As 2013 comes to a close, every television channel is coming up with
all kinds of lists of the best, the worst, the coolest, the most impressive,
etc... Of all the lists I have so far seen, Zach Sobiech from Minnesota stood out as the most inspiring.
Zach Sobiech was diagnosed with osteosarcoma at age 14 in 2009. Osteosarcoma is an aggressive form of bone cancer that affects mostly children. As he went through a long series of surgeries and several rounds of chemotherapy, Zach chose to deal with this stressful period by writing songs, singing and making a band 'A Firm Handshake' with friends.
In May 2012, Zach's osteosarcoma was found to have spread further and doctors informed him and his family that he had just about an year to live. It is during that time he wrote this beautiful song called 'Clouds'. With the help of their local radio station KS95 Zach was able to record the song and make a video of it, which was put on Youtube in December 2012. The sincere poignancy of the lyrics and the sweet catchy tune of the song very quickly captured the hearts of so many viewers that the video had more then 3 million views when Zach passed away on May 20th 2013, two weeks after his eighteenth birthday.
In his short yet purposeful life, not only Zach showed patience, strength and optimism, but he also dedicated efforts to set up 'The Zach Sobiech Osteosarcoma Fund at Children’s Cancer Research Fund. He had proceeds from his music and fundraisers in his honor to the fund, so that other children may have a better fighting chance against osteosarcoma.
Here is his song 'Clouds'
In the end, I would like to thank Zach for reminding all of us how foolish it is to let petty little problems in our daily life bring us down when there so much to bring us up up up!
Rest In Peace dear Zach Sobiech.
P.S:
Zach Sobiech Osteosarcoma Fun ( Children's Research Fund)
Transcript: Zach Sobiech on CNN's 'Extraordinary People'
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Saturday, November 30, 2013
We must break free from Black Friday!!
So every year millions of Americans celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday. Although the roots of Thanksgiving can be traced to religious and cultural traditions, in the United States it has taken the form of a secular celebration of family, friends, abundance of food, health and good fortune. Most people travel across the country to get together with family and friends and get a chance to create rich memories together. They enjoy a nice long weekend together and cherish the opportunity to leave their daily rut behind and just relax together with loved ones. It is a chance to stop and smell the roses and be grateful for all that is good in life.
But slowly yet surely corporate America has hijacked this beautiful and graceful holiday and converted it into a weekend of shopping frenzy and madness. The media bombards the public with promises of unearthly deals never to be seen again, unbelievable prizes to early shoppers, the more you spend the more you save and so on.... The pressure of shopping on Black Friday is so intense that even children have started to believe that shopping on Friday is part and parcel of the Thanksgiving Holiday. Thus like zombies with no thought process of their own, majority of Americans rush through their Thanksgiving feast and head out to line up outside stores of choice. They forget that eating together as a big family and enjoying the food and real family time was the initial purpose of Thanksgiving! That purpose has been lost, now the purpose as dictated by corporate America's supercharged marketing and advertising is shopping for things you don't really need and spending money you don't really have!
It is a sad state of affairs, considering the fact that millions of Americans are still reeling from the recent economic depression, many have no jobs yet, many are in debt up to their necks yet they will go to the mall and spend and spend and spend, all the while thinking they are saving!! But saving what? If you spend $30 and save $10 on it, you still paid the $20 which you didn't really need to. It is scary to see how bad most Americans are at seeing the real truth. We do not have to buy something just so we can say we have it, we should buy what we really are in need of to sustain a healthy and safe life, everything else is luxury.
But I guess children born in the once land of plenty wouldn't know that , would they? Unfortunately no one has told them and nor have they realized it for themselves that the US is no longer the land of plenty in the real sense. It is time to educate the American public to make money wise decision and not allow big corporations and designer labels tell them what they need to buy or own, instead it is time for them to make their own decision and take control of their financial mess.
P.S: I wrote this post after reading news about the violence seen this Black Friday and also reading an article on BBC World "The Dark Side of Black Friday". Here are links to both;
Black Friday shopping in US marred by violence
The dark side of Black Friday
But slowly yet surely corporate America has hijacked this beautiful and graceful holiday and converted it into a weekend of shopping frenzy and madness. The media bombards the public with promises of unearthly deals never to be seen again, unbelievable prizes to early shoppers, the more you spend the more you save and so on.... The pressure of shopping on Black Friday is so intense that even children have started to believe that shopping on Friday is part and parcel of the Thanksgiving Holiday. Thus like zombies with no thought process of their own, majority of Americans rush through their Thanksgiving feast and head out to line up outside stores of choice. They forget that eating together as a big family and enjoying the food and real family time was the initial purpose of Thanksgiving! That purpose has been lost, now the purpose as dictated by corporate America's supercharged marketing and advertising is shopping for things you don't really need and spending money you don't really have!
It is a sad state of affairs, considering the fact that millions of Americans are still reeling from the recent economic depression, many have no jobs yet, many are in debt up to their necks yet they will go to the mall and spend and spend and spend, all the while thinking they are saving!! But saving what? If you spend $30 and save $10 on it, you still paid the $20 which you didn't really need to. It is scary to see how bad most Americans are at seeing the real truth. We do not have to buy something just so we can say we have it, we should buy what we really are in need of to sustain a healthy and safe life, everything else is luxury.
But I guess children born in the once land of plenty wouldn't know that , would they? Unfortunately no one has told them and nor have they realized it for themselves that the US is no longer the land of plenty in the real sense. It is time to educate the American public to make money wise decision and not allow big corporations and designer labels tell them what they need to buy or own, instead it is time for them to make their own decision and take control of their financial mess.
P.S: I wrote this post after reading news about the violence seen this Black Friday and also reading an article on BBC World "The Dark Side of Black Friday". Here are links to both;
Black Friday shopping in US marred by violence
The dark side of Black Friday
Monday, November 25, 2013
Lady Gaga's Dilemma....
We all know that shocking the US television audience is the way to notoriety and fame. There was a time when pure musical talent and skill got you rich and famous but that doesn't work as well anymore. The more risqué and inappropriate according to norm the more likely it will get you the attention and boost your career needs, specially if you are lacking in real talent!
In the 1980s Madonna understood that, she broke all rules of public decency and propriety with 'Like a virgin', she pushed limits of acceptable display of sexuality and nudity to kickstart her career, everytime she felt ignored she went one step further towards obscenity and got success and fame as a result.
Her legacy has been kept alive by various desperate starlets over the years like Jennifer Lopez, Britney Spears, Rihanna to name a few. They used the same tactics and it worked for most of them. All they needed was to put on a shocking sexually charged performance and their faces hit the front pages. Many more tried the same tricks, some were successful while others failed miserably, remember Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction for example.
Then in 2008 came Lady Gaga, she took Madonna's shock system to a whole new level! She decided to hide her face behind ghastly masks while showing pretty much every thing else at first. So it was sexuality presented with a touch of intrigue, leading to her fast climb to fame and fortune. She regularly put on extravagant and disturbingly weird performances on all award shows, keeping her audience hooked. She reinforced the drama by wearing the strangest and skimpiest outfits whenever and wherever possible. It was working superbly for her. She was probably planning to ride that wave for while. She seemed to know exactly how to gradually push the envelope on propriety and yet get away with it, she was in control.
But suddenly Miley Cyrus happened. Yes the same young country singer pushed to the forefront of teen music with a nice big nudge from dad Billy Ray Cyrus. Unfortunately it appears that nudge was way too much for her to handle, leading to the total disintegration of the teen darling and her transformation into the sex crazed industry rebel. Starting off at the MTV music awards 2013 gyrating with tacky old Robin Thicke on the stage and sticking out her disturbingly long tongue made her the 'twerking' sensation of the world! If anyone thought that was it, they were in for a huge surprise, yes I am talking about the video to her new single 'Wrecking ball'. After seeing her swinging buck naked on a wrecking ball, there is little left to imagination.
That is where I see Lady Gaga facing a huge dilemma, what to do next? Once all of the clothes have come off, what is left to show or shock the world?
No wonder actual artists like Annie Lennox have spoken up and called these acts pornographic.
Here is an excerpt of her post on her Facebook page "I have to say that I'm disturbed and dismayed by the recent spate of overtly sexualised performances and videos," she wrote. "You know the ones I'm talking about. It seems obvious that certain record companies are peddling highly styled pornography with musical accompaniment …
"It's depressing to see how these performers are so eager to push this new level of low. Their assumption seems to be that misogyny – utilised and displayed through oneself – is totally fine, as long as you are the one creating it. As if it's all justified by how many millions of dollars and YouTube hits you get from behaving like pimp and prostitute at the same time. It's a glorified and monetised form of self harm."
