The paper I am repurposing is an analytical, economic perspective of inequality in the lens of race relations and poverty.
This topic is especially sensitive as it explores the roots of economic inequality, which is a conversation that often has a lot of guilt or anger associated with it. Even more troubling is that the paper categorizes the inequality in terms of race – arguably the most indicative component of identity.
With this in mind, the explicit reprimanding of groups of people on this topic is highly accusatory. It backs the reader into the corner and aggressively shouts at them. However, this approach is often the most truthful and important to use. The truth is that inequality and racism tangibly affect the lives of so many people, and neglecting this reality may merit a more aggressive approach to the discussion.
On the other hand, implicit conversations about the topic allow for the most change. When you appeal to the guilty from an objective and researched background, you allow for paradigm shifts. They may not always agree; they may not always change; they may not always feel the necessity like others; they are more likely to change from an implicit conversation, though. This is the most important realization.
So even though a sick, malicious part of my subconscious was overjoyed writing a vindictive letter to those people that are either racist, or ignore racism due to capitalistic ideals, it is probably less effective in bringing about the necessary change.