This was first posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on March 12th, 2010
Last week we raised our concerns about the harm of poverty wreaks on the majority of the children who live on our planet and about the current distribution of wealth. Comments mailed to us have been largely sympathetic towards re-distributing wealth but they have been accompanied by what seems a despairing wringing of hands that implies there is little we can effectively do about it. At the risk of causing wide offence we wondered if the consensual liberal concern for the poor is but a simulation which covers for an indifference with intent. Perhaps we are not prepared to go through - both individually and collectively - the great sea change that would be needed if we are to make sure that every child has sufficient food, sufficient shelter and clothing, the means to enjoy recreation, and the opportunities that may be provided by education.Material poverty so often goes along with emotional poverty. The latter may have figured largely in Jon Venables’ early experience and have contributed to the part of him that became capable of the pitiless and dreadful killing of Jamie Bulger, a very vulnerable, very young, defenceless child. Yet instead of investing our emotions into thinking what needs to done to ensure that we do something to prevent such an awful event in the future a great many of us spend our time venting the same destructive feelings upon Jon Venables that he acted out so cruelly upon Jamie Bulger. It may be very difficult for us to accept that these feelings are - to one extent or another - present in each of us. What prevents most of us from acting out our anger is that we were given enough of the right kind of nurture by our parents. In such a materially and emotionally impoverished childhood environment such as that Jon Venables experienced it can be guessed that there was no space for imagination, healthy play and creativity. It is much easier for parenting figures to offer this if they have sufficient emotional and material to provide this for their children. Perhaps we need to think about how we ensure that families never live in this wider kind of poverty.We continue to draw attention to poverty and what it brings because though there are many fine examples of human beings taking their own individual practical steps to redistribute material and emotional wealth, these initiatives may not be enough unless we all - individuals and institutions – do this in our own communities and as members of the global community.Perhaps it will never be possible for us as a species to give everyone a reasonable opportunity to lead a tolerable life. If this is so then perhaps we need to look at why this it is so. If this sounds “holier than thou” it is not meant to, for apart from these words we have done nothing but exercise an intimation of guilt. We are just wondering if it is a sensible notion that the poverty experienced by the majority of people who live on our planet can be alleviated. If so we would like to hear about it. We would like to join others in initiating action. (Posted, March 12th).
Reference : Neil Young (Performer and composer, 1991) Keep on Rocking in the Free World USA Reprise Records Accessed at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQccK0F1_iY
Comments
Cynthia Cross writes , "As a pacifist I have no difficulty in deciding where we could save money and also, I believe, it would make our country a safer place to live. (I am not sure where that leaves us with our present commitment in Afghanistan) I have also often wondered what we were doing sending things to the moon, when we were in such a mess down here. I do not really think that the concept of the Lottery is a good one, but if we do have it what is the point of giving winners more than a million, there ought to be more winners or the money should be better distributed to deserving causes. Of course people who have millions which must become meaningless in terms of the quality of daily life should be taxed at a very high level. Helping people move from a life of poverty is not just about giving them money it is also about enriching there social and emotional experience. To care people have to have been cared for and feel cared for, going through the benefits system hardly does that. As an aside I remember a little girl, about 10 years old, who had a Christmas present which seemed much too young for her, I asked who gave you that; she replied “the committee”! As Mark Smith says there are not many people going to do a Bob Holman, but maybe there are other ways to foster caring and community spirit and helping people to feel that they have some control over their lives (note I did not say empowering) Jeremy Millar mentions cooperatives which certainly could be revived to good effect as could the old Settlements which did sterling work in some parts of London. The old Family Service Units (which originally was a pacifist organisation) acted as a community resource where “professionals” were not unhappy getting their hands dirty, cleaning and making things and caring for children. Perhaps getting involved in such endeavours could be something young people could do in their gap year and we could revive the idea that volunteering can be quite fulfilling and exciting even in your own country. To achieve any of this we would have to start trusting more and blaming less. Surely the pendulum has to swing back sometime soon".
Iain Sharpe comments , "I am probably one of the hand-wringers who will the ends of reducing inequality but are painfully aware of the difficulties of doing so when we have to persuade people to vote for such things. But we should never give up trying. At risk of giving a party political broadcast I would commend the Lib Dem 'pupil premium' policy to make sure funding for schools benefits those whose need is greatest".
No comments:
Post a Comment