Many things have happened in the last few weeks that have roused our political sensibilities; 800 migrants, people, perished in our graveyard sea, bringing this year’s death toll in the Mediterranean alone to 1700. In Baltimore, Maryland, a man named Freddie Gray died after sustaining spinal injuries while in police custody – six officers have been charged in his death. Hilary Clinton, perhaps the first and sadly as yet only female candidate who has a realistic chance of entering the Oval Office, launched her campaign. The British are gripped by election fever, with the race to Number 10 being perhaps the closest it has been in decades. There are four days left.

I could keep going.

What captured my attention the most and perhaps what ties these events together is the way we – those generating political and social analysis, and those reading it or talking about it – seem to consistently take for granted that we live in a ‘post-’ world. That is, a world that doesn’t see gender, race, ethnicity, religion, as a factor in the way we relate to one another, or the way we govern. We are, obviously, blind to colour, genitalia, and the headscarf or crucifix. After all, societal relations are guided by well thought through, inclusive, flexible legislation… right?

Nonsense.

We do not live in a post-sexist or post-gendered world

Hilary Clinton’s campaign is laughably billed as her fight to be the ‘first woman President’. Buzzer sounds. Wrong. Hilary Clinton’s campaign is a campaign for her to be President. See what I did there? Talking about shattering glass ceilings and aiming to do so is made redundant if we cannot, even at the most basic level, rid our lexicon of this need to distinguish and categorise ourselves in gender or racial terms. Even Clinton herself is milking the woman wagon for all its worth. I suppose that is fair. But, it is nothing but counterproductive to the overarching goal of equality.

There is nothing phenomenal about being the ‘first woman’ President of the United States of America (other than getting an honourable mention in history books). It is however phenomenal that we are in 2015 and there hasn’t yet been a female US President. It is dumbfounding that our Parliaments, Congresses and Senates are on average populated by white males. That is what I find noteworthy. Clinton’s campaign is proof, if we ever needed any, that the upper (in fact all of the) echelons of power are certainly not blind to the fact that, despite her endless qualities and capabilities, she is a woman. And, if she does make it, her actions will to some degree always be measured by her gender, rather than her competence. This is why she should also cut the Guinness World Record crap about being the first woman President with a real chance at the White House. It only detracts from the battle she is waging on gender inequality. The struggle is not Clinton’s; it is every woman’s.

We do not live in a post-racial or post-racist society

I did not want to write about those who needlessly perished on our shores in the last weeks, not because I don’t think it is necessary. It is essential that we do. But how can I truly share my grief and anger and conjure the right words to describe my disgust at the belated, inadequate response to the immigration crisis? I am disgusted. I am grief-stricken. I am angry. Of course, it maddens me that we have allowed thousands upon thousands of men, women and children to die at the doorstep of Fortress Europe. I am more anxious about what the future will bring, though. A future where integration, co-existence is not a thing finely woven at the peripheries of our social fabric, but at its core. Is this possible?

We may have legislation across Europe (and indeed, America) that protects all citizens, but we are certainly in no way either post-racist or post-racial. The active social tension that is exacerbated by racism, however rampant or subtle, is there – it is alive. We can talk and muse all we want about structures being post-racial, that is, our institutions and legislation are devoid of racial consideration, that skin colour will not undermine your mobility but this is just not the case. They may have every legislative safeguard available in the US but that hasn’t stopped egregious and disturbing acts of violence being committed against men like Freddie Gray or Eric Garner. It hasn’t stopped a third of all black men facing the prospect of prison in their lifetime.

With all our big words about human rights and the dignity of all, I cannot come to a conclusion that nothing tangible has been done about those dying on our shores and being carried in makeshift tents in unnumbered coffins because, yes, they are not white. It may not be the central reason, but it is a powerful reality that cannot be ignored if we are to face the endemic problems within our own societies that is driven by the obsession we have with borders; ‘our’ country. How can we expect legislation at the European and national to be reflexive and responsive if we ourselves are still in denial about this? These people, who had names and lives, they deserve more than just pseudo-liberal chatter about how we should be tackle the immigration problem. Changes must take place at the core of our societies because legislation reflects society – it is not meant to be a monolith. Legislation has meaning that it derives from the way society interacts. And so, inclusivity, real inclusivity, percolates through to the legal frameworks that are designed to protect all persons not just a select few.

Saving face

I guess it’s time we stop pretending that we are not all responsible for this state of affairs. We should probably quit gawping at our governments, who we vote in, and bemoan their decisions, which we support with our ballots, and then decry later on. Change is possible, it is slow but it is happening. For now, let’s all collectively take a big step away from our white privilege platform and stop intellectualising the state we are in; we do not live in a ‘post’-world, we are firmly in the midst of it all… what are we going to do about it?