When the group was bigger, more unknowns, more diverse, then the game was more serious. At that point, those children most likely to get hurt were frequently relegated to cheerleeding or moping on the sidelines. The bigger, stronger children pushed and shoved to reach the top and hold it, friends only helped good friends and only if it also benefited them.
See? Children do understand politics.
The stranger part was actually what was happening on the sidelines. While the biggest bullies, the most likely to try to cause injury, or cheat, or otherwise "not play fair" were always contenders, the smallest, weakest, least likely to ever even make it into those tougher games, almost always aligned themselves with the very people most likely to call them names and give them pink bellies and exclude them from everything. Only rarely would a sidelined child root for the kid that was playing hard but fair and struggling to win using the friends only rules.
So why do we we powerless folks chose to follow those people we see as having power? Why do we turn them into stars, heroes, leaders? Do we not know what they are? Or do we somehow believe that by being on the winning side, instead of on the loving side or the righteous side or the nice side, that we will get that helping hand, that friend pull-up, the advantages of the meanest, toughest, bullyingest person that is winning. Or is it just an attempt to feel powerful by association?
We see it today, in "grown-up politics" and the reward is usually money and power and a bunch of followers that are following, apparently thinking that because they are voting for them, they are part of the winning team. It doesn't matter that their own family is struggling under that harness just like those that are not on that team. Loyalty to the home team always beats out smart and right.
I never really understood loyalty. I understand love: unconditional love, blind love, but loyalty based on love, isn't it just----love?
Loyalty is supposed to be both unconditional and blind, unchanging and unjudging? And for a group or a cause or a party or a team. If that group, cause, party or team stops meeting my ideals, why would I continue to be loyal? I realize that is called "turncoat" in times of war, but I believe our revolution was full of people that changed from loyal to the King to fighting for the freedom of the colonies. If loyalty to something was a true life committment, we would still be a part of the UK.
Loyalty seems to be more about group identification than love and understanding that is tough. Our first group is our family, our families tend to identify with some larger family/extended/cultural/economic/religious that has rules, dogma, "Us vs Them" identifiers. I think we are currently calling people that are holding tight to that mentality, "haters". I can see why that blind loyalty and exclusionary focus could be seen as hate--it is definitely not love.
But just because we can identify the "haters" doesn't mean we aren't participating in it. People that have been excluded from the ruling power structure have their own power structure. The ruling group tends to criminalize their structures and condemn their loyalty to their own groups, frequently playing on the idea that if they aren't loyal to those criminalized groups, they can become a part of the mainstream ruling group. That is a carrot that many have tried to get but few have found to be fully as tasty and nutritious as they had been led to believe. (wondering? drug cartels, gangs, criminal syndicates, etc, etc, etc, power structures that make money, employee large numbers of people that are not considered employable by the shakers and movers of the ruling class, they protect their own, defend against those that threaten them and are very loyal)
I don't know how we stop people from blindly following those they see as strong. I we get people to see that all those little arbitrarily drawn lines around the various group affiliations are just that, lines. Not walls, not cages, no more than those lines we drew in the sand when we were children daring someone to step over it and see what they got. (I always crossed that line, I thought it was funny. An ant could cross that line, and what did it prove---apparently I was off from birth)
But truly, how are any of us different? We all love. We all believe that what we believe is the truth . We all believe that our way is best.(who ever did something because we thought it was the 2nd or third best way to do something---ridiculous) and we all look sidewise at people that call our beliefs into questions.
Perhaps, instead of always searching for our differences, we would be better off finding our similarities. (My granddaughter is working on compare and contrast--more compare, less contrast) We all have needs, the basic needs of food, water, shelter, safety, the opportunity to continue our genetic line, the opportunity to participate in a social life and find companionship, the need to feel good about ourselves, the need for cognitive stimulation/aesthetic surroundings, and the need to accomplish something with our lives. (yes Maslow, I stole you stuff)
The point of that list, is that a person without food or water or shelter doesn't try to fix anything about the world except those three things, acquiring food, water and shelter, and a person who is being shot at is not going to paint a beautiful painting. A person that is stuck thinking they are a worthless piece of garbage will never be able to accomplish anything with that life.
Globally, there are sooooooo many people that can't get past the bottom of that mountain. Maybe it would be better if we chose people to lead that were at the top of this pyramid instead of the bullies on the dirt hills.
Think.
Empathize.
Question.
No comments:
Post a Comment