And take what people say into your worldview and act accordingly to eliminate systems of oppression. I could write a book here if that would be helpful.

Here's something I wrote awhile ago for someone:

Jodi Pfarr has an excellent video explaining how dominant and minority groups interact. I wish I could show it to you but it's kept under lock and key by a third party publisher. I'll try to sum it up as best I can. I'm going to go into some issues that are pretty hot right now. Know that I use these just as examples and I don't want to open a debate about their specifics.

The dominant group and minority groups have equally valid narratives built through their perspectives. Those perspectives are world views built through socialization. For example, I'm perceived as white and therefore experience white privilege in the ways articulated in that Invisible Backpack article I linked in my previous comment. That doesn't mean my experience is less valid, it just means I've been treated differently just because of my skin color in a way that's very different than the experiences of people of color.

Growing up, I saw the police as upholders of justice in the neighborhood. All my interactions with the police were positive except for that one speeding ticket, and heck, I totally deserved it.

However, people of color, particularly certain races, often have a very different experience with the police. Any African American person likely has a story of a time when they or a person they know was unjustly harassed by the police for no reason other than the color of their skin. Many have a very different experiences and conclusions on whether or not the police are trustworthy. Take a look at this graph about perceptions of the investigation of Brown's death in Ferguson:

http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/08/8-18-2014_03.png

Look at that racial division. Majority white people trust the investigation. Majority black people don't. They see the prevalent racism in the police force we're never exposed to. They understand what it's like to be singled out for their race by the police and their humanity disregarded in a way that people who are white will never understand from a first person perspective. We can hear/read about it, but we'll never truly experience it, so we'll never have that same world view.

Again, these worldviews are all equally valid, but our own isn't a good make up of the big picture. Author John Steinbeck traveled to a city with another author friend of his and both wrote about their experiences. When the trip was over they compared essays and Steinbeck remarked that if he didn't know better he'd swear they visited a completely different place. Both were correct, but only a partial view.

When you talk about minorities and dominant groups, things get even harrier. By definition, the dominant group gets all sorts of invisible backpack bonuses. One of those bonuses is being seen as "normal". The dominant group is the "norm" and the minority group is the "other". There's toys for kids and toys for girls, there's vitamins and women's vitamins, there's bic pens and bic pens for her, etc.

The dominant perspective/worldview is also what's presented as normal. This is a very complex issue that spans many social science fields from sociology where studies examine dominant view impacts on statistical trends of a group, sometimes as large as a country population (for example in one study students were primed by being reminded that they are female did more poorly than the control group of female students who were not primed), to psychology where the dominant view impacts are studied in an individual who may internalize the dominant view or come to reject it.

So when it comes to social movements you're looking at a social minority group, who has realized there's a social problem they want to change. They recognize it because it's intrinsic to their experiences as a minority group, yet the dominant group doesn't have that perspective. What often happens is the dominant group becomes reactionary to minority group voices. "I've never seen that before!" when said in a normal voice by a single individual becomes a massive wave that smashes into the minority group. It's the dominant group's responsibility to listen, not speak to the minority group and take in what they say as an equally valid conclusion that stems from vastly different experiences that they will never personally experience. In order to understand someone else you have to temporarily suspend your own world view and listen. This is the core of a lot of Pfarr's work.

At this point you might ask, "well shouldn't the minority listen to the dominant group's views too? That's what a discussion is all about, right?" The answer is that they've already heard the dominant narrative over and over on a daily basis, either as a constant hum in the background or being screamed from many mouths in the foreground. Due to the nature of being a dominant group, their voice is always so loud no matter how softly each individual tries to speak. In contrast, the minority group's voice is so small even if individuals are screaming at the top of their lungs. So it's the dominant group's responsibility to suspend their worldviews and take the time to listen without comment.

An example of this comes from a book a federal government employee wrote about his time working with a local Native American tribe. He came in with the expectation that they would get moving on the project of mutual land management as soon as he arrived. To his surprise no one from the tribe was remotely interested in working with him or even talking to him. And whenever he did get someone talking they gave him an angry rant about all the ways they've been manipulated and exploited by white people and the US government. Our author was initially hurt, understandably, and would try to explain that he wasn't responsible for their suffering. To his further surprise their reaction was complete rejection. He found a few tribe members who would talk to him more openly and tried to explain that before moving forward, past grievances had to be addressed. The local tribe had been hurt too many times by white people and the encroaching government to trust the next white guy who shows up with a big smile and nice sounding promises. Before moving anywhere forward, they needed to know he was going to listen to them, know their perspective and history of exploitation and suffering (which so many others never cared to learn), and know that he would keep every promise no matter how seemingly insignificant. Once our author began listening, instead of giving his own views, and building up trust a little at a time he started getting somewhere. It took him years to build the relationships he needed to perform his job effectively and writes about how frustrating it was, especially at first when he was enduring many people's painful memories and anger directed at him. Through it all he writes that it was an invaluable experience and he learned to appreciate the opportunities of honesty and openness that were shared with him. He gained a much better understanding of the people he was hired to work with and through that relationship was able to act as a respected intermediary between them and the government. His experiences show how important it is for someone of the dominant group to listen to the minority group, hear what they have to say, and take it as a valid and true perspective equal to their own. This is key for social progress. Some background info, his five predecessors didn't last a year and very likely all his initial discussion points were bad echos of the last five failed attempts.

TL;DR Here's where I answer your question building on stuff I said previously. Sorry I wrote a book but I wanted to build up some key points first.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, despite the dominant group's larger numbers, the unacknowledged privileges which they hold hurt their credibility and therefore their opinions are, objectively, not as extreme as they appear? Hopefully this analogy isn't too ridiculous, but are you basically saying that if I have an apple and an orange, I could say that the apple isn't as apple-y as the orange is orange-y because the apple grew in different conditions? Is that another oversimplification? I'm aware I do that from time to time.

So to specifically answer your question, both dominant and minority groups are equally credible, but as the dominant view is the norm, only the minority view hasn't been heard. The minority group is also in the disadvantaged position so they should be the ones to determine the problem and solution. To use your example (which is an oversimplification but that's okay, we'll roll with it) apples are equally apply as oranges are orangey but both live in a society where apples are everywhere! Oh not when it comes to population numbers, then they're about 50/50, but you see apples posted all over billboards and filling the grocery store aisles. There's just a little corner here and there for oranges and when ever they pop up, some apples always ask why that space wasn't used for more apples. Government is comprised of 75% apples and being an apple gives you a bonus at work. And when oranges try to talk about getting more orangey things, many of the apples tell them things are just fine they way they are. See, those apples have no idea what it's like to be an orange stuck in a world made for apples. In order for the oranges have the same opportunities at life as the apples, the apples need to listen to the oranges frustrations and sufferings and then make what changes they can to include more orange voices.

That was a silly extended metaphor (it might just float around as some copy pasta) but I hope it helps."