After watching the two videos of Kyle Rittenhouse and the President’s response at the end of class today, I am intrigued interpretive context as a powerful force that can shape one’s perception of events or the version of truth that they subconsciously chose to believe. This idea actually reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad a few weeks ago, just after the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha. He asked me to tell him what had happened, to which I responded: “A black, unarmed man was shot seven times in the back by a police officer.” Then, he asked Why? To this, I was unable to answer until I had Googled an “actual” account of the circumstances and events that took place. I read aloud an excerpt from some CNN article that said Jacob Blake was just checking on his sons who were in the car after having an argument with his girlfriend, to which my dad abruptly responded: “No, that’s not right. He had the cops called on him, I’m reading it on the WSJ right now.” I threw my hands up in frustration and said, “Okay, but who cares? Does the context really matter right now?”

My dad thought about it for a second. “No.”

As an anthropology major, I was stunned by my own rhetorical question- because in our discipline, context always matters. Context has always been my best friend- helping guide and shape my cultural analyses as I examine concrete “facts” and patterns of behavior or speech in my independent work. Context always gets me to a fuller version of the truth. But in the past few months following the murder of George Floyd, I am now realizing that the privileging of context actually seems to be muddling truths that need to be seen and heard in this country.

The reason why context has recently not mattered to me or to really anyone who lives with basic human values of not harming others when there is no immediate danger or threat present is because even if the cops were called on Jacob Blake to resolve a previous issue, the fact is that he was unarmed and unable- in that very moment- to defend himself, as his back was to these cops. Basically the fact is that he was shot when he didn’t need to be. It’s a bizarre notion to even type these words, because I have always hesitated to label anything as a “fact” or as a “truth” when writing anthropologically. It’s a weird time to be an anthropologist. I guess I’m just now wondering how the privileging of context can be a disadvantage in domains beyond the pressing issues of social and racial justice, and if there is some tangible moral point or line we can identify at which facts begin to matter more than context.

(Side note: I’m going to be very honest and say that I don’t have much experience in racial or political discourse, but I am really committed to learning more given the current circumstances of our country. PLEASE feel free to correct me or to reach out when you see in these posts or in class that is room for me to grow! Thank you I seriously appreciate it.)