On Why?

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.