THE DIVISION IS DEEPER THAN YOU THINK

Welcome back, everyone. LanceScurvX here, bringing you another unfiltered conversation about the world we live in, the people we are becoming, and the forces that shape how we see one another. Every day, I watch social media become a battlefield where people who share so much in common are encouraged to tear each other apart over the things that make them different. We argue over nationality, culture, history, identity, and ideology, yet rarely stop to ask who benefits when we spend so much of our time fighting one another instead of building something together. At some point, we have to step back and examine the bigger picture because the constant conflict we see online deserves far more scrutiny than we are giving it.

When a tragedy occurs, people deserve compassion, facts, and a fair opportunity to understand what happened. Yet social media can turn a painful event into an international argument before all the facts are clear. One person presents a version of the story, another adds a different interpretation, and before long, entire populations are being blamed for the actions of individuals. People begin choosing sides based on nationality, skin color, personal loyalties, or whatever identity they feel most connected to. Instead of allowing facts to guide the conversation, anger begins to lead the way. And once anger takes control, people become much easier to manipulate.

I believe we need to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions about this pattern. Why are we so willing to believe the worst about people who look like us, share parts of our history, and face many of the same struggles? Why can a single video clip convince somebody that an entire nation or population is dangerous, ignorant, backward, or unworthy of respect? Why do we sometimes accept the most insulting descriptions of our own people while demanding that everyone else receive understanding and consideration? These questions are not about pretending our differences do not exist. They are about understanding why those differences so often become weapons in the hands of people who have no interest in helping us grow.

I am not suggesting that Black people are one identical group with one culture, one opinion, or one way of living. We are a vast and diverse people, spread across continents, shaped by different languages, traditions, religions, political systems, and historical experiences. A Black person raised in Brazil may see the world differently from a Black person raised in Ghana, Jamaica, the United States, or South Africa. Those differences are real, and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging them. The problem begins when we are taught to treat those differences as proof that we cannot respect one another, cooperate with one another, or recognize the humanity we share.

My concern is that we are becoming so distracted by our disagreements that we are losing sight of our collective interests. While we argue about who is more authentic, who belongs where, whose history deserves greater recognition, or which group should be blamed for another group’s problems, the practical issues affecting our communities continue. Economic security, ownership, education, housing, infrastructure, political influence, and control over our future all demand serious attention. We cannot build meaningful connections when every conversation becomes another opportunity to insult one another. We cannot create lasting progress if we spend more energy proving that our neighbors are inferior than improving the conditions in which we all live.

THE LITTLE FORCE THAT FEEDS ON OUR FIGHTING

There is an old idea that helps me explain what I believe is happening. I remember an episode of Star Trek from the original series in which opposing sides were repeatedly drawn into conflict. I may not remember every detail of the story, but what stays with me is the image of an unusual, glowing entity that appeared to grow stronger as the hostility between its opponents intensified. The more they fought, the more power it seemed to gain. Their anger became its nourishment, and their inability to recognize the larger situation kept them trapped in a cycle of confrontation.

Think about that image for a moment. Imagine two people who have no personal reason to hate one another. They have never harmed each other, stolen from each other, or threatened each other’s families. Then a third party approaches the first person and says, “You know what the other person said about you?” That person becomes offended. The same messenger approaches the second person and delivers another carefully chosen story. Now both individuals are angry, both believe they have been disrespected, and neither stops to question the source of the information. By the time the confrontation begins, the person who started the trouble may be standing off to the side, watching the damage unfold.

We have seen this pattern in schoolyards, workplaces, families, neighborhoods, and political movements. The names and circumstances change, but the basic method remains recognizable. People can be manipulated by selective information, misleading claims, exaggerated differences, and emotional messages designed to provoke a reaction. Once the conflict begins, each side starts collecting evidence to justify its anger. Every insult becomes confirmation that the other side deserves hostility, while every act of kindness or cooperation is ignored because it does not fit the story people have already accepted.

Now bring that lesson into the digital world. A video appears on a social media platform showing a confrontation involving people from different backgrounds. The clip may be genuine, but it might leave out important context. A caption tells viewers what they should think before they have had a chance to examine the facts. The comments become a contest of insults, and people begin attaching the behavior of a few individuals to millions of people who had nothing to do with the incident. Soon, the original event is almost forgotten because the argument has become the main attraction.

