Powerless
There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who live their lives not even thinking about changing the world, who may be vaguely aware of just how powerless they are, but who don’t ever internalize it or rationalize it. Then there are those who want to and believe they can change the world, because they are somehow inherently special or unique or by virtue of their ideas. Then there are those who are completely aware of how powerless they are, and who anguish over it, perhaps going so far as to enter denial, and delude themselves into thinking otherwise. These three types of personalities aren’t hard-wired – nor are they necessarily absolute or permanent – which means that people can change from one type to another at any given time, and that people can exist in a gray area between types.
What seems to be true is that all people – as individuals – are powerless. Those who have been credited with affecting world-shaping change did not do it alone, and it was not simply by virtue of their actions or ideas. Circumstance and timing played a very significant role. Where it was an idea that changed the world, the cultural and ideological climate of the affected time and place had to be “fertile”. The conditions had to be perfect. The same is true of an action. Actions affect the surrounding world in some way and it is the severity of the response to the action that determines how much change occurs.
If the environment (including people) were not “receptive” – that is to say subject to being affected – by the action, then it would have no effect. To give an example, a regular human being is not going to bring a thick brick wall crashing down no matter how many times he punches it, unless the wall has some severe structural deficiencies. Yet in the event that this man does bring the wall crashing down with one punch, he is credited with an amazing feat. But it could’ve just as easily been brought down by another person, or perhaps even a brisk wind. It was not by way of the man’s inherent or acquired strength that the wall came down. The time and circumstances were ideal, and were in fact more significant to the wall falling than the action itself. The man was actually powerless to bring down the wall, but he was fortunate enough to act at the right time.
Where a leader makes a decision that changes the course of a war or breaks a diplomatic standoff, we have to ask if the idea was even his own, or a result of hours of deliberation with private counsel. And in war, if it is the leader’s battle strategy that changes the outcome, then it is as much by virtue of the followers’ ability and willingness to carry out the strategy. In both cases success was also determined by the actions of the other side and the surrounding environmental conditions. The brilliant battle strategy that succeeded on level terrain in fair weather could’ve failed miserably in the event of a sudden thunderstorm or if the enemy had acted just a bit differently. Again the conditions proved to be perfect for victory at that given time. Where a person’s success depends on the actions of others, which they could not truly hope to predict with one hundred percent accuracy, there was an element of probability or plain luck involved.
This may seem like an obvious truth, but it is so often taken for granted, and it is because it is taken for granted that people are able to entertain delusions of grandeur or power in the face of the obvious reality that they possess neither. To use the example of a leader again, we can ask the question of how much power does a leader really have, and by what measure of their own abilities do they possess that power? A leader is only as strong as the loyalty or commitment of her followers. If another person decides to rebel and the memetic climate is such that this idea of rebellion – its viability and favorability – is greater than that of the idea that the leader should maintain power, then the leader loses her power almost at that instant.
Albert Einstein and others are credited with developing the technology that led to the creation of nuclear weapons, which in turn brought World War II to a decisive halt. Did Einstein have any power in this situation? Was not the scientific world in a position to receive Einstein’s ideas (that is, were they not receptive to them), or had not Franklin Roosevelt been willing to listen and thereby approve the Manhattan Project, then the outcome of the war could’ve been completely different. Perhaps Germany would’ve developed the bomb first and perhaps the world would’ve looked entirely different as a result. And were the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki any indication of the power of Harry Truman, any more than they were indicative of Einstein’s or Roosevelt’s power? Certainly not.
Was Hitler so charismatic and powerful as to single-handedly motivate an entire nation to conquer Europe? Or was it more because Germany, struggling to recover in the aftermath of World War I, was a fertile planting ground for a resurgence of nationalism? He had the right ideas at the right time and in the right place to irrevocably alter history. Had Hitler emerged onto the sociopolital scene even 10 years earlier, his ideas (and to what extent we can even credit him alone with these ideas is highly debatable) may not have taken hold, and World War II may have never happened. Now of course it did happen, and so to presume any other outcome given any other conditions is conjecture. But people, the environment, conditions, events, are all so subject to dramatic change through the simplest of ideas or actions that it is feasible for any historical outcome to have played out in a different way given a slight change in the variables.
