Do you honestly believe that the civil rights movement would’ve still happened if people simply kept plugging along, not making waves? Or the American revolution? Would the Nazis have been stopped without military cooperation from nearly ever surrounding country? I’m not saying that positive change CAN’T come about through small incremental steps, but I certainly don’t believe that all change can be made so peacefully, nor do I believe that this scenario can be resolved as such.
There’s a difference between martyrdom and the simple acknowledgement that you’re not doing all you can. There’s a middle ground between “I’m perfect and have never done wrong.” and “I must flog myself in the streets for my sins.”
Do you honestly believe that the civil rights movement would’ve still happened if people simply kept plugging along, not making waves?
Do you think the civil rights movement succeeded because everyone involved was all-in for the cause?
Man, the vast majority of those involved in civil rights causes had lives of their own - of which campaigning for civil rights was only a portion. Most people, in every age, in every class, in every demographic, spend most of their time living their private lives according to how they deem fit, not spending all their free time and resources contributing to greater causes. And without those same people, the civil rights movement would never have succeeded. It’s not about ‘not making waves’, it’s about accepting that your contribution to a greater cause is not necessarily going to be a significant part of the cause or a significant sacrifice from your life!
There’s a difference between martyrdom and the simple acknowledgement that you’re not doing all you can. There’s a middle ground between “I’m perfect and have never done wrong.” and “I must flog myself in the streets for my sins.”
There really isn’t. Doing ‘all you can’ is an unreasonable request. When you judge yourself not simply by what you judge to be a reasonable contribution from your life, but by your capacity, you reduce yourself to what can be done for others - a martyr. There is not a single person in human history who has done ‘all they can’ for a cause.
Judge yourself by how you would judge others. And judge others kindly, according to their circumstances and the process of living one’s life.
That’s the beauty of a movement! Martin Luther King was devoted to the cause - he was all in, and as a result of that, others could be a part of the movement without needing to sacrifice themselves. The larger the movement grew, the less any individual participant needed to risk. But it needed a hero. It needed someone at the forefront for people to rally behind. I’m not saying everyone needs to be devoted to the cause, I’m saying one person needs to be devoted to the cause so that others can latch on regardless of their inability to be that hero.
MLK Jr. wasn’t all-in. He gave more than almost anyone else - but he didn’t give everything. Even as an intensely driven man from a young age, MLK Jr. still had hobbies, relationships (of varying kinds), luxuries, idle time. All things that could have been sacrificed to do more. And yet he is one of the most praiseworthy Americans to have ever lived.
And you are right that a cause needs people who give more than average to survive and thrive. But you are under no obligation to be that person, moral or otherwise. And, honestly, you are probably neither well-placed to become such a person, nor well-suited to the job, simply as a matter of statistics.
You don’t have to be a hero, and you don’t have to feel bad for not being a hero.
The world needs a movement, and yeah, it’s not an obligation for any one person to be the spearhead for that movement. It’s okay to not be the person that the world needs, but it’s still a failure. The thing is that it’s okay to fail; people view it as some indication that they’re either perfect or worthless, and that’s unhealthy. Realize that the world needs something, assess yourself to determine if you’re that person, and if you’re not, feel that disappointment in your failure, then accept it and move on. The world is too fucked up for everyone to shield themselves behind a perfect wall of innocence.
Do you honestly believe that the civil rights movement would’ve still happened if people simply kept plugging along, not making waves? Or the American revolution? Would the Nazis have been stopped without military cooperation from nearly ever surrounding country? I’m not saying that positive change CAN’T come about through small incremental steps, but I certainly don’t believe that all change can be made so peacefully, nor do I believe that this scenario can be resolved as such.
There’s a difference between martyrdom and the simple acknowledgement that you’re not doing all you can. There’s a middle ground between “I’m perfect and have never done wrong.” and “I must flog myself in the streets for my sins.”
Do you think the civil rights movement succeeded because everyone involved was all-in for the cause?
Man, the vast majority of those involved in civil rights causes had lives of their own - of which campaigning for civil rights was only a portion. Most people, in every age, in every class, in every demographic, spend most of their time living their private lives according to how they deem fit, not spending all their free time and resources contributing to greater causes. And without those same people, the civil rights movement would never have succeeded. It’s not about ‘not making waves’, it’s about accepting that your contribution to a greater cause is not necessarily going to be a significant part of the cause or a significant sacrifice from your life!
There really isn’t. Doing ‘all you can’ is an unreasonable request. When you judge yourself not simply by what you judge to be a reasonable contribution from your life, but by your capacity, you reduce yourself to what can be done for others - a martyr. There is not a single person in human history who has done ‘all they can’ for a cause.
Judge yourself by how you would judge others. And judge others kindly, according to their circumstances and the process of living one’s life.
That’s the beauty of a movement! Martin Luther King was devoted to the cause - he was all in, and as a result of that, others could be a part of the movement without needing to sacrifice themselves. The larger the movement grew, the less any individual participant needed to risk. But it needed a hero. It needed someone at the forefront for people to rally behind. I’m not saying everyone needs to be devoted to the cause, I’m saying one person needs to be devoted to the cause so that others can latch on regardless of their inability to be that hero.
MLK Jr. wasn’t all-in. He gave more than almost anyone else - but he didn’t give everything. Even as an intensely driven man from a young age, MLK Jr. still had hobbies, relationships (of varying kinds), luxuries, idle time. All things that could have been sacrificed to do more. And yet he is one of the most praiseworthy Americans to have ever lived.
And you are right that a cause needs people who give more than average to survive and thrive. But you are under no obligation to be that person, moral or otherwise. And, honestly, you are probably neither well-placed to become such a person, nor well-suited to the job, simply as a matter of statistics.
You don’t have to be a hero, and you don’t have to feel bad for not being a hero.
The world needs a movement, and yeah, it’s not an obligation for any one person to be the spearhead for that movement. It’s okay to not be the person that the world needs, but it’s still a failure. The thing is that it’s okay to fail; people view it as some indication that they’re either perfect or worthless, and that’s unhealthy. Realize that the world needs something, assess yourself to determine if you’re that person, and if you’re not, feel that disappointment in your failure, then accept it and move on. The world is too fucked up for everyone to shield themselves behind a perfect wall of innocence.