By Melissa Derr

Contributor

Analysis – the Webster’s dictionary defines this as: “the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it.”

We have been told as liberal arts undergraduates to analyze a given situation from every perspective possible so that we don’t have a biased or skewed picture of a given event. Why is it then that our analysis of things has begun to take one shape? Isn’t it ironic that, although analysis by definition should come from many different perspectives, it is in reality only coming from one source?

In the words of academia, why have we become so narrow-minded in our conclusion making skills? With every situation, whether that be in the minutest element of the domestic sphere or in the wide range of geopolitics, we analyze events through the lenses of race and one’s socioeconomic status.

Now I understand that historically many injustices have been incurred on minorities and that classes were extremely rigid at one time, but we can’t let the turbulent past dictate the outcomes of the present. As many history professors would state: history does not repeat itself because every situation is different with the implicit progression of society as a whole.

Why then is it the case that analysis is limited to one lens with the inaccurate conclusion that every situation must be the same and draw from past historical events? With calamities such as Ferguson and even our minor domestic affairs, we have become so obsessed with the race card type of analysis that the big picture has been majorly distorted.

Because of our history of slavery and racism, the U.S. has become weak in its foreign and domestic policies because it feels we must pay social reparations to certain members of society for our past crimes. An example of this type of analysis would be the elections of Benjamin Netanyahu. Bibi was criticized for telling Jews to take the initiative to get out and vote because Arabs were flooding the polls. He was attacked on this point because it was not politically and racially sensitive.

Again, the big picture was lost. Oh just “inconsequential” details like Iran being a security threat to his nation if nuclear sanctions were to be lifted (a proposed move by our current administration), and secondly Israel being in jeopardy of losing land to imperialistic Arab nations. Little things, no big deal.

The controversial “Race Together” campaign, which Starbucks has instituted in its stores, began by training baristas to open up the discussion of race with customers by either directly and assumedly nonchalantly broaching the topic or by dramatically writing “Race Together” in red pen, complete with a smiley face, on their cup.

As a side note, how are baristas qualified to discuss the complexities of race anyway, not to mention who really wants to talk about ANY controversial issue while getting their daily café mocha at six a.m.? I know I don’t, I take my caffeine refueling too seriously.

Ultimately, our generation has become brainwashed in the realm of domestic and geopolitical events by adhering to the doctrines of simplicity. Specifically, the one noted analyses of race, which consequently has given an unfair advantage to those not deserving clemency, has turned enemies into allies, and allies into enemies and has created a generation so obsessed with a given lens that they wouldn’t know the truth of an event even if a cruel, white-Supremacist, Islamophobic, police officer beat it into them (yes, sarcasm and irony completely intended).