That is how a single incident can become fuel for a much larger conflict. The people watching may believe they are defending their community, protecting their identity, or exposing an injustice. Some may have legitimate concerns that deserve attention. Others may be reacting to incomplete information or repeating claims they have never verified. Either way, the result can be the same: people become more suspicious of one another, trust deteriorates, and the possibility of cooperation becomes harder to imagine. The emotional spectacle grows while the original problem receives less thoughtful attention.

I want us to recognize the difference between addressing a real problem and allowing a real problem to be used against us. If someone commits a crime, investigate the crime. If an institution discriminates, examine the institution. If a government makes harmful decisions, hold its leaders accountable. If somebody spreads false information, challenge the information with evidence. None of those actions requires us to condemn an entire nationality, continent, or racial population. Accountability becomes meaningless when we replace individual responsibility with collective blame.

SOCIAL MEDIA CAN TURN OUR DIFFERENCES INTO A BUSINESS

We also have to examine the environment in which these arguments are taking place. Social media platforms compete for attention, and attention can translate into advertising revenue, audience growth, influence, and money for creators. Content that provokes outrage can generate comments, shares, arguments, and repeat visits. That does not mean every platform deliberately promotes every divisive message, or that every controversial creator is working for someone behind the scenes. But it does mean that an attention-driven system can reward behavior that keeps people emotionally engaged, even when that engagement is harmful to the communities involved.

When you understand this, you begin to see why outrage can become so profitable. A thoughtful conversation about economic development may require patience, research, and an understanding of complicated issues. A video that insults an entire population can communicate its message in seconds. It gives viewers an immediate target for their frustration and invites them to respond emotionally. People who feel attacked rush into the comments to defend themselves, while people who already dislike the targeted group arrive to celebrate the insult. The creator receives attention, the argument expands, and the platform records another round of engagement.

The danger comes when we mistake popularity for credibility. A person can have a large following and still be wrong. A video can receive thousands of comments and still contain misleading information. A creator can sound confident while making claims that have never been supported by reliable evidence. We must stop treating numbers as proof of wisdom and controversy as proof of courage. Sometimes the person telling us what we desperately want to hear is doing more damage than the person willing to challenge our assumptions.

We also need to understand that recommendation systems do not necessarily show us a balanced picture of reality. What appears in our feeds can be influenced by our previous activity, the accounts we follow, the subjects we engage with, and the way platforms rank content. When we repeatedly watch material that provokes anger, we may begin seeing more of the same subject matter. Over time, our feeds can make a particular conflict seem larger, more common, and more universal than it really is. We begin to believe that the loudest people represent everybody, even though millions of people may have no interest in participating in the argument.

This is why I keep telling people to be careful about what they allow into their minds. You can spend hours watching videos about the worst things happening in a particular country and walk away believing that the entire country is defined by those events. You can repeatedly watch people insult a particular community and begin to believe that the insults represent an established truth. Yet you may never have spoken to an ordinary person from that community, visited the places being discussed, or examined information that challenges the story you have been given.

The algorithm does not have to invent every problem to influence your perception of the world. Sometimes all it has to do is keep showing you one side of the picture. If you see ten examples of violence, you may forget the thousands of ordinary interactions that never became viral videos. If you see repeated stories about corruption, you may overlook the people quietly working to improve their communities. If you see one group presented as a threat every day, you may eventually begin to associate that entire population with danger. Repetition can shape perception, and perception can influence behavior.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRITICISM AND DEHUMANIZATION

Let me make something clear. I am not asking anyone to silence criticism or pretend that everything is wonderful within our communities. We must be able to discuss corruption, crime, cultural misunderstandings, political failures, religious hypocrisy, sexism, exploitation, and the harmful behavior of individuals. We must be willing to confront uncomfortable truths about our own societies. If we cannot criticize ourselves, we cannot improve ourselves. But honest criticism requires a willingness to examine evidence, distinguish between individuals and populations, and recognize the difference between exposing a problem and attacking people’s humanity.

