eternal principles of right

james weldon johnson writes, in the autobiography of an ex-colored man, 1912

"the greatest interest of the audience was centered on Booker T. Washington, and not because he so much surpassed the others in eloquence, but because of what he represented with so much earnestness and faith. And it is this that all of that small but gallant band of colored men who are publicly fighting the cause of their race have behind them. Even those who oppose them know that these men have the eternal principles of right on their side, and they will be victors even though they should go down in defeat."

this quote reminds me of the letter written by activists in Austin in response to learning that a co-organizer was a government informant. they referenced "the trust and openness that give our communities cohesion and power."

i keep going back to this last sentiment. it speaks worlds to me, reminding me that as impossible as these struggles may seem because we are up against power and money ( and i can only imagine how they seem for those with less social/economic status than i have been unjustly afforded!), our very strength is in our refusal to accept society's definitions of what is important (individual over the collective, which leads us not to be open and not to trust one another), and who is more human/deserving/etc.

a part of me reacts to the idea that one side is right. and yet, as sociology professor rob rosenthal reminded me last week, all activism is by definition arrogant*, we believe ourselves to be right, to have a better idea of what justice looks like or what other reality is more desirable than the status quo. perhaps what Johnson calls 'the eternal principles of right,' that which will ultimately win out because it has to, is what i think of as (again!) humanity-- some underlying, over-arching entity of good, an essence of what we are as human beings and what we share as members of a species, that will always have more capacity to generate love than hatred.

i believe in this humanity more strongly than i believe in all else.

* partial definition of arrogant, since the word has such negative connotations: "making claims or pretensions to superior importance or right"

rest of the definition: overbearingly assuming; insolently proud

how do we find the balance between holding on to our dearest beliefs and not doing so in such a way that prevents us from keeping our eyes/ears/minds open to critique and change?