So the bottom line is that all people are powerless. That anyone emerges on the stage of history as unique or special or particularly influential is as much a matter of luck as it is a matter of their personal merits. Upon this realization the concept of fate becomes more feasible, even more likely, as the determinant of history. For those who deny this realization or simply fail to reach it, what does it say about their purpose as human beings? Do they in fact live for nothing, able to swallow their insignificance by way of denial and delusion? And for those who accept and struggle with this realization, how are they to reconcile their powerlessness with any desire to affect change on any level? As for those who accept or do not even consider their powerlessness, who to the others appear as conformists or followers or automatons – are they truly any less effectual? Change and Preservation are the dominant paradigms by which beings act in the world. Where either prevails over the other would seem to be a matter of sheer probability.
Well I openly admit to *partially* being of the type, “…who want to and believe they can change the world…by virtue of their ideas.” Not because I believe I’m special but because I believe (as of now anyway) that changing the world is not something that one person does alone and, more importantly, it *shouldn’t* be something one does alone. The world doesn’t belong to anyone and it is shared by everyone. So any change that one person wants to instigate will be felt by everyone else. Which means every person on this planet needs to have a say in “what goes down”. Basically, I believe “I” can change the world, but I only want to when everyone is changing it with me and changing it towards something everyone understands and has had a say in. Idealistic? Unrealistic? Naive? Completely stupid? Perhaps…:D. But there it is in unashamedly black and white text.
“So the bottom line is that all people are powerless. That anyone emerges on the stage of history as unique or special or particularly influential is as much a matter of luck as it is a matter of their personal merits. Upon this realization the concept of fate becomes more feasible, even more likely, as the determinant of history.”
This contains a ton of statements that seem to be taken as a given when, instead, it seems to me that they need some “proof”. You say that all people are powerless and then cite historical examples concerning movements, governments, wars, and such as examples of where no one person single-handedly determined the outcome of events. To this I say “well, obviously!”. The very concept of movements, governments, and wars is based on the idea of lots of people agreeing to a common purpose and goal–where that goal or purpose is outlined by an elite few. Whether that elite few can successfully control their “followers” or not is determined by the humans they are controlling. And humans are as unpredictable as they are predictable, meaning there is no way to guarantee a specific outcome when humans are involved.
Furthermore, you use the idea of history as being some universal standard of the past on which people’s actions are recorded. In fact, if you read “history” you’ll notice that it not the story of people, it is the story of the leaders of groups of people…it is the story that those leaders want “their” people to hear. Which means that 1) these leaders are not going to inculpate themselves in their own stories nor are they going to reveal the illusion of their ‘power’ and 2) the *only* people that appear on the stage of history are those leaders. What other reason does an average person have to record their history on paper? Which leads to two other points.
One, on a personal level people are not powerless. Even in the worst of confining situations, a person still has the power to determine how they internalize their situation, how they will respond, how they will change their behavior, etc. This is power and power that no physical apparatus (as of yet…though I doubt there ever will be) can take away. And in “normal” life, a person has plenty of chances to exercise power. They can choose what to eat, where to eat, how they eat, who they eat with, or whether they will eat at all (fasting). People can kill certain animals or not, eat certain plants or not, grow certain crops or not, dam up rivers or not, etc. etc. etc. The power of humans to be aware of their world and alter their behavior (or not) in response to it is just that, power. In fact, realizing that one is powerless and either ignoring that realization or basing decisions on it is an example of power. Moreover, this explains why there are no “people’s history” world stage.
Which leads to two. What a person decides to do is completely up to him or her and unless they aim to be an “elite” who wants to control others, there is no reason for a person to write out on paper their history. When they die, their personal oral history dies with them–the part that may have been imparted to others may survive, but it isn’t the same. Because those other person(s) will alter it and remember parts of it that they find applicable to themselves and when they die, the process continues. In other words, I think that there is such a thing as ‘true power’, it just may be in forms, on a scale smaller than, or practiced in ways that are different (and, since highly personal, generally unknown) from what is given as ‘true power’.
I get the impression from this post that you looked at what has been recorded as instances of “true power”, realized the accounts are not as deterministic as they claim to be, and then moved to stating that people are actually all powerless. This begs the question, “who is defining and giving examples of power?” I gave some examples above of what I consider to be valid instances of power. What do you think about those?
I’ll address those points that are in conflict with what I posted. The rest either concerns things I didn’t say or supports/runs parallel to my argument, or is about something else entirely.
You said:
“And in “normal” life, a person has plenty of chances to exercise power. They can choose what to eat, where to eat, how they eat, who they eat with, or whether they will eat at all (fasting).”
