In the aftermath of the earthquake that devastated Haiti, President Obama called upon President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton to help raise funds for the United States humanitarian effort.
One of the avenues they chose was to write a joint op-ed piece in the New York Times encouraging citizens of the United States to contribute to the humanitarian effort. I have no doubt that this appeal by the two former presidents helped to further loosen the purse strings of many Americans who so have contributed millions of dollars to the aid agencies and charities who are on the ground in Haiti bringing relief to those who need it.
But it raised in my mind a question that first occurred to me a few weeks before. I had just listened to a radio public service announcement for a charity that wished to raise $30,000 to eradicate one of our many human scourges (I wish I remembered what it was). I thought, “If the people would willingly contribute $30,000 to wage war against this scourge I wonder if they would contribute that same amount of money to make the fundamental changes in human thought that would make such appeals unnecessary?”
The fact that the question has never been raised says quite a bit about how we view ourselves. Our thought leaders do not believe that this is a central issue so I think it is unlikely that the man on the street would consider it to be important. But this is our only hope. At least, that is what I think.
A systems level discussion on Organizational Leadership and World Peace written by:
© Darius A. Lecointe, Ph.D., J.D., M.A. Join in the discussion here or through dalecointe@gmail.com
7 comments:
At our worst, we, the human species, appear to accept that scourges, plight, inequities and disasters are appropriate judgments visited upon humans as consequences for perceived “sinful” behavior.
At our best, we appear to have accepted that such conditions are the norm for segments of the Earth’s population. We seem to have developed the belief that handling those needs falls to those who feel so moved or to others who can be persuaded by the appeals from talented fund raisers to provide the necessary relief.
Is such care really a choice?
Is there any current political system that does other than view human beings, their own citizens or those in other countries, as commodities… to be exploited for their value to major industry? Perhaps Denmark would qualify. But even there, where they reportedly have some of the world’s happiest people, do they reach out beyond their borders to create balance in other parts of the world?
You are absolutely correct on your first point. Pat Robinson may be foolish enough to utter it, but by our collective behavior in ordinary times we share some variation of his belief.
On your second point you are also true. We have bought into the idea that some roles are reserved for some. But it is that kind of thinking that leads to slavery and despotism. The idea that all men are equal has not yet been universally adopted, even by those who may give lipservice to the idea.
This is why the challenge before us appears so daunting.
Some roles *are* reserved for some. But some roles aren't reserved; they're universal. There's a lot of confusion about what's universal and what's not.
It's not, for example, universal for all human beings to give birth. 49% of humans don't have the equipment to do it.
But all of us have the raw equipment for compassion (though I'll admit there might be some percentage with phsyical-neuro issues that block the differentiation of "like" and "unlike").
All men are NOT created equally. If they were, there would be no Tiger Woods nor Michael Jordan nor Rosa Parks. However they are equal under the law and in the eyes of the Creator. I think, at our best, we strive to fix the systemic problems that would diminish the law and thereby crush those that it (the law) was intended to protect. I also believe, that the Creators first law, if you will, is: Love me (the Creator), and all of mankind as you would love yourself. This is the great equalizer.
We could no sooner cut of our own limbs, yet we cut off those of us that we deem "less than". If we were to remove the oxygen from our blood, what would happen to the body? We will cease to evolve as a species if we continue to deny, that no one man, or group of me, is MORE or LESS important than another.
In other words, Christopher, we're equal in value but not equal in capacity -- which is fine.
Nature doesn't seem to mind so much how roles and skills are apportioned across a population. Distributions aren't always smooth, but the system compensates for that.
Very nicely put KM. Agreed!
Agreed, KM. But the roles that are delimited by our biology and physiology are not the ones that cause our problems, even though there is some degree of correlation.
Post a Comment