The Shallow Racism Debate and Lazy Social Discourse

When we look at how the discussion of racism has manifested itself in modern America over the last decade, we can see a vast difference from the way this topic is discussed today versus many years ago. In fact, this difference applies to just about every discussion that involves any complex issue, not just racism. However, two recent events dealing specifically with racism emphasize these changes in our political and social discourse and highlight just how many Americans are now incapable, or simply too lazy, to explore every side of an issue before coming to a conclusion or passing judgement.

Talk show host Whoopi Goldberg’s comments about the Holocaust are a great example of this.

In early February 2022, she said the systematic extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany had nothing to do with racism because Jews are mostly white. She doubled down on this simplistic view of racism later that night during an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. She said her perception of race is based on skin color or something that can be visually evaluated.

To her, what can be visually evaluated is what defines race.

While Goldberg is not entirely wrong, it ignores most of the complex aspects of the issue. For example, she ignores the fact that there is no coherent or collectively agreed upon definition of race and the fact that much of how folks view race originates from social context. What defines “white” or “black” can vary from place to place, society to society, and how these definitions function and drive significance varies widely too.

She isn’t wrong saying skin color is a primary way in which we define race, but she is horribly off base by suggesting it is the only way.

Therein lies the problem. The issue is simplified down to what is easy to see, easy to understand, and easy to digest… and she isn’t the only one in America with such a shallow level of thinking when it comes to complicated topics such as racism.

Why did this change happen? Aren’t we supposed to be the smartest and most well-informed society in history? We have access to every piece of available information at our fingertips, yet we seem to be more clueless and mentally insufficient than we have ever been.

During the last decade, social media has taken over as the main arena of fiery political debate for just about everyone. It’s no surprise. The Internet and social media, in part, was designed to bring these issues to the forefront and allow everyone an opportunity to be heard. Good in theory, but not so good in reality.

While the Internet has made it easy to look up anything in an instant, it also has made finding answers so easy that real research and thinking beyond the surface seems to have become “too much trouble” for many Americans. The Internet gave us the ability to find information quickly and connect globally, but seems to also have made critical thinking, reasoning, and abstract thought superfluous and expendable to millions of folks.

Deeper intellectual engagement, inspection, evaluation, and discussion has been replaced with memes, simplistic answers, inaccurate facts, half-truths, false equivalents, and logical fallacies packaged in short social media blurbs that sound good and are easy to digest.

This is the core problem. It seems no one wants to deal with the complicated nature of our existence and only want Internet and social media ease, simple answers, simple conclusions, and the opportunity to use these nicely wrapped packages to virtue signal. Too many people do not want to get into “the messy details” because that would require serious effort, time, and education beyond sound bites and could possibly even threaten their own staunch beliefs.

If Whoopi Goldberg gave us an example of this new reality, then new Miami Dolphins’ head coach Mike McDaniel gave the rest of America a seminar.

Around the same time Goldberg said what she said, folks across this nation got into an uproar after the Miami Dolphins fired head coach Brian Flores, who quickly sued the league and several teams claiming racial discrimination. People backed Flores’ claims, pointing out how the NFL and team owners overlook very qualified minority candidates for head coaching and upper management positions in favor of their white counterparts. The folks outraged about this problem pointed toward the only black head coach in the NFL, Pittsburgh Steelers’ Mike Tomlin, as their primary piece of evidence.

But then something happened that made this new attack on inequality problematic.

The Miami Dolphins, who were just accused of racism after firing Flores, replaced him with Mike McDaniel, a black man… well… kind of black.

When most folks were first introduced to McDaniel, they just saw another white head coach that looks like all the others. Social media criticized the hiring of another white head coach, until someone pointed out that this isn’t really accurate.

He is white… but he’s also black. A child of a mixed marriage.

This revelation disrupted the simplistic narrative and forced everyone to consider a more complex set of issues: If a man is half black, but looks mostly white, is he black? If a man is half black, but looks mostly black, is he “more black” than the other guy, assuming you even consider the other guy black, because he looks mostly white?

What?

Exactly… it’s complicated. It always has been complicated. It’s just two-plus decades of Internet ease and social media’s ascent into oversimplification of complex issues that changed.

Too many people have become slacktivists, a mixture of being a “slacker” and an “activist.” Essentially, someone who is passionate about serious issues, but too lazy to really engage and study these issues on the complex levels in which they exist. This results in a paper-thin understanding and superficial buzzword-commitment devoid of any deep insight, gradation, or refinement.

McDaniel is a good example of what slacktivism ultimately looks like. When he was hired, and everyone thought he was white, slacktivists went on the attack, chiding the Dolphins and the NFL for hiring another white man. When McDaniel’s ethnicity came to light, slacktivists froze, unable to figure out what to do or say.

They weren’t sure how to feel about it or how to judge the situation because it became complicated. Nuances became a focal point they could not ignore. Suddenly they had to think and work through distinctions.

Many didn’t seem to have time for that, so they disappeared onto the next cause hoping the subsequent fight didn’t get too complicated.

However, some did stay to address the situation’s nuances and distinctions. The argument went from “hiring another white guy” to questioning if McDaniel used his white appearance when it benefitted him and switched to using his mixed-race status when that became advantageous.

McDaniel began fielding questions asking if he identifies as biracial. This question suggests that if he didn’t identify as biracial, then it’s evidence that he identifies as either white, black, or possibly biracial, depending on the situation.

McDaniel replied that he identifies as a human being. This response derailed the question being asked. For McDaniel, biracial is not how he identifies, it’s simply what he is.

What’s sad about this situation is it’s a missed opportunity to authentically address these complexities. We can debate if McDaniel is a minority hire. Is he “black enough” to be black? How do biracial folks fit into our human dynamic and our social context? What if someone looks more black than white or more white than black? How does that change the situation? What if someone is fully Black American, but is light skinned? What if they are so light skinned that they could pass as white? How does that function?

Beyond that, we also would need to consider other minorities like Latinos, Asians and Indians… who are also technically Asian too, but not “Asian” in the way they look compared to the Asians most think of as “Asian.”

Wait, what? It’s confusing.

Then there’s women and the LGBTQ+ communities, which includes the people that are minorities within these historically marginalized communities. Is a biological black woman different than a transgender white woman? Is a gay white man different than a gay black man? This also would include folks in these communities that are biracial and if they can pass as one race or another.

I know… it’s very complicated. That’s the point.

These debates are not about talk show hosts or football coaches, or even racism for that matter. It’s more about a deeper discussion concerning shallow thinking and arrogance on a philosophical level. Our culture and technology allow everyone to have an opinion about almost everything, but too many of those opinions are superficial and live only on a surface level. On top of that, folks seem indifferent to learning beyond this because they have aligned themselves with some social or political group that has made it clear this is what “we all think.”

The question now is this: Do we change course and deal with difficult issues on the complex level in which they exist, or do we just bury our heads in the sand and continue to rally behind shallow, easy to digest and simplified virtue signalizing-positions that just make us feel informed and engaged? Red pill or blue pill. Your choice, Neo.