Thanksgiving; Time with Family. No Thanks
 copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org As Americans ponder the Thanksgiving Day holiday expectations are high. Young children look forward to all the activities loved ones plan. School age individuals are told tales of the Pilgrims and the Indians that befriended early settlers. Most imagine that on this November day, people come together peaceably. That, for the little ones is a welcome thought. Too often, tension exists in the parent child relationship. Some say angst increases as the offspring age. Whilst many wish to believe the strain occurs over time, as a child becomes more autonomous, indeed, recent research shows early interactions give rise to the relationship that will be. Toddlers and tots rarely have opportunities to quietly, calmly, and genuinely converse with parents or the caregivers they are fond of. Hence, lads and lasses feel a sense of loss. By the teen years, the thought of another Thanksgiving celebration with relatives evokes an almost automatic response, "No thanks." |
Thankfully, a second stolen in the car, a tender thought expressed while on the run, these are life's little riches. Yet, these treasures occur infrequently. Oh, how much Mike and Michelle yearn for a few hours of tête-à-tête with the Moms and Dads they love. Juanita and Jorge too hunger for a long and heartfelt talk, followed by a hug. Angelique and Akil desire discourse. A deep discussion with Mama and Papa would mean so much. Children crave a balance, parental involvement coupled with reciprocal reverence. A baby, a boy, a girl, or a blossoming adult wants a hand to hold gingerly rather than a hand that guide.
While mothers and fathers also hope to establish a strong relationship with their offspring and other relatives what occurs at home is often other than fulfilling. Time together on Thanksgiving Day does provide for a new normal. Superficial exchanges are as common during the commemoration as they are day to day. We dream of the good times and too frequently feel the holidays are not it. Nevertheless, individuals still hold on to hope. Let there be a reason to give thanks.
In some, Thanksgiving Day, and the entire celebratory season, elicits memories of fight or flight. Nonetheless, there is a thought that usually associated with appreciation; a turkey feast will likely be featured on the menu. Pumpkin pie will probably be served too. Oh my!
Thank goodness for food. With childhood memories intact, men and women who reflect on the delicious delicacies expect to feel fulfilled or full even if they feel forced to endure the company of family. Sights, smells and that ever-present sense of loss will stimulate emotional overeating. Elders promise themselves, just this once they will indulge. After all, Thanksgiving Day is special occasion. At least food is a fine distraction from feelings of loneliness or a lack of involvement. Indeed, as headlines howl, Isolated Americans try to connect . . . not with Mom, Pop, and siblings, with all the other more welcome traditions.
A time to party, to perform, to watch football, to prove to ourselves that we are [authentically] close to others, and to pretend. Thanks for the distractions.
Those that wish to act in the spirit of the national holiday can also take refuge. After all, the intent of the celebration is good. Community Service acts of kindness can be even better. A Christmas Gift Drive, Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens, helping the elderly, animals, and others in need can never be wrong. However, even when engaged in an honorable pursuit, so many say they feel alone in the crowd. The sensation can be as it is in a home full of holiday lore and little love. Grateful? For what?
Thanksgiving Day, and more so the day after, illustrate an American truth. "People are increasingly busy," said Margaret Gibbs, a psychologist at Fairleigh Dickinson University. "We've become a society where we expect things instantly, and don't spend the time it takes to have real intimacy with another person."
Author, and Clinical Psychologist, Madeline Levine reflects on what she sees in her practice. As recounted in a Washington Post article, the mother of three observes; over-involved parents who pressure their children to be stars -- in school, on athletic fields, among their peers -- have created a generation that is "extremely unhappy, disconnected and passive." Immodestly materialistic and indifferent to worldly affairs, young persons, from an early age on are both bored and "often boring," writes Psychologist Levine.
When the apathetic, acquisitive find themselves lost and without a cause, they do what is familiar. People shop until they drop.. Much to the delight of retailers, the parents and their children shop. Bye-bye forced family togetherness. Hello , buy, buy, buy. Thanks for the gifts.
Purveyors are happiest whence the Thanksgiving holiday arrives. During these November and December days, people rush to the stores with a greater sense of purpose. The Friday after the traditional Thursday celebration begins their best time of year. People purchase presents to give to one and all. It seems that love is in the air from late November until the New Year. In truth, even when individuals meet with family or friends in the winter, when they mix, and mingle in the spirit of gratitude, few feel connected.
Indeed, Americans express a sense of separation.. It is no wonder we hope a holiday will console us, help us feel connected.
Yet, as John Powell, a Psychologist at the University of Illinois Counseling Center, states "The frequency of contact and volume of contact does not necessarily translate into the quality of contact." The observer of social behavior understands; most persons, young or old, do what is comfortable, even if that means stay a safe distance apart from the persons he or she most wants in their lives.
Thus on this Thanksgiving Day, it may be important to reflect on all the hours before and after. Lynn Smith-Lovin, a Duke University Sociologist offers, "We know theseclose ties are what people depend on in bad times. "We're not saying people are completely isolated. They may have 600 friends on Facebook.com [a popular networking Web site] and e-mail 25 people a day, but they are not discussing matters that are personally important." Nor are these persons, when home, engaged in conversations that communicate much.
Possibly, parents and children can find more personal ways to establish and then retain a reciprocally reverent relationship. On this day of thanks, and the eve of Black Friday people may ponder; food, fun with those we barely know, and material finds are not golden.
Psychologist Madeline Levine, Author of The Price of Privilege" proclaims advantages are not always as they appear to be. Affluence does not breed brotherly alliances. Nor does money beget benevolence. Children do not connect to cash givers. Possessions may not leave a loved one proud. Moms and Dads cannot bequeath material goods and hope to receive emotional gifts in return. However . .
There are several thing parents can do: Families should eat dinner together [and truly talk] as much as possible, and kids should be involved in rituals -- at church, the synagogue, at Meals on Wheels or wherever.Parents need to impose consistent discipline, which will help kids develop self-control, which is vital.
Kids should never, ever, be paid for grades. Real learning is about effort and improvement, not performance. Your kid's C actually may be the far greater achievement than the A that comes easily.
And they should have chores. A lot of kids I see don't have to do anything except shine. And if you turn out kids who aren't expected to do anything but shine, you turn out narcissistic or self-centered kids. As one girl I see told me, "If I'm so special, why do I have to clear the table?"
Ah, the mundane deeds can be so divine. Everyday errands and exchanges can build character and give birth to a quality bond. On any date we can choose to be more open and honest in our interactions.
Thanksgiving Day and the holiday season are a good time to slow down, chat, and pay homage to the humanity that resides within your home. With relatives near or far, everyday deference would be even better. It is never too late to learn how to relate, to change habits, and to bring into being the tenderness that might not have existed in the early years. Expressions of gratitude and kindheartedness have no season, and need no reason. Thankful. Hopefully that is what each of us might feel. Beginning today, we can chose to consciously create togetherness from birth, in childhood, as adults, and always.
References and relationships . . .
- Tension common in parent-child relationships. Live Science. MSNBC. May 7, 2009
- Gene-Environment Interplay and the Origins of Individual Differences in Behavior, Frances A. Champagne and Rahia Mashoodh. Columbia University. Association for Psychological Science Volume 18-Number 3. Copyright 2009
- More Parent-Child Quality Time? Thank Harvard, BV Catherine Rampell. The New York Times. August 26, 2009, 2:25 PM
- That Parent-Child Conversation Is Becoming Instant, and Online, John Schwartz. The New York Times. January 3, 2004
- Fathers Gain Respect From Experts (and Mothers), By Laurie Tarkan. The New York Times. November 3, 2009
- When parents are too hands-on, By Stephanie Dunnewind. The Seattle Times. September 4, 2004
- I'm dreaming of a right-size Christmas, By Carolyn Butler. Washington Post. Monday, November 23, 2009 3:44 PM
- stimulate Mindful Emotional Eating: Leveraging More Coping per Calorie, By Pavel G. Somov PH.D. Psych Central. November 24, 2009
- Community Service Projects for Kids,Youth,& Families. Families With Purpose.
- Isolated Americans trying to connect. The Associated Press. USA Today. August 5, 2006
- Social Isolation Growing in U.S., Study Says, The Number of People Who Say They Have No One to Confide In Has Risen. By Shankar Vedantam. Washington Post. Friday, June 23, 2006
- Parents create 'disconnected' generation." UPI NewsTrack. 2006. Retrieved November 01, 2009 from accessmylibrary
- National Young Readers Week November 9 through the 13, 2009.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 26, 2009 at 01:00 AM in "Take me as I am!", Adult Influence on Children, American Dream, American Family, Americana, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Children, Communities and Communication , Daily Distress, Dreams Live and Die , Education or Economics, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Family, Functioning, Fables, Fear, Health, Human Nature, Isolation. Insulation. , Looking at Life, Looking for Love, Over-Scheduling, Quality of Life | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"I won!"
copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org Update . . . A bell rings. The sound reverberates. A sentiment shared aloud resonates within the heart, mind, body, and soul of persons who heard the message. No matter the actions taken afterward, sullen statements are not easily erased from memory. Days before Congress was asked to pass the stimulus package, the President uttered the now famous phrase; "I won," Republicans, as could have been expected, expressed resentment. Immediately, subsequent to President Obama's statement Democrats were said to have followed the Chief Executive's lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked if he thought Republicans might block the initiative. Empathically, he replied; "No." Today we know differently. In the House, the measure received no support from the Grand Old Party. As we await approval from the Senate we may wish to consider, the past. Words that evoke division have a lasting effect. Please peruse a missive penned shortly after President Obama reacted to pressure from the "Right."
I fear for the future, for I remember when the words were "Yes we can!" Has this assertion become but an old argot, now trivial or trite? Please tell me. Now that you sit solidly in the Oval Office is the achievement of one all that matters? Perchance, with a "change" in climate, we, the Progressives have become the Party of arrogance. It seems you personally have adopted an individualistic platform. Peace and process talks will be less diplomatic. Discussions will be more reflective of Obama rule or Democratic control. After he left the White House, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina was said to have "echoed" your sentiment. He may not have used your exact words; nevertheless, the sentiment was clear, the Progressive Party will dictate the rule of law. Congressman Clyburn said, "The American people didn't listen to them [the Republicans] too well during the election." The implication being, so why should the Progressives who represent them. My concern extends beyond the language. It is the intent I lament! I had hoped that sooner than later, the Obama Administration would recognize individualism, as we all saw, did more harm than good. 'I envisioned "Mavericks no more," would be the mantra of an Obama Administration. As a Democrat, devoted to progressive platforms, I imagined peace was a prospect we would no longer ignore. Admittedly, as I say this I cannot help but think of the quagmire that Afghanistan is, and I fear will be worsened You may recall, President Obama, when we go for the unilateral kill, as we did in Iraq, innocents, foreign born and our own die. The terrain is devastated. The cost cannot be accurately calculated. The price humans pay for victory is incomprehensible, at least it is to me. I inquire; how does one place value on lives, limbs, and a sense of security, serenity, and safety lost. It seems in America, most rarely do the math. We want only to overcome, to be the victor. Hence, with a note of superiority, supremacy, and self-importance, we say we, he, or "I win." I heard the reaction on November 4, 2008. As the election results came in, your constituents chanted "We won!" You too must have felt concern as the crowd cheered. You spoke to such a perspective often. A triumphal tune closes doors and ends discussion. President Obama, these are your words. "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long." The electorate, I recognize is new to the novelty of inclusively, but you, Mister President. What of your core beliefs? President Obama, I could understand such a statement from a Republican, not yet ready, to put aside differences after what seemed to be a defeat. Elections, by their very nature, are divisive. However, even Conservatives for Change concluded this year was different. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell even offered his open hand. I suspect with word of your "win" that will not last. Oh, Mister President, until I heard word of how you spoke of "your" feat, I truly believed that change had come. I wonder, with all the work to do, has anyone won? There has been too much despair, too much distress, disparity that is incomprehensible, and all this has existed for far too long. Please Mister President, travel back, into the future, with me. Do you recall the deregulations and the economic downfall?. In the recent past, as a country, we experienced the dire effects of a Republican victory. It seemed obvious, a conquest breed certain vanity. Persons within the Grand Old Party are not alone when it comes to excessive pomposity. Hence, my apprehension. In modern times, Americans have seen the ill inflated egos can cause. Democrats, equally haughty, ultimately embraced policies that ended an era of effective oversight. Do the wordsGlass-Steagall Act remind you of how arrogant, those replete with power might be, Does the taste of the Depression era law President Clinton repealedlinger on your lips? Those who no longer have a legal right to redeem a mortgage might caution against a prizewinning irrational exuberance. Perhaps you may recall predatory lending. Winners on Wall Street thought this idea fine. Home foreclosures flourished. Bank failures became common. Unemployment rates rose. Workers received less benefits before businesses finally closed the doors. It was not that long ago. Think back. During the Bush reign the Conservatives were in power. For decades, Republicans won most every Presidential election. On the one occasion when a Democrat occupied the Oval Office and Congress was mostly Progressive, defiant winners were only able to do so much. Soon after, Democratic "control" was easily lost. Perhaps, the people felt the Administration to full of itself with the win. You may remember President Obama, "The Republican Contract with America." In the past, a practiced politician or a Political Party may have said they won. However, what really happened was America lost. President Obama, you spoke of this in your more recent book, The Audacity of Hope." Remember? "In the back-and-forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the Baby Boom generation - a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago - played out on the national stage. . . .what has been lost in the process, and has yet to be replaced, are those shared assumptions - that quality of trust and fellow feeling - that bring us together as Americans." Barack Obama these are your words. "In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own. Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America." If someone, anyone wins or owns the rights to run the show, we are all doomed. Currently, we witness the woes of a win in our Health Care systems. Medical coverage is a service available only to the privileged. There is income for triumphant Insurers. Pharmaceuticals profits have paralyzed this country. Disparity in healthcare devastates the impoverished, the ill, and the injured, millions of whom have no medical coverage. More Americans are underinsured. Even more are likely to lose what they have as the economy weakens. In this country, cash divides winners and losers. Mister President, you might understand this. Consider the dollars needed just to get a candidate elected, to have him or her heard. Please also ponder what was once more important to you and the electorate than dough. The community carried the message. Without the strength of unity, we as a country crumble. The deterioration has already begun. President Obama, do you remember the dream? You must recall; Civil Rights Leader Martin Luther King Junior taught us to believe in the dream of equality. Reverend King avowed, "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the way our world is made." Doctor King did not praise personal wins or commend clannish conquests. Yet, today, in America, where a President proudly proclaims "I won," children of all colors, their elders of every hue, are not afforded a chance to succeed. In a country where Progressives posture, "We won," we do not consider what a coup d'état mentality means to a country, or to the children who inherit a nation torn asunder. Mister President and Progressives proud of what it means to win, please consider the ominous shadow cast by a Supreme Court decision, Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, The Court and the prideful parents who championed a cause ensured only the wealthy and the white would receive a quality education. Separate and unequal services are again sanctioned in city schools. The judgment sealed a subterranean deal that has long been in effect. The rich triumph; the poor will not have equal opportunities. In America, we have seen the destruction wrought by our culture of conquests. Yet, as a nation we continue to ignore what might be obvious. Perhaps, this is why, as your proclamation filtered through the airwaves, Mister President, many Progressives applauded what was familiar and what they had waited for. Republicans who had come to believe there was reason to hope for true change were struck by the divisive rhetoric. Your disdainful remark was like a slap in the face, a stab in the back, or the statement that would bring resentment back to Washington, Those still bruised by the political battle never forgot that they wanted to be the ones, or at least "That one." I recall history and recoil at what could be our future if we affirm as you did days ago. "I won?" Oh please President Obama, remember your own reflection. "What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This "victory" alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change . . . " I beg you to consider, the power of words. Ponder; can we be "victorious," and will such a triumph leave many behind; or we can we be successful together. Can one "I" prevail or will we, the people achieve when we unite. Please tell me it is true. Government can be of, by, and for us all, or an Administration, and Americans can be partisan. Please President Obama, let us not suggest that we, or "I won!" I implore you to reflect or your own words.. "(The change we seek) that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you (the American people)." President Obama, you did not win. Progressives did not prevail when you were placed in the Oval Office. We the people will not meet the challenges through conquest. Nor will we be the change we can believe in if you, or any of us, declaratively deems, "I won!" Americans did not vote for the arrogance we heard and saw for eight long years, We had hope. We had a dream. In the White House, in the people's house, in Congress, and in our local communities, we could become genuinely united, integrated, and inclusive. Yes we can, and I think we must. References for realities that divide us . . . Oh Mister Obama, please tell me it is not so. Days ago, I read and heard numerous reports. You made a declarative statement. Many were shocked. Anecdotally, Congressman and women stated, when pressed by Republicans who disagreed with your position on economic policy, you said, "I won." Will this mean, once again, Americans will be the losers?
