The People vs. Its Culture
First of All, What is culture?
William Durant, in "The History of Civilization" states, "Civilization is social order promoting cultural creation. Four elements constitute it: economic provision, political organization, moral traditions, and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. It begins where chaos and insecurity end."
But what does that mean?
A social order means that you have a code that you go by. The first code is your code of conduct; your morals; your values. From these standards you evaluate everything else. Including the people around you: Are they kin or they a foe? This answer is very important to know-- for in the words of William Durant: "Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity end" -- and not being sure of who is around you can make a person feel insecure. If not for any other reason, it is just a very good practice to watch the company you keep. Not doing so will only create chaos, if you don't assess people who are next to you. If they don't at least have similar values, similar rules or similar codes of conduct, that could spell disaster, if you bring them into your fold. Best to remove their influence before the game gets old. Kindred-ness can be established off of the similarities of things you have in common, but civilized behavior is what is conducted when the social order is somewhat the same (they can relate to you and your way)-- otherwise your behavior may be interpreted as uncivilized by those with different values. The Hebrew Kingdom of Israel was composed of twelve kindred tribes with strong bonds and therefore acted in behalf of one another-- for example. Social order then, represents a society of people or group of people advocated for the same or similar interests (this may include sororities and/or fraternities).
But if we are talking about cultural creation are we talking about one person or several?
Probably not. Culture is a group reality. A person is like "free agency" is to a team: A free agent is like a soldier who works for pay, not allegiance. Families are what creates the culture and the bonds between man and woman must be tight in order to manifest the individual.
Individual? What does that mean?
I take the word back to it's etymology or ancient roots which describes it as "an indivisible dual" or two which cannot be separated (which in terms of relationships is pretty hard to find these days). Today, it seems, there are too many male and female "free agents." The results: chaos; using people; uncivilized behavior; alternative lifestyles, fears and phobias. Trust and reliance are the major factors here and without them proper relationships are not possible: For in the words of Peter Gabriel, "Without it man-kind can't climb through the roof!" A culture cannot work successfully without strong family units and strong family bonds or ties.
So cultural social order is families and kindred-ness, who share similar codes, rules, and values coming together. But for what? Probably for protection against others. In other words: Strength and security. Or maybe it is done to gather huge quantities of food or economic provisions for the various tribes-- for example. But maybe we are getting way too ahead of ourselves, in taking this route. Maybe we need to keep things a little more basic or germane, before exploring more of these types of areas.
CULTURE UNDER A MICROSCOPE
People and culture are a strange entity. Culture influences people and people influence culture. The People create the culture but the culture can out-live the individuals who created it. The culture can evolve, live through the life of its people and (in that manner) take on a life of its own. The effect a person has on a culture may be noticeable, if that person effects many other people's lives, but often the affect of culture may often go by unnoticed and effect much more. An individual can have an effect on a culture as well; such as Marcus Garvey, Jomo Kenyatta, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Malik Al Hajj Shabazz (Malcolm X), Andrew Young and Julian Bond; while all the time, the culture will effect people. As previously said, "Civilization is a social order promoting cultural creation."
Something that was the "jaughn" or popular today within a cultural context, can be "pas'se" or relegated to a position of minor significance tomorrow-- within that same culture. It can simply be, no longer current. Within the course of the day, people do things within their sphere of influence, it catches on, becomes a trend, a dance, or whatever. Later on (after a period of practice) it becomes a custom or thing to do. If it lasts for a substantial period of time, it might even be considered traditional-- like lemon or lime with Tequila or gin. Someone adds to it and it becomes a variation of it-- like Chubby Checker and his various "Twist Dances," the various "Hustles" during the 1970's, the Hip Hop B-Boy "Breaking" and "Electric Boogaloo" development, or the evolution of Hip-Hop itself. That is, something always comes along to replace the former, in time. The reason for these changes is the affect of artists on the cultural element-- such as a new musical tune, dance, or work of art (sculpture, graffiti or period in art), some person of notoriety dying, a discovery or breakthrough of some sort, some political event or something labeled as news or current events performed by a group of people.
