TUESDAY
First of all, I'm impressed by your even-handed treatment here. May I add that the major gist of the protest “It’s not about race” can be extended to the statement “It’s not about race, it’s about me” in such cases? Extending the meaning out like that is not only honest, it also hands the uncomfortable party a gift, that of possibly reaching into the discussion with more depth. For instance, volleying back that all lives matter against the drive that black lives matter is considered logical and objective, but what is most obvious about that volley is: it’s vapid. Are we to show up for vapid discussions, merely? (Don’t let me commence.)
Please let’s have another installation, which examines how the assertion of one’s individuality and/or cultural difference is routinely framed as aggression against sets of normalized values that refuse the kind of informed dissection you’ve conducted in your piece.
Tolerating weak discussion is a choice that feels familiar, but consider that the deployment of specific cultural norms and the re-framing of other discrete ones is a useful adjunct to the control of resources which fuel the wealth and direction of collective society. When is it more worthwhile and interesting to hold the space which goes deeper?