Mister President, you also addressed the issue of the ownership society. You must remember this. You stated what I often say; however, more eloquently.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 24, 2009 at 08:10 PM in Aggression, Communities and Communication , Congress, Emotional Intelligence, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What Pulls Us Apart
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It was a cool Fall evening in South Florida. The breeze was gentle; the sunset glorious. As I approached the intersection where, each weekend I stand in support of peace and tranquility, I did as I do when at this crossroad. I placed my arm out the window. My digits were extended and formed the symbol associated with serenity. When I am in a vehicle, at the locale commonly considered the Peace Corner I work to preserve the intent of my Saturday mission. I strive to advance awareness for the notion, this nation remains at war. Soldiers are slaughtered far from the shores of home sweet home. Civilians, in their native country continue to lose their lives for a want of war. I crave global harmony and will work to restore some sense of civility worldwide. However, as I sat silently in contemplation cries of "Country First" startled me.
The divisiveness that has become pervasive during this political season smacked me in the face. Shaken, I turned to see where the words of contempt might have come from. There they stood, two young boys, perhaps eleven years of age stood on the sidewalk with homemade signs in hand. "McCain Palin" was painted on a poster. Smaller type, difficult to read from even a short distance, said more. I might pretend to portend what the words were meant to communicate. However, I rather not assume. I can only describe what was said and done as the seconds on the street turned into minutes.
As others had done when they passed me with my peaceful placard for oh so many years, I expressed my belief in a manner that might be visible to these youthful demonstrators. I reached for my Obama sign, which is neatly tucked between my windshield and the dashboard. I held the glossy rectangular navy blue sticker up, my arm stretched beyond the side of the automobile. The near Middle School age gents immediately saw my marker and exclaimed. "He is a Muslim!"
I calmly cried, "No, he is not. Barack Obama is a Christian." "However," I continued, even if he were as you seem to believe, why would that matter?" " Do you really wish to be intolerant of other religions?" "What of our rights as afforded by the United States Constitution?" Perhaps as one who taught Junior High School students for so long, an invitation to discuss seemed ideal to me. These young people, not familiar with me, and my love of open and reverent conversations were intent on repeating the rhetoric they likely heard in their homes.
I could not help but wonder would the words Communist, Socialist, or terrorist, pass through the lips of these lads. Might one boy or the other tell me as drivers had days ago when I stood on the corner in vigil for peace, "Barack Obama is Black"? My mind raced as I reflected upon the two chaps. I realized the issues important to them were those the elders they loved had discussed at length. Human as the young men were they knew what they knew. The adolescents were taught to think as the adults important in their lives did. We all do, at least initially.
I remembered a tale I frequently told pupils in the past. In my own life, I later understood, when I was young I was unaware of the infinite options and opportunities to think, say, do, and feel, in ways that were uncommon in my family. I could not imagine what was novel to me. If questioned I would defend my beliefs; however, unlike these preteens I did not dismiss a request for thoughtfulness. A want for greater wisdom was instilled in me from the first. I learned to desire discussions. Fury in my family seemed a futile emotion. It brought more wrath and offered little promise for peace.
However, my relatives did not raise these miniature men. Perhaps that explains why the pair of youthful McCain/Palin supporters began to rant and rage. They chided me for the size of my sign. The littler than full-grown lads laughed as they pointed to a banner firmly planted, permanently into the ground. Behind them was a monstrous sign, perhaps eight-feet wide and six feet high. The words McCain Palin stood strident for all passer-bys to see. On a background, so dark as to appear near black, the white letters screamed support for the Republican ticket.
The boys shrieked; "I cannot even see your sign." "It is so small," the two shouted. I did not react. The language the boys used morphed into a lexicon I will not utter, even when distressed. After moments when I avoided actual engagement; although I did not put my Obama sign down, I decided to speak again. "Love and peace," I proclaimed. I was quickly told there would be none of that. A slew of statements not to be repeated spewed from the mouths of babes. I was stunned, not by the venom but by the similarities and contrast.
While I waited for the light to turn green, I found myself lost in reveries.
As a child, also at the age of eleven or possibly twelve, I first began on my path as an activist, an advocate for people, regardless of race, color, creed, or religion. My civic maturity was intellectually realized through acceptance. I was taught not merely to tolerate others; I learned to embrace all. Amongst my lessons, diversity is as significantly wondrous as similarities. These were our family values. More importantly, the skill that was honed in my parents' home was listening.
My Mom and Dad helped me to understand that if I chose to hear what another believed, I could grow wiser. Together, communities are greater when the commonweal is the central concern. Fundamentally, my family believed, all individuals believe in love and goodness. "All men [and women, children too] are created equal.
Perhaps that is why, while in Middle School my family participated in a civil rights march. I was invited to join them. Years earlier, at the age of five, I became interested in politics. As my parents engaged in the most animated discussion I had ever witnessed, I learned of elections.
I grew aware of the emotional impact an economic issues and the impact these could have on a vote. Education, the environment, war, and peace all played a part in ballot decisions. At the kitchen table, as I sat and listened to the lively talk on topics that related to every aspect of life, I realized the power of everyday people. All Americans who vote shape our society. I also understood that those to little to cast a ballot had influence.
Mothers and fathers often jest, "My children learn what I never did." Proud papas revel in the knowledge a son or daughter shares. Modest Mamas marvel when their offspring offer informed opinions. In my youth, I may not have realized the words I uttered as a student enrolled in school were of interest to my Mom and Dad. What I saw and felt taught them. As I talked aloud, my parents learned. We chatted. The child was a mentor. Caregivers were counselors. Each gained and received a greater education from the other.
The difference between my experience and what I witnessed at the intersection was in my family, peace was promoted. A reciprocal reverence was advanced. A word such as "Muslim," a person's religion, was not considered a source for a slight.
I was not encouraged to slam or damn another being, not one who stood before me, or one who wished to serve the public. Indeed, behavior than might demean or dismiss another being was sincerely discouraged.
As a child, I was taught to believe competitive temperaments are counter productive. Characteristics that could be classified as cutthroat were considered childish, aggressive, and contrary to the traits that might create peace. Calmness was considered the pinnacle path. In my family, communication was thought to be the greatest travel, that is, next to thinking.
Even in election season, I learned at the knees of Mommy and Daddy; empathy is the best educator. I wondered. What had these young men experienced in their homes?
Would their mothers and fathers be pleased as they heard their brood proclaim prejudice statements from the pavement, "Barack Obama is a Muslim." Might the Moms or Dads of these chaps be indignant at the discordant idea of "Country First?" Would they rather the children cry in concord, "We, the people, are the change we can believe in." Likely not. Progeny are the products of parents.
If we teach the children to chastise, they will. Offspring trained to offend others do. Those tutored to act defensively often deliver dubious dictums. Fear fills the spirits of those who were not treated with abundant respect. Apprehension is frequently expressed as anger.
Concerned communication gives birth to calm and care. If we edify praise, as well as unity and peace, our offspring will practice kindheartedness. When mothers and fathers teach attentiveness and acceptance, the children will acquire comparable customs. Elders who choose to listen and learn from and with their progeny teach little ones to do the same.
Perchance what divides our country is not political parties, religious practices, color, or creed. What fractures America is the manner in which we parent our children.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 20, 2008 at 09:00 PM in Adult Influence on Children, Americana, Children, Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Elections, Empathy and Evolution, Family, Functioning, Fables, Fear | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Netroots Nation 2008; A Dream Realized
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Welcome Home Netroots Nation attendees. You may recall, it began with a dream, an impossible hope for a future unforeseen. It was your wish, his want, her desire, and my aspiration. Together we were the inspiration. We imagined greatness would be if we worked together. The issues of import to us were and continue to be the Environment, Education, Energy, Ethics, Wars in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and of course Peace. Health Care, and the fragile nature of medical coverage in the United States, does not escape our gaze. While we may embrace Free Enterprise, we are not ignorant of the inherent flaws within a system that rewards the rich and punishes the poor. The Courts, and Congress do not escape our scrutiny. Those of us who are far from apathetic examine the Executive Branch of government as well. Indeed, citizens that actively care inquire of and study every subject, deeply.
We, the vibrantly engaged people believe prosperity for all is a real possibility. Power, we trust does not reside within the halls of Congress, or corporate chambers. Nor is it found in the Oval Office. ,Rather the strengthen to bring about change is embodied within us.. When we came together and communicated, we created a net that grows from the roots. As a whole, we are a nation of thinkers, doers, and dynamic. We are determined to attain the incredible, just as our forefathers intended. We, the people who participate in endless discussions of what is, could be, would be, and work to ensure that the beauty of America is as was proposed hold dear the original declaration of independent believers
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The words of our ancestors resonate within us. Hence, just as the authors of this glorious creed did hundreds of years earlier, we met to discuss what we might do. Initially, we became acquainted in a community of computers. Then, we moved closer together in conferences, online and ultimately outside our homes. We may have met three years earlier at the first Yearly Kos, or two months prior as we passed through an essay. It matters not when we introduced ourselves to each other.
You gave rise to his verve. He encouraged her to trust. She buoyed my beliefs. Together we, each one of us, energized a nation. The topics we spoke of titillated, tantalized; others thought these subjects were taboo. Yet, for us, politics was personal. Religion was real. For us, the vocal few, faith is found everywhere, not merely in a house of worship.
We, the wondrous ones, willing to participate in profundity, cared to discuss what we thought crucial. Education, the curriculum, what our children learn, and teachers teach, reaches far beyond the classroom. We yearn for a healthy happy community, just as our forefathers did when they wrote the United States Constitution.
Perchance, that is why we consider the law. We understand that essential freedoms must be retained. For us, an awareness exists, if Americans are to be safe and secure, we must be able to express ourselves, particularly in private. Those of us who talk of the taboos rather than blindly trust concur; we are not able to feel as though our life is our own, if we do not live a liberated life within reason, an inherent right to happiness will not be realized. Contentment comes when we, within the greater community care for our brethren.
Perhaps, this knowledge prompts us to share stories of our experiences with the health care system. We have learned to consider the complexity of how, where, if, or when we will receive treatment. Chatters in cyberspace also ponder those who are denied a cure. We, the people within the net neighborhood broach what hurts the hearts of those who do not verbally venture into the realities that preclude a more solid union.
In America, more than a few have died needlessly due to medical glitches and Insurers hitches. That is the reason, unlike many, we do tell tales of woe. We acknowledge that those with medical coverage could lose the medical plans that provide a false sense of security, in an instant, indeed, retroactively. Those within the net neighborhood run, skip, walk, and crawl away from computers to aid the ailing. Advocates in the blogosphere take action to correct a structure wrought with corruption. Our desire to delve expands our horizons.
The common folks from throughout the land, when in cyberspace, chatter of health care and how the notion cannot exist as long as medical coverage is inaccessible or too easy rescinded buy "providers."
Food for us is more than an ingestible. Fodder, we realize, has an effect on our bodies, the environment, and our evolution. A cuisine, when commercially produced, can be a source of contaminants to man and beast, and we are not afraid to say so. Oh, there is much that those in the worldwide web talk of and take on. Problems are but a paradigm, and shifts are sustenance. In the Internet neighborhood, silence is the only enemy.
Those who address the unspeakable, discuss sex. You, he, she, and I give voice to the words often whispered; physical intimacy is a not a sin and lust does not give birth to closeness. Out in the open we speak of the significance of marriage, and not just the ceremony or the legal license issued. It was you, he, she, me, and we, who understood that love is not limited. Each of us trusted, our gender did not restrict the fondness we feel. Emotionally, we work to be intelligent and just, fair, people who honor reverent freedoms. We are Progressives and proud to care for our fellow man.
We know ethics cannot be ethereal if we are to achieve a greater good. Profound principles are essential if we, the people are to truly unite as one, and this week we did. In July 2008, in Austin, Texas, bloggers beamed with delight as we entered a new era. On Thursday, the 17th through Sunday the 20th politicians, pundits, professionals, and people from all walks of life joined forces and followed what was no longer a whimsy. Careful, thoughtful, honorable change came and united each of us. Together, we moved forward. More than two thousand strong showed they are committed to countless causes. As a nation rooted in the Net, individually and as a whole, we thrust towards a venerable transformation. There we were, Americans returned to the roots the founders provided.
Netroots Nation, we have grown. Our influence increases. As long as we continue to believe and act, no matter our differences, we can achieve the excellence envisioned. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, let us all remember . . .
(W)hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Let this thought be our guide when next we meet. Until then, please register for the next Continental Constitutional Cyberspace Conference, Netroots Nation 2009. Until August 13, 2009, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, may we look forward to our Internet interactions.
A Byte of Information . . .
- Netroots Nation
- The Online Candidate Confronts Critical Netroots, By Katharine Q. Seelye. The New York Times. July 16, 2008
- Appealing to Bloggers’ Influence, Gore Asks for Help in Promoting Energy Challenge, By Katharine Q. Seelye. The New York Times. July 20, 2008
- The Next President and the Law, Netroots Nation 2008
- Time for Action: How the Netroots Can Lead on Healthcare Reform, Netroots Nation 2008
- The Recipe for Change in America's Food System, Netroots Nation 2008
- Breaking the Frame: Revitalizing and Redefining Reproductive Rights Media Coverage, Netroots Nation 2008
- Whatever Happened to the Religious Left? Netroots Nation 2008
- Politically Active Youth on Political Participation and Civic Education: What They Have to Teach Us, Netroots Nation 2008
- Declaration of Independence. USHistory.org.
- Netroots Nation Registration.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 20, 2008 at 11:00 PM in Activism, Bloggers Unite, Communities, Communities and Communication , Daily Kos | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
US Policy; Attack Adversaries. Appease Americans. No Diplomacy
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Days ago, United States Commander-In-Chief, George W. Bush reminded us of the need to remain vigilant. He admonished anyone who might think to talk with those who politically, philosophically, or perhaps physically have the potential to oppose "us." The President of the world's superpower 'wisely' proclaimed ""Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." America's leader addressed Israeli lawmakers and said, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." As a protective parent might alert an easily frighten child, the Mister Bush forewarns his citizens. "Do not speak to strangers."
US policy under Bush is to attack or alienate. The Administration insists we will not appease or engage in diplomacy with what we identify as rogue nations. Persons classified as terrorists are to be threatened, and possibly killed. The President of the United States wishes to ensure he protects the public. Punitive measures multiply in a nation once defined as democratic.
Citizens in a country founded on the principles of equalitarianism no longer practice as they preach. Americans or the Administration ignore what is too often real; statistically, evidence shows those we know may be more dangerous. Close associates can harm "us." Those we have yet to encounter in our daily lives are not scary; they are unfamiliar. Hence, frequently, much to our own chagrin, people follow the lead of penal persons, just as we have in the United States. Today, American citizens are easily appeased, and willing to attack. We are willing to alienate our allies and all others. We spread democracy only to destroy the tenet.
People whose names, faces, customs, cultures, and skin color differs from "ours" are classified as aliens. Those who we do not speak with are considered adversaries, for "we" have not taken the time to become acquainted. "We" assume the people who are foreign to "us" are antagonistic. Americans, seem willing to dismiss the accepted wisdom; friendships are formed. Foes are those we do not know, and thus, fear.
That said, the defensive stance adopted by the paternalistic President presumes that "we" just as little children, are less learned. Therefore, we will give all our toys to another tot, or to the big-bad-boogie-man, he vehemently told "us" not to play with. The word "appeasement," as referenced in Mister Bush's speech does not speak to diplomacy, a skillful communication between countries; it connotes the giving of gifts.
Britain and France pursued a policy of appeasement in the hope that Hitler would not drag Europe into another world war. Appeasement expressed the widespread British desire to heal the wounds of World War I and to correct what many British officials regarded as the injustices of the Versailles Treaty.
Guilt motivates many a parent who realizes, in the past, they were overly punitive. A child, who chose actions that were combative and cruel may not learn to be kind, if a guardian slams and damns the young person, and then confines the lad or lass to a barren room. An adolescent starved for love, stripped of all possessions, severely reprimanded, and forced to submit reparations will not thrive. When a tot or a teen is stripped of a sense of self, as well as deprived of any dignity survival is a struggle. It is no wonder, upon reflection, the parents or persons in power were remorseful. The Versailles Treaty denied the German people all that made life whole.
