The need for aggressive minority
Mar. 26th, 2021 11:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mprotsenko(just capturing some thoughts)
The problem with majority is not about it being evil. It is about it being PASSIVE in presence of evil, helping to maintaining status quo.
Appeasement of that majority does nothing to change the status quo - they still remain passive.
On the contrary, aggressive minority can make a part of the majority uncomfortable enough to join the fight and do something. Sometimes it is enough to tip the scales, sometime it is not. In the best case it still takes generations to make a meaningful change in the status quo - but it is still more effective than appeasement, where your gains are temporary - IF there are any meaningful gains - but your losses are permanent.
P.S. Some will say, "hey, but what about MLK?" Well, he WAS a part of aggressive minority. Maybe not as aggressive as Malcom X, but still aggressive enough. Read his "Letter from Birmingham Jail", especially the part about his attitude towards "moderates".
.
The problem with majority is not about it being evil. It is about it being PASSIVE in presence of evil, helping to maintaining status quo.
Appeasement of that majority does nothing to change the status quo - they still remain passive.
On the contrary, aggressive minority can make a part of the majority uncomfortable enough to join the fight and do something. Sometimes it is enough to tip the scales, sometime it is not. In the best case it still takes generations to make a meaningful change in the status quo - but it is still more effective than appeasement, where your gains are temporary - IF there are any meaningful gains - but your losses are permanent.
P.S. Some will say, "hey, but what about MLK?" Well, he WAS a part of aggressive minority. Maybe not as aggressive as Malcom X, but still aggressive enough. Read his "Letter from Birmingham Jail", especially the part about his attitude towards "moderates".
.