The Problem

Greetings,

A short post, some thoughts on some problems in society, and what I think the the real problems are in fact. Behind every surface problem there is a real problem to be solved. Like a symptom, there is a cause, we need to attack the cause to remove the symptom completely... 

The Problem

The problem is not crime; the problem is poverty.

The problem is not poverty; the problem is greed.

The problem is not politics; the problem is greed.

The problem is not legality or policing; the problem is criminality.

The problem is not criminality; the problem is safety and respect.

The problem is not race; the problem is poverty. 

The problem is not race; the problem is diversity

The problem is not religion; the problem is extremism.

The problem is not gender, sexuality; the problem is acceptance.

The problem is not disability; the problem is inclusivity and diversity.

The problem is not race, or gender, or sexuality, or religion, or disability; the problem is respect.

The problem is not race, or gender, or sexuality, or religion, or disability; the problem is equity.

The real problem is a lack of humanity.

I was going to give an explanation for each of these points, but I think this is enough.

Cheers,

Henry.

Identifying Feature

Greetings,

People are described to one another using their identifying features. We do not get to choose how we are described to a third party, that is up to the person doing the describing. This post discusses the different identifying features that we may be described by and looks at how they may, or may not, describe who we are. Some descriptions are accurate, some are not, some features used are appropriate, some are not. This question goes to who we are as human beings.

How do you think someone would describe you? What identifying features do you think a person would use to differentiate you from the next person in the crowd? Consider this and you begin to consider how you are perceived by other people. Just think according to this, you are a list of identifying features, at least until you meet and talk with the individual, and then that list may or may not grow.

Consider a police description of an individual that they are seeking. Sex, racial profile, height, hair cut, hair colour, clothing; then there are any distinguishing marks or features, here they are talking about scars, tattoos, whether they were wearing glasses, difference in gait, method of speech, posture and so forth. Here is another list by which an individual can be defined, is this what defines them, is this who they are?

Each individual can be defined by a simple list of characteristics, a list of boxes that can be ticked or not ticked as the case may be. The same process is used for the medical profession to describe a patient and their symptoms, again they are looking for the identifying features of the malady which the individual is suffering from so they can help them, but first there are other details that are required. These details are personal details, more so than the police description. Anyone who has been to see a medical professional has a file about them listing physical characteristics, maybe this is who we are?

Then there are social characteristics and identifying features that can be identified to highlight one person from the other. Have a look at any survey and you will find a list of questions designed to put a person under a list of characteristics for classification. Gender, age, occupation, these are some very basic ones. If we go deeper then there are family questions, brother, sister, daughter, son, orphan. Even more there are cousin, grandchild, each is a defining characteristic. Friend, enemy, nationality, social class, expanding out into the wider world. Do these things define who we are?

How about titles and ranks? These are also identifying features. Doctor, captain, colonel, general, knight, each of these is a title which is linked to something in the wider world. Some of these titles are earned some of theme are bestowed, given by someone else's decree, because you were thought to be worthy. Worthy because something among your characteristics has reached their ears, and allowed them to make a determination that you deserve to be known, separated from others, separated from the "mere" Mr, Mrs, Ms, and Mx. Do these titles define who we are?  

Maybe we are defined by a combination of all these identifying features all coming together and other elements not mentioned. We are more than a person of a particular race, a person of a particular gender, a person of a particular educational level, a person of a particular occupational status, a person of a particular religious status. We are all human beings first and foremost, and this is what people forget the most easily. Beyond all of these "features" there is a core individual; a human being. Should this not be our first identifying feature and our first concern? Should we not be defined by what sort of human being we are to others?

Cheers,

Henry

Why we will never be united...

 Greetings,

There are different reasons that we cannot be divided. I have used "never" in the title, but this a strong word. It is possible, but humans will have to get over things in their nature; that thing in their nature which inflames them, that encourages them to contend with their neighbour. The problem is that we are often told how we are different and these differences are emphasised as important, we are never told how we are similar, how we are alike. These divisions separate us and encourage us to build walls between us and divide ourselves even more. There are those who encourage these divisions, who live on the conflict between one another, and it is not just our governments. Maybe there is hope for us, but it will take something, acknowledging our similarities along with our differences.

Humans like to fight...

Human beings claim that we want peace, that we want to get along with one another, but in our essence it is doubtful a truth. Our politics are about contests one political party competes against another for votes, then they spend their entire time arguing about the best way to run the nation. Even in nations where there is a single party, the party spends a large portion eliminating opposition, defending itself against detractors. We enjoy contests against one another this is evident by the prolific presence of sport and the amount of money people are paid to play against one another. We watch these games where one team competes against another, willing one team to win over the other. Other leisure activities also contain conflict within them, usually adversarial, usually against another group of human beings. This fighting nature makes it difficult for us to be united. 

Every time the fighting nature is focused outwardly, at least relatively, there are still conflicts within. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was condemned around the world. A multi-national force was gathered to stop Saddam Hussein and prevent him from possibly invading Saudi Arabia. Even with evidence of the horrors that Hussein was committing it took months for the force to be assembled. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, it was not until January 1991, that the multi-national force actually began to push the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. While this was happening, there were still demonstrations against the action; even after all the negotiations by the United Nations had failed, all the diplomatic solutions had failed. Those same demonstrations continued throughout the war, not that it lasted all that long.

We had a chance to unite when the COVID pandemic struck. Still there were arguments between nations about access to vaccines, who was going to do the research, who was going to fund the research, who was going to take the credit, who was going to receive the vaccines. This is not to mention all of the anti-vaccine, pandemic-deniers, and "freedom" seekers who were against the public health measures. Another chance for humanity to unite behind a cause, squandered by people's pet politics and personal biases and ignorance. The same which is still continuing even as I write.

Why are we divided? 

We must look at how we have been divided before we can look at why we are divided, for the how will tell us something of the why. First and foremost, when examining the human being, the first thing that divides us is sexuality, generally this is male and female, but there are also other labels which exist, transgender, for example is another label by which people are known. People are divided by the sexual organs which they possess, but the question of sexuality does not stop there.

In the question of sexuality there is also the question of attraction, to whom the individual is attracted which provides another point by which a person is divided and by which specific communities, and thus divisions are built. There is the emphasis in "normal" society of heteronormality in much of society which supposedly pushes other sexual orientations to the edge. Then other sexual orientations be they bisexual, homosexual, asexual or some other form of sexuality, form communities of their own where they believe their sexuality may be expressed freely. The building of such communities divides us.

We are supposedly divided by race. From one view, there is really one "race", the human race. This is a useful perspective as it unifies rather than divides, however the common approach to the concept is not so unifying a concept. The term race has weight politically and socially, and people will use this as a weapon to divide people to show how they are different. This word is most often tied into the word "racism" a weapon used from both sides. The word ethnicity, is a better description. Again, however, it is dividing people into groups, labelling them as different.

Tied in with ethnicity and race is history, a battleground to say the least especially when one examines the relationships between one some ethnicities and others. These histories are spot-highlighted not to identify those points where they worked together, but where they were divisive. The most often piece of history that will come up is colonialism and how indigenous peoples were treated. This is most often tied in with ethnicity or race.

Politics. Politics is can always be tied to history and ethnicity and it depends on which part of politics that a person wants to examine. Even within an ethnicity politics can divide a people. There are those who go for the right, there are those who go for the left, of politics; most often they do not find much middle ground in between. It only gets worse when it is the extreme of one or the other. Politics is often used by politicians to divide people so they can be controlled, and most people will let them.

Finally, on this list there is religion. This has been a point of division for as long as it has existed. It has been the cause of wars and acts of violence around the world, and still is today. The reason you don't hear about them is that they don't make a big enough impact in the media. Just because you are not looking doesn't mean it is not happening.

Our society is divided by these things and remains divided by these things even at the most important times. Black Lives Matter emphasised the division by race in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and the problems of the division by race, among other things; there were issues within issues. We remain divided by issues of sexuality because there is an element of wanting to know what other people are doing, rather than allowing others privacy, and leaving other people to their way. Why does it matter what someone else is doing in their bedroom if you're not there, and not involved? The problem is that these divisions are perpetuated. 

Divisions perpetuated...