This treaty held Germany solemnly responsible for WWI. Germany was forced to pay reparations totaling 132,000,000,000 in gold marks, they lost 1/8 of its land, all of its colonies, all overseas financial assets, a new map of Europe was carved out of Germany, and the German military was basically non-existent. To the German people they were being ruthlessly punished for a war not only were not responsible for but had to fight. The main terms of the
Versailles Treaty were:(1) the surrender of all German colonies as League of Nations mandates
(2) the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France
(3) cession of Eupen-Malmedy to Belgium, Memel to Lithuania, the Hultschin district to Czechoslovakia, Poznania, parts of East Prussia and Upper Silesia to Poland
(4) Danzig to become a free city
(5) plebiscites to be held in northern Schleswig to settle the Danish-German frontier
(6) occupation and special status for the Saar under French control
(7) demilitarization and a fifteen-year occupation of the Rhineland
(8) German reparations of £6,600 million
(9) a ban on the union of Germany and Austria
(10) an acceptance of Germany's guilt in causing the war
(11) provision for the trial of the former Kaiser and other war leaders
(12) limitation of Germany's army to 100,000 men with no conscription, no tanks, no heavy artillery, no poison-gas supplies, no aircraft, and no airships
(13) the limitation of the German Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, with no submarinesGermany signed the Versailles Treaty under protest. The USA Congress refused to ratify the treaty. Many people in France and Britain were angry that there was no trial of the Kaiser or the other war leaders.
The treaty devastated Germany politically and economically. Because of the treaty, many Germans were desperate to find a new leader to get them out of the Great Depression, which they blamed on the extravagant reparations they had to pay to the Allies.
A chastised child ultimately will not sacrifice their soul. They will rebel and revolt, as Germany did. Perhaps, Neville Chamberlain and those who chose "appeasement" overreacted as parents, or as people often do. Too often, an abusive authority figure will engage in one extreme behavior or another. Penalties and presents do help a youngster to learn. Neither deed will deliver a child from "evil." Calm, careful conversations help create a union between mother, father, and child. When Moms, Dads, or government officials love the other and self enough to empathetically listen reverent relationships grow. The same is true when we speak of nations. Negotiations are necessary if peace is to become a possibility. We do not war with those who work well with "us." Composure cultivated in conversations evokes cooperation.
Notwithstanding, the veracity that talk can educate and place a distressed child at ease, country or diplomat, Americans are asked to avoid discussion with those our "leaders" deemed dictators or terrorists. "We," the people are expected to forget, as George W. Bush expressed not too long ago. On February 13, 2006, just over two years earlier, Commander-In-Chief Bush avowed his desire to resolve disagreements with Iran in an irenic manner. The President of the United States proclaimed the potential nuclear crisis need not be a cause for confrontation. After talks in Washington with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the decisive Mister Bush said the allied leaders agreed; the issue must be solved "diplomatically by working together." However, as is evident, for persons who dominate, the definitions for "diplomacy" and "peaceful" are fluid, as is the description of democracy. Merriam-Webster offers . . .
de·moc·ra·cy
1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3. capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic Party in the United States (from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts)
4. the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
What may be thought odd is, in a nation founded on the principles of social equality, there are elite 'leaders.' These elected officials believe they must assure the common folk, it is best not to speak with our "enemies." In the United States, in practice, it seems democracy is a disciplinary dictum. The President envisions himself as a penal parent might.
Might we also muse of the contradiction? In a country of equals the race, religion, or social rank of an individual might reduce the presumed significance of a fellow citizen. Here in America, too often one neighbor is the nemesis of another. How could that be? We might ponder another paradox. If every individual is worthy, one of no more value than any other, why are there privileged people who have power over the populace? We may know not why; nonetheless, we are aware those in authority tell average Americans, 'Diplomacy would be pernicious.' The incongruity of the situation does not escape observant historians.
Academics who study the democratic system note Americans have less social equality than we like to think we do. Citizens of this country are as those in a family where retaliatory parents rule. The word "family" connotes a connection. Yet, when guardians are not caregivers and are instead castigators. "family' is but the facade.
Yet, just as in a dysfunctional home where the relatives wish to believe all is well, in this "progressive" nation, we may wish to believe the system works. Americans firmly assert the present is far better than the past was, and the future will bring greater improvements. We reassure ourselves with charts and graphs. We watch market reports and read research that validates what we wish to hold as truth.
Admittedly, the average American accepts that in this affluent and democratic nation problems persist. Income inequity has always been a constant; it remains pervasive in the States. Here, in the richest country in the world, in a nation where people are taught to believe everyone is equal, opportunities are not. Most dismiss the imbalance as temporary. Certainly, the prospect for change is plausible. Shortcomings are the effect of economic growth. Corrections will come, sooner or later. Perhaps tomorrow will bring a better day. Of course, it will. Americans know how to grow an economy. With expansion, earnings increase. People prosper, equally.
Most of "us" believe that democracy has survived each trial and tribulation, and a government of the people, as we presume ours to be, will continue to thrive. Yet; perchance, we have been persuaded to have faith as we do. Democracy is best. Nothing functions better.
This is a powerful assumption. It may be tested by reflecting upon the fact that, despite American progress, the society has been forced to endure sundry movements of protest. In our effort to address the inconvenient topic of protest, our need to be intellectually consistent -- while thinking within the framework of continuous progress -- has produced a number of explanations about the nature of dissent in America. Closely followed, these arguments are not really explanations at all, but rather the assertion of more presumptions that have the effect of defending the basic intuition about progress itself. The most common of these explanations rests upon what is perceived to be a temporary malfunction of the economic order: people protest when “times are hard.” When times stop being “hard,” people stop protesting and things return to “normal” -- that is to say, progress is resumed.Unfortunately, history does not support the notion that mass protest movements develop because of hard times. Depressed economies or exploitive arrangements of power and privilege may produce lean years or even lean lifetimes for millions of people, but the historical evidence is conclusive that they do not produce mass political insurgency. The simple fact of the matter is that, in ways that affect mind and body, times have been “hard” for most humans throughout human history and for most of that period people have not been in rebellion. Indeed, traditionalists in a number of societies have often pointed in glee to this passivity, choosing to call it “apathy” and citing it as a justification for maintaining things as they are.
This apparent absence of popular vigor is traceable, however, not to apathy but to the very raw materials of history -- that complex of rules, manners, power relationships, and memories that collectively comprise what is called culture. “The masses” do not rebel in instinctive response to hard times and exploitation because they have been culturally organized by their societies not to rebel. They have, instead, been instructed in deference. Needless to say, this is the kind of social circumstance that is not readily apparent to the millions who live within it.
The lack of visible mass political activity on the part of modern industrial populations is a function of how these societies have been shaped by the various economic or political elites who fashioned them. In fundamental ways, this shaping process (which is now quite mature in America) bears directly not only upon our ability to grasp the meaning of American Populism, but our ability to understand protest generally and, most important of all, on our ability to comprehend the prerequisites for democracy itself.
Perhaps, the words of Professor Lawrence Goodwyn help to explain why Americans believe people elsewhere are complacent. In the United States, the public presumes people abroad will not create change on their own. They must be taught to do as the American Administration thinks wise. This assessment of what occurs within our homeland may expose why "we" believe democracy can be forcibly imposed on other nations. The theory Goodwyn offers helps illustrate why in a "democratic" nation the deciders dictate policy for one and for all planet wide. However, the hypothesis may not be accurate.
In other territories, protest may not have been trained out of the populace. Perchance, residents in other regions were not appeased with material goods meant to buy love and obedience? We cannot be certain for there is so little that Americans are allowed to know of the persons our power elite wish to remain estranged from "us."
Nonetheless, it seems apparent from accounts, in other parts of the globe, dissent is not defined as terrorism. Discontent is not considered destructive. The voice of the people is not pernicious. Possibly, in some places governments are not as powerful as prohibitive parents might be. Oh, those who reign may try to exert absolute rule; however, the people are less easily "appeased" or patronized.
Many a Persian person may describe a situation different from Americans trust to be true in the Middle East. Numerous would share, in Iran, were it not for America's invasive input the inhabitants may have eliminated what the United States considers evil. Indeed, Iranians were working to end the reign of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, American intervened, and all changed, for the worse.
The follies of Bush's Iran policy
By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi
International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, May 30, 2007The confrontation between Iran and the West has developed a new dimension over the detention of several Iranian scholars, journalists and political activists who have been living in the West for years and have recently traveled to their homeland.
What is the root cause of these events? Part of it is the deep unpopularity of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Internal opposition to his government is becoming increasingly louder as Iranians are recognizing the danger in his foreign policy and his failure to improve the economy.
In December, university students forced him to stop his speech by shouting "death to the dictator." Iran's Parliament has severely criticized him. In recent municipal elections, candidates backed by Ahmadinejad received only 4 percent of the vote.
The conservatives who rule Iran are also badly fractured. The radical faction led by Ahmadinejad is bitterly opposed to the more moderate, pragmatic faction led by former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who advocates accommodation with the West.
The recent arrests should be seen partly as a reaction to these events. Unable to address Iran's mountain of social, economical and political problems, the hard-liners are trying to create a new crisis with the West in order to distract attention from their problems.
Possibly, this scenario demonstrates that American Administrators have much in common with those they emphasize are part of an "axis of evil." The need to divert attention dominates policy among world leaders. A desire to subvert the masses moves many decision-makers, just as it drives many a punitory parent. When authority figures wish to govern, not of, by or for the people but for the love of power, they subtly and successfully suppress the sensible among us.
Engineer, and Author David Brin may have said it best, "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power." Control is a costly endeavor. Perhaps, the price is too high for the average reasonable American, or possibly those who no longer view protest as wise, do not realize the expense is not only imprudent, it is counterproductive and detrimental to our own "Homeland Security."
Some of the $75 million has been devoted to the U.S.-funded Radio Farda, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as to VOA satellite TV, which are beaming Persian programs into Iran. Other portions have been given secretly to exiled Iranian groups, political figures, and nongovernmental organizations to establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.But Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone. The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.
According to the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis, noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is one of Washington's legal obligations . . .
Thus, Washington's policy of "helping" the cause of democracy in Iran has backfired. It has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West . . .
The Bush administration should put an end to its misguided policy and immediately declare which organizations and public figures have received funds from the $75 million. This will make it clear that the scholars, journalists and other figures who travel to Iran have nothing to do with Bush's policy on Iran.
We can hope that one day soon, Americans will find the courage to clarify what is more insidious. The principles that currently guide American democracy are not egalitarian. In this nation, appeasement and punishment dominate the dictums. The Administration, the elites, the influential do not speak for the people; nor do they engage in diplomatic relations that might bring persons of the world together as one.
If the United States government continues to aggressively assault our "enemies' as an abusive parent might if they perceive the "stranger" as a threat, then we can expect to be attacked. Should the powers-that-be in the States invoke embargos, again the risk is, this reactive behavior will incite attack. "Appeasement" will not bring bliss. Gifts given to lessen the weight of guilt will not gratify or garner good graces. We cannot buy love; nor can we grow fondness when engaged in a feud.
Thus far, "we" the people have seen what occurs when "our' government does not act in best interests of the people here or abroad. The Iranians who seek to enrich society are correct. A democratic system cannot be instigated from the outside. Fairness grows from within. Equanimity must evolve naturally if it is to be real, effective, and everlasting.
Might Americans work to cultivate the principles we espouse and yet have never established before we attempt to shift the paradigm elsewhere. Let us find a way to make democracy doable here at home. Perchance, diplomacy will build a bridge. If only Americans talked among themselves and to each other. We must speak to "strangers." Perhaps we will discover similarities. "We" the people cannot allow ourselves to be treated as children. We must acknowledge the people who claim to protect us are our abusers. The power-elite have the authority "we," the little people give them. America, it is time to stand up. Let us not fear the foreigner. With eyes wide open, let us consider those that cause us great harm live in our house.
Democracy Described and Defined . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 17, 2008 at 09:00 PM in Aggression, Americana, Communities, Communities and Communication , Defiant Diplomacy, Politics, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Xenophobia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Homage to Lawrence King. Teach Tolerance To Adults and Children
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It was February 14, 2008, Valentine's Day. Love was in the air. However, the expressions of appreciation offered were mournful. Doctors informed the family and his friends, Lawrence King, 15, was removed from life support. Two days earlier, young Larry was in the computer lab at E. O. Green Junior High in Oxnard, California. He sat with 24 other students when Brandon McInerney walked into the room with a gun. The armed classmate, fourteen-years of age, approached Lawrence with intent. Brandon aimed his weapon, pulled the trigger, and shot Lawrence in the head. Without hesitation, the shooter ran from the building. Circumstances led observers and police officers to conclude the act was intentional, calculated, and a conscious choice. Brandon committed what is commonly defined as a "hate crime."
Students were locked in classrooms. Grief and disbelief filled the air. Adults tried to calm the children. Teens tried to cope. Peers were befuddled. Pupils sought information and shared what they knew. After the event, fingers flew across cellular telephone keypads. Text messages were sent and received from schoolroom to schoolroom. The words were, "Brandon McInerney did the deed." 'Not Brandon McInerney, No way.'
"Brandon wouldn't do this," eighth-grader Jessica Lee remembers thinking. "He's a good kid. It can't be Brandon."But some at the Oxnard junior high school had seen Larry, 15, teased by students in the weeks before the shooting for being gay and wearing high-heeled boots and makeup. Some witnessed confrontations between Larry and Brandon, with Larry teasing Brandon and saying he liked him.
Family members and friends described Larry as a sweet, artistic boy who loved to sing and didn't understand why people reacted negatively to him.
Brandon, 14, a tall, athletic eighth-grader, was described by friends and acquaintances as a mellow, focused kid, but one who wouldn't back down in a confrontation.
Brandon had learned his lessons well. He learned to feel deeply. Indifference was not part of his repertoire, intolerance was. Perhaps from within the womb, he began his education. Those who in an act of love came together to give birth to Brandon, apparently knew nothing more than volatile loathing. Perchance, Brandon's mother, Kendra and his father, William were raised to love or hate, but not tolerate.
We can be certain that baby Brandon did as all infants do after birth, he absorbed all the messages that surrounded him. . Education is not an isolated entity. Knowledge is not gained only in a classroom. Our first school is called home. Structured lessons may inform us; however, these are never internalized as deeply as the wisdom we acquire at the knees of our Mom and Dad. Parents have a profound influence on a child. Those we love most have the power to teach us more. Definitely, the occurrence taught Brandon what to do when he felt troubled.
Kendra McInerney, Brandon's mother, claimed a night of partying in 1993 ended in a fight and William shooting her in the elbow, breaking it in several places, according to court records. Still, they married later that year, and Brandon was born in January 1994.The fighting didn't stop, and sometimes it was witnessed by Brandon and his two older half-brothers, according to court records. In 2000, William pleaded no contest to a domestic battery charge against Kendra. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail and ordered to attend domestic violence classes. The couple separated in August 2000.
Love, or familiarity can breed contempt. Even when someone no longer shares a physical space with the person that causes him or her distress that individual remains intimately connected in the heart. Parting is not a sweet sorrow. Indeed, it is often the source of more pain. Indifference is rarely evident once an emotional bond is formed.
For Kendra and William McInerney, separation did nothing to alleviate the angst they felt or expressed. , Nor, did living apart make life more livable for the children. Drinking, drugs, and violence were daily transgressions in Brandon's life. The stories are stark. Yet, fortunately, it appeared Brandon survived. Indeed, some would say he thrived.
Through all the family turmoil, Brandon got involved in activities outside the home, including martial arts and lifeguard training. He seemed to want something more than just the status quo of Silver Strand, Crave said."He didn't want to be involved in that whole thing," Crave said, gesturing at friends drinking a few beers nearby after getting off work.
Brandon joined the Young Marines — the Marine Corps' equivalent of a JROTC program — several years ago and became a leader in the group, which disbanded last summer.
"Brandon was a young man that I would never have figured something like this would happen to," said Mel Otte, his commanding officer.
Otte said he never witnessed Brandon showing a short temper and that he would have been kicked out of the group if he had bullied other kids.
"He was an outstanding young man," Otte said. "What happened since I left, I have no idea."
What occurred did not take place in a instant. The image of restraint did not transcend an earlier reality. Change did not come on in a flash. Often calm is a facade for the chaos that lay beneath the surface of a boy [girl, woman, or man] who battles emotional upheavals. What was real for Brandon is true for each of us. We learn and live what we believe is customary.
Even those of us who "know better," or are exposed to impressive amounts of information, organized to challenge unhealthy conventions, do as we have seen done, or was done to us. Some escape the affects of sensory overload for a time. Few abandon family traditions until long they have repeatedly fallen from grace. Only an individual forced to face his or her "demons" day in and day out thinks to learn new habits.
We all love easily. We loathe with less effort. What we do not do well is authentically accept others. Few beings bother to have compassion, to learn from those who look, think, feel, or act differently. Without empathy, everyone is a possible enemy.
Hate, or fear, of what we do not understand, motivates many a mind to react aggressively. Apprehension and anxiety are not logical. None of our emotions are. Nevertheless, all too often humans, prideful of an intellectual capacity, are galvanized by feelings. We are threatened by what we feel terrorizes us.
For Brandon it was a boy who thought him fine. For adults it may be a secret admirer, or an individual who has authority over us. The neighbor who was unkind could seem a danger. Mature men or women may believe the man in the automobile in front of them is a menace. Even a small girl, on the corner, with her fingers out-stretched in a sign of peace could seem a hazard if our habit is to adopt an angry stance when we feel annoyed.
