Showing posts with label Attitude. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attitude. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Monday, January 12, 2015
Why dinner time is valuable family time and needs to be part of our daily life
I grew up in a household where dinner time every member of the family had to show up, no matter what. It was at the dinner table we learned about politics, arts, literature, besides discussing and sharing our daily experiences with our siblings and parents.
My parents knew all our friends' names and what our relationship with each of them was like, they knew of all our teachers, and which ones we liked or not, they knew what book each of us was reading and if we were enjoying it or not, they knew whether we liked the latest movie we watched together, and what kind of music we were listening to the time. All this information, interaction was being carried out at the dinner table. We gave each other advice, we suggested books, expressed our view on the political state of affair, planned projects together, all at the dinner table. That was one time we all were completely present and focused on family and the joy of eating together.
For me and my siblings , some of the most memorable moments we have shared during our childhood, funny, sad or tense have been at the dinner table. Some of the most interesting family folklore we heard was at the dinner table. Some of the advice we still remember and value in our day to day life was given to us at the dinner table. So I do feel that making the effort to have dinner together every night with our children is an important part of our parental duties.
Unfortunately this tradition is being lost very fast in the US. Either all members of the family can't match their timetables, or even if everyone makes it to the dinner table, there is often a sense of hurry and disinterest. ' Let's get over with this ' is often the mood. And now with the great invention of mobile devices, a cell phone accompanies almost each kid and both parents. So if they are not hurrying through the meal it is likely because they are each too distracted with their phone. I am sure in many case if someone was to ask them what was for dinner they may not remember, no use asking what they talked about over dinner!
Many recent studies have shown how having dinner with the family together can have a significant effect on family life and even more so on our children.
A recent article I read on the subject was in The Washington Post The most important thing you can do with your kids? Eat dinner with them.
I am in total agreement with that. Dinner time is essential and important for reinforcing relationships, understanding & maintaining a steady communication with our kids. If we don't want to lose our children completely to the influences of social media and corporate media, we need to make the effort to sit down every night, enjoy a home cooked meal and talk to our children.
My parents knew all our friends' names and what our relationship with each of them was like, they knew of all our teachers, and which ones we liked or not, they knew what book each of us was reading and if we were enjoying it or not, they knew whether we liked the latest movie we watched together, and what kind of music we were listening to the time. All this information, interaction was being carried out at the dinner table. We gave each other advice, we suggested books, expressed our view on the political state of affair, planned projects together, all at the dinner table. That was one time we all were completely present and focused on family and the joy of eating together.
For me and my siblings , some of the most memorable moments we have shared during our childhood, funny, sad or tense have been at the dinner table. Some of the most interesting family folklore we heard was at the dinner table. Some of the advice we still remember and value in our day to day life was given to us at the dinner table. So I do feel that making the effort to have dinner together every night with our children is an important part of our parental duties.
Unfortunately this tradition is being lost very fast in the US. Either all members of the family can't match their timetables, or even if everyone makes it to the dinner table, there is often a sense of hurry and disinterest. ' Let's get over with this ' is often the mood. And now with the great invention of mobile devices, a cell phone accompanies almost each kid and both parents. So if they are not hurrying through the meal it is likely because they are each too distracted with their phone. I am sure in many case if someone was to ask them what was for dinner they may not remember, no use asking what they talked about over dinner!
Many recent studies have shown how having dinner with the family together can have a significant effect on family life and even more so on our children.
A recent article I read on the subject was in The Washington Post The most important thing you can do with your kids? Eat dinner with them.
I am in total agreement with that. Dinner time is essential and important for reinforcing relationships, understanding & maintaining a steady communication with our kids. If we don't want to lose our children completely to the influences of social media and corporate media, we need to make the effort to sit down every night, enjoy a home cooked meal and talk to our children.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
What makes memories worth remembering...
I was cleaning up a drawer and found some of my stuff from long ago that my mom brought from Pakistan a few years back. I started going through the bundles of memorabilia. Interestingly enough it was mostly notes, letters, cards, postcards, photographs and certificates etc... Things we don't really see much of nowadays.
