In my previous post, “Still Explaining Ourselves: The Weight of Unfinished Justice in South Africa”, I reflected on the exhausting reality of Black South Africans constantly having to justify their pain, explain their history, and plead for understanding in a country where justice was never truly served. The burden of being reasonable, composed, and forgiving rests still on the shoulders of the oppressed, while those who inherited power often remain unbothered, untouched, and unaccountable.
But what happens when reason, no matter how measured or well-articulated, doesn’t land? What do you do when your truth is met with indifference, or worse, with gaslighting and denial?
That brings me to this next truth: you cannot argue with a wall. And far too often, that’s what these conversations feel like. There comes a point when you realise that arguing with someone who has already made up their mind is not just frustrating; it’s futile. It’s like explaining colour to someone who refuses to open their eyes.
This is especially true when dealing with oppressors, individuals or systems invested in power, not truth. We often find ourselves trying to explain our pain, history, or humanity to people without interest in understanding. Why? Because deep down, we still hold on to the hope that truth will win. If we present enough facts, we will be heard. But the truth
is not what they’re after. Control is.
Take, for example, the media interactions between Donald Trump and journalists and world leaders in the Oval Office. Whether it was about election fraud, COVID-19, or immigration, the pattern was the same: deflection, interruption, denial, and a complete disregard for evidence. No matter how calmly journalists or world leaders presented facts or pressed for clarity, Trump sidestepped, contradicted, or dismissed them, not because he didn’t understand but because he chose not to. He wasn’t there to engage; he was there to dominate the narrative.
And that is what oppressors do; they dominate the narrative. They ask questions not to understand but to undermine. They argue not to find the truth but to win. They accuse you of being emotional, irrational, or ungrateful, all while ignoring the mountains of evidence you carry.
So, why do we keep justifying ourselves to them? Perhaps it’s because we want peace. We want understanding. We want to be seen. But as James Baldwin said, “We can’t be free until we stop begging the people who oppress us to set us free.”
Arguing with someone who refuses to hear the truth is not a conversation; it’s a trap. It keeps you in a cycle of explanation while they maintain their power through resistance.
Let’s be clear: truth does not require approval to be true. And justice does not need permission to be pursued. Instead of justifying ourselves to oppressors, we need to redirect our energy toward building community with those willing to listen, learn, and act.
Because there’s no use talking to a wall. Better to build doors elsewhere.