There is a world of difference between saying that a particular policy is harmful and claiming that everyone from a particular country is ignorant. There is a difference between documenting a crime and using that crime to portray an entire population as violent. There is a difference between criticizing a political movement and declaring that millions of people are naturally inferior. Once our language crosses into dehumanization, we are no longer simply discussing behavior or ideas. We are encouraging people to see their fellow human beings as less deserving of respect, compassion, and fair treatment.

This distinction matters especially for independent creators who use platforms such as YouTube to discuss race, culture, politics, and social issues. Platform rules concerning hate speech and harassment can affect videos, live streams, comments, descriptions, and other forms of content. Those rules and their enforcement can be complicated, and creators should consult the current policies rather than rely on rumors or assumptions. Criticizing a government, an institution, an ideology, or a person’s actions is not automatically the same as attacking an entire protected group. At the same time, framing something as commentary does not guarantee that every statement will be permitted.

I believe creators should be able to discuss difficult subjects without fear of unfair treatment, but we also have a responsibility to speak with accuracy and care. If we accuse a platform of applying its rules inconsistently, we should examine specific examples and provide evidence. If we believe certain voices receive more visibility than others, we should investigate how content is being recommended and moderated rather than automatically assuming we know who is behind every decision. Serious criticism becomes stronger when it is supported by facts, because facts allow people to examine the argument instead of getting lost in accusations.

The same principle applies when we discuss international suffering, war, and political injustice. Human beings deserve compassion regardless of their nationality, religion, or political identity. We should be able to express concern for civilians caught in violence, challenge governments, question military decisions, and demand accountability without turning entire populations into enemies. Compassion should not depend on whether a person’s suffering is politically convenient for us. If we believe human life has value, we must be willing to apply that belief consistently.

We cannot demand fairness for our own people while celebrating the humiliation of others. We cannot condemn prejudice when it is directed toward us and excuse it when we believe the target deserves it. That kind of selective morality weakens every argument we make about justice. It also gives people another reason to distrust one another. If we want to build a stronger future, our criticism must be directed at the behavior, policy, or institution responsible for the harm, not at the humanity of everyone who shares an identity with the person involved.

AFRICA IS NOT A SINGLE STORY

One of the most troubling examples of this problem is the way people sometimes talk about Africa as though an entire continent can be reduced to a single image. Africa consists of 54 internationally recognized countries, with different political systems, languages, histories, economies, landscapes, cultures, and living conditions. Yet somebody may see a clip of a violent incident in one location and use it to describe the entire continent. Another person may see footage of flooding in one city and conclude that everyone living anywhere in Africa faces the same conditions. That is not careful analysis. It is a failure to understand the scale and diversity of the place being discussed.

I have lived in Ghana for years, and my experience here has taught me the importance of seeing a place with my own eyes rather than relying entirely on what somebody else chooses to show me. When I go out into my community, I encounter ordinary people going about their lives, running businesses, selling goods, raising families, working, laughing, and trying to make ends meet. People recognize me, stop to talk, and share everyday moments with me. Those interactions are part of my experience of Ghana, just as the challenges and imperfections of life here are also part of that experience.

I am not going to stand here and tell you that Ghana has no problems. No country is free of crime, economic hardship, infrastructure challenges, political disagreements, or human conflict. I have lived long enough to understand that every society has its strengths and weaknesses. I spent decades in New York City, and I have seen how violence and difficult circumstances can affect people and families. But nobody should take the worst event in New York and use it as the sole definition of every neighborhood, every resident, and every person who lives in America. Why should we apply a different standard when we talk about Africa?

When flooding occurs in a particular Ghanaian community, we should examine the conditions that contributed to it. Were buildings constructed on flood-prone land? Was drainage inadequate? Did blocked waterways make the situation worse? Were planning decisions or maintenance failures involved? Those are the kinds of questions that can lead to understanding and possible solutions. Simply showing the flooding and using it to declare that an entire country is unlivable does nothing to educate the audience. It replaces explanation with a stereotype.

The same approach should guide our conversations about safety. Every country has places where people must exercise caution, and every country has communities where ordinary life continues without the constant danger that sensational coverage might suggest. People should research local conditions, understand the risks, and make informed decisions about where they live and travel. But a fair assessment requires more than a dramatic clip, an exaggerated anecdote, or a comment from somebody who has never experienced the place being discussed.