One of the most powerful ways the element we call culture can affect people subliminally by altering your world view or your point of view. When I say world view, I literally mean, how you view the world. For the most part, how you view the world is based upon what you see. Essentially, a culture starts as a tradition between a man and a woman and evolves their subsequent families grows. Whatever ways and manners are common practice amongst the families becomes their customs. Whatever sense of values are common amongst the families, comprises the moral standard between members. Eventually, as the family expands and maintains their sense of family (see (extended family) what is moral becomes mores and what is customary becomes traditional or standard procedure and each become the underlined reasoning behind the society's rules, regulations and laws. As these clans and tribes form allegiances with similar tribes and clans, they form a nation or nations.
Today, these types of societies are called traditional. There are other sorts of nations which may vary in religion or stock of people but still come together because a common foe or similar ways. However, in the current world, there are several multi-cultural nations in existence-- that are not bonded by families, religion, etc., but people who have common interests-- with a founding group which forges the others together under one allegiance. Within these types of nations, largely what you see is based upon what country you are in, who the dominate culture within that nation are, and its sub-cultures-- or in the case of multi-cultural societies-- its immigrants, ethnic groups and their cultures. These things (as well as the society's level of sophistication) represents that society's ability to have you reconsider your own position in relation to that society.
Tradition represents a view of life that has been handed down throughout time. Culture contain customs and traditions. Some times what you see is affected by such things, but the effects may be very subtle. So subtle, you may not know how those elements played a part. Culture does represent how the majority of its people see things. In a man versus society theme, the fact that something has been done for thousands of years, by the majority of people and has yield many favorable results, does bring a lot of social pressure on the single person to conform. With such overwhelming evidence (represented by what is a tradition), what a single person believes may seem futile (hopeless). You must not forget, Culture represents how its' people do things: It represents what you read, what you see, things you hear, etc.
And all these things are placed against what a person believes when man vs. culture.
Peripherally, within America and most parts of the West, most (if not all) of what you read in the papers is controlled by organizational think tanks, such as the Associate Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI). These two syndicates regulate and make available most of what the Western World reads in the papers and just about all of what the "known world" can funnel into its' Western World scope. API and UPI are known as the news "gate-keepers." The infamous Patty Hearst's grandfather was magnate William Randolph Hearst, a newspaper Tycoon; but even he himself has to govern himself according to AP and UPI. Often, when you see most foreigners reading the newspapers of the West, many will also be reading newspapers from their own country: It is not because they can't read in English, Spanish, French, etc. --it is because they rather have their own people's take on what just occurred. If you want to get a more of an enlightened angle on this subject, view the film, "Three Days of the Condor."
Now most of what Westerners hear on the radio in America is regulated by the FCC. How these things get to come across the airwaves, is due to some big corporations or relatively large companies making it possible (although some independent labels are highly successful). So you see, what these companies want (and do not object to), are the items that get played on the radio stations or produced by them for general consumption. There are independent labels and independent radio companies to represent alternate points of view, but the common man does not have easy access to a lot of that. Most of what the average person has access to is a product of what is allowed by the power structure of the culture that produced it.
Often, when you watch shows on TV, you may see a disclaimer flashed up on the screen claiming that the author's or artist's view has nothing to do with how this station or sponsor views itself. That is to say, just because you are viewing this on such and such station or because of MGM, HBO, Quincy Jones, etc., this does not represent the company's World view; it is strictly ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW to be viewed for your information or entertainment. In other words, "It may be coming from us, but it is not what we are saying." This becomes necessary to state, because without these producers, host and channel owners, these broadcast would never reach you-- unless strictly through "word of mouth." It is THEM who decide what will be available to you to draw from, but IT IS THEY who let you know, "just because they make these things available, these things they make available are not a representation of their world view."
But they are.
Although they attempt to make the disclaimer statement perfectly clear, what is made available (by the ones who can afford to make these things available) DOES reflect their company's tastes and opinions of what is and isn't appropriate, according to the organization's philosophy. One show does not represent the company's total world view but the collection of what the organization or producer produces DOES reflect how that organization considers and thinks-- the bulk of which compromises their world view.
When man or woman versus society, his or her sanity is always what hangs in the balance of questioning the authority of society. Of course, you can't believe everything you see and hear, but how you address the issues makes all the difference in the world in how the society responds. When you were young (long before you know what it is you are doing), you pledged allegiance to the country you are a citizen of. This means you pledge to obey its rules and govern yourself according. As one gets older, most of us begin to question why things have to be that way prescribed. Now bargaining or negotiating for social change is not necessarily a bad thing-- man can be enlightened and society can update its sense of values-- given enough protest from its citizens. But you have to go about these things delicately (in the manner prescribed by the society), otherwise you will be labeled a dissent element of that society and be handled as such (that is, unless your mental health comes into question).
