…Losers, Weepers.
(This is the return volley toward my previous post about Optimism.)
I have been thinking about this decades-old elementary playground chant for a couple of weeks. Though I know nothing about the actual, factually demonstrated ethics of Liberty Mutual Insurance, Inc., I personally find their”responsibility project” television advertising campaign thought provoking and uplifting, and a good primer for this essay.
In my personal experience, there is always hope. I don’t believe I am alone in this:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.”
- Abraham Lincoln
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe.”
- Dalai Lama
I have often quoted George Santayana‘s seminal “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it” within my blog entries. Because humanity is enduring yet another worldwide round of challenging times, I believe it important if not critical to realize the world has almost always been enduring challenging times. Think about it. Throughout our species’ time on this planet, wars (along with natural disasters) have resulted in the deaths of untold millions of individuals.
And, in retrospect, I muse aloud: just because I “find” something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that something is “mine” or that I have some sort of cosmic right to “keep” it. Expanding the concept, just because another nation has vast resources that my nation deems capitalistically important, doesn’t give my nation the right to those resources, by might, subterfuge or any other means, and no matter what spin is put upon the justification.
I fear this is where many of the very wealthy lose perspective. Just because they find themselves in with one of the more controlling seats for the entire world’s economy doesn’t mean the world is actually theirs to control! In stark contrast, as well as historically relevant, the native populations of North America really didn’t understand the European concept of “ownership.”
Long before the first European settlers came to America, Indians had developed an advanced economy. Indian tribes traded extensively with each other, and many had some form of money. None, however, had any institution like the “land title” of the Europeans. They had no tradition of “alienating”, or relinquishing all rights, to land. Many thought that this showed Indian social development to be more primitive that that of the Europeans. But the Native Americans had developed sophisticated legal systems that incorporated treaties, elaborated rights and specified ways to resolve disputes.
A great many treasures of art and oral literature have been passed down from prehistory. Indian cultures and religions were enmeshed with nature, for they felt themselves entwined with the universe. Mother Earth and Father Sky were more than mere expressions; they represented the Indians’ very being. Land, a part of the universe, belonged to all, particularly the tribe. Individual land ownership did not exist, since all were entitled to the fruits of nature. Users’ rights were protected and specified in various traditions, but there was no such things as land “ownership”. Generally, individuals could clear as much land as needed for farming; this land would remain in a family’s possession as long as they continued to use it. Once it was abandoned, anyone else could cultivate it.
Indians readily understood and entered into treaties concerning rights to land use, but the idea of land sales was alien to them—and it is likely that, because of difficulties in translation of each others’ languages, neither the natives nor the settlers understood this vital difference, at first.
When President Franklin Pierce offered to buy the lands of Chief Seattle’s tribe, his response illustrated how abhorrent the idea of giving up land was to his people:
-
The great — and good, I believe — White Chief sends us word that he wants to buy land. But he will reserve us enough that we can live comfortably. This seems generous, since the red man no longer has rights he need respect…
-
So your offer seems fair, and I think my people will accept it and go to the reservation you offer them. We will live apart, and in peace…. It matters little where we pass the rest of our days. They are not many. The Indians’ night will be dark. No bright star shines on his horizons. The wind is sad. Fate hunts the red man down. Wherever he goes, he will hear the approaching steps of his destroyer, and prepare to die, like the wounded doe who hears the step of the hunter…
-
We will consider your offer. When we have decided, we will let you know. Should we accept, I here and now make this condition: we will never be denied to visit, at any time, the graves of our fathers and our friends.
-
Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every hillside, every valley, every clearing and wood, is holy in the memory and experience of my people. Even those unspeaking stones along the shore are loud with events and memories in the life of my people. The ground beneath your feet responds more lovingly to our steps than yours, because it is the ashes of our grandfathers. Our bare feet know the kindred touch. The earth is rich with the lives of our kin.
In his speech, Seattle accepts the inevitability of the plans of “the Great White Chief”. But, nevertheless, he asserts his people’s moral right to walk on the land whenever they wish, forever. This, of course, is not compatible with the Europeans’ concept of “private property” in land.
European colonists played “finders, keepers” on a scale unparalleled in human history. Caucasian North Americans are primarily descendants of this practice, one we still enjoy today—along with all the municipal, state and federal taxation levied upon the concept of “property.” And, within this concept of property (both in early Europe and in worldwide colonization since) rose the practice of fiat currencies and several centuries of debt-based financial expansion. In fact, the economic health of humanity across this entire planet is tied to debt… or “the value of a promise to pay back a loan with interest.”
(If you haven’t yet taken 48 minutes to view Pierre Gagnon’s seminal “Money as Debt” presentation, I suggest you strongly consider it.)
To me, the irony of the “finders, keepers” perspective comes from how our species derives a true, deep and satisfying happiness. Surely, a high level of mental health and balance cannot occur while other members of humanity are undergoing suffering due to economic disparity, and the resulting greed-based violence that takes place as individuals and groups attempt to “take by force” economic prosperity from those they believe have it. In retrospect, our first-world obsession with ownership— with having “things” that are ours alone, may not be the best model for long term success as a species.
Here in Vermont, many residents felt the full blow of unfortunate circumstance during the unprecedented quantity of rain associated with 2011′s hurricane / tropical Storm Irene. I have marveled at how much community effort has taken place, and continues to take place on behalf of those affected. Volunteers from all over the state, and many from outside the state and from Canada have worked to clean up the devastation. This is the message, again: we are capable of helping out. For the most part, this type of generosity has taken place for ages, where individuals and communities are compelled to help in the wake of unexpected natural disaster, or—as highlighted by the Sept 11th violence—unnatural disaster.
I believe we are each born with an innate sense of wanting to help (and do the right thing) wherever possible. I also believe we get the crap kicked out of this innate sense by life experiences that often seem predominately “out to get us.” (This would be the “losers, weepers” reality.)
There isn’t a doubt in my mind that pessimism (as opposed to practical preparation) gives evil a significant toe hold in the course of human and historic events.
In an attempt to continue to define an ongoing rant of mine (the constant, tasteless barrage of “no news is good news” from most media channels), I beg anyone who will listen to actively choose optimism, even if it seems imprudent at first to do so. And you should spread the word to others to do the same.
“Luck favors the prepared” is a saying that effectively exists within every human language on earth. It is one of many human observations that ring true. So are, I believe, the concepts of optimism and hope.
We will always be the recipients of a reality stemming from our own historical choices as a species. Though the great masses of us really have no practically-connected direct choice, the choices of those in leadership positions have defined and will define where, what and who we are right now.
There are many voices who have loudly stated that we cannot reverse the state we are in, and we now need to adapt to the oncoming changes in world environments, world economy, and world politics.
I think this perspective might be accurate, but it is also a non starter for cheer-leading those ideas to not only reverse—but vastly improve—the state we’re in.
I have the privilege of knowing and having known so many brilliant men and women, individuals capable of not only conceiving of astonishing development possibilities, but with the expertise and technical ability to fulfill those concepts, making them as real and as plain as your fingers. Knowing these folks, I personally believe nothing is impossible (with the vain and singular exception of having the ability to snap my fingers and suddenly have the outward appearance of George Clooney’s better-looking older brother.)
I ask that you think about “finders, keepers” and how you live your own life through your own decision making. Are the decisions you make really for the common good of the largest number of people likely to be affected by the decision?