I want people to understand that loving Africa does not require pretending that everything here is perfect. It requires seeing Africa as a real continent filled with real people, not as a permanent disaster scene or a romantic fantasy. There are problems to confront, opportunities to develop, institutions to improve, and communities to support. We should be able to talk about all of those things without turning our conversations into another competition over which group deserves contempt.

OUR DIFFERENCES SHOULD BE A BRIDGE, NOT A WEAPON

One of the great ironies of our time is that people can use technology to communicate across oceans while remaining emotionally disconnected from people who share parts of their own heritage. We can speak to somebody thousands of miles away in seconds, yet we struggle to extend basic respect to a person whose accent, nationality, or cultural background differs from ours. We have more opportunities to learn about one another than previous generations ever imagined, but those opportunities can also be used to spread suspicion and hostility on a scale that would once have been impossible.

A Black person born in the United States and a Black person born in Ghana may have very different experiences. One may have grown up with particular forms of discrimination, while the other has faced different social pressures, economic realities, and historical circumstances. They may disagree about politics, identity, religion, or the best path toward progress. Those disagreements deserve honest discussion. But none of them automatically makes one person more worthy of dignity than the other. Different experiences can help us understand the world more fully if we approach one another with curiosity instead of contempt.

We must also be honest about the ways historical experiences have shaped our relationships. The forced movement of African people through slavery, the colonial division of African territories, the extraction of resources, and the lasting effects of unequal economic systems have influenced generations across the globe. Those histories are complex, and their effects vary across regions and communities. They should be studied carefully rather than used as shortcuts for blaming every problem on a single group. Understanding history should help us recognize the forces that shaped our circumstances, not give us another excuse to attack one another.

I want to see more serious conversations about trade, investment, education, entrepreneurship, cultural exchange, and cooperation between people of African descent across the world. I want us to ask how communities can share knowledge, build sustainable businesses, support one another’s work, and create opportunities for future generations. I want us to learn how different societies have addressed problems that others are still struggling with. Those conversations are far more productive than endless arguments over who has the right to claim a particular identity or who should be blamed for every disagreement.

Unity does not mean that everybody must think alike, vote alike, worship alike, or abandon the culture that makes them unique. Unity means recognizing that cooperation can serve our shared interests even when our personal beliefs differ. It means having the maturity to disagree without turning disagreement into hatred. It means being able to criticize a harmful action without treating an entire population as an enemy. Most importantly, it means understanding that the ability to work together does not require us to erase the differences that make our communities rich and varied.

We should be able to celebrate our different histories while recognizing the possibilities that become available when we build relationships across those histories. A person from the Caribbean may bring one perspective, a person from the American South another, and a person raised in West Africa another. Each perspective can contribute something valuable. If we spend all our time trying to prove that one experience is superior to the others, we waste the opportunity to learn from one another. The real question is not which group can win the argument. The real question is what we can accomplish when we stop allowing every difference to become a dividing line.

WHO BENEFITS WHEN WE DESTROY OUR OWN RELATIONSHIPS?

Whenever I see people attacking one another over nationality or identity, I think about the practical consequences of that hostility. Imagine two communities that could benefit from trading with one another but refuse to cooperate because of stereotypes. Imagine business owners who could share knowledge and resources but choose instead to believe that people from another background cannot be trusted. Imagine young people who could build friendships, exchange ideas, and develop new opportunities but are taught to approach one another with suspicion before they have even met.

Those losses may not make headlines, but they are real. Every relationship destroyed by misinformation represents a possible connection that may never develop. Every business opportunity rejected because of prejudice represents potential income and employment that may never exist. Every conversation that ends in humiliation rather than understanding makes the next conversation more difficult. Division can carry an economic cost, a social cost, and a personal cost that extends far beyond the original argument.

Now consider what happens when people have the confidence and cooperation needed to organize around shared concerns. They can advocate for better schools, safer neighborhoods, fairer economic opportunities, and more accountable leadership. They can support local businesses, invest in community projects, and create institutions that serve their needs. They can compare experiences across national borders and learn from solutions that have worked elsewhere. None of this guarantees success, but these are the kinds of activities that can produce measurable benefits.