Examples of this is, when you break the laws they give you a fine. The fine is said to be meant to curb your behavior. If your behavior persists, a judge is called into play and the punishment gets more severe. If that doesn't work, they arrest you and put you in jail. If incarceration or multiple sentencing doesn't seem to correct the error, then your mental and mantle comes into question, as the cause of your obstinacy (stubbornness).
Now in traditional societies, it is the families which decide what becomes part of their culture, in multi-cultural societies today-- it is the major corporations represented in national government by lobby groups which influence senators and state representatives. In traditional societies, it is the fellow tribesman and local chieftains who will confront a person's behavior-- in multi-cultural societies it will be local government, judges, and law enforcement groups. In traditional societies a jury of your peers will be your family members or other tribe members who have gained your families trust-- in multi-cultural societies it may not be one person present of your skin tone and ethnic group!
Briefly, on another slightly different topic, it is amazing to me that a Joe Q. Public can put something on Twitter or Facebook and it mysteriously appears on ESPN or the news. It is equally amazing to me that someone can put something on Facebook or Twitter and think that it is only between who they allowed to be their "friends" on Facebook. Not only can this information "leak" out because of one of their friends has an "open book policy," but it can also appear because the Internet is government accessible. You should never allow yourself to think that what is transmitted "in the Matrix" can ever be a private transmission-- I don't. What I say is a matter of sophistication, not anarchy. I tell the truth. It is ironic that the previous generation never allowed their parents to know what they were thinking, while just one generation after they could and would blab as much as they do on public mediums.
Incredible. Anyone can see it if they have the right tools-- as a few of you "Incarcerated Scarfaces" already know. The World Wide Web design was something initially used by the military as far back as the mid-60's and in the early 70's became something made accessible to the public-- so don't believe you can get around their observation when you go on-line.
Within American society, the arts (music, dance, art, entertainment) are produced by the artists and purchased by the rich and business (based upon their interests); the sale of which is regulated by government and made available (or not made available) to its citizenship (and other interested parties). In France, the government pays its' artists to work instead of record companies, rich and business. This difference is due to America being a capitalist society. In a ten thousand year culture like the Yoruba of Nigeria or a four thousand year old culture like the Taoist of China (those who study the I Ching), the art is also a product of the people and its artists are supported by its' governing structure but the society is governed by its' religious values and beliefs. In these sorts of societies, how much of the outside world can influence their society is based upon how much the scientific and secular society can run parallel with its' religious values and principles-- that is unless its people are seduced by pleasure and fun.
Let's not forget that human beings are not robots. As the man or woman inside the being matures to the level of adolescence or adulthood, they begin to evaluate and re-evaluate what has been taught by the culture as opposed to the way they see it. And even though they may not be aware that they are doing this, they are factoring out the individual from the society which produced it through the arts, humanities, and governing structure. Without individual efforts, society cannot grow and prosper. Without individual challenges to rules and regulations, society cannot produce true circumspection to what it exalts as proper.
In traditional Central Asian societies (especially those whom the Western World calls Middle East), whenever its' citizenship goes awry-- as in marriages, behavior, etc.-- the first thing the society examines is itself. Then (and only then), will it bring its' individuals to task. In other words, in this sort of society (traditional, indigenous, society which rises up from tribe and clan into a kingdom), the society takes major responsibility for producing the individual before it seeks to discipline the individual. If the individual has ways which is too unalike the society that produced him or her, imprisonment, penal or corrective methods, expulsion, or death is sure to follow.
As you can see, a healthy culture needs a little bit of individualism, but too much individualism is bad for a society. No matter what allegiance one claims to be, if their behavior consists of talk which not only challenges the society values but reflect total disbelief in enough of that society's principles, indicates that man or woman is not part of that society-- especially if he or she is a single-minded person. When I say single-minded person, I mean a person who has not produced his own family unit which can further the family line. A person that approaches encounters with the opposite sex for what they can get out them with no further considerations towards a solid relationship. A person who is a permanent "free-agent." A person like that is an antagonist to the society, because he or she will not produce offspring or a relationship in behalf of that society.
