But once I've had a chance to see if they are someone I want to talk with, I am described with such words as "blunt, frank, filter-less, honest, truthful, straightforward, plain-spoken, candid, direct, gruff, forthright, unequivocal, brusque, abrupt, curt, terse, brutal, harsh, stark, unadorned or upfront." Occasionally I will get a "rude" or "you hurt my feelings" and I will try to reword. My goal is not to hurt people or be rude. My goal is to get to the meat of the subject at hand. Time is precious.
I think a lot of people like to try to use the phrase "politically correct" as an insult to those people that are polite and thoughtful and avoidant of hurting feelings or being seen as mean, coarse or rude. While I am not one of those people, I do understand that we need to not just be mean, coarse or rude if we are going to ever reach a peaceful world for all people.
Recently, there has been an increase in extremely mean, coarse and rude behavior. Those individuals are speaking out for--as in--in favor of the shooting of unarmed people that don't follow police directions quickly enough. They want--not fewer executions but faster executions and more laws making lesser crimes capital crimes. They want undocumented immigrants and refugees to be subjected to either brutal imprisonment, men-women and children, or shot when they try to enter-- making our borders sound like a turkey shoot. They want poor people without funds to also do without housing, clothing, food, medical care or education. They want people they consider deviant---drug addicts,nonfunctional alcoholics, mentally ill, and the entire LGQBT community to go to prison for long terms and lose all there rights, and they want ex-cons to also lose their rights--permanently. And---when it comes to religion--there can only be one! (Shades of the Highlander Movies).
These are the people that watch end-of-the-world movies and think that "its about time" we thinned the herd. (End of the world movies should not be seen as jolly good fun).
So, is there an increase in the number of these type of people. No.
Most have just had reason to remain "politically correct" until current events led them to believe their time was coming. Instead of admitting they were racist and xenophobic, they wanted to be seen as conservative and law-and-order types. Instead of hate-filled, to appear traditional and religious. They spoke out at home, but around people they didn't know, they never discussed their Klan meetings or how they terrorized the one brown family that dared to move to their small town.
See, we can all be politically correct when needed.
But is there some reason for so many to be so hate filled and uncaring?
How many times have you or a close family member or friend wished for "the good old days", or wondered what it would be like to live on a mountain with just your family or go back to the pioneer days or the pagan times or the prehistoric times.
Back when a person, every person, knew everyone in their camp, village or general vicinity.
Back when there were as many other free living species as there were humans.
Back when everyone in the group was accepted and needed and missed when they were gone.
I'm not sure that time ever existed.
There were several species of prehistoric man. A few of us actually share a little of Neanderthals DNA, so we aren't more different than a wolf or coyote from a domestic dog.
Except in the movies, those other species are extinct. Why? Did they lack immunity to some new disease? Did they lose their habitat? Did Homo sapien kill them in some final war of "their can be only one"?
The Neanderthals existed for about 400,000 years and went extinct 40,000 years ago. Their population was estimated to range from 5,000 to 70,000---a medium sized town in the Midwest--but scattered across Europe and Asia. Their very size probably contributed to their extinction. Homo Sapiens share about 0.3% of their DNA with the Neanderthal without them being direct ancestors.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
Humans share 99.9% of their DNA with other humans--in other words, the differences we see and hear are being created by about 0.1% of our DNA make-up.
There is a difference of 1.2% to 1.6% between humans and African Apes--genetically speaking, and a difference ranging up to 3.1% for the Asian Orangutan and greater than 7% difference in DNA between humans and our closest monkey--genetically speaking--the Rhesus.
So, what Charles Darwin theorized from the fossils and anatomy of primates in his time, the Human Genome and other DNA studies have supported in the millennium.
What if the stereotyping of people of other races, creeds, colors, religions, belief systems is just some sort of effort by humans to explain why their genetic material deserves to stay and those other groups need to die.
A weird kind of political correctness in which the knowledge that we humans are approaching too many for the planet and the biological imperative that "my genes--my offspring" must be the ones that go forward because.....
It's a biological imperative. Think biologic clock. Think heat, rut, season.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=song+fall+in+love+do+it&view=detail&mid=FD4012BB23962783CC65FD4012BB23962783CC65&FORM=VIRE
Seriously though, is there a point of saturation? Are all these people spouting hate and violence just trying to find a way to explain why they think their offspring have more of a right to survival than my offspring, or yours?
I know that at some point, both population limits and the current extincting of species of other plants and animals because they are not helping human corporations make a profit we will reach a tipping point that imbalances our ecosystem too much for any of us to survive.
There is going to be a point where the real bottom line is identified and hopefully it won't be too late to save our children---all of them, not just yours and mine.
It really isn't all about the money, that has never really been the bottom line.
No comments:
Post a Comment