As we have seen through our studies, knowledge of events can shape one’s entire perception of movements and people. However, what occurs when people do not have this knowledge? On one hand, lack of knowledge leads to an idealistic innocence in which negative perceptions of groups do not exist. However, this “innocence” can easily be seen as ignorance, as a willing lack of engagement with pressing issues. This distinction, I believe, can be seen through the childhood innocence found in Mojo Mickybo and the accusations of ignorance given toward white moderates and non-revolutionary black actors.
Mojo Mickybo sees a Protestant boy and a Catholic boy in Belfast having a close friendship, all the while in the background the two groups they come from clash. As children, they have no problem getting along with one another because they have not yet learned they are supposed to be enemies. It is not until they get older that they begin to have a falling out, conforming to the roles society had set for them to be enemies. This friendship being ruined is obviously a bad thing, and it is reflective of how seemingly pointless this conflict was in the first place. If these two boys could get along so well, why can’t all Protestants and Catholics in Belfast? In this way, the innocence of the two boys shows that hate is taught, and the removing of oneself from cultural contexts can actually lead to people getting along better.
On the other hand, however, a lack of knowledge of cultural contexts can be seen to be a willful ignorance of pressing issues. For example, even the peace-loving MLK lamented the inaction of the white moderate, who did not fully understand the plight black people faced in America. Likewise, black revolutionaries saw their more moderate counterparts as not doing enough to protect black peoples’ interests. That is, they believed them ignorant to the fact that violence was the only solution to their problem given the cultural context America found itself in.
Together, both points lead to a complex view of innocence and ignorance. Does ignoring social contexts lead to peace, or is it necessary to find a solution that addresses said contexts? It is hard to know for sure, as both points, I believe, have merits. I think this distinction, though, is an important one to realize going forward in our studies.
2 Replies to “Innocence or Ignorance?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I like your ideas in this comment. I agree that hate is a learned trait, and that willful ignorance is all too common among the white majority. However, I think that there are many people who are genuinely, non-willingly ignorant who would completely support civil rights campaigns if they were given a full complement of pure, unmanipulated facts about the situation. Again, great insight, but perhaps there should be two subsets in the idea of ignorance?
I think innocence is mostly overrated because eventually people lose it and it can be much more harmful when they do lose it, because they don’t have a balanced view of the situation. This “innocence” is what turns them into “hooligans” who are entrenched in an us vs. them mentality. I think that it is irresponsible to ignore the greater social context, because children actually aren’t ignorant of it to begin with, at least to an extent. Children are a lot more observant than they are given credit for, but if adults try not to teach them anything they will only have a partial understanding of the issues. I would also argue that they aren’t really innocent either, they just don’t care yet. It isn’t critical to their lives yet. The problem is that they will care eventually, and then their incomplete understanding will fuel a problematic mentality difficult to change.