SHUT UP AND BE CONSIDERATE

Though it’s been a few weeks and thingshave quieted down substantially, I found myself again thinking about the reaction (see: ire) brought upon our esteemed columnist AG Gancarski after his July 15 “Fightin’ Words” submission about the July Fourth arrest of Lane Pittman in Neptune Beach. The column, titled “Guitar Zero,” made the contention (and I’m paraphrasing, of course) that if Pittman — whose rendition of the national anthem was said to make the notoriously rowdy First Street festivities more so — were a black man, he would’ve been treated more harshly. Gancarski argued Pittman’s treatment, as well as the reactions of those decrying his arrest, were products of “white skin privilege.”

The number of emails I received accusing Gancarski of racism and, oddly, simultaneous race-baiting, led me to conclude that there was an alarming number of humans in Northeast Florida who had never seen the words “white” and “privilege” combined in any fashion (equally alarming: There are people who thought the Cleveland Arms Apartment complex — the site of the third of a half-dozen JSO involved shootings in 2015 — was in Cleveland, Ohio).

I was shocked because, in light of the fact that it was an Intro To Sociology concept at least two decades ago, in light of the fact that in many of our nation’s public schools, children as young as six are able to openly discuss the realities of it, and in light of the fact that the same week Gancarski used the term, an award-winning literary critic openly worried about society’s fatigue with it in The New York Times Magazine, the people reacting so strongly to “Guitar Zero” seemed to be confronting the idea of white privilege for the very first time (how privileged!).

That people were so angry speaks to how far the region has to go in regard to our conversations about race. I was acutely aware of this before all the angry emails and Facebook diatribes. But, ultimately, I chalked their anger up to unfamiliarity; after all, a common misconception of white privilege is that it is intended to make people feel guilty. And when people are put on the defensive, it’s difficult if not impossible to engage in meaningful, intelligent dialogue.

And, ultimately, I moved past my shock because I still believed that informed people who think critically were capable of having those conversations, minus the anger and defensiveness.

Then came the revelations about Jon Stewart getting angry and defensive in response to his racial sensitivity being questioned by then-Daily Show writer and correspondent Wyatt Cenac. In an interview on the Marc Maron “WTF Podcast,” Cenac said he voiced his discomfort with Stewart’s impersonation of then-presidential candidate Herman Cain, saying the impression reminded him of “Kingfish [the minstrelesque Amos ’n’ Andy character].” Stewart’s response? Apparently, a profanity-laced, full-blown tantrum.

Stewart is 52. What it meant to be racially or culturally sensitive in the ’90s is vastly different from our understanding now, but in his dozen or so years as the news-skewering host of The Daily Show, I watched in awe as Stewart effortlessly navigated complex issues of ethics, morality, religion, and politics. In hindsight, I realize he often leaned on others to traverse through the battlefields of race and gender (with talents like Larry Wilmore and Kirsten Shaw on the bench, who can blame him for taking a breather?). But the idea that Stewart could become so defensive, so irrational after an employee let him know he might be engaging in a behavior that could be hurtful to others proves just how difficult these conversations can be.

At least for people of a certain age.

There are people who, like Stewart, seem to have let the changing landscape of political correctness wear them down. Last week, in discussing Donald Trump’s diarrhea of the mouth cleverly disguised as intentional political incorrectness, I wrote that among Trump supporters there seemed to be “a tremendous number of people who feel they are (unjustly) expending an exorbitant amount of energy taking other people’s feelings into consideration.”

There are seemingly numerous people, above a certain age, who wax nostalgically about a time when one could say whatever one wanted. These are the people supporting Donald Trump, currently. And these are exactly the people Republicans don’t feel they need to court, because they know they’re a dying breed.

In my experience, Millennials don’t worry much about political correctness. They’ve grown up surrounded by people from diverse backgrounds, with gender identities and sexual orientations different from their own. This is one of the reasons it seems so insane to many young people that Jacksonville city leaders would drag their collective feet on passing a fully inclusive Human Rights Ordinance.

That doesn’t mean Millennials are always perfectly, politically correct, though. Making mistakes around such complex issues is inevitable. More than being correct, a willingness to admit your blind spots and biases, or accept your privilege, is much more important. Besides, being defensive takes so much more effort. And in the long run — in the case of Donald Trump, or Jon Stewart, or those who came to the defense of Lane Pittman — it doesn’t move the conversation forward.