I had an amazing conversation with a co-worker and friend on race relations.  Yeah, I get it, the average person would cringe at the thought of having this type of discussion, particularly in a professional setting.  However, she, being a heterosexual, Christian, Caucasian American woman, wanted to know my thoughts on a “Trump post” that she shared on her private Facebook page.  Reluctantly, I looked at her post and quickly uttered, partially jovial, yet intentional, “you must not have many black friends.”  She chuckled while reassuring me that she does have several black friends.  Of course, my follow up question was centered around the need to support a person who provokes division, controversy, and hatred.   In short, she believes that a political figure can take any personal stance that he or she chooses as long as it doesn’t interfere with the fiscal progression and safety of the American people.  Here is where it became interesting.

She believed that it is not the government’s responsibility to physically support individuals who are fully capable of taking care of themselves.  Though I partially agree, I believe we must consider individual circumstances, to determine the need and/or extent of services rendered.  Also, it is easier to have an imperceptive disposition on issues where there is no residual or relational impact. This thought alone makes it impossible for me to give an absolute answer on situations surrounding governmental dependency and/or assistance.  Though I was hesitating to continue, I found myself intrigued by her thought process and lenses in which she views the world.   Let’s be honest, it is rare to have this type of conversation, while transparent and not exacerbating negative emotions. Conversations like this can quickly escalate to heated discussions, accusatory debates, and/or ending of the relationships.  Luckily for us, this was not the case.

 She feels the American Government has continued to be progressive and the media’s false narrative has contributed to abrogating positive economic and social strides that are presently taking place.  Moreover, racial tension is a result of divisional propaganda and a subculture that is more prevalent among nonwhite communities.  Bewildered by her response, she clarified by expressing her disdain for those who equate pre and post slavery as the same.  See, she made it clear that she understands oppression because she is a woman.  Equally, she feels discriminated against in nonwhite communities just because she is Caucasian; and there is a culture within this communities cultivating this mindset.  She believes it is more of a cultural thing than racism thing.  She posed a question, that causes deep reflection.  She asked, “when you think of racism, who do you think of?” She followed-up with a qualifying statement on when a black person thinks of racism, does s/he thinks “white on black” or that anybody could be a racist?

Without hesitation, I stated “white on black”; better yet, a white man against all minorities.  For me, this was the first time that I thought about the “face of racism” and justify my stance. If one would objectively scale the events surrounding American history and cultural, one will find that the “white man” is at the helm of many afflictions imposed on women and minorities.  I understand, that this doesn’t mean that all white men are bad, but it does exemplify the commonality that all nonwhite communities share.  And this subcultural reference is a direct response to years of injected oppression. See, privilege allows one to go through life, not being race conscious.  Unfortunately, for many nonwhite Americans, we are reminded of our race, gender, and socioeconomic status, daily.  Quite frankly, this is instilled into many of us at birth.  Sadly enough, these categories project the stigma or fate that we must accept or refute.  We had to abruptly end meeting due time restraint and other obligations

However, I was pleased with the progression of our discussion.   Was anything major accomplished; probably not.   However, it opened a foundation and platform to openly express a perspective on diversity, inclusion, and equity within the American cultural paradigm and the need to deconstruct the social constructs that hinder communal advancement and negative influences that shape our political climate.   As you can see, our conversation had very little do with Trump after all.