Despite many of our beliefs in sexual indulgence for recreational pursuits, the real purpose of sex is to produce offspring for the family continuance and the continuance of the society to who those families belong. From this statement, one can deduce that alternative lifestyles are more individually suited than society supportive. An interesting play concerning these antagonist elements is called, "The Kiss of the Spider woman."
Mental disorders may also play a part in dissident elements within society or nation. Some mental disorders are highly functional-- which means that they are narrowly perceived as such by the person who is engaging the ill person. In highly functional mental disorders such as malcontent, anxiety, oppositional defiant disorder, depressive and manic depression, as well as paranoid schizophrenia-- one may show various moments of lucidness followed by delusions (like being able to solve everything by combat for example) that are subtle at first. I just recently viewed an documentary on the artist, Donny Hathaway, part of the "Unsung" series. Anyone who has heard Donny Hathaway or Nina Simone, will attest to their musical genius and high degree of spiritual development. Very few of us would believe a mountain such as Donny Hathaway could suffer from paranoid schizophrenia-- but he did. There is what society deems as reality (or proper) and then there is resistance, ulterior motive, and then there's mental disorder (fantasy vs. reality), which can follow constant persecution.
Now on the other hand, a person who serves the group can lead to higher mental development. Persons like Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Malik Al Hajj Shabazz (Malcolm X) were such people. They forced the power structures of the nations in which they live to reconsider their methods towards a certain part of their society. The problem in all three cases is that the power structure of the societies in which these men belong, were not treated as one who does belong. There was bias, prejudice and bigotry overriding justice and fairness. This is also the reason, that despite their international status, they are all viewed as ethnic heroes in the countries in which they belong.
This is one of the fundamental difficulties that with being Black in a multi-cultural society like America: The dominate cultural or ruling class continues to treat Blacks as someone they are responsible for, instead of one of their equals. Despite the economic progress we made during the Segregation Era, we have not been able to produce enough economics to be self-sufficient; which in a capitalist society, means you do not have enough provisions to be recognized as a power broker. I think its fair to say that we as a people do not care for being associated as a menial class, but if we find ourselves having to go to another ethnic group for a job-- that means we do not have a proper representation in the business field to give our people the option.
In closing, I would like to address my reasoning for pointing out slavery and its impact on Blacks position within a multi-cultural society like America. First of all I do so because the rest of world has a tendency to forget that we were emancipated from slavery in this country without ever being compensated for the many, many years our people served to build it. Our ancestors started out without any money and no land. We were never given 40 acres and a mule like White indentured slaves. We are victims of institutionalized slavery by the American government and though we have sought resolution, we were never repatriated nor has America changed the mental image it has created towards Black people. It is hard to seek equal rights when, in the back of their minds the rest of that same society does not see you as equal. I am not going as far as to say that today I think Whites should be held responsible for what their Ancestors did, but the society on the whole does owe Blacks more than an apology for allowing such a travesty to go on for more than 300 years. You can hardly hold an individual responsible for what his ancestors have done, no more than you can say people cannot change their ways-- unless they don't.
But we as Blacks must understand the significance of slavery in our current lives an image within American society. We must utilize our chronology within this country to allow us to plan our future. We cannot wait on others to do things for us, we must do for ourselves. We must create our own opportunities as well as be able to rely on our population to give our businesses proper support. Our self esteem as a nation cannot be repaired by affirmative action, but it can be repaired by our own change in attitude towards each other. If we don't support ourselves who will?
Culture needs strong family units. Without working on relationships between Black men and Black women, we are leaving our children to believe the current trends towards chaos is how things are supposed to be. I personally know that for years, the future of Blacks in America was held in the hands of the Black woman. When her man could not find employment, many of our woman shouldered the burden. When the babies' fathers were no where to be found, many of our mothers did not forsake us-- and we as Black men should never forget this. However, our attitudes towards one another need adjusting. A strong woman is also a strong-willed woman. When its good its called resolute, when its bad its called stubborn and maybe relentless. I cannot speak for all Black men, but sometimes strong-willed women can drive good men away when they do not have a proper male role within her life or a proper male position within her household. We have already heard about irresponsible Black men but I just want to put it out there that not all broken homes are the result of men not being fair or responsible. This is for sure a topic which needs a lot more attention, but I am here to tell you that it will only get more uncivilized until we take the steps necessary to end it ourselves. But it first starts with the heart... You have to really want it.
Next: Further exploration into William Durant's statement.
Cultivation of a culture. We can make it happen.
