The Purpose of Power: How We Come Together When We Fall Apart

This chapter tackles the difficult topic of how to build multiracial movements without disregarding the unique concerns of individual marginalized groups. Garza argues that people of color (POC) share a history of exploitation by white supremacy but do not necessarily share the same culture, and intragroup discrimination persists. Therefore, even in multiracial organizations, including in the BLM movement in its infancy, anti-Black sentiment and practice linger.

Garza gives a personal experience of this happening in 2014 in an organization for Black-Brown unity. When she suggested using the platform to discuss the BLM movement and the rise of Black resistance in the aftermath of Ferguson, a Latina member protested that they had already dedicated a lot of their airtime to Black issues and that this detracted from their goal of Black-Brown unity. Garza argues that focusing on Black resistance during a watershed moment does not weaken Black-Brown unity; on the contrary, it is counterproductive to use multiracial politics as a pretense for preventing discussions on Black resistance. Garza invites organizations to challenge their fear of seeing Black people organizing: It does not mean the rest of the marginalized groups are being left behind. Rather, a unified coalition cannot stand without organized Black people. Many people of color actively wish to distance themselves from Back people, because they “are raised to understand themselves and their origin stories as in opposition to Blackness and Black people” (153). In other words, anti-Blackness is the instrument of white supremacy: If they do not challenge anti-Blackness, multiracial organizations cannot truly boast about inclusivity. In sum, organizations should not rally under the guise of representation; they should rally around strategy.

Anti-Black racism manifested surrounding the BLM movement as well. People who retort that “all lives matter” erase Blackness. Turning the conversation away from the victim and onto oneself is not solidarity. Furthermore, Black people organizing among themselves does not devalue the lives of other groups. Garza thus urges Black people to unify in an organized political force by putting their differences aside. Without numbers, a movement has little power.

Nevertheless, Garza warns there are pitfalls to organizing only among Black people. First, Black people in themselves do not form the majority, a condition that is required for change. Second, Black people are diverse in themselves: Their religion, gender, sex, and sexual orientation, among other identities, vary. This might encourage the formation of cliques rather than a broader unified front. Isolationism is therefore not an option. Overall, Chapter 9 urges multiracial organizations to consider the unique experiences of Black people, while pushing Black people to broaden their own understanding of Blackness for the sake of unity.

Chapter 10 explores the pros and cons of different forms of leadership and defends the model Garza has ultimately adopted herself. She prefers and practices a decentralized approach that rejects the traditional hierarchy yet still retains leaders at the core of the movement. Garza does not believe leaderless movements to be successful: Without leaders, the movement can’t control its own narrative. Thus, Opal, Patrisse, and Garza agreed early on that BLM would be decentralized but not leaderless.

Decentralization rejects traditional forms of hierarchy. Although Garza acknowledges that hierarchies can be incredibly effective, they are also easily corruptible and almost always led by heterosexual men. Movements that gather around a single leader fall apart when that person is removed. The organizations of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Huey Newton never completed recovered after the assassinations of their charismatic leaders. In a world that targets Black resistance movements and their leaders, Garza finds the decentralized model to be both strategic and politically significant.

Garza defines the decentralized model as a redistribution of the leadership role throughout the organization. It allows diverse people to strategize, share ideas, and bring about unique visions. Rather than leaderless, the BLM movement is a “leader-full” organization (161).

Such decentralization does not reject all forms of hierarchies. A completely flat model would not be able to mobilize efficiently in an ever-changing environment. Similarly, people have diverse strengths and weaknesses. Their skills are not evenly distributed. Thus, in its infancy, BLM sometimes failed to adequately intervene on current issues. To remedy this, Garza’s decentralized model provides tools to train leaders but also requires that leadership be earned.

Chapter 11 defends the necessity of political involvement and voting. Garza argues that power operates in political spaces and change is only possible when movements occupy and challenge those spaces. Without electoral power, the radical democratic system practiced in intersectional organizations cannot be replicated in the broader society. These changes can only happen if the current political structure is challenged from within and without.

Garza warns that the very role of the American government has become contested since the 2016 presidential elections: Whereas the previous prevailing philosophy had been neoliberalism, Donald Trump’s presidency shifted it to neofascism. The chapter then canvasses the primary nominees and details their stance toward Black communities. The Republican party had a diverse group of primaries while the Democratic side was divided between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Garza notes that the Clintons have a long history of bringing harm to Black communities, while Socialist Bernie Sanders spoke of race only in relation to class, perhaps due to Black people accounting only for 1.3% of Vermont’s population.

