On the Battle of "We" and "Them"
It is the nature of our life that when "we" tells a story, it is always right. In a conflict, when one listens to one side, s/he will feels like exterminating the other. But it so happens that when the other speaks finally, one begins to wonder why s/he believed the first group initially. It is interesting to note that either side would have told the truth about what transpired. Both sides could be very honest people who must have genuine reasons for taking the actions that prompted the conflict and as such could both be right.
Let us take this example:
A child wants to play with a knife and an adult who is nearby takes the knife from the child.
Examination:
The child is justified in seeing a plaything that s/he needs and the adult is just being difficult in stopping him/her from acquiring the toy. On the other side, the adult is aware that the child will be injured by the knife and as such s/he takes it upon him/herself to save the child who is obviously oblivious of the danger the knife poses to him/her.
Logic:
Any one who can read this write-up and understand it will probably agree with the adult that the knife should be taken away from the child. But have we really considered it if a child is brought as the judge. My less than two-year old son, with his budding proclivity to self assertion, will definitely become physical with the adult for daring to snatch the plaything (a knife) from another child.
Having looked at this scenario. One thing that is obvious is that being right or not is relative and it is primarily based on perspective: who is talking? What are his/her biases? From what point of view is s/he speaking? What follows is that for every assertion, position, statement and story there is an alternative point of view. No story is sufficient in itself until all the other versions have been heard and taken into consideration. A story about two, three or more people is not complete until all the characters have been heard from.
It then goes without saying that the version "we" tells is not complete until "they" has had its turn in making presentations too. It is like saying that two people had sex in secret when you were not a party to the act and none of the actors have been consulted for their opinions. This is fallacious. In the first instance, the act was done in private. Secondly, the parties to the act have not admitted perpetrating the act. Thirdly, the third party has no collaborating evidence to validate that the act was done. On what premise is the fourth party accepting that the act was actually committed?
I am not a lawyer but common sense (which they say isn't actually common) shows that "we" is always right until "them" is heard. In the same manner, "I" is also always right until "him/her" is consulted. And the greatest victim of this controversy between "we" and "them", "I" and "him/her" is "you". Yes, "you"!
You can be very foolish and stupid that you take one-sided incomplete tales and run with them. If you know how to defend yourself when someone misrepresents you, don't you think that "him/her" and "them" also deserve to be heard before you go to town with incomplete reportage. I am not talking about mere gossip but about the fate of a nation and a people whose growth and advancement is stymied by the battle of "we" always being right and "they" always not understanding "us" and being more nepotistic than "we"! But we must know that there is no "we" without "them" and vice versa. And on the other side, every "we" is also a "them" and every "them" is also a "we" depending on one's position. As such, fighting "them" means fighting ourselves, "we"!
Let us take this example:
A child wants to play with a knife and an adult who is nearby takes the knife from the child.
Examination:
The child is justified in seeing a plaything that s/he needs and the adult is just being difficult in stopping him/her from acquiring the toy. On the other side, the adult is aware that the child will be injured by the knife and as such s/he takes it upon him/herself to save the child who is obviously oblivious of the danger the knife poses to him/her.
Logic:
Any one who can read this write-up and understand it will probably agree with the adult that the knife should be taken away from the child. But have we really considered it if a child is brought as the judge. My less than two-year old son, with his budding proclivity to self assertion, will definitely become physical with the adult for daring to snatch the plaything (a knife) from another child.
Having looked at this scenario. One thing that is obvious is that being right or not is relative and it is primarily based on perspective: who is talking? What are his/her biases? From what point of view is s/he speaking? What follows is that for every assertion, position, statement and story there is an alternative point of view. No story is sufficient in itself until all the other versions have been heard and taken into consideration. A story about two, three or more people is not complete until all the characters have been heard from.
It then goes without saying that the version "we" tells is not complete until "they" has had its turn in making presentations too. It is like saying that two people had sex in secret when you were not a party to the act and none of the actors have been consulted for their opinions. This is fallacious. In the first instance, the act was done in private. Secondly, the parties to the act have not admitted perpetrating the act. Thirdly, the third party has no collaborating evidence to validate that the act was done. On what premise is the fourth party accepting that the act was actually committed?
I am not a lawyer but common sense (which they say isn't actually common) shows that "we" is always right until "them" is heard. In the same manner, "I" is also always right until "him/her" is consulted. And the greatest victim of this controversy between "we" and "them", "I" and "him/her" is "you". Yes, "you"!
You can be very foolish and stupid that you take one-sided incomplete tales and run with them. If you know how to defend yourself when someone misrepresents you, don't you think that "him/her" and "them" also deserve to be heard before you go to town with incomplete reportage. I am not talking about mere gossip but about the fate of a nation and a people whose growth and advancement is stymied by the battle of "we" always being right and "they" always not understanding "us" and being more nepotistic than "we"! But we must know that there is no "we" without "them" and vice versa. And on the other side, every "we" is also a "them" and every "them" is also a "we" depending on one's position. As such, fighting "them" means fighting ourselves, "we"!
Comments