THE ENDING OF THE ‘PANDEMIC YEAR’ AND ITS GREAT POLITICAL DIVIDING
At last, an end in sight: As the pandemic year appears to be coming to a close soon enough (practically entirely thanks to mass vaccination), one cannot escape the instinct to take stock of all that was lost and found during months on end of excruciating, collective suffering.
At the least over half a million Americans have left our lives forever, taken by a disease entirely unknown to the general public a mere couple years ago. So, too, it seems our already flickering faith in one another has been extinguished just as quickly.
Spreading like the cruel illness itself was refusal of cooperation between ideologies, chosen sides entirely uncaring of the other’s perspective, no longer willing to play the generations-long game of bipartisan pretend that the United States’ republic depends on.
And this latter trend is undoubtedly for the best.
For what is the purpose of debate with opponents who will not even agree with you on the very terms of the conflict? The popular American political sphere, devouring itself thanks to an inability to reach a consensus on the mere existence of entire concepts, begs to be reborn improved. And who are we to try and stop it?
The murder of George Floyd, now having occurred just over a year ago – whose last moments of terror were nearly perfectly documented for all to see – was still evidently far from enough to convince the willingly ignorant portion of our population of the simple presence of racial inequality itself. The same portion also sincerely believing COVID preventative measures
signaled the end of liberty as we know it; the same portion apparently untrusting enough of election verification to encourage a reactionary insurrection, yet more than willing to attempt to cower away after the resulting national embarrassment.
It is humiliating to suggest one must confront these opinions with actual respect. While true liberation is on the line, we continue to have to waste our time trying to persuade grown individuals that disparity does, in fact, continue to exist in our society. This futile negotiation when justice itself is at stake is counterproductive, and it is dishonest to insist on make-believing that all stances are equally valid and contributive to a better world.
Never-ending heartless policy will continue to have to be challenged, tooth and nail, as long as we continue to refuse to admit to ourselves that the complete rejection of hate is what must be met should we want to see lasting, legitimate improvement.
Polarization is, in truth, the only way through which worthwhile movement has ever, and will ever, be made.
While I normally appreciate The Advocate and reading fellow student opinions, I was truly disappointed by this article.
I found it to be divisive in its language, and was surprised that it seemed to encourage disrespect, stating “It is humiliating to suggest that one must confront these opinions with actual respect.” I believe that we should stand up to injustice and inequality, and I also believe if we do not approach others’ beliefs with respect and curiosity, their minds will never change. The article concluded by suggesting that polarization is helpful and necessary in solving societal issues, something that I find to be concerning considering polarization typically breeds violence and dehumanization.
Social scientist and author Brene Brown says it well: “Dehumanizing always starts with language. As we take sides, lose trust, and get angrier and angrier, we not only solidify an idea of our enemy, but also start to lose our ability to listen, communicate, and practice even a modicum of empathy. Dehumanization has fueled innumerable acts of violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocides. It makes slavery, torture, and human trafficking possible. Dehumanizing others is the process by which we become accepting of violations against human nature, the human spirit, and, for many of us, violations against the central tenets of our faith.”
I genuinely understand that the pieces presented in The Advocate are meant to represent student opinions, however – it is also representing the values of MHCC as a college. As an institution of higher learning, I believe it is important to encourage respectful discourse no matter the topic or population.