Justice Takes Sides
Why neutrality is arrogance and action is required
The most difficult aspect of writing these articles is not the research, the drafting, or coming up with ideas. The most difficult part of writing is scrabbling for the time to do so. Your support gives me time. Become a paid subscriber today.
The longer I do this justice work the more I hear some version of the following unhelpful idea:
“Both sides got some things wrong and both sides have work to do.”
While the statement may be true in isolation and specific circumstances, one problem in applying it to justice work is that it uses a micro level analysis on a macro level scale.
Citing the responsibility of both sides may be true and is often necessary in interpersonal or one-on-one disputes, but it is usually less applicable between entire people groups.
It is seldom the case with systemic injustice that the oppressed and the oppressor equally share in the blame.
This could be in relation to politics, the courts or, of course, race.
The other issue with the BothSides™ trope, is that people use it as an excuse for inaction. If both sides are wrong, if both sides have their flaws, if both sides fall short of some perfection, then how can someone take a stand one way or the other?
Neutrality Helps the Oppressor
Elie Wiesel—writer, humanitarian, and Holocaust survivor—knew the pain of suffering and the sting of silence from those who could have helped but didn’t.
In 1944, when he was 15-years old, the German army deported Wiesel along with his family to the Auschwitz concentration camp. His mother and younger sister were killed on the first day. His father later died as well.
It all happened so fast. The ghetto. The deportation. The sealed cattle car. The fiery altar upon which the history of our people and the future of mankind were meant to be sacrificed.
Wiesel survived and eventually immigrated to the United States where he had a long career as a writer, international speaker, and human rights activist.
In 1986, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The words of his acceptance speech dismantle the idea that remaining neutral or standing on the sidelines of an injustice is somehow noble.
And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.
I have grown impatient with the grumblings of those who claim that the oppressed share equal responsibility for injustice with the oppressor.
The liability for injustice is not 50/50. And the oppressed do not have to be ethically unassailable or imperturbably patient to warrant solidarity.
Neutrality in situations of injustice only supports the status quo. It only aids the empowered and further harms the disempowered.
As human beings we are the keepers of one another. We must intervene on behalf of justice when it is in our power to do so.
Justice Takes Sides
Action is the idea behind “Justice Takes Sides.”
It encourages people who are on the sidelines to get involved in the struggle for justice.
We cannot stand aloof from suffering and arrogantly point out how “both sides” have their issues. We must intervene.
Are you on the side of justice?
Today the latest collection of “Justice Takes Sides” apparel is available to my Substack subscribers. Every time you wear this phrase, you signal to your community that you are willing to take a stand.
Use the password below to access the site.
Thank you for subscribing to this publication and supporting the work of truth-telling as it relates to racial justice.
#JusticeTakesSides
Website: JusticeTakesSides.com
Website Password: FOOTNOTES23
P.S. My paid subscribers get exclusive first-look access to any new merchandise and apparel. They also get a 10% discount. They also get to comment on these articles :-) Become a paid subscriber today!
The key phrase for me: the oppressed do not have to be ethically unassailable...to warrant solidarity. This is so true but has not been recognized or practiced. Also, the oppressors do not have to be completely evil to warrant rebuke.
"Both sides get it wrong" is a deflection.
Let's suppose you have one side that is oppressing, and another side that is oppressed.
The oppressing side in its acts of oppression is doing wrong *by nature*. There is no "just" oppression. Whether it is cruel or superficially "kind," oppression is wrong and cannot be redeemed either by language or a reduction in cruelty. As Malcolm X put it, whether the knife is 9 inches deep or 3 inches deep—it is still a knife stuck in one's back.
The oppressed side in its acts of resistance and liberation will do all that it can *by nature* to become free. That might be through the law, that might be through non-violent action, and even through actions that destroy property that is often elevated above the value of people. There are times, I suppose, when seeking for *your own liberation* that you might "do it wrong." You might lose your temper. You might say harsh words. You might hold people accountable for their words beyond the degree that those people find comfortable, and you might even transgress in ways that are either seen as wrong, or are indeed just wrong.
Do both sides act in ways that can be seen as troublesome? Sure. But there is simply a categorical difference between the oppressors acting in ways to continue the oppression, whether it is through whips or words, and the oppressed who start at a loss with fewer tools and much less support for their struggles.
The way for the oppressors to stop being accused of doing wrong is very simple: stop oppressing. Learn from those whom you are oppressing to see what you are doing (and saying) that are acts of oppression, whether it is individual acts of domination and discrimination and exclusion and erasure, or they are social, communal actions expressed through the actions of the state you support through laws, policy, and the criminal justice system that targets the oppressed for cruelty because (a) it's the design of a majoritarian society to oppress the minorities, and (b) it is a pleasurable thing for oppressors to see the state commit actions in their name without getting their own hands dirty.
If you want to stop having accusations of wrong being assigned to you as an oppressor, there is nothing the oppressed should be doing to change that. The entire onus of change is on you as the oppressors.
I know this might seem unrealistic, that we are in a social milieu where nothing can be fully defined and power is hidden through words and policies, but if you want to see justice done and you don't like how the oppressed are acting in their demands for justice—the concomitant action is *only* on you.