It's always amazing how extreme right-wing conservative will make every effort to thwart freedom of speech when such speech threatens them, while at the same time exploiting the First Amendment to push their agenda of hate, ignorance and bigotry.
Cases in point. The American Family Association (AFA) wants to silence PBS by promoting a campaign to withdraw federal funding from the network. This is nothing to to the AFA, they hate that tax dollars are being used to promote a public forum that presents points of view that challenges the AFAs views. Interestingly enough the latest AFA assault on Public Broadcasting is over a program that has not aired, and the AFA has not seen. Again, trying to censor something based on assumption and speculation.
This is the AFAs spin on the yet to be aired program. The program is an episode of "Nova" scheduled to air in November.
What is questionable about the AFA's position is that they are a tax-exempt organization and therefore reap the rewards offered by the government and that if they really wanted their view aired on PBS, they could. Simply put PBS is public and publicly funded. The right-wing has an equal opportunity to produce, pitch and sell their programs to PBS.
But the AFA, the epitome of right-wing extremism, rather silence the opposition then face off.
Yet at the same time another right-wing pundit stands screaming about his right to free speech, though his speech can do more harm than anything that PBS is supposedly promoting. While the questioning of the Bible's truth in an episode of "Nova" is considered dangerous, and could bring down the moral structure of America; Michael Savage can freely assail autistic children and the AFA doesn't bat an eyelash.
On his radio program Savage described autism as, “In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out." Savage, in his defense claims that he was trying to wake up Americans to a potential of over diagnosing Autism and will not apologize for his hyperbole.
This verbal assault against autistic children is unnecessary and mean. It's based in ignorance. To say that a child who suffers from autism is a fatherless brat, is the highest form of untruth.
Now here we have a situation where a point of view is broadcast that serves no purpose but to inflame, misinform and promote ignorance. This comes from the same man who assailed a gay caller by calling the caller a "pig" and "sodomite."
With all the talk about Jesus among these right-wing conservatives like the AFA and Savage, why should we not question their concepts? If Jesus taught love, tolerance and brotherhood - in addition to encouraging his followers to question authority and beliefs about God - these conservatives acting in defiance of Jesus' teachings.
If they are fighting so hard to stop PBS from presenting a point of view opposed to their own, but knowingly support and promote their own point of view - despite how malicious and untrue - they are truly not Americans. They must be Communists, Socialists or Nazi's as they seem to believe that the First Amendment does not exist.
The First Amendment - the guarantee to freedom of speech. There are so many reasons why the right-wing conservatives should be applauded for defending only their right to freedom of speech.
They should be praised for supporting people like Savage and groups like the American Family Association.
They should be worshipped for doggedly assailing PBS and their quest to revoke the right of the other side to exercise the same First Amendment right that they so welcoming exploit.
Yes, we should thank the right-wing for not grasping the concept of freedom of speech to its fullest degree.
Let them continue to talk, to lie, to promote hatred and ignorance and intolerance in their own words.
It allows the rest of America and the world to see the truth and understand the ignorant bigots and haters that they really are.
Let their word be the catalyst of their own destruction.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
My Own Prejudice
Deny it all you want, everyone is prejudice to some degree.
I view myself as pretty liberal, compassionate and open-minded. Truly the type of person who tries not to judge another. Skin color, sexual identity, age, ethnicity, etc. Really does not matter.
That's how I see myself.
But then there's the reality. The truth behind want I think and what I am. And indeed, I hold some prejudices.
Despite what may be argued, prejudice and stereotype is based in some fact. It's when we assume that each individual that outwardly represents our stereotype is judged on that stereotype; that is when it turns to prejudice.
My prejudices are not meant to be malevolent, with the intent to degrade or harm another person.
For example, when I receive a call from a person who is Indian, I assume that they are going to immediately ask for a bargain and then become irate when they realize there is no haggling over price as if they were buying fruit in the open market.
Or when I speak to someone who is Chinese. Automatically, I believe they are going to go for whatever is cheapest, and though will try to haggle, will eventually give in and accept the given price.
