Defenders_of_Freedom

COMMUNITY RESPONSIVENESS to CITIZEN DISPLACEMENT

What we consider to be “Choices” and “Opportunities” are countered by socioeconomic factors. When society collaborates to impose a level of derogatory perception toward an individual or group of individuals, the result is a generalization and group mindset of marginalizing the unwanted individual or group of individuals. This marginalization may be based on age, sex, race, religion, unemployment, addiction, citizen status, and/or many other factors that provide a platform for discrimination that ultimately casts a shadow. This shadow is then countered by what is perceived as “privilege” or a person’s “right to exist”. A collective mindset that perpetuates ill-will towards others often arises when people feel burdened by their neighbor’s actions or existence due to a lack of comprehension or complete understanding of their position; either for lack of having ever experienced it, or for fear of experiencing it. We can examine where our own bias and suspended disbelief contributes to the hardship that many are currently facing in our society and attempt to replace these adopted rituals of condemnation with awareness and empathy.

FACT #1 – All people experience hardship(s) relative to what they know.

FACT #2 – Not all people have the same opportunity(s) or challenges.

FACT #3 – Not all people accomplish the same goal(s) even if given the same opportunity(s) or possessing the same strengths/weaknesses.

We can expand on these three facts on a case by case analysis of each person who may experience similar situations and find themselves in differing outcomes or predicaments. When we consider that a person may not be as capable as we think they are, we are better able to acknowledge why they are where they are – a scope of understanding that goes beyond what we perceive as “success” and/or “failure”, and more importantly, goes beyond a scope of judgment and/or condemnation. If what we hold ourselves to does not match the conditions someone else is experiencing, we can easily conclude how it is they may be unable to improve their situation on their own.

The core elements that impact a person’s life either positively or negatively in a capitalist society (in which the foundation of our social collective depends rigorously on our ability to earn our position) we are at the mercy of our finances, our health, and our education. When any of theses three prongs are adversely affected, our ability to sustain ourselves is compromised. The failsafe that we rely on is our social network and family. If this is compromised, we are at the mercy of compassion and resources that may or may not be provided by the collective.

Nonprofits are charitable agencies that have arisen due to the nature of capitalist society. There is a measure of predestined success in our code of ethics which is visibly stated that all people deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Within a democracy or republic, a government’s citizens fairly represented under these dictates would come to conclude that a level of leniency is warranted when capitalism can become offensive to those experiencing economic hardship or dire circumstances compromising one’s ability to achieve a level of financial security. Agencies which only exist to serve and are not profit incentivized are positioned to counter certain challenges that capitalism presents to a people’s governance.

It is within these frameworks and this formula that we can be selective in our reasoning. Yet, no agency of the people works without the people for whom these agencies directly affect either positively or negatively. It is the people who determine the course of our laws, our regulations, our perspectives for which we abide as a community. It is the people who hold the highest charge and for whom our selected leaders are burdened with the task of delegation and direction to best serve the whole. We are not an easy flow of connecting points, but an erratic miserable sometimes cantankerous entity with infighting and resistance to what we do not understand or cannot relate to, for sheer lack of identifying with another person’s plight. Often, we are limited to what we know until we know more, and more often we refuse to know more out of fear and rejection of the unknown. This creates a division among the people and perpetuates suffering.

I am here to expose the blisters on our collective skin and make known what has gone unknown for far too long, so that perhaps we can remedy this situation and move forward. Our lives are interconnected. None of us is an island, however, many of us would prefer to shelter ourselves from the hazards we see others exposing themselves to. We do not understand this, and we choose to distance ourselves from what we see and acknowledge as poor choices and a course for failure and suffering. We perceive a person’s mishaps in life to be their own error in judgment, lack of education, poverty that is beyond our control for which we may find sympathy for but conclude has nothing to do with our own lives. We may even be grateful that our lives do not resