Oh the Humanity! Part 2: Clarifying.
My brother, in one small, concise and justified sentence, politely disinclined to agree with my assessment of the words "humane" and "inhuman." "Inhumane" can also work in place of that last one. So while bored and sleep deprived, I exploded with these follow-up paragraphs while I was waiting for video files to render (they take for fucking ever).
***
'Humane' is supposed to describe the exemplary altruistic qualities that are tied to the identity of humanity, that is being human.
'Inhuman' is a word used to describe negative qualities like demonstrating cruelty, savagery, barbaric behaviour, and more "animalistic" attributes. It also is used in a more literal sense without these implications, but that's not what I'm focusing on.
The qualities of the latter would seem integral to being human, and the former seems to describe that which is in addition to, or beyond merely being a person.
I'm not making an argument that we all deserve to be put to death; I feel that all the good we do is special, and not par for the course. Things like love and kindness strike me as being lauded because they are seen as being beyond our beastly nature. When an individual extends such virtues beyond their primary familial group [traditionally "family" but they could adopt their friends, town, sports team, nation, race, or book club to fulfill the same social needs).
Even then, sometimes it feels like I'm part of a generation of young fathers who are given kudos just because they didn't run out on their kids (though he's only 17 months old, there's still plenty of time). I don't really remember receiving any personally, but just in a general attitude.
You don't have to invoke Godwin's Law to find an example of people being awful to each other. And as much as we'd like to feel that the baddies are evil because they've been born bad, without any stats or evidence, I suspect at least a great deal of "evil" people are pretty much like the rest of us, and at some point they just made a choice. Of course, mental illness and the like enter into it, but there's also loads of mentally ill people that aren't murderers. I'm mean, can you think of any reason to kill someone in cold blood, torture someone just for a thrill, etc?
I'd hope not, I can't; but quite regularly people make choice to do so; it's their actions that make them outliers, not their nature.
Ariel Castro probably fooled the neighbours that he was a relatively normal guy who liked to play bass and have bbq's with them because in most respects he probably was. Obviously the kidnapping and imprisonment wasn't normal, but he wasn't borne of a snake from Hades; he is just some guy who did something shitty. We're all capable of doing shitty things (hopefully in the toilet). This is the main reason I hate the cult-like fascination some people have with serial killers, as if there's something special about being a murderer.
There isn't and such people are not deserving of attention.
Of course humanity can lay claim to extremely exceptional achievements, and that is exactly what they are: exceptional. Abnormal. Anomalous. I wasn't part of the team that landed man on the moon. I didn't create the polio vaccine. I didn't make the film 'Jaws.'
Being human is something I have in common with the people with which you can credit these gifts to world, but being a human being doesn't entitle me to any piece of it. It's too close to being one of those annoying people who take pride in something they were born into, without actually achieving anything. These people that choose to degrade themselves but bathing in vulgarity and indulging in idiocy may be off-putting, but they're pretty much identical to you, genomically speaking. Supposedly we share %50 of our genes with bananas. So in relative terms, we're all practically Roman Polanski clones.
Certainly in the Old Testament of the Bible, there's plenty examples of people acting in less than a civilised manner, even the good guys:
Take Lot for example, and his strange relationship with his daughters.
David being charged the price of 100 Philistine foreskins for Saul's daughter, and returning with 200 out of spite (before his 'fall from grace' when he sent a guy to war so he could get with the potential widow).
Or Samson, who was raised a Nazarite from birth to be dedicated to God in chastity. His story is filled with him perpetrating wanton violence and mass slaughter that is hilariously excessive, even by OT standards. It's amazing what you can do with the jawbone of an ass, or three hundred torches and three hundred foxes: his creativity should not go unnoticed.
And if you're given to look at an evolutionary biology train of thought, we are inclined to fear the unknown and react violently to assert dominance over any perceived threats. Despite the romantic notion of "the noble savage" at peace with the earth, we've consistently hunted species to death, with prejudice, even before European Colonialism was a thing.
A penny saved is a penny earned, and the passing of our genes is also aided by eliminating the competition. It's theorised the reason that there are no other extant species of Homo is that Sapiens killed them all. Because they looked funny and probably talked like fags.