Rationally I understand that not every Indian or Chinese person is going to be like this. However, the reinforcement of stereotype by those who fit the bill has led to the irrational state of prejudice.
In cases of ethnicity or race, I do find myself calling myself to task and attempt to deal with each individual with tolerance and respect.
Yet there is one prejudice I seem to not be able to control.
This prejudice is based on years of interaction, reading and watching. Truly irrational because I do know not everyone fits the stereotype, but somehow rational because I have to be consistently alert to the threat.
This group? Those whom which I judge too quickly and will hold in judgment until they prove otherwise?
Christians.
Now, I'm not talking about your average go to church on Sunday because that's the way I was raised Christian. For that part, it's not even the Catholics - despite the history of atrocities caused by the church.
It's the speaking-in-tongues, glazed over, absolved of responsibility for their own actions, fish on my car Christians.
The real zealots. The ones who want to tell everyone how to live and love. The ones who have their shit all up in politics.
The James Dobson Christians, the George Bush Christians, the Jerry Fallwell/Jesse Helms Christians.
It is their hateful Christianity that creates a stereotype that Christian equals psychotic zealot. It is their politicization of the Bible and the exploitation of passages that leads to the stereotype of crazed piousness.
It is their marching against homosexuals and abortions, instead of helping the needy and actually being Christian, that creates the stereotype of Nazi elite lunatics.
Unfortunately, it is the stereotype that has become so prevalent in many countries today that are eroding the truth of Christianity and leading to a prejudice against the religion in general.
What makes this all laughable is those who cry out that there is bigotry against Christians are the ones who are responsible for creating the stereotype, that lead to the prejudice, that leads to this so-called bigotry.
Maybe, in all forms of prejudice, there is some primal fight or flight sensibility. (Of course these so-called Christians would not recognize primal fear as an evolutionary necessity). Based on my experience with these types of Christians, I know they are out to hurt me. I know this despite the glossy ways they say they are not.
This is sad. There's a new guy at work. I don't know him at all. But on the back of his car he has one of those "Truth" magnets. The symbol of the Fish, eating the evolutionary Darwin fish with feet symbol. Based on this alone, I avoid him. I have deduced through my prejudice that he is among the league of those who would do me harm. I have assumed his opinions of who I am are based on the prejudices created by his religion. That his prejudices are so inflated and irrational he would happily deny me any right to existence and humanity.
But this concept is totally irrational. I have had no interaction with this man.
Tragically, the stereotype of radicalized Christian has become so reinforced that my prejudice has evolved into one of intolerance.
Which makes it even more difficult to be the bigger man. It makes it more difficult to turn the other cheek and love my neighbor. It makes it more difficult to judge not, lest I be judged.
And, per chance, should this man be a true Christian - it makes it more difficult for me to not look over my shoulder at him.
Talking about this does bring some truths to light.
I view myself as pretty liberal, compassionate and open-minded. Truly the type of person who tries not to judge another. Skin color, sexual identity, age, ethnicity, etc. Really does not matter.
That's how I see myself.
But then there's the reality. The truth behind want I think and what I am. And indeed, I hold some prejudices.
Despite what may be argued, prejudice and stereotype is based in some fact. It's when we assume that each individual that outwardly represents our stereotype is judged on that stereotype; that is when it turns to prejudice.
My prejudices are not meant to be malevolent, with the intent to degrade or harm another person.
For example, when I receive a call from a person who is Indian, I assume that they are going to immediately ask for a bargain and then become irate when they realize there is no haggling over price as if they were buying fruit in the open market.
Or when I speak to someone who is Chinese. Automatically, I believe they are going to go for whatever is cheapest, and though will try to haggle, will eventually give in and accept the given price.
Rationally I understand that not every Indian or Chinese person is going to be like this. However, the reinforcement of stereotype by those who fit the bill has led to the irrational state of prejudice.
