On Racial Divisiveness

"So not my responsibility to teach white people they're own racist-ass history."

This statement from Adam Ruins Gun Control is a fairly common sentiment repeated in many forms. I feel it is worth a deep dive into what this, and similar statements, are truly conveying and their usefulness in civilized conversation. What it conveys might be more than the intent, but when it comes to communication, the more the intent is conveyed as intended, the more effective the communication. So whether or not my interpretation below is "correct," it would only indicate there is perhaps room for improvement in how such things are stated to be more pithy.

First and foremost, without judgement on right or wrong, such statements convey a disgruntlement that black people have with white people. This is important in and of itself. Without yet getting to know the why, it is creating two groups of people with conflict. It says there is a black group and they are mad at white group. It is specifically conveying they are mad that whites don't know how black people are and/or were oppressed by their white forefathers. It assumes an idea that white people should know this and shame on them for not knowing it. Further, it conveys the idea that white people are expecting black people to explain the situation to them when they shouldn't have to, and it further conveys that this is a terrible expectation of white people to put such demands on black people. Finally, it also conveys a responsibility on behalf of white people. A responsibility not only to know the situation, but also to solve it. This one statement has a lot of communication packed into it whether intentionally communicated or not.

Recap:

• Blacks are mad at whites
• Whites should know their own history
• Whites are unjustly expecting something of blacks
• Whites should be ashamed
• Whites are responsible for the past
• Whites should fix the present

So let's discuss each of these points individually starting with conveying that blacks are mad, disgruntled, or frustrated with whites. The far left of the political spectrum is entirely fine with such a statement. They see black people as being oppressed and repressed, picked on, and killed by police without anyone batting an eye and thus they have the right to be mad at white people. The far right sees this as a racially charged statement that lumps all black people in one group, all white people in another group, and makes broad sweeping statements of the white group. Before comprehending the situation, they immediately see this as an unjust statement because "not all whites" are doing the harming and thus it is too broad and unfair against the whites. It is indeed an anti-white sentiment. The left sees this complaint as invalid because white people aren't the ones being oppressed and thus they should have no cause for complaint of "reverse" racism against whites. They are benefited and they are the majority and thus such "racism" against whites is not "true" racism. When the right complains that this is unfair because "not all whites," they are missing the original complaint that there is a problem, and when they complain about what is wrong with the message as stated, the left complains that they're dodging or denying the problem while simultaneously adding more accusation of wrong-doing and white privilege. The right is hurt that they are being unfairly judged while the left says boo hoo for you since you're not being murdered and picked on. Overall, what good is this statement that blacks are mad at whites? Is it useful? Is it worthwhile? Does it convey anything that leads to something useful? Personally, I'm going to say no. The statement does throw an entire race under the bus even if it does not come anywhere near to matching the troubles that black people face. Throwing white people under the bus will not ever yield their sincere apologies and concerns. And what is the goal? If the goal is simply to point blame, then fine, that is being accomplished. But if the goal is to solve the problem, then pointing blame and shutting minds is never going to accomplish it. It is actively working against the goal whether it is "fair" to say it or not.

Whites should know better. Why should white people know their history? How much of their history should they know? Is each white person truly to blame for not knowing the entire past of "white people?" Should "white people" know all of European and Russian history as well? It is by no means required or necessary that people of a particular color know the entire past of their particular color. People have limited time and they are not simply going to learn every ounce of history. One could contend that they ought to learn the important parts, but who is to say which parts are important? We all already know that slavery existed and that it was bad and that a civil war erupted because of it. We know laws were changed to prevent it. We know Martin Luther King Jr had a huge hand in fixing it. But what else "should" white people know and how should they have come about such knowledge? If it is not taught in schools, is it absolutely their responsibility (and they should somehow know this responsibility) that they must pick up a book on how black people were oppressed? Or if schools should be teaching it better, how do they go about knowing they ought to teach it without having already known it themselves from the schools they went to? This expectation that white people ought to know their "racist-ass" history is not only a foolish expectation, it is also placing blame on whites for a past that they had nothing to do with.

Whites are unjustly expecting something of blacks. Whites are expecting black people to explain the situation in a way they can understand. The left sees this as a terrible expectation since it is putting the burden on the oppressed. Why should the oppressed have to do all the work when the whites are oppressing them? Well, the whites aren't oppressing them. They may still be oppressed and perhaps due to laws and regulations of very racist people, but the average white person is just another human on this planet. They are not doing any oppressing even if they have a particular privilege for their color. They reap benefits unseen by their color but they are not actively participating in any oppression in and of themselves. So why should they know what the problem is when the problem does not actively pertain to them? Of course the situation needs to be explained to them. They are not on the lookout for everyone who is not them to determine how a race they are associated with may have once screwed over another race. That's not how people live life. We focus on our own lives for the most part along with whatever interests we have and what problems are right before us. There are lots of problems in the world and we cannot be expected to know and solve all of them no matter what our color. Should black people have to explain the situation? Of course not. They shouldn't have to any more than it should be a problem in the first place. But this isn't about pointing fingers about who should do the lifting, it's about solving a problem. If a problem needs addressed, it needs explained and it needs to be explained to those who can make a difference. If that means the constituents need to understand to lobby congress, then the constituents need to be informed in a way they will understand and agree. Insulting them and casting blame will not engender warm feelings of support and it will work against the group who shouldn't have to be kind and welcoming in their explanations but may very well desire to be if they want to have a successful movement.

Whites should be ashamed. No, they shouldn't. For all the above reasons. White people are going about their lives just as oblivious to other people's problems as everybody else.