So far Lady Gaga is dabbling in different cheap versions of her trashy and obscene performances to date, and it might be it unless of course the FCC decides to just drop the laws on Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts, which are pretty much ignored anyway.
P.S: I was going to post pics to go along with the post, but decided against it. Just didn't feel right.
FCC Federal Communication Commission (Laws on Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts)
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Any moral compass for Facebook in this case?
The recent string of headlines, about Facebook
and its wavering decision on allowing graphic beheading videos, have
been somewhat perturbing. My question : Is there any moral compass influencing these flip flop decisions?
I am starting to think 'No this has nothing to do with moral values and everything to do with Facebook's business savvy and their fear of losing customers'. Here are some of those confusing headlines, now you can decide for yourself.
Facebook U-turn after charities criticise decapitation videos (BBC World-May 1, 2013)
Facebook has said it will delete videos of people being decapitated which had been spread on its site.
"We will remove instances of these videos that are reported
to us while we evaluate our policy and approach to this type of
content," it said. (Full story)Outrage erupts over Facebook's decision on graphic videos (CNN Money-October 23, 2013)
Facebook has stirred up a storm with a controversial decision to lift a ban on violent videos, including beheadings. A temporary ban on graphic content was imposed in May following complaints about videos which depicted people being decapitated. Facebook removed the reported videos and said it was reviewing its policy on this type of graphic content. Now the company has relaxed its stance. It will allow violent content such as beheadings to be published, provided the intent is to raise awareness rather than celebrate violence. (Full Story)
Facebook removes beheading video, updates violent images standards (NBC News-Oct. 23,2013)
Facebook Inc removed a video of a woman being beheaded from its website
on Tuesday and said it would use a broader set of criteria to
determine when gory videos are permitted on the site. The move came a day after a public outcry over news reports that
Facebook, the world's No. 1 social network with 1.15 billion members,
had lifted a temporary ban on images of graphic violence. (Full Story)
Facebook defends allowing beheadings footage to continue (BBC World-November 19, 2013)
Facebook
will continue to
allow users to show footage of beheadings as long as it is posted in
"the right context", MPs have heard. The social network site has been
criticised for allowing such
images to be shown, amid warnings they could cause psychological
damage. Facebook's UK and Ireland policy director Simon Milner said the
footage could expose human rights abuses. There would also be "more
prior warnings" on content, he added. But the Incorporated Society of
British Advertisers (ISBA) accused Facebook of lacking a sense of
"responsibility". The US-based company introduced a temporary ban on
decapitation clips in May, but announced last month that it believed
users should be free to watch them. (Full Story)
What do you think now?
George Leigh Mallory - An extraordinary man!
Like most of us, I had only heard of Sir Edmund Hillary, as the first
man to reach the summit of Mount Everest 29,100 feet (8,848 metres). It
was only after reading "Paths of Glory" a book by Jeffrey Archer based
on the life of George Leigh Mallory did I find out about the real hero
of Everest and thought I'd share his story with all my friends.George Leigh Mallory born 18 June 1886 in Cheshire, England, was a man of unparalleled skills at mountain climbing. He had conquered all the highest peaks in Europe by 1913. He then had his sights on Mount Everest, his reason for wanting to climb Everest ""Because it's there".
In the words of one of his climbing partners "In watching George at work one was conscious not so much of physical strength as of suppleness and balance; so rhythmical and harmonious was his progress in any steep place ... that his movements appeared almost serpentine in their smoothness."
George Mallory led the first three British expeditions to Mount Everest.
On the first expedition in 1921, , Mallory became the first human recorded to have set foot on the actual mountain by climbing up to the saddle of the North Ridge(the North Col, 23,000-ft, 7000m).
On the second expedition in 1922,Mallory almost reached the crest of the North-East ridge with his climbing partners Howard Somervell and Edward Norton. Inspite of the thin air at that altitude, they achieved a record altitude of 26,985 ft (8,225 m) before weather conditions and the late hour forced them to retreat. Although that height was surpassed by George Finch who with Mallory led a second attempt up to, but he used bottled oxygen, which was highly criticized & discarded by all as an unacceptable aid.
On the third expedition in 1924, he led another attempt to reach the top of the world with Andrew Irvine, a fine athletic young man just 22 yrs old. Mallory himself was 37.They used oxygen, Mallory having given up his original scepticism by his failure on the initial assault and the very rapid ascent speed of Finch in 1922. The last time they were seen was by a member of his climbing team Noel Odell. His testimony:
"At 12.50, just after I had emerged from a state of jubilation at finding the first definite fossils on Everest, there was a sudden clearing of the atmosphere, and the entire summit ridge and final peak of Everest were unveiled. My eyes became fixed on one tiny black spot silhouetted on a small snow-crest beneath a rock-step in the ridge; the black spot moved. Another black spot became apparent and moved up the snow to join the other on the crest. The first then approached the great rock-step and shortly emerged at the top; the second did likewise. Then the whole fascinating vision vanished, enveloped in cloud once more."
The two never returned. Whether they ever reached the summit has been subject to constant speculation. After multiple failed search expeditions for the next 75 years , the body of George Leigh Mallory was found at 26,760 feet (8,160 m) on the north face of the mountain in 1999. The body of Andrew Irvine has yet to be found.
Mount Everest was finally conquered (complete ascent and descent)by Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay ( a sherpa) in 1953 some 20 yrs later.
But what makes George Mallory and his team mates extraordinary men is the fact that they achieved such heights as 27,000 ft, without any of the professional gear(including oxygen) used by later expeditions. What they had was their sheer skill, endurance and perseverance.
In 1995, Mallory's grandson also named George Mallory reached the summit of Everest with six other climbers as part of the American Everest Expedition. He left a picture of his grandparents at the summit citing 'Unfinished business'.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Why I stand by my ban on toy guns, violent games and violent movies in my house!
I know some people including my own brother think that I have it wrong, exposure to guns specially toy guns doesn't make a child less sensitive to gun violence. Playing violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty doesn't necessarily make you a violent person.
But every time I see headlines like the following, the more strongly I feel about the affect of unnecessary exposure to violence and the more aware I become of the dangers of making children think that a gun could be a toy or killing and shooting at people could be a game.
3 Students Shot Near Brashear High School In Pittsburgh ( Nov 13,2013 Huff Post)
Police: 20 children among 26 victims of Connecticut school shooting ( Dec. 15, 2012 CNN US)
Man Shoots 11, Killing 5 Girls, in Amish School (Oct 3, 2006 NY Times)
And these are just a few of the mass shooting incidents that have occurred since the April 1999 Columbine shooting. There are more than 28 such shootings on record, and disturbingly enough victims include young children.
Another way that today's children are over exposed to violence is through movies. A recent study published in the scientific journal Pediatrics after researches analyzed the 30 top-grossing films every year from 1950 to 2012, concluded that the gun violence in PG-13 movies has tripled over time. The overall violence has doubled.
I do realize that taking toy gun, graphic violent games and movies away will not guarantee a decrease in violence but I do think it might help prevent our future generations from becoming totally immune and acclimatized to violence and killing in general.
More on the American Academy of Pediatrics study
Gun violence in PG-13 movies has tripled (Read full story)
But every time I see headlines like the following, the more strongly I feel about the affect of unnecessary exposure to violence and the more aware I become of the dangers of making children think that a gun could be a toy or killing and shooting at people could be a game.
3 Students Shot Near Brashear High School In Pittsburgh ( Nov 13,2013 Huff Post)
Police: 20 children among 26 victims of Connecticut school shooting ( Dec. 15, 2012 CNN US)
At least 12 dead, 59 injured in Colorado theater shooting during 'Dark Knight Rises' (July 20,2012 Fox News)
US police name suspect in Oakland college shooting (April 3, 2012 BBC)
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot in Tucson rampage; federal judge killed ( Jan 8, 2011 Washington Post)
Worst U.S shooting ever kills 33 on VA campus ( April 16, 2007 NBC News)
And these are just a few of the mass shooting incidents that have occurred since the April 1999 Columbine shooting. There are more than 28 such shootings on record, and disturbingly enough victims include young children.
Another way that today's children are over exposed to violence is through movies. A recent study published in the scientific journal Pediatrics after researches analyzed the 30 top-grossing films every year from 1950 to 2012, concluded that the gun violence in PG-13 movies has tripled over time. The overall violence has doubled.