In cases of ethnicity or race, I do find myself calling myself to task and attempt to deal with each individual with tolerance and respect.
Yet there is one prejudice I seem to not be able to control.
This prejudice is based on years of interaction, reading and watching. Truly irrational because I do know not everyone fits the stereotype, but somehow rational because I have to be consistently alert to the threat.
This group? Those whom which I judge too quickly and will hold in judgment until they prove otherwise?
Christians.
Now, I'm not talking about your average go to church on Sunday because that's the way I was raised Christian. For that part, it's not even the Catholics - despite the history of atrocities caused by the church.
It's the speaking-in-tongues, glazed over, absolved of responsibility for their own actions, fish on my car Christians.
The real zealots. The ones who want to tell everyone how to live and love. The ones who have their shit all up in politics.
The James Dobson Christians, the George Bush Christians, the Jerry Fallwell/Jesse Helms Christians.
It is their hateful Christianity that creates a stereotype that Christian equals psychotic zealot. It is their politicization of the Bible and the exploitation of passages that leads to the stereotype of crazed piousness.
It is their marching against homosexuals and abortions, instead of helping the needy and actually being Christian, that creates the stereotype of Nazi elite lunatics.
Unfortunately, it is the stereotype that has become so prevalent in many countries today that are eroding the truth of Christianity and leading to a prejudice against the religion in general.
What makes this all laughable is those who cry out that there is bigotry against Christians are the ones who are responsible for creating the stereotype, that lead to the prejudice, that leads to this so-called bigotry.
Maybe, in all forms of prejudice, there is some primal fight or flight sensibility. (Of course these so-called Christians would not recognize primal fear as an evolutionary necessity). Based on my experience with these types of Christians, I know they are out to hurt me. I know this despite the glossy ways they say they are not.
This is sad. There's a new guy at work. I don't know him at all. But on the back of his car he has one of those "Truth" magnets. The symbol of the Fish, eating the evolutionary Darwin fish with feet symbol. Based on this alone, I avoid him. I have deduced through my prejudice that he is among the league of those who would do me harm. I have assumed his opinions of who I am are based on the prejudices created by his religion. That his prejudices are so inflated and irrational he would happily deny me any right to existence and humanity.
But this concept is totally irrational. I have had no interaction with this man.
Tragically, the stereotype of radicalized Christian has become so reinforced that my prejudice has evolved into one of intolerance.
Which makes it even more difficult to be the bigger man. It makes it more difficult to turn the other cheek and love my neighbor. It makes it more difficult to judge not, lest I be judged.
And, per chance, should this man be a true Christian - it makes it more difficult for me to not look over my shoulder at him.
Talking about this does bring some truths to light.
- Prejudice is based on stereotypes.
- Stereotypes have a basis in fact.
- That fact is based on personal experience.
- Prejudice is, therefore, a personal dictate.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Watchdog Groups - Don't Really Watch
You, as a parent, have the control over what your children see. Take some responsibility. But before banning, criticizing and demanding censorship - you probably should know what the hell you're talking about.
Recently I encountered a parent who was infuriated that an advertisement for the movie "Funny Games" was run during an episode of "Sponge Bob Square Pants."
Having never heard of the movie, I did some research as to what the movie was about.
First, I have to add, this parent was complaining about the R rated version of this film. Yet the same parent had no objection to the ceaseless glee for the advertising of "The Happening," touted as the first R rated movie from its creator. There was no escaping those advertisements. Besides, who hasn't seen more violence or sex in ads for G and PG movies than in some ads for R rated movies?
After researching a bit, I found that many -- ahem -- family watchdog groups had claimed that the movie "Funny Games" was extremely brutal, inappropriate and should be banned, censored and so forth. That the movie glorified violence and murder and so on and so forth.
Of course we all know this is the best type of publicity any entertainment can get. If this parent hadn't been so adamant about his disgust for the film, I - and several of my friends, would not have known it existed.
So naturally, we sought it out and found the R rated version on Movies on Demand.
