> They seem to follow a pattern of being really important for their time and place, but after winning the important, landmark victories, they stick around.
They stick around because union busting corporations, racists, and sexists don't just magically disappear or give up after they lose a battle.
Wrong. By what magic do you think their opponents suddenly disappear or give up?
Martin Luther King said, "the arc of the moral universe is long". Progess is slow and subject to setbacks.
> They used to make the history books with their accomplishments.
Some areas of the country now want to ban the teaching of that history.
Forget racism and sexism for a moment: do you seriously think that the temporary existence of labor unions makes profit-maximizing corporations give up and give in to all of labor's demand for eternity, even after labor unions dissolved?
They'll drag on and on. Some people will get rich and powerful, but the people on whose behalf you're supposedly fighting don't really care about any of it.
They'd much rather have affordable healthcare and housing.
The "wars" for affordable healthcare and housing will also drag on and on. Because guess what, there are opposing sides fighting against each other on those issues too, and neither side will magically disappear or give up when one side wins a temporary victory.
It's truly bizarre that you think longstanding social issues can just be "solved" once and for all (if you truly believe that and aren't just trolling).
"If Christian evangelists did their job, then the whole world should be Christian." Doesn't that sound silly? It turns out that there are a whole lot of non-Christians in the world who don't want to be Christians, and they're going to do their "job" too.
You seem to have completely missed the point of why I mentioned them. We've now compared many different organizations and social issues. What they all have in common is that there are longstanding competiting interests on both sides, and thus an advocacy group doing its "job" doesn't entail that the opposition magically disappears. An advocacy group hasn't failed to do its job if it doesn't wipe the opposition off the face of the earth, thereby rendering itself irrelevant.
"An advocacy group should disband after one significant victory" is really an incredibly inane suggestion that could probably only be made by someone who doesn't like the advocacy group in question and wishes they would disband regardless of successes or failures.
This is not actually true, but the lie serves the purposes of activists seeking to justify their continued existence, so they keep telling it.
The institutions that claim to fight those things are the ones who are the bad guys now. All the while, ignoring the real problems that everyone wants solved.
Yes they are still problems.
No, there hasn’t been newsheavy significant wins recently. There has, however, been newsworthy significant losses.
The idea that institutions should disappear because they’ve managed certain successes is utterly, bafflingly stupid. That’s especially the case as we are still current fraught with issues that these institutions exist to help with.
I dont follow your logic. Isnt this a bit like saying if doctors were doing their job, cancer should be gone by now? If police does their job all crime is gone?