One was a letter written to me by my family when I was off on a fortnight long third grade class trip to the seaside. In it my sisters informed me that they got their ears pierced, one even drew a picture showing me how they looked. My mom and dad obviously wrote advice on being a good girl and staying out of trouble and trying not to lose my stuff (which I inevitably did!). It reminded me of that trip, of the loads of fun we had, of my friends from back then, of the mischief I inevitably got into, of walks on the beach, of our bedtime games hour, of our tour of the Mercator (a training ship of the Belgian Merchant Fleet from 1930s) and its significance in bringing over remains of the Flemish missionary Pater Damiaan from the leper colonies of Hawaii. All our activities were free of any sort of electronics and yet full of joy, fun and adventure!
From those memories I trailed into other memories of my childhood years! I started remembering life then, how we had no cell phones, no computers, no video games, no video players, and no other electronic devices.
What we had was freedom, freedom to go out to the park with our friends without fear of 'bad guys', freedom to climb trees, fences, walls without fear of litigation or lawsuits, freedom to visit friends without fear of intruding, and freedom to just while away the time after school and homework was done without the pressure of endless extracurricular activities or academic tutoring classes.
We lived and enjoyed life, we savored and experienced life.
If it was summer, we went out to play with friends or learn to roller skate or skateboard, or we rode our bikes around the neighborhood or just went for a walk to the park.. we rarely sat indoors in summer before the sun set! And in Belgium it meant til 9-10 pm....
In winter, we would bring out the board games Monopoly, Scrabbles, Ulcers, Connect four, Mastermind,etc.. have tournaments amongst us and often our mom and dad joined in. If no games, then we'd read books, magazine or newspapers, or we'd come up with some crafty project and start work on that either alone or together. Television was often a last option, not only because most channels wouldn't start transmission til later in the afternoon but because we had so much else we could do. We were never really bored!!
But then I ask myself; will my children have such memories? Do they spend enough time with other human beings? Will they have as many memories of things they did with family, friends, classmates in school, college, colleagues at work and even total strangers? Will they remember such simple things as climbing a tree, planting a seed, tumbling down a hill, picking fall leaves?
With how life is in our world now, I am not so sure! What will they remember? Will they have photographs, letters or postcards to remind them? Will their memories be off playing video games alone, browsing the internet all day long, of chatting with friends or family online but without recollection of their smile or laughter? How rich and full will their memories be?
Nowadays I feel our children are being restricted and confined by the abundance of electronic distractions.. Yes, that is what they are, distractions from family, friendships and relationships, sports, nature, books, diverse experiences and mostly from really living life.
It our job as parents to take a stand and try harder to get our children to leave the electronics behind and go out to enjoy life in simpler and more interactive ways. We need to give them memories like ours of time well spent with family and friends, of time spent seeing the world around us and beyond, of time spent discovering new talents and experiencing new things.
One was a letter written to me by my family when I was off on a fortnight long third grade class trip to the seaside. In it my sisters informed me that they got their ears pierced, one even drew a picture showing me how they looked. My mom and dad obviously wrote advice on being a good girl and staying out of trouble and trying not to lose my stuff (which I inevitably did!). It reminded me of that trip, of the loads of fun we had, of my friends from back then, of the mischief I inevitably got into, of walks on the beach, of our bedtime games hour, of our tour of the Mercator (a training ship of the Belgian Merchant Fleet from 1930s) and its significance in bringing over remains of the Flemish missionary Pater Damiaan from the leper colonies of Hawaii. All our activities were free of any sort of electronics and yet full of joy, fun and adventure!
 |
| Joli Bois (Where we stayed on our trip) |
What we had was freedom, freedom to go out to the park with our friends without fear of 'bad guys', freedom to climb trees, fences, walls without fear of litigation or lawsuits, freedom to visit friends without fear of intruding, and freedom to just while away the time after school and homework was done without the pressure of endless extracurricular activities or academic tutoring classes.
We lived and enjoyed life, we savored and experienced life.
If it was summer, we went out to play with friends or learn to roller skate or skateboard, or we rode our bikes around the neighborhood or just went for a walk to the park.. we rarely sat indoors in summer before the sun set! And in Belgium it meant til 9-10 pm....
In winter, we would bring out the board games Monopoly, Scrabbles, Ulcers, Connect four, Mastermind,etc.. have tournaments amongst us and often our mom and dad joined in. If no games, then we'd read books, magazine or newspapers, or we'd come up with some crafty project and start work on that either alone or together. Television was often a last option, not only because most channels wouldn't start transmission til later in the afternoon but because we had so much else we could do. We were never really bored!!
