Whether by design or by some mistake, the matter of racism seems to spark temporal outrage, to then later settle in some archives and herbinate until the matter is reinvented as a tropical force of nature beyond human control. Racism over the ages has been a hot-bed issue without a conclusion or resolution in sight, neither is there will power to resolve it.
As long as racism is not classified and declared as a criminal act, it would be improbable to seek a deterrent or any form of remedial action for the people subjected to it. Cycles are not broken by reinforcing the narrative that keeps it flowing or by changing the characters of the cycle but rather by causing total disruption to a cycle that predicates on changing course of its flow. For instances when the rivers, lakes, dams or oceans natural path or structure has been changed, some flood or storm will most likely occur in that region, so it has been scientifically established over the years. Any vicious cycle can be debased by disruption so as to ensure cycle changes course. The accepted ‘norm’ in terms of racism has to be challenged and disrupted in order for the conversation and its conclusions to change. How racism is defined and interpreted will determine how it’s treated. There has been an over-used term that defies logic, as to why the term as not been challenged or tested in debates surrounding the issue of racism. Mostly analyst allow certain points to slip under their gaze or radar, simply because they are fixated on the emotional content of outrage and seeks emotional reprieve which in actual fact stealth’s on the moral injustice that racism portrays. It’s this commonly used term or phrase I would like to expound on and explore its merits.
Whether debates are on social media platforms, television, radios or newspapers, various panellists and experts would deliberate on racism and make some kind of contribution from their perspective or experience. To solicit a contribution or air an opinion is not wrong so to say, however to send a subliminal message with misleading undertone is grossly disingenuous and also misuses platform of education by creating misinformation thus it exasperates the matter and does not solve it. The phrase I am alluding to is the term,’ DON’T PULL THE RACE CARD.’ This term is subtly slid into many debates and goes unnoticed for what it is, thus the user subtly denotes or inject the term to downplay the relevance of victim’s pain or the significance of such events that occurred. This term is not only subtle but misleading. There are few arguments one can make but to denote racism as a game is derogatory and disingenuous. To pull a card is generally within the common practise of playing a card game like poker, blackjack and clover etc. All these constitutes games from which money is generated or lost, in other words it’s gambling. To confer such a message under-tone to racism is just not morally wrong but plain criminal by intent. Should we digress and journey down in history to see how racism had an impact on the social fabric of a society, community or a nation state, it would be reasonable to state that the crimes perpetrated by systemic or cultural racism is not just a moral issue but criminal as well. There is no premise on which racism has been displayed in which the victim’s have gained anything commercially or emotionally. In most cases racism has cost the lose of human life and dignity. The death of various political and historical figures attest to that. Words have meanings, they are not just abstract signs; symbols on imoji’s. The impact that racism should never be under cut or downplayed because its victim’s and consequences are not fictitious, there are genuinely hurt victim’s. The matter of ‘affected vs. offended’ should be clearly laid out so as to ensure we can establish whom is affected and whom is affected.
The unintended consequences of disregarding the feeling of injustice and inhumane treatment of a person based on skin colour or race cannot be understated or overstated. The violence as push back against such, especially if no reprieve or justice is provided is self-evident. To suppress the views of the victim’s, in order to score a moral victory is not only shallow but self-serving and dangerous.
Nothing is more dangerous than a person that has lost everything and has nothing to lose, they can resort to any form of action in order to either recover their dignity or destroy the perceived perpetrator to subject them to same pain in retribution, these creates a non-ending cycle vicious in nature but pacifying rage and anger that cannot bring about justice in any form.
In any criminal complaint or matter there is the perpetrator; the victim and the crime committed. For instance, in the matter of the murder of a person. The victim or relations do not necessarily open case against perpetrator, its state organ of justice like the police. They would investigate, collect evidence make an arrest and arraign the suspected perpetrator before a competent court in order to prosecute the accused person/s for the crimes the charged them with.