Conflicts are celebrated, or at least the victories of these conflicts are celebrated. These celebrations perpetuate the divisions between people. Battle of Adwa decisive battle of Ethiopia over Italian colonialism. Here we see a celebration of a battle between one ethnic group over another, the raising of an issue which is over a century old, celebrating the victory over colonialism. The same is seen in other parts of the world. The celebration of the Cinco de Mayo is the same, in this case it is the Mexican victory over the French, though many of the tourists who visit to celebrate the holiday have no idea what they are celebrating and are just joining in. The same can be said of many celebrations.

There is a big celebration in Australia which occurs every year, and every year it causes contention. That celebration is Australia Day, it was originally meant to celebrate the landing of the English in Australia; it has since become simply a celebration of being Australian in many Australian's eyes. For the indigenous population of Australia it is often referred to as "Invasion Day" due to the perceived celebration of the invasion of their native land. Once again, a celebration which marks a divisive element it society, though there has been ideas to change it. But there is obviously a division by ethnicity which is hard to close.

The issues in Australia are a problem, this is not to be denied. There is a process which needs to be followed and reconciliation which is required to mend the bridges, and some progress has been made. The issue is that there are elements who will perpetuate the differences, who will always claim that there is an issue, who will always claim there is more to be done. There is also the necessity of both sides to come together, to unite. If the problems are perpetuated, if there is no forgiveness in response to the apology, then there is no reconciliation and it will never end.

Poking the bear...

For some reason people enjoy provoking others to respond either to their side, or to show themselves as being against their position; this is primarily to start discussion, highlighting a particular cause. In some cases this is deliberate because they want to highlight the cause that they are passionate about, in other cases it is because they simply want to start discussion, because they enjoy discussion.

There is nothing wrong with lively discussion, even good reasoned argument, when those arguments turn nasty is when there are real problems and divisions are exposed. These divisions can be reduced by the two people agreeing to disagree, but most often they are not; both sides will pick their points and continue to argue their points until the division widens between them and there is a long way back to seeing that they have similarities as well as differences.

Issues should be raised, be they social or political, when they are appropriate, i.e. when they are relevant to the situation, but issues are often raised when a current situation has nothing to do with the  issue raised. A situation is sometimes turned to that particular person's political or social bend so they can highlight their particular social issue, to beat their drum about the social issue. This often causes more division than it does highlight the issue, especially when the issue was not of a concern to begin with; often it results in people being wary about what they speak about with that person, erecting walls, dividing once again.

These issues are often raised for one of two reasons, to make the person look important, to inject themselves into the situation and make themselves the centre of attention, or for making some political or social point. The last one is the most often case with politicians and activists, but it can also occur in normal life situations. Issues are raised just for the pure purpose of highlighting injustices done. Once again, due to the arguments that ensue such issues usually don't result in rational discussion but emotional argument dividing rather than uniting. 

All bad news?

Is it all bad news? Can we never be united? Is there never a time when we can be united, is it never possible for people to come together united? Is there no way?

What has been presented are the ways in which we are not united and the reasons that we have problems uniting. It comes down to a very simple problem; we are too busy looking for reasons that we are different to one another. These differences were presented at the beginning of this discussion. These differences do not acknowledge the things about us that are the same.

We are all human beings.

We all live on this planet.

We all breathe the same air.

We all deserve certain human rights (this one covers a lot of things).

We all have relatively short lives (in comparison to the length of history).

We all have dreams and aspirations.

We all laugh, cry, and smile.

We all have our good days, and our bad.

We all have days when we work hard, and others when we are lazy.

We all want to be well-liked.

Here are ten things that we all have in common. These are things which every human being on the planet shares with every other human being on the planet. If this is not a place to start uniting, then our future truly is bleak. Everyone feels small and helpless looking at the state of the world. You don't have to be a world leader to start the healing, start with a person you know. Talk to them, find commonality with them, acknowledge your differences, but also acknowledge where you are the same. Step outside find another person, do the same thing. Greet people on the street with a friendly smile, bring friendship to the stranger, treat the person in the shop with kindness; if everyone did these small acts all the time the world would be a much nicer place and people would realise they are more alike than they knew.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Too Many "-ists" ... and Mostly Extreme"-ists"

Greetings,

There has been much said in the media about politics and religion over the past months, indeed over the past years. It seems that we are in a period of history in which tension, in one form or another, is the "normal" state of being. Is it any wonder that we have global rates of suicide increasing every year? Politics and religion seem to, once again, or even permanently have been mixed up together.