Hillary Clinton emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic party, but her politics were shaped by dog-whistle racism and triangulation; during her husband’s presidency, she actively backed policies that cracked down on Black communities without investing in solving their problems. Garza cites this as the push away from the left for white swing voters, many of whom favor a neutral stance that purports itself to be above ideology.

Even Obama’s presidency left much to be desired. Garza acknowledges that some of his policies were admirable—such as the release of 7,000 prisoners jailed from discriminatory policing—but his deportation of immigrants and the lack of economic support for affected Black communities left many coldly disappointed.

After Obama’s presidency, the 2016 candidates were uninspiring to Black voters. None breached the subject of BLM willingly. This lack of top-level representation is partly due to how Black people are under-organized and have not yet formed a unified front and fought for a common agenda. Consequently, presidential candidates do not feel the pressure to answer their concerns. Garza quickly realized that the lack of adequate candidates left many Black voters disinterested in the elections.

Through BLM’s confrontation of primary nominees at various 2016 electoral campaign events, Garza learned that protests can effectively force candidates to reflect the concerns of the people. Clinton apologized for labeling Black people as “super-predators,” and Sanders included a racial justice agenda to his campaign. However, protests alone do not sufficiently shift the candidates’ politics. Governance is required for challenging larger social issues. Retreating from the political sphere is therefore counterproductive to radical change.

The final half of the chapter turns to look at the Republican side of the equation. Trump’s strategy is rooted in racism to galvanize white voters. When five officers were killed in Dallas and three others shot in Louisiana by Black ex-military men, Trump immediately blamed BLM, conveniently disregarding the murder of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling by Minnesota and Louisiana police, respectively. Garza admits that Trump’s assertions went unchallenged partly due to BLM’s lack of response. The organization was still young, and “it is hard to build a plane while you are flying it—while also under enemy fire” (176). Additionally, many leftists are distrustful of government and politicians even though their lives are shaped by those in power. This leads to persistent internal contradictions that undermine unity. Rather than solving these contradictions, Garza urges the left to become decisive about how to impact politics and wield power in a way that can improve lives.

The 2020 election was a result of this incohesiveness. The left organized around Sanders and Warren, but rather than growing their base, the candidates focused their energy on debating ideology and labels that were irrelevant, or even actively off-putting, to most voters. Garza argues that most voters support socialist policies such as access to healthcare but dislike the label due to a history of anti-socialist rhetoric. As a result, both Democratic candidates lost and Black voters turned to Joe Biden, Obama’s vice president, as their best of choice.

In Chapter 12, Garza answers why identity politics is useful, despite public outcry that it “divides” humanity into categories. She argues that identity politics empowers movements by clarifying who possesses power and in what form. Identity politics can identify the experiences of non-white, non-heterosexual, non-cisgender, non-male people. Power, meanwhile, is the ability to “make decisions that affect your own life and the lives of others” and to decide the distribution of resources (181). Using these definitions, it becomes clear that most power belongs to white people. Consequently, white culture is the default, and every other culture is subject to comparison against it.

Garza then traces the origins of identity politics. The term emerged in 1977 from the Combahee River Collective Statement, a text written by Black lesbian feminists. The women utilized the term to better illustrate the concept of “interlocking oppressions,” which expresses the multiple ways racism, sexism, capitalism, heterosexism, and other types of oppression can mutually act upon an individual. For the Combahee River Collective’s leaders, the feminist movement was first and foremost about the liberation of white women, which did not include the concerns of Black lesbians. Identity politics was an instrument they could wield to fight for their own liberation, which was undervalued in other social movements.

Garza sees identity politics as a refusal to flatten the unique experiences of different oppressed groups for the sake of uniformity. It is essential, despite charges of divisiveness, because the unique experiences of Black women have historically been ignored by larger social groups. The valuation of white identity and culture above all others is in itself an enactment of identity politics. Garza points out that it was white people who created false classifications based on skin color, class status, or sex to maintain social hierarchy: Their actions are at the root of identity politics.

Garza disagrees with arguments that movements should look forward rather than backward at bridges already burnt. Collective amnesia allows racism to persist, and obscuring identity politics also obscures the way power still upholds white supremacy. Furthermore, Garza argues that the conservative movement has succeeded in doing precisely this: hiding the disparities of class, race, and gender to benefit a minority of people at the top. The progressive movement has not done enough to unearth them.

