Marches are not effective in combatting governmental abuse of power

As I stated, I agree that marches aligned with other methods of non-violent protest can be effective. However, the march itself, cannot end institutional abuses of power. Ending the abuse would also require the portion of the public in support of the governmental abuses to have a change of heart. Indeed, governmental abuse is only perpetuated when it is given credence and patronage by the governed. As the quote attributed to Edmund Burke states, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Examples of this silently supported abuse would be the attempted genocide of the Native Americans during the European introduction into the Americas, the enslavement of many of those indigenous peoples and Africans during the trans-atlantic slave trade, Hitler's attempted genocide of the Jewish people in Germany. Marches alone would not have stopped these atrocities. Ending governmental abuse would also most likely necessitate a change in the structure of government itself. A change that would restrain and thwart the abilities that allowed the government to act in a abusive manner. If the abuse stems from institutional programs, the power given to these programs would have to be limited or hindered. Marches serve to shed light to issues, yet, they do not change the intent of government. For example, the United States was founded on the principle of "all men being created equal" while simultaneously endorsing slavery and discrimination of women. These are issues that the United States struggles with to this day. There have been several marches, however, institutional and hidden discrimination still remains. Until the common intent of the government and those it represents is to allow to all free access to life and unobstructed ability to exercise their natural rights, there will continue to be abuses. As long as classes exist with preferential treatment given to some while others are dehumanized, there will be hypocrisy. These classes serve to protect the wealthiest individuals by fostering contention and competition among the masses who fight about trivial matters and for what could be considered the crumbs on the table. The founders of the United States had no intent of promoting equitable government: ... as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property ... Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions ... The appropriation of herds and flocks which introduced an inequality of fortune was that which first gave rise to regular government. Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor Adam Smith ... our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. James Madison Marches may cause the government to change its plan of action, however , if the intent remains the same (i.e. keep a perpetual boundary between the haves and have nots) it will find ways around the march to do just that. As stated, the marches are often sabotaged by agent provocateurs, biased news coverage, etc.. My point is not that governmental abuses can't be stopped, it is simply that marches by themselves do not wield enough power to address all the intricacies that capacitate governmental abuses of power. In the cases of the Marches in Selma and Washington, many argue that de facto segregation still exists and that integration may not have been as good as it has been touted to be. Schools are still largely segregated, voting districts are gerrymandered to make the 'black' vote as impotent as possible, and the recent shootings by cops of unarmed 'black' men continues to illustrate that 'black' life is given little worth in the eyes of the public and the legal system. The false label of 'black' itself denotes an otherness that has yet to be addressed. This otherness allows people who buy into stereotypes to see these 'black' people as less than human, criminals, etc. All of these tribal like feuds and arguments serve to distract the masses away from the real power plays that are being made by the puppeteers who pull the strings from behind the scenes. Many would say that government officials are just front men and that the people who run nations act in private and outside of public view.