A distinctly American point of view – perhaps shared by other “democratic” places throughout the world. But certainly not true of everyone. And not even true of everyone in those places. There are countless people who do not have a choice in what they eat, due to lesser resources, lesser access to those resources, etc. People are not poor because they choose to be. People cannot grow crops where the land does not allow it. They cannot hunt animals which are not present or lie beyond their means of capturing/killing.
Your second point:
“What a person decides to do is completely up to him or her”
Not universally true, and not true for ANYONE under all circumstances. There are many instances where we simply do not have a choice – it’s either choice A or die. Of course willful death could always be seen as a choice, but not one the vast majority of people would take on or accept. Where death is the only or one of two choices, that person is in effect powerless.
You go into a poor neighborhood and lecture the people there about how they live is all their choice. If they want a better life, all they need to do is choose it. See how well that goes over for you. You might find yourself without the choice of whether or not you leave that neighborhood with your face in tact.
And often, our “choices” are shaped by our experiences – it is not like we exist in a vacuum as an “individual”, completely free from outside determinism. Our “decision” to be poor or to rob a highly fortified bank at the risk of death or imprisonment is based on values imprinted upon us by society – or if not values, then an understanding of the consequences. The mother’s decision to raise her child rather than abandoning it – a combination of social norms and biological imperatives. Certainly that mother has the CHOICE to walk away from being the child’s mother, but it is less likely that she will do so where the values of the society stress the importance of parenting.
In truth, people are mere vessels for memes. Conduits. They have no free will. They serve at the behest of their memes – and to a lesser extent their genes. Free will is an illusion, and a meme in itself. And it’s a powerful meme – one that allows us to reconcile our identities as “free” human beings with the reality that we have no power at all.
And no, I am not looking at “power” only within the context of political power or how history was written. I am speaking in abstract terms – about humans’ ability – as individuals – to affect any sort of real change in their surrounding environment.
So with regards to your examples of power, my argument does not change and remains sound. No one has any power. Where they seem to, it is only by virtue of some sort of synchronization with larger movements around them – political climates, mood of the room, collective consciousness, whatever you want to call them.
“Choice”, in effect, is a reflection of which memes applied the most pressure, which memes were the most viable. This often coincides with what best serves the genes of a given population, but not always; other times it has to do with a “synchronization” (I’ve used the term “harmony”) with the other memes active in the ideosphere. This is how cultures form and how they remain stable. Cultures disappear when their memes are outgunned by the memes of others – not necessarily superior on any inherent level, but perhaps supported by other memes such as a propensity or willingness to engage in violence. Such memes are also often supported by a physical advantage. Such physical advantages themselves are even memes – such as the ideas behind superior firepower or the more convincing speech that brought more people to the battlefield.
On an individual level, though, it’s more basic. Will acting in this way lead to my death, to invalidation, to ridicule? Will it lead to success? Will it lead to fun? People’s individual choices are based on parameters they may not even consider. They know that they “want” a certain outcome, or want to avoid another, but beyond that, there isn’t much truly free choice involved in what anyone does.
It is certainly a fatalistic outlook, but it is plainly true. The proof is everywhere, even in your own life. Go change the world, right now. Go out and do it. What would you like to see changed in your lifetime? Go change it.
I’ll wait.
And nothing will change.
Even your desire to change anything in the world is based upon memes that have taken up residence in your brain – perhaps ideals like liberty or justice which compel you to political action, or abstracts like beauty or love which compel you to produce a work of art or to pursue a mate. Choice? Please… We are all mere channels through which memes propagate from one generation to the next… Puppets, in a sense.
http://godheval.net/philosophy/fate-vs-free-will/
In relation to my eating example, I completely agree that nature (among other things) can put a tight restriction on what can be eaten. About societal restraints and limited-option circumstances created either by nature or other people–yes, I also agree they exist. I wasn’t trying to imply that nurture and nature have no bearing on people’s actions. But what happens when a person realizes all these things…to put it in your words, “what happens when a person realizes how little they choose (their “powerlessness”)”? Isn’t any reaction (accepting or rejecting) to this knowledge power? But…
“In truth, people are mere vessels for memes. Conduits. They have no free will”
This seems to be quickly heading back to our universal outlook discussion about free will, memes, ultimate reality, etc. and that seemed to end in a “stalemate” about the viability of the concept of memes. So until I get around to reading “Meme machine” or the Selfish Gene” or some other publication regarding memes and formulating a full-fledged response to that concept, I’ll just let this be for now I guess.