Peace and Blessings,
C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers
William Durant, in "The History of Civilization" states, "Civilization is social order promoting cultural creation. Four elements constitute it: economic provision, political organization, moral traditions, and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. It begins where chaos and insecurity end."
But what does that mean?
A social order means that you have a code that you go by. The first code is your code of conduct; your morals; your values. From these standards you evaluate everything else. Including the people around you: Are they kin or they a foe? This answer is very important to know-- for in the words of William Durant: "Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity end" -- and not being sure of who is around you can make a person feel insecure. If not for any other reason, it is just a very good practice to watch the company you keep. Not doing so will only create chaos, if you don't assess people who are next to you. If they don't at least have similar values, similar rules or similar codes of conduct, that could spell disaster, if you bring them into your fold. Best to remove their influence before the game gets old. Kindred-ness can be established off of the similarities of things you have in common, but civilized behavior is what is conducted when the social order is somewhat the same (they can relate to you and your way)-- otherwise your behavior may be interpreted as uncivilized by those with different values. The Hebrew Kingdom of Israel was composed of twelve kindred tribes with strong bonds and therefore acted in behalf of one another-- for example. Social order then, represents a society of people or group of people advocated for the same or similar interests (this may include sororities and/or fraternities).
But if we are talking about cultural creation are we talking about one person or several?
Probably not. Culture is a group reality. A person is like "free agency" is to a team: A free agent is like a soldier who works for pay, not allegiance. Families are what creates the culture and the bonds between man and woman must be tight in order to manifest the individual.
Individual? What does that mean?
I take the word back to it's etymology or ancient roots which describes it as "an indivisible dual" or two which cannot be separated (which in terms of relationships is pretty hard to find these days). Today, it seems, there are too many male and female "free agents." The results: chaos; using people; uncivilized behavior; alternative lifestyles, fears and phobias. Trust and reliance are the major factors here and without them proper relationships are not possible: For in the words of Peter Gabriel, "Without it man-kind can't climb through the roof!" A culture cannot work successfully without strong family units and strong family bonds or ties.
So cultural social order is families and kindred-ness, who share similar codes, rules, and values coming together. But for what? Probably for protection against others. In other words: Strength and security. Or maybe it is done to gather huge quantities of food or economic provisions for the various tribes-- for example. But maybe we are getting way too ahead of ourselves, in taking this route. Maybe we need to keep things a little more basic or germane, before exploring more of these types of areas.
CULTURE UNDER A MICROSCOPE
People and culture are a strange entity. Culture influences people and people influence culture. The People create the culture but the culture can out-live the individuals who created it. The culture can evolve, live through the life of its people and (in that manner) take on a life of its own. The effect a person has on a culture may be noticeable, if that person effects many other people's lives, but often the affect of culture may often go by unnoticed and effect much more. An individual can have an effect on a culture as well; such as Marcus Garvey, Jomo Kenyatta, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Malik Al Hajj Shabazz (Malcolm X), Andrew Young and Julian Bond; while all the time, the culture will effect people. As previously said, "Civilization is a social order promoting cultural creation."
Something that was the "jaughn" or popular today within a cultural context, can be "pas'se" or relegated to a position of minor significance tomorrow-- within that same culture. It can simply be, no longer current. Within the course of the day, people do things within their sphere of influence, it catches on, becomes a trend, a dance, or whatever. Later on (after a period of practice) it becomes a custom or thing to do. If it lasts for a substantial period of time, it might even be considered traditional-- like lemon or lime with Tequila or gin. Someone adds to it and it becomes a variation of it-- like Chubby Checker and his various "Twist Dances," the various "Hustles" during the 1970's, the Hip Hop B-Boy "Breaking" and "Electric Boogaloo" development, or the evolution of Hip-Hop itself. That is, something always comes along to replace the former, in time. The reason for these changes is the affect of artists on the cultural element-- such as a new musical tune, dance, or work of art (sculpture, graffiti or period in art), some person of notoriety dying, a discovery or breakthrough of some sort, some political event or something labeled as news or current events performed by a group of people.
One of the most powerful ways the element we call culture can affect people subliminally by altering your world view or your point of view. When I say world view, I literally mean, how you view the world. For the most part, how you view the world is based upon what you see. Essentially, a culture starts as a tradition between a man and a woman and evolves their subsequent families grows. Whatever ways and manners are common practice amongst the families becomes their customs. Whatever sense of values are common amongst the families, comprises the moral standard between members. Eventually, as the family expands and maintains their sense of family (see (extended family) what is moral becomes mores and what is customary becomes traditional or standard procedure and each become the underlined reasoning behind the society's rules, regulations and laws. As these clans and tribes form allegiances with similar tribes and clans, they form a nation or nations.