I do realize that taking toy gun, graphic violent games and movies away will not guarantee a decrease in violence but I do think it might help prevent our future generations from becoming totally immune and acclimatized to violence and killing in general.
More on the American Academy of Pediatrics study
Film gun violence has tripled since 1985 - study (Read full story)
The lines are blurred in far too many ways!!
Wondering what I am talking about, it's sleazy Robin Thicke's
summer hit " Blurred Lines". Yes, that supposedly upbeat party song,
which was blasted by almost all radio stations all summer long. Everyone
seemed to love it, but how many of you actually listened to what was
being said in the song? If you did, believe me you probably wouldn't
want your sons and daughters listening and singing along to this clearly
obscene song. I am saying that because I actually read the lyrics to
the whole song.
The reason I did that is I learned to pay attention to lyrics when I became a mom to three boys. I like listening to all kinds of music when driving, I love jamming my favs on the radio when going on long drives. Honestly speaking, I didn't really pay attention to the lyrics of the songs, if they had a fun beat, nice rhythm I'd put it on, without a thought. Then one day I heard my preschooler trying to sing along with Lil Jon's song " Get low", I was mortified!! That was not the kind of song a preschooler should be singing! I started paying attention to the words of the songs , there were far too many channels playing songs with sexually charged lyrics, the more I became conscious of the content of songs the more I was shocked. Hence I decided to listen to NPR or my own selection of music CDs mostly, and only sometimes to songs ( I knew lyrics to) on other radio channels.
The reason I did that is I learned to pay attention to lyrics when I became a mom to three boys. I like listening to all kinds of music when driving, I love jamming my favs on the radio when going on long drives. Honestly speaking, I didn't really pay attention to the lyrics of the songs, if they had a fun beat, nice rhythm I'd put it on, without a thought. Then one day I heard my preschooler trying to sing along with Lil Jon's song " Get low", I was mortified!! That was not the kind of song a preschooler should be singing! I started paying attention to the words of the songs , there were far too many channels playing songs with sexually charged lyrics, the more I became conscious of the content of songs the more I was shocked. Hence I decided to listen to NPR or my own selection of music CDs mostly, and only sometimes to songs ( I knew lyrics to) on other radio channels.
So when this summer "
Blurred lines" was playing in every possible place, I was very worried
to notice that few seemed to even realize how obscene and disturbingly
graphic the lyrics were and had lyrics insinuating that aggression and
violence go along with consensual sex and relationships. I started
asking myself, is our society so immune to such blatant social
degradation?
Then today I saw The Guardian news headline "Blurred Lines: the most controversial song of the decade" and
as I read on, the news piece was about the song being banned by
University College London student union thus joining some 20 other such
student bodies in the UK. It also mentions outcry by several US
organizations such as Slutwalk about the explicit and violent nature of
the song's lyrics. It was a relief to know that others besides myself
had issues with this song, others were also worried to see the immunity
of the public to songs. There are still people and organizations out
there fighting to uphold certain levels of decency, morality and
civility. There is hope!
The full article in The Guardian
Blurred Lines: the most controversial song of the decade
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Paper books are still my favorites!
I am sure you have guessed by now that I am an avid reader. I think I have never not been reading a book. As an early reader read all the Enid Blyton series ( Noddy, The Famous Five, Malory Towers, The Secret Seven etc.) As a teenager delved into Classic English literature with Daphne Du Maurier, Bronte Sisters, E. M Forster, Graham Greene, Somerset Maugham, George Eliot and endless others. Read plenty of P.G Wodehouse, Agatha Christie, Robert Ludlum, Jeffrey Archer on the side.
Most of the authors I liked I bought the books of, and so I still have many with me. When I see those books I don't only remember the storyline but I also remember the time when I read it, who gave it to me or where I bought it, how it was a companion in those days.
I still have the book all my classmates from 6th grade autographed and gifted me when we moved to a different city. I also still possess Hemingway's "True at first light", the first book my husband bought me and wrote a sweet love note on the first page. That was when we visited the Ernest Hemingway house in Key West, Florida.
Then in my twenties ventured into more heavier stuff such as Thomas Hardy, John Steinbeck, Margaret Atwood and also started reading translated works of well known authors like Ben Okri, Paulo Coehlo, Jose Saramago. So as you can see my reading choices changed and evolved as I was maturing and evolving too.
Most of the authors I liked I bought the books of, and so I still have many with me. When I see those books I don't only remember the storyline but I also remember the time when I read it, who gave it to me or where I bought it, how it was a companion in those days.I still have the book all my classmates from 6th grade autographed and gifted me when we moved to a different city. I also still possess Hemingway's "True at first light", the first book my husband bought me and wrote a sweet love note on the first page. That was when we visited the Ernest Hemingway house in Key West, Florida.
Then about a year back, I was going through a bad patch when I saw 'Game of Thrones' by R.R.Martin at the bookstore, I had obviously heard the name and decided to buy it. I started reading it rather skeptical of it's fame but this book pulled me in, R.R.Martin's story writing just transported me into this phantasmal world of deception, scheming, swords, magic and dragons. It allowed me to escape from my blues long enough to heal and move on. I read the whole series up to the latest work 'Dance with Dragons' within a month or so. But now I have this special association with those five books, they were there for me when I was down and needed a boost.
I am sure that I am not the only with a story like this one. My books are just like old friends to me, they are always there for me to go to when I need them. This is why I will always buy paper books, keep them and treat them with the love and respect they deserve.
I am sure that I am not the only with a story like this one. My books are just like old friends to me, they are always there for me to go to when I need them. This is why I will always buy paper books, keep them and treat them with the love and respect they deserve.
Postscript:
I decided to write this piece when I saw this headline on BBC World this morning;Amazon e-book offer riles independent bookshop owners
Bookshop
owners have hit back at an initiative by Amazon to sell its Kindle
e-book reader in independent shops. The Amazon Source programme,
launching first in the US, would let
bookshops sell the devices and receive a small cut of e-book sales
thereafter. ( Read Whole article)
The
gist of it being that Amazon is working hard to discourage people from
buying books, that is real books, you know the one actually printed on
paper and bound. The ones we can hold, open instantly at two different
places, the ones that we sometime dedicate or gift to someone, the one
we get authors to autograph, the ones that have passed down to us
through the generations, yes those real precious and valuable books.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
The Power Of Words
I recently watched the video for Emeli Sandé's new song "My Kind Of Love". I have always enjoyed her voice, which is intense and beautiful, but this song came with just as nice a video.
It starts off with bullets hitting a car's windshield. It took me a few seconds before I realized what was really being shot, it wasn't bullets but words, words full of anger, hatred, meanness, and indifference. As I watched the video the Spanish proverb 'A word from the mouth is like a stone from a sling.' came to mind. Think of all the times carelessly spoken words have lead to pain, anguish, heartbreak, despair, hopelessness, anger, and many a times ended precious relationships and friendships.
We all have been at the receiving end of such verbal attacks and remember most of those occasions vividly, but sadly enough we have been at the shooting end too and yet rarely remember those reckless moments. Usually when dealing with strangers I am more careful with my words. On the other hand, when angry with someone I care about, I have to admit that I get quite mean and petty, I say things I know will get to the other person and probably hurt them and at that moment that is my intention. Even though later I only feel emotionally drained, tired, guilty and full of regret.
In my efforts to become a better and wiser person, over the years I have learned to change my arguing tactics, so now instead of lashing out without restrain when mad I try to get up and walk away as soon as I detect that anger rising in me. When possible I actually go walk outside which is great, it takes the rage out of me, and it allows me to think out how to get just my point across and not have it lost in a barrage of words shot out uselessly. Do I do it everytime? No I don't but I try and will keep on training myself to do it.
All I need, we all need to remember is "nescit vox missa reverti" (A word once spoken can never be recalled.)
I agree and therefore I will strive to use my words more wisely and constructively, and I will try to teach this to my sons too and save them loads of guilt and regret.
Here is the video " My Kind of Love"
It starts off with bullets hitting a car's windshield. It took me a few seconds before I realized what was really being shot, it wasn't bullets but words, words full of anger, hatred, meanness, and indifference. As I watched the video the Spanish proverb 'A word from the mouth is like a stone from a sling.' came to mind. Think of all the times carelessly spoken words have lead to pain, anguish, heartbreak, despair, hopelessness, anger, and many a times ended precious relationships and friendships.
