• JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Historically speaking, successful social change for the better, eg revolutions, has almost always come only when certain middle class/privileged people joined with underprivileged people.

    Attacking anyone who is richer or whiter than yourself, when they are on the same side as you, is stupid.

    • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Successful for whom? You do see the problem, right?

      To add to this: You do see the irony in replying to a post about white activism and its hypocrisy with “well, activism works better when white people get involved”? Right? RIGHT?

      • JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Successful in their aims.

        What on earth makes you think I was referring to “white people” getting involved in non-white struggle??? Modern American race politics is meaningless in the context of the last thousand years of historical change.

        I recommend you get yourself a copy of, say, The People’s History of the World and read up on social change in ancient Rome, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Caliphates etc.

        What I am talking about is simply a matter of historical record.

        A specifically non-white non-western example I can give you off the top of my head is the importance of the involvement of warrior caste people like Adbaraya Toya in the Haitian revolution.