Today, these types of societies are called traditional. There are other sorts of nations which may vary in religion or stock of people but still come together because a common foe or similar ways. However, in the current world, there are several multi-cultural nations in existence-- that are not bonded by families, religion, etc., but people who have common interests-- with a founding group which forges the others together under one allegiance. Within these types of nations, largely what you see is based upon what country you are in, who the dominate culture within that nation are, and its sub-cultures-- or in the case of multi-cultural societies-- its immigrants, ethnic groups and their cultures. These things (as well as the society's level of sophistication) represents that society's ability to have you reconsider your own position in relation to that society.
Tradition represents a view of life that has been handed down throughout time. Culture contain customs and traditions. Some times what you see is affected by such things, but the effects may be very subtle. So subtle, you may not know how those elements played a part. Culture does represent how the majority of its people see things. In a man versus society theme, the fact that something has been done for thousands of years, by the majority of people and has yield many favorable results, does bring a lot of social pressure on the single person to conform. With such overwhelming evidence (represented by what is a tradition), what a single person believes may seem futile (hopeless). You must not forget, Culture represents how its' people do things: It represents what you read, what you see, things you hear, etc.
And all these things are placed against what a person believes when man vs. culture.
Peripherally, within America and most parts of the West, most (if not all) of what you read in the papers is controlled by organizational think tanks, such as the Associate Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI). These two syndicates regulate and make available most of what the Western World reads in the papers and just about all of what the "known world" can funnel into its' Western World scope. API and UPI are known as the news "gate-keepers." The infamous Patty Hearst's grandfather was magnate William Randolph Hearst, a newspaper Tycoon; but even he himself has to govern himself according to AP and UPI. Often, when you see most foreigners reading the newspapers of the West, many will also be reading newspapers from their own country: It is not because they can't read in English, Spanish, French, etc. --it is because they rather have their own people's take on what just occurred. If you want to get a more of an enlightened angle on this subject, view the film, "Three Days of the Condor."
Now most of what Westerners hear on the radio in America is regulated by the FCC. How these things get to come across the airwaves, is due to some big corporations or relatively large companies making it possible (although some independent labels are highly successful). So you see, what these companies want (and do not object to), are the items that get played on the radio stations or produced by them for general consumption. There are independent labels and independent radio companies to represent alternate points of view, but the common man does not have easy access to a lot of that. Most of what the average person has access to is a product of what is allowed by the power structure of the culture that produced it.
Often, when you watch shows on TV, you may see a disclaimer flashed up on the screen claiming that the author's or artist's view has nothing to do with how this station or sponsor views itself. That is to say, just because you are viewing this on such and such station or because of MGM, HBO, Quincy Jones, etc., this does not represent the company's World view; it is strictly ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW to be viewed for your information or entertainment. In other words, "It may be coming from us, but it is not what we are saying." This becomes necessary to state, because without these producers, host and channel owners, these broadcast would never reach you-- unless strictly through "word of mouth." It is THEM who decide what will be available to you to draw from, but IT IS THEY who let you know, "just because they make these things available, these things they make available are not a representation of their world view."
But they are.
Although they attempt to make the disclaimer statement perfectly clear, what is made available (by the ones who can afford to make these things available) DOES reflect their company's tastes and opinions of what is and isn't appropriate, according to the organization's philosophy. One show does not represent the company's total world view but the collection of what the organization or producer produces DOES reflect how that organization considers and thinks-- the bulk of which compromises their world view.
When man or woman versus society, his or her sanity is always what hangs in the balance of questioning the authority of society. Of course, you can't believe everything you see and hear, but how you address the issues makes all the difference in the world in how the society responds. When you were young (long before you know what it is you are doing), you pledged allegiance to the country you are a citizen of. This means you pledge to obey its rules and govern yourself according. As one gets older, most of us begin to question why things have to be that way prescribed. Now bargaining or negotiating for social change is not necessarily a bad thing-- man can be enlightened and society can update its sense of values-- given enough protest from its citizens. But you have to go about these things delicately (in the manner prescribed by the society), otherwise you will be labeled a dissent element of that society and be handled as such (that is, unless your mental health comes into question).