If this movie is so controversial, we thought, it's worth the $3.99.
I want my $3.99 back.
Suffice it to say "Funny Games" is no "Clockwork Orange." Farrah Fawcett was more brutalized in "The Burning Bed" than the family in this film. There is more tension in "24" or "Lost" than was created by the movie.
Granted, the plot was twisted and interesting. It does focus on two youths brutally terrorizing a family. Somehow, it comes off lame. If you compare "Funny Games" to other movies in this genre.
The majority of violence is alluded to rather than seen. It is up to the audience to fill in the blanks. Compared to a Jason Voorhees, anything from the "Final Destination" trilogy and other suspense/terror/horror films, the action is pretty tame.
If these parents and parental groups are so afraid of "Funny Games" what are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the graphic violence? Is they are, they haven't actually seen the movie.
Are they afraid of explicit sex, rape or language? If they are, they haven't seen the movie.
Maybe, if they have seen the movie - Maybe they are afraid of the one thing this movie demands. Are they afraid that viewers have to use their imagination?
Because that is what this film demands of it's viewers. It demands the viewers use their own minds to envision the violence. Instead of desensitizing the audience with a never-ending river of gore, the audience has to be sensitized and revolted by what they create in their own heads.
Like reading the "Exorcist," the images a person can create in their own mind is much more graphic and intense than simply seeing an image presented.
If the fear that this parent had of "Funny Games" was based on the falsehoods claimed by the watchdog groups, then he indeed has surrendered his imagination. Not watching at all, is indeed worse than watching.
Recently I encountered a parent who was infuriated that an advertisement for the movie "Funny Games" was run during an episode of "Sponge Bob Square Pants."
Having never heard of the movie, I did some research as to what the movie was about.
First, I have to add, this parent was complaining about the R rated version of this film. Yet the same parent had no objection to the ceaseless glee for the advertising of "The Happening," touted as the first R rated movie from its creator. There was no escaping those advertisements. Besides, who hasn't seen more violence or sex in ads for G and PG movies than in some ads for R rated movies?
After researching a bit, I found that many -- ahem -- family watchdog groups had claimed that the movie "Funny Games" was extremely brutal, inappropriate and should be banned, censored and so forth. That the movie glorified violence and murder and so on and so forth.
Of course we all know this is the best type of publicity any entertainment can get. If this parent hadn't been so adamant about his disgust for the film, I - and several of my friends, would not have known it existed.
So naturally, we sought it out and found the R rated version on Movies on Demand.
If this movie is so controversial, we thought, it's worth the $3.99.
I want my $3.99 back.
Suffice it to say "Funny Games" is no "Clockwork Orange." Farrah Fawcett was more brutalized in "The Burning Bed" than the family in this film. There is more tension in "24" or "Lost" than was created by the movie.
Granted, the plot was twisted and interesting. It does focus on two youths brutally terrorizing a family. Somehow, it comes off lame. If you compare "Funny Games" to other movies in this genre.
The majority of violence is alluded to rather than seen. It is up to the audience to fill in the blanks. Compared to a Jason Voorhees, anything from the "Final Destination" trilogy and other suspense/terror/horror films, the action is pretty tame.
If these parents and parental groups are so afraid of "Funny Games" what are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the graphic violence? Is they are, they haven't actually seen the movie.
Are they afraid of explicit sex, rape or language? If they are, they haven't seen the movie.
Maybe, if they have seen the movie - Maybe they are afraid of the one thing this movie demands. Are they afraid that viewers have to use their imagination?
Because that is what this film demands of it's viewers. It demands the viewers use their own minds to envision the violence. Instead of desensitizing the audience with a never-ending river of gore, the audience has to be sensitized and revolted by what they create in their own heads.
Like reading the "Exorcist," the images a person can create in their own mind is much more graphic and intense than simply seeing an image presented.
