I'm a descendent of a grandmother who, as a child fled the brand new Soviet regime when my great grandpa was being shuffled off to the Gulag on the train in the cold North. I'm sorry that your family died by those same people who shuffled off my great grandpa. Hello.
Is there a problem / disadvantage / critical misleading with using my context as a lens to understand what's the right way to appropriately address unfair power dynamics?
What I struggle with is this: the rules that govern which words are "problematic" are often arbitrary and based on the US political landscape. These decisions have little to do with how many people were affected globally, yet these rules are broadly applied to (at least) all English-speaking countries.
The linked article wants me to be outraged (or at least upset) that references to equity are being removed from government software. Why should I be? As I mentioned in another comment, some of these tactics are broadly similar to what left-leaning movements did or wanted to do. The positions being taken are often presented as objective and empathic (for example based on historic power imbalances), but power imbalances are dynamic and regional.
Is there a problem / disadvantage / critical misleading with using my context as a lens to understand what's the right way to appropriately address unfair power dynamics?