In bullfights, to get a bull to charge, the matador waves a red cape in front of it. Supposedly, when the bull sees red, it becomes enraged. Similarly, among humans, certain words cause people to “see red” and become enraged. The words that evoke this response differ among different people. The word “intifada” is one of those words that leads certain people to “see red.”

When people “see red,” they often become so caught up in their emotions that they are blind to anything other than the red-caped word in front of them. This is because the red triggers their instinctual fight-or-flight reaction. Physiologically, when we are in fight-or-flight mode, our focus is narrowed to what we see as the source of danger. Looking thus through tunnel vision, we are unable to see all of the other data that is available. We frame the situation through the narrowed context of the angry and fearful emotions triggered by the word.

This fight-or-flight response is a great mechanism to protect humans from actual physical danger. Unfortunately, it has become an obstacle to creating connections across differences. When we see red, we stop asking questions and either go on the offensive, attacking the person who uttered the word that we find offensive, or become defensive, distancing ourselves from the person and building up walls to keep them away.

If we are ever going to be able to work through our differences, we need to be able to sit in dialogue together without resorting to either fighting or fleeing. Both of these responses result in further disconnection rather than enhanced understanding and, eventually, peace.

While I understand that the word “intifada” may be offensive to a number of people, it is unfortunate that the fact that it made them “see red” led to the resignation of Debbie Almontaser, the Khalil Gibran International Academy’s founding principal.

When we experience ourselves and others seeing red, we have to find ways to override our tendencies to enter into fight-or-flight mode so we can engage each other in ongoing dialogue to overcome our differences, rather than in debate which serves to intensify them.

The way to stay in dialogue and out of debate is to share our stories. Hearing each other’s stories can provide us with a broader, more complete context and framework for perceiving and experiencing the world. When we engage in debate over the “facts,” we remain in opposition to each other because we bring different frameworks to the same set of facts. It is only through sharing our stories that we can transcend our differences and become open to different perspectives on the same set of ‘facts.”

Daniel Taylor, Ph.D., in his book, The Healing Power of Stories: Creating Yourself Through the Stories of Your Life, writes about the benefit of sharing our stories:

“Story is our best hope for flying over the chasms that separate individuals, races, genders, ages (and ages), cultures, classes, and the myriad other differences that render us unique (and potentially lonely).” (p. 12)

If the individuals and groups who were offended by the word “intifada” had called for dialogue about it rather than seeing red and demanding Debbie’s resignation, we could have had an chance to learn from each other and find common ground and connection.