Should an organization like BLM have 'official' leadership and chapters?

[TipTok]

Pros and cons to both...

Anyone can claim to be part of the group (for good or bad)

A leadership heirarchy could clarify the message of the group and dismiss folks who went off message.

I think this was part of the reason the occupy movement was ineffective and we see the same things happening with BLM.

This tweet brought the whole thread to mind...

[procon]

1. It would be difficult to be effective without organization and structure.

If they want to see political changes that affect society, they need competent and experienced leadership to implement the vision of the grassroots organizers. To promote their agenda, they will need money and that requires a legal identity to support a national effort.

OWS lost their initial impact as a unified group with a solid message when they eschewed the difficult work of organizing and they subsequently devolved into small, independent factions that are limited to local activity. BLM needs to go big, to organize, to be professional and united in their goals. Just like any other group of political activists, that's the only way they will get the public, politicians and donors to take them seriously so they can accomplish social change.

[TipTok]

2. Emphasis on the professional...

[procon]

3. Yes, the public persona. For good or bad, appearance and perception matters.

Look at Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, or Elizabeth Warren. While they have different public speaking styles, both women are very professional and effective in getting out their messages. They are also backed by powerful, well run organizations and that in itself adds to their gravitas, prestige and clout as the spokespersons for their groups.

[TipTok]

4. Agreed...