Two sides to a story will not paint the picture
Posted on Jun 27th, 2009
by
. . .
So much in this world, people seem to feel this need to "choose a side". Politics, a person is either left or right, orange or purple. This is so limiting, because their are never just two perspectives on an issue, there are an infinite number of factors between which the issue is comprised of. By looking at "one" or "the other", important information is getting lost.
For example, lets look at the topic of racism. Most see it as racist or not racist. What about the person who is against racism against their own race, but racist towards a different race whom they believe to be racist? Is that not perpetuating the theme of racism? Where do people who condemn a culture initially not for the color of skin, but for a political or religious belief, inadvertantly condemning an entire race? Or the people afraid of an entire populace based on the decisions of their leaders? If a person really explores belief structure, a vast majority of people could be considered racist, because race goes beyond the color of a person's skin. On might ask, is xenophobia a type of racism? If a person falls into this category, it is a scary thing to face, but once it is transcended, the need to judge an entire populace falls away and instead of "the other" they become another person on this earth, struggling to survive and thrive amidst great oppression.
Who is responsible for war? Are you going to blame the soldier or the leader? Are you going to condemn an entire populace over the actions of their leadership. Are the women and children responsible for the acts of their husbands or governers? Condemning a country for the acts of the powerful is like condemning your next door neighbor's child for the actions of his parents.
All of the shades and tones of an issue make it hard to take a stance - and is it really so necessary to be so rigid in one's beliefs that their is no room whatsoever for new knowledge?
The fruit of this matter is the key notion is to really consider all perspectives before coming to a hard conclusion. To keep a sense of fluidity even in the rigid, so as to not inadvertantly alianate an entire populace of people based on some really vocal idiots.
It seems like the most corrupt people tend to be the ones in charge. If I believed everything leaders of organizations, countries, religious groups, etc. perpetuated, I would probably never go shopping, visit another country, go to a funeral or wedding, recite a mantra, fly on an airplane, buy gas, go to a big city or watch a hollywood movie. Fortunately, there are people like you living and working amidst these establishments in these nations, enjoying yourselves, spreading positive messages and painting a brighter picture as a result of your own experiences, because of your uniqueness and individuality, not because of the polarized beliefs of the publicized representatives.
For example, lets look at the topic of racism. Most see it as racist or not racist. What about the person who is against racism against their own race, but racist towards a different race whom they believe to be racist? Is that not perpetuating the theme of racism? Where do people who condemn a culture initially not for the color of skin, but for a political or religious belief, inadvertantly condemning an entire race? Or the people afraid of an entire populace based on the decisions of their leaders? If a person really explores belief structure, a vast majority of people could be considered racist, because race goes beyond the color of a person's skin. On might ask, is xenophobia a type of racism? If a person falls into this category, it is a scary thing to face, but once it is transcended, the need to judge an entire populace falls away and instead of "the other" they become another person on this earth, struggling to survive and thrive amidst great oppression.
Who is responsible for war? Are you going to blame the soldier or the leader? Are you going to condemn an entire populace over the actions of their leadership. Are the women and children responsible for the acts of their husbands or governers? Condemning a country for the acts of the powerful is like condemning your next door neighbor's child for the actions of his parents.
All of the shades and tones of an issue make it hard to take a stance - and is it really so necessary to be so rigid in one's beliefs that their is no room whatsoever for new knowledge?
The fruit of this matter is the key notion is to really consider all perspectives before coming to a hard conclusion. To keep a sense of fluidity even in the rigid, so as to not inadvertantly alianate an entire populace of people based on some really vocal idiots.
It seems like the most corrupt people tend to be the ones in charge. If I believed everything leaders of organizations, countries, religious groups, etc. perpetuated, I would probably never go shopping, visit another country, go to a funeral or wedding, recite a mantra, fly on an airplane, buy gas, go to a big city or watch a hollywood movie. Fortunately, there are people like you living and working amidst these establishments in these nations, enjoying yourselves, spreading positive messages and painting a brighter picture as a result of your own experiences, because of your uniqueness and individuality, not because of the polarized beliefs of the publicized representatives.

Help



