us vs. them
From The Call Of Service by Martin Luther King Jr.
A big danger for is the temptation to follow the people we are opposing. They call us names, so we call them names. Our names may not be 'redneck' or 'cracker'; they may be names that have a sociological or psychological veneer to them, a gloss; but they are names, nonetheless--'ignorant', or 'brainwashed', or 'duped' or 'hysterical' or 'poor-white' or 'consumed by hate'. I know you will all give me plenty of evidence in support of those categories; and I remind you that in many people, in many people called segregationists, there are other things going on in their lives: THIS person or THAT person, standing HERE or THERE may also be otehr things - kind to neighbors and family, helpful and good-spirited at work.
You all know, I think, what I'm trying to say -- that we must try not to end up with stereotypes of those we oppose even as they slip all of us into their stereotypes. And who are we? Let us not do to ourselves as others (as our opponents) do to us: try to put ourselves into one all-inclusive category - the virtuous ones as against the evil ones, or the decent ones as against the malicious, prejudinces ones, or the well-educated as against the ignorant. You can see that I can go on and on - and there is danger: the 'us' or 'them' mentality takes hold, and we do, actually, begin to run the risk of joining ranks with the very people we are opposing. I worry about this a lot these days.
==============
When any measure of conflict arises what is our reaction? How do we treat those we oppose? Do we lash out in anger or do we pause and seek to understand their perspective? Do we approach them (after taking time out) in humility and compassion?
And if we do manage to approach 'them' with humility, compassion and seek to work things out--do we have the grace to forgive if forgiveness is necessary? And even if we manage to do all these things, can we continue to do them when 'they' have no interest in doing the same?
A big danger for is the temptation to follow the people we are opposing. They call us names, so we call them names. Our names may not be 'redneck' or 'cracker'; they may be names that have a sociological or psychological veneer to them, a gloss; but they are names, nonetheless--'ignorant', or 'brainwashed', or 'duped' or 'hysterical' or 'poor-white' or 'consumed by hate'. I know you will all give me plenty of evidence in support of those categories; and I remind you that in many people, in many people called segregationists, there are other things going on in their lives: THIS person or THAT person, standing HERE or THERE may also be otehr things - kind to neighbors and family, helpful and good-spirited at work.
You all know, I think, what I'm trying to say -- that we must try not to end up with stereotypes of those we oppose even as they slip all of us into their stereotypes. And who are we? Let us not do to ourselves as others (as our opponents) do to us: try to put ourselves into one all-inclusive category - the virtuous ones as against the evil ones, or the decent ones as against the malicious, prejudinces ones, or the well-educated as against the ignorant. You can see that I can go on and on - and there is danger: the 'us' or 'them' mentality takes hold, and we do, actually, begin to run the risk of joining ranks with the very people we are opposing. I worry about this a lot these days.
==============
When any measure of conflict arises what is our reaction? How do we treat those we oppose? Do we lash out in anger or do we pause and seek to understand their perspective? Do we approach them (after taking time out) in humility and compassion?
And if we do manage to approach 'them' with humility, compassion and seek to work things out--do we have the grace to forgive if forgiveness is necessary? And even if we manage to do all these things, can we continue to do them when 'they' have no interest in doing the same?
posted by Shannon Laser | 11:25 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home