Smoke and mirrors

There's been so much going on lately, beside the pandemic! We've got to the point where we're fighting shadows - symbols, ideas, words, as if they are responsible for the social and moral mess. Race became perhaps the hottest topic, but the actions are rather flashy and random. We're missing a solid long-term strategy.

The lockdowns put us in a low-adrenaline condition while we're addicted to the opposite. One of the emotions that increases the level of adrenaline is the anger. There are many types identified, one of them being the justifiable anger. It's defined as a sense of moral outrage to the injustices like the destruction of the environment, oppression of human rights, cruelty towards animals etc. Suddently so many issues that have been ignored for so long became urgent to be fixed. Of course I'm all for it, but it makes me wonder why now?

Is it because we have more time to think about them? Are we really ready to accomodate all the deep changes we're asking for, or we only use these righteous reasons to get our adrenaline up again, to feel that we're important/alive/useful, ultimately feel better about our own selves?

Racism is probably the scariest skeleton in our closet.

Black Lives Matter is a social movement dedicated to fighting racism and police brutality against Black people, but lately the focus shifted to fighting White Supremacy. They're not the same to me. BLM focuses on the rights, the other one on the blame; BLM engages me, makes me solidar with the cause, the other one gives me chills, as I see a potential of reverse discrimination.

Supremacy is about privileged groups and these can be based on social class, physical characteristics, ethnic category, gender or religion - so why not fighting all kinds of discrimination? Any empowered majority tend to discriminate the minorities around - isn't the general malpractice we should fight against, instead of selecting the mistreatments?

At Joe Biden and Kamala Harris inauguration, the young Black poet Amanda Gorman read a poem she wrote after witnessing the siege on the Capitol, "The Hill We Climb", here's an excerpt:

We, the successors of a country and a time where a skinny Black girl descended from slaves and raised by a single mother can dream of becoming president, only to find herself reciting for one.

And yes, we are far from polished, far from pristine,
but that doesn’t mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect.
We are striving to forge a union with purpose,
to compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters and
conditions of man.
And so we lift our gazes not to what stands between us,
but what stands before us.
We close the divide because we know, to put our future first,
we must first put our differences aside.
We lay down our arms
so we can reach out our arms
to one another.
We seek harm to none and harmony for all.

This beautiful moment is now being followed by embarrassment, as various voices started the conversation about Who should get to translate her work in different languages. But the question is not about the professional background, it's about the personal one (color, gender etc). It's where resentments start.

Cultural boycott goes fast and furious to all levels, from popular to academic. In Brussels, the manifestations against racism clotted around the figure of Leopold II who implemented a forced-labour system in the Congo. Following people's choice, the government changed the name of a tunnel from Leopold II to Annie Cordy, a Belgium singer. Yet some voices raised up to contest Annie Cordy because of one of her songs, Chaud cacao, now reconsidered to be racist.

I don't care much about rulers, but what a horrible misunderstanding when it comes to discuss about cancelling Shakespeare in schools because of misogyny, racism, anti-semitism or homophobia examples in his plays. Even if we let aside the arguments about the value of Shakespeare's work, about his intentions and the very little we know about his life, even then, how can we hold Shakespeare responsible for concepts that belongs to the late 20th century, like political correctness? 

Misogyny, racism, anti-semitism and homophobia have been the norm all across the world, for such a long time, of course we will find their traces everywhere. What we will be left with, if we take all the texts, films, songs, etc., out of their context and cancel everything we don't find politically correct? Because if we want to do that, we should start with the Bible, the oldest catalogue for almost every type of discrimination - will you dare it, woke friends?

Isn't cancel culture just another form of oppressing the intelligence?

Quotas are very popular these days as compensation for having lacked rights for so many centuries. But is anyone benefiting from it? The numbers look better for the Blacks this year, now we have to hire more Hispanics - sounds awful, dehumanising and devaluing everyone. Unfortunately it's a true recent story from a company in California.

Quotas and cancellations only hide the real problems and deepen the conflicts.

So, shouldn't we change the way we perceive people? 

Most of us are used to only looking, to register an image and associate it or even replace it with patterns (prejudices, stereotypes, etc). It gets much better when we start exchanging stories, listening to each other. And pretty great when we understand and share the feelings, connecting.