Idealism vs. Reality

At what point do we as a society start dealing more with what is than with the idealistic vision of what should be?

Recognition of so many of our realities is vilified and labeled with accusations of intolerance, but that doesn’t make any of those realities less real. Fatherlessness, for instance, has been statistically and consistently shown for decades to be a major contributor to lack of education, poverty, crime, and incarceration, many of which in turn contribute to further instances of fatherlessness, perpetuating the cycle. But because this phenomenon is more prevalent in minority communities, it is often dismissed as a result of racism, and as such a racist point of view to call attention to it.

Let me be clear: historical racism has most certainly contributed to many of the foundational ills that affect minorities. Of that, there is little argument. But while we can’t change the past, we can positively impact the future. What benefit is there in finger-pointing at people who in large part no longer exist? Who does this help, other than ourselves and our feelings of righteousness?

A little girl loves to swim and hopes to do it competitively someday. One day another child pushes her at the pool, and she falls and badly breaks her arm. It heals awkwardly and inhibits her ability to swim from then on. That is her new reality - the other child can’t give her a new arm. Should she and her parents spend their remaining days focusing on the injustice of being unfairly stripped of her ability to pursue that goal (though she certainly was), and stop swimming altogether? Or should she learn to overcome her rough start, as so many have done, and continue to enjoy her passion?

Defenders of pit bulls argue that it’s the people who are responsible when they attack, whereas their critics blame the breed. While I side with the former (having owned pit bulls, I know that they are not inherently moody or aggressive), I also recognize that they are involved in more vicious and deadly attacks on humans than most other breeds. Why is this? Well, pit bulls are compact, fast, loyal, powerful, and fearless. So while any breed can be trained to be aggressive, some are more physically adept at achieving their owner’s goals, and most other “attack” breeds like rottweilers and shepherds are often too big for tight spaces like apartment complexes, making pit bulls the dog of choice for inner-city “protection”. Chihuahuas actually have nastier dispositions, but they’re not trained to attack because they don’t strike fear into anyone.

Author and Founder of Wrong Speak Publishing’s 'Black Victim to Black Victor: Second Edition' is now available at Wrong Speak Publishing, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble! Pick up your copy today!

So should we outlaw pit bulls, as some places have already done? I say no, but I don’t know how I’d explain that stance to a parent who’s had their child mauled to death by one, even if it was due to an irresponsible owner (as is almost always the case).

Much like an irresponsible parent stands a greater chance of raising a criminal, an irresponsible pet owner stands a greater chance of raising a vicious dog. We can’t punish everyone, but we do punish the offenders, regardless of what drove them to their actions. The same is true with dogs - we needn’t remove the breed, but we often put down those who attack people. They don’t often get chances at rehabilitation.

What about computers and social media? We can all celebrate the widespread accessibility of the information age, but that doesn’t change the statistical facts that depression and the need for psychological care have spiked at an alarming rate in the last generation of children. Is some of this due to improved recognition and diagnoses of these conditions? Perhaps, but the timing coincidences seem too interconnected to assume this was always the case but just not detected before. Is it all the result of a lighthanded approach to things like pornography access? Maybe not entirely, but we’d be stupid to ignore the parallels.

We can idealistically say, “Let’s cut off children’s access to porn!”, but our reality is different. Sure, we should implement ways to block their access, and we do. But we’ve made computers and the internet staples of human life to such a degree that a lack of familiarity with them would put any developing child drastically behind his or her peers. There are close to 8 billion people on this planet, and we can’t police them all, so we have to work with what we’ve got. We can’t police other people’s kids (or their parents) either, and we can’t lock our own kids up in boxes to protect them.

While we should always dream big and strive for better, we can’t change everyone. This is among the biggest reasons for our political divide. The right tries to improve things within the scope of reality even when it runs the risk of upsetting someone, whereas the left wants to change everybody’s thoughts into their perception of utopia while convincing themselves that the right simply doesn’t want change. This applies to everything, from racism to child rearing, to climate measures, to immigration, and so on, and is why most extreme left policies fail. They often mean well, but they don’t account for the obstacles that the real world presents.

Wishing for something does not make it so, and it never will. Regardless of our ideals, we have to work within our realities - whether we like it or not.

Zephareth Ledbetter’s latest book, “A White Man’s Perspectives on Race and Racism - Rational Thoughts on an Irrational World”, is available cheap at smashwords.com/books/view/1184004, and his archive can be found on Substack

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.