People are familiar with what deeply disturbs them. They know all too well how to demonstrate love and hate. Indifference is doable, as long as an n individual does not see or hear those outside their sphere. Benevolence, perhaps that is the reaction, the action we do not learn from birth.
We all crave a connection. Humans have needs. Individuals long to be included, intimately involved; we wish to feel as though we have the right and power to make decisions for ourselves. Men, women, and children are not indifferent. Hence the dilemma.
When it seems we are unable to manage our world, humans freak. Each of us responds differently, understandably. Intellectually, people may recognize they cannot control the universe. However, when stressed, we discover the habits we hold dear remain intact. Our reactions are not innate, just well studied. Brandon McInerney was not a bad boy. He is a human being. He reacted as he had learned to do. Barely fourteen years of age, Brandon expressed his deep disdain for a situation and someone he could not control.
Chaos abounds. Nonetheless, we try. Too often, we fail. A senseless murder, and what assassination is not absurd, illustrates what occurs when someone does not feel fulfilled and knows not what to do. People in physical or psychological pain lash out in the ways they know how.
Brandon McInerney was baffled, no terrified, by the actions of another boy. Lawrence did not cause bodily harm to his peer. He did no verbal damage, at least not intentionally. Paradoxically, when Larry spoke of Brandon, he articulated his sincere admiration. That is what bothered the young boy Brandon. Love, especially when expressed unconventionally, caused Brandon's heart and mind to break. The young lad, now passed, Larry, did not bully Brandon or his buddies. Indeed, the other boys hassled Lawrence prior to his final day.
In recent weeks, the victim, Lawrence King, 15, had said publicly that he was gay, classmates said, enduring harassment from a group of schoolmates, including the 14-year-old boy charged in his death.
McInerney, now in custody, refuses to speak of what motivated him. His lawyer offers the fourteen year old is too young to fully understand his actions. Perhaps all people are too immature to rationalize the unreasonable, revulsion, repulsion, and feelings of repugnance.
What is hate? Certainly, it is an emotion, as inexplicable as fondness. Each can be voiced to the extreme. Neither is inconsequential. Perhaps, when humans feel adoration or antipathy they lose all perspective. The chemistry we feel when we connect intensely is uncontrollable. If only people could capture the energy and place it in a bottle before they pop.
Assemblyman Mike Eng (Democrat, Monterey Park), chairman of the Assembly Select Committee on Hate Crimes, said we would, with a bit of money directed towards teaching diversity, be able to stop crimes against people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
"My bill is focusing on [hate crime] prevention," Eng said after a news conference at his El Monte district office. "We already have bills on the books about proper punishment; mine will focus on dealing with hatred in a school setting."Eng hopes to create a pilot program by allocating up to $150,000 to establish a diversity and sensitivity curriculum at a few school districts. The pilot program would serve as a model to be used to develop lesson plans statewide.
Others in the community believe the proposed program only serves to comfort parents and Principals, adults, and not adolescents. Countless argue that similar programs such as D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), are ineffective. These simplistic strategies always were nothing more than slogans used to appease anxious adults. Although these agendas survive, they do not strengthen the will or the character of the young persons they serve. At times, instruction is as indifference. If you do not know what to do, or say about an open wound, look for an easy answer. Apply salve, and walk away. Most of us truly believe the sore will eventually heal by itself.
Here's a news flash: "Just Say No" is not an effective anti-drug message. And neither are Barney-style self-esteem mantras . . .DARE, which is taught by friendly policemen in 75 percent of the nation's school districts, has been plagued by image problems from the beginning, when it first latched on to Nancy Reagan's relentlessly sunny and perversely simplistic "Just say No" campaign. The program's goals include teaching kids creative ways to say "no" to drugs, while simultaneously bolstering their self-esteem (which DARE founders insist is related to lower rates of drug use). . . .
According to an article published in the August 1999 issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, DARE not only did not affect teenagers' rate of experimentation with drugs, but may also have actually lowered their self-esteem. . . .
The findings were grim: 20-year-olds who'd had DARE classes were no less likely to have smoked marijuana or cigarettes, drunk alcohol, used "illicit" drugs like cocaine or heroin, or caved in to peer pressure than kids who'd never been exposed to DARE. But that wasn't all. "Surprisingly," the article states, "DARE status in the sixth grade was negatively related to self-esteem at age 20, indicating that individuals who were exposed to DARE in the sixth grade had lower levels of self-esteem 10 years later." Another study, performed at the University of Illinois, suggests some high school seniors who'd been in DARE classes were more likely to use drugs than their non-DARE peers.
Still, Americans, intent on straightforward solutions, quick fixes, and immediate gratification, forget that life is not so simple. The family teaches children from birth. The lessons we learn in our youngest years are internalized deeply. In infancy, each day we encounter our mother, father, or guardian, the people we need most, and most want to love us. As toddlers, we are intimately involved with our caregivers, even if they do not seem to care for us. When we are children, the only choice that we have, the only option that gives us a sense of control, is to cling to those who help us survive. Moms and Dads are our first and best, teachers, if only because they are there in whatever capacity.
However, sadly, for some of us, such as Brandon McInerney our mentors did not teach us well. Schools try to suffice. Teachers with ten, twenty forty to a class try to create a relationship with each student. As educators teach Math, Science, Reading, and English, they work to provide a sense of self-worth to each and every young scholar. For a few hours, five days a week, a troubled youngster can call his or her classroom home.
For young people such as Larry, school may have been a place to blossom, somewhere where he felt safe, or for both the boys an educational institution may have been the place where lessons begun at birth were reinforced. Each was teased, bullied, and verbally battered. Each had friends. However, they may not have felt they achieved an authentic intimate connection with anyone. Even acquaintances can say . . .
“He had a character that was bubbly,” Marissa said. “We would just laugh together. He would smile, then I would smile, and then we couldn’t stop.”
An ally in life does more than smile or laugh. Larry King may have felt he had few real supporters, in a school he attended for only months. How close can two people be when they see each other only for hours and then each returns to their own abode. One may return to the place they consider "Home Sweet Home," the other may reside in an institution, far from those who are "supposed" to love him.
For several months before to the shooting, Larry had been living at Casa Pacifica, a residential center for troubled youths in Camarillo.
Lawrence's parents are alive and well, as are his four siblings, a younger brother, two older brothers, and an older sister. While the family spoke lovingly of the dearly departed, they dared not speak of why the lad no longer lived with them. Many children today are placed in treatment agencies. The numbers are staggering. The reasons are astounding. Yet, when people know not how to love well, and are not indifferent, they do what they may hate to do.
The number of children placed in residential treatment centers (or RTCs) (1) is growing exponentially.(2) These modern-day orphanages now house more than 50,000 children nationwide.(3) Children are packed off to RTCs, often sent by officials they have never met, who have probably never spoken to their parents, teachers or social workers.(4) Once placed, these kids may have no meaningful contact with their families or friends for up to two years.(5) And, despite many documented cases of neglect and physical and sexual abuse, monitoring is inadequate to ensure that children are safe, healthy and receiving proper services in RTCs.(6) By funneling children with mental illnesses into the RTC system, states fail—at enormous cost—to provide more effective community-based mental health services.(7)RTC placements are often inappropriate.
RTCs are among the most restrictive mental health services and, as such, should be reserved for children whose dangerous behavior cannot be controlled except in a secure setting.(8) Too often, however, child-serving bureaucracies hastily place children in RTCs because they have not made more appropriate community-based services available.(9) Parents who are desperate to meet their kids’ needs often turn to RTCs because they lack viable alternatives.(10)To make placement decisions, families in crisis and overburdened social workers rely on the institutions’ glossy flyers and professional websites with testimonials of saved children.(11) But all RTCs are not alike.(12) Local, state and national exposés and litigation “regarding the quality of care in residential treatment centers have shown that some programs promise high-quality treatment but deliver low-quality custodial care.”(13) As a result, parents and state officials play a dangerous game of Russian roulette as they decide where to place children, because little public information is available about the RTCs, which are under-regulated and under-supervised.
Yet, parents and community services agencies take those who are perhaps most vulnerable, our young and troubled teens, and place them in Residential Treatment Centers not able to provide minimal care. When we, as a culture consider other options, and other means for childcare, we cannot but think of poor Brandon and how he suffered at the hands of his mother and father. We are reminded that Brandon, the tormented shooter, lived in a location he called home. We might wonder; which situation was better, worse, or can we even compare the traumas each child in this story suffered.
Brandon and Larry are not anomalies. They are not alone. Children throughout our country are taught to express love in a violent manner. The little ones watch adults they admire model cruelty. The young are trained to demonstrate their contempt similarly. Sadistic reactive behaviors rule in our society. Listen to people ruthlessly scream in the marketplace. Consider the abundance of "hate crimes" in America. Turn on the television. Tune into the radio. Read the "literature." Hostile conduct is commended and condoned.
For too many of our offspring, aggression in their daily existence is the norm. They hear it in their homes; see their parent bludgeon each other. As toddlers, tots, children, or teens our youth feel the bruises on their back, and remember the bones broken by those they love most. Ponder the statistics.
During FFY 2005, an estimated 899,000 children in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect.
- Children in the age group of birth to 3 years had the highest rate of victimization at 16.5 per 1,000 children of the same age group in the national population;
- More than one-half of the victims were 7 years old or younger (54.5%)
- More than one-half of the child victims were girls (50.7%) and 47.3 percent were boys; and
- Approximately one-half of all victims were White (49.7%); one-quarter (23.1%) were African-American; and 17.4 percent were Hispanic.
Gender preference did not determine maltreatment when infants and the very young among were involved. Specific biases are learned as we "mature." While many wish to focus on Larry's identification with the gay community as reason for such a horrific reaction, the cause for Brandon's response goes far deeper. Scorn is rarely selective. Disparagement is an equal opportunity employer.
Abusive behaviors are rooted in our personal history. We cannot dismiss the fact that as a society, our past performances towards those we disdain are deplorable. As a culture, emotional beings that we are, we embrace love and hate, and ignore indifference.
We must ask ourselves, what are we doing to our offspring from the day they enter this world, and why. Answers offered after the fact, solutions that do not address the broader question will not stop the violence we see in schools. Nor will it quash the mayhem or reduce the murders we see on our streets. Hate crimes are born at home. Mothers and fathers motivate much that occurs. Moms and Dads often do what was done to them.
Children 'learn violence from parents'Children who witness domestic violence are at an increased risk of having abusive relationships as adults, researchers have found.
Being abused as a child and having behavioural problems also increases the risk of being violent as adults. Receiving excessive punishment is another risk factor. US researchers from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and the New York State Psychiatric Institute followed 540 children for 20 years from 1975 . . .
If a pattern of violent behaviour towards a partner has been established, it is difficult to change say the researchers. . . .
If a child was hit by their parents, they were much more likely to see violence as a way of resolving problems as adults, the researchers found.
But seeing violence perpetuated between parents was found the be the greatest risk factor for being the victim of a violent partner as an adult.
Both men and women who witnessed domestic violence were likely to grow up to abuse their partners . . .
"This acceptance of coercive, power-based norms as ways of regulating conflict may have direct implications for young adults' means of conflict resolution with partners, independent of a disruptive behaviour disorder."
For too many of our young persons a forceful hand, a furious face, and a vicious voice are identified with those they are most fond of. Children are confused. In too many lives, love does not come easily. Little ones do not know what authentic affection looks like. As "mature" beings, some people seek the wisdom they did not acquire in their family homes. They wish to learn of what could not have been fully integrated in a school curriculum. Grown-up persons harmed by habits that debilitate a mind, body, heart, and soul know to their core, habits die hard. Adult classes meant to teach as Assemblyman Eng proposed exist at West Virginia University an older person can study How To Communicate Love. Learners are instructed, "Love comes from within." Students are advised to appreciate themselves.
Learning to love yourself will help create your personal appearance of love. If you do not know how to love yourself, you will not be able to love others. Loving yourself also means that you have a loving attitude in your actions and responses toward others; that you look for opportunities to help rather than be helped; that you communicate a loving appreciation of others with “thank you” and “please” as part of your vocabulary; that you forgive others and do not hold a grudge; and that you help people in need without thought of reward or recognition.
However, ultimately pupils are reminded of what Lawrence and Brandon have helped us realize.
How we communicate love to others is learned; we are not born with the ability to communicate love.
Nor are we born with the ability to hate. Each of us, every man, woman, and child is well-trained. If we are to truly end the violence that exists in schools, we must eliminate the hostility in our homes. Assemblyman Eng, perhaps a program in parenting, one instituted in every community throughout the globe might be more effective than any instruction in a school. If we are to truly teach forbearance to our progeny we must acknowledge parents, adults in every avenue are our life teachers. Let us not speak of how best to teach the children tolerance. We, their elders must learn how to love first. Perhaps, if the elders begin to appreciate each other without brutality, next Valentine's Day Cupid will not shoot arrow. He will bestow gentle kisses on each of us.
Sources, Societal Scars, Scabs . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 28, 2008 at 11:00 AM in "Take me as I am!", Abuse, Adult Influence on Children, Aggression, Approval or Love, Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Emotional Intelligence, Family, Functioning, Fables, Fear, Human Nature, Humans, Self-Destructive, Life, A Forward Motion, Light. Darkness., Looking at Life, Nature or Nurture, Quality of Life, School Days, School Shootings, School Violence, Society, Teach The Children, Tributes, Verbal Combat, Violence, When Will I Be Right? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Communication; Alone in a Crowd
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
The world is crowded. Six billion, six hundred twenty seven million, three hundred and sixty six thousand, three hundred and fifty people populate this planet, or did a short time ago. In this moment, there are more humans than there were seconds ago. The number of inhabitants increases exponentially each day. Everywhere we look, there is another person being born. Yet, at least in America, people feel more isolated than they did in the past.
Americans are more connected. Cyberspace calls us and draws us in. Electronic communiqués flood our online mailboxes. Cell telephones ring. It seems everyone has one and uses it to speak with someone, even when they are with another individual. Conversation is ubiquitous. However, when in a crowd, Americans feel more socially isolated.
A horde of people feels hollow; a throng leaves us empty. Conversations abound. Yet, few communicate.
Wherever we go we see smiles, hear laughter; and listen. Frequently, we initiate or participate. With all the chitter and chatter, certainly life must be a party. Yet, while engaged in the festivities many feel so very alone. People talk incessantly. Individuals prattle. Persons natter. Discussions abound; yet, something is missing. Small talk does not soothe the soul; it only fills the air.
Folks imply, infer, interpret, insinuate, and insult. Humans coo and coddle. A few chuckle and chat. Still they do not dare speak of what concerns them. True conversation can be dangerous, or at least difficult.
How often have we felt alone in a crowd even when we appear engaged? As children, we "played" with our peers; yet, often we marveled at what seem to entertain them. We went along to get along. At a certain age, we were enrolled school. Placed in a classroom with throngs of students we were one among many. There were expectations that may not have seemed reasonable to us. Yet, we learned it is best to remain silent and pretend to absorb the information. Feeling alone, lost, confused, and perhaps in disagreement was better than being singled out and punished for "bad" behavior.
Now, in our personal and professional lives, we do as we learned best when we were little; we say little or nothing. A parent may fear repercussions if they approach their child's teacher with concerns. A Mom or Dad may feel so forlorn. Other youngsters understand the assignment, and their son is lost. Dad devotes his evenings to his daughter. He tutors her in Math. He wonders, why she does not receive adequate instruction in school. Mothers and fathers may wait to speak. They do as they did when younger; parents hold back. They do not say what is on their mind.
When frustrated beyond belief Mom or Pop may call the school and shout, "Why is my child singled out?" The shrill approach to a perceived problem only exasperates a situation.
Old, young, or contemplating the circumstance of those close to us, often we believe our situation is different. People ponder if they speak, they will be labeled defiant. Some satisfied with the description heatedly head into battle after battle. Individuals take their convictions and mannerisms with them wherever they go.
Professional mentors muse. The goals outlined in the mandated curriculum conflict with the instructor's sense of quality education. Concern for the physical realities of survival may influence this academic. He may decide to do as he is told. Paychecks are often a priority when making a decision. Another educator might march into a superior's office in a huff. Crossly, she will stake out her claim. While the approaches differ, neither communicates their message well. It is difficult to hear what is not said. When faced with verbal flames, people struggle to do more than defend themselves.
An Administrator annoyed with Board dictums, does as she is told. In industry, we observe people are well trained. They too had years of schooling. Society teaches us; only those in authority can voice their opinions. Subordinates must suffer. Common workers do not have the power to be players. Some staffers do steam and scream; they express great angst. However, they usually discover when they holler they loose credibility. A lesson rarely taught in schools or at home is true communication only occurs when calm.
No matter the vocation, indoctrination is sadly, similar. Physicians and mechanics alike learn to diagnose; yet, not discuss. Accountants calculate; however, careful conversation may not be in the equations. Technicians understand how to tinker; they may not have acquired the skill necessary to talk and listen. Chief Executive Officers may have assets; they can secure profits. Nonetheless, many have not earned a degree in deep dialogue.
