Editor's Note: We vowed not to post during this trying time, however, the need has arisen to share a word with our brothers and sisters on tokenism, erasure and wellbeing. By now, we are all aware of the events in Guangzhou affecting scores of our brothers and sisters. There are now several initiatives in existence aimed at helping those directly affected and these efforts must be both commended and supported wherever possible. This includes the gallant efforts of Nigerian Consul General Mr Lawal and other officials. For those of us unable to contribute or help in physical terms, there may be more passive ways in which we can be of assistance. With this in mind, and solely in the interest of prioritising the voices of those directly affected we propose that we all be mindful of the way we approach the matter publicly. As a community, we are not a monolith - our experiences are diverse. There is beauty in the diversity of thought, experience and worldviews amongst us. Particularly when, despite these differences, we stand united. However, we do owe it to each other to listen more than we speak. Particularly to listen to those most vulnerable, to show solidarity.
Take the following imagined scenario as an example. - A burglary occurs at your family home. - You were not at the property at the time. - You didn’t experience the burglary. - Your younger sister, who was at the house alone, did. - She is traumatised. - You’ve seen the incident on CCTV but again, you weren’t personally present. - You see that there has been a recent spate of burglaries under similar conditions as those that your sister describes. - You’ve never experienced a burglary whilst living at the property and you’ve always been oblivious to any safety issues in the area. When asked publicly about the situation, or when it comes up in conversation, do you: A) Deny the burglary took place and search for another explanation, insisting that the area doesn't have a burglary problem. B) Deny the burglary took place and blame your younger sister or try to find fault in her actions C) Tell investigators that you doubt your sister’s experience because you’ve never experienced a burglary in the area, so how could your sister. Or D) Do you stand in solidarity with your sister and her experiences? Does your tale of never having experienced a burglary in the area matter in this instance? If you’d seen something and could share a fresh perspective having also experienced the burglary, then sure. But having not been present during the burglary, or any of the other neighbourhood burglaries, what use would it be to speak over your sister? Would it not adversely affect your sister’s pursuit of justice if you deny her firsthand experiences? Perhaps this long example scenario can demonstrate how unhelpful and indeed dangerous such comments might be. It is not our intention to suggest that there are always negative intentions behind sharing these experiences. In fact, let's assume that intentions are positive – perhaps the intention is to create a sense of neighbourhood cohesion and to calm increasing fears of safety. But let’s not do so at the expense of those firsthand experiences and voices. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We often use intention as an excuse to dismiss the harm we cause others. Silencing or speaking over someone, or hampering their pursuit of justice is a form of harm. We should all be asking ourselves the following - particularly when speaking publicly (ie. Not privately with friends) - What relevance does my experience have to the exact situation at hand? - Was I there personally? - Has a relevant and verified experience been shared with me? More specifically let us also question why we might be called upon at any one particular time to make such a statement. - Why would I be asked to write/speak/share on this particular topic at this time? - How might my experience or opinion be used at this time? - Is my perspective being privileged over those of the people directly affected? (Don't be a pawn) Tokenism can be defined as: ‘a careful cherry-picking of an underrepresented group to give the appearance that the group overall supports your cause' It is the weaponisation of one voice as part of a cancellation of the lived experiences of countless others. It goes completely against the unity we should be trying to foster amongst our community. So if you are in the Guangzhou area and have not been affected, we are glad that you are well. If you have been to Guangzhou and have had experiences vastly different to those we have seen in the area recently then lucky you – we wouldn’t wish these things on anyone. If from your place of comfort, you are not able to give a platform for those affected to share their experiences or don’t desire to because you don’t share their sentiments, the very least that can be done is to stay quiet and allow their voices to be heard. This does not mean that your own personal experiences are irrelevant or don’t need to be heard at some point – but when should they be allowed to take centre stage? Let us stand in unity. Finally, a word on wellbeing: While we might not all be directly impacted by the events down south, they can still take their toll. Prioritising mental health is of crucial importance. Sometimes it is healthier to switch off and step away from the constant updates as an act of self-care. A major cause of anxiety can be uncertainty. By reminding ourselves of the things in our lives that we have control over, we are able to get a sense of perspective and calm frayed nerves. Those with a religion or spiritual practice will likely find solace in that. Connecting with loved ones at home can also be a calming factor. (For other tips, we wrote on wellbeing here) As we think about our own mental health and wellbeing, and in the spirit of being our brothers’/sisters’ keeper, let’s also be careful to think about how downplaying, doubting or cancelling out the experiences of those directly affected by recent events in Guangzhou may negatively impact their wellbeing also. In unity! |
|
来自: 吕杨鹏 > 《20200413-20200419》