Humans disagree, and it doesn't take a lifetime to figure that out. Life experiences, values (just or unjust), goals, and
relationships all shape individual worldviews. When different humans approach
the world from these varying perspectives, we naturally come to disparate
conclusions about what that world is.
For example, the condition of Black lives in the United
States has regained visibility in recent years. Discourse around policing, racism, opportunity,
gender, and the intersection of these realities has similarly regained
prevalence. Proponents of racial justice have engaged media, politicians, and
people at large to challenge their understandings of race relations, and
encouraged the nation (and the world) to stop ignoring injustice, in order to work for a
world with less violence and division.
While this movement has happened, the portrayal of
protesters and activists in media has been varied and inconsistent. One can
recall the Ferguson ‘riots’ especially, where some news outlets chose to paint
a picture of protesters as wild and angry.
Bar the fact that activists and protesters are not as lawless
as white supremacists would like to think. Forget the part where much of the
Black Lives Matter movement has been peaceful and measured. Leave out
anything you might know that is contrary to the racialized trope of "black and
angry".
Ever wonder why black people might be so angry?
Just sit and consider the chronology of the United States.
For a majority of our history, slavery was an accepted practice. And if slavery
isn’t that far in our past, state-mandated segregation was even more recent.
Basically, in the short amount of time that Black people in the U.S. have had
some form of legal emancipation, much of that has still been riddled with
state-sanctioned inequality.
Is your blood boiling? It should be. Think about the fact
that White people openly talk about rolling up their windows while driving through the ‘hood’. Think about the fact that Black people and White people
will use the same word for opposite meanings (‘home’ v. ‘dangerous and foreign’).
Consider the fact that most people just want good lives for their loved ones.
The point here is that people who find themselves frustrated
with the visibility and prevalence of the movement could afford to pause for a
second and wonder why. Why are Black citizens and citizens of color demanding
that the nation pay attention to the deaths of their loved ones? Why is it that
these communities are articulating a fear of police systems in our cities? Why
is it that I/you/we, as white people, feel defensive in the face of such
unrest?
Another example (arguably of less consequence), is what I’ll
call the "college PC" debate that’s been present on social media as of late.
Older generations (and our more conservative co-generational peers) seem upset
that "college kids these days demand so much gosh-darned political correctness".
But I’d venture to say here that the baby didn’t even make it to the proverbial bathwater before it
was punted down the hill.
So my generation is more switched on to identity politics
and the power of language. And one might say that this sensitivity has been
taken to extremes (allegedly some students think that literature with racial
expletives should be banned because it’s a trigger? News to me).
In any case, ever wonder why millennials are increasingly
sensitive about language? It’s not easy to hear the word ‘fag’ thrown about
like a disease when you’re young and closeted. I can’t imagine it’s very
pleasant to hear rape jokes as a survivor of sexual violence. Both what people say, and how people say it can be super impactful
for people experiencing trauma. Is it true that the ‘real’ world (a concept which is
inherently racist, sexist, classist, etc.—an argument for another day) is
vehemently merciless when it comes to trauma? In a way, yes. But only because
we make it that way.
What’s my point here? No, everyone you meet in (ahem) “real”
life isn’t super concerned with your past and/or feelings. Yes, there is value
in talking about the past (and present), even if topics discussed inspire
undesirable physical and/or emotional responses in some people as a result of
trauma. The world does not have only two options, to either emerge as a fragile
PC-utopia, or as a lawless hotbed of hate speech. Believe it or not, humanity is more complex than that.
The world doesn’t have to be as mean as we make
it. To be fair, I agree that refusing to engage any material that might have
the potential to trigger even the slightest bit of trauma is ignorant and
isolating. But so too is rejecting the notion that there is value in understanding
and accommodating the ways that people cope with traumatic experiences. Why not
like, I don’t know, exercise compassion? Maybe, like, listen to people whose lived experiences have been much different
from your own?
What I mean to get at is the power of asking "why?" The world is contentious, so it's easy to get defensive. When we're defensive, we become divisive. Division is the root of these silly dichotomies that we tout like champions of our own cynicism and narcissism. Thus we should all ask "why?', because doing so forces one to challenge the idea that one's own worldview is the most supreme that it could possibly be. Asking "why" allows one to remember that all people respond to the realities of their various situations, and that maybe we're not so superior after all. And it is in this space of questioning and vulnerability that we might remember our own humanity.
