The Other Side Of The River Analysis

In today’s civil society, we are taught to show compassion and tolerance towards one other, yet the media portrays society in a different perspective, as being intolerant. In the book The Other Side of the River, writer Alex Kotlowitz reflects on the story of a young black male whose lifeless body was found in the St. Joseph river of Michigan. In this story, Kotlowitz reflects on two communities that are opposite from the other in regards to ethnic background and financial well-being, yet both appear to share the same lack of tolerance towards the other. There is a paragraph were Kotlowitz writes,

It’s all about perspective -- which has everything to do with our personal and collective experiences, which are consistently informed by race. From those experiences, from our histories, we build myths, legends that guide us and constrain us, legends that include both fact and fiction (1).

In this paragraph, Kotlowitz is sharing his

personal view on why two communities would accusing the other for the death of the young black male. Thus, Kotlowitz is attempting to get the reader to see how society as a whole can be intolerant due to the distorted reality of historical events that create myths and legends over those facts.
I strongly believe that there is still an extremely high level of intolerance in today’s society, but cannot help but wonder if this is perpetuated through generations of ethnic upbringing or from the social media.

There are numerous accounts that have led society into believing a distort-ed perception of reality and becoming intolerant towards another. Back in 2001 after the unfortunate terrorist attacks on 911, America was quick to take actions in subduing these radical Muslim fanatics. Former President George W. Bush announced the declaration of a “War on Terror”, which was strongly opposed by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs and the county of France. Thus began the American boycott on France and everything relating to the country including the renaming of French fries to American fires. Regardless of the facts for France’s unwillingness in supporting the “War on Terror”, the social media went ablaze with anti-French sentiment, insuring that all Americans became intolerant towards France and anyone with French ethnic

back-ground.
Now in 2015, we still are witnessing through the media the ever-growing atrocities of these Muslim fanatics with the most recent terrorist attack on France. Through the media’s portrayal of chaos, that has ensued France, Americans have lost their intolerance towards France, and now support the country and their campaign on terrorism in Arab countries. Even though these Arab counties are the largest regions of Muslim groups and terrorist organizations, there are no substantial facts to support that everyone who follows the Muslim religion are terrorists. Any yet, through the social media and individual fear, society has now taken an intolerant view to-wards everyone of an Arab ethnic background or who follows the Muslim religious views. Americans now seem prevalent in denying citizenship to anyone with an Arab ethnic background, the building of any Muslim religious temple, and perhaps even the deportation of current American Arab individuals all due to the fear of another terrorist attack.
In my opinion, these accounts clearly define how individuals are quick to show intolerance regardless of any facts. Thus, I believe that when Kotlowitz wrote, “Even the best of people have already chosen sides” (4), he is also referring to how regardless of social upbringing or social conditioning, everyone is quick to become judgmental over the beliefs of distort reality of facts. Unfortunately still today, the media is prevalent in insuring that everyone is quick to choose a side, which in effect creates a strong propagated intolerant society. It is through the continued actions of individuals and social beliefs that continue to create an intolerant society with a bleak outlook towards compassion and tolerance for one another.