In Tolerance [1] - We Would Be Safer

Brisbane, 2011

I have lived for the past 14 years in a quiet, leafy Australian suburb

perched on the edge of the Brisbane CBD.

The first visibly non-locals to appear on the streets a few years ago were Muslim families made distinctive by the women’s head scarves and abayas. The next group of migrants to arrive was a colourful mixed cohort of refugees from East Africa. I have to admit that, in the local shopping centre, walking through the sidewalk throngs of mostly men chatting noisily in foreign languages makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable. l I catch myself briefly longing back to the ‘old days’ when these streets were far less exotic and, lost in my thoughts, I could just walk straight ahead on automatic pilot. Of course, I am questioning the source of my unease! Surely, it does not simply stem from the lack of familiarity with these people’s animated banter. Surely it is not simply triggered by the color and shapes of their faces and clothes, as I have always enjoyed travelling through the Middle East and Africa. The only honest answer to filter upward is the U factor: fear of the Unfamiliar. Oddly, and this is what I am questioning, the ‘U’ factor is more unsettling here where these people are a minority of refugees and self-funded migrants in my space than there where I am a very visible tourist in their space. How weird is that? l As I waited for the green light, while stopped in front of a row of shops earlier this afternoon, I observed a little blond boy at play on the sidewalk while his mother was otherwise busy with a younger child. I watched as he pulled a black plastic gun out of his pocket, aimed it at the woman who happened to be passing him on the right and fired imaginary bullets at her back. He was no more than five years old. l As I noted this little boy’s antics, it brought back memories of the liberating debate that lasted through most of the ‘80s on the topic of Nature vs Nurture and the sudden awareness it had brought to mainstream families that most of our responses to children – starting with the ways newborns were nursed, bounced or tickled – varied according to their gender, as did their toys. And I thought it a sad indictment of our culture that thirty years later the effects of this awareness had lasted only the time of a birthday sparkler and, for the most part, we have allowed the damming cop out of boys will be boys to settle as comfortably over the matter as moss over decaying wood. l While I waited for the light to turn green, an image of a little Muslim boy also shooting imaginary bullets at passers-by sprang into my thoughts. And I knew, knew, knew, that if, from inside the cabin of my car, I had witnessed any one of these alternative scenes, it would have been a struggle to shrug it off with a mere ‘boys will be boys’.  l Quite simply, my thoughts were tainted by images of the unbridled euphoria in some corners of the Middle East beamed to us during the aftermath of 9/11 and other more recent scenes of mass hatred for the collective West spiced up by news of yet another suicide bomber killing X number of civilians.  l If only for a moment in that little boy’s gun play, I would have seen the seed of budding migrant violence, the seed of anger, resentment and hatred already pushed in the malleable brain of a young child. I would have imagined this child brought up in a militant extremist family, ‘one of many probably already in this country’ might have been the follow up thought. And now, where am I going with this? l A recent headline After bin Laden: jubilation, sadness, fear and anger is a no-brainer. Death, in our culture, any death, is a solemn occasion and the Sky News footage of amped-up carnavalesque jubilation in New York, Washington and elsewhere in the West was quite confronting. l Maybe it was because their euphoria was linked to the death of a human being and, in our culture, death, jubilation and street parties have never been linked together and should never be linked together – even if the death in question is that of an infamous international enemy – once one of the CIA’s most valued assets and trained accordingly. l Maybe it was because the crowds shouldering American flags were mostly made up of young males who, like kindergartners on a rampage, indulged themselves with offensive gestures and racial slurs. Maybe it was because the crude aspects of this revelry were not merely against the spirit of a dead man but were, at the same time, recklessly insulting millions of non-fundamentalist Muslims around the globe. l Maybe it was because aspects of these street scenes brought up similar images beamed from other places in the world where it is acknowledged that life is cheap and that blanket-hatred is a killer of innocent people of all ages. In these places, too, out of control young men drape themselves in their nation’s flag and they, too, in their own language chant a variation of ‘In God we trust.’ l Is it the ‘war on terror’ that has eroded our most basic principles even if we, millions of Jane and John Doe living under democratic regimes, have not yet lost anyone to terrorism and live in countries where acts of terrorism are still, thankfully, as few as they were forty years ago – virtually non-existent? Or is it that, undetected, a collective closed-heart callousness has crept up on us to override our innate sense of decency? In Tolerance - [2] - Blind InJustice Brisbane 2011 Killing is, arguably, the act of terminating one’s life out of fear, envy, anger or blind-hatred. In regards to the murder of ‘innocent people’, why are most of us fuzzy when it comes to the 16,000 people in the United States alone who are murdered every year? Why do we lose sight of the fact that 1,500 children under the age of 18 make up this tally and that the murderers of all these ‘innocent American people’ are not androids who come from some obscure planet and they don’t come from any vengeful foreign land, either. The killers are most often born and bred locally and, presumably, at least a couple of people in America have loved each one of them. l Honest question: Has Justice ever been blind? It seems safe to say that ‘if’ she ever was, she is no longer as blind as she used to be. After all, aren’t ‘injustice perpetrated’ and ‘justice served’ mere constructs assembled through the lens of the proverbial beholder? l Many times daily, in order to protect some people in the name of justice, others are killed in the name of justice. A blatant example of that happened in a recent airstrike on the home of a son of Gaddafi, in Tripoli, where NATO forces killed his youngest son and three of his grandchildren. Which brings to mind the endless rounds of peace treaties involving the US, Israel and various leaders of the Palestinians. There have been many handshakes and many tabloid pictures and many short-lived cease-fires. l Together, they have synergized into the Fence of Separation that snakes for miles and miles protecting Israeli citizens from suicide bombers and isolating the west bank people from ‘real’ Israelis. A generation of children has been growing in the shadow of that barrier that is more formidable than the Berlin wall – also with its own checkpoints – without ever coming in contact with Israelis who are not soldiers. In short, the only Israelis they come in contact with are the ones who embody their oppression. l That generation of young Palestinians never see a Jewish father who is not a soldier, a Jewish mother who is not as soldier. They never see a Jewish toddler, a Jewish teenager or Jewish grandparents. It is not hard to guess that the sentiments that permeate this ‘petri dish’ situation can only be helplessness, anger and resentment at ‘injustice’ suffered by millions of innocent Palestinians who, like their counterparts on the other side of the wall, only want to get on with their lives and keep their family safe. And again, where am I going with this? l Sifting through the millennia in all corners of the global world what seems obvious is that no lasting, healthy peace, no heart-felt understanding has ever come out of any relationship in which the protagonists acted out of fear, out of resentment, out of anger, out of envy or out of hatred. l Perceived injustice and justified retribution have always triggered animosity, regardless of the age, sex, creed, race of the protagonists – and regardless of the bone of contention. Envy always begets resentment which always begets anger which begets hatred and though we still pretend to the contrary, in our heart of hearts, we know that no amount of diplomacy or deterrent can ever dissolve these emotions, once they become engrained. Some prefer to cut to the chase and attempt time and time again to annihilate entire populations in one way or another. And still today, the word ‘annihilate’ is the rally cry of many millions. l Unfortunately, nothing can annihilate any blend of fear, envy, resentment and anger. That blend can be forced underground, but it cannot be eradicated – not by bombs, not by solitary confinement, not by racial slurs any more than by cartoons, graffiti and rude gestures. The thing is that though not one of these strategies can stem the flow of hatred and separation, they all work as powerful billows fanning the flames of separation, of us against them and the mirror-image… them against us. In Tolerance – [3] - Separation Barrier Brisbane 2011 What’s amazing is that in spite of millennia-worth of accumulated and recurring proofs of this fact, we, modern men and women, officious worshippers of democracy and justice for all in the guise of human rights, child and animal protection acts, in their myriad of forms, we participate by proxy – anonymously – in the same random manner as the ‘others’ who overtly appear more callous. l We do that by giving our politicians very specific mandates when we vote for them. What we tell them is this: “Keep out the bad guys and adjust the budget so that I get more money from the government than I’m getting now. Do that any which way you want, provided you stay under the radar.” And we send our politicians, golem-like, on these tracks of action/reaction and relative justice while we deflect personal responsibility by staying safely tucked behind their coat tails – ready to leap out of the shadows and point an accusing finger at the first whiff of an imminent fiasco – any topic will do – and cry, “It wasn’t me! It was the politicians.” l Honest question #1: Why are we collectively, in the home, in the workplace, in our streets and in our politics still following such ancient, tribal, primary patterns? Why after WWII, haven’t the good men and women of those days, collectively, slowly, moved to set up a model of global-cohabitation aiming to have a different code of ethics in place … by now? l Honest question #2: are we faring better in these areas than our great-grandparents, our grandparents and our parents who have failed their world and ours? l If we are not faring better on the scoreboard, then, could it be that ongoing tits for tats and ‘Go better!’ and ‘Bring it on!’ responses, regardless of the financial cost and regardless of the human cost on all sides are simply what come naturally to us and, what the heck, if it’s natural, why suppress it? It is true that wars and international discord do keep bevies of diplomats fully, if not necessarily, gainfully employed. It is true that the weapons industry does put milk and honey on many a table. And it is true that, generally speaking, any sort of societal/cultural mismanagement of emotional responses to perceived ‘injustice’ does keep a huge cohort of civil servants, doctors, nurses, lawyers, social workers, psychologists, self-help gurus and jail wardens also in their jobs – alongside by a huge section of the media. l Serious question: could it be said that envy, hate, anger, fear and resentment do, to a considerable extent, fuel our economy? And then what? l I remember my mother telling me, when I was a child, that if something didn’t work one way, like a key not turning in a lock, I should remember to turn it the other way. Sound advice it was, indeed. And so, if the general consensus is that hatred, fear and resentment will never bring about any type of satisfying resolution to any sort conflict because these energies attract similar energies as effectively as two poles of a magnet jump at each other, then the only other way to turn ‘this’ key is towards the opposite pole – towards genuine acceptance, towards making an active inner peace in regards to that ‘other’, whoever that other happens to be. l Good news: we don’t have to hug that other person. It is safe to agree that the power of hugs just as the healing power of making love are both hugely over-rated when it comes to conflict resolutions. We don’t even have to shake their hand, as cantankerous school children are asked to do to show a supposed heartfelt softening of attitude. We don’t have to do any of these things because an honest inner peace is also active energy. Emotion is energy. l Reality check: like attracts like, as effectively as two poles of a magnet jump at each other. l The way to alter the energy of envy, fear, hatred and resentment is to try very hard to not respond in kind, while dodging blows – figurative ones as well as literal ones. The key is also to not suffer anything under duress. Accepting anything under duress stands at the opposite side of accepting from a heartfelt inner calm – and duress will NEVER work. The emotions it triggers are always unyielding. In Tolerance – [4] - An Eye for an Eye Brisbane 2011 I am not in the least interested in any ritualized religions, but I do keep an eclectic bank of quotes and on the topic of ‘duress’, I found a sound byte attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:38-42, NIV.  “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ he said. “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” All too common reaction: uh, what? Love your enemy? Turn the other cheek and open the flood gates to all and sundry? Go religious? Let the bad guys take over without a fight? OMG! You gotta be cra-zy! l Over two thousand years ago already, Jesus was issuing us with the warning that, because like attracts like,  responding in kind to anyone or anything ‘evil’ [which for all intents and purposes includes anything we find unpleasant frightening] will keep otherwise good folks from enjoying the deep sleep of the Just. What I think is really crazy is that even persons who see themselves as religious don’t get it either. l These ‘good’ people don’t get that as long as they talk about the other, any other, with harsh words, with anger and hatred in their voice, they are magnetizing more of the same – separately and collectively. Even more attractive to those who mouth canonical wisdom each time they visit their temple, church, mosque of synagogue is the much misunderstood eye for an eye that, these days, passes for restorative … justice a.k.a. man-made retribution. “You gouge out my eye. I gouge out your eye and then the other, if I can” – is the model we all understand and many more of us would add action to words, if we weren’t law-abiding citizens – afraid of the lawful consequences. l Personally, I prefer to think that ‘an eye for an eye’ is not about a barbaric tit for tat, but about karmic retribution – retribution tabulated by whichever entity one feels is in charge of the universe, the name and shape of this entity being totally immaterial. l ‘An eye for an eye’ suggests that karma is unerring. And yes, it is. And as such, ‘an eye for an eye’ is the call for the hurtful ones to amend their ‘wrong doings’ by somehow making them … better. Within some contexts, a coherent, heart-based apology might be enough. l Karma encapsulates all our deeds and all our thoughts and all our words for they, too, carry their own energy. Like attracts like. Though this karmic payback is often paid back in kind, it can boomerang back to the sender in a different guise but no matter, in essence, it will still be the same old an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth. A knife