“Then there were the recipients of the leftovers of imperial handouts:
Post-graduate awards.
Graduate awards.
It doesn’t matter
What you call it.
But did I hear you say
Awards?
Awards?
Awards?
What
Dainty name to describe
This
Most merciless
Most formalized
Open,
Thorough,
Spy system of all time:
For a few pennies now and a
Doctoral degree later,
Tell us about
Your people
Your history
Your mind.
Your mind.
Your mind.
Tell us
Boy
How
We can make you
Weak
Weaker than you’ve already
Been.
And don’t you get any ideas either
No
Radical
Interpretative
Nonsense from
You, Flatnose.
My brother,
There should be no misunderstanding,
No malice intended —
Indeed,
Our dear
Academic doctors
Deserve all
The worship
They get from our poor administrators at home
And more.
They work hard for the
Doctorates —
They work too hard,
Giving away
Not only themselves, but
All of us —
The price is high,
My brother,
Otherwise the story is as old as empires. Oppressed multitudes from the provinces rush to the imperial seat because that is where they know all salvation comes from. But as other imperial subjects in other times and other places has discovered, for the slave, there is nothing at the centre but worse slavery.
Whether
Warming itself up
In a single cold room by a
Paraffin lamp,
Covering its
Nakedness and
Disappointed hopes with
The old tickets of the
Football pools
or
Glorious,
With degrees.”
From the novel Our Sister Killjoy by Ama Ata Aidoo
***
Have our chains become a fashion? A guilty pleasure that we're willing to sacrifice our integrity for? What's that thing about integrity again? Or is it a certain kind of survival that is more important to us? At least the slave is guaranteed work, shelter and a meal? Is the free man destined to die a slow and painful death of frustration with his dreams hanging fresh and untouched in the dusty cluttered back rooms of memory? Should we just resign to and embrace the chains and adorn them with bling and touches of our own personal style? Pierce our babies ears so as to coopt them early into the superficial comforts of myopic hedonism? But then again, we do not live forever so, we may be lucky and never have to actually… see. Clear vision is not always as desirable as it may seem.
Plus, is there ever truly a right thing to do?
Monday, January 09, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I think there always is a right thing to do. But ironically, the difficulty with doing so is a result of "clear vision". For with clear vision comes an acute awareness of the consequences. And some times (most times?)we would rather not face the consequences. And so we hesitate to do the right thing, and instead do the comfortable one, or the one that would satisfy our most immediate wants. Failing to look further into the distance. Failing to see that in the end, we may have gained all manner of earthly pleasures, and yet we have lost our souls.
Mariama Ba said: "Princes master their feelings to fulfil their duties. Others bend their heads and, in silence, accept a destiny that opresses them".
There is a fine line between the two types of princes described above. But there is a line just the same.
The emphasis in my question was is there ever a right thing to do, i.e. just one... or are there perhaps several acceptable/honourable routes to the same destination?
But true about clear vision. I was thinking yesterday about how often, people ask questions that they already, albeit subconsciously or perhaps under the heavy weight of denial, know the answer to. When the lie is more comfortable than the truth, we ask the question expecting/hoping for a false answer that will nurture our denial: we ask for deception so that we may use it as an excuse. Clear vision is not always as desirable as it may seem but feeding desire is not a path to true fulfilment anyhow! Sometimes we blur the line between passion and lust, between honest needs and selfish wants... and i think it is here where our integrity will be most helpful to us.
As for princes, I think The Godfather trilogy well illustrates Mariama Ba's distinctions.
"The emphasis in my question was is there ever a right thing to do, i.e. just one... or are there perhaps several acceptable/honourable routes to the same destination?"
And I agree with you when I am saying there is. "A" right thing to do. And when there is a list of possible options, two, three or four of those options may be "A" right thing to do. Perhaps the question you meant to ask is, "is there ever "The" right thing to do?"
And I think there is. But this is dependent not on the situation, but on the values of the man/woman faced with the situation.
What is "The" right thing for you, may not be "The" right thing for me because we have different values. Even if we are in the same situation.
I think MLK and the militant Malcolm X are a good illustration. Both involved in the same struggle, but both believing their way was "The" right way. Not a right way, but "The one".
And I guess the distinction came from an emphasis on integrity of values, rather than an emphasis on destination.
And so ultimately I would argue that there is "The" right thing to do, but it is a question for each man and their conscience.
Because we can only take one decision at a time, and travel one path at a time, I would suggest that "The" right thing is the one that enables you to live in harmony with yourself. Values not destinations.
when i say "destination" i do not mean it in the literal sense, i.e. a fixed, an absolute. Because I largely believe that such does not exist or it is counterproductive for us to hold the end above the means as the means determine and define the end in more ways than maybe we're ready to accept. Life is journeying and all significance is derived from process. So when i talk of destinations, i talk of things that shape our journey and yes, values do this. My point is that we are talking of the same thing… there's no antagonism here.
On people believing that their way is the right one… this is good when talking to yourself but as soon as one tries to impose their way on others… we better be highly cautious----that's precarious ground.
"On people believing that their way is the right one… this is good when talking to yourself but as soon as one tries to impose their way on others… we better be highly cautious----that's precarious ground"
Most definitely....which is why I say:
"What is "The" right thing for you, may not be "The" right thing for me because we have different values. Even if we are in the same situation. "
and
"And so ultimately I would argue that there is "The" right thing to do, but it is a question for each man and their conscience."
But even then, this picture is incomplete. Because in the real world, things are much more interesting.
Imagine we lived in a world where we could not impose our ideas on others. Imagine we really believed that everyone should be left alone to live according to their principles.
We would say that sexism for example is wrong, but anyone who practised it should have the right to do so if they really believed in their heart of hearts that one sex was inferior to the other.
But we are spared this ridiculous state of affairs for two reasons.
1. We believe there is such a things as a single right thing to do.
2. Someone was willing to impose their views on everyone else.
Now we may be tempted to see this as an extreme example, but this is only due to the fact that we are where we are in history. At the time that this debate was raging, it was far from an extreme position to speak of a weaker sex.
And so I think that man is made great by these two things:
1. He believes there is such a things as the right thing(Objectivist)
2. He is willing to impose his point of view on the world.(Accountable)
As an aside...this is why the US Declaration of Independence gives me chills. Specifically this:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men ae created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." It is just so poetic and assured....
But it also makes me sad when I compare it to the pettiness that comes from my own government.
Is it that man is willing to impose his point of view on the world or that he dares to and is met with a significant amount of acceptance/approval etc...? Just to stress that it's a situation with 2 determining sides. A lot of people are willing to propagate their self-determined truths but what separates the men from the boys (since we are already using such gendered terminology)?
Hitler imposed his point of view on the world and had reception (and support) enough to effect a grand massacre. Was he a great man? Depends which way you look at it. He was a powerful orator and thus an effective leader but one flinches to deem him great because of his inhuman policies… To him it was the right thing, but because a greater population did not accept his ideas, we are free from his menace now…
So it's forever precarious ground: the power that comes with greatness or that power can be deemed as greatness…
Post a Comment