Protests in the US are hamstrung by the total lack of a social safety net (most people can’t afford even a single day off work), and the massive land area of the country. You might only hear about protests getting to 30k, but that’s in one spot. One state in the US is larger by area, and has less options for transportation than a country in Europe, while often being much more sparsely populated.
People here say “Land doesn’t vote,” to talk about our electoral map, but geography actually does have a major impact on our politics. It’s the same reason our right wing likes closing polling locations. They use time and distance to gatekeep political participation
I don’t really agree with this take. The protests in cities are not limited by geography. The US has 9 cities with more than a million inhabitants, most of them voting blue. The lack of a social safety net is not a real argument either, as protests usually happen on the weekends and from the afternoon to the evening. If we compare the numbers just for cities alone: My hometown has a population of 1.8 million. About 5% of that population attended the local protest. If we compare this to a city like New York, which has 8.2 million inhabitants (and public transportation), 410,000 people should be out on the streets. Again, our situation is not even remotely as bad, so the numbers should be even higher in the USA.
I obviously can’t speak for the exact reasons why the numbers are so low, I just know that it doesn’t just boil down to reporting, geography or ability. You could pull these numbers easily, if the will to do it were there.
I don’t disagree with you but I’d like to point out that many of the most marginalized people here are forced to work on the weekend, in the afternoon and evening, in order to serve the more privileged who get weekends off work.
Protests in the US are hamstrung by the total lack of a social safety net (most people can’t afford even a single day off work), and the massive land area of the country. You might only hear about protests getting to 30k, but that’s in one spot. One state in the US is larger by area, and has less options for transportation than a country in Europe, while often being much more sparsely populated.
People here say “Land doesn’t vote,” to talk about our electoral map, but geography actually does have a major impact on our politics. It’s the same reason our right wing likes closing polling locations. They use time and distance to gatekeep political participation
I don’t really agree with this take. The protests in cities are not limited by geography. The US has 9 cities with more than a million inhabitants, most of them voting blue. The lack of a social safety net is not a real argument either, as protests usually happen on the weekends and from the afternoon to the evening. If we compare the numbers just for cities alone: My hometown has a population of 1.8 million. About 5% of that population attended the local protest. If we compare this to a city like New York, which has 8.2 million inhabitants (and public transportation), 410,000 people should be out on the streets. Again, our situation is not even remotely as bad, so the numbers should be even higher in the USA.
I obviously can’t speak for the exact reasons why the numbers are so low, I just know that it doesn’t just boil down to reporting, geography or ability. You could pull these numbers easily, if the will to do it were there.
I don’t disagree with you but I’d like to point out that many of the most marginalized people here are forced to work on the weekend, in the afternoon and evening, in order to serve the more privileged who get weekends off work.