In every profession and predicament, there are presumed elites. They are knowledgeable in their area of expertise. The mediocre fill room after room. The mundane are abundant. Status means nothing when we evaluate communication skills. Nonetheless, the hierarchy affects what happens when people engage.
Humans in every aspect of life do great harm to themselves and others when they do not express themselves for fear of their station. When individuals yelp rather than ask for the help they actually want or need, much is lost. Trust and tranquility are necessary if we are to truly communicate.
When we remain silent, we appear to be in agreement with authorities, contemporaries, colleagues, and cohorts. If we do not verbalize who we are, what we need, or our beliefs, we experience a greater sense of solitary confinement. We may appear to be part of a team. In truth, we further the distance between self and others. Shouts do not secure closeness; nor do these facilitate communication and empathy. Our reluctance to communicate or boisterous behavior causes a greater divide.
Please ponder what occurs in your office, at a party, in professional careers and in personal relationships. We can be physically connected and emotionally separate. We converse and yet, we do not communicate.
In a classroom, in a court house, a cafeteria, when on a conference-call, in neighborhood communities, and even at home people debase, condescend, patronize, roll their eyes when they think no one will notice, or show sycophantic respect. They, we, humans are anything but authentic when we speak with others. Then we wonder; why might we be less than effective communicators?
When with a loved one, we might relax. We feel we can be totally true to ourselves. Thus, if we feel a need to express ourselves in a difficult situation, we may shout, scream, stomp, slam doors, and tell the other to "Shut up," common vernacular for "Please, close your mouth."
Those calmer in nature, engage in deep and logical discussions. We use "laser logic" to burn a hole in the heart, mind, and soul of a mate. Words may not draw blood; nonetheless, the body is left limp, lame on the floor. It is not a pretty site.
Whether we are physically or verbally aggressive, intellectually assertive, or even silent in difficult times, ultimately we will realize communication is not easy.
Most people realize that the lack of effective communication with others can lead to serious problems in a person’s life: 44% of Americans believe that it "very frequently" causes a marriage or a relationship to end, fewer (38%) say that money problems "very frequently" get in the way of a relationship, some name interference of relatives or in-laws (14%), others blame sexual problems (12%), previous relationships (9%), and children (7%).When asked to choose the most frequent cause among those they listed as "very frequent causes," only two stand out: a majority (53%) say a lack of effective communication between partners is the most frequent cause, while fewer than three in ten (29%) say money problems are the most frequent cause. All other causes are ranked first by fewer than one in ten people.
Partnership has an emotional appeal. Emotions can cause and have an effect on the quality of a conversation. This is evident when we search the statistics. It is interesting to note, people may be more cautious in their careers than they are at home. Our need to survive, to provide food, shelter, and clothing can come between our mouth and our brain. Physically, humans may be more dependent on dollars, than they are on their mate.
A majority of Americans are satisfied with the comfort level of communication in the workplace, though they feel far more at ease talking to their coworkers than their boss. Almost two-thirds of people who work are very comfortable communicating with their coworkers (69%) while only 3% feel uncomfortable. Fewer people (no surprises here) feel very comfortable communicating with their boss (57%). People feel they are less effective than comfortable communicating at work: more than half think they are "very effective" communicating with their colleagues (58%), and somewhat fewer (51%) feel very effective communicating with their supervisor.Older, more experienced people consider themselves more effective communicators than younger people who are just starting their careers and establishing their relationships in the workplace: half of those aged 45-54 (51%) consider themselves to be "very effective" in their communication with the boss, versus four in ten 18 to 24 year olds (39%). Clearly, people become more comfortable and effective dealing with the boss as they get more experience.
At times, age is not the determinant. Experience does not make a difference. Status counts more than seniority or knowledge. Rank is frequently the reward of those considered more capable. Confidence is often interpreted as competence. Commonly, we calculate the worth of another by how well they communicate. If a man or woman greets a crowd with a haughty hail, often they are thought to be strong. A shy and quiet person, someone who is reserved and perhaps reflective may be viewed as less able.
In the workplace, silence is a common solution when confronted with what might seem a crisis. How often have any of us sat with a supervisor and said nothing substantial when asked for our opinion. When on conference calls, or in a meeting with colleagues, we might notice the complaints we hear in the hallway when chatting one-on-one are never discussed. Certified consultations are void of communication. People, when placed in a professional situation do not exchange ideas freely, even when given the opportunity.
Yes, associates chatter; they talk. Statements are made. Yet, ultimately, workers are complacent. Everyone is eager to please the person in charge. Silence may secure a professional paid position. However, the lack of discussion may be perceived in ways the worker does not consider. In the office, at home, on the streets, silence is not always golden.
10 Things to Know About Silence in Communication
By Susan Dunn
July 28, 2005One of the most important parts of any conversation is the silence. Silence can serve many functions in a conversation and how you manage it, determines your level of sophistication. Here are some points to keep in mind about silence in communication.
1. Allowing silence in a conversation puts pressure on the other person. It’s conventional in the US not to allow any sort of extended silence in a conversation. Therefore, to allow one puts pressure on the other person to "fill air time." Some interviewers, for instance, use this technique to see what will happen. Often the person will “spill” – saying exactly the thing they didn’t want to say.
2. Silence can indicate hostility. Withdrawing, “stonewalling,” and pouting in silence are ways some people handle anger. Such a silence can be pulsating with bad feelings, and elicit anger on the part of the other person.
3. Silence can indicate disagreement.
While it’s almost never an indication of indifference, silence can indicate that the other person is having negative emotions. When we experience anger, fear, or embarrassment, our thinking brain shuts down. We sit there fuming, unable to speak; enraged and unable to find words; afraid and scared speechless. Some people are “flooded” with these emotions, and unable to respond.
4. Silence can indicate profoundness, such as awe or horror. Sometimes when we’re listening to someone else, we hear something that leaves us speechless because it really goes beyond words. Listening to someone talk about a dreadful trauma they’ve endured, or a beautiful, almost-sacred interaction with another human being, or a description of an awesome natural event such as a sunset or a volcano eruption are examples. Somehow, when we listen to such things, the ordinary “Oh," "Wow," and “That’s awesome” don’t seem enough, and so we fall silent.
5. Silence can indicate respect. In some cultures more than others, silence indicates respect. A young person may be expected to approach an older person or a person in authority and remain silent until recognized, acknowledged, and spoken to.
6. Silence can indicate contemplation. The more introverted your communication partner, the more likely they will think before they speak. Extraverts discover what they’re thinking and how they feel by talking. Introverts figure it all out inside their own head and heart before giving voice to it.
7. Silence can be intentional rudeness. Because of the nature of normal conversation in the US, allowing an extended silence can be perceived as rudeness. It can also be meant that way. Refusing to reply to the other person is a way of ignoring them.
8. Silence can be the creation of a listening space. When you are profoundly listening to someone, you create an open space for them to talk into that’s almost palpable. Good listeners know how to do this, and it can be learned. It’s an "openness" that you transmit through nonverbal means.
9. Silence can be an indication of empathy. When we're really tuning in to how the other person feels, we're listening more to the tone of their voice, cadence and speed rather than the actual words, so reply with words may not be the most appropriate response. Sometimes sounds are more attuned . . . a murmur, a sigh, sucking in the breath in shock, soothing sounds, clucking (tsk tsk), or shaking the head and going uh, uh, uh.
10. How you manage silence in conversation is an important part of emotional intelligence. Excellent communicators can allow silence when it’s effective or called for; can avoid being pressured into “spilling” when silence is used manipulatively; offer silence as a gift or sign of respect; interpret the silence of others appropriately; understand how other cultures use silence; mindfully regulate the use of silence; and are comfortable with silence and understand its many uses.
When we do not speak; are we the diligent student, the deterred parent, the proper professor, or the distracted, protracted fuse about to bust into flames. Might we be the bewildered Board member, the embattled employee, the disgruntled laborer looking for a way to distinguish ourselves, even if it means we must destroy our co-workers and perhaps ourselves? An observer cannot be certain.
The sounds of silence are significant. They can confuse those that hear nothing. We may intend to communicate we care, and they may interpret the lack of words as contemptuousness. What we do not say speaks volumes, just as gestures do. Does a pat on the bottom mean "Well done," or does such a stroke signify, "I like your body." We can never be certain what another person intends with or without words. Yet, ninety percent of what we communicate is said without oral language.
Non-verbal communication is a system consisting of a range of features often used together to aid expression . . . The main components of the system are:
Kinesics (body language) Body motions such as shrugs, foot tapping, drumming fingers, eye movements such as winking, facial expressions, and gestures
Proxemics (proximity) Use of space to signal privacy or attraction
Haptics Touch
Oculesics Eye contact
Chronemics Use of time, waiting, pausing
Olfactics Smell
Vocalics Tone of voice, timbre, volume, speed
Sound symbols Grunting, mmm, er, ah, uh-huh, mumbling
Silence Pausing, waiting, secrecy
Posture Position of the body, stance
Adornment Clothing, jewellery, hairstyle
Locomotion Walking, running, staggering, limping Of the above, body language (particularly facial expressions and gestures), eye contact, proximity, and posture are probably those which learners most need to be aware of in terms of conveying meaning, avoiding misunderstandings and fitting in with the target culture.
In terms of skills development, non-verbal clues should not be underestimated when developing both the listening and speaking skills. Like grammatical structures, non-verbal communication has form, function and meaning, all of which may vary from language to language.
What does not differ, no matter the verbal or nonverbal language, is the perceived quality of the interaction. When two people come together, even if they do not speak the same dialect, or hold positions outwardly considered equal, they have a sense of whether the interchange is effective and meaningful.
A student can work with a teacher as a colleague. A mentor can learn from those that actively acquire knowledge. A candid parent can approach a child with authentic empathy. What mother or father was not once young? Educators, Moms, and Dads can discuss their needs and deeds without defensiveness.
A Physician can seek the wisdom of their patient. Indeed, only an individual can know what occurs within his or her body and how they feel. A corporate President can engage a subordinate with authentic interest. After all, if anyone understands how a company works, it is the peon, the secretary, and the janitor with the keys to every door. Theses employees have been everywhere within the workplace. Staffers know where the skeletons are hidden, what needs attention, and what functions well.
If each person in every profession or circumstance cares to communicate, attempts to approach the other with empathy, and a desire to understand, any exchange can be fruitful and fulfilling. Again, a conversation is more complex than oral statements.
We may be able to locate an interpreter if the spoken word is unfamiliar. Nevertheless, if our message is not sent with an open heart and mind it will not be received well. Advice from a master communicator and successful businessman may assist us if we are willing to look beyond the superficial.
Former General Electric Chief Executive Office, Jack Welch understands that communication is not a technical process. Task analysis, and implementation of supposed "tried and true" techniques, will not create a great communicator or a leader. Words will not woo a client or the person that you wish to court.
Titles don't matter . . . Passion, chemistry, and idea-flow from any level, at any place are what matters.Welch also says that passion is a must for any CEO or leader [or regular person that wishes to be an effective raconteur.] "If there is one characteristic that all leaders [happy fulfilled persons] share, it's that they care more than anyone else. No detail is too small to sweat or too large to dream." . . . Passion comes in all shapes and sizes and takes many different forms. Ultimately, passion can come from only one place: "From deep inside," as Welch put it.
. . . Passionate leaders [persons] get people to look inside themselves and give more, create more, and risk more.
When asked of communication Jack Welsh muses, whenever he had an idea or message he could "never say it enough." Whether it be in the workplace, within the home, a community, or in the world at-large Jack Welch understands what we all might ponder. People, more accurately, passion makes the difference. Characterizations and classifications do not move mountains, make an industry, allow for intimacy, or inspire. Indeed these designations may threaten us. Welch, an accomplished entrepreneur, and former Chairman reminds us, an authoritarian approach to leadership or in language may deter supposed subordinates.
My experience is that the foundations of leadership [effectiveness] begin in childhood and are reinforced through a series of experiences that build self-confidence. There's a fine line between arrogance and self-confidence. Arrogance can be a killer. The difference between self-confidence and arrogance is the courage to be open - to welcome change and new ideas regardless of their source. Even with all the self-confidence in the world, the "essence" of leadership comes from inside . . . by maintaining integrity. Establishing it and never wavering from it supported everything I did throughout good and bad times.People may not have agreed with me on every issue - and I may not have always been right - but they always knew they were getting it straight and honest. I never had two agendas. There was only one way - the straight way . . .
For me, intensity covers a lot of sins . . . When passion is combined with self-confidence, and integrity, it's a winning combination no matter what you do or where you work.
Welch understands and acts on ideas that I too grasp. Authenticity matters! What is not stated sincerely, with care cannot, and will not, be understood or acted upon. What we say is not as important as how we say it. We cannot state our desires or needs once and expect to be heard or understood. We must reiterate, repeat, dare to be redundant, and then review the details again and again. However, enthusiasm alone and repletion alone are not enough. If we are to be effective in our communication, we must be approachable.
Your nonverbal communication talks before you do. Only seven percent of interpersonal communication is transmitted verbally—the remaining ninety-three percent speaks for itself.And, because nonverbal communication is learned and practiced on an unconscious level, you won’t be aware that you silently scream, “Please don’t talk to me!”
When you enter a room full of [teachers, students, parents] employees, clients, or friends each of them intuitively asks one crucial question: are you approachable? If the answer is yes, the conversations in which you engage will be initiated with ease and comfort. You make new friends. You create new contacts. And you will not have to suffer through another meeting clamped to the snack table. However, if the answer is no, there won’t be any conversations! As a result, you miss opportunities to create connections and meet valuable people.
If child, adult, professional, peon, or we are to achieve, we must conceive, and then believe that we have the power to make a difference. Perhaps that is the greatest problem, the paradigm that hinders healthy communication. Deep down, we do not accept as true that we can be, and do as we desire. Marianne Williamson wrote of what might be the greatest barrier to communication, our fear.
Our deepest fearOur deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, "Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?" Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
I invite you dear reader to be as you fear. Express what you think. Share what you feel within. Do so delicately, and repeatedly. Dear readers consider the words of a Spanish Philosopher and Writer.
~ Miguel de Unamuno [Spanish Philosopher and Writer]
Trust in the impossible. Have faith in you. Be absurd. You may discover you are not as alone. Everyone in the crowd is as you are. They too only wonder how they might best communicate.
Sounds, Silence, Communication Barriers . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 27, 2007 at 11:44 PM in Change the World [Within], Communities and Communication , Discussion, Fear, Harris Poll® , Looking at Life, “Social Isolation in America." | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Only Barrier to Communication; My Emotions and Me
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert
We each experience many obstructions everyday of our lives. There are physical fences we cannot or will not climb. A roadblock might impede our progress on the thoroughfare. Distance does us in. Many do not wish to venture beyond familiar neighborhoods. Proximity can limit our travel. Time is an interesting concept. Although, man created seconds, minutes, hours, and days, few of us seem able to separate ourselves from this obstacle.
As difficult as it might be to ford the river or sea, nothing compares with the challenge we feel when we know there is a need discuss subjects that cause us to feel defensive. Delicate topics are taboo too. Conversations of all sorts are difficult. Personal or professional, what we say aloud and what we do not can cause palms to sweat, hands to clam, pulses to race, and a person to pace. The heart is easily torn to pieces. The head hurts at the thought of what might be a threat. Communication can cleave, or calm; it can be the greatest bridge or the barrier that destroys a connection.
As I approach a theme that is ubiquitous, I realize Communication is the least understood construct in our lives. I could attempt to discuss what we do easily and yet struggle with from a singular perspective, that of an educator, a parent, a sibling, an employee, or a supervisor; however, I fear what I frequently experience. If I endeavor to illustrate what occurs when, or how, from a particular perspective people will do what they typically do; they will isolate an incident, and intentionally or not ignore the essence of this discussion, emotions.
As I approach a theme that is ubiquitous, I realize Communication is the least understood construct in our lives. I could attempt to discuss what we do easily and yet struggle with from a singular perspective, that of an educator, a parent, a sibling, an employee, or a supervisor; however, I fear what I frequently experience. If I endeavor to illustrate what occurs when, or how, from a particular perspective people will do what they typically do; they will isolate an incident, and intentionally or not ignore the essence of this discussion, emotions.
Personally, I do not presume to know what any individual must do to ensure that in their life, communications will be effective. Nor do I believe that any expert in linguistics can carve a path for you to pursue. As I share a tale or two, I trust you dear reader will relate as humans do, from your own life experience. Perchance that is the essential. We encounter, exchange, empathize, and grow. Life is an evolution with no singular solution. Lets us stroll down this path together, and discover the knowledge available to each of us. If we dare to dive more deeply than we do when we just talk, oh what treasures we might find. Let us look at the barriers to communication and examine ways to build bridges.