We all have been at the receiving end of such verbal attacks and remember most of those occasions vividly, but sadly enough we have been at the shooting end too and yet rarely remember those reckless moments. Usually when dealing with strangers I am more careful with my words. On the other hand, when angry with someone I care about, I have to admit that I get quite mean and petty, I say things I know will get to the other person and probably hurt them and at that moment that is my intention. Even though later I only feel emotionally drained, tired, guilty and full of regret.
In my efforts to become a better and wiser person, over the years I have learned to change my arguing tactics, so now instead of lashing out without restrain when mad I try to get up and walk away as soon as I detect that anger rising in me. When possible I actually go walk outside which is great, it takes the rage out of me, and it allows me to think out how to get just my point across and not have it lost in a barrage of words shot out uselessly. Do I do it everytime? No I don't but I try and will keep on training myself to do it.
All I need, we all need to remember is "nescit vox missa reverti" (A word once spoken can never be recalled.)
I agree and therefore I will strive to use my words more wisely and constructively, and I will try to teach this to my sons too and save them loads of guilt and regret.
Here is the video " My Kind of Love"
Thursday, October 31, 2013
The Unsung Virtue of Tolerance ( By E.M Forster)
The following is the speech given by E.M.Forster over radio of British Broadcasting System, July, 1941.
Many of the points he makes are relevant in today's world which is still sadly full of discrimination and persecution based on religion, ethnicity, nationality, and social class.
"EVERYBODY today is talking about reconstruction. Our enemies have their schemes for a new order in Europe, maintained by their secret police, and we on our side talk of rebuilding London or England, or western civilisation, and we make plans how this is to be done—five-year plans, or seven-year, or twenty-year. Which is all very well, but when I hear such talk, and see the architects sharpening their pencils and the contractors getting out their estimates, and the statesmen marking out their spheres of influence, and everyone getting down to the job, as it is called,a very famous text occurs to me: "Except the Lord build the house they labour in vain who build it." Beneath the poetic imagery of these words lies a hard scientific truth, namely, unless you have a sound attitude of mind, a right psychology, you cannot construct or reconstruct anything that will endure. The text is true, not only for religious people, but for workers whatever their outlook, and it is significant that one of our historians, Dr. Arnold Toynbee, should have chosen it to preface his great study of the growth and decay of civilisations.
We shall probably agree on this point; surely the only sound foundation for a civilisation is a sound state of mind. Architects, contractors, international commissioners, marketing boards, broadcasting corporations will never, by themselves, build a new world. They must be inspired by the proper spirit, and there must be the proper spirit in the people for whom they are working. For instance, we shall never have a beautiful new London until people refuse to live in ugly houses. At present, they don't mind; they demand comfort, but are indifferent to civic beauty; indeed they have no taste. I live myself in a hideous block of flats, but I can't say it worries me, and until we are worried, all schemes for reconstructing London beautifully must automatically fail.
But about the general future of civilisation we are all worried. We want to do something about it, and we agree that the basic problem is psychological, that the Lord must build if the work is to stand, that there must be a sound state of mind before diplomacy or economics or trade-conferences can function. What state of mind is sound? Here we may differ. Most people, when asked what spiritual quality is needed to rebuild civilization, will reply "Love". Men must love one another, they say; nations must do likewise, and then the series of cataclysms which is threatening to destroy us will be checked.
Respectfully but firmly, I disagree. Love is a great force in private life; it is indeed the greatest of all things: but love in public affairs simply does not work. It has been tried again and again: by the Christian civilisations of the Middle Ages, and also by the French Revolution, a secular movement which reasserted the Brotherhood of Man. And it has always failed. The idea that nations should love one another, or that business concerns or marketing boards should love one another, or that a man in Portugal, say, should love a man in Peru of whom he has never heard—it is absurd, it is unreal, worse, it is dangerous. It leads us into perilous and vague sentimentalism. "Love is what is needed," we chant, and then sit back and the world goes on as before. The fact is we can only love what we know personally. And we cannot know much. In public affairs, in the rebuilding of civilisation, something much less dramatic and emotional is needed, namely, tolerance. Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things. No one has ever written an ode to tolerance, or raised a statue to her. Yet this is the quality which will be most needed after the war. This is the sound state of mind which we are looking for. This is the only force which will enable different races and classes and interests to settle down together to the work of reconstruction.
The world is very full of people—appallingly full; it has never been so full before—and they are all tumbling over each other. Most of these people one doesn't know and some of them one doesn't like; doesn't like the colour of their skins, say, or the shapes of their noses, or the way they blow them or don't blow them, or the way they talk, or their smell or their clothes, or their fondness for jazz or their dislike of jazz, and so on. Well, what is one to do? There are two solutions. One of them is the Nazi solution. If you don't like people, kill them, banish them, segregate them, and then strut up and down proclaiming that you are the salt of the earth. The other way is much less thrilling, but it is on the whole the way of the democracies, and I prefer it. If you don't like people, put up with them as well as you can. Don't try to love them; you can't, you'll only strain yourself. But try to tolerate them. On the basis of that tolerance a civilised future may be built. Certainly I can see no other foundation for the post-war world.
For what it will most need is the negative virtues: not being huffy, touchy, irritable, revengeful. I have no more faith in positive militant ideals; they can so seldom be carried out without thousands of human beings getting maimed or imprisoned. Phrases like "I will purge this nation," "I will clean up this city," terrify and disgust me. They might not have mattered so much when the world was emptier: they are horrifying now, when one nation is mixed up with another, when one city cannot be organically separated from its neighbours. And, another point: reconstruction is unlikely to be rapid. I do not believe that we are psychologically fit for it, plan the architects never so wisely. In the long run, yes, perhaps: the history of our race justifies that hope. But civilisation has its mysterious regressions, and it seems to me that we are fated now to be in one of them, and must recognise this and behave accordingly. Tolerance, I believe, will be imperative after the establishment of peace. It's always useful to take a concrete instance: and I have been asking myself how I should behave if, after peace was signed, I met Germans who had been fighting against us. I shouldn't try to love them: I shouldn't feel inclined. They have broken a window in my little ugly flat for one thing, and they have done other things which I need not specify. But I shall try to tolerate them, because it is common-sense, because in the post-war world we shall have to live with Germans. We can't exterminate them, any more than they have succeeded in exterminating the Jews. We shall have to put up with them, not for any lofty reason, but because it is the next thing that will have to be done.
I don't then regard Tolerance as a great eternally established divine principle, though I might perhaps quote "In My Father's House are many mansions" in support of such a view. It is just a makeshift, suitable for an overcrowded and overheated planet. It carries on when love gives out, and love generally gives out as soon as we move away from our home and our friends—and stand in a queue for potatoes. Tolerance is wanted in the queue; otherwise we think, "Why will people be so slow?"; it is wanted in the tube, "Why will people be so fat?"; it is wanted at the telephone, or we say "Why are they so deaf?" or conversely, "Why do they mumble?" It is wanted in the street, in the office, at the factory, and it is wanted above all between classes, races, and nations. It's dull. And yet it entails imagination. For you have all the time to be putting yourself in someone else's place. Which is a desirable spiritual exercise.
I was saying that Tolerance has a bad press. This ceaseless effort to put up with other people seems tame, almost ignoble, so that it sometimes repels generous natures, and I don't recall many great men who have recommended it. St. Paul certainly didn't. Nor did Dante. However, a few names occur to me, and I will give them, to lend some authority to what I say. Going back over two thousand years, and to India, there is the great Buddhist Emperor Asoka, who set up inscriptions all over India, recording not his own exploits but the need for mercy and mutual understanding and peace. Going back about four hundred years, to Holland, there is the Dutch scholar Erasmus, who stood apart from the religious fanaticism of the Reformation and was abused by both parties, Catholic and Lutheran, in consequence. In the same century there was the Frenchman, Montaigne, subtle, intelligent, witty, who lived in his quiet country house and wrote essays which still delight the civilised. And England, too: there was John Locke, the philosopher; there was Sydney Smith, the Liberal and liberalising divine; there was a man who recently died, Lowes Dickinson, writer of a little book called A Modern Symposium, which might be called the Bible of Tolerance. And Germany, too—yes, Germany:
there was Goethe. All these men testify to the creed which I have been trying to express: a negative creed, but very necessary for the salvation of this crowded jostling modern world.
