This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Aug. 12, 2013 - When incidents such as the Missouri State Fair, the school transfers or the Zimmerman verdict go down, the air in the room goes quickly to a debate about whether the issue is "racist." So much energy goes into that surface-level discussion that it keeps us, as a society, from getting down to the nitty-gritty, interpersonal issues exposed by our reactions to these events. I think it's safe to say that "winning" the debate over some label of "racist or not" is impossible and therefore a waste of time.
Here's why:
- Race is not a zero-sum game. Something can involve issues of racism without being inherently or solely of racist intent. Insisting that there's only one way to see things stymies problem solving or discussion.
- Intent does not equal impact. We tend to see things most clearly from our own points of view and experience. It stands to reason, then, that others with different points of view and experiences will see things differently. They are as entitled to their reaction and point of view as you are yours. It is valid to be offended when someone "meant no harm." It is possible that when you "meant no harm," you actually did some.
- We live on this planet. Context is everything. The world we live has a history with issues surrounding race, ethnicity and other isms. It's baked in. Therefore that lens is going to be a real part of most conversations in which people of different backgrounds are involved.
- Have you read any online comments lately? Race gets brought into most things involving people from different backgrounds. By definition, then, even if it's a meta-debate about whether or not something involves race, when the comments start flying, it clearly does.
If we can accept the subjectivity of this debate and move to the next level of discussion, maybe, just maybe, we can make more progress.
Editor's note: This list is first of a list of lists that the Beacon will share from time to time. We're calling it the B List.