Using identity politics to build power means shifting the narrative and changing the present cultural norms. At a time where the others—people who are not white, Christian, heterosexual, male, or cisgender—are becoming the majority, a shift in narrative is necessary. Finally, Garza argues that redistributing power does not mean white people will become the ones oppressed: It simply means oppressed groups will now wield their rightful share of power.

Chapter 13 tackles Garza’s struggle with impostor syndrome, a term that emerged in 1978 to describe a feeling of inadequacy in people who repeatedly demonstrate their high achievement and intelligence. Although Garza has been published many times and finds spiritual uplift in writing, she often finds it difficult to call herself a writer. This struggle with legitimacy is a result of the patriarchy, which systematically delegitimizes the accomplishments of women—especially women of color and women of sexual or gender minorities. It is not simply a matter of self-esteem, but rather a social segregation and repression that buries their voices and ideals. Garza sums it up this way: “My impostor syndrome is incurable by affirmations in the mirror, because as soon as I step away, this world reminds me that I have no business here” (192).

Garza defines the patriarchy as “a system of power where men and male-bodied people gain power and privilege from the disadvantages that face women and woman-identified people” (192). It is not synonymous to thinking all men are bad. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that society gives men a disproportionate number of privileges at the expense of non-men. Garza also defines the racialized patriarchy as valuing not only men but white men as the default. This explains why statistics about discrepancies in wages paid out to women and men representative of only white people; Black women’s wages are lower still than those earned by white women, but the racialized patriarchy leaves no room for this aspect of the gender-equality discussion.

Many occurrences almost daily reinforce both the patriarchy and Garza’s impostor syndrome by ascribing women’s accomplishments to men and redefining women’s actions as subservient to men. Every social movement Garza has joined has had patriarchal elements ingrained in it. This is because organizations do not exist in a vacuum: Their members unconsciously or consciously replicate the societal norms they grew up with, many of which reflect the patriarchy. For example, most organizations did not visibly include women in positions of leadership, even though half or more of their members were women. The patriarchy sees women as revolving around men. Garza herself has received advances from men who believed that her assertiveness signaled romantic or sexual interest.

For her own organizing efforts, Garza hopes to avoid repeating these “errors of the past” (198). She acknowledges that the left is still plagued with the racialized patriarchy and sometimes women will step on each other for acknowledgement. Nevertheless, women are not the only ones hurt by this. Garza argues that men are robbed of intimate and meaningful relationships with loved ones because the racialized patriarchy is rooted in violence. Under this system, men are prevented from showing emotions for fear of appearing weak. Historically, Black cisgender men could experience enslavement through a denial of their masculinity. This could take the form of castration or other methods of physical and sexual terror.

In the end, Garza’s own politics reflect a feminism that is Black, queer, and includes forms of masculinity that do not “depend on the subjugation of women to exist” (202). In other words, women in leadership positions will stand as equals to their male counterparts and will no longer be categorized as either “too nice” or “too mean” based solely on the personal boundaries they set.

Chapter 14 argues for the necessity of building an active base of people to create lasting movements and enact meaningful change. Garza defines a base as “a group of people united around an issue or goal” (204). Bases are different from constituencies, which include people who are affected by an issue but not active participants in an organization. Modern-day technology, most notoriously social media, has skewed people’s understanding of bases. Garza warns that this is a wrong impression: Social media followers and Facebook friends do not comprise the base of a movement.

To demonstrate this, Garza uses an anecdote of a campaign launched by POWER to help students access free transportation after the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) canceled the school bus system. Although the organization used social media to spread the message, it was through connecting with the affected community—through door-to-door knocking, visiting schools, and organizing community gatherings—that people came together. By bringing the people’s demands to the decision makers, POWER successfully won the campaign. Without a solid base of members dedicated to the cause, POWER’s campaign would not have wielded much power.

While Garza agrees that spontaneous mobilization can happen, such as during the #MeToo movement, sustained activist efforts require organization and a deeper engagement from the people. Intentional education is needed to spur people into active participation and to organize them into bases. People need to understand the problem at hand, the people at fault, and the possible solutions to become involved.

Garza argues that bases need to be broad and include people outside of narrow social cliques. Furthermore, organizations have historically been indispensable to successful social movements: They are not optional components. This is why social media environments, which are ever-shifting, have popularized “throwaway culture,” a term that defines shallow relationships. Organizations that have a strong base do not as easily fall prey to these shifting conditions and will give their members a sense of power.

