On the sidelines on Facebook, I see folks cry foul as if they're being denied the right to become today's Bayard Rustin - y'know, "speaking truth to power" and all. In one forum, one couldn't vindicate an argument, so he blamed it on the spirit of moderation being upheld. He was like: "Dammit! Why y'all catch feels when people attack (he meant criticise) the government... is it a crime?" He rabbled.
In my head I was like, certainly not; speak up, bredda! But, wait... must you also forcibly impose your dissent on others like that; or is assent the new crime? Is it fair to refer to others as "sheep," just because they haven't seen the crying shame and incompetence that you see in everyone and everything? Can't you see that ours is a society where beliefs (including yours) are largely driven by emotions? Why must what's deserving criticism or not deserving praise be absolute?
So, before taking my sabbatical I concluded that in this New "#NewGambia" one here, political debate is just one big old seesaw between preferences and facts, hence a political roller-coaster. This is why one minute everything seems democratic, then it resembles partisanship straight up, and next: 3, 2, 1, bam! It's antiestablishmentarianism, yo!
And once upon a time, we did it so well that I was so naive thinking that our solidarity for change was all love. Apparently, it wasn't. Now it's clear that we were because of the suffering at the time. Ours was solidarity without attention to the active opposition within. We were sparing no effort against tyranny... Here's to wishing this assessment is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment