Popular Categories

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 21)

Interpreting a column out of context

Reinforcing what you already believe to be true


 

Every good columnist attempts to write in clear language, anticipate specific objections and counter arguments, and address them fairly. Inevitably, something you write will strike a discordant note, people will respond negatively, and the specifics of those responses are fertile ground for increasing understanding of how the human mind fails at its most important function—critical thinking.

Just one word or term can throw a person into a tizzy. For example, I am often called a racist because I bring up racism, yet by that standard, bringing up rape must make a person a rapist.

But stop right there.

That’s another thing people do. Pull things out of context and write stuff like, “How can you believe that bringing up rape makes you a rapist?” I admit, I did write that. But—it is clear, given the original context, I meant just the opposite.

The question is, are people just stupid or dishonest? Usually, they are a mixture of both.

On the one hand, I’m flattered they read my writing, but that they do read, and continue to comprehend so poorly, puzzles me. Most people don’t read much at all, and most of the people who do read, do so for pleasure. But life forces us to grudgingly read for other reasons, like traffic signs, recipe directions, important documents, and assembly instructions. We read news articles, too, for information, but we tend to read the ones that reaffirm our opinions, and if we bother to read the kind that challenges them, we tend to look for things that offend us, and were we to find sensible ideas while looking for offense, we probably won’t recognize them as sensible.

Ideally, you want to read with intent to expand your knowledge, not reinforce what you already believe to be true. You can be arrested for jay walking but there are no Reading Police to give you a warning ticket for intentionally closing your mind to reasoned correction. If there were, eventually, we’d all wind up in stir.

The other day I got an email accusing me of looking in disfavor at Lakota who look white. I have siblings who look white and siblings who look Lakota, that is how it is in an Iyeska family. I looked back over the article and could not find where I had written that. She said, it’s in the comments section. I looked there, and there it was. But the remark was to highlight that the person questioning my Lakota-ness was, in fact, himself of the same appearance, and Oglala Iyeska heritage. Failing to comprehend that, took my remark out of context, like the people who bring up the previous rape remark might take it out of context, and draw a diametric conclusion of my mentality and intent.

The problem was the reader was proud of her Lakota identity, but self conscious because she looks white, and so she projected that fear into her interpretation of my comment. She attempted to prove she was smart by mentioning she had a PhD in psychology, instead of proving her intelligence through the quality of her argument. My advice is, be equally proud of your Wasicu blood, then you won’t have to walk around loathing half of yourself, and take thin-skinned offense at remarks you diametrically misunderstand in the first place. Once again, another opportunity to expand knowledge and understanding, wasted, because people filter what they read through a prism of blinkered self interest, and fire off confrontation e-mails before stopping to reason that perhaps a gracious e-mail, respectfully mentioning what I wrote, and asking for an explanation, would have worked so much better.

 

(James Giago Davies is an enrolled member of the Oglala Lakota tribe. He can be reached at skindiesel@msn.com)  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.