The term “social uprooting” was borne out of a desire of many PoC to move away from the problematic discourse surrounding current social justice.
The social justice movement is primarily white dominated, and focuses on a set of rules that only really work for some people, some of the time. It doesn’t recognize cultural differences, or personal experiences, which is, funny enough, supposed to be the point. Current social justice rhetoric is a set of laws drafted by a small group of people that ALL people affected are expected to live by, and despite the constant dropping of the term “intersectionality”, often is enacted against people it is supposed to help due to a lack of true understanding of the meaning of the term.
Social uprooting is a movement that makes guidelines, instead of hard and fast rules, so that more people may be included in the scope of justice.
In general, one tenet stands out above all others:
Live and let live.
This does not mean that everyone is allowed to do what they want.
This means that people should be free to handle their oppression in the way they choose, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
This also means that if you repeatedly infringe on the rights of others, you should expect consequences.
Performative “social justice”, or SJ for the purpose of looking good, is ignored.
Harassing people repeatedly to force a reaction that “is not SJ sanctioned” will not be tolerated.
Social uprooting will take the flaws in social justice and try to fix them. That is why the terms are different.