I have, among my friends and family, a handful of Anarchists. They run the spectrum from the ones who live by the Non-Aggression Principle to the ones who would be okay with rioting in the streets and burning down government buildings. Like so many other schools of thinking, there are a million subcategories. Anarchy, for the purposes of this blog, is defined as a lack of government and an anarchist is someone who believes that would be a good thing.
My issue with Anarchy really does boil down to definitions, so bear with me while I supply a couple of others. Government: The governing body of a community. Govern (verb): To conduct policy, actions, and affairs of. Strictly speaking, according to these definitions, a mother is the governor of her child.
I am aware that the scenarios I'll be using are fictional. I've chosen them because the characters are very realistic, and act as I believe nonfictional people would in similar situations. The scenarios in question? Lost and The Walking Dead.
Lost gives us the ole desert (actually jungle) island story. When it becomes evident rescue is not coming, what do they do? They look to a leader. Jack makes and enforces policy. He decides what actions the survivors will take. He even handles "affairs" like another man's refusal to turn over medical supplies looted from the wreckage. These people are dropped into a totally anarchist (no government) situation and one of the first things they do is appoint a leader. A government, by the definition given above.
The same thing applies to The Walking Dead. Thanks to a zombie apocalypse, the characters are living in anarchy. So what do they do? Look to leaders: Shane, Rick, Hershel, Gareth, Dawn, Deanna, Negan, Ezekiel, Gregory, some whose names escape me. Every one of them makes and enforces policy for his or her community. Every one of them decides the actions of the larger group. Every one of them deals with "affairs" like whether or not to merge groups.
Going from there, it seems to me that nonfictional people would do the same. Yes, there would be the loners like Lost's Sawyer who are a community unto themselves. But humans, for the most part, are social creatures. We group. We look for guidance, for leadership. Thus my problem - anarchy is not the natural state of the human being.
Small, local government is the natural state of the human being. The United States of America got its name from that very notion.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Thursday, March 9, 2017
The Brains of The Young
Got into a discussion the other day, if you can imagine such a thing happening to me. The topic at hand was the apparent homosexuality of a Disney character, but it rapidly became about something very different. The other party insisted repeatedly that children are not capable of understanding homosexuality.
I've been a very hands-on aunt for most of my life. My minions count in the dozens. I've never come across a subject that children could not comprehend on some level. You "dumb it down" for them, but they are capable of understanding.
Recently, I explained the transgender thing to a child. I "dumbed it down" to having a girl brain in a boy body. His head did not explode and he now understands the basic issue. We do have to be careful with our terminology - lesbians don't just love women, it's the getting-married kind of love. We don't want little Suzie to decide she's clinically depressed because sometimes she feels sad.
Something else I've noticed about children is that they are more receptive to difference. Race or religion are good touchstones here. At a park, the kids all run and play together and it's no big deal if this one's a different color or that one won't eat a ham sandwich. In fact, a conversation about those differences might start - thus they learn something about each other. Adults could take a lesson.
It infuriates me that people so readily dismiss the brains of the young. I have to laugh at some of the things I read in parenting magazines because otherwise I'd cry. So much of that advice is stuff I've always done, without effort. "When in the park, talk to the child about the various animals and plants you see." WHO NEEDS TO BE TOLD THAT!?
Note I did not mention my position on having a girl brain in a boy body, or of wanting to marry a member of the same sex. That all is really beside the point of this post. The point here is simple. Children are not stupid. Simple, yes, but not stupid.
I've been a very hands-on aunt for most of my life. My minions count in the dozens. I've never come across a subject that children could not comprehend on some level. You "dumb it down" for them, but they are capable of understanding.
Recently, I explained the transgender thing to a child. I "dumbed it down" to having a girl brain in a boy body. His head did not explode and he now understands the basic issue. We do have to be careful with our terminology - lesbians don't just love women, it's the getting-married kind of love. We don't want little Suzie to decide she's clinically depressed because sometimes she feels sad.
Something else I've noticed about children is that they are more receptive to difference. Race or religion are good touchstones here. At a park, the kids all run and play together and it's no big deal if this one's a different color or that one won't eat a ham sandwich. In fact, a conversation about those differences might start - thus they learn something about each other. Adults could take a lesson.
It infuriates me that people so readily dismiss the brains of the young. I have to laugh at some of the things I read in parenting magazines because otherwise I'd cry. So much of that advice is stuff I've always done, without effort. "When in the park, talk to the child about the various animals and plants you see." WHO NEEDS TO BE TOLD THAT!?
Note I did not mention my position on having a girl brain in a boy body, or of wanting to marry a member of the same sex. That all is really beside the point of this post. The point here is simple. Children are not stupid. Simple, yes, but not stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)