So I'll try and cap off this deranged, sleep-deprived, medication enhanced manifesto that sort of circles around what I'm trying to get at without making it to the point: This kind of thinking is why I jive with the new mantra in childcare that says to praise the effort, not the child.
Children are not some strange angelic(demonic) separate species from us: they're just people. Being children just means that they're at the younger stage of their lives and things go the way they're supposed to, they could be the scientist who cures cancer, or the drunk driver that ran over your wife.
As an early childhood educator, you get to play a role in their development and without being expected to love each and every precious darling entrusted in your care, you are expected to aid their development as a human being in a professional and effective way.
So if a child displays a desirable behaviour that we wish to encourage: we reward the action, or the attempt at the action if the child has invested in it, i.e. "good work." As opposed to simply saying "good boy/girl," which gender labels aside (a discussion that is a little retarded), sends the message that they simply displayed the behaviour because they are "good" and don't really have any control over it.
Conversely if a child displays an undesirable behaviour, rather than learning from their mistake and making a better choice next time around, they're more likely to believe they behaved that way because they are "bad" (naughty, worthless, Nickelback). That's what can likely lead to the whole "I'm bad so I might as well do shit anyway" line of thinking that doesn't help anyone.
Having a choice, and understanding the choice is much more likely to positively influence a child who is searching for some kind of control and power to exercise.
Because if they are not equipped to understand, they may start seeking less constructive ways to exert power and control.
What if they make the "wrong" choice? Discourage the behaviour in the manner deemed fit, try to communicate the reasons why the behaviour is as undesirable as Doris Roberts humping a rhino skull -where possible- and hey, there's only so much you can do, some people are just jerks.
It's the simplistic labeling of good/bad, etc, that allows us to justify making terrible choices, in many regards and ultimately aids our more destructive tendencies.
Being aware of our own biology and needs, we can work fulfill our needs in healthy ways and go beyond our base, human instincts to strive for greater things. It's a great thing to aspire to.
Unfortunately, some people are just pricks who choose to be willfully ignorant because it's easy. Our choices, our actions, is all that separates us. We're all *this* close to being murdering, rapist maniacs; according to our genes, that's what we have in common as people.
But we can some cool shit.
"Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach. Does that answer your questions, Doctor?"
-Rorschach, Watchmen (Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons).
***
'Humane' is supposed to describe the exemplary altruistic qualities that are tied to the identity of humanity, that is being human.
'Inhuman' is a word used to describe negative qualities like demonstrating cruelty, savagery, barbaric behaviour, and more "animalistic" attributes. It also is used in a more literal sense without these implications, but that's not what I'm focusing on.
The qualities of the latter would seem integral to being human, and the former seems to describe that which is in addition to, or beyond merely being a person.
I'm not making an argument that we all deserve to be put to death; I feel that all the good we do is special, and not par for the course. Things like love and kindness strike me as being lauded because they are seen as being beyond our beastly nature. When an individual extends such virtues beyond their primary familial group [traditionally "family" but they could adopt their friends, town, sports team, nation, race, or book club to fulfill the same social needs).
Even then, sometimes it feels like I'm part of a generation of young fathers who are given kudos just because they didn't run out on their kids (though he's only 17 months old, there's still plenty of time). I don't really remember receiving any personally, but just in a general attitude.
You don't have to invoke Godwin's Law to find an example of people being awful to each other. And as much as we'd like to feel that the baddies are evil because they've been born bad, without any stats or evidence, I suspect at least a great deal of "evil" people are pretty much like the rest of us, and at some point they just made a choice. Of course, mental illness and the like enter into it, but there's also loads of mentally ill people that aren't murderers. I'm mean, can you think of any reason to kill someone in cold blood, torture someone just for a thrill, etc?
I'd hope not, I can't; but quite regularly people make choice to do so; it's their actions that make them outliers, not their nature.
Ariel Castro probably fooled the neighbours that he was a relatively normal guy who liked to play bass and have bbq's with them because in most respects he probably was. Obviously the kidnapping and imprisonment wasn't normal, but he wasn't borne of a snake from Hades; he is just some guy who did something shitty. We're all capable of doing shitty things (hopefully in the toilet). This is the main reason I hate the cult-like fascination some people have with serial killers, as if there's something special about being a murderer.
