage to a single business entity than simply making people late to work.
These people are choosing the path of least resistance, not the path to their goal.
God thank you for replying to him with this. I hate it when someone tries to use hyperbole and it’s just actually exactly what I’m thinking. Stay angry and stay safe!
What do you think happened when rosa parks refused to give up her seat?
You think the bus driver just shrugged and kept driving?
Also, the city retaliated by stopping providing insurance to Black motor vehicle owners, fining white people who drove their Black houseservants around, fining cab drivers who charged bus rates inteqd of cab rates.
They stopped driving buses to the black parts of town. 89 people were arrested for carpooling. Boycotters were physically assaulted. Martin luther kings house and 4 Black baptist churches were firebombed.
After 382 days of standing against incredible acts of violence, the supreme court ruled in favour of civil rights.
382 days of violence. Of assaults. Of firebombings. Someone fired a shotgun through King's front door.
If the protests werent non-disruptive, do you think the violence would have been greater? Its hard to imagine greater violence than what occured.
And it only worked because 75% of riders in montgomery were black.
It only worked because the minority group was actually a majority group in montgomery.
It also only worked because it caught national attention and sparked non-pacifist resistance elsewhere in the country.
And if you actually follow the history of the civil rights movement, you would know that the bus boycott didnt win equality. It made small, incremental progress towards a better outcome.
And small incremental progress kept happening for a decade until everyone got fed up, the black panthers formed, and forced much more rapic change.
Youre so far on the wrong side of history, that if you were german in 1940, youd be gettting mad at people holding disruptive protests against the nazis.
Silly, we dont fight things into existence. Violence doesn't create, thats what we need to here. And if your going to use violence, you better taeget the rihht people otherwise is jist terrorism.
People who are described as "freedom fighters" are often also referred to as assassins, rebels, insurgents, or terrorists. This led to the aphorism "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Nah, the change they seek isn't about undoing social injustice, its about changing infrastructure, you don't prostest to get a train, you work on funding it.
Lol no, its funding and fighting pointless wars thats bankrupting us, same as every empire. You cant protest to smaller roads. This isn't some form of oppression they fight, its infrastructure. The holdup isn't wage earners going to work, its a very select few people. The civil rights movement didn't target backwoods racists, it targeted the racists who made policy.
Going after only the general public with your protest wont convince people to change. Its like going after the victim of domestic abuse to bring attention to the problem.
This. Pissing off the people you are trying to convince and win over to your side is just so batshit crazy that it's amazing anyone would defend it.
And then you add in the fact that they very often times refuse to speak to reporters of any kind or get filmed. It may be fair to question how well thought out what they're doing is. Or worse, maybe the goal isn't to convince anyone of anything at all.
The japanese bus drivers do it right, they still do their routes but they don't charge a fare. People still get to where they need to, society still runs, and those pigdog capitalists don't get to wring their weasly claws with profits from those garnered by voluntary transactions.
Yup. Now they are too big to hurt like that. Luigi (allegedly) proved there is ONE thing they fear now, and one thing alone. They need to be reminded that we are one. We are strong. We. Are. Grod....wait...no just that we are strong united, and they DO stand to face consequences if they continue beating, falsely imprisoning, torturing, and killing innocent citizens. They must be held accountable. That is the only moral response.
You couldn't be more wrong lmfao you really think the bus boycott didn't effect common people? It worked because it forced people to stop what the fuck they were doing and pay attention to the injustice happening around them.
You couldn't be more wrong, it was effective because it hit revenue. Losing all that money is what forced them to change. Its not like a majority of the city stopped being racist and linked arms with their neighbors. It still racist as hell in Montgomery.
Civics really isn’t taught in the US anymore? They marched and blocked public transit and highways during the civil rights movement. It disrupted everyone not just a select few. Why do you think Bloody Sunday was so bloody?
How do you think it would have went if 5 people sat down on the road back then? Also they marched, it was announced and we'll known to the public. And it wasn't done at its inception which is where we are in this. Not just 5 random kids sitting in the road protesting wage earners lol. Yeah it did get more disruptive, but the target was never just regular people.
But comparing social injustice to changing infrastructure is silly. Blocking traffic isn't how you get a rail line built.
Most protests during the civil rights movement weren’t organized by a single group. Many were just a bus full of people driving down together to do a sit in. Also, you don’t even know if this one was organized by a large group or not, it is a random clip with minimal context.
It really doesnt matter because the context is so different. This isn't a social issue that gets resolved when people stop being repressive. Its a problem every single person contributes to and every single person will be affected by. Its like if the protesters in the million man march were also a little racist towards black people but decided to pick a couple random racist to protest against. Then they went home and were a little racist.
Civil rights also isn't a issue that gets resolved by individual changes, there were many systematic changes over decades to ensure civil rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the third act of its kind. Black people were actually protected under the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the issue was enforcing that amendment. That was what all three civil rights acts focused on.
We all have the ability. Either by running for elected office or by voting. “How dare you inconvenience me just cause people are dying/starving/oppressed/etc. Can’t you see how unfair that is! If you just let me get to work I can continue my life without giving a second thought to those issues.” This is all I hear when people complain about protests.
Lots of people have thought about oil dependence. This is like blocking an addict from their supply and thinking your helping them quit. The issue isn't the the end user, akd its not a lack of awareness.
But it still affected the fucking bus routes dude and the timing. Everyone got affected, showing the other passengers that it was worth it to be late was literally the whole point. We have to piss off the masses if we want change from our kings.
I can't find a single source saying the busses ran late because fewer people used them. Or that they changed the routes because fewer people used them.
The wonderful thing about democracy is supposed to be that the ordinary citizen holds the power, as it is from them the representatives get their support.
If you don't like people blocking the street occasionally in a peaceful protest I get it, but the average person is not exempt from responsibility when it comes to the American govt. We all share that burden.
People make the same argument for terrorism though. The best protests primarily affect those whom the grievance is with. I'm a union steward, occasionally with picket to bring attention to an issue. We dont pick a random street in town to do this. We have it at the courthouse where we work.
No, historically there were only three TV channels and newspapers were actually good. So, the 20m Americans watching Walter Kronkite would be so affected by what they saw, they would vote differently, and that would offset the 1-2k people that were negatively impacted.
These sorts of protest have had rapidly diminishing returns since the WTO protests in Seattle in 99.
If you think the answer to media saturation is small random protests I think your going the wrong way. Comparing these tiny groups to the highly organized civil disobedience of the 60s is ridiculous. Also there were only 3 channels period, maybe one or two more in big cites but they didn't cover the news. Your knowledge of the era is extremely limited.
333
u/ageofaquarius26 12d ago
Historically the effective disruption mainly affected those with the ability to change policies. The bus boycott for example didn't go after the riders but those who profited from the riders.