But then I ask myself; will my children have such memories? Do they spend enough time with other human beings? Will they have as many memories of things they did with family, friends, classmates in school, college, colleagues at work and even total strangers? Will they remember such simple things as climbing a tree, planting a seed, tumbling down a hill, picking fall leaves?
With how life is in our world now, I am not so sure! What will they remember? Will they have photographs, letters or postcards to remind them? Will their memories be off playing video games alone, browsing the internet all day long, of chatting with friends or family online but without recollection of their smile or laughter? How rich and full will their memories be?
Nowadays I feel our children are being restricted and confined by the abundance of electronic distractions.. Yes, that is what they are, distractions from family, friendships and relationships, sports, nature, books, diverse experiences and mostly from really living life.
It our job as parents to take a stand and try harder to get our children to leave the electronics behind and go out to enjoy life in simpler and more interactive ways. We need to give them memories like ours of time well spent with family and friends, of time spent seeing the world around us and beyond, of time spent discovering new talents and experiencing new things.
Friday, November 7, 2014
Overexposure to technology is keeping our children from experiencing real living
Too much technology is becoming the defining tribulation of our times. Although the easy constant access to technology has some very convincing supporters, it also has its share of vehement opposition. I belong to neither of these groups.
"Everything in moderation" is my motto. I think the most worrisome concern is our children, they spend far too much time on devices and in front of computer screens. They are less physically active then our generation, they tend to socialize digitally instead of actual face to face encounters, they also use technology as an escape from the real life often avoiding stressful situations or conversations. No matter how painful or awkward social interactions might get, they are also the learning opportunities our children are deprived of as they forge friendships and relationships digitally.
It is easier for them to express feelings, ideas or points of view remotely sitting behind a laptop or device. They don't see the reaction on people's face, or the emotions their statement might arise in others. That also means they can be more aggressive, ruthless, right out hurtful without ever seeing or facing the consequences of their words, at least not right away. Many a times they also can make up a persona online which may be nothing like their real selves, hence making it highly unlikely that they will ever physically and actually meet the individuals with whom they are putting up this pretension. All these thing lead to further physical isolation in the real world.
The prevalent social media frenzy is also promoting voyeurism in an insidious and disturbingly sneaky way , the urge to peek into others' personal lives can be instantly satisfied by going through anyone's social media profile and photos. On top of that the 'sharing' concept is becoming like force-feeding. Our children are being fed these unrealistic images and news of how life is, could be, should be... Leaving very little room for originality and initiative. Anything that does not fit into the realm of hip and cool isn't worth posting about or mentioning.
The effects of these significant changes in socializing, living and experiencing life may not be seen immediately but I fear they will surface when this generation of techno-hooked children will grow up and be forced to deal with real life and have no escape from it but will have little experience to go on.
"Everything in moderation" is my motto. I think the most worrisome concern is our children, they spend far too much time on devices and in front of computer screens. They are less physically active then our generation, they tend to socialize digitally instead of actual face to face encounters, they also use technology as an escape from the real life often avoiding stressful situations or conversations. No matter how painful or awkward social interactions might get, they are also the learning opportunities our children are deprived of as they forge friendships and relationships digitally.
It is easier for them to express feelings, ideas or points of view remotely sitting behind a laptop or device. They don't see the reaction on people's face, or the emotions their statement might arise in others. That also means they can be more aggressive, ruthless, right out hurtful without ever seeing or facing the consequences of their words, at least not right away. Many a times they also can make up a persona online which may be nothing like their real selves, hence making it highly unlikely that they will ever physically and actually meet the individuals with whom they are putting up this pretension. All these thing lead to further physical isolation in the real world.
The prevalent social media frenzy is also promoting voyeurism in an insidious and disturbingly sneaky way , the urge to peek into others' personal lives can be instantly satisfied by going through anyone's social media profile and photos. On top of that the 'sharing' concept is becoming like force-feeding. Our children are being fed these unrealistic images and news of how life is, could be, should be... Leaving very little room for originality and initiative. Anything that does not fit into the realm of hip and cool isn't worth posting about or mentioning.
The effects of these significant changes in socializing, living and experiencing life may not be seen immediately but I fear they will surface when this generation of techno-hooked children will grow up and be forced to deal with real life and have no escape from it but will have little experience to go on.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Thank you Zach Sobiech!
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'
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'
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)
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)