Resources matter, too. Land, minerals, agricultural capacity, skilled labor, technology, capital, and infrastructure can all play important roles in economic development. Yet possessing resources does not automatically translate into prosperity for ordinary people. The outcomes depend on governance, ownership, investment, contracts, education, institutions, and the ability to negotiate fair terms. If we want communities to benefit more from what they produce, we need to understand those systems and examine how they operate. Anger toward one another cannot replace the hard work of developing sound economic and political strategies.

We should also pay attention to what happens within our own neighborhoods. When residents do not attend community meetings, follow local decisions, or participate in discussions about development, other interests may have greater influence over what happens around them. Property values, zoning decisions, business development, public services, and redevelopment plans can change the character of a neighborhood. These changes deserve public attention because the people who live in a community should understand the decisions affecting their homes and livelihoods.

I have seen how easy it can be for people to become disconnected from decisions being made around them. Important meetings may happen when working residents find it difficult to attend. Information may circulate among a small group of people while others remain unaware. By the time residents recognize the consequences of a decision, the process may already be well underway. That is why community participation matters. We must be informed, organized, and willing to show up when decisions are being made, rather than discovering afterward that we allowed our interests to go unrepresented.

The larger lesson is that we cannot afford to confuse constant argument with meaningful action. A community can be loud online and still lack the organization needed to solve its problems. People can produce endless commentary about injustice without developing a plan to address it. We can spend years debating who is responsible for our struggles while ignoring opportunities to improve our circumstances. Criticism has a place, but criticism must eventually connect to knowledge, strategy, participation, and action if we want to see lasting change.

STOP LETTING STRANGERS PROGRAM YOUR PERCEPTION

I want everybody listening to become more deliberate about the information they consume. When you see a controversial video, ask what happened before the clip began and what happened afterward. Ask whether the source has provided evidence, whether the claims can be independently verified, and whether the headline accurately represents the material. Ask whether the person presenting the story is trying to inform you or provoke you. These questions do not mean you must distrust everything you see. They mean you should respect your own intelligence enough to investigate before accepting a claim as truth.

Pay attention to the language being used. Words that portray entire populations as animals, diseases, invaders, or natural enemies are designed to strip people of their individuality. Once a group is reduced to a demeaning label, it becomes easier for others to dismiss its concerns or excuse mistreatment. We have seen throughout history how dangerous it can become when people stop seeing their opponents as human beings. We should never assume that our own community is immune to this behavior simply because we have experienced prejudice ourselves.

Do not allow a creator’s confidence to replace your own judgment. Do not assume that a person who claims to reveal hidden truths has actually provided evidence. Do not mistake an accusation for an investigation or a dramatic presentation for a reliable account. Some people speak from sincere conviction, some speak from personal anger, and some may have financial or professional incentives to keep an audience engaged. You do not need to know someone’s private motives to evaluate whether the claims they make are supported by facts.

We should also be willing to correct ourselves. If you share a story and later discover that it was misleading, acknowledge the mistake and correct the record. If you repeat a stereotype about a community you have never taken the time to understand, reconsider the assumption. If somebody presents evidence that challenges your position, examine it honestly rather than immediately attacking the messenger. Intellectual strength is not the ability to defend every opinion forever. It is the ability to change your mind when the evidence gives you a good reason to do so.

This responsibility belongs to all of us, including independent commentators like myself. I can share my observations, discuss my experiences, and challenge the ideas I believe deserve scrutiny, but I must also recognize the importance of separating personal interpretation from established fact. When I describe what I have witnessed in Ghana, that is my experience. When I discuss the effects of social media, I should be clear about the difference between documented platform practices and my concerns about how those practices may affect people. Being outspoken does not excuse being careless with the truth.

If we want our voices to carry weight, we must be willing to do the work that gives those voices credibility. We must examine evidence, acknowledge uncertainty, and resist the temptation to turn every complicated issue into a simple story about heroes and villains. The world is full of genuine injustice, but the fight against injustice becomes weaker when we build our arguments on exaggeration or misinformation. We owe it to ourselves and to the people who listen to us to make our commentary as honest and informed as possible.