If the fear that this parent had of "Funny Games" was based on the falsehoods claimed by the watchdog groups, then he indeed has surrendered his imagination. Not watching at all, is indeed worse than watching.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Fooling the Masses -- Again
Once again President Bush is playing the fear game to promote his agenda. Today he moved to lift the executive ban on offshore drilling. His reasoning, of course, is to provide relief to Americans who are suffering at the pump.
How is this playing on fear? It's simple. Many Americans are feeling the squeeze of gas prices inflated by the oil corporations and speculators. They fear that they will have to give up some of the luxuries they rely on to make them feel better about themselves. Others, wait in fear of having to give up more food and clothing to fill the tank to go to work.
To say 'let's get drilling offshore now to help you' exploits these fears to get an OK from the public. Typical to the administration, the overall lie far outweighs the truths.
Lie? What is the lie? Offshore drilling could provide billions of barrels of oil per year. The operative word is could.
There are no guarantees that these reserves can actually be tapped. Moreover, if they can, it will be years before the supply would become available. So there's the lie. There is no such thing as immediate relief.
What a grand play on fear and the American desire for instant gratification.
OK, so we drill offshore - what then? America taps into the oil reserve under the ocean, in typical fashion with total disregard for the environment and ecosystem. This oil is found, brought up refined and American dependence on foreign oil decreases a few percentage points.
Woo Hoo! Problem solved.
Not so much. By the time this all happens what will the price at the pump be? $10.00 a gallon, $15.00, maybe $20.00?
And who reaps the rewards? The American public?
No. The oil companies who would undoubtedly be offered subsidies, tax breaks and relaxed EPA standards. Thus, it is the American taxpayer who will be footing the bill in higher taxes to pay the subsidies to Exxon to get a few cents worth of relief in 10 years?
But Bush knows how Americans think. He knows fully well that the masses do not think beyond today and will buy into anything that they are told will make things easier for them. He knows our fears and plays up half-truths to present an image of alleviation.
And, our beloved President, has called upon Congress to do the same as him.
No, Mr. President. It is time for Congress and the Senate to tell you and your minions of oil-evil to STFU. It's time the American people tell you to STFU. It's time for the United States to stop pandering to a culture of fear that you created and start becoming rational and responsible again.
It's time to think about the future and realize that oil is a limited resource and the only one who reaps the benefits of exploiting this are the oil corporations. It's time for the American public to force a revolution. An energy revolution.
More of the same old, same old can only lead to our devastation.
How is this playing on fear? It's simple. Many Americans are feeling the squeeze of gas prices inflated by the oil corporations and speculators. They fear that they will have to give up some of the luxuries they rely on to make them feel better about themselves. Others, wait in fear of having to give up more food and clothing to fill the tank to go to work.
To say 'let's get drilling offshore now to help you' exploits these fears to get an OK from the public. Typical to the administration, the overall lie far outweighs the truths.
Lie? What is the lie? Offshore drilling could provide billions of barrels of oil per year. The operative word is could.
There are no guarantees that these reserves can actually be tapped. Moreover, if they can, it will be years before the supply would become available. So there's the lie. There is no such thing as immediate relief.
What a grand play on fear and the American desire for instant gratification.
OK, so we drill offshore - what then? America taps into the oil reserve under the ocean, in typical fashion with total disregard for the environment and ecosystem. This oil is found, brought up refined and American dependence on foreign oil decreases a few percentage points.
Woo Hoo! Problem solved.
Not so much. By the time this all happens what will the price at the pump be? $10.00 a gallon, $15.00, maybe $20.00?
And who reaps the rewards? The American public?
No. The oil companies who would undoubtedly be offered subsidies, tax breaks and relaxed EPA standards. Thus, it is the American taxpayer who will be footing the bill in higher taxes to pay the subsidies to Exxon to get a few cents worth of relief in 10 years?
But Bush knows how Americans think. He knows fully well that the masses do not think beyond today and will buy into anything that they are told will make things easier for them. He knows our fears and plays up half-truths to present an image of alleviation.
And, our beloved President, has called upon Congress to do the same as him.
