One of the most common and most annoyingly misused statements I have seen on present-day social media is this – “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor” (Desmond Tutu, as per a quick Google search).
Don’t get me wrong, the statement itself has absolutely good intentions. And it is definitely applicable in situations of black and white right and wrong. But not everything is black and white in the real world. And even in times of injustice, more often than not, there is a sort of give-and-take injustice that exists, whereby there is no strict distinction between the oppressor and the oppressed. In quite a lot of cases, both sides take on the role of the oppressor, trying to defeat the other side. And in most of these cases, there is no strict distinction between “good guys” and “bad guys” either. As Stephen Nedumpally says in Lucifer, it is mostly a fight between evils of different degrees, of which you have to choose the lesser evil, if at all it exists, and there is no guarantee that there is a lesser evil.
The other “variable” to consider is the changing roles between these parties. A perfect example is that of political leaders or parties. There are instances when A does something good, which shouldn’t be blindly opposed due to a rival political allegiance. There are also instances when A does something that is not good, which shouldn’t be blindly supported due to same ideologies and politics.
It is in this real-world scenario that this statement ends up being grossly misconstrued and misused and the word “neutral” is given a purely negative connotation by people who are too rigid in their views, and not just that, too rigid in wanting everyone to agree with them. In their minds, they are warriors and rebels for a cause. And in that battle, they see anyone who doesn’t echo their thoughts as enemies. And who they hate the most in such scenarios are the ones who choose to take a neutral stand, calling them “spineless fence-sitters.” The most common argument used against these people is the very famous:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
– First They Came, Martin Niemöller
(Although, if someone speaks out for the Jews now, I guess the ones who mostly use these lines won’t like that either.)
What people like these do not care or want to understand is that being “loyal” to one side is not always the answer to everything. What they call “being neutral spinelessly” is sometimes (most of the times) an ability to rationally evaluate the actions of BOTH the sides and support what needs to be supported and oppose what needs to be opposed for BOTH the sides on a case-by-case basis. In a complex, grey scenario where both have their rights and wrongs, it should never be about spreading propaganda about one being the bad guy and the other being the victim, based on our personal preferences for our personal reasons (which is what happens almost always). Because when we start doing that, we become increasingly blinded to the wrongs of our favourites and even more increasingly unwilling to see the rights of the ones we have already branded bad. If being neutral means not being blinded, it is not a handicap, it is a strength.
And as an add-on point, this intolerance also mandates that every single being who happens to have a social media handle SHOULD put up a post taking a side anytime anything happens. No social media post? “You are a spineless, neutral, fence-sitter siding with the oppressor and turning a blind eye towards injustice. Here, read First They Came.”
But the extent of this intolerance towards those not ready to bow down to absolute bullying in terms of “Say what we want to hear or get attacked” is so high that anyone who has an unbiased, neutral, objective stand is branded a negative person, siding with the “oppressor,” when the definition of “oppressed” and “oppressor” is conveniently made up by people with not-so-hidden agendas. It’s an irony that these very same intolerant people who bully those who have an opposing view or no public view at all take a U-turn and talk about the importance of freedom of speech and “anti-fascist” views when someone questions them.
In a world where people truly understand the importance of freedom of speech and fights against injustice, they should be ready to understand the importance of neutral beings who are able to take a stand without always having to proclaim loyalty to either side.
Also published on Medium.
Leave a Reply