When we survey the research, we find the obscure and the obvious. Broad statements, outlines that obfuscate or abstract are available. Perhaps, we can fill in the blanks or read between the lines. Some of the script seems basic, easy to comprehend.
Barriers to Communication
Physical (time, environment, comfort, needs, physical medium)
Cultural (ethnic, religious, and social differences)
Perceptional (viewing what is said from your own mindset)
Motivational (mental inertia)
Experiential (lack of similar experience)
Emotional (personal feelings at the moment)
Linguistic (different languages or vocabulary)
Non-verbal (non-word messages)
Competition (noise, doing other things besides listening)
Words (we assign a meaning to a word often because of culture -- note the difference in the meaning of "police" (contrast [affluent neighborhoods] or any inner city perspective) or "boy" (contrast white male with black male perspectives)
Context (high / low)
Purpose
Mode (differences in way a message is sent)
Gestures (misunderstood gestures are a major barrier see discussion on non-verbal language)
Variations in language - accent, dialect
Slang - jargon - colloquialism
Different forms or reasons for verbal interaction
Dueling - seeing who can get the upper hand (playing the dozens)
Repartee conversation - taking short turns rather than monologue
Ritual conversation - standard replies with little meaning to words themselves (i.e. most US greetings)
Self-disclosure.
That last element is the one that tugs at heart. It is the hardest for many to accept or act on. Yet, in my life open discourse is essential if we wish to cultivate enjoyment. Communication, when effective brings closeness, counter to what our fears cause us to believe.
I see you shake your head and say, no that is not so. You might think, "How can I reveal of what lies deep within me." People will not understand. They may ridicule, rebuff, or resent my beliefs. 'Tis true; they might in the moment. At first blush, people can be reactive. However, think of a time when you did not tell someone your deepest secret. Did that not weigh heavily or your heart. Often, we snub ourselves more severely than others might.
In our communication with self, we do exactly what we think others will do if they knew. We shun us. We deny our feelings. The passion that pulses through our veins is veiled, just as it is in the dry list I presented earlier in this essay. It seems safer to hide the emotions. Thus, we travel on and justify, rationalize, reason, intellectualize, make excuses, blame . . . human beings mask the essence of a message in order to relieve the pain. Then they speak of external barriers?
I cannot speak to my boss; she is a b****! He is a b******! We do not speak the same language. In his culture . . . He could not possibly comprehend. She is unfamiliar with the language; she will not hear what I say. He is a man; how could he understand. You know how women are. No, tell me. I have yet to encounter any two that are alike.
I have to wait so that I may speak to him face-to-face. However, the time never comes. Thus, you wait and wait for the perfect opportunity. It never seems to come. After awhile, you decide it is just too late. Then you conclude, it is just too late. Too much has happened since. I guess I will have to suffer in silence.
Communication can cause such anguish. It can also bring great pleasure. The two are not separate; nor are they equal. They are the sum total of our unique being. Our background and experiences cause us to feel as we do, hear as we might, understand in the manner that makes sense to us. We may be critical, cordial, compassionate, or cruel; yet, no matter what our intent, another will perceive our words and deeds through their own filter.
Woes may be similar, worries akin. You, as I may be apprehensive when confronted with what I perceive is a need to say aloud what I think might be difficult. I hesitate. I vacillate. I hem and hah. I fear what I might mouth. In my desire to foil a fight, perhaps I create one?
When faced with a dilemma I recall the words my Mom uttered, "If you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all." Perchance, that would be best; however, it is my experience, what is not stated does far more damage than what be expressed poorly.
If someone comes to me and complains, if they accuse me of doing what was detrimental, do I become defensive. Might I attack, react, reason, or rationalize. Whatever I choose I must understand, mere words are not enough to communicate the flood that is within me. Nor will my statements be all that the other sees, hears, or grasps. There is far more to an interaction than the superficial sense we have of what was said or done.
Intellectually, I understand the inventory of barriers. First, there must be a physical proximity before a dialogue can begin. Yet, how often do you sit with your boss and never say a word when you object to a proposition. The lack of talk suggests as much as constant chatter. Yet, silence reveals no more than the sound of words.
Men, women, and children often reside in the same house and rarely share more than a meal. Many of us know our spouse or siblings as well as we do others, those outside the home. Some sleep next to a life partner each evening; they hug, kiss, and become intimately intertwined, bodily interlaced. However, one or both may loathe their lover. If they have a story to tell, they will not share it with their supposed soul mate.
When there is a need to speak with an associate, an acquaintance, a parent, a pupil, a physician, a personal trainer, a person that represents a professional organization some people feel safe. An emotional or physical distance can be grand. At times, individuals feel freer when with those that do not have the emotional power to hurt them. A cordon for some is a conduit for others.
For a few, electronic communication is the medium of choice. Numerous persons feel free to be when they chat in cyberspace. Apparently, Internet Dating Much More Successful Than Thought. We look for love in all sorts of places. The desire to connect to another human intimately runs deep. What we will do for love and what we will say in pursuit of our passion can have an enormous effect on communication. When we feel spurned, some of us may say or not express something more profound. When we are free to be, protected by the net that surrounds an electronic neighborhood, we may let it all fly. How many of us have received a computer-generated correspondence that bit more than a byte.
While all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, social scientists say that faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. "Through that initial phone call, people become real," says Susan Barnes, a professor of communication at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York. Simply foregoing common pleasantries can make a message come across as rude-especially if communicators don't know each other. A rushed e-mail may give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And, because first impressions set the tone for subsequent interaction, Barnes says, the exchange can quickly go downhill.Nadler says the missing element in electronic communication is rapport, that in-sync state that's easier to establish in person or by phone. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice-all these social cues are missing in e-mail (and smiley-face "emoticons" can do only so much to replace them). But because messages travel almost instantly, people act as if they're in a face-to-face conversation, says David Falcone, a psychology professor at La Salle University in Philadelphia. Because of this illusion of proximity, we're duped into thinking we can communicate about touchy subjects, such as disagreements or criticisms, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.
Furthermore, says Nadler, just because we can send a message anytime doesn't mean someone is there to receive it. Yet people often fear a delayed reply is a potential blow-off.
And when we feel slighted, we are more apt to throw a fit via e-mail than we would by phone. "The anonymity of e-mail leads to rudeness," says Barnes, adding we may not feel accountable, especially if we've never actually spoken to the other person. Even if we mean well, the lack of second-by-second feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on blithely composing messages that will rub the recipient the wrong way.
Nose to nose is not much better for communication. Granted, common language can be a problem. Conventionally we understand different dialects hamper our ability to communicate well. I, as others might offer infinite and general scenarios to demonstrate how language can inhibit effective exchanges. However, I suspect if you study the dynamics in each you may realize the verbal and nonverbal communication does not cause the problems. Again, emotions, expectations, inferences, incite disagreements. The fire in our heart, in our head ignites the flames
With no common history and little interaction outside the workplace, the intersection of the two groups -- which is occurring more frequently as Korean business and the Hispanic population boom -- has been fraught with tension and cultural misunderstandings.Ricardo Garcia, 34, complains he wasn't paid fully by a Korean contractor. Fermin Soto, a 42-year-old immigrant from Mexico, said he had similar problems with a different contractor, adding that the Korean builder spoke down to Hispanic workers.
The stories have made Ronald Tobar, who hasn't worked for a Korean employer, wary.
"I'm a little afraid of working for them," said Tobar, a native of Guatemala. "I hear they are aggressive and strict and give the worst jobs to Hispanics."
Such perceptions exacerbate tensions between the groups, said Daniel Choi, a lawyer for the Virginia Justice Center, a legal advocacy group for immigrants that mainly represents Hispanics. Many of the workplace problems Choi encounters while working on behalf of Hispanic immigrants against Korean employees are grievances like unpaid wages that have nothing to do with race or culture. Yet, perceptions of ethnic and racial biases often complicate matters.
When Thomas Yoon helped open the Super H Mart store in Fairfax in 2001, he noticed that some older Koreans, raised in the Confucian Korean culture where relationships are dictated by hierarchy and age, were offended that their Hispanic co-workers were tapping them on the shoulder to get their attention. To the Koreans, the gesture was disrespectful. To the Hispanic workers, the shoulder tap was simply a means of communication and signaled familiarity and comfort among the workers.
While the difference in language and culture contributes to misunderstanding, I suspect what causes a greater riff is the economic disparity. Money moves many a heart and a mouth.
A gesture meant to state, "I like you," may actually connote disdain. If it seems as though we condescend when in the company of one that thinks them better, or less, that message is felt. We need not express ourselves aloud. People hear the unspoken. Vernacular is victim to much misinterpretation. Yet, dialect is nothing on balance; a division in dollars can be quite the deal.
Love, money, and power all rolled into one can cause conflict in any liaison. Often, when people speak of relationships between men and women we hear such tales of deep distress. In another of the many available lists presented to enlighten, I read gender is a barrier to communication. The author cited . . .
Gender barriers
There are distinct differences between the speech patterns in a man and those in a woman. A woman speaks between 22,000 and 25,000 words a day whereas a man speaks between 7,000 and 10,000. In childhood, girls speak earlier than boys and at the age of three, have a vocabulary twice that of boys.The reason for this lies in the wiring of a man's and woman's brains. When a man talks, his speech is located in the left side of the brain but in no specific area. When a woman talks, the speech is located in both hemispheres and in two specific locations.
This means that a man talks in a linear, logical and compartmentalised way, features of left-brain thinking; whereas a woman talks more freely mixing logic and emotion, features of both sides of the brain. It also explains why women talk for much longer than men each day.
Ah, that is the excuse used to explain emotional differences. I marvel at what for me is a deeply held myth. Men have less words; the male mind is not wired as a woman's might be. There is much evidence to support humans are acculturated into the habits they acquire. Brains are pliable and porous. From the first, we are taught. What we learn when we were so very young we believe is natural. It is our nature to be stoic or expressive. Boys and girls believe before they are able to grasp there are other options.
In our society, boys are typically told they are hard-wired, hard-hearted, all that they are not. Male adults model the behavior, for they too were taught. Men are persuaded to believe they are not demonstrative; they must not trust in order to survive. William Pollack, Ph.D. author of Real Boys explains. He understands as I have all my life; boys feel very deeply and have much to say. They are "trained" from birth to speak less.
Pollack's message was a consistent one: The "boy code" imposes a "gender straitjacket" on boys, often leaving them without the experience or the tools to express their emotions safely. . . .It's a series of outmoded, unspoken, unwritten rules of conduct by which, for generations, we have brought up boys. According to the code, boys must be tough, stoic, not dependent on others, inexpressive people who are not allowed to share their pain.
Boys feel great pressure to emulate the code's ideal boy. Since they always fall short of this impossible ideal, they become frustrated, depressed, and angry.
Once more, we see the effect of emotions concealed. Emotions cloaked or presented as daggers are the barriers to communication in my mind.
I ponder what for me is most profound. What we hide from others [and too often from ourselves] hinders a healthy relationship. With others and self. Personally, I am haunted by the unspoken. Ultimately, I conclude that I must speak, but how.
How do I share what works on my mind? I fear rejection, resentment, rebellion, a reprimand; yet, I understand that my words to him or her may feel as any of these. It matters not whether I speak with my ward, my protégé, my mentor, or my muse. Communication is fragile. Talk is not cheap; it is priceless, so valuable, and yet so vague.
If, as I begin to express myself, I see pain in his eyes, I heart the hurt in his voice, do I apologize for the harm I never intended to cause yet did? Whether it be in a personal or professional encounter, words can wield as weapons. Much sorrow is evoked when we offer the most innocent observation.
A person presumes to know what I meant when I say, "please," "if you would," "might I suggest," and perhaps they are correct. However, more frequently than not, what each of us hear has more to do with our history than that of the speaker.
As I broach a conversation, I must wonder; yet rarely do we. Will a wounded soul, and perchance we all are invisibly injured, be able to hear my words, or even let me come close enough to share my deepest anguish? Will I, the truly impaired individual be able to separate myself from a need to defend myself, when I am so very offended?
Will one so strong and healthy, in appearance, be open to foreboding words of his or her failure to achieve. As a parent, a sibling, a supervisor, a mentor do I dare mention an error on the part of my muse. Should I mention the pain I feel when she says I am mistaken or the hurt in my heart when he tells me my every action annoys him? Do I speak to an associate about their behavior, or my reaction to their demeanor? In what way do I approach a child, a neighbor, or my closest friend? There is much I conceal, so many secrets, suppositions, and then there are the suggestions others offer, what might I consider if I hope to communicate effectively.
Last week, in my employ, I was given an assignment. I was commanded, ordered, directed, told, invited, welcomed, or asked to pen a tome. The topic would be "barriers to communication." Internally I know to my core, I revel in this theme. For years, I understood, what I wish to do in my life is write and broadly publish volumes of discussions on relationships. The ways in which we interact fascinates me. Misinterpretations boggle my mind. An exchange of ideas, while on the surface is a simple notion. However, I think there is no endeavor more complex.
I studied this subject extensively over the years; yet, when this request was made, I felt a tinge of resentment. I wanted to pursue personal prose, those that interest me. Well, that must not be true, for indeed this discipline moves me as no other. Yet, on this occasion I had no enthusiasm for in the work.
Nevertheless, I started the research, and discovered the reasons I was less than intrigued. Numerous sources furnished a simple analysis. Almost all the references addressed the issue as it pertains to a persons' professional life or the authors spoke in general. How could they not? They do not know us.
You dear reader, are likely familiar with the conventional wisdom. What are the barriers and how might we break these. The words read more than a decade ago resounded in my head. Stephen Covey, in Seven Principles of Highly Effective Families wrote of how we are not different at work than we are at home. Judy H. Wright, Parent Educator and Family Coach, also recalls her reveries of Doctor Covey writings.
Respect for Myself Respect for the Other PersonI have a right to my feelings. He has a right to his feelings.
One of the hardest lessons we have to learn as humans is you can not force others to do as you wish and you must make choices based on this. The only thing we truly have control over is our own inner thoughts and outer actions. We can provide information, influence, and suggestions to our loved ones and associates, but the desire to change [or do] must be within the individual. Accountability and responsibility involves claiming our own power and using our wisdom to create different results in life.
Perhaps, that is what worked within me. Correctly or not I felt as though I was "expected' to address communication in a manner contrary to my passion. It seemed, for whatever reason, I was meant to share techniques and these would guide readers. I understand that people prefer to peruse outlines. When asked to look deeper or contemplate the motivations and myths within, frequently men, women, and children state, "And your point is," as though there is a central focus or a guidebook to assist us in the complexity of communication.
I struggle with such simplicity. I fear a tome titled "Communication Made Easy." Perhaps billions would willingly purchase a copy of "Communication For Dummies." They might read with glee as though they found the answer; however, I cannot author that volume.
Change the way in which you communicate; it is simple, straightforward, and can be accomplished if only you know the steps. Allow for accessibility. Be sensitive to false perceptions, those of others, for clearly we are each correct in our ideals. Consider language and gender differences, even if these only deter communication because we believe they will. Certainly, address your own interpersonal preferences and change these if they hinder communication, not that you might recognize the difference between your learned habit and what you believe to be your nature. Nonetheless, break down those barriers. Yikes!
After I found numerous references that offer an index of solutions, I thought to myself, 'Fine, surface, as these sources are, so too will be my essay. I will do the project quickly. I can supplant and expand on a reference or two. Then I will have time to work on personal projects as I desire to do.' The composition need not be glorious. I have other interests to pursue.
Again, I remind myself I want to publish prose that discuss the delicate dilemma, how might we best communicate.
I recalled the thousands of workers I have seen in my lifetime. They all place personal priorities above the menial and meaningless assigned responsibilities. Even when engaged in a profession they love, people gravitate to the personal. Why would I be different?
We cannot always complete each tasks with equal vigor. Not every essay need be a masterpiece, nor will this one be. I decided, I would pen this treatise without delay or enthusiasm. [Remembering of course, I love, and wish to write volumes on the topic of communication.]
Just as I was about to begin my labor, the telephone rang. I received an electronic communication. Other occupational concerns took precedence. Then, the daily doings necessary to survive got in my way. Family situations that needed by full attention mounted. There were ample distractions. However, honestly, I knew, I did not wish to work on this tome. I began to examine why I did not feel as I do when I plunge into a blank page with intention.
I am told that many do not write or paint for as they gaze upon a blank page or canvas they feel great anxiety. I rarely experience such a sense of doom or gloom when in front of an empty space, for I feel no voids. I observe no vacant expanse. For me, emotions, raw and exposed, threaten my ability to communicate, to complete tasks, to commence, or to accomplish what I wish to achieve.
I realized at least a decade ago, what we experience in our professional lives, closely parallels what occurs in our private lives. We are not one way at work and another way home. You or I may wish to believe that we are profound in our profession and a failure domestically. Perchance we excel in our familial endeavors and flounder in each employ. Each of us, at times may muse we are different in various aspects of our life. Yet, in truth, what guides us in one circumstance, leads us to travel down each and every avenue. Our perceptions are extremely powerful.