“I am speaking…about humans’ ability – as individuals – to affect any sort of real change in their surrounding environment…Go change the world, right now. Go out and do it. What would you like to see changed in your lifetime? Go change it.”
I’m not sure what you are saying/asking here. What type of a change would you deem as an authentic indicator of power?
Also, I read your free-will/fate link before. In that article you state that there are lots of ways to get to the outcome of 10, and despite choosing different ways, the outcome is still 10. Yes, and…? Isn’t the whole point of free will determining how you want to internally respond to the life that always ends in death? The saying, “it is not the destination, but the journey that counts” comes to mind. To me it seems as if you put a premium on physical change as an indicator of “power”, where to me I’m interested in the internal response to physicality and even to memes. Of course, you say that even this internal mental “observer” is just a meme so it all comes back to what I said above about getting around to replying to this meme concept.
Yeah, I suppose I take it for granted that everyone has the same knowledge from which I’m writing, or that it’s some how implicit in our experiences. If/when you do get around to Meme Machine – right after the term is defined, you should hop right to the chapter “Ultimate Memeplex” (17 in most editions), which is about the “Self”. Also, just as an introduction, it’s worth reading the Publisher’s Weekly Review on Amazon – I’ve linked to the page above.
So this strikes me as one of your weaker posts, not by merit of the topic, but perhaps by your effort to articulate such a concept with so few words. Also this is where I would start nitpicking about word usage relative to your intent. Allow me to start with a challenge you posted in the comment thread.
“It is certainly a fatalistic outlook, but it is plainly true. The proof is everywhere, even in your own life. Go change the world, right now. Go out and do it. What would you like to see changed in your lifetime? Go change it.”
Are you referencing me simply making an impact upon my environment or revolutionizing the global ethos? In other words are you challenging me to undertake changing the world or world change? To me, regardless of which is attempted or achieved, some manifestation of power is required…And that word, “power,” remains an ambiguity throughout the entire post. If the illusion of “power” is in fact a meme and I maintain the discernment to recognize it as such , isnt such “transcendent” analysis evidence to the fact that the very concept is at the mercy of my decided perception? I would suggest that such recursive observation is “power” by the premise of enablement, given the context that the world is governed by these illusions. Regardless of the validity of memes, they exist as a medium that we can conceptualize and hence control the associated manifestations.
For instance, what if the intent has never been to change anything, merely to take advantage of, manipulate, or harness the world as it is? This of course brings up the contextual ambiguity of “change” relative to this illusion of power. So lets say we replace the word “change” with “manipulate.”
“Go manipulate it.”
By example, I started a “debate” over race relations just for fun, fishing with flame bait that had a premeditated effect. Whoever “bit” entered the discussion with a certain thought process. Im now provided with a choice to either try and change his/her mind or simply goad their viewpoint and use their disclosed information for ulterior advantages. Lets say I choose the latter and employ that mentality toward an entire demographic through other devices of “observation.” I have now enabled myself to act upon a large body of people indirectly by not “changing” the individual, but by preying on what I count on NOT changing within the encompassing ethos. With research I can inject what is “compatible” and observe the results even if its society becoming more inured or ossified. The venues to do so are plenty and also are everywhere. It only requires playing by/exploiting the values of society, while not being imprinted or driven by them. Would you not consider manipulation a force of change even if it yields dismissive adaptation? And if it is change wasnt it by “power” that I recognized the implications of any relevant memes to begin with?
Ill have to read up some more on memes myself but this was my initial response to the read. Thanks for the post.
I don’t even understand most of what you wrote above, TF. You’ll have to dumb it down for me.
When I said “go change the world”, I said “What would you like to see changed in your lifetime?”. And I was pointing out how there is virtually nothing you – as an individual – can do to bring about any change with respect to that issue. Any issue. If you care about racism, there’s nothing you – YOU – can do to end it. If you care about gender equality, there is nothing YOU can do to change people’s minds about it. If you wish a certain politician could get elected, he/she may or may not be, and your contribution to that will be negligible.
My point throughout this essay is that individual people have no power. Wherever they do anything significant – which invariably means affecting some sort of change in their environment – it is because others back them, or the conditions of said environment were right. It could’ve easily gone a different way under even slightly different conditions. All of that is said pretty explicitly in the original post.
You – as in actually you, TF, not second person – can’t even change a single person’s mind. You won’t convince anyone of anything. If they have a change of heart, it will be because they were already on the fence, were having similar thoughts. You may act as a catalyst, but you didn’t DO much of anything in that case. Unless someone is open to receiving your message, they won’t receive it, no matter what YOU do.
Do you know why people like us have so few visitors to our blogs, so few comments, have difficulty hosting any sort of in-depth discussions about the topics we care about? Because people aren’t ready for revolutionary thinking. They’re stuck in old ways, and old ways get to be old ways by virtue of powerful memes.
Since I wrote my essay “Black” back in…I think it was 2007? Have I changed even one person’s mind, gotten them to “renounce” blackness? Not a single person – even those who fully understand and even agree with it. Out of convenience, out of tradition, out of intellectual laziness, or any number of reasons (all of which make up the “environment”), they continue to refer to themselves and others as “black”.
Now, mind you, I’m not saying that the mere fact of our powerlessness dictates inaction, that we should just say fuck it and give up. No. This was written at a time when I was feeling a lot of frustration over how at odds my views were with seemingly the rest of the world (acknowledging, of course, that my perception of what “the world’s views” are is very limited). Even when I’m not frustrated, I’m forced to acknowledge this, though.
And for the record, it doesn’t matter how power is defined. No one has ANY, regardless. Even the power I have to decide to sit here and type this response is contingent upon many external variables. Having enough money to afford this apartment and the electric bill. Living in a country technologically developed enough for me to have personal internet service.
Living in a country that allows free speech. That the technology of the internet, this computer even exists. That I even have my points of view reflect my experiences – how I was raised, my education, my interactions with others, what I’ve read. You change any of these variables, and this website might not exist, I might be typing here, this discussion might not be happening. By sheer CHANCE, I could’ve been in a disfiguring accident that required both my arms to be amputated.
The possibilities for variability are infinite. That I’m able to be here, typing this, having this discussion, relies entirely on a ton of other external variables, most of which I take for granted. There is no separate, vacuum-entity “YOU” – you are a product of genes and memes being channeled through their respective “spheres” – a convergence as I call it.
People overestimate their individuality, their significance – and together we participate in a sort of exchange, an unspoken agreement – “I’ll validate you, I’ll pretend as though you matter, if you’ll extend me the same courtesy.” But in reality, we’re nothing – circumstantial and coincidental aggregates of biological and cultural data. This is taking it to a most extreme abstract, but…this kind of thinking underlay the original post as well.
Damn, I thought no one visited our blog cuz it was too awesome
Hm, Ill try to clear up my previous post by aligning it with points I agree with in your reply. I completely agree that “I” cant change a single person. “Religous influences” in my life have raised me according to the notion that “me” IS actually nothing, so Im no stranger to the concept/reality. I purposefully worded my race debate example as “…TRY and change his/her mind” to hint that I understand it to be impossible. So obviously my intent was the second “choice” which was to engage the debate for ulterior motives far removed from changing that person’s mind. It was, rather, merely an opportunity to exercise my own logic and beyond that to simply toy with the trained stimulus responses of society. If somehow that person was on the fence, however, the action to initiate the debate could have had the consequence of tipping them to one side or another…which brings me to the fundamental impasse im at now with your post.
As an oversimplification, the tone of the post was such that our actions have no consequences. Clearly this wasnt your intent, but to recognize that our actions DO have consequences implies that there is some level of perceptable effect to what we do or dont do…which brings me to…
You stated that it doesnt matter how we define power and thats where you begin to lose me. There has to be some conceptual basis for the term in order for us to not have it. Is power enablement? Is power control? Is power influence? Is power chocolate chip ice cream? Im just not sure I understand what you’re alluding to, because you also clearly state that we shouldn’t resort to inaction. Well we can only be active if we are ENABLED to be active in whatever respect we intend to not be inactive. This very enablement to be active is what I might very well equate with “power.”
We shouldnt resort to inaction and I posit we dont because, power or not, our actions have perceptible consequence and those consequences are the exploitation of what we dont have the “power” to “change.” So to state the essence of my previous post, Ive never had the intent to “change” what my non-existent “i” cant control. The purpose has been merely to exploit it based on variables im counting on to remain constant. “I” can go outside and chop down a tree not because I have “power” over the variables that allow the tree or myself to even exist. Its a viable scenario because, out of the infinite variables I cant control, enough remain constant for me to take advantage of the predictability. However, even this exploitation via consequence-based-action can cause “desired changes” that motivated the action to begin with…
… which brings me back to these ambiguous concepts of “change,” and “powerlessness” which seems to be based on the inability to cause change relative to our paths of action?