There just seems to be too much of each within the other. Religion seems to have gone political and politics have become, in many instances, of a religious nature, or at least based on a particular religion. This is not even the real problem. It is just scratching the surface of the problem in my view. The problem is extremism.

The problem is extremism in all of its forms. It does not matter whether it is religious extremism of political extremism. When a position is taken where there the options are "Us" and "Them" and nothing in between there becomes no place for negotiation no place where compromise can be made so agreement can be had. I has been said that uncompromising people are easy to admire. They are also easy to hate as well, and this is also the problem, such extremism breeds with it the seeds of hate.

What there is are too many "-ists" that people tie themselves to and too many radicals of these "-ists", and it does not matter what form of "-ist" it is. Once a radical position is taken where everything concerns this particular "-ist" and can be turned to be about this particular "-ist" then there are problems. Once the views about this "-ist" become radicalised there are problems because there is very little room to move, the word extrem-ist becomes appropriate.

The easy one, at this point in history to point at is fundamental-ist. For the most part when this word is used the first thought is regard to Muslims, and the various acts of terror which have been more recently perpetrated around the world. But, a person must be cautious because the same word can also be applied to Christian, and then a person can talk about Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidians. With regard to fundamental-ists, there are very few religions that can claim absolute purity that they have not had theirs.

So, religion and fundamental-ists, are not a great thing, but the "-ists" of politics are not so squeaky clean either. So we can point to the obvious "dangerous" one anarch-ist, had most of their "fun" back in the nineteenth century with a small spate of activity which was claimed anarchist in the 1960s. There were social-ist terrorists who went on sprees throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. These are but a few examples, of course there is also the environmental-ist, which for most people brings to thought the peace-loving flower-children, but not all of them were. The history books are dotted with examples of what is called eco-terrorism. In each case the radical element of these "-ists" took it upon themselves to perform criminal acts to make their points. In all cases they are extrem-ists.

Where does this leave us? The most important "-ist" that people should be concerned with is coex-ist. This is not possible where there are lines drawn and two distinct sides and "Us" and "Them" determined. In every case there must be room for negotiation and compromise on both sides. There needs to be room for at least the acceptance of the other's point of view, even if there is no agreement. Extremism in all its forms is damaging. Extreme positions about subjects leave little room for negotiation and differing points of view.

"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking
and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition." - Wikipedia

A new definition for humanism needs to be coined, focussing on the individual whose focus is on humanity, and the humanity in each individual. This is the sort of thought that we need to day a thought process which overrides politics and religion and focuses on the common aspects of humanity to find the commonality amongst us all. This individual would in their most radical form be of a sort to seek what universal commonality can be found amongst all and how to achieve this.

In light of recent occurrences in New Zealand, we must take a stand against all forms of terrorism regardless of its cause, political or religious. This is to demonstrate to those who would attempt to use such methods that it is not a legitimate means of  getting what they want. Thus we must take a stand against all forms of terror tactics which would attempt to subvert our way of life or our thoughts.

Each form of terror tactic feeds another which feeds another in an endless cycle of  fear and oppression, it is up to us to take a stand against it NOW. The easiest way of taking this stand is through denial. We deny the terrorist their names in public. We deny them publication of their manifestos. We deny them publication of their acts.

What this also means that we need to take a stand against much of our modern media who use such sensationalist stories to prop up their ratings. They would claim that they are merely informing their public of what is happening with regard to the incident and the results of it, but it is not. If this was the case then why does the same story get played over and over again? Why does every story for the next week get related back to the same incident? Having such material in our faces does nothing but increase the tension in our communities. Switch them off. Having such material causes distress to those who may have been involved or who know those who were involved. Don't share their stories. Terrorism feeds on publicity and modern media is feeding it. Don't feed it, starve it. Let our media outlets know that will not be party to it.

If you need to talk about the incidents, talk about the victims and the families. These are the people who need our support. Deny the terrorist name and fame. Let them be forgotten. Let the real heroes of the day be remembered. The greatest effect of the stand can only be achieve through unity. Not one faith, or one colour or one gender, or one ethnicity, but the unity of all humanity.

Cheers,

Henry.