Whites are responsible for the past. Absolutely not. How could they be? In what world should anyone be responsible for people who came before them just because their color of skin matches? Just because white people benefit over black people for the misdeeds of white people in the past does not mean they should at all be blamed for the situation. The only way the majority of [white] people are going to care is if responsibility is not being cast upon them. The only way to get support from other them is to engender an emotional feeling of compassion. No one is going to be compassionate when prefaced with "this is your fault and your responsibility."

Whites should fix the present. This could indeed be true. If white people are the ones in power, then it makes sense that white people will need to fix it. If white people are the main force in voting for change, then clearly it will take a lot of white people to find a solution. People, in general, will have their own priorities, however. Some are focused on health care. Some are focused on drinking water. Others are focused on getting a job. People have their own issues and priorities to deal with. While white people will overall be necessary to solve the problem, they're only going to do so when the issue becomes one of their priorities. And this situation will not become a priority for them when any and all discussion of the matter leads to false accusations and foolish expectations. These kinds of statements are not beneficial to the cause in any way. Responding to this sentiment as if I am trying to further "control" how it is done is absolutely foolish as well. I am merely pointing out a fact: if you want people to listen to your plight, your heart, your ideas, or desires, opinions, or stories, you absolutely must not put them on the defensive first. This is for success, not control. If success is not desired, then do whatever, but there are definitely better and worse ways to have success that have nothing to do with what "should" be the way the world operates.

Musings About Meaning and Fulfillment

I'm dinking around with ideas about life satisfaction. I believe it comes down to 4 categories as seen in the Venn diagram above. We can be satisfied in life if our "Personal" circle is experiencing acceptance, meaning, and growth in any of the other 3 areas. By itself, it does nothing but cause more angst, and without it we feel directionless, meaningless, and depressed. To have the most satisfying life, the entire personal circle will be fulfilled, but a decent life will have at least one fulfilling overlap.

The big key, then, is the yellow circle. Everything outside the yellow circle is non-personal external forces. For work, it is how much money you make, who you work for, what your project is, the meetings you attend, etc, etc. Even if all those things were terrible overall, if the personal space within it is finding meaning and acceptance (the social aspect), you will be happy. Similarly, if the yellow space is null and void, it won't matter how much money you make, what your title is, or what you're working on. Notably, they often go hand in hand. If everything is going crappy, you'll generally not find meaning and acceptance, but honestly it is quite often a personal choice and/or there are things you can personally do to improve it. The yellow space is almost entirely what you make out of life.

The yellow is deeply personal in the center where it does not overlap with the other three circles. It is how you feel about yourself, who you are, how well you know yourself, and whether or not you like and accept yourself. Notably, this is surrounded by all those same questions by the external groups of Home, Community, and Work. If everyone hates you and does not accept you in all three categories, then you are surrounded with no escape and your self will likely die. If one area is void or causes pain and suffering, however, you have two others that you could retreat to for meaning and enjoyment in life. If Home is awful, people often retreat to Work or Community. This does not guarantee happiness, of course, if they rush right outside the yellow circle entirely. Everything requires introspection, growth, meaning, and acceptance in order to breed happiness. And if Home is bad, it usually indicates a poor-working central personal area which means you're likely suffering in all areas. The root cause (or effect?) of clinical depression is quite likely a failure to glow in all three areas simultaneously.

As social creatures, we ultimately need other people. We literally go insane if isolated for extended periods of time and we start talking to volleyballs with hand prints on them. Thus, the personal space is all the social interactions with the various groups (including self in the middle). We must like and enjoy ourselves as much as we believe others like and enjoy us. I say believe, because it is more important that we believe others like and enjoy us than it being an actual fact. People can love us until the cows come home, but if we do not perceive it or believe it (usually a sign of depression), we will wither and it will affect our inner personal self. Similarly, if we believe everyone loves us when they really don't, we will happily and cheerily continue on with life without skipping a beat. Ignorance is bliss! Such people may find that their bubbles are not particularly successful, but they'll be happy despite it.

To find meaning and acceptance in the social areas, it is generally worthwhile to understand people. Understanding how people think and operate can change how we perceive ourselves in their eyes immensely. Comprehending that people are not devoting their every thought to us, and that they are likely worried about themselves, is a great way to prevent misinterpretation of their actions (or lack thereof). It also enables us to realize just how we can get in their good graces. The best way to make someone like and accept us is to make it quite open and obvious that we like and accept them. It is difficult to dislike someone who likes you unless you have some particularly bad habits. Most of us, however, are willing to overlook the habits of other people. Recognizing that we all have bad habits and the fact that we generally don't hold people in super low regard just because they have them, can help us accept our own habits and recognize that others are likely not holding them against us either. In such a way, we can flourish in acceptance of self and believe in the acceptance of others.

Another great way we can perceive acceptance from and derive meaning toward others is to be useful to them. We can do work or show creativity in ways that garner their respect or admiration. Determine what will float their boats or benefit them. Give them a hand in appropriate ways that will enable them to soar. Acknowledge their work, their deeds, their words, their creativity, and ask in which ways we might be beneficial to them. Do things with them we know they love. Focus on others and we will find meaning in their lives if we are not rejected by them. If we are rejected, we can simply realize that not everyone will like all flavors of people. We don't like all things any more than they do. So we hang out with the people who do value us and our efforts when we pursue their happiness. This is the age-old concept of how giving is better than receiving. It is the very concept that by forgetting our own lives and focusing on others, we will find our own life. If we focus only on our own lives, we never get the social aspects to flourish and we feel trapped and useless. We must be meaningful to people or we have no meaning at all.