Chapter 15 argues for the necessity of political education: It is the instrument through which marginalized groups can redefine common sense and ultimately fight oppression.

Garza only began to properly understand race once she entered college, even though she experienced racism growing up. The political education she received made her realize oppression is not about “people being mean to each other” but rather is a means to an end (210). It allows the concentration of power in the hands of a select few at the expense of the rest.

The chapter explores three forms of political education. The first, coined “popular education,” was developed by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire and asks educators and participants to learn together by reflecting on “critical issues facing their communities” and devising methods to “address those issues” (211). This type of education helped Garza better understand how ideologies, such as Marxism, were applied around the world.

The second type of political education is called “peer-to-peer” and Garza has extensive experience with it. After her mother introduced her to the topic of sex at the age of 11, Garza stopped seeing the subject as being taboo or awkward. She became involved with sexual-health education, an important task since most of the sexual education teenagers receive comes from peers rather than teachers or parents. Garza found that young teens were more willing to have such discussions with a peer rather than an adult. This was especially true for more sensitive topics such as HIV. The health centers she worked with valued sex positivity and harm reduction, a point of view that aligns with her own ideals. This encouraged her to continue this line of work in college, now with the additional benefit of having received formal education on the subject.

Political education helped Garza realize that no education is without its bias or implicit agenda. It also allowed her to identify instances where organizations she worked for embraced ideals that are harmful to her. For example, Garza retracted all involvement with Planned Parenthood when the organization decided to celebrate Margaret Sanger, the woman at the forefront of the birth control movement and a perpetrator of eugenics that used birth control to forcefully sterilize “undesirable races” (213). In other words, political education allowed Garza to interrogate existing power dynamics. Its ultimate purpose is to encourage the visualization of perspectives different from the white, Christian, heterosexual default.

Garza sees political education as an essential step toward building strong bases. She cites the work of Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci on cultural hegemony, a concept that explains how values instilled by the ruling class eventually come to be accepted as common sense. He argues that forcing people to conform to the desires of the ruling class is, perhaps paradoxically, most effectively done through consent. Hegemony is therefore developed and concentrated in the cultural realm. Through education, values and rules established by the state become the norm. In this way, consent can be “manufactured” sometimes without the use of force. People who defy the common sense, such as transgender people, easily become victims of hate crime and violence for deviating from social norms.

Hegemony explains how certain ideas are fabricated and reproduced in the cultural realm. It is the reason behind the widespread misconception that Black men lead BLM. Culture is therefore intrinsically linked with political education, and changes in policy come hand-in-hand with shifts in popular conceptions. Garza urges organizers not to overlook the fight in the cultural realm, including places that produce and disseminate knowledge, especially at a time where conservative forces look to dominate it.

If organizers make good use of hegemony, they can successfully enact positive cultural change. Garza cites the marriage equality movement as a successful case of challenging the status quo. Conservative forces led by Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the 1980s and 1990s used the HIV epidemic to spread misconception about gay people, especially gay men. However, with sustained effort and increasing representation in media—including in movies, comic books, and music—people’s common sense has shifted to be more inclusive of people who aren’t heterosexual. In sum, political education helps people visualize imbalanced power dynamics and encourages them to challenge the status quo.

Chapter 16 examines the concepts of united and popular fronts. It highlights the necessity for both fronts within movements in order to fully realize a vision. This chapter specifically looks at how movements can utilize popular fronts, in particular, to effectively enact change.

Garza defines popular fronts as alliances that are forged “across a range of political beliefs for the purpose of achieving a short-to-intermediate-term goal” (224). They require leaders—especially those in radical movements—to broaden their base and include members whose politics might be different from their own. United fronts, meanwhile, are alliances formed with people or groups that have a similar political stance and last much longer.

Popular fronts can be tense and uncomfortable. During her time at Bayview Hunter’s Point, POWER formed various popular fronts, including with the Nation of Islam, even though their politics differed greatly. The Nation overwhelmingly had men as their leaders, was pro-Black-capitalism, did not openly support sexual or gender minorities, and was not multiracial. Garza’s organization was the complete opposite. Despite these differences, the two groups were indivisible on the initiative they supported, and their members respected each other. By taking a collective stance and increasing their numbers, they consolidated and grew their power and influence. To Garza, popular fronts help people look into their differences rather than look past them. They are important because they force people to confront uncomfortable situations for the sake of a long-term vision.

