Selective Outrage - Quick reflexes, we don't want to be cancelled for having the wrong opinion | Race in Jamaica
So, I've had some time to think about it and Chris Rock was right. Well, to me that is...after-all it is my opinion. Read that again, I didn't say Chris Rock was right about everything. We must ask the follow-up question, "What, pray tell, was Chris Rock right about?" In our westernized, hyper social media dictated society, we are suffering a scourge of selective outrage. Selective outrage is the tendency for people to reaffirm or confirm beliefs that reinforce their biases or preconceived notions. But, more than this, I would go further to say that selective outrage has become a part of our outward projection of who we want the world to see us as.
We no longer hear an event or story in context. We see everything based on our heuristics and nothing else. We jump head first into projection, cancelation and a defense of our opinion against the opinions of others. Opinions are different from facts and opinions that do not agree with ones world view are not necessarily misinformation.
We need to stop, take a breath and recall the difference(s). Facts are things or events that are known to be true or proven.
Opinions are beliefs or views that human beings have over anything. They are not always based in knowledge or proof. I like to sometimes think of an opinion as a question without the question mark at the end.
Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, it can be intentional or unintentional (Read more here).
Knowing these basic definitions, why is it so hard for people to navigate the world of social media in a healthy way that does not automatically start a #cancelled campaign? We could say that we are protecting information and targeting misinformation but what we are really doing in the long run is gatekeeping opinions. People should not voice opinions if they don't align with the mass or popular social trend.
For peace to prevail in a society we need everyone to be in agreement. I think not. I think a world where we all justaAgree is a recipe for stagnation, no progress, destruction of humanity - disaster. Or maybe that's paradise. Alas, this is just my opinion (as of this moment). My opinion could of course change with knowledge and conversation but how am I, how are we expected to have conversations that challenge our opinions when we have gatekeepers mandating every single aspect of our speech?
Let's talk about something that recently happened in parliament in Jamaica. Of course, I do not have all the details, but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion. The finance Minister made a statement that got blown up on social media and in the public sphere. He referred to the leader of the opposition party as "Massa Mark." Now, when I heard this, my first thought was "Oh, why?" It doesn't surprise me that this was not the first thought of any media house or even the opposition party. I wasn't surprised because division sells, quick clicks, outrage, it festers in us. In our yearning to not be remembered as Switzerland in the war, we force our front stage selves to have a view one way or the other, absolutely no questions asked. The media aids this. One headline reads "Massa Mark, Clarke draws ire of the opposition." But if you just stop for a second after reading this, maybe click on the link and take a deeper look, you will get the context you so clearly did not desire.
Having listened to the statement in more detail, I can say that Dr. Clarke made an opinion and from what I heard, his opinion asked a question of us as Jamaicans, in Jamaica and the diaspora. Is this how a leader should speak about people in his country? Of course, I think the statement could have been made with less politicking and intonations in different places. He brought back to the forefront a misgiving I had in the back of my mind regarding the tone and speech pattern of our opposition leader. It's one thing to be classed as uptown and rich. We all already know that the leader of the opposition is well off and from uptown Jamaica. In my opinion, Jamaicans for too long have failed to listen to how their leaders speak of them. Mr. Golding often calls grown men boy, "likkle man" and "likkle lady."
What is Mr. Golding emphasizing in those statements? The fact that the lady is small in stature? Nope, small in mind? Maybe. To me it brings in thoughts of neocolonialist historical texts and documentaries where the well off, often white or eurocentrisized black people class themselves as saviors. They are helping the likkle man/lady/boi, saving them from their unfortunate disposition of poverty. Those words suggest to me that Mark Golding doesn't think people are of equal worth, there is something deficient. Of course, we can argue this point. Maybe it was for emphasis.
Mr. Golding has continued to act in this way, as a savior of people from themselves. He is lifting you up from likkle to less likkle. These are often grown people that the opposition leader references. So when he said some more derogatory things (albeit in the context of politicking), it wasn't lost on me why Dr. Clarke uttered that Markie G sounded more like a Masa Mark, because he sounds like that to me. And this is of course, just my opinion.
Still, I believe it warrants discussion. The full statement of the Finance Minister was obscured by the click worthy, selective outrage festering pimple that was the headline...Massa Mark. We don't follow up with a why would Dr. Clarke say such a thing? Instead we attack, we protect the leader of the opposition, or we defend the finance minister. We scream, reverse racism, racism and we bring up the utter lack of race issues in Jamaica. Why, because Jamaica apparently does not have race issues, we have class issues - at most a colourism issue (I will get into this another time).
Dr. Clarke should now apologize and Mark Golding should apologize but did we actually see the context behind Dr. Clarke's comments? We have leaders that refer to the people that elect them as less than citizens - likkle. Of course, just my opinion. We could talk about the many instances in which both sides of the aisle refer to skin color for political gains, resort to name calling and even citizenship baiting. But while we are rightfully outraged at these things, in order to prevail we have to ask the question of why these comments are made. There are a lot of issues we have yet to deal with.
We do not have the right type of discourse when issues come up anymore. We don't ask why because we are scared of not already knowing the answer and that's sad. We don't want to be cancelled, we don't want to be looked down upon for having an alien view. As much as we want to showcase our individuality, we seem to want to fit the mold of society.
A big debate that stemmed out of this incident with the Finance Minister and the Opposition Leader was that of Race and it's little babies: classism, colourism, all the isms. I'll delve more into my opinions on these soon. Please, leave a comment and let me know, if you have anything to add, whether that be in agreement or disagreement. I'd say keep it respectful but everyone's definition of respect may not be the same so say your piece, if I think you're rude then that's on me. I may ask you about it though.
Links to some articles about the incident:
Comments
Post a Comment