Which of these scenarios is still more likely to occur, in general, in proportions that don't match yesterday's or today's reality?
1. Two white people are talking. One says, “You know you can't trust black people.” The other person looks dumbfounded for a second and says, “Of course not!”
2. Two black people are talking. One says, “You know you can't trust white people.” The other person immediately says, “You can't trust all black people either and you can't treat all white people the same and there are bad black people and there are good white people and black people just need to...and black people don't wanna...”
More often than not, what exists is a group of people who generally distrusts a group of people who generally trusts them and defends them and prosecutes themselves.
This psychological imbalance can only lead to advantages being taken in interactions, I.e, “let's just say this or tell them this and they will believe us.”
Even on the internet when things aren't right, you get warnings such as “this website is untrusted, are you sure you want to proceed, doing so can cause harm to your computer.” Another warning is related to the digital (spiritual) signature or certificate can't be verified. The website is blocked to give the person a chance to decide if the risk is worth it.
My guess is that most people don't go further after receiving these warnings. I'm not sure why some people, despite warnings, continue to trust interactions that have proven untrustworthy, that contain that hidden, sneaky virus or program that causes undercover damage that, once noticed, it's too late.
The first question that should be asked is “Who Should We Trust?”
No matter what the answers are, we must always question most those whom we trust most or whatever we trust most. We must question until the responses match the results we want for all of us worldwide. Promises ain't good enough. Now is not soon enough. Dr. King already explained “Why We Can't Wait.” Every wrong must be righted.
