Learning from the past, remembering ourselves

That what we hate most in others is often what is most distasteful in us, is a fact of psychology.

This fact can offer some valuable lessons for us while engaging ourselves in the whole debate of immigration and migrants.  Very often those who strongly denounce and protest migrants entering one's own space, are themselves migrants. Those who actually are of the place, from time immemorial have a more considerate and welcoming attitude.  Read the following insightful post titled 'Taking a chance on each other' by Maria K. on her blog Simple Moodlings.

The Americans who today claim the land as their own were once upon a time themselves migrants from other parts of the world in search of a living. The actual natives, the Red Indians, hardly get to say anything.  The paradox is that when denouncing migrants and chasing out the immigrants, people conveniently forget that they too were once immigrants.  The same is true of/in Australia and Europe.

What most people forget is that given a choice, most people would like to get back to their own country, their own place.  Like someone recently stated, 'The journey of every immigrant is always the same: back home'.  No one wants to leave the warmth of his own home unless it becomes too unbearable, inhospitable.  Only when survival itself is threatened does a person uproot himself or herself.  Imagine showing such a person, the affluence of his neighbour... Naturally anyone would want to share in that 'luxury', but what he or she is actually craving for is dignified living.

History repeats itself, but our learning from history rarely does - even if it does, it is too slow! 

Curse of categorizing

The inherent craving for classifying what we perceive or come across into existing categories or types is perhaps the curse of an analytic or scientific brain.  We do it so often and for so long that unconsciously that we become a victim of it.  We look at people and in that first glance already pigeon hole them into the existing type of people we have in our mind, based on past experiences.  Mind you the other has not even interacted with me, yet I 'know' what kind of a person he or she is.

I'm seeing the drawbacks of such a mentality, in our philosophical discussions in class.  The whole attempt is often to brand a particular philosopher as such (that he is a realist or a transcendental idealist).  That the category itself is a very lose concept with no clarity of its own (all the more certainly not for the ones engaged in the discussion), makes this exercise quite ridiculous and very agonizing.

Reflecting on the aspect of human rights, the whole puzzle is on which foundation to base the legitimacy of the same?  The temptation to classify these rights under one or some of the types of rights is a very serious one.  The agony is that these rights do not really come under any existing categories. And the danger of leaving them out of any category or categories is to attract criticism for being imaginary or unreal.

Am also seriously questioning the very classification of human rights under the umbrella of 'rights' itself! Given the political connotations of the latter, the meaning of human 'rights' get minimized and tend to lose their essence in its deeper analysis.

The closest I've come to think is 'expressions' or 'elements' of being human.  But that leaves it to some wishful plea rather than having any real obligations on anyone, especially in contexts which blatantly operate blind to these essential elements of humanity.

What then to call them?

Discriminating abnormality

Discrimination based on difference, merely because one is different from oneself or unfamiliar, seems absurd logically but in reality is an accepted norm of how it is to be!

Richard Rorty, while offering a critique of 'common grounds' for knowledge, calls for philosophy to be descriptive and see descriptions of ourselves on par with descriptions of others (poets, mystics, sculptors, novelists...); not a privileged representation, over and above others.  He strongly advocates prevention of abnormality being viewed suspiciously because of its abnormality. (Abnormal is anything outside the agreed set of rules).

I guess, it sounds quite convincing on paper but human nature and group (or cultural) reasoning proves this an uphill task.  In real life, what is different catches the eye.  It stands out.  It is a sore in the eye and therefore needs to be normalized or brushed under the carpet.

I'm thinking of our boys in Navajeevan or in Karunapuram.  What's our take on those who appear 'different'?  Those who stick out from among the group?... our zeal for uniformity? If only we view the situation from their perspective...

Biblical Discrimination

In the first reading of this morning, we hear St Paul compare the Christians to the children of the "free-wife" and not the "slave-born".  As I was reading the passage aloud during the Mass, I felt a bit odd and offensive.  Somehow I did not like the disparaging way Paul was speaking of Hagar.  Not only that the way he was segregating those born of Hagar, that too for no fault of theirs, was not something I found decent.

Know not in what actual context Paul was trying to make this point but the idea of one being supreme or better than another because you are born of one woman and not so good or of lower quality just because you are born of another, is not fair.  Perhaps it has something to do with what struck me last night. A mother is a mother - anywhere in the world.  A woman has the same love and affection for the child just as another mother. The modes of expression or degree may vary, but no one can discount the love a mother has for her child.

Getting back to the reading, one cannot and should not hold Hagar or least of all, her children responsible for any wrong-doing.  That she did not continue in the plan of God for Israel does not make her or her offspring bad.  What's more, Yahweh is said to have offered her some means of survival and life.

