Why are the historically significant activist groups always lead by people that stand to gain power from the proposed amendments/revolution?
I get that logically, you'd be more inclined to JOIN this sort of thing if you stand to gain, but what I don't understand is why this is seen as also morally or PR-wise better.
Surely someone that is driven solely by decency without any drive but justice is a nobler figurehead?
It's not a matter of convenience, all the big activism groups that actually had influence had supporters from both sides of the argument
plz respond
>>1178266
You mean like how MLK stood to gain the right to vote and shit if the civil rights movement succeeded?
>>1178266
Because the oppressed want to be led by their own. Otherwise the oppressors will take credit for the liberation later on.
People who are driven solely by the desire to do good rarely act the way that power hungry types do. Power hungry people get into power because that is what they are pushing for. They will stab others in the back and do whatever is necessary to get ahead.
>>1178529
He wasn't fighting for the right to vote, friend.
He was fighting for the end of segregation, which caused blacks to be disadvantaged in many ways.
>>1178536
I think his question was more like "Why wasn't the civil rights movement led by a white guy, since the white guy would have nothing to gain, and would thus be seen is inarguably good?"
>>1178546
Becasue the hoi polloi don't think like that.
>>1178266
I don't agree with the premise of your question at all, since when activism started to be a thing in England in the 18th century, it was typically led by aristocrats who were trying to help poor people, slaves or natives. Obviously, aristocrats had nothing to gain from these movements.
If you accept the premise then the answer is obvious so I don't really understand the point of this thread. So nice. Epic troll.
>>1178266
Because the nature of states and the current world political structure requires the gathering of power to preserve or even make any such gains.
If you require control of wealth, popular opinion, or political office to preserve your own liberties or those of people like you it's basically a necessity to achieve some measure of power.
There's nothing inherently wrong with seeking to be empowered either- if you are disenfranchised then seeking the power to become enfranchised is just the logical way to achieve your goal.
It's in the cults of personality/individualist impulses of the figureheads that we see shit fuck up. Ol' MLK was in the right to fight for equality for Blacks, as racism is an unjust and stupid practice. You can however make arguments about his means, his particular attitudes, and his biases affecting the movement in positive or negative ways.
This is the same for any figureheads or 'groups' that try to vanguard a movement. It's why I don't advocate vanguardism in general as a means to bring about social revolution. Any small subsection of society that seeks to enfranchise a larger part of society also faces the real risk of imparting their own biases and faults into the movement they create, whether intentionally or not.
As for it's perception as more noble to have a figurehead; it's just basic mob and messiah mentality. People want to rally around a charismatic figurehead because taking the kind of risks and responsibility to spearhead a movement like that are usually scary and most people are scared to die or be rejected.
So in the process of trying to raise themselves out of a shit situation it makes sense practically to rally around some person, or identity politics rather than trying to start a truly egalitarian or global movement of human liberation.
>>1178266
come at me bro.
>>1178546
Would the white guy be naturally insensitive to certain context and cultural differences between both races to ensure full and complete desegregation?
>>1178553
What /pol/ about that?
>>1178833
Lets look at feminism and how in American it has ignored any woman who isn't a white woman.
They only had the view points of white women in the feminism movement and ignored the rest which had their own issues that intersection with race and/or class and being a woman. Thus whenever non-white women needed help or spear head their own movement white feminists would say "we must all be together" and then say that the concerns of the minority are there to split them then proceed ot ignore them.
There's a a lot of things white middle class suburban women can't represent because they don't understand, never experience it or brush it off as unimportant.
>>1178833
No. Humans have empathy
