With any given protest, many wonder if they’re witnessing a genuine grassroots display of dissent, or if the protest is actually a front for some organization with their own motives. In some instances, it’s a little bit of both. That appears to be the case for the protests that occurred in Ferguson last summer, as it’s now come out that many of the protesters are upset that they didn’t get paid for their dissent.
Last week, members of Millennial Activists United conducted a sit-in at the Missouri office of MORE, formerly known as St. Louis chapter of ACORN. They’re complaining that the $150,000 donated to the organization was not distributed properly to the protesters, many of who are now facing severe financial troubles for participating. They’ve apparently lost their jobs, cars, and lack the ability to feed themselves. “Questions have been raised as to how the movement is to sustain when white non-profits are hoarding monies collected off of black bodies?”
While it’s understandable that protesters in any given movement need the same basic necessities we all need, paying protestors is a questionable practice that is often frowned upon. Is a protest movement truly genuine if they can be bought and paid for by outside interests? What do you think? Regardless of whether or not you believe in their movement, do you think these people should be compensated for their efforts, or does that turn them into “professional protestors” who can be hired by special interests to incite dissent?
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.
Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .