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.
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.