Two more remarks, and I have done. The first is that it's very easy to see fanaticism in other people, but difficult to spot in oneself. Take the evil of racial prejudice. We can easily detect it in the Nazis; their conduct has been infamous ever since they rose to power. But we ourselves—are we quite guiltless? We are far less guilty than they are? Yet is there no racial prejudice in the British Empire? Is there
no colour question? I ask you to consider that, those of you to whom Tolerance is more than a pious word. My other remark is to forestall a criticism. Tolerance is not the same as weakness. Putting up with people does not mean giving in to them. This complicates the problem. But the rebuilding of civilisation is bound to be complicated. I only feel certain that unless the Lord builds the House, they will labour in vain who build it. Perhaps, when the house is completed, love will enter it, and the greatest force in our private lives will also rule in public life."
By E. M. FORSTER, English Journalist and Commentator,
Delivered over radio of British Broadcasting System, July, 1941
Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. VIII, pp. 12-14
Many of the points he makes are relevant in today's world which is still sadly full of discrimination and persecution based on religion, ethnicity, nationality, and social class.
"EVERYBODY today is talking about reconstruction. Our enemies have their schemes for a new order in Europe, maintained by their secret police, and we on our side talk of rebuilding London or England, or western civilisation, and we make plans how this is to be done—five-year plans, or seven-year, or twenty-year. Which is all very well, but when I hear such talk, and see the architects sharpening their pencils and the contractors getting out their estimates, and the statesmen marking out their spheres of influence, and everyone getting down to the job, as it is called,a very famous text occurs to me: "Except the Lord build the house they labour in vain who build it." Beneath the poetic imagery of these words lies a hard scientific truth, namely, unless you have a sound attitude of mind, a right psychology, you cannot construct or reconstruct anything that will endure. The text is true, not only for religious people, but for workers whatever their outlook, and it is significant that one of our historians, Dr. Arnold Toynbee, should have chosen it to preface his great study of the growth and decay of civilisations.
We shall probably agree on this point; surely the only sound foundation for a civilisation is a sound state of mind. Architects, contractors, international commissioners, marketing boards, broadcasting corporations will never, by themselves, build a new world. They must be inspired by the proper spirit, and there must be the proper spirit in the people for whom they are working. For instance, we shall never have a beautiful new London until people refuse to live in ugly houses. At present, they don't mind; they demand comfort, but are indifferent to civic beauty; indeed they have no taste. I live myself in a hideous block of flats, but I can't say it worries me, and until we are worried, all schemes for reconstructing London beautifully must automatically fail.
But about the general future of civilisation we are all worried. We want to do something about it, and we agree that the basic problem is psychological, that the Lord must build if the work is to stand, that there must be a sound state of mind before diplomacy or economics or trade-conferences can function. What state of mind is sound? Here we may differ. Most people, when asked what spiritual quality is needed to rebuild civilization, will reply "Love". Men must love one another, they say; nations must do likewise, and then the series of cataclysms which is threatening to destroy us will be checked.
Respectfully but firmly, I disagree. Love is a great force in private life; it is indeed the greatest of all things: but love in public affairs simply does not work. It has been tried again and again: by the Christian civilisations of the Middle Ages, and also by the French Revolution, a secular movement which reasserted the Brotherhood of Man. And it has always failed. The idea that nations should love one another, or that business concerns or marketing boards should love one another, or that a man in Portugal, say, should love a man in Peru of whom he has never heard—it is absurd, it is unreal, worse, it is dangerous. It leads us into perilous and vague sentimentalism. "Love is what is needed," we chant, and then sit back and the world goes on as before. The fact is we can only love what we know personally. And we cannot know much. In public affairs, in the rebuilding of civilisation, something much less dramatic and emotional is needed, namely, tolerance. Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things. No one has ever written an ode to tolerance, or raised a statue to her. Yet this is the quality which will be most needed after the war. This is the sound state of mind which we are looking for. This is the only force which will enable different races and classes and interests to settle down together to the work of reconstruction.
The world is very full of people—appallingly full; it has never been so full before—and they are all tumbling over each other. Most of these people one doesn't know and some of them one doesn't like; doesn't like the colour of their skins, say, or the shapes of their noses, or the way they blow them or don't blow them, or the way they talk, or their smell or their clothes, or their fondness for jazz or their dislike of jazz, and so on. Well, what is one to do? There are two solutions. One of them is the Nazi solution. If you don't like people, kill them, banish them, segregate them, and then strut up and down proclaiming that you are the salt of the earth. The other way is much less thrilling, but it is on the whole the way of the democracies, and I prefer it. If you don't like people, put up with them as well as you can. Don't try to love them; you can't, you'll only strain yourself. But try to tolerate them. On the basis of that tolerance a civilised future may be built. Certainly I can see no other foundation for the post-war world.
For what it will most need is the negative virtues: not being huffy, touchy, irritable, revengeful. I have no more faith in positive militant ideals; they can so seldom be carried out without thousands of human beings getting maimed or imprisoned. Phrases like "I will purge this nation," "I will clean up this city," terrify and disgust me. They might not have mattered so much when the world was emptier: they are horrifying now, when one nation is mixed up with another, when one city cannot be organically separated from its neighbours. And, another point: reconstruction is unlikely to be rapid. I do not believe that we are psychologically fit for it, plan the architects never so wisely. In the long run, yes, perhaps: the history of our race justifies that hope. But civilisation has its mysterious regressions, and it seems to me that we are fated now to be in one of them, and must recognise this and behave accordingly. Tolerance, I believe, will be imperative after the establishment of peace. It's always useful to take a concrete instance: and I have been asking myself how I should behave if, after peace was signed, I met Germans who had been fighting against us. I shouldn't try to love them: I shouldn't feel inclined. They have broken a window in my little ugly flat for one thing, and they have done other things which I need not specify. But I shall try to tolerate them, because it is common-sense, because in the post-war world we shall have to live with Germans. We can't exterminate them, any more than they have succeeded in exterminating the Jews. We shall have to put up with them, not for any lofty reason, but because it is the next thing that will have to be done.
I don't then regard Tolerance as a great eternally established divine principle, though I might perhaps quote "In My Father's House are many mansions" in support of such a view. It is just a makeshift, suitable for an overcrowded and overheated planet. It carries on when love gives out, and love generally gives out as soon as we move away from our home and our friends—and stand in a queue for potatoes. Tolerance is wanted in the queue; otherwise we think, "Why will people be so slow?"; it is wanted in the tube, "Why will people be so fat?"; it is wanted at the telephone, or we say "Why are they so deaf?" or conversely, "Why do they mumble?" It is wanted in the street, in the office, at the factory, and it is wanted above all between classes, races, and nations. It's dull. And yet it entails imagination. For you have all the time to be putting yourself in someone else's place. Which is a desirable spiritual exercise.
I was saying that Tolerance has a bad press. This ceaseless effort to put up with other people seems tame, almost ignoble, so that it sometimes repels generous natures, and I don't recall many great men who have recommended it. St. Paul certainly didn't. Nor did Dante. However, a few names occur to me, and I will give them, to lend some authority to what I say. Going back over two thousand years, and to India, there is the great Buddhist Emperor Asoka, who set up inscriptions all over India, recording not his own exploits but the need for mercy and mutual understanding and peace. Going back about four hundred years, to Holland, there is the Dutch scholar Erasmus, who stood apart from the religious fanaticism of the Reformation and was abused by both parties, Catholic and Lutheran, in consequence. In the same century there was the Frenchman, Montaigne, subtle, intelligent, witty, who lived in his quiet country house and wrote essays which still delight the civilised. And England, too: there was John Locke, the philosopher; there was Sydney Smith, the Liberal and liberalising divine; there was a man who recently died, Lowes Dickinson, writer of a little book called A Modern Symposium, which might be called the Bible of Tolerance. And Germany, too—yes, Germany:
there was Goethe. All these men testify to the creed which I have been trying to express: a negative creed, but very necessary for the salvation of this crowded jostling modern world.
Two more remarks, and I have done. The first is that it's very easy to see fanaticism in other people, but difficult to spot in oneself. Take the evil of racial prejudice. We can easily detect it in the Nazis; their conduct has been infamous ever since they rose to power. But we ourselves—are we quite guiltless? We are far less guilty than they are? Yet is there no racial prejudice in the British Empire? Is there
no colour question? I ask you to consider that, those of you to whom Tolerance is more than a pious word. My other remark is to forestall a criticism. Tolerance is not the same as weakness. Putting up with people does not mean giving in to them. This complicates the problem. But the rebuilding of civilisation is bound to be complicated. I only feel certain that unless the Lord builds the House, they will labour in vain who build it. Perhaps, when the house is completed, love will enter it, and the greatest force in our private lives will also rule in public life."