There isn't and such people are not deserving of attention.
Of course humanity can lay claim to extremely exceptional achievements, and that is exactly what they are: exceptional. Abnormal. Anomalous. I wasn't part of the team that landed man on the moon. I didn't create the polio vaccine. I didn't make the film 'Jaws.'
Being human is something I have in common with the people with which you can credit these gifts to world, but being a human being doesn't entitle me to any piece of it. It's too close to being one of those annoying people who take pride in something they were born into, without actually achieving anything. These people that choose to degrade themselves but bathing in vulgarity and indulging in idiocy may be off-putting, but they're pretty much identical to you, genomically speaking. Supposedly we share %50 of our genes with bananas. So in relative terms, we're all practically Roman Polanski clones.
Certainly in the Old Testament of the Bible, there's plenty examples of people acting in less than a civilised manner, even the good guys:
Take Lot for example, and his strange relationship with his daughters.
David being charged the price of 100 Philistine foreskins for Saul's daughter, and returning with 200 out of spite (before his 'fall from grace' when he sent a guy to war so he could get with the potential widow).
Or Samson, who was raised a Nazarite from birth to be dedicated to God in chastity. His story is filled with him perpetrating wanton violence and mass slaughter that is hilariously excessive, even by OT standards. It's amazing what you can do with the jawbone of an ass, or three hundred torches and three hundred foxes: his creativity should not go unnoticed.
And if you're given to look at an evolutionary biology train of thought, we are inclined to fear the unknown and react violently to assert dominance over any perceived threats. Despite the romantic notion of "the noble savage" at peace with the earth, we've consistently hunted species to death, with prejudice, even before European Colonialism was a thing.
A penny saved is a penny earned, and the passing of our genes is also aided by eliminating the competition. It's theorised the reason that there are no other extant species of Homo is that Sapiens killed them all. Because they looked funny and probably talked like fags.
So I'll try and cap off this deranged, sleep-deprived, medication enhanced manifesto that sort of circles around what I'm trying to get at without making it to the point: This kind of thinking is why I jive with the new mantra in childcare that says to praise the effort, not the child.
Children are not some strange angelic(demonic) separate species from us: they're just people. Being children just means that they're at the younger stage of their lives and things go the way they're supposed to, they could be the scientist who cures cancer, or the drunk driver that ran over your wife.
As an early childhood educator, you get to play a role in their development and without being expected to love each and every precious darling entrusted in your care, you are expected to aid their development as a human being in a professional and effective way.
So if a child displays a desirable behaviour that we wish to encourage: we reward the action, or the attempt at the action if the child has invested in it, i.e. "good work." As opposed to simply saying "good boy/girl," which gender labels aside (a discussion that is a little retarded), sends the message that they simply displayed the behaviour because they are "good" and don't really have any control over it.
Conversely if a child displays an undesirable behaviour, rather than learning from their mistake and making a better choice next time around, they're more likely to believe they behaved that way because they are "bad" (naughty, worthless, Nickelback). That's what can likely lead to the whole "I'm bad so I might as well do shit anyway" line of thinking that doesn't help anyone.
Having a choice, and understanding the choice is much more likely to positively influence a child who is searching for some kind of control and power to exercise.
Because if they are not equipped to understand, they may start seeking less constructive ways to exert power and control.
What if they make the "wrong" choice? Discourage the behaviour in the manner deemed fit, try to communicate the reasons why the behaviour is as undesirable as Doris Roberts humping a rhino skull -where possible- and hey, there's only so much you can do, some people are just jerks.
It's the simplistic labeling of good/bad, etc, that allows us to justify making terrible choices, in many regards and ultimately aids our more destructive tendencies.
Being aware of our own biology and needs, we can work fulfill our needs in healthy ways and go beyond our base, human instincts to strive for greater things. It's a great thing to aspire to.
Unfortunately, some people are just pricks who choose to be willfully ignorant because it's easy. Our choices, our actions, is all that separates us. We're all *this* close to being murdering, rapist maniacs; according to our genes, that's what we have in common as people.
But we can some cool shit.
"Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach. Does that answer your questions, Doctor?"
-Rorschach, Watchmen (Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons).
posted by mav_ian at 1:32 AM
0 comments
