Dangerous Language

Conjecture and hyperbole can be dangerous, especially when wielded by overzealous drum majors. To use anecdotal evidence to prove a point is foolhardy, flimsy, and inflammatory. No one should ever endeavor to make a point or open a dialogue, especially one that is historically contentious and predicated on subjugation and inequality, with contrived notions only backed by a singular account. To begin a real conversation about a prickly issue, one must first demonstrate that they recognize and understand the issue from the opposing side. Then and only then can one reasonably assert their intent to engage a discussion as genuine and constructive. Because, conversely, if one only adduces his or her perception as qualified evidence to support their position, that position can be construed as subjective and prejudice based solely on a myopic view…and rightfully so.

The recent article in the Philly Magazine “Being White in Philly” (see link at the end) is a literal example of such a flawed attempt at provoking discourse. The fact that the author (Robert Huber) fails to acknowledge there is another side to the narrative he is giving, and that now his words are being widely perceived as being destructive as opposed to constructive by most, is unequivocal proof. Presumably Mr. Huber does not possess the requisite knowledge or experience and therefore cannot speak to the realities of the other side. Yet this ignorance did not inhibit him from serving up tacit information with a tone that teeters precariously close to the line of prejudice… if not actually crossing it. In no way do I paint Mr. Huber as a racist; in fact I think there is some credibility in some of what he is saying. Also, I cannot emphatically say his motive was disingenuous and therefore must take him for his word that he wanted to start a discussion. But generalizations and indignation cannot characterize the opening monologue to any legitimate conversation as evident in the vitriolic reactions to the now infamous editorial.

To be dismissive of the enormity of the inextricable inequities of the past is vexing.  Though Mr. Huber may not agree that America’s history has any bearing on the state of Black America today, and seemingly cannot comprehend or articulate the impact and breadth of said history, he should preface his words by first acknowledging his ignorance. For it is far easier to run the race and project yourself the winner from the grandstand, than it is to actually compete in the race and win. 

If Huber was really interested in starting a reciprocal conversation, one that acknowledges historically egregious acts of murder, rape, oppression, overt hate and callous disrespect, perhaps introspection would have been a better introduction. Yet, when he exhibits the propensity to only explore the portions of history that supports his argument, the truths and indelible marks of the eschewed history lingers like a noose around the argument he asserts, slowly cinching, reducing the argument to a speck of inconsequential rhetoric on the fabric of dialogue.  

In my opinion the time for apologies is over. I am not asking for handouts or empathy for me or anyone in the black community. Though there are still inequities, there is opportunity too. Yet I don’t believe that tolerance is too much to ask for from those pitching stones from the perimeter. Many black people are just as confounded as white people when analyzing the trajectory of some in the community. In fact, there are countless books divergent in their theories about the causations that seem to foster crime, indolence, apathy and poverty throughout some black communities. And though the myriad books that attempt to explain or defend the condition of the black community by black people themselves are scholarly and fact laden, I surmise that black cultural harmony on this subject is just as elusive as if such a preponderance of research and literature on the black condition had never been written. 

I suppose though that Huber never considered the world outside of his insular, righteously indignant, safe place, eschewing the need for facts or understanding when writing his piece. And though free speech is a right of every American citizen, and any American can deliver a sermon on any topic he or she so chooses, one should take pause before he or she puts pen to paper and consider that the inclusion of facts in any diatribe is prudent and paramount when proselytizing. Ostensibly, imploring people to free themselves of perceived shackles bound by shame and guilt, using hyperbole and conjecture rooted in intrinsic fear and generalized intolerance is dangerous and provocative. Unfortunately, the ill-conceived article was vetted by an editor who was just as oblivious to the jaded rhetoric of the piece, purporting and defending the article as an appropriate catalyst for “The Conversation” – which, after all, is a dubious and ill-informed position given that this was not the first attempt at starting the conversation, nor was it the most intelligent. 

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/white-philly/

Peace

S. McGill

One of the most powerful things in the world can be obtained and used liberally by anyone who chooses to use it.  "If" can be the beginning of something great or the acquiescence to defeat. How will you use your "if"?