Oh and to help make more sense of my first post… I meant “exploit” in place of the instances of “manipulate”
I fear that Im making myself less clear, but ill try anyhow. I also meant to respond to this bit and I promise to give it a rest…
“My point throughout this essay is that individual people have no power. Wherever they do anything significant – which invariably means affecting some sort of change in their environment – it is because others back them, or the conditions of said environment were right. It could’ve easily gone a different way under even slightly different conditions. All of that is said pretty explicitly in the original post.”
I agree this is pretty clearly stated and I agree with the overarching point, but again, Im concerned with the premise of these validations of “power.” Having the cognition to perceive even some infinitesimally small fraction of possibilities and take a resulting course of action is some form of “power.” I say that because although there are infinite unknown variables, they are all still equally relevant to all other humans, who are validating your power to begin with. The leveling factor is humanity itself. So essentially the only variables that “really matter,” in the immediate sense, are the ones we can perceive to be most effective in driving human behavior and our relation to such mores. We gamble on the rest of the variables to remain stable enough for societal functionality. By example you dont live your life expecting any incalculable number of things to happen to you, and neither does society. The very premise of insurance companies are testament to this. You could of course be mangled in a car wreck and you could also be killed by a seagull that had a cardiac arrest mid-flight. You could…but you admit that you dismiss almost all variables for the ones with which you plan your life by in relation to the rest of humanity that validates your existence.
What we really dont know is what number or types of variables would have had to change to make what you “define yourself by” any different. Granted our development is a collision of events, but what really would have had to happen for you not to have made the decision to manifest yourself via a blog? Is it as simple as not having tied your shoe laces ten years ago? I am powerless to control what has made me me, but paradoxically I have the ability to control my perpetual reactions to “my” continued development because my development, as perceived by society, exists in a relatively predictable context.
To try and more clearly reiterate my point, we can count on the conditions of people and said environments to be right enough often enough to deliberately exploit the situation, although we actually have no control over it. Still, the ability to act upon these predictable societal or environmental conditions allows one to exude “influence” even without the conscious backing of others. Why? Because you and I (…and everyone) already have society’s subconscious and preconceived notions at our disposal. I would suggest that due to these old powerful memes you mentioned, there is the potential to exploit the associated ethos. The resulting societal preconceptions give “power” to those innovative enough to extract it.
I don't even understand most of what you wrote above, TF. You'll have to dumb it down for me.
When I said “go change the world”, I said “What would you like to see changed in your lifetime?”. And I was pointing out how there is virtually nothing you – as an individual – can do to bring about any change with respect to that issue. Any issue. If you care about racism, there's nothing you – YOU – can do to end it. If you care about gender equality, there is nothing YOU can do to change people's minds about it. If you wish a certain politician could get elected, he/she may or may not be, and your contribution to that will be negligible.
My point throughout this essay is that individual people have no power. Wherever they do anything significant – which invariably means affecting some sort of change in their environment – it is because others back them, or the conditions of said environment were right. It could've easily gone a different way under even slightly different conditions. All of that is said pretty explicitly in the original post.
You – as in actually you, TF, not second person – can't even change a single person's mind. You won't convince anyone of anything. If they have a change of heart, it will be because they were already on the fence, were having similar thoughts. You may act as a catalyst, but you didn't DO much of anything in that case. Unless someone is open to receiving your message, they won't receive it, no matter what YOU do.
Do you know why people like us have so few visitors to our blogs, so few comments, have difficulty hosting any sort of in-depth discussions about the topics we care about? Because people aren't ready for revolutionary thinking. They're stuck in old ways, and old ways get to be old ways by virtue of powerful memes.
Since I wrote my essay “Black” back in…I think it was 2007? Have I changed even one person's mind, gotten them to “renounce” blackness? Not a single person – even those who fully understand and even agree with it. Out of convenience, out of tradition, out of intellectual laziness, or any number of reasons (all of which make up the “environment”), they continue to refer to themselves and others as “black”.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying that the mere fact of our powerlessness dictates inaction, that we should just say fuck it and give up. No. This was written at a time when I was feeling a lot of frustration over how at odds my views were with seemingly the rest of the world (acknowledging, of course, that my perception of what “the world's views” are is very limited). Even when I'm not frustrated, I'm forced to acknowledge this, though.