THE MOMENT WE STOP FIGHTING, THE GAME CHANGES

Let me return to that image from Star Trek because I believe it captures the heart of this entire conversation. The opposing sides were caught in a cycle of conflict, and something appeared to gain strength from their continued hostility. Their attention was fixed on one another, their anger kept rising, and they failed to recognize what their fighting was accomplishing for the force that benefited from their division. The turning point came when they began to understand that their conflict was serving a purpose beyond the battle they could see.

Imagine what happens when people finally ask whether they have been reacting to a manufactured conflict, an incomplete story, or a message designed to exploit their emotions. Imagine them putting down the verbal weapons long enough to examine the evidence together. Imagine them realizing that they can disagree about certain issues without surrendering their ability to cooperate on others. The force feeding on their hostility would lose one of its most valuable resources: their willingness to keep fighting without questioning why.

That is the kind of change I want to see in our conversations. I want Black people across the world to be able to examine difficult subjects without automatically treating one another as enemies. I want people to challenge stereotypes, confront wrongdoing, and demand accountability while remembering that no nationality has a monopoly on wisdom or foolishness, kindness or cruelty, success or failure. Human beings are complicated, and no population can be fairly understood through a collection of insults or viral videos.

I want us to direct more of our attention toward the systems and decisions that shape our lives. I want us to learn how economic power operates, how public policy affects our communities, how ownership creates opportunities, and how participation can influence local decisions. I want us to recognize that unity is not a magic word that solves every problem. Unity must be built through trust, honesty, shared effort, and the willingness to work through disagreements. But without some capacity to cooperate, even the best ideas can remain trapped in endless arguments.

Most of all, I want us to stop allowing our differences to become an excuse for abandoning one another. We do not have to agree on everything to recognize that our communities deserve safety, dignity, opportunity, and a voice in their own future. We can celebrate our distinct cultures while creating relationships that reach beyond national borders. We can be honest about our problems without humiliating entire populations. We can reject false narratives without pretending that genuine disagreements do not exist. That is what mature cooperation looks like, and it is worth the effort.

WE HAVE TO SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE

My message is simple, but it is not easy. We must learn to step back from the picture long enough to see the whole image. When your face is pressed against a painting, you may see only a few blurred colors, and those colors can never tell you the full story. You have to create some distance to understand how the pieces fit together. The same principle applies to our lives. If we spend every day reacting to the latest insult, controversy, and manufactured outrage, we may never develop the perspective needed to understand what is happening around us.

I am not asking you to surrender your identity, ignore injustice, or remain silent when somebody does something wrong. I am asking you to think more carefully about where you direct your anger and what your anger accomplishes. Before you attack an entire population, ask whether the evidence supports your conclusion. Before you share a controversial clip, ask whether it tells the whole story. Before you celebrate another person’s humiliation, ask whether that behavior brings us any closer to the future you claim to want. These are simple questions, but the answers can change the way we approach the world.

We also need to recognize that unity begins with individual choices. It begins when we refuse to repeat a stereotype simply because it makes our own group feel superior. It begins when we listen to someone whose experiences differ from ours without assuming that difference makes that person an enemy. It begins when we support honest dialogue, invest in our communities, participate in important decisions, and look for opportunities to build rather than destroy. No single person can repair every division, but each of us can decide whether to make those divisions worse or help create a better way forward.

I will continue to speak about these issues because I believe they deserve attention. Living in Ghana has given me experiences that shape my perspective, just as my years in America shaped the person I am today. I do not claim that my experiences represent everybody’s reality, and I do not expect everyone to agree with every conclusion I reach. But I do believe we must be able to discuss our future without turning every conversation into a contest over who deserves to be respected. We have too much to learn, too much to build, and too much at stake to keep allowing hostility to consume our attention.

So I want you to leave this conversation with one question in your mind: WHO BENEFITS WHEN WE FIGHT EACH OTHER? Do not accept the first answer that comes to you, and do not let anybody else think for you. Examine the evidence, look beyond the headlines, and consider the consequences of the stories you repeat. If we can learn to recognize the forces that profit from our anger, we can begin to reclaim the attention, judgment, and cooperation needed to build something better. This is LanceScurvX, reminding you that our differences are real, but they do not have to become our destruction. Much love to you all, and on to the next one.

Subscribe now

THE WAR AGAINST BLACK UNITY: WHO PROFITS WHEN…