By E. M. FORSTER, English Journalist and Commentator,
Delivered over radio of British Broadcasting System, July, 1941
Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. VIII, pp. 12-14
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Our children and their disconnect to Nature........A tragic consequence of the Digital age!
One of my fondest memories from my childhood are of our long endless walks with my mom, sometimes in the parks, sometimes just around town. We'd talk just about anything, we'd joke around, or play word games as we walked and walked and walked. But then if a breeze would make the leaves rustle, our mom would stop and make us listen and enjoy the soft sound and watch the leaves dance gently. If a bird were to sit nearby we'd pause and try to figure out it's name and species. In days of fall, we'd collect leaves in different shades of red, orange, rust and yellow. In short we were aware and connected to our surroundings..... to nature.
We loved to go on long lazy walks....walks leading no where in particular, with no time limit, and with no definite purpose except to absorb the beauty and magic of nature.
But that was the seventies and eighties, the time before the Personal computer, Nintendo, Cell phone, X- Box, PlayStation, iPad and all these electronic devices! Now is the Digital age! In today's world, texting has replaced talking, FaceTime or Skype have replaced actually meeting, emailing has replaced writing and mailing a letter, and playing with someone now means playing without ever meeting or knowing them. This is the age of maximum physical isolation and complete disconnect between man and his immediate surroundings!! Actual social interaction can be avoided to the point that you can survive without having any human interaction whatsoever!
Man has been defined as a social animal. the development of skills such as biological, social, intellectual and moral are highly influenced by the interaction with other human beings. The lack of these constant opportunities to refine basic social skills and learn new ones can only lead to men and women deficient in many of the basic social acumens essential to function in society in a productive, positive and normal way. Sadly that seems to be the direction our children are heading in. This generation is being overwhelmed and bombarded with digital and electronic alternatives to actual sports, social gatherings, friendships, family time and experiencing the fun of being outdoors. This may be saving them moments of embarrassment, confusion, disappointment, failure, loss and pain but then it is also depriving them from opportunities to learn, grow and evolve as human beings. Today's generation would rather remotely send a text, or email or maybe just de-friend others, instead of actually confronting issues, mistakes,
misunderstandings and other emotional dramas that are part of life. I have had teenagers tell me how they'd rather text some friends then to actually talk to them face to face. Even grown-ups are breaking up relationships with texts rather then telling their significant others to their face and experience the consequence of their decision first-hand!
Can someone who has played games online with you for ages but has never met you be a real friend to you? Will all your Facebook friends show up when you're in trouble and need help? When they post a heart on your page, do they really mean love? When they don't click 'Like' , does that mean they don't care? Why do human emotions have to be restricted by these shallow, erratic and thoughtless clicks or posts? Do we really want our next generations to live in such a world?
And what about the use of remote devices to fight our enemies? The use of drones for bombarding enemy targets, without a single boot on the ground is a ruthless and cowardly way to fight. Does the soldier pressing that button feel anything? Can he distinguish between killing an enemy combatant in a video game and killing a live breathing human being? Can he tell if he killed the real target or just a child playing in his backyard? Does he think of the environmental ramifications of these blasts? Will he ever see the damage, destruction and death one click might have caused? If they never experience the true reactions to their actions, the consequences of their decisions, what is going to make them stop and think before they leap?
Let's unplug those computers, let's stop buying those video games, let's explore our forest preserves, let's bring our children back to the real world and help them appreciate it by really experiencing it.Only then will they think twice about the extended consequences of their actions in life and hopefully make more responsible and humane decisions. Let us save our children by letting them live real lives with real people and thus save our world.
( This post was inspired by a recent news article on BBC News . "Just one in five children connected to nature, says study. " Here is the link to it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24532638)
We loved to go on long lazy walks....walks leading no where in particular, with no time limit, and with no definite purpose except to absorb the beauty and magic of nature.
But that was the seventies and eighties, the time before the Personal computer, Nintendo, Cell phone, X- Box, PlayStation, iPad and all these electronic devices! Now is the Digital age! In today's world, texting has replaced talking, FaceTime or Skype have replaced actually meeting, emailing has replaced writing and mailing a letter, and playing with someone now means playing without ever meeting or knowing them. This is the age of maximum physical isolation and complete disconnect between man and his immediate surroundings!! Actual social interaction can be avoided to the point that you can survive without having any human interaction whatsoever!
Man has been defined as a social animal. the development of skills such as biological, social, intellectual and moral are highly influenced by the interaction with other human beings. The lack of these constant opportunities to refine basic social skills and learn new ones can only lead to men and women deficient in many of the basic social acumens essential to function in society in a productive, positive and normal way. Sadly that seems to be the direction our children are heading in. This generation is being overwhelmed and bombarded with digital and electronic alternatives to actual sports, social gatherings, friendships, family time and experiencing the fun of being outdoors. This may be saving them moments of embarrassment, confusion, disappointment, failure, loss and pain but then it is also depriving them from opportunities to learn, grow and evolve as human beings. Today's generation would rather remotely send a text, or email or maybe just de-friend others, instead of actually confronting issues, mistakes,
misunderstandings and other emotional dramas that are part of life. I have had teenagers tell me how they'd rather text some friends then to actually talk to them face to face. Even grown-ups are breaking up relationships with texts rather then telling their significant others to their face and experience the consequence of their decision first-hand!Can someone who has played games online with you for ages but has never met you be a real friend to you? Will all your Facebook friends show up when you're in trouble and need help? When they post a heart on your page, do they really mean love? When they don't click 'Like' , does that mean they don't care? Why do human emotions have to be restricted by these shallow, erratic and thoughtless clicks or posts? Do we really want our next generations to live in such a world?
And what about the use of remote devices to fight our enemies? The use of drones for bombarding enemy targets, without a single boot on the ground is a ruthless and cowardly way to fight. Does the soldier pressing that button feel anything? Can he distinguish between killing an enemy combatant in a video game and killing a live breathing human being? Can he tell if he killed the real target or just a child playing in his backyard? Does he think of the environmental ramifications of these blasts? Will he ever see the damage, destruction and death one click might have caused? If they never experience the true reactions to their actions, the consequences of their decisions, what is going to make them stop and think before they leap?
Let's unplug those computers, let's stop buying those video games, let's explore our forest preserves, let's bring our children back to the real world and help them appreciate it by really experiencing it.Only then will they think twice about the extended consequences of their actions in life and hopefully make more responsible and humane decisions. Let us save our children by letting them live real lives with real people and thus save our world.
( This post was inspired by a recent news article on BBC News . "Just one in five children connected to nature, says study. " Here is the link to it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24532638)
Oranges and Sunshine
Last week saw " Oranges and Sunshine" a movie by Jim Loach based on a
book 'Empty Cradles' by Margaret Humphreys. The movie and the subject
are both so poignant that I wanted to share it with my friends.
Starring
Emma Watson , as Margaret Humphreys a real life social worker who in
the 1980s uncovered the scandalous and forced relocation of poor
British children (on welfare) to Australia. As usual Emma Watson gives
an impeccable performance.
Hugo Weaving and David Wenham also give powerful performances as Jack and Len as two former British Child migrants who are tormented by their painful past. The movie is slow paced and leaves one deeply disturbed by this blatant miscarriage of justice and cruelty to children but I would still recommend it!
Facts about British Forced Child Migration:
It has since been established that such forced migrations of poor children were made not only to Australia. The origins of the scheme go back to 1618 when a hundred children were sent from London to Richmond, Virginia which is now one of the United States of America. The final party arrived in Australia in 1970. It is estimated that child migration programmes were responsible for the removal of over 130,000 children from the United Kingdom to Canada, New Zealand, Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) and Australia. About 7000 of these children were sent to Australia.
In most cases children were told their parents had died or didn't want them back, while parents were told their kids had been adopted by wealthier people. These children were placed in Roman Catholic Institutions in Western Australia and Queensland, where they were housed and allegedly abused. The children were promised a life full of Sunshine and Oranges, hence the name of the movie.
Britain is the only country in the world with a sustained history of child migration. Only Britain has used child migration as a significant part of its child care strategy over a period of four centuries rather than as a policy of last resort during times of war or civil unrest.This is a shameful chapter in British history, the govt of Britain and Australia initially refused to acknowledge it. Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown finally made public apologies in 2009 and 2010 respectively.
Margaret Humphreys to this day is working through the Child Migrants Trust to join these children and their families to their relatives and families in Britain.
