The State of the Union, 2022

Where Every Slight Is Intentional and Traumatic

You’ve probably heard about the incident at the Sesame Place theme park in Philadelphia where a costumed character walked past some girls in a parade without hugging them, but in case you’ve missed it, I’ll fill you in quickly.

The girls’ family thought the slight was intentional and racially motivated. Sesame Place made two statements. The first claimed the slight was unintentional:

“ ‘The costumes our performers wear sometimes make it difficult to see at lower levels and sometimes our performers miss hug requests from guests,’ the theme park said.

“The performer portraying the Rosita character has confirmed that the 'no' hand gesture seen several times in the video was not directed to any specific person, rather it was a response to multiple requests from someone in the crowd who asked Rosita to hold their child for a photo, which is not permitted.

“Sesame Place claims that ‘the Rosita performer did not intentionally ignore the girls and is devastated about the misunderstanding.’ ”

In 2022, however, to say that a slight was unintentional or the result of a misunderstanding will never be accepted if the person slighted says they believe it was intentional and was racially motivated.

The current cultural standard is this: If someone says they are the target of racism, that is supposed to be, prima facie, all the evidence that’s needed.

Likewise, if you’re the object of a complaint of racism, you must agree that you’re guilty of racism (or else you’re proving how racist and out of touch you are), and you must promise to “do better”—indeed, that’s what Sesame Place did in their second apology:

“[We] sincerely apologize to the family for their experience in our park on Saturday; we know that it's not OK.

“We are taking actions to do better. We are committed to making this right…

"We will conduct training for our employees so they better understand, recognize and deliver an inclusive, equitable and entertaining experience to our guests. For over 40 years Sesame Place has worked to uphold the values of respect, inclusion and belonging. We are committed to doing a better job making children and families feel special, seen and included when they come to our parks."

So in the second statement they completely changed course and admitted wrongdoing, which is our current cultural norm — but think about what this second statement means:

“we know that it’s not OK”… “we are committed to making this right”

What exactly is “not OK”? What has to be “made right”? That a minimum-wage worker in a cumbersome character suit failed to see and/or failed to engage with every kid on the parade route? Is Sesame Place saying that it’s unacceptable for this worker (no matter how hot, tired, distracted, or visually obstructed) not to greet every child?

I don’t agree with Sesame Place that this is “not OK” or that anything has to be “made right.” In conforming to the cultural norm, they are making the problem worse, by validating the complaint of racism and agreeing that something very wrong happened and needs to be corrected.

My children have been on parade routes trying to get someone’s attention, whether it’s a character or famous person they wanted to greet, or whether they wanted a wave or a hug or some candy or swag thrown their way. I can’t count the times the kids right next to them got a wave or some candy thrown, and my kids didn’t.

Do you know why? Because people can’t hug or throw candy at every kid, every time. Every kid on the planet who’s attended parades has been overlooked and disappointed sometimes. And then the parents briefly empathize and comfort them — if they are even that disappointed that they need empathy and comforting — and then life moves on.

And this is why, when “other videos” were said in the media to have came out of other black kids being ignored by the characters, I said, “Hm, I’m unimpressed,” because no one asked, “Gee, I wonder if there are videos of white or Latino or Asian kids being overlooked by a Sesame Place character?”

I think that would have been an interesting question to answer — and I’d bet the farm the answer is yes, because kids get overlooked at parades all the time — before we jump to conclusions that anyone seriously, deliberately, systematically slighted little kids of any particular race.

Appeal to Common Sense: Who Would Do That?

Politically, I’m very far left, but I make a point of associating with a wide variety of people of all political beliefs, including people who could be most charitably described as “not very racially sensitive” — for example, some white people think members of other racial groups “have it easy these days.” But I can’t think of anyone who, if they were forced to don a Rosita suit and work the parade route, would deliberately ignore a child of another race. Not one.

Going way out on a limb here (/s): Even the people who are farthest from me politically are decent, kind people who don’t harbor hate in their heart for anyone. I know a lot of people, but I don’t know any white supremacists who outright reject people of other races — and I suspect that’s because such people are very rare. Very rare. And I think it would take an actual hard-core white supremacist to ignore the black children at a parade.