No, Mr. President. It is time for Congress and the Senate to tell you and your minions of oil-evil to STFU. It's time the American people tell you to STFU. It's time for the United States to stop pandering to a culture of fear that you created and start becoming rational and responsible again.
It's time to think about the future and realize that oil is a limited resource and the only one who reaps the benefits of exploiting this are the oil corporations. It's time for the American public to force a revolution. An energy revolution.
More of the same old, same old can only lead to our devastation.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Way Too Ahead of Their Time
1979. Disco at it's height, new wave coming to be and metal gods Page and Plant were sold out.
In the dark, lurking in the shadows and sounding like something from the 21st century were a group of misfits and anarchists - The Plasmatics.
"Butcher baby, they're gonna put you away!"
"Ni, si, su, chi"
Slam!
What was it? Punk-metal, metal, the apocalypse? Nothing sounded like that before and hasn't since. Even in 2008, with it's pseudo punk Fall Out Boy top 10 trash, the music from "New Hope for the Wretched" and "Beyond the Valley of 1984" still defies full classification. "Metal Priestess" and "Coup D'Etat", though more metal still lay beyond Metallica and have yet to be reproduced by any band around.
Today, hearing a Plasmatics tune, the sound is still fresh but almost contemporary. Not that it's mainstream or radio-friendly, but today's hordes of poser teens may find some recognizable roots in the tune.
The true anarchists, punks and deathheads would immediately recognize the spirit in which the songs were written. Yet still, much of the Plasmatics work is still ahead of it's time.
The last album returned to the anarchist roots of the band and, though much more complex than "Wretched," somehow manages to assert the Plasmatics lasting place in music history as the band way too ahead of their time.
In the dark, lurking in the shadows and sounding like something from the 21st century were a group of misfits and anarchists - The Plasmatics.
"Butcher baby, they're gonna put you away!"
"Ni, si, su, chi"
Slam!
What was it? Punk-metal, metal, the apocalypse? Nothing sounded like that before and hasn't since. Even in 2008, with it's pseudo punk Fall Out Boy top 10 trash, the music from "New Hope for the Wretched" and "Beyond the Valley of 1984" still defies full classification. "Metal Priestess" and "Coup D'Etat", though more metal still lay beyond Metallica and have yet to be reproduced by any band around.
Today, hearing a Plasmatics tune, the sound is still fresh but almost contemporary. Not that it's mainstream or radio-friendly, but today's hordes of poser teens may find some recognizable roots in the tune.
The true anarchists, punks and deathheads would immediately recognize the spirit in which the songs were written. Yet still, much of the Plasmatics work is still ahead of it's time.
The last album returned to the anarchist roots of the band and, though much more complex than "Wretched," somehow manages to assert the Plasmatics lasting place in music history as the band way too ahead of their time.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Sins of the Mothers
My sister was with my mother the day my mother died. It was an ending to a lifelong family drama that seemed to contradict years of arguing and misgivings. Only in death did the two of them find peace.
I am the youngest and really have no comprehension of the bitter feud between my sibling and parent. The underlying resentments alluded me; though they both tried to pull me to their side. If I had to venture about the seed of their discontent, I would have to deduce that my - my mother's second husband, was the source of the 40 year rivalry. My sister seemed to resent my father, or at least the changes he brought into the family.
To hear my sister tell it, when mom married Dad he brought in a new set of rules and mom changed. She became neglectful toward my oldest sister and brother. "They fed us moldy bread and made us sit in a different room," she revealed. While myself and my other sister reaped the benefits of being the fruit of my father's loins, the other two were left to themselves and the mercy of other family members.
I really don't know the full truth of the matter, but considering some of the neglect and abuse I experienced as a child - I know there is an element of truth to my sisters tale.
As she grew older, and more distant, my sister would attempt to point out to my mother the reasons why my sister felt the way she did. This inevitably led into a screaming match, tears, the slamming of doors and my sister being ostracized for another few years. But again, there is that element of truth, a truth my mother did not want to face.