Consider the thoughts that occurred to you as you read the various words I used to describe how this project was presented to me. Some of the terms may have made you cringe. Those that implied this "assignment" was forced upon me establish that this is an unwelcome endeavor. I loathe compulsory chores.
Bear in mind the topic that evoked this essay was not my creation; however, it is my life mission. Nevertheless, if doing this article is not my idea, then, I can resent the "request."
Most humans prefer to feel as though they have freedom of choice. I definitely do. Thus, an assignment feels as an obligation, a duty, a job, a task, and certainly not a personal preference. If the idea was not mine, even though, in honesty, it is, I might feel put upon.
My own reaction to a glorious action, an invitation to do, as I deeply desire, can and will change the dynamic of further communication between myself and my "supervisor.' The barrier, in this incident is as in every other conversation; the way in which I choose to interpret the intention of another affects the entire dialogue.
Might we also examine how the message was delivered? Did my 'superior' suggest I compose an essay on \ how we hear what we do and why. Did he present the notion of such an examination as a possibility or was this exercise required, a mandatory pursuit. In truth, it would not have mattered what "the man" said or how. The manner in which my "boss" spoke would not have influenced my reaction as much as the mere fact that he is titled, the "person in charge." I am but a subordinate.
In actuality, I am not above or below anyone. None of us are. Nor does anyone have the power to demand that we think, say, do, feel, or be, as they desire. For each of us, our background, experiences, the effect of these and our emotions are the greatest barriers to communication.
We hear what we judge was said. Every one of us truly thinks that what we believe to be so is valid and perhaps, it is, for us, in that moment. However, were we to open our minds, hearts, eyes, and souls we might discover another reality. Author, Dr. Steven Covey shared a story that may help to explain what occurs in every aspect of our lives.
These are deep problems, painful problems -- problems that quick fix approaches can't solve.
A few years ago, my wife Sandra and I were struggling with this kind of concern.One of our sons was having a very difficult time in school. He was doing poorly academically; he didn't even know how to follow the instructions on the tests, let alone do well in them. Socially he was immature, often embarrassing those closest to him. Athletically, he was small, skinny, and uncoordinated -- swinging
his baseball bat, for example, almost before the ball was even pitched. Others would laugh at him. Sandra and I were consumed with a desire to help him. We felt that if "success" were important in any area of life, it was supremely important in our role as parents.So, we worked on our attitudes and behavior toward him and we tried to work on his. We attempted to psyche him up using positive mental attitude techniques. "Come on, son! You can do it! We know you can. Put your hands a little higher on the bat and keep your eye on the ball. Don't swing till it gets close to you." And if he did a little better, we would go to great lengths to reinforce him. "That's good, son, keep it up."
When others laughed, we reprimanded them. "Leave him alone. Get off his back. He's just learning." And our son would cry, and insist that he'd never be any good, and that he didn't like baseball anyway Nothing we did seemed to help, and we were really worried.
We could see the effect this was having on his self-esteem. We tried to be encouraging, helpful, and positive, but after repeated failure, we finally drew back and tried to look at the situation on a different level. At this time in my professional role, I was involved in leadership development work with various
clients throughout the country.In that capacity, I was preparing bimonthly programs on the subject of communication and perception for IBM's Executive Development Program participants. As I researched and prepared these presentations, I became particularly interested in how perceptions are formed, how they behave. This led me to a study of expectancy theory, and
self-fulfilling prophecies, or the "Pygmalion effect," and to a realization of how deeply imbedded our perceptions are.It taught me that we must look at the lens through which we see the world, as well as at the world, we see, and that the lens itself shapes how we interpret the world. As Sandra and I talked about the concepts I was teaching at IBM and about our own situation, we
began to realize that what we were doing to help our son was not in harmony with the way we really saw him. When we honestly examined our deepest feelings, we realized that our perception was that
he was basically inadequate, somehow "behind."No matter how much we worked on our attitude and behavior, our efforts were ineffective because, despite our actions and our words, what we really communicated to him was, "You aren't capable. You have to be protected."
We began to realize that if we wanted to change the situation, we first had to change ourselves.
And to change ourselves effectively, we first had to change our perceptions.
Perceptions are punitive. Often we punish others or ourselves unjustly. After, I read Emotional Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman, I understood. Those that judge us most harshly, are far more critical of themselves. Ultimately, the victim becomes the abuser. The violence may not be physical. It may be verbal, emotional, intellectual, each perhaps, far more traumatic than bumps and bruises to the body. We criticize ourselves just as we were criticized.
When you were young, which of these did you feel more often:
No matter what I do, my parents love me.
I can't seem to please my parents, no matter what I do.
My parents don't really notice me.
The answers to such questions reveal more than about our childhood: they also tend to predict how we act in our closest relationships as adults.Our childhood shapes our brain in many ways - and so determines our most basic ways of reacting to others - for better and for worse. If we felt well-loved in childhood, we tend to be secure in our relationships - but if not, then we're more prone to chronic problems.
The primary paradox is that we trust what we believe to be true. We are so certain that what we understand is accurate, that we cannot imagine how wrong we are. Perchance, that too is, in large part is the puzzle.
As children, impressionable and desirous of knowledge, many of us were told we were mistaken, in error, at fault. What we heard is that our essence was flawed. Parents, Moms, Dads, school Principals, teachers, people we truly admired certainly must know. These esteemed individuals can see to our core. Thus, they have the wisdom to describe us as we are. As we age, what was said to us is what we say to ourselves. Sadly, rarely do we realize, those revered individuals never stated what we heard, nonetheless, we internalize the identity we adopted so very long ago. Indeed, neurological studies demonstrate the brain, chemically etches our patterns and our beliefs.
As the week went on and this project hung over my head as a weight, I waited for the load to fall down upon me. Auspiciously, it did. However, not in the way I expected.
A very close friend, one that I have known for decades shared a secret he held forever. He never told another human being. Yet, what remained hidden revealed itself in an ugly letter. This kind and gentle man discovered that, a pain he caused in his youth, was known to another. This other person held her hurt, just as he harbored his.
Each was deeply scarred. No words were ever spoken. Interpretations became truth. Insinuations and implications grew in intensity. The mind filled in for what was never spoken of. Each of these individuals now five and six decades old, is wounded in ways one would never imagine to look at them.
While both have a semblance of success, the circumstances, never communicated, has hindered their growth. They have achieved financially, although that was not enough to compensate for the horror they felt and hide. His and her accomplishments were inadequate; they did not fill the void left by the unmentionable. The health of each, physically, mentally, emotionally, and possibly intellectually suffered. Neither felt worthy of awards or accolades.
She blames him. He placed the onus on himself. Perhaps, deep down she thinks she was responsible for the trauma. We cannot know for sure. She refuses to engage in a significant exchange. He shutters. How might he ever repent. The hidden hurt now exposed; yet still not discussed scars the hearts more deeply.
A life, two lives ended long ago because there were barriers to communication. It matters not what the blockades were; nor is it important that we know the specifics of what happened oh so very long ago. The details, indeed, might allow us to feel separate or superior. "That would never happen to me." What occurs often, in the lives of every human being is we, I, do not communicate when we must. When we do, frequently we are defensive.
As a species, we're not very skilled at talking about tough topics.Sure, we can gather our courage and blurt out what's been bothering us for weeks, months, or even years. We get it out, unload, and move on, leaving hurt feelings and the seeds of another misunderstanding in our wake.
Part of the problem, Harvard researchers say, is that we approach such confrontations thinking that we not only understand our own point of view, but we also believe we know for sure what the other person did, said, and thought on the subject. And we think our view is right.
But in fact, they say, we're usually wrong, which explains why these kinds of talks often go so badly.
"When we get into difficult interpersonal conflicts, it's not very natural for us to see the conflict from the other person's point of view," said Douglas Stone, associate director of the Harvard Negotiation Project. "But it's a skill that is crucial to learn."
empathy, I believe is the best educator. I cannot ever truly know whom you are within. When I enter into a conversation, a negotiation, a conciliation, or a concession with a close mind, certain that you are less than I, then, communication will be but a dream. If we are to remove the force that keeps us separate we must listen, place ourselves where we have never been, in the heart, mind, and soul of another.
In fact, the way most of us broach difficult topics dooms the conversation from the start, they say. Openings such as "I think we should discuss why you've been so inconsiderate lately," immediately put the other person on the defensive and leads to an "I have not been inconsiderate" response rather than a talk about why he or she has been getting in at 1 a.m. and waking you up by playing the stereo.Instead of venting your opinion, the researchers say, you should do at least as much learning about the other person's point of view as you do talking about your own. Perhaps the person is playing music so late because he or she works two jobs to make ends meet and this is the only time available to study for a history of music course.
Without asking, you'll never know.
"Go in and remember to inquire as much as you tell your story," said Bruce Patton, the Negotiation Project's deputy director.
The greatest barrier to communication is I. You, he, and she are as I. Too often, we talk and do not listen. We hear what we plan to say. The words of a friend, a family member, and a fellow worker are frequently background noise to our own thoughts. What escapes from the lips of our neighbor falls to the ground. We are consumed with emotions; thus, rarely do we communicate completely with compassion.
I invite you to look at yourself, the way in which you interact with others at home or at work. Do you invite discussion? Might you embrace an opportunity to learn, to discover, or to authentically connect, or do you prefer to be in control.
Please consider we can never imagine what is within another. Why they did as they did. Please trust, if you are hurt, so too are they. I know it is hard to accept that he or she did not mean to demean, destroy, or diminish your worth. Sadly, they, as you have emotions, raw, and exposed to the elements.
If you wish to end the madness, remove the line of defense, the molehill in your mind and heart that is now a mountain. The barrier to communication is the one, or many, you, I, we create.
Intelligence is Emotional; Empathy is the Best Educator . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 10, 2007 at 12:08 AM in Communities, Communities and Communication , Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Nature or Nurture, Quality of Life | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Achieving Peace In A World Built On Defense
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Again, I stood alone on the corner, as I had for months. My intent was as it has been for years; I seek to achieve world peace. However, after a short while I realized, today was like no other. I received the usual smiles and signals of serenity; nonetheless, the number of shuns, shrieks, and screams were as they had never been before. I held the same sign that I embrace each Saturday. The words "Love Not War!" are displayed for all to see.
My attire advances my message. Each afternoon, as I plead for harmony, I am dressed in white. My arm is out-stretched. My forefinger and middle finger are extended above my head as I offer a recognizable gesture. I only ask we give peace a chance.
Initially, as people passed me on this busy street, life was good. It has been for as long as I can recall. An automobile would pass. The occupants would toot their car horn. Numerous individuals would exchange nods or note that they too yearn for global tranquility. I would express my pleasure aloud. Repeatedly, as I encounter my fellow citizens I exclaim, "Thank you." My salutations of joy for our like desire fill the air. It is a pleasure to experience so many individuals in a shared quest for world harmony.
Then, suddenly, a car came very close. A United Sates flag was flying high above the chassis of this vehicle. An elderly man slowly rolled down the window and leaned toward me. Good naturedly he inquired, "Where is my love?" I grinned and said, "It is all around us." I continued, "We get what we give," or so I have long believed. However, as the afternoon wore on, I wondered was that so.
On this day, I was bombarded with flailing fingers, thumbs down, waves that connote wrongdoing, and of course, the third digit on either hand crossed my path. While these expressions were less than warm, they did not concern me. Individuals may have a difference of opinion. I accept and appreciate that. Each of those that offered a characteristic contrary conviction politely stated their case.
My reason for concern came from the few that expressed their disdain with fury. One man came very close to the corner, rowed down the window, and shouted, "Your actions support the terrorist." He asserted, "You are a traitor." I listened and said nothing. I contemplated the concept.
I thought of how I love this country. I never had a notion to leave the shores of America. I long to ensure that the United States of America will be exemplary. Others will look to us and trust mankind can "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Indeed, my hope is that by our actions we will illustrate that "all men are created equal." Admittedly, my hope is that if we are all truly good to our fellow man, here and abroad, there will be no reason for resistance. As this chap shrieked, I offered no reply, not verbally, or otherwise. The young man sped off.
I contemplated terrorism. I wondered. Who is a greater threat, those that kill in the name of freedom and justice while dressed in American uniforms, or those murder the persons that they deem "the enemy." Reveries of scholar, Sam Keen filled my head. I recall the text, "Faces of the Enemy," and the message. The tome . . .
Examines the techniques of propaganda used to teach us "to hate all the people our relatives hate.” Some 400 posters and cartoons show how enemies are dehumanized by portraying them as enemies of god, barbarians, terrorists, sadists and aggressors so that we will be able to kill without remorse or pity.I think of this frequently. When I hear Osama Bin Laden or George W. Bush speak, I trust that the "overeducated at Harvard and Princeton," former Professor of Philosophy and Religion, and contributing editor of Psychology Today, Sam Keen is, for me, correct. Speeches made by Bin Laden, or Bush, are at times, interchangeable. Each tells us to hate an enemy.
You have . . . defiled our honour, violated our dignity, shed our blood, . . . and tampered with our security. We will treat you in the same way.I trust to my core, I sponsor no violence or campaigns that promote intimidation. Bombs and brutality are not a means to the end I endorse. As I stand solid and resolute, I hum the tune, "give peace a chance."
Moments passed; perhaps it was many minutes later. I was so lost in thoughts I do not recall now. The lovely city bus driver entered the intersection. From half a block away, I saw her smile, her kind face, and as I do every Saturday, I experienced her delight at the sight of me. She beamed. I could see, even from a distance her fingers were positioned as mine were. We each granted the other our traditional gesture. Together we promote peace.
I have long stated, when we connect with another human in a loving manner we can, and will, receive what we bestow. I believe Newton's Third Law of Motion governs the universe. Yet, sadly, some have yet to realize that a reactive stance will elicit the same in kind.
I recall a discussion in cyberspace just over ten months ago. The question was posed.
If you had to make a conscious, affirmative choice, would you rather win? Or would you rather be right?
~ Oliver Wendell Holmes [Prominent Writer, Physician]
The discussion that ensued astounded me. In truth, the query itself puzzled me. I do not believe in the concept of victory. For me, if one triumphs, they too are defeated. I believe the only absolute "right" is love, which translates to peace.
Many muse, "Love is an action." Indeed, I believe it is. Conversely, I postulate, "Fear is a reaction." As I stand before those that support a conflict that kills young, old, innocent, and innocence I realize many feel a need to defend their claim. "We must win the war before we leave Iraq." These were the words yelled to me from another open car window.
Again, I perpend. "Win" and "war" are constructs that I think untenable. Nevertheless, we as a nation are obsessed with each. Americans, and perhaps citizens worldwide, are quick on the trigger, swift when we wish to snipe, careless when critical. We welcome a Department of Defense. Many believe weapons of mass destruction, be they chemical, biological, nuclear, or words, serve society well.
People do not accede a need to pursue peace profoundly. The populace professes to believe, we must "fight" for freedom. I inquire, can we not all be free to feel as we do and still be civil, calm, and considerate of our fellow man. Some state, humans living in harmony is but a dream. I think the dream is possible.
I sigh as I consider this series of confrontational events, all in a single day bring no serenity. I weigh what is occurring. The sun was bright, the humidity high. I could feel the heat of the summer day scorch my skin. Hurricane strength winds were off in the distance. Might the moon influence the attitudes of people as they pass by? Perhaps the temperature, the hour, or the culture of combat that is pervasive in this country created what came next.
As I stood at my usual post on the northwest corner, I faced the traffic traveling away from the beach. Red, yellow and green lights directed the wave of cars. Ever and anon, drivers see me as they sit stopped, before they are given the right of way. Many beep prior to reaching the intersection. Others wait until they are closer. On occasion, an individual will decide to respond after they are farther down the road. Some want to read my sign, reflect, and than throw caution to the wind. Whatever people chose to do is fine with me, or so I thought. I had not contemplated an extreme confrontation.
It was close to one post-meridian time. The red light that held westward bound cars at bay changed to green. A very large, shiny, and new truck, cut across two lanes of traffic. The driver quickly raced towards me. This vehicle had been in the farthest left lane, nowhere near the curb on which I stood. The lorry careened. Its occupants clearly wished to be close to me. I saw the swift motion and feared the automobile would jump the sidewalk.
As the rig approached, I saw the side window was open. An extremely rotund man sat in passenger seat. He and the stout fellow steering the motor vehicle, each leaned towards me. Their skin was tanned, faces flush, veins were bulging, and their voices very loud. They deliberately declared, "You f***ing loser! You f***ing c***! You f***ing bit**!" I stood still. I said nothing. Words escaped me. I only knew my thought. I wish you peace and love. I hope you will find these. My desire is that we all will.
