Whenever I think about the speech I'll give after being elected the first Jewish President, after being a successful writer/actor/director for a decade or so, it always ends like this: "Nation, if you vote for me because I am Jewish, than I have failed you. If you vote for me because you liked me in a movie I made, than I have failed you. If you vote for me for any other reason than you honestly feel, in your heart of hearts, that I would be the best person for the job, than I'm afraid that I have failed you."
Well, Idealists, I have failed you. I made a promise, a solemn vow, if you will, to have my surprise ready for March 15th. I have failed you. It'll still come, hopefully, but for now, all I can offer you is an extra long post in compensation.
Anyway, today at school, there was an assembly, a presentation given by a student who attended Columbine High School in 1999, when the school shooting took place. He talked a little about the actual event, as the main focus of the meeting was Rachel Scott.
If you were at the assembly, I hope you won't mind if I give a little recap of some of the backstory. Rachel Scott was a kind, optimistic, and a forgiving-to-the-fault eighteen year old, who became the first victim of the Columbine shootings. The purpose of the assembly was to get us to accept a challenge made by Rachel in an English essay, a message to start a chain-reaction of kindness, choose positive role models, and things of that nature.
I totally respect the message being broadcast here, I really do. The world could greatly improve with a little more kindness here and there. The problem with Rachel's Challenge was how it was presented, and a couple of the ideas mentioned.
The first of which deals with judging others. Rachel insisted that one should not judge others by what they have done, as you don't know what they are going through. Only after getting to know a person can you judge them.
I disagree wholeheartedly here. What can we judge people on, if not their actions? May we not condemn Osama bin Laden until we have learned if he was bullied in school? Should we forgive Stalin until we can prove that his mother did in fact love him?
Of course, caveats and caveats must be accounted for. It is true that people have off days, and a first impression formed on one of these days would be negative. Then it is up to the person who had the bad day, who presented a bad face, to rectify the action. If they cursed you off for trying to help you, it should be them who apologizes.
You have to earn respect from me. If you are rude to me, should you be given respect automatically? No, you shouldn't.
Another thing I disagree with, one that may finally allow me to be diagnosed as a pessimist, is the notion that there is good in everyone. I guess that comes with a sense of religion, a belief in a higher power that would not make people unless they were good, which I lack. I don't believe that everyone has inherent value, because that makes things too easy.
I want you to really think tonight if you are a good person. "Of course I am!" you say, "Or at least I'm definitely not a bad one." No one wants to believe that they are a bad person, because, well, you are you. It's much easier to say you are a good person, at least because you have good intentions. And some of you are good people, and some of you aren't. At least from where I'm standing.
What is it that's said about good intentions? "A small act of kindness is infinitely better than the best of intentions." Hmm. Either get working on being a good person or accept the fact that you aren't.
The presentation also focused a lot on the mystical elements, a facet I found irrelevant and distracting. Why is it necessary to tell us about a businessman's dream in Ohio in order for us to be kinder? It isn't.
The problem with this kind of assembly is that it's quite polarizing. There is Group A, who love it partly because it's sad, and Group B, who would have despised it if it had been perfect and given them free candy. Neither is in the right, and I can't decide which group I fall into. Probably B, since I'm typing up a critical response.
Despite having a lot of problems, there's a lot to like. It was in fact very sad, which brings with it contemplation for a lot of us. Getting high schoolers to think, really think, is a difficult task, but it was accomplished with videos and accounts of a tragedy in a school much like most others.
To be honest, this post was not as long as it should have been, or to be even more frank, as good as it should have been, but I owe yall something. The surprise is coming, I promise.
Thanks for reading and considering and waiting that much longer,
-J. Valett
Yeah, I have to agree that the presentation was pretty awful. You really can't compare a girl who probably lived a lavish, luxurious life until her death to Anne Frank, who suffered for years and died relatively slowly of Typhus. I also was disappointed at how they portrayed these kids as Nazis. It's ironic how the program preaches against bullying, yet these kids were driven to what they did because of bullying, and of course, some mental instabilities.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have to disagree with what you said about people being inherently good or valuable. To be "good" there needs to be something that defines one as "good" You can be compassionate, understanding, or kind but you can't be "good". I'm sure that spitting in the face of African Americans or Jewish people 300 years ago was viewed as "good" culturally. Not to enter a philosophical debate or anything, but in reality people are shaped by their genes and their surroundings. If you are a "good" person you were most likely exposed to some sort of misfortune that caused you to see the dark in something and prevent it from occurring again. People are also ultimately selfish. Anyone committing "good" acts either does so because A.) They want people to look at what they did and praise them. Any millionaire that creates some sort of charity fund names it after themselves, or at least lets everyone know about it. B.) They would want to be treated the same way. "Treat people the way YOU would want to be treated" ultimately leads back to to YOU. Everyone wants to be "good" because they like to be labeled as "good". There really is not basis for being "good". When you say "good" you really mean viewed favorably by society.
All in all, though, the concept was good. It is true that one single compliment can really change a persons day or week. It was a great concept, just poorly presented. Anyway, good post. Really well-written.
For good, I took the general cultural definition, which usually corresponds to "self-sacrificing", because it defies our selfish nature. Our nature has been described as base and evil, and something evolved beings must escape from. Everything is relative, though really well written comment, Anonymous! Proves that just because you're on the Internet doesn't mean you have godawful grammar and points.
ReplyDelete