I don't really know my sister, nor my brother for that fact, because she was outcast from the family for being critical of my mother's choice of a new man. My brother is just so much older than me, he was already out of the house when I was learning to pee in a potty.
The outcast, the one who was so hurt and betrayed by her own mother. The one who accused her mother of caring more for her two new children more than she cared for her first two. The sister who accused her mother of negligence in caring for her two older children and protecting them from the harms of the outside world. The sister who only wanted to be loved and who only wanted what she thought would be best for her younger siblings. Maybe so they would not suffer the same fate.
The sister who made me go back to high school and made sure I graduated.
Several months ago my nieces, the oldest two children of my other sister - the one closest to me in age, had a meeting with her regarding fiance. They were not happy with her choice of her fourth husband and felt that she was beginning to neglect their siblings. Much like they accused her of neglecting them during marriages two and three. They became concerned because my youngest niece is running the streets and nothing is being done to protect her. They are concerned because my oldest nephew is forgotten as he sits in jail. They are angered that my youngest nephew is going to get better than they had, more concern and protection.
They were blunt and pointed out the changes in my other sister, since she had decided to marry this man.
My nieces are now ostracized from the family, hurt and resentful. Though they want their mother's love and approval, she is so angry with them she denies them. Though they try to help my nephews and youngest niece - trying to do what they hope is best for them - they are met with bitterness.
The is much arguing and tears and slamming of doors.
What do we learn from the sins of our mothers? Apparently not a damn thing.
I am the youngest and really have no comprehension of the bitter feud between my sibling and parent. The underlying resentments alluded me; though they both tried to pull me to their side. If I had to venture about the seed of their discontent, I would have to deduce that my - my mother's second husband, was the source of the 40 year rivalry. My sister seemed to resent my father, or at least the changes he brought into the family.
To hear my sister tell it, when mom married Dad he brought in a new set of rules and mom changed. She became neglectful toward my oldest sister and brother. "They fed us moldy bread and made us sit in a different room," she revealed. While myself and my other sister reaped the benefits of being the fruit of my father's loins, the other two were left to themselves and the mercy of other family members.
I really don't know the full truth of the matter, but considering some of the neglect and abuse I experienced as a child - I know there is an element of truth to my sisters tale.
As she grew older, and more distant, my sister would attempt to point out to my mother the reasons why my sister felt the way she did. This inevitably led into a screaming match, tears, the slamming of doors and my sister being ostracized for another few years. But again, there is that element of truth, a truth my mother did not want to face.
I don't really know my sister, nor my brother for that fact, because she was outcast from the family for being critical of my mother's choice of a new man. My brother is just so much older than me, he was already out of the house when I was learning to pee in a potty.
The outcast, the one who was so hurt and betrayed by her own mother. The one who accused her mother of caring more for her two new children more than she cared for her first two. The sister who accused her mother of negligence in caring for her two older children and protecting them from the harms of the outside world. The sister who only wanted to be loved and who only wanted what she thought would be best for her younger siblings. Maybe so they would not suffer the same fate.
The sister who made me go back to high school and made sure I graduated.
Several months ago my nieces, the oldest two children of my other sister - the one closest to me in age, had a meeting with her regarding fiance. They were not happy with her choice of her fourth husband and felt that she was beginning to neglect their siblings. Much like they accused her of neglecting them during marriages two and three. They became concerned because my youngest niece is running the streets and nothing is being done to protect her. They are concerned because my oldest nephew is forgotten as he sits in jail. They are angered that my youngest nephew is going to get better than they had, more concern and protection.
They were blunt and pointed out the changes in my other sister, since she had decided to marry this man.
My nieces are now ostracized from the family, hurt and resentful. Though they want their mother's love and approval, she is so angry with them she denies them. Though they try to help my nephews and youngest niece - trying to do what they hope is best for them - they are met with bitterness.
The is much arguing and tears and slamming of doors.
What do we learn from the sins of our mothers? Apparently not a damn thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