Examples of this is, when you break the laws they give you a fine. The fine is said to be meant to curb your behavior. If your behavior persists, a judge is called into play and the punishment gets more severe. If that doesn't work, they arrest you and put you in jail. If incarceration or multiple sentencing doesn't seem to correct the error, then your mental and mantle comes into question, as the cause of your obstinacy (stubbornness).
Now in traditional societies, it is the families which decide what becomes part of their culture, in multi-cultural societies today-- it is the major corporations represented in national government by lobby groups which influence senators and state representatives. In traditional societies, it is the fellow tribesman and local chieftains who will confront a person's behavior-- in multi-cultural societies it will be local government, judges, and law enforcement groups. In traditional societies a jury of your peers will be your family members or other tribe members who have gained your families trust-- in multi-cultural societies it may not be one person present of your skin tone and ethnic group!
Briefly, on another slightly different topic, it is amazing to me that a Joe Q. Public can put something on Twitter or Facebook and it mysteriously appears on ESPN or the news. It is equally amazing to me that someone can put something on Facebook or Twitter and think that it is only between who they allowed to be their "friends" on Facebook. Not only can this information "leak" out because of one of their friends has an "open book policy," but it can also appear because the Internet is government accessible. You should never allow yourself to think that what is transmitted "in the Matrix" can ever be a private transmission-- I don't. What I say is a matter of sophistication, not anarchy. I tell the truth. It is ironic that the previous generation never allowed their parents to know what they were thinking, while just one generation after they could and would blab as much as they do on public mediums.
Incredible. Anyone can see it if they have the right tools-- as a few of you "Incarcerated Scarfaces" already know. The World Wide Web design was something initially used by the military as far back as the mid-60's and in the early 70's became something made accessible to the public-- so don't believe you can get around their observation when you go on-line.
Within American society, the arts (music, dance, art, entertainment) are produced by the artists and purchased by the rich and business (based upon their interests); the sale of which is regulated by government and made available (or not made available) to its citizenship (and other interested parties). In France, the government pays its' artists to work instead of record companies, rich and business. This difference is due to America being a capitalist society. In a ten thousand year culture like the Yoruba of Nigeria or a four thousand year old culture like the Taoist of China (those who study the I Ching), the art is also a product of the people and its artists are supported by its' governing structure but the society is governed by its' religious values and beliefs. In these sorts of societies, how much of the outside world can influence their society is based upon how much the scientific and secular society can run parallel with its' religious values and principles-- that is unless its people are seduced by pleasure and fun.
Let's not forget that human beings are not robots. As the man or woman inside the being matures to the level of adolescence or adulthood, they begin to evaluate and re-evaluate what has been taught by the culture as opposed to the way they see it. And even though they may not be aware that they are doing this, they are factoring out the individual from the society which produced it through the arts, humanities, and governing structure. Without individual efforts, society cannot grow and prosper. Without individual challenges to rules and regulations, society cannot produce true circumspection to what it exalts as proper.
In traditional Central Asian societies (especially those whom the Western World calls Middle East), whenever its' citizenship goes awry-- as in marriages, behavior, etc.-- the first thing the society examines is itself. Then (and only then), will it bring its' individuals to task. In other words, in this sort of society (traditional, indigenous, society which rises up from tribe and clan into a kingdom), the society takes major responsibility for producing the individual before it seeks to discipline the individual. If the individual has ways which is too unalike the society that produced him or her, imprisonment, penal or corrective methods, expulsion, or death is sure to follow.
As you can see, a healthy culture needs a little bit of individualism, but too much individualism is bad for a society. No matter what allegiance one claims to be, if their behavior consists of talk which not only challenges the society values but reflect total disbelief in enough of that society's principles, indicates that man or woman is not part of that society-- especially if he or she is a single-minded person. When I say single-minded person, I mean a person who has not produced his own family unit which can further the family line. A person that approaches encounters with the opposite sex for what they can get out them with no further considerations towards a solid relationship. A person who is a permanent "free-agent." A person like that is an antagonist to the society, because he or she will not produce offspring or a relationship in behalf of that society.
Despite many of our beliefs in sexual indulgence for recreational pursuits, the real purpose of sex is to produce offspring for the family continuance and the continuance of the society to who those families belong. From this statement, one can deduce that alternative lifestyles are more individually suited than society supportive. An interesting play concerning these antagonist elements is called, "The Kiss of the Spider woman."
