3 ms·

Wait, I'm not sure why you are taking a combative tone, as I'm pretty sure we agree -- and if we don't, I'd like to see where. Perhaps I was unclear. First: i

by zamfi 6y ago

Wait, I'm not sure why you are taking a combative tone, as I'm pretty sure we agree -- and if we don't, I'd like to see where. Perhaps I was unclear. First: injustice absolutely matters in all cases, not just when it's visible to white people. But, injustice towards minority groups has, for most of American history, been invisible to and/or ignored by majority groups (obviously not to the minority groups experiencing it, thanks, or even to others). To be clear, this is BAD. Second: pervasive cellphones (+ cameras) and social media is changing that, making injustices directed at minority groups visible to majority groups, and harder to ignore by those majority groups. Are you saying that this is not happening, or that it is bad? Or that it's not because of cellphones and social media? What is the central mechanism of change? (Whether this visibility will ultimately help change anything remains to be seen, for sure. And there are also clearly downsides to social media that make other things worse, too.)

clairity 6y ago
yes, sorry if what i said seemed combative, but i wanted to be very clear and direct about the mechanism of change being the protesters and not the (particularly white) onlookers who support the protesters. that's not to disdain the support (yes to support!) or the changing of sympathies with (social) media (yes to sympathies!), but the effects of those are relatively marginal to change. my secondary point is that it shouldn't need to take a video to convince (white) people. just listen to the protesters, carefully and earnestly, as well as the investigative journalism around what they say. that should be enough, if folks care enough to not ignore the injustices.
- zamfi 6y ago
  Thanks, this was helpful. I think I worry that, short of revolution, change happens because people in power acquiesce to it. :/ (Again, obviously, this is bad, and I wish it were not this way, and I don’t condone or want to justify this. I just worry that it’s what history suggests.) If that’s true — and again, I hope it’s not, and it sucks if it is — then the effects of supporters and sympathies are not actually marginal to change, and the ability for those without power to attract the sympathies and support of those with it is both a Big Deal, and new — media has long been closely gatekept by power. But I’m not a particularly strong student of history, and I’d love to be wrong here. To your secondary point: I wholeheartedly agree, it should be enough.
  - clairity 6y ago
    changing sympathies helps, but nothing actually changes without the protesters. people with varying degrees of relative privilege to persecuted black folks won't jilt themselves out of complacency and share power and esteem spontaneously. there's not enough ambient incentive or imperative for that. being aware is simply not enough. we've been aware of our collective racism for at least the last 150 years and no change to that has happened top-down. it's all bottom-up. it's all people fighting for their rights and dignity. power isn't acquiesced so much as chipped away. awareness weakens the stone so the chipping is easier, but the chips don't just fall off on their own. that's why the (white) awareness is "marginal", not because it's not helpful, or possibly even necessary, but because it's not causative. there's nothing wrong with marginal, it's good, better than irrelevant, but it's not the catalyst of change in racial power dynamics.

by zamfi 6y ago

clairity 6y ago

yes, sorry if what i said seemed combative, but i wanted to be very clear and direct about the mechanism of change being the protesters and not the (particularly white) onlookers who support the protesters. that's not to disdain the support (yes to support!) or the changing of sympathies with (social) media (yes to sympathies!), but the effects of those are relatively marginal to change. my secondary point is that it shouldn't need to take a video to convince (white) people. just listen to the protesters, carefully and earnestly, as well as the investigative journalism around what they say. that should be enough, if folks care enough to not ignore the injustices.

zamfi 6y ago
Thanks, this was helpful. I think I worry that, short of revolution, change happens because people in power acquiesce to it. :/ (Again, obviously, this is bad, and I wish it were not this way, and I don’t condone or want to justify this. I just worry that it’s what history suggests.) If that’s true — and again, I hope it’s not, and it sucks if it is — then the effects of supporters and sympathies are not actually marginal to change, and the ability for those without power to attract the sympathies and support of those with it is both a Big Deal, and new — media has long been closely gatekept by power. But I’m not a particularly strong student of history, and I’d love to be wrong here. To your secondary point: I wholeheartedly agree, it should be enough.
- clairity 6y ago
  changing sympathies helps, but nothing actually changes without the protesters. people with varying degrees of relative privilege to persecuted black folks won't jilt themselves out of complacency and share power and esteem spontaneously. there's not enough ambient incentive or imperative for that. being aware is simply not enough. we've been aware of our collective racism for at least the last 150 years and no change to that has happened top-down. it's all bottom-up. it's all people fighting for their rights and dignity. power isn't acquiesced so much as chipped away. awareness weakens the stone so the chipping is easier, but the chips don't just fall off on their own. that's why the (white) awareness is "marginal", not because it's not helpful, or possibly even necessary, but because it's not causative. there's nothing wrong with marginal, it's good, better than irrelevant, but it's not the catalyst of change in racial power dynamics.