I agree with everything you just said, but why can't it be both? It seems to me like a knee-jerk reaction to disparage small, symbolic changes like this because

I agree with everything you just said, but why can't it be both? It seems to me like a knee-jerk reaction to disparage small, symbolic changes like this because there's more important change that should happen instead. This implies that there's some kind of zero sum game at play where people's tolerance for change is somehow depleted by small changes, making larger changes harder. I guess the jury's out on that one, I don't know of any experiments made that can indicate one way or the other, but I don't believe that's the case. In fact, I believe disparaging small changes can be harmful to larger changes, because it accuses people that engage in trying to make positive change happen of wasting their time, because they're not focusing on the changes that you personally feel are more important. Having been an activist for many years, albeit in union related issues and not what's generally called "civil rights", I can certify that the main issue with any kind of social change or activism is that people are not engaging in it in the first place. Because of this, I'm firmly convinced that even "meaningless" change is at least change, and that denigrating it will turn people off on attempting change at all.