How likely is it that the person in the Rosita suit is a rare, hard-core white supremacist?

Really think about it for a minute. That would be some high-level racist shit right there, to ignore the black children. I don’t know anyone who would do that on their worst day. And we’re to believe Sesame Place in Philadelphia harbors such people? And the problem is so bad that they need to apologize for it and promise to “do better” and teach everyone to be more in line with their “values of respect, inclusion, and belonging”?

The Sesame Place PR team is not describing a problem. They’re reciting a catechism.

Giving the Family the Benefit of the Doubt

We can be skeptical about the likelihood of hard-core deliberate racism at Sesame Place, and still try hard to give the family the benefit of the doubt. Imagine if the kids in your children’s vicinity who were greeted were white, and your own black kids were overlooked.

Any parent might have it in the back of his or her mind: “Hm, I wonder if it’s because my kids are black?” You might not be able to help thinking that thought, because you’ve been treated poorly in the past by some jerks — just as everyone has been treated poorly by some jerks.

All of us are primed to see slights in certain ways because of who we are and the experiences we’ve had. That’s only human. I don’t blame the parents for wondering if that was the issue.

As a Culture, We’ve Forgotten How to Keep Slights in Perspective

When I talk about the need to “do better,” I’m more comfortable using examples from my own life. If you’re a woman and you attend a lot of meetings with men, you will notice that there’s some truth to the belief that women are talked over in meetings, and their ideas are more likely to be ignored. Some men, in particular, are more likely to talk over women than other men. That’s a fact. I’ve experienced it.

Recently, a new guy at work talked over me at a meeting. Is it a stretch for me to ask myself, “Is this another sexist jerk who talks over women in meetings?”

Well, if that were my first frustrated internal question, that’s not completely surprising. Few people would probably condemn me for thinking it (especially not women who have a lot of experience being talked over by men) — but upon logical reflection, should it be something I truly believe, after one interaction with him? Is that what I am entitled to conclude about this person I don’t know?

No. The new guy might turn out to be a sexist jerk. He might also be really nervous about being the new guy—so nervous that he talked over me without realizing it. He might also be someone who talks over anyone when he’s excited by his own idea — not a stellar behavior, but not sexist either. There are other, non-sexist explanations for his behavior.

So I don’t disbelieve the family of these girls, if they’re saying racism is real and they’ve experienced it. I don’t blame them for asking themselves if that’s why their girls were slighted. That’s just natural. I assume that they’re sincere when they jumped to their conclusion, based on one interaction with this person in a Rosita suit, that their children had experienced racism.

But I think we’ve all become a little quick to make assumptions when we don’t have enough information to back it up.

Our Culture Says, “Whatever—If You’re Slighted, Go Nuclear“

Our culture has encouraged us to be quick to make assumptions — but it’s the next step that really causes a lot of problems: If you’re slighted, go nuclear.

What did the girls’ mom do, when she assumed her children had been deliberately slighted because of their race? She posted her outrage on Instagram:

This Yahoo News story describes how Destiny’s Child singer Kelly Rowland amplified the story, also assuming the worst:

“ ‘OK so had that been me, that whole parade would have been in flames,’ Rowland said in her Instagram story.

“ ‘Like, are you serious? You’re not going to speak to my child? And did you see that baby’s face at the end? The little one with the pink on? She deserves an explanation,’ Rowland continued.”

And then the mom hired a lawyer. As Newsweek describes it,

“Texas-based lawyer B'Ivory Lamarr said he has been retained by the family of the two African-American girls who were ‘intentionally mistreated by a Sesame Place employee during a parade.’

“He said: ‘We are appalled, both, by the actions of the performer and the lack of accountability and audacity of the Sesame Place theme park to defend such egregious actions.

“ ‘We will not hasten to exercise every remedy under the law to hold this theme park accountable for what we continue as nothing short of intentional mistreatment to their minority patrons.’