Starring
Emma Watson , as Margaret Humphreys a real life social worker who in
the 1980s uncovered the scandalous and forced relocation of poor
British children (on welfare) to Australia. As usual Emma Watson gives
an impeccable performance.Hugo Weaving and David Wenham also give powerful performances as Jack and Len as two former British Child migrants who are tormented by their painful past. The movie is slow paced and leaves one deeply disturbed by this blatant miscarriage of justice and cruelty to children but I would still recommend it!
Facts about British Forced Child Migration:
It has since been established that such forced migrations of poor children were made not only to Australia. The origins of the scheme go back to 1618 when a hundred children were sent from London to Richmond, Virginia which is now one of the United States of America. The final party arrived in Australia in 1970. It is estimated that child migration programmes were responsible for the removal of over 130,000 children from the United Kingdom to Canada, New Zealand, Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) and Australia. About 7000 of these children were sent to Australia.
In most cases children were told their parents had died or didn't want them back, while parents were told their kids had been adopted by wealthier people. These children were placed in Roman Catholic Institutions in Western Australia and Queensland, where they were housed and allegedly abused. The children were promised a life full of Sunshine and Oranges, hence the name of the movie.
Britain is the only country in the world with a sustained history of child migration. Only Britain has used child migration as a significant part of its child care strategy over a period of four centuries rather than as a policy of last resort during times of war or civil unrest.This is a shameful chapter in British history, the govt of Britain and Australia initially refused to acknowledge it. Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown finally made public apologies in 2009 and 2010 respectively.
Margaret Humphreys to this day is working through the Child Migrants Trust to join these children and their families to their relatives and families in Britain.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
The dilemma of the "If Onlys" in life!
They are not all that occupies my mind but they do keep popping into my head every now and then. And on some days they become gigantic regrets that overwhelm me and leave a sadness in my heart.
As I grow older those 'If Only' moments are becoming fewer and are less often accompanied by that brief painful pang. So I ask myself, does that mean that I have gotten wiser? or does it mean that I am starting to lose hope of anything being different more like I imagined?
If I ask my dear mom that she'd probably declare this was wisdom so would my older sisters and tell me to lay it to rest. Yet somehow I feel it is important to hold on to some of those 'If Onlys'. It those unfulfilled ideas and hopes that often force us to take significant steps towards growth and positive change in our lives. It is those regrets that keep reminding us of our potential and our aspirations, they awaken the desire to reach for more then what we have resigned ourselves to in life. I understand that circumstances and responsibilities as a parent can restrict and limit the actions one can take but it is that deep seated pain of loss that drives us to try to regain some of the optimistic and idealistic magic which is often the secret behind great achievements in life.
In my case, even writing this blog is a part of my efforts to achieve a little more each day. And I am hoping it will drive me to do for my personal and spiritual growth.
When God created Mothers....
When the good Lord was creating mothers, He was in to his sixth day of overtime when an angel appeared and said, "You're doing a lot of fiddling around on this one."
And the Lord said,"Have you read the specs on this order? She has to be completely washable, but not plastic... have 180 movable parts-all replaceable....run on black coffee and leftovers...have a lap that disappears when she stands up...a kiss that can cure anything from a broken leg to a disappointed love affair...and six pairs of hands."
The angel shook her head slowly and said,"Six pairs of hands? No way." "It's not the hands that are causing me problems," said the Lord. "It's the three pairs of eyes that mothers have to have."
"That's on the standard model?" asked the angel.
The Lord nodded."One pair that sees through closed doors when she asks,"What are you kids doing in there?" when she already knows.Another in the back of her head that sees what she shouldn't but what she has to know. And of course, the ones in the front that can look at a child when he goofs up and say "I understand and I love you" without so much as uttering a word.
"Lord," said the angel touching his sleeve gently,"go to bed tomorrow is another......"
"I can't," said the Lord. " I'm so close now. Already I have one that heals herself when she is sick, can feed a family of six on one pound of hamburger, and can get a nine year old to stand under a shower."
The angel circled the model of a mother very slowly. "It's too soft,"she sighed.
" But tough!" said the Lord excitedly. " You cannot imagine what this mother can do or endure."
" Can it think?"
'Not only think, but it can reason and compromise" said the Creator. Finally, the angel bent over and ran her finger across her cheek.
" There's a leak," she pronounced.
" It's not a leak," said the Lord. "It's a tear."
"What's that for?"
" It's for joy, sadness, disappointment, pain, loneliness and pride."
"You are a Genius," said the angel.
The Lord looked somber," I didn't put it there."
Monday, April 1, 2013
Shopping savvy or just plain thrifty?
Just like all women in general, I enjoy shopping and spending on stuff I don't really need! Yes, I am guilty!!
Yet, unlike many women I know, I buy what I like not what the fashion world or the media tells me I need to buy to qualify as stylish and well-dressed. This does not mean that I didn't buy animal print shirts or skinny jeans, but it means I bought them only when I like how I looked in them and didn't care what the label said! Be it Micheal Kors, Ann Klein or Target label, if I like it I buy it!
Now to my surprise, this attitude is often so foreign to most ladies (including my friends) that the only way they can believe it to be ok is when they label me as thrifty and blame finances for my lack of desperation to acquire Designer label items! Although I don't really put much effort into dispelling this perception, why bother?! But I do find it strange and have tried to understand why it is so hard for most women to just follow their gut, wear what makes them look good and buy what they feel is worth it's price and how come I don't feel that pressure?
After much retrospection into how I became that way (since in most peoples' eyes I am an oddity) I have come to the conclusion that my mom is responsible! Yep, it's mom ,again! And in this case I am totally thankful to her for raising me free of any label restrictions or status hunger. Thank you Mom!
Growing up as a bureaucrat's kids we were spoiled in some ways, but spending was strictly budgeted. If dad had agreed to bend his principles and taken a few bribes and favors here and there, it might have been different but he never wavered, in spite of being ostracized for being so uncompromising. But that kept him free of any controversy in very politically driven times.
So coming back to our spending habits, my mom very effectively taught us to buy what we needed and what we could afford. An old proverb constantly repeated was "spread your feet according to the size of your blanket". We were always smartly dressed, kept up with fashion to a reasonable degree but hardly ever gave in easily. If a fad made me look fat or short, I was going to skip on it and be ok with it! If I failed to take a stand and went for the strange poofy sleeves or loose shapeless tops and looked like a bodybuilder (being already broad shouldered) my mom jolted me back to reality. Hence I never boarded the crazy fads bandwagon!
Another big factor making me money wise was growing up in a non-credit culture. In the Asian culture, being indebted financially is a burden no one wants to carry. In some areas, debt is still used as a means to enslaving farming families and controlling their freedom by agricultural landlords. In such a society, you run as far away as you can from taking loans or using credit for any purpose. That is why we never spent more then we had, and we were taught to save for a rainy day since credit was not an option! It teaches you to keep an eye on your financial means. And that habit has kept me and my family free of loans and debts even in this credit crazed culture where everyone wants to buy everything whether they can afford it or not! When the economy hit rock bottom we managed to keep ourselves afloat and made it through the tough times.
So I guess; I really don't care who I wear or how much I spend as long as I get what I need and what I want.
Thanks Mom and Dad!
Yet, unlike many women I know, I buy what I like not what the fashion world or the media tells me I need to buy to qualify as stylish and well-dressed. This does not mean that I didn't buy animal print shirts or skinny jeans, but it means I bought them only when I like how I looked in them and didn't care what the label said! Be it Micheal Kors, Ann Klein or Target label, if I like it I buy it!
Now to my surprise, this attitude is often so foreign to most ladies (including my friends) that the only way they can believe it to be ok is when they label me as thrifty and blame finances for my lack of desperation to acquire Designer label items! Although I don't really put much effort into dispelling this perception, why bother?! But I do find it strange and have tried to understand why it is so hard for most women to just follow their gut, wear what makes them look good and buy what they feel is worth it's price and how come I don't feel that pressure?
After much retrospection into how I became that way (since in most peoples' eyes I am an oddity) I have come to the conclusion that my mom is responsible! Yep, it's mom ,again! And in this case I am totally thankful to her for raising me free of any label restrictions or status hunger. Thank you Mom!
Growing up as a bureaucrat's kids we were spoiled in some ways, but spending was strictly budgeted. If dad had agreed to bend his principles and taken a few bribes and favors here and there, it might have been different but he never wavered, in spite of being ostracized for being so uncompromising. But that kept him free of any controversy in very politically driven times.