Mental disorders may also play a part in dissident elements within society or nation. Some mental disorders are highly functional-- which means that they are narrowly perceived as such by the person who is engaging the ill person. In highly functional mental disorders such as malcontent, anxiety, oppositional defiant disorder, depressive and manic depression, as well as paranoid schizophrenia-- one may show various moments of lucidness followed by delusions (like being able to solve everything by combat for example) that are subtle at first. I just recently viewed an documentary on the artist, Donny Hathaway, part of the "Unsung" series. Anyone who has heard Donny Hathaway or Nina Simone, will attest to their musical genius and high degree of spiritual development. Very few of us would believe a mountain such as Donny Hathaway could suffer from paranoid schizophrenia-- but he did. There is what society deems as reality (or proper) and then there is resistance, ulterior motive, and then there's mental disorder (fantasy vs. reality), which can follow constant persecution.
Now on the other hand, a person who serves the group can lead to higher mental development. Persons like Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Malik Al Hajj Shabazz (Malcolm X) were such people. They forced the power structures of the nations in which they live to reconsider their methods towards a certain part of their society. The problem in all three cases is that the power structure of the societies in which these men belong, were not treated as one who does belong. There was bias, prejudice and bigotry overriding justice and fairness. This is also the reason, that despite their international status, they are all viewed as ethnic heroes in the countries in which they belong.
This is one of the fundamental difficulties that with being Black in a multi-cultural society like America: The dominate cultural or ruling class continues to treat Blacks as someone they are responsible for, instead of one of their equals. Despite the economic progress we made during the Segregation Era, we have not been able to produce enough economics to be self-sufficient; which in a capitalist society, means you do not have enough provisions to be recognized as a power broker. I think its fair to say that we as a people do not care for being associated as a menial class, but if we find ourselves having to go to another ethnic group for a job-- that means we do not have a proper representation in the business field to give our people the option.
In closing, I would like to address my reasoning for pointing out slavery and its impact on Blacks position within a multi-cultural society like America. First of all I do so because the rest of world has a tendency to forget that we were emancipated from slavery in this country without ever being compensated for the many, many years our people served to build it. Our ancestors started out without any money and no land. We were never given 40 acres and a mule like White indentured slaves. We are victims of institutionalized slavery by the American government and though we have sought resolution, we were never repatriated nor has America changed the mental image it has created towards Black people. It is hard to seek equal rights when, in the back of their minds the rest of that same society does not see you as equal. I am not going as far as to say that today I think Whites should be held responsible for what their Ancestors did, but the society on the whole does owe Blacks more than an apology for allowing such a travesty to go on for more than 300 years. You can hardly hold an individual responsible for what his ancestors have done, no more than you can say people cannot change their ways-- unless they don't.
But we as Blacks must understand the significance of slavery in our current lives an image within American society. We must utilize our chronology within this country to allow us to plan our future. We cannot wait on others to do things for us, we must do for ourselves. We must create our own opportunities as well as be able to rely on our population to give our businesses proper support. Our self esteem as a nation cannot be repaired by affirmative action, but it can be repaired by our own change in attitude towards each other. If we don't support ourselves who will?
Culture needs strong family units. Without working on relationships between Black men and Black women, we are leaving our children to believe the current trends towards chaos is how things are supposed to be. I personally know that for years, the future of Blacks in America was held in the hands of the Black woman. When her man could not find employment, many of our woman shouldered the burden. When the babies' fathers were no where to be found, many of our mothers did not forsake us-- and we as Black men should never forget this. However, our attitudes towards one another need adjusting. A strong woman is also a strong-willed woman. When its good its called resolute, when its bad its called stubborn and maybe relentless. I cannot speak for all Black men, but sometimes strong-willed women can drive good men away when they do not have a proper male role within her life or a proper male position within her household. We have already heard about irresponsible Black men but I just want to put it out there that not all broken homes are the result of men not being fair or responsible. This is for sure a topic which needs a lot more attention, but I am here to tell you that it will only get more uncivilized until we take the steps necessary to end it ourselves. But it first starts with the heart... You have to really want it.
Next: Further exploration into William Durant's statement.
Cultivation of a culture. We can make it happen.
Peace and Blessings,
C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers
No comments:
Post a Comment