“In addition to his statement, Lamarr wrote on Instagram: ‘This family needs justice‼️ No 6-year-old should be forced to live with severe distress after leaving a Sesame Place theme park.’ ”

These are the messages the children are receiving: they have been “intentionally mistreated”; the actions were “egregious” and “audaci[ous]”; they are being forced to live with “severe distress.”

Any regular readers know this already — but people pick up on the messages they hear, and they behave accordingly. If everyone around these girls is freaking out, angry, and expecting they’re going to be extremely distressed, guess what? They are going to be.

If it’s true, according to Lamarr, that these girls are living with distress — the New York Post describes them as “shattered” and “traumatized”—how much of this is due to the momentary slight of a parade character failing to greet them, and how much of this is due to their family’s reaction afterwards — the mom fresking out, going public, hiring a lawyer (who himself freaks out and takes it even further)? How would you like to be the child in this picture?

Going back to my personal example, even if the new guy turns out to be a sexist jerk, there are options open to me, other than appealing to the authorities at work to “make it right.” I don’t need to call HR and make his life hell.

Maybe I’ll decide that I’m strong enough to hold my own in meetings.

Maybe I’ll accept that some aspects of life — everyone’s life — simply aren’t fair, but I can take care of myself and succeed anyway.

Maybe next time he interrupts me, I’ll interrupt right back: “I’m still finishing my thought, New Guy.”

Maybe I’ll model confidence and strength for the other women in the room, especially the younger women.

Why might I choose those responses instead of going nuclear? Because no one’s life is perfectly fair, so we’ve all got to deal with it in the best way possible. I’m entitled not to like the unfairness I encounter. I’m entitled to try to put a stop to it — but it’s also not that big a deal.

Making this guy’s life hell would take a lot of emotional energy on my part. I have better things to do. It would also cast me as a victim, and I don’t feel like a victim. I can do better than that. My kids being ignored at a parade doesn’t make them victims either. I wouldn’t want to lead them to believe they are.

“Shattered” and “Traumatized” Don’t Mean What You Think They Mean

I criticize the United States a lot (a lot!), but I also try to be realistic and fair: There’s no denying that things have gotten so much better in the last 200 years, especially with regard to racism and sexism, that we — regular middle-class people who can afford tickets to a theme park for our children — have lost track of what “trauma” means everywhere else in the world. Spoiler alert: Trauma is not “Rosita failing to greet your child.”

It’s being a war orphan in Ukraine:

“When 12-year-old Kira Obedinsky, orphaned by war, was whisked from her hometown of Mariupol to a hospital in a Russian-controlled area of eastern Ukraine earlier in March, she was unsure if she would ever be reunited with her remaining family members.

“Now in Kyiv, against all the odds, she sits on a hospital bed with her grandfather Oleksander Obedinsky -- and on Wednesday spoke to CNN for the first time about her ordeal. She continues to recover from injuries that nurses say include shell fragment wounds to her face, neck, and legs. Her scarred face and introverted manner are signs of the physical and psychological trauma she has suffered.”

It’s being a child suffering from war in Yemen:

“The Yemen conflict killed or maimed 2,600 children as hostilities intensified in 2019 and 2020; that’s according to a new report of the UN Secretary-General on Children and Armed conflict in the country.

“Published on Monday, the report detailed how these youngsters were victims of the indiscriminate use of mortar and artillery shelling, ground fighting, anti-personnel landmines and other explosive remnants of war.   

“In total, more than 3,500 children suffered one or more grave violations; chief among these was the denial of humanitarian access, killing and maiming, and the recruitment and use of children. 

“Issuing the findings, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, Virginia Gamba, said that ‘the atrocities and immense suffering’ would likely leave a generation of Yemeni children ‘scarred for life.’ ”  

And it’s hundreds of thousands of Uyghur children separated from their families:

“Uyghur children whose parents are either in the camps or in prison are being forcibly separated from their families. Hundreds of thousands of Uyghur children have been forcibly moved to state-run orphanages where they are indoctrinated to renounce their ethnic and religious identities and praise the CCP.”

Are we thrusting these little girls in the spotlight, are we telling them they’ve been mistreated, are we labeling them traumatized and shattered, because of a non-event at a theme park parade? Are we really doing this?