Monday Motivation #4: Questioning Right Side of History

This week's #MondayMotivation dives into a critical question: how often do we accept easy narratives at face value? The idea of being on the "right side of history" feels comforting, a clear line between good and bad. But what if the reality is more complex?

Three Things to Read:

What if the notion of being on the "right side of history" is nothing more than a comforting illusion? Many people often cling to this idea, believing that time and the arc of progress will eventually vindicate our moral positions. But as the world has learned time and again, the "wrong side" can persist far longer than we'd like to admit. The Right side of history is a powerful narrative, but as Gerald Nesmith Jr argues in his Al Jazeera English opinion piece, it's also a dangerous fallacy.

Injustice is not naturally remedied by history. It is challenged and fought by people who mobilise to dismantle systems of oppression.

Similarly, Sarthak Dev talks about athletes like Dutch footballer Anwar El-Ghazi face who faced professional consequences for lending their voice to causes like the plight of Palestine. While the sport preaches lofty values of unity and equality, the reality is a complex web of entangled interests, where political activism remains on shaky ground. Even as Ukrainian flags became ubiquitous amidst Russia's invasion, the simple act of advocating for Palestinian rights can still cost an athlete their livelihood.

This is a silence chosen, not imposed, as the world of sports continues prancing in its merry rhythm amidst the gunshots of a neighbouring genocide

Of course, not everyone has the luxury of silence. For India's genderqueer citizens, the basic right to access public toilets remains an ongoing battle, as Sudipta Das and Navin Noronha's in-depth article in Queerbeat reveals.

Patchy implementation of laws, lack of awareness, and stigma leave genderqueer Indians vulnerable to violence in their battle to fulfil a basic human need.

Two Things to Watch/Listen:

The path to a more equitable world requires active engagement, uncomfortable conversations, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. As Amit Varma notes on Episode 33 of Everything is Everything, "Governments are people. And people respond to incentives" - a sobering reminder that true change often requires confronting the self-interest that drives our institutions.

Government is not some mythical benevolent beast... Governments consist of people and people respond to incentives. They are frail, they are flawed, they are often rational, but everything that happens within that system is explicable. They (do) not... have something called the public interest at heart.

The remote work debate often gets framed as a simple "bosses vs. workers" issue. But what if there's more to the story? In the first episode of Good on Paper by The Atlantic , host Jerusalem Demsas tackles the question of who truly benefits from remote work, and who might actually be left behind with Natalia E.

What you mean by Remote work? Does that mean there is no place you have to go to for your work? Does it mean that you have to be in your workplaces office as opposed to a cafe shop? Does it simply mean that like you have to have left your bedroom?

One Thing to Ponder:

Have you considered how often solutions overlook the needs of women? This framework by Mansi Gupta , "The Women-Centric Eye", offers a way to evaluate solutions through a gendered lens. The framework helps: (i) acknowledge how we overlook women, (ii) co-vision a more women-centric future, (iii) evaluate solutions with a women-centric lens, and (iv) identify opportunities to build increasingly more women-centric solutions.

How might we actively and intentionally co-create a future that serves women? When we design for “everyone” we create one-size-fits-men outcomes.

Bonus (Subscriber Suggestion):

One of the Cambodian subscribers and a dear friend, Chanty Tieb shared this TED-Ed video by Susanne Buckley-Zistel of Rwandan Genocide. For one hundred days, neighbour turned against neighbour in a horrific campaign of mass murder that claimed over a tenth of the country's population. Yet the international community - those who should have been the moral arbiters - stood by and did little to intervene. In the end, it was not the "right side" that prevailed, but the side with the most ruthless power. A sobering reminder that history is not always a steady march towards justice.

UN soldiers who’d overseen the Peace Accord were instructed to abandon Tutsi civilians, and UN leadership refused to acknowledge the genocide taking place... By the time the fighting was over, roughly 800,000 Rwandans had been killed, and only a small fraction of the Tutsi population was left alive.

True change often requires rethinking the systems and structures that shape our world. It's not enough to simply declare ourselves on the "right side of history" - we must be willing to challenge our assumptions, listen to underrepresented voices, and find the courage to embrace silence and stillness.

So this week, I challenge you to step back. What narratives are you clinging to, and which ones deserve a closer examination? How can you create more space for diverse perspectives and marginalised experiences?

Finally, don't forget to share your suggestions of things to read, watch, listen or ponder. I would love to include one of them in the next edition.