However, once more I am haunted by the vastness of defensiveness. For me, the claim that self-defense is justifiable encourages destructive engagement and advances assaults. Yet, that is the battle cry. President George W. Bush proclaims . . .
I want to thank my fellow Americans for caring about the subject of peace, and that's what I'm here to discuss.Never does the Commander-In-Chief mention the horror he released on civilians. Nor does he consider the reality that violence begets greater violence. Brutality increases exponentially when we engage in battle. Yet, this is what people often do. They bump and bruise their fellow global citizens all in the name of achieving tranquility.We meet at a time of great consequence for the security of our nation, a time when the defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom, a time with echoes in our history . . .
Like an earlier generation, America is answering new dangers with firm resolve. No matter how long it takes, no matter how difficult the task, we will fight the enemy, and lift the shadow of fear, and lead free nations to victory. (Applause.)
Like an earlier generation, America is pursuing a clear strategy with our allies to achieve victory. Our immediate strategy is to eliminate terrorist threats abroad, so we do not have to face them here at home. The theory here is straightforward: terrorists are less likely to endanger our security if they are worried about their own security. When terrorists spend their days struggling to avoid death or capture, they are less capable of arming and training to commit new attacks. We will keep the terrorists on the run, until they have nowhere left to hide.
At times, the downtrodden in exasperation do as the self-proclaimed "masters" of the universe do. They wage war for what they think right. The poor and mistreated fight in defense of freedom, as might we all. Perchance, those defined as "plebeians" determine they must defend themselves for those in power so eagerly attack. Parents may be the authority figure doing as was done to them. Peers may also adopt a repressive role. Interestingly, often, the "prominent" population is numerically less large.
We might consider the circumstances of well-known Civil Rights Leader, Malcolm X. In his endeavor to seek liberty and justice for all, he experienced as many Americans do, infinite inequity. In frustration, Malcolm expressed his fury. He spoke of the need to defend self, just as the President does.
"It doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't call it violence when it's self-defense; I call it intelligence."Few recall that late in his life, Malcolm X made a pilgrimage that seem to prompt a change from within. While the revered revolutionary had little time left on Earth after his holy journey, there was reason to believe that ultimately Malcolm X would have embraced non-violence. Still, in this climate of conflict most prefer to recall the man that stood strong in the face of danger, as he declared . . .
"The price of freedom is death."The slain leader did not live to see peace; nor have we reached that preferred pinnacle. We can only hope that Malcolm rests in peace. In his name, we may wish to pursue the prospect, however, belatedly.
My day on the corner gives me little reason for hope. While the vast majority joined me in peaceful expressions, the experience reminded me of what I fear is too often true. George W. Bush may have said this best.
America's military is fighting in many theaters, yet always for the same cause. We seek to preserve freedom and peace for ourselves and for our friends.I observe that often, American's, our followers, and those they label foe only wish to establish peace for their pals. A person, or a nation, given any unforeseen circumstances can easily be considered an adversary. A slip, a slight, a misstep in the mind of this superpower or that supposed subversive can alienate an ally. One never knows what can trigger an attack.
In cyberspace, the same dynamic is evident. People posit an opinion, and those that disagree lash out in defense of their stance. An offensive retort is often delivered as a bullet might be. Words when used as weapons can pierce a heart and soul. Indeed, frequently, that seems to be the intent.
I return to the inquiry posited in a local Internet neighborhood; would we rather be right or win. Might we consider if any of us think ourselves righteous in comparison to another then we lose the empathy essential for peace. We cannot win a battle and lose a war. Any confrontation weakens us all.
whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
~ Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"
Almost a century ago, we fought the War to end all Wars.
The number of men mobilised by both sides: the central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey), and the allied powers (Britain and Empire, France, Belgium, Russia, Italy, USA), totalled over 65 million.We declared that destruction, The Great War. Decades later the globe was again on fire. Certainly, this more recent conflict would bring world peace. Countless skirmishes occurred before and after each of these battles. The cycle never seems to end. Fighting is accepted as a fact of life.When the fighting was finally over, no-one could tell exactly how many had been killed but historians estimate that up to 10 million men lost their lives on the battlefield - and another 20 million were wounded.
There are hostilities in our homes, fractures in our factories. Campaigns of cruelty in cyberspace are common. Offices are not exempt; offensive rhetoric lives large in every cubbyhole. On the streets, the battle continues. Gangs come to blows, and a little girl, all of five feet tall, is attacked for holding high a banner that pleads for peace.
Still, the virtuous declare victory, while the battle rages on. Might we consider if we truly wish to achieve harmony, "mission accomplished" must be the manifestation of shared love.
Defend the Right to Love . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 21, 2007 at 01:04 AM in Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Communities and Communication , Empathy and Evolution, Fear, Iraq War, Peaceful Protests, Philosophy, Spread Democracy, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit] | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Clinton, Obama; To Communicate or Not to Communicate?
Obama Clinton Feud on CNN Debate Question
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
In recent days, I am reminded of my own life as I watch the Democratic Presidential candidates quibble, over the timing of peace talks. Throughout the airwaves, and in every periodical, reports discuss the divisive dynamic. Senator Hillary Clinton thinks Barack Obama is naïve. She states the comparison he makes when discussing her point of view is silly. Thus, the former First Lady emphasizes a theme that has haunted the junior Senator. Is the Senator from Illinois too young and inexperienced to be President of the world's superpower?
In the July 2007 Democratic debate Barack Obama stated, within his first year in office he would speak with world leaders from "rogue" nations were he President of the United States. Senator Obama stressed the harm that befalls a nation, indeed the world when Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Heads of States do not meet. Obama referred to earlier events in our history. He mentioned, even the revered Ronald Reagan and the much-admired John Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke with those considered dictatorial.
Senator Obama said, I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.(APPLAUSE)
Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
Nonetheless, the former First Lady disagreed. Hillary Clinton thinks it unwise for the President of the United States to reach out before diplomats do their deeds. Clinton continued to counter; she would not meet with leaders of "particular" countries in her first year in the Oval Office. The Senator did not wish to be used as a pawn, a tool for propaganda.
Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.
And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.
And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.
Former First Lady Clinton envisions herself as an expert, more experienced in the finer points of negotiation. After all, she spent eight years in the White House and many more years meeting with dignitaries. Senator Clinton believes herself senior and more superior pertaining to issues of State.
Perchance, this is the reason the Clinton campaign chose to force focus on this issue.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters considered her calculated response worthy of praise. The Senator from New York sought further substantiation for her position, and she received it.
Seeking to attack Sen. Barack Obama’s greatest perceived weaknesses – lack of experience – Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign today used a former secretary of state to subtly question an answer he gave in Monday night’s debate.Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a member of Bill Clinton’s administration, did not specifically criticize Obama’s response to a question about meeting, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during his first year in office.
But she did strongly suggest that her candidate gave a much better answer.
“She gave a very sophisticated answer, which showed her understanding of the whole process,” Albright said on a conference call this morning with reporters. “If you look back at real breakthroughs in diplomatic history, what you basically find is that in order to understand where the situation is, to clear the underbrush away, it is necessary to have lower level people make the initial contact.”
All this bickering leaves me wondering. Many muse that my own peaceful posture is infinitely naïve. I am frequently criticized for speaking with anyone and everyone, for trusting people for too long. In my own life, I have been bruised and blistered with barbs again and again before realizing that I may need to separate myself for safety and sanity. Even still, I keep hope alive. I trust all beings evolve. If I choose to close myself off, I may miss an opportunity to reconcile with those that, in a moment of anger, brutally, verbally attacked me.
Granted on the world stage, people in power may use others as pawns. They may employ the innocent to impose their destructive and debilitating desires. The blameless may die and more than a heart is hurt. However, I believe and history seems to bear this out, more perish and over a longer period of time if world leaders do not speak to each other.
The new world crisis brought about by the lack of strategic foreign policy thinking in the US since 2001 will get worse unless Washington uses its historic strengths instead of believing the myths of its military superiority.If we decide to be indignant, to declare a person a dictator, and therefore, not speak to that individual then we can expect that person to act as any of us might when we are judged or feel attacked without reason. No one of us purposely does what we think wrong.The US did not destroy the German army in the Second World War - the Soviet Union did. Chinese peasants fought America to a standstill in Korea and Third World Vietnam defeated America two decades later. Polish workers sapped Soviet imperialism's will to rule, not threats of Star Wars. America withdrew from Lebanon in the 1980s and Somalia in the 1990s at the first whiff of murderous violence.
Rumsfeld is no exception to the rule that when America does war, it often does it badly. But it has defeated fascism, communism and will defeat jihadi terrorism by using the unstoppable power of its democratic, multi-faith, multi-race, rule-of-law, open-market ideology to make a better offer than any other ideology.
America now has to find the confidence and strength to try 'jaw-jaw' instead of 'war-war'. Nowhere is this more needed than in the region which has robbed Dick Cheney and the Republicans of control of both houses of Congress. Under Bush, America gave up diplomacy and international politics and surrendered foreign policy-making to the Pentagon. So far this century, America has forgotten the old maxim that peace works by talking with your enemies.
It is not just America. To be sure, the US won't talk to Iran. But France won't talk to Syria. And Syria won't recognise Lebanon as an independent nation. Most Arab states won't normalise relations with Israel. In turn, Israel won't talk to elected leaders of the Palestinians. No surprise that the alternative is war.
Humans rationalize and justify whatever it is they do, even if only belatedly. Perhaps, the perfect example in my mind is all religions claim to command, "Thou shalt not kill." Yet, for centuries mankind has engaged in religious wars. When we battle, blood is spilled.
Accuse others of wrongdoing, make no attempt to understand their position, and the indicted will react. Refuse to speak to the person [or national leaders] you blame, or send a subordinate to speak for you and watch the resentment grow. Ultimately, as you assess the situation, or contemplate your options, so too will your opponent. Without direct dialogue between the concerned parties, nothing will change. Resolution will be fragile. Ultimately, as we have seen, the combat will begin.
Un-ringing a bell, although beautiful in the abstract, is not possible in the physical world. What we choose initially will set the tone for future interactions. As an educator, as a human, I am reminded of this daily.
You may noticed my last name; "Angert." At the beginning of each school year, students also observe what you may have just realized. The root word in my surname is anger.
As an instructor, that knows what she values and says so at beginning of class, on the first day, at the first bell, I often hear students snicker, as they refer to the deeper meaning of my surname. As our first meeting begins, I stand tall, all five feet of me. The expression on my face is extremely serious. The tone of my voice is strong, not loud, just firm. I insist the class be silent as I prepare to state my standards. All the indicators validate for the pupils I will be a taskmaster and I will adamantly dictate their responsibilities. While it is true, my students are extremely productive; that is their choice.
I begin. I first mention what they have already observed, my name on the board. I explain what I realized as an adult. I was decades old before anyone ever hollered at me. I assert; clearly, it was not a member of my family. My relatives "talk," as indicated by the "t" in my last name. Thus, there is no need for "anger."
I continue. The faces are wide-eyed. Students listen intently. Soon they discover that my tale is informative, not punitive. I am actually human, just like them.
The yarn I share helps to explain that people, pupils have choices astounds many a learner. Possibly, it confuses some. The narrative is not baffling. Indeed, students are captivated as they take the saga in. What confounds those sitting in the class is that I am so open about my life.
I discuss my own awful habits and how I adopted these when I was so very young, I did not realize there were other options. I offer analogies. A talkative child believes that is their nature; they constantly chatter. They always have. A young girl or boy with "nervous energy" never considers that they may be bored, seeking any form of attention, or that they are perhaps frustrated. People do as they do, and more often than not as was done to them.
As I tell my tale, I speak of my own progression and realizations. In my life, in my family no one drank milk; nor did I. I mention the first time I ran away from home at the age of eight. My Dad wanted me to drink the milk left in the bottom of my cereal bowl.
I tell new students of how, when, and why I developed a dependency on soda. I share the realization, the repercussions from too much carbonated water. I speak of my own choices and the challenge to change.
Quickly, they discover our shared qualities. They understand my demeanor. They accept "anger" is not a place I travel to. We develop a relationship.
I consciously choose to create a communicative, creative, caring, and peaceful environment in the classroom. In truth, I endeavor to establish a tranquil milieu in each aspect of my life. For me, reciprocal reverence reaps abundant rewards.
I am acquainted with those that yell. As I said, after many years of calm, I met someone that screams, who stops speaking when he feels agitated. I learned. People do what was done to them. If as children, the people we most admire are punitive, we are likely to be similar as we age.
How many of us can recall a time in our youth when we stood in awe of our mother or father's foolish behavior and said, "I will never do that to a child of mine." Yet, a score later we find ourselves repeating the pattern we learned at our parents' knee.
As I witness a scholar, a successful attorney, a Senator, and some say a threat to the security of a Clinton win called "silly" by his opponent I must wonder. What was learned, accepted, and rejected. What habits were formed when the Senator from New York was so young she did not realize there were other options.
I inquire. Why would this well-informed, intelligent Presidential hopeful, the former First Lady, Hillary Clinton think it naïve to speak with world leaders as soon as possible? I can only ponder why the senior Senator thinks she might be used as a pawn. I cannot imagine why in her mind punitive measures are proper.
It seems Senator Clinton thinks accentuating her experience and asserting her skepticism are strengths, or possibly, she wishes to emphasize there is a difference between Senator Obama and she. However, this was always obvious, even to the casual observer.
Journalists commented, Hillary Clinton is totally in control in this campaign. In the most recent broadcast, her body language spoke volumes. Senator Clinton is self-assured. Many thought the Senator from New York was confident going into the Cable News Network forum.
The Clinton camp put forward . . .
[T]he aura of inevitability: "Face it, she's going to be nominated. Better get on the bandwagon now.''Everything was going well; each moment was predictable. Hillary Clinton was placed center-stage. Cameras focused on her, as did the moderator and the audience. How could they not?The CNN-YouTube debate in Charleston, South Carolina, Monday night could look like seven against one: seven Democratic contenders trying to challenge Clinton as "The Inevitable" -- and competing with each other to become "The Alternative."
The former First Lady wore a striking orange and pink jacket. Her tone was firm. When Senator Clinton answered a question, and she was given an opportunity to answer most every inquiry, Clinton spoke with certainty. An air of authority surrounded this esteemed front-runner. Even up until the moment, the controversial instant when the split between Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was glaringly evident.
Washington (CNN) — The spat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is really about calling attention to your opponent’s weakness.I did not think Barack Obama appeared weak as he stood strong stating his convictions; communication can change the world. The Illinois Senator avowed we, the people want a "uniter" in the White House. The current "decider" has divided us for too long. In a speech delivered days after the now infamous YouTube debate, at the College Democrats of America convention at the University of South Carolina, Senator Obama stated.In politics, just like in prizefighting, you look for your opponent’s weakness and pound away at it. In the debate this week, Obama portrayed himself as new and different — the total opposite of George W. Bush. “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous,” Obama said in the CNN/You Tube debate on Monday.
Clinton portrayed herself as experienced and knowledgeable. “You don’t promise a meeting until you know the intentions. I don’t want to be used for propaganda,” she said.
She was going for Obama’s weakness — his lack of experience. She kept hammering away at it the next day. “I thought that was very irresponsible and, frankly, naïve to say you would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro or others within the first year,” she said.
Obama came back punching at Clinton’s weakness. “If there is anything irresponsible and naïve it was to authorize George Bush to send 160,000 young American men and women into Iraq apparently without knowing how they where going to get out,” Obama said.
–CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider
"The reason that this president has failed to lead this country is because he hasn't been able to unite our country. He's polarized us when he should have pulled us together." . . .Perhaps, I understand his contention because it parallels my own life experience. When Barack Obama offers his philosophy, I relate."That's why the experience we need in the next president is the ability to bring this country together.
"It's not enough to just change parties."
Not to be undone, defeated, or denied a righteous place in this crucial crusade the Clinton crowd fought back.
The New York senator's campaign contended Obama, with his remarks, had broken a pledge "to elevate our political discourse."Yikes. The Eleventh Commandment now lives large in the Democratic Party. However, lest we forget, this credo, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow [candidate]," is a Republican principle. Perhaps that is the essential problem. When we, the Progressives mirror the musings of those on the right, when we adopt their doctrine, we forget the spirit that makes Democrats great. As Will Rogers, political Humorist and Philosopher explains, the Party often criticized for its intellectual repartees is quite a phenomenon. Those that declare themselves liberal understand. "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."
Let us not walk in lock step. May we never stop speaking or delay when world affairs beckon us. We must accept that Heads of State will not feel safe or honored when speaking solely with diplomats. If our own President were slighted in negotiations there would be no peace. Perchance, we might each adopt the Angert family practice. Talk to ensure that anger will never arise.
Resources, references, rage, habits that hurt . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 27, 2007 at 01:00 PM in Communities and Communication , Elections, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Family, Functioning, Fables, Hillary Clinton, Philosophy, Policy, Political Campaigns, Politics, Presidential Politics, Psychology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
