Last month marked the 30-year anniversary of the O.J. Simpson trial verdict. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges related to the killing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
This verdict is remembered for the starkly different reactions it triggered among Black and white communities in North America. Most African Americans thought justice had been served. Most whites, particularly women, believed O.J. got away with murder.
These responses were conditioned by experiences of the respective communities, particularly their experiences of injustice. The African American community had a well-known history of suffering from police brutality and judges biased against them. Women also had a well-known history of suffering from domestic violence. Even though reactions of both groups were informed by their experiences of injustice, their reactions to the verdict were opposite.
Andrey Shirin
Fast forward to the last presidential election. The African American community overwhelmingly voted for Kamala Harris. In significant part, this choice has been informed by the injustice and pain of racial discrimination this community has suffered for a long time. On the other hand, the Cuban American community overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. In large part, this choice has been informed by the injustice and pain a significant part of this community has suffered under the Castro regime.
African Americans have been reliable Democratic voters for the past half century. Cuban American voting patterns have been more fluid. While they tend to lean Republican, they were close to being evenly split in 2008 and 2012 presidential polls. But since then, the Democratic Party has moved to the left. Cuban American voting patterns evolved in response.
These examples show that injustice endured by various communities does not always lead to the same perceptions and reactions. In fact, in some situations perceptions and reactions can be quite opposite. Some of that can be attributed to the perceived collision of interests. But that is only a partial explanation. Arguably, communal traumas, even distant ones, also play a substantial role.
Do some of these traumatic experiences carry a greater moral weight than the other ones? Or, to put it in progressive parlance, who is the true proletarian?
Jesus was asked a version of this question: “Who is my neighbor?”
The Savior answered with a parable. There was a traveler from Jerusalem to Jericho. He met robbers. They stripped him naked, beat him up and left him half-dead. Priest and Levite passed him by and did nothing. A Samaritan passerby bandaged his wounds, brought him to an inn and paid for his stay. Jews considered Samaritans people quite distant from God.
“It is incumbent upon us to be sensitive to other people’s traumas as best we can.”
Then Jesus asked the questioner: “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” When the questioner replied, “The one who had mercy on him,” Jesus admonished the questioner to go and do likewise.
In other words, it is not about wondering who our neighbor is. It is about being the true neighbor to those in need who happen to be close to us. They are the true proletarians to whom we are supposed to serve. They can belong to any race or class or gender.
Just as there is no neighbor apart from context, there is no true proletarian apart from specific circumstances. Naturally, our traumas hurt us more than someone else’s. But it is incumbent upon us to be sensitive to other people’s traumas as best we can, even though their hurt may come from a very different place than ours and lead them to conclusions, convictions and actions opposite of ours. Dismissing others on these grounds will not heal the societal rapture that is taking place in our country.
None of this means the O.J. trial outcome was as good as any others would be, or that both presidential candidates were equally fit (or not). In the case of any trial, evidence should be weighed as impartially as possible. In the past few years, due process has been under attack from both illiberal right and illiberal left. Due process is worth keeping, nevertheless, as it is an important check on our biases, prejudices and political leanings. And presumption of innocence is an important part of due process.
In the case of presidential elections, and public life in general, it is more complicated. We, and groups we belong to, likely will continue to vote our lived experience, where our communal traumas feature prominently. We will end up on the opposite sides of political spectrum in the process. In this situation, it is tempting to declare our group the true proletarians and thus dismiss those who think, behave and vote differently.
Instead of this self-righteous posture, could the realization that others have arrived at their views out of their lived experience and genuine hurt lead us to demonize each other a little less and try to understand each other a little more? Coupled with serving those in need to whom we happen to be close, that could go some way toward healing our nation.
Andrey Shirin is a native Russian who serves as associate professor of divinity and director of transformational leadership at John Leland Center for Theological Studies in Virginia.