United fronts, on the other hand, allow groups of people to align their strategy, vision, and values in the longer term. Where popular fronts emerge as a direct response to an issue, united fronts offer “the possibility of what could be” as a product of steady, dedicated efforts (226). They encourage the exploration of alternative structures from a more comfortable position, as the groups involved share attitudes and politics. However, they may be less effective due to their smaller number compared to popular fronts. To Garza, both unified and popular fronts are necessary to successful movements.

Chapter 17 explores how to maintain a balanced view of visible leadership in movements. Historically, The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Malcolm X; and Rosa Parks became high profile figures for their respective organizations. However, it is important to remember they were strategically selected by their movements rather than haphazardly thrust forward: Their ideals and images projected a message that would advance their cause. For example, Rosa Parks, a seamstress who worked long hours, could perfectly highlight the discriminatory nature of segregated spaces on public transport, paving the way for the lawsuit filed by the NAACP.

Garza’s first experience grappling with the issue of visibility was at Bayview Hunters Point. As someone with experience writing op-eds, delivering public speech, and debating opponents on public forums, Garza took the role of public figure for her organization in a campaign against a major housing developer. Although Garza’s side lost, she was selected as a “Local Hero” by a community publication due to the effort she had poured into her work (231). However, another member of her organization urged her to refuse the title unless it included not only herself but their entire organization. Garza was hurt by the implication that she sought personal credit or a position of power. She did not particularly wish to be a public figure and struggled with the discomfort of it even as she was working. It led her to question how movements should tackle the issue of platforms, pedestals, and profiles.

Technology complicates the matter further: Whereas in King’s time, platforms usually required physical gathering, modern social media allows for high profile people to exist outside of physical spaces. With this shift comes the necessity for movements to build a solid base and to create spaces for deeper connections.

Opal and Patrisse shared these concerns over platforms and profiles, and for a year BLM operated without its leaders asserting themselves. It was only when another mainstream organization attempted to claim BLM as their own while distorting its politics that Garza and her peers were compelled to redirect the narrative onto themselves. This is a decision Garza still questions to this day: She knows it is important to be able to control her own narrative and use BLM as a platform to reach a broader audience, yet she understands the consequences of her choice.

The most high-profile organizers Garza knows are in fact private people who dislike the public spotlight. To them, visibility is a tool rather than a reward, allowing them to reach a wider audience on issues they care about. For BLM, the watershed moment came in December 2014 when Patrisse and Garza spoke about the grand jury’s refusal to press charges against Officer Darren Wilson for the murder of Michael Brown. At the time, coverage on the BLM movement and the nationwide protests veered negative, but the television host Brooke Baldwin was open to weighing “all options” (235). Over the course of the conversation, Garza and Patrisse highlighted the fact that the American justice system almost always rules in favor of officers over the lives of Black people. They argued for the necessity of valuing Black lives and declared that the BLM movement would not rest until justice was restored. This finally allowed their organization to have leaders who spoke for it: It was no longer a hashtag that others spoke about.

Garza underlines that the decision to appear on TV was difficult. It was not done out of a personal greed for fame but rather to amplify the voices and hopes of the people whom BLM defends. Movements should aim to cross from obscurity into the mainstream because they must build power through numbers, and the masses inhabit common spaces rather than radical ones. They are not all progressive, but their support is nonetheless necessary for movements to realize their visions.

The same cannot be said about pedestals. Leaders who become pedestals can become “symbols without substance” (232), which leads to a dangerous “cult of personality” (237). Their presence becomes enlarged, and the organization’s visions become concentrated in their hands, resulting in an extremely uneven power distribution and a replication of the very system these movements are trying to dismantle. This also increases the risks of corruption; some leaders might favor personal gain over the visions of the movement. Individuals who become celebrities “obscure other people’s contributions” by claiming a movement’s success as their own (239), at least in the eyes of the masses. Garza therefore concludes that platforms and profiles can be helpful, but pedestals and celebrity leaders are rarely useful for movements.

Garza remains skeptical of virtual platforms and profiles in effecting change. Without a base who are willing to act, hashtags and follower count are only rhetoric. The reason for BLM’s success is not its digital presence but its capacity to sustain online connections and facilitate collective action in real life. Platforms and profiles are used to build successful movements: Their goal is to build bases, not brands.

