3 ms·

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,

by 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.