attracts a bullet. A bomb somewhere attracts an explosion elsewhere. A punch attracts a counter punch. A hurtful word attracts another hurtful word. A slur attracts a bigger slur. Approximately 150,000 people died in Hiroshima and some 75,000 died in Nagasaki – mostly all civilians. l From 1969 to 1973 the US secretly bombed Cambodia just to cut off Viet-Cong supply lines along the Ho Chi Minh Trail from Laos, gutting deep into the populated areas of central Cambodia. The number of bombs dropped on this non-combatant country was equal to that dropped on Japan during all of WWII. More than 500,000 Cambodians died. A famine ensued as a result of the bombed-out agricultural industry of this otherwise very fertile country. More deaths – children included, of course. With the country on its knees, the scene was then set for the invasion of the Khmer Rouge and most of us know what happened then. l The United States of America was not an alien entity from out of space. The bombs were made by American people. The pilots dropping the bombs were American people. The orders were given by the American President. Congress was made up of American people. The members of the Republican Party standing by their President were American. Then the madness stopped. Peace. Handshakes. Rebuild. Easy. Injustice was perpetrated but was there any amending, any repairing from the collective American heart? l Putting aside for a moment human logic and political ‘common sense’, karmically speaking, why would a country, any country, a huge collection of people, think that they can walk away from such horror and not expect a ‘justice adjustment’ one day or another? l When one understands the concept of karma correctly, Judgement Day is every day. The tabulation is ongoing. And which country, large or small, does not have a number of skeletons packed up to the rafters? The problem for us humans in the most advanced of all civilizations, is that we fail to perceive the invisible link we keep creating between cause and effect. Is it amnesia, ignorance or blind self-absorption? l Be that as it might, this tendency does serve us well in the sense that it renders us unable to feel any sense of accountability for much of what eventually befalls us. And this seems to be the preferred status quo. l Another illustration of the concept of ‘an eye for an eye’ in a modern political context is to consider the current festering barb in Israel’s side. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist group that has become the current focus for aggressive resistance was, back in the ‘90’s, a welcome foil for Yitzhak Rabin’s government against Yasser Araft’s PLO. Short-sightedly, the Israeli government had no qualms subtly promoting the group, thus pitting brothers against brothers. Currently, the Hamas and its followers are planning a 3rd intifada [shake up] against Israel. The last 2nd intifada that spanned from 2000 to 2008 took 6000 Palestinian lives plus that of 64 foreigners plus that of1100 Israelis while wounding another 6000. When we prefer to go on believing in the randomness of life’s events – and death – it must be because it suits us to do so. l And, dear Reader, where am I going with this? While I waited for the light to turn green, earlier this afternoon, the image of a little Muslim boy shooting imaginary bullets at passers- by pasted itself over that of a little blond boy simply doing boy- things on a sidewalk. And already then, I knew, knew, knew, that the only thing we can, separately and collectively, do is to – at the very least – remain healthily, positively, caringly neutral when it comes to anyone’s attempts at enrolling us in their cycle of fear, envy, anger, resentment, hatred – and action. l No, we cannot roll back the snowball we have pushed down the mountain. It will go on triggering avalanches that will trigger more explosions all the long way down till it reaches the bottom. There will be many, many more casualties along the way because the mountain from which we have launched our large snowball is a very, very high mountain. But provided that, separately and collectively, we don’t go preparing any more snow balls – provided we don’t even go to the top of that mountain anymore, slowly, slowly the avalanches will stop and so will the explosions. l For my part, next time I find myself walking through the groups of new migrants chatting noisily in foreign languages in my suburb, instead of hurrying along, I will sit on a park bench and I will casually observe the coming and going of these exotic people. I will reflect on the reality that many of them will have survived a life I would never wish for myself, not for anyone I love, not even for the neighbors I have never met. I will casually observe these newcomers as they go about their business with the words, in the tone and in the manner that are culturally familiar to them. I will practise thinking about them neutrally. They just are. They just are like everyone else in all the other streets of my suburb in the city where I live somewhere in Australia. They are a part of my world. I will practice feeling empathy because empathy comes from the heart and silently, imperceptibly, slowly but surely like attracts like. Actually, why wait till I have to go to that part of town to start practicing this calm acceptance of What-Is? I won’t. I can begin right now in the comfort of my own den.