The rest of the chapter analyzes DeRay Mckesson’s abuse of platforms, profiles, and pedestals as an example of the harm they can do if misused. Mckesson is often mistakenly cited as the founder of the BLM movement. Garza first met him in Ferguson where he acted as a community journalist and interviewed Patrisse, Opal, and Garza on BLM. The next time she encountered him was on social media. Individual actors who used the BLM tag for their personal agenda gave right-wing media the perfect excuse to blame Garza’s organization for instances of violence. While Patrisse, Opal, and Garza were doing damage control—by highlighting the fact that BLM should not be held accountable for the actions of people who act individually and are not part of organizing efforts—Mckesson turned to social media to defend the idea that people “don’t have to be part of an organization to be part of a movement” (243), which implied the negative influence of Garza’s organization.

At a 2016 conference held by Movement for Black Lives, Mckesson disregarded the explicit directives of the organization by inviting Hillary Clinton and her team to the event, thereby putting the event at risk of being seen as an endorsement. Later, he posed as a BLM activist and bragged about meeting Clinton in an article. Garza was furious. She points out that there is a difference between aligning with the values of a movement and claiming an active or prominent role within it. Mckesson has been mistaken as a co-founder of Black Lives Matter by various media outlets, including Forbes magazine, yet seems uninterested in correcting them. Mckesson accepts credit for things he has not done, all to grow his public profile and platform.

Garza argues that highlighting his disingenuous actions is not petty but a real effort at regaining power over her own organization’s narrative. For example, BLM was sued by an injured police officer during a protest in Baton Rouge. However, this event was not organized by BLM and none of its three leaders were present at the scene. Mckesson claimed on social media that he organized the event, yet the blame was cast upon Patrisse, Opal, and Garza.

Garza acknowledges that movements often do not have clear beginnings. However, this should not compromise their vision and effectiveness. Their leaders need to actively fight for the right to tell their own stories. This is a lesson hard-learned, as Garza’s complacency allowed Mckesson to build his own influence using BLM. Garza urges everyone to question platforms, pedestals, and profiles. Now, she no longer struggles when asked about her public presence. She reasons that Black women’s work has long gone uncredited. Their efforts should not be handed to their male counterparts.

Movements also must grapple with the reality that people elevate celebrities over politicians. The masses occupy the mainstream space, and movements should mark their presence there if they wish to grow their base. Finally, to maintain their cohesion and to anticipate attacks, movements and organizations must set clear boundaries and discern who falls within and without.

Chapter 18 reiterates Garza’s hope for the future and elaborates her political projects. She highlights power as the root of change, especially for Black communities across the US and beyond. Garza sincerely believes that Black people hold the key to leading the country and heralding a new structure for democracy, the economy, and civil society. Although she used to be a cynic, organizing for the last decade has convinced Garza that power can be built and used for profound transformation.

Garza is currently involved in the Black Futures Lab (BFL), which she launched in 2016 after the presidential election. The goal of the BFL is to “make Black people powerful in politics” (255). It accomplishes this by training aspiring leaders, distributing resources to Black communities so they can effectively communicate their needs to policy makers, and testing new ways to “build, drive, and transform Black power in the United States” (254). The BFL also directly links Black communities to Black elected officials so they may better serve the needs of the community. This enables Black people to become active participants in the mechanisms that enact change.

Furthermore, the BFL provides an institutional basis for the BLM movement. Garza sees it as an initiative that is Black-led, Black-centered, and Black-focused, filling a void that she had once only complained about. After the frustrations of the 2016 election, Garza knew it was time to build avenues for Black visibility and power. The BFL organized the largest census collection project to date in 2018. It partnered with over 40 Black-led organizations and reached an audience of over 30,000 to ask what Black communities wanted for their future. The result of this census convinced Garza that people were ready for change and the conditions for building social movements were at their prime. Most importantly, results showed that Black people have never been asked about their visions for the future: Their lives always seemed predetermined. Garza aims for the BFL to fight for Black people’s right to govern their lives.

Garza cautions that the work ahead is laden with resistance. Utopias do not exist, and for every step forward Black people take, Garza expects society or other factors to push them two steps back. Nevertheless, moving forward means exposing contradictions and rising to challenges. It requires Black people to define their identity and come together to move forward. Garza believes in Black people’s success and prays to reach her own potential. On this road to building a brighter future for the oppressed, Garza concludes that “making America great is forcing America to live up to its promise for the first time” (261).