There is a chasm between “doing something like this distracts from more effective options for change” and “people can only do one thing at a time”, and arguing the latter when someone says the former feels disingenuous.

For example, in California, due to long term drought, urban water usage legislation was enacted. Urban water usage in California accounts for less than 10% of the state’s total usage, so a 20% reduction, at significant personal impact to urban residents, has a sub 2% impact on total use. However, it also gives the appearance that the legislature is actively engaged in addressing the problem of water conservation to under-informed voters without compelling those legislators to address agricultural and manufacturing uses (and their organized lobbying efforts).

The problem with “every little bit helps” mentalities is that they enable perverse outcomes when coupled with limited information decision making, finite resources, and multiple concerns to balance. All of this leads to the politically optimal (and thus career sustaining) option set being deeply suboptimal application of resources.

> I would honestly be amazed if a single person, anywhere[1], looked at this change and thought "yep, I don't have to think about slavery now".

Surprisingly, human minds do seem to work that way. After doing a "good" deed, we're liable to believe that we've done our part, and owe society no further action. Even if our good deed didn't actually change anything.

This effect is often called "moral licensing".

> After doing a "good" deed, we're liable to believe that we've done our part, and owe society no further action.

Yet people keep on recycling and switching their lightbulbs after they do the first one (a "good" deed.) People keep protesting even after they've succeeded in one protest. etc.

People will naturally continue with their existing behaviour, but I think the GP was saying that once people have adopted a behaviour to aid cause X they sometimes stop looking for other "gooder" behaviours addressing the same issue.

> I would honestly be amazed if a single person, anywhere[1], looked at this change and thought "yep, I don't have to think about slavery now".

This is exactly what people do. WAY too many people do "feel-good" charity work. They just pick something that's visible, easily partaken and then decide they're "helping" and go about their lives feeling better.

Like donating clothes to Africa, which actually harms the local economy[1][2]. As does dumping tons and tons of food without proper end to end oversight.

Or having a demonstration in a public location, bothering the end-users or workers of a business. Because it's easy and good publicity. They don't attack the people on top who actually make the decisions, because it's hard and boring work.

[1] http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1987628,00... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mariah-griffinangus/africa-cha...

> imply that people are capable only of doing one thing at a time and, potentially, that they're only capable of doing one thing full stop

A lazy and overused argument. No one said only one thing can be done. Fact is time and attention are resources and by doing some thing you allocate less of them to other things.

To turn it into a specific example, in a large enough company, to make the master->main change you have to: announce it, update the repo, update the documentation, update the CI, update any automation around code, then everyone has to update their local copies. It takes time that costs the company real money. You can calculate that amount and ask the company to donate it to an organisation which can influence real change instead of renaming.

Furthermore, it's human's psychology that once you've done such "token good deeds", you feel good about yourself and less inclined to do some real thing, right now. Not everyone is subjected to that mentality, but I think most do.

> If we can do both, why do we never do both?

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/perhaps-we-cannot-do-bo...

> This would imply that people are capable only of doing one thing at a time

No, but it certainly makes you care less. Human attention is not linear.

Americans at large are heavily invested in ignoring the repercussions of slavery.

Our President still lives in a house built by enslaved peoples. Our Congress still legislates in a Capitol built by enslaved peoples.

That fact remains true, and is the prima facie evidence that all Americans have profited from our legacy of slavery, and that we aren't all that concerned with tearing down that legacy and eliminating the harms to folks that those monuments contain... instead a plaque or statue explaining the role of the enslaved peoples is enough.

Meh.

Ironically, the solutions prescribed here are themselves virtue signaling: in that they do nothing to actually right the wrongs of the past.

As a practical way to help, I want to call out organizations like DonorsChoose. Find a Title I school or one with high economic need, and chances are high that a) more of the students are people of color; b) they don't have an effective or well-resourced PTA; c) their asks for resources are for basics that you'd assume would already be provided for. For those who want to make an actual difference, I'd highly encourage supporting an organization like this, and I'm pretty sure their communities would appreciate it more than tearing down the White House. https://www.donorschoose.org/donors/search.html?moderateHigh...

I didn't prescribe any solution- I'm not advocating tearing down the structures in a symbolic act to try and placate people. I'm pointing out the fact that all Americans stand today on the shoulders of an ancestry which enslaved peoples, and which we bear the onus of eliminating the traces of that power imbalance from our society, not just saying "hey, we don't mean master THAT WAY, you know?"