When I read “I’m staying neutral” in a take online following the 2020 murder of George Floyd, I realized something was severely wrong. The comment referred to BLM and their fight against police brutality, wherein BLM called for police reform and even abolition. What baffled me the most was that someone took the time to come online and comment that they essentially didn’t care what the outcome of the issue was. They didn’t fully agree with either side, at least not publicly. I couldn’t believe what I was reading, as it seemed strange that someone would share their indifference online following something so polarizing. If you don’t care, why tell the internet or your friends?
In the back of my mind, I knew they had an opinion — as we all do — but likely didn’t want to share it.
Indifference Only Helps the “Bad Guy”
The biggest issue I take with this show of indifference is that it allows the oppressive party to get away with their actions. If we apply this attitude to resistance movements across history, many harmful systems would still be at play.
It’s a lesson we learn from a young age — don’t be a bystander. If you don’t try to help or advocate for the bullied person, you are complicit in the bully’s actions. And even if you’re on the bully’s side, in my opinion, you should at least have the guts to say it if you’re going to speak up at all.
This concept harkens to an often-quoted statement by Desmond Tutu: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” When applied to oppressive bodies, or the “elephant” in this quote, they likely will not stop without resistance. And usually, the oppressed “mouse,” will need aid from others, even if they manage to get part of their tail out by themselves.
By failing to help the mouse or the elephant and just standing by, we do nothing to change the state of the situation in one way or another. It’s like me witnessing someone get bullied, audibly saying “whatever,” and moving on with my day. I didn’t need to say a word, as doing so did nothing to change the state of affairs besides letting the bully keep going and letting the bullied know I did not care enough to help them.
How Being Neutral is Still a Choice
In many ways, not making a choice is making a choice. As stated by Sartre in “Existentialism is a Humanism,” “I can always choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a choice.” This means that in my not making a decision, I’ve made a decision anyway. The decision is that I’m fine with whatever the outcome is. I decide to leave things up to chance or other people.
In this decision, one doesn’t care if things go one way or another, which, from an oppressive point of view, is a green light to keep doing what they’re doing. They’re not being checked, so they feel fine to continue.
We can apply the same principle to our opinions and actions regarding social movements, genocides, and colonization. History has shown us that oppressors are only held accountable when they face resistance. A bully will not stop unless it’s shown that others take issue with their actions and are willing to hold them accountable.
Each of us has a bias, whether we want to admit it or not. It’s better to be honest about which side you’re on, as stating neutrality contributes nothing to the situation or discourse.
But you may be thinking, “What if I want to suspend judgment until I have all of the facts?” In this case, I’d say that’s fine, as it’s important to make well-informed decisions and statements when it comes to important issues. However, the problem here is that claiming neutrality and suspending judgment are not the same.
The key difference is that neutrality implies that you’ve heard the arguments and facts and concluded that you didn’t have a preference. Suspending judgment, at least to me, implies that one is still gathering information and just hasn’t made a decision yet.
So, outwardly stating that you’re neutral seems to communicate a more solid point than just saying you aren’t sure yet or are in the process of becoming educated on a matter.
“I Don’t Want to Say the Wrong Thing”
With internet culture, there’s an underlying fear of being “canceled” for saying the wrong thing. We shy away from discussing hard things for fear of losing friends, family, and opportunities. I understand this sentiment, as it’s only natural to not want to be punished for what you believe. However, I think it’s time we step away from this fear a little bit. If something is important to you, especially in terms of oppressors vs. oppressed, I think remaining faithful to it is better than shying away or outwardly expressing neutrality.
Things like colonization and genocide are allowed to continue when we get too comfortable and become complicit. I myself am guilty of this complicity, as no one wants to alienate themselves from what they’re comfortable with. But, to me, neutrality is not the way to go about it.
This, of course, doesn’t mean rushing to express an opinion that your “audience” — friends, family, acquaintances — will agree with. It’s important to be well-informed about issues surrounding human rights and oppression.
My issue with neutrality may not make a difference to you, and that’s fine. I hope you at least consider this perspective when you encounter a case of elephant and mouse.