|
|
|
Freedom
by Ted L Glines
Having watched a recent debate; pros and cons over whether we should be actively promoting our American version of freedom (AKA: democracy) around the world, I found myself to be rather vague in my own definition of “freedom.” When in doubt, we should look it up in the dictionary. So I did -- and was rewarded with “freedom” is “the quality or state of being free.” And, we find that “free” means “having liberty; enjoying personal or political independence; not subject to or allowing slavery; made or done voluntarily; relieved from or lacking something unpleasant; not subject to a duty, tax, or charge; not obstructed; not being used or occupied; not fastened; lavish; open; frank; given without charge; not literal or exact; not restricted by conventional forms.” (~Webster's New Dictionary of the English Language, 2001)
If we may propose that “constraint” is the opposite of “free,” and that “democracy” has many constraints, we find that “free” and “democracy” do not equate. Therefore, the above debate was based on faulty semantics. This was a shame because this debate was among educators.
Returning to our promotion of freedom in nations around the world (Venezuela, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, China, Nigeria, Ghana, and the list goes on), we find the willing motivation of populations to be a problem. There are those who say that “everyone wants freedom.” Then we hear the more politically correct statement: “there are some populations which will tolerate freedom better than others.”
An example of the latter viewpoint - in action - is the “plight” of our own American Indians; those who, after 100+ years, continue to reside in the patriarchal communities known as “reservations.” Here, the Indians enjoy the enforced security of tight governmental patronage. I am part Yaqui Indian and some of these people are my own relatives. Since we began with an American debate, I feel it is proper to cite American examples. We have religious communities (Amish, Shaker, Mormon, etc.) whose populations choose to live with strong constraints imposed by their own unique beliefs. I have studied with the Mormons until I became a priest, so I do know the Mormon constraints. Here in America, we have populations which choose to live in gang-controlled inner-city ghettos (East Los Angeles, Watts, Compton, East Baltimore, Washington D.C. Houston, etc.) where “freedom's just another word for ... nothing left to lose.” I have experienced Compton, California where I first saw a police car parked ... upside down. From coast to coast, we have populations voluntarily constrained within a “convict code,” where parole is merely a path to more criminal activity and (of course) return to the quite-constrained prison environment. Yes, I did spend ten years in prison in California, and I will never forget the “Hey, Homeboy, welcome back” greetings to re-offenders returning to prison. In any of the above examples, individuals could move out, get away from their present patriarchal support/protection lifestyles, but they do not choose to do so, and they each have justifiable excuses.
So, in any debate regarding our American thrust of bringing freedom to other not-so-lucky nations, realize a small thing about the justifiable excuses ...
And, please be happy that I have not burdened you with the reasons why the Sunnis may stay away from our brand of “freedom” ...
Make a free website at Freewebs.com