So coming back to our spending habits, my mom very effectively taught us to buy what we needed and what we could afford. An old proverb constantly repeated was "spread your feet according to the size of your blanket". We were always smartly dressed, kept up with fashion to a reasonable degree but hardly ever gave in easily. If a fad made me look fat or short, I was going to skip on it and be ok with it! If I failed to take a stand and went for the strange poofy sleeves or loose shapeless tops and looked like a bodybuilder (being already broad shouldered) my mom jolted me back to reality. Hence I never boarded the crazy fads bandwagon!
Another big factor making me money wise was growing up in a non-credit culture. In the Asian culture, being indebted financially is a burden no one wants to carry. In some areas, debt is still used as a means to enslaving farming families and controlling their freedom by agricultural landlords. In such a society, you run as far away as you can from taking loans or using credit for any purpose. That is why we never spent more then we had, and we were taught to save for a rainy day since credit was not an option! It teaches you to keep an eye on your financial means. And that habit has kept me and my family free of loans and debts even in this credit crazed culture where everyone wants to buy everything whether they can afford it or not! When the economy hit rock bottom we managed to keep ourselves afloat and made it through the tough times.
So I guess; I really don't care who I wear or how much I spend as long as I get what I need and what I want.
Thanks Mom and Dad!
Monday, March 11, 2013
A worthy advice to my sons......
When I first read the poem " If " by Rudyard Kipling, I was a teenager with no cares in the world.
Then I read this poem again recently, I am mother to three beautiful boys, I have all the cares in the world for their happy and safe future!
I did like the poem that first time long ago too but I don't think I really got the essence of it completely. It means a lot more to me now, it brings tears to my eyes because now I too am a parent who wishes nothing but to raise good men who lead wise and worthy lives..... So for all the parents of sons, here it is........
IF
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
Then I read this poem again recently, I am mother to three beautiful boys, I have all the cares in the world for their happy and safe future!
I did like the poem that first time long ago too but I don't think I really got the essence of it completely. It means a lot more to me now, it brings tears to my eyes because now I too am a parent who wishes nothing but to raise good men who lead wise and worthy lives..... So for all the parents of sons, here it is........
IF
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
An Unfair Hierarchy
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20111003,00.html
I realized that I wasn't imagining that there was unfair hierarchy in our family! It is everywhere and affects everyone. This hierarchy directly affect the dynamics in a family and thus also influences the personalities of all family members, especially the children!
Who hasn't heard of or met someone with the so called "Middle child syndrome"? But how come no one talks of the eldest child syndrome? Or the youngest child syndrome? For in my experience, these syndromes are very much a reality!
I grew up in a family with a dominant sharp tongued and often unpredictable father, a high spirited devoted & resilient mother and four highly intelligent, emotionally volatile and somewhat ambitious kids.
Being the third daughter followed by the one and only son, I was in a tough spot! Wasn't entitled to favors usually reserved for the youngest, and then squeezed under two rather commanding sisters!
Now what I wondered all those years growing up was whether my well known patience, and self sufficiency were inherent in me or those were tactics that helped me find my place in the family dynamics? Those qualities may sound nice ones, but believe me , they were my curse sometimes..... Anyone needed being overlooked, who else but the patient one! Anyone needed to assist and wait on mom or dad, pick the handy one! At a younger age, I took that as a compliment but as I grew up, I realized how much less attention, love and appreciation was being sent my way!
Once my dad decided to describe each of his child's special role in his life. The eldest girl was his achiever, his adviser. The second girl was his gnarly one, but being so much like him in looks and personality, he enjoyed it! About his son, he was his pride and his heir. Then my mom said " What about your third child?" Yes, he had forgotten me! "Oh, she's the one who helps me out...."
It might have been his way of complimenting me....... Though it did not sound like one to me!
But that kind of defined what role each one of us would play in the family. One would lead, the other would follow though she'd voice her objection freely, he would be the endearing one and I would be the more compliant one ,and the last in line.
That was decades ago, we're all settled, married with kids, each living in different states. We no longer have to conform to the roles we were placed in, at least in our individual lives. Some of the skills we developed because of that hierarchy have been a source of strength and an asset in certain situations in our individual lives. While at other times, not so good for us! That is when we ask our parents why they treated each of us so differently as we grew up. We always try to blame them for our shortcomings!
Now that I am a parent, I don't know if they were really that much in control of who we'd become. Each of my child is so unique in some ways and yet so alike in others. I try to keep each of their special characteristics in mind and keep a balance and fairness in all I do, but I have a feeling that when they are all grown up and independent , they will have more complaints against me as a mother then I can imagine!
And by the way, that hierarchy, we all think we're free of now, it creeps right back up at each family reunion. Hence the legendary drama, friction, stress and frustration of all families' reunions. :)
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The Disappearing Act ?
When in Med school, full of confidence, hope and ambition, I never saw myself as a stay at home full time mom. Never! The future I imagined then was always as a single woman, never even thought of marriage and kids. All I saw was myself as a successful physician, making great money while doing what I loved! I did that for almost 5 years, and enjoyed every bit of it. Mind you, it wasn't always easy, had to deal with nasty unpleasant patients, mean lazy nurses, and old cranky consultants who wouldn't hear of any other diagnosis then their own! But I loved my relationship with my patients, specially the elderly. I loved listening to their stories, and loved receiving all their sweet generous prayers for my future.
Then came marriage time, by then I had been made aware by meddling aunties of the importance thereof. My mom's stress was also showing so I gave in and said yes to the guy they picked. I realized I would have to move to the US but it was ok since all my siblings were already settled here. The fact that I had to resign from my job and be unemployed wasn't easy! The excitement of the wedding, kept my unhappiness at becoming financially dependent on my husband, suppressed and forgotten.
On arrival to the US, very quickly realized, I hardly knew the man I had married. Getting to know him, establishing a mutual love and respect would take time, a significant amount of patience, forgiveness, understanding and yes, work!! All that kept me busy for a long while. Then came kids and the decision of a lifetime to give motherhood a priority over pursuing my career.
About 12 years later, as the kids are growing up and becoming more independent, I have somewhat more time to myself. More time to think retrospectively, more time to second guess all my past decisions, more time to remember myself as that ambitious young woman! Then it dawns on me, that somewhere somehow I have lost that person! The one known for her laughter, her optimism, her carefree attitude, her idealism, that young woman is gone.... That woman was also coquette, she always has perfectly manicured hands and pedicured feet, she could fit into a size 4 dress, and she had a flawless skin!
I ask myself why I don't laugh out loud so much, why I give in to persuasion so much, why I don't express my point of view as aggressively, why I forego my needs first. And why don't I lose all that weight, when did I get all those sunspots and wrinkles, how can I be ok with it? That is when I realize, maybe that young woman is still here, only now she is known for being practical, resourceful, caring, and very realistic! And it is ok if now she looks like a married woman with kids!
So I guess, She is ok and she has matured, that's all! :)
Then came marriage time, by then I had been made aware by meddling aunties of the importance thereof. My mom's stress was also showing so I gave in and said yes to the guy they picked. I realized I would have to move to the US but it was ok since all my siblings were already settled here. The fact that I had to resign from my job and be unemployed wasn't easy! The excitement of the wedding, kept my unhappiness at becoming financially dependent on my husband, suppressed and forgotten.
On arrival to the US, very quickly realized, I hardly knew the man I had married. Getting to know him, establishing a mutual love and respect would take time, a significant amount of patience, forgiveness, understanding and yes, work!! All that kept me busy for a long while. Then came kids and the decision of a lifetime to give motherhood a priority over pursuing my career.
About 12 years later, as the kids are growing up and becoming more independent, I have somewhat more time to myself. More time to think retrospectively, more time to second guess all my past decisions, more time to remember myself as that ambitious young woman! Then it dawns on me, that somewhere somehow I have lost that person! The one known for her laughter, her optimism, her carefree attitude, her idealism, that young woman is gone.... That woman was also coquette, she always has perfectly manicured hands and pedicured feet, she could fit into a size 4 dress, and she had a flawless skin!
I ask myself why I don't laugh out loud so much, why I give in to persuasion so much, why I don't express my point of view as aggressively, why I forego my needs first. And why don't I lose all that weight, when did I get all those sunspots and wrinkles, how can I be ok with it? That is when I realize, maybe that young woman is still here, only now she is known for being practical, resourceful, caring, and very realistic! And it is ok if now she looks like a married woman with kids!
So I guess, She is ok and she has matured, that's all! :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)