Why should we human beings feel envious (or claim any other virtue) and then attribute God of having chosen us, above others?  

Tollywood and Gender disparity

Something interesting that occurred to me a few days ago while there was some discussion about movies.  There are hardly any heroines in Telugu movies from the Telugu soil!! Most of them, especially those in blockbusters and hit movies, are all from out of Andhra and Telangana.  Some of them can hardly speak Telugu.

Contrast this with the actors playing heroes.  None from out of the Telugu states!!

Clearly shows the gender disparity in our culture and attitude.  Why do none of the Telugu families promote their daughters to join Tollywood? Even those of established celebrities?? One hardly hears anything about the daughters of celebrities; while sons are forcefully pushed into the limelight.

Suggestions to a Bishop...

A particular Bishop from whose diocese students study at my place, has been insisting that students should not be dismissed by the end of their first year of study.  I presume he means that they should be given another chance (second year) and perhaps another chance (third year)!  The same Bishop would later argue, if the candidate were to be promoted to the second year, and found unfit still, that if he could make it till the second year then why ask him to discontinue now!  To this Bishop, I wish to ask...
Does he know the candidate at all?  Anything at all? His name, his background, his strengths and weaknesses? reasons for dismissal?  Would he know anything of the same candidate if he were to be promoted?  Or for that matter, others of his batch who were promoted?

Secondly, what was he doing when the candidates dismal performance was brought to his notice through the scrutiny and observation procedures sent to him at the end of the first semester (mid-year)?   That the Bishop read those reports itself is a big doubt.  Even if he did, what positive steps did he take to help the concerned candidate to improve himself?

My experience proves that he does not even know the concerned persons' name!! For the "reverend" Bishop, he is just another member in his diocese not a person, not one with an individuality, but another number in his "gang" of priests.

Luckily for him he has not appeared in person or made a written appeal - for I have a proposal ready for him:
Spare the student the agony of study (be it either B.A. or Philosophy or Theology) and post him as the regent in the Bishop's house itself. After a year or two, ordain him there itself and appoint him as your secretary.  That way, the candidate is happy, so is his Bishop!  

Descrimination in death

At lunch yesterday while talking about the legal procedures to clear the corpse from the lake, I was a bit disturbed and also made a comment saying we are all worried about getting rid of the 'body' but we never felt any sympathy to the person or even prayed for him. That he later was found to be one of our own Parish boarders made us feel all the more touchy. But even otherwise, my first thoughts were about the relatives of the deceased. They would be searching for him or missing him (since the body was in the water for more than two days, for sure!).

Moreover the stench was so bad that none would approach the body. Four men had to be given money to get drunk and then venture into the lake to drag the body out on to the road. I remembered Charlie uncle. Doing a similar job, of course without drinking, for unclaimed bodies. I also remember the disdain everyone had for Krishna when he died in that road accident. None would come close, leave alone touch him. Just a couple of minutes ago he was a lively chatting young boy, one who had grown up with us in the house, and now with one stroke of life (or death) he was anything but Krishna! The very Salesians whom he lived with and worked for were not willing to even touch his body. Perhaps it was more of anger against them that prompted me to carry the body than love for him. But I always looked at him as 'our boy' even though I'd never met him before. I believe the way we treat our departed is the way we treat other living people too - if not physically, mentally for sure. There can be nothing more humiliating than being totally and absolutely rejected by our own - but the good thing, at least for the other, is that he is not there to feel it!

Another disgusting group of people are the police and mortuary personnel. Nothing would move - not even the dead body - unless each one is paid a bribe, each depending on their position. People do not hesitate, even a bit, to make a profit on corpses!

Being good

Yesterday I had the good fortune of watching some parts of the movie 'The Express'. The movie is about a black young man, Ernie Davis and his coach, Ben Schwartzwalder trying to make a headway and live the game of football, at the height of the segregation era in the States. It is very inspirational. Beautiful acting by Dennis Quaid (the coach) and Rob Brown (Ernie Davis). The theme and the narration of the same is done very well. Watching these movies we see how foolish and idiotic history has been in believing being guided by something as trivial as the colour of our skin. It is all the more painful to see how this history is repeated in our times for the very same trivial or meaningless reasons. In times like these, it is truly great to watch people like Ernie Davis and Bob Schwartzwalder stand for values greater than shallow 'ideals' petty minds wallow in.

I liked the part where Ernie Davis thanks everyone for the Heisnman trophy and his coach especially. He describes his coach as a 'good coach and a good man'. That's a glowing tribute!