CMV: The burden of proof should not be placed on those demanding change, but rather those defending the status quo.

It seems to me that it is often the case that people are asking those who advocate for social change to justify their demands and explain why the change they are asking for is better than the current state of affairs. However, in practice, the status quo is usually defended by those who are privileged by it. This can be seen in historical examples such as slavery, whereslave owners were not expected to prove why they should be allowed to keep their slaves, while abolitionists were expected to explain why slavery should be abolished (not same abolitions demanded immediate freedom). Like wise in the civil rights movement such as the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement for African Americans, where women and African Americans were required to argue for their own rights, while those who opposed them were not required to explain why they should be denied those rights. In essence, the "default" position is always the status quo, with anyone who challenges this position being forced to defend their position. I think this is the opposite of how it should be, as those defending the status quo should be required to defend their position rather than those who demand change.