In a world where labels are passed around like hot potatoes at a Thanksgiving dinner, it’s not uncommon to hear someone call someone else a “racist.” Take the recent encounter at a lively political event where a young individual confidently declared a strong dislike for the former president, Donald Trump, due to his supposedly racist behavior. Normally, such accusations might go unchallenged, but this time, a curious question was posed: What exactly does it mean to be racist?

The question hung in the air, almost like a game show challenge. The young critic was asked to define racism on the spot, and the response was, well, a bit of a blank stare. An attempt to describe racism as “hatred towards another race” was made, but the follow-up question about specific examples of Trump’s racist actions met silence. It was as if the ability to recall certain allegations hadn’t downloaded to their mental hard drive yet.

Now, let’s pause for a moment and think about the media. They often serve as the conductor of this orchestra of opinions. There’s something entertaining about the way headlines play a symphony of outrage that echoes through the halls of social media. But, when pressed for details, it’s not uncommon to find that recalling comprehensive data amidst sensational narratives demands diligent effort.

In reality, there are extensive documented instances providing substantial evidence against Trump regarding racially insensitive behaviors and policies. In 1973, Trump and his company were sued by the Department of Justice for housing discrimination against African-American renters. From 2011 to 2016, Trump promoted the birther conspiracy theory about Obama. Trump continued to insist, as late as 2024, that the Central Park Five were responsible for rape, despite their official exoneration in 2002. His 2016 campaign launch speech included statements about Mexico sending criminals, drugs, crime, and rapists. Additional documentation reveals a clear correlation between Trump campaign events and incidents of prejudiced violence as well as spikes in hate crimes in certain areas post-election.

But back to our event-goer. When pressed further, they seemed to realize that their initial reasons were based more on hearsay than personal evaluation. Asking the tough questions might have shed light on why certain beliefs hold the power they do. Could it be that, beneath the surface, the portrayal didn’t match the reality? While preconceived perceptions alone shouldn’t justify such labels, dismissing copious evidence reflecting deeply concerning conduct and policy decisions is equally untenable.

In the end, this exchange serves as a reminder to question the stories fed to us. Before joining the chorus of easy accusations or defenses, it might be worth pausing to sift fact from fiction. In the world of politics, holding onto a clear, informed perspective necessitates a balance between skepticism of narratives and acknowledgment of documented facts.