The Bleacher and the Firing Line
When discussing our current constitutional crisis, where our republic is in danger of being abolished, it is frustrating to see and hear “both-sidism.”
Both-sidism is the malady that some maintain as a default as it relates to liberal versus conservatism, Democrats versus Republicans. Both-sidism says that both sides are bad, both sides have faults, and neither party nor political philosophy is better than the other.
There is truth to this. No philosophy is always correct or always wrong.
But it is clear from current events that one political party is working towards a totalitarian, fascist government, and the other party is not.
The continuation of the both sides narrative is frustrating to marginalized groups.
The main reason for frustration is the fact that only one group can afford to debate, discuss, and dissect the both sides argument.
That group will be negatively affected by what happens, but as a whole, the group will survive.
The rest of us have to live with consequences – the consequences of elections, the consequences of having people in power who do not believe we deserve equal rights and opportunities, and who favor either our subjugation or destruction.
The safe group, the group that will survive whatever happens is White people.
Non-White and LGBTQIA+ people do not possess this safety net.
It is true that White women are in danger of losing personal rights and freedoms.
But due to their race, even if their rights are curtailed or destroyed, White women will survive.
They will not receive the same treatment that other groups will receive.
White women will suffer.
But their suffering will be muted in comparison.
Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latina, Native American women, and the LGBTQIA+ community will suffer more.
Much, much more.
White people who will experience suffering will be those who march, protest, and agitate on behalf of non-White, non-straight people.
Those who love and publicly stand up for People of Color will suffer.
These are the White people who will be in the most danger.
During the Civil Rights Era, our White allies were mostly safe.
They could participate within the margins, the fringes of the struggle, and know they would be safe.
It was a different story for White people who took activist roles in the struggle.
The Reverend James Reeb was a White Unitarian minister from Boston who marched side by side with Dr. King.
He went to Selma, Alabama to participate in the Selma to Montgomery marches.
He and two other White ministers were attacked by a White mob armed with clubs and was beaten to death.
Viola Liuzzo was also in Selma volunteering to drive activists between the cities.
She was driving with a Black male volunteer when four White KKK members pulled alongside her car and fired a shotgun at her, killing her.
Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were traveling with a Black man, James Cheney, registering Black voters throughout Mississippi during Freedom Summer. They were kidnapped by a group of Klansmen, shot to death, and buried in an earthen dam.
When Russia and Cuba sent money and aid to Nelson Mandela for the fight against apartheid, White people who never had to worry about their civil liberties sat in judgement and scorned the activists for accepting help from socialists.
These people did not understand that a drowning person does not care about politics or philosophy when a person throws them a life preserver.
There is safety for some in the bleachers.
The bleachers provide security to debate and discuss, to traffic in both-sidism.
But some of us are unsafe no matter where we sit.
When one chooses to stand on the Firing Line, when one no longer talks or debates but puts themselves in harm’s way, there is less time for debate or discussion, less time to talk about policy and philosophy.
There is only action and an opposing reaction.
When one is in danger all the time, there is little patience to hear that both sides have issues.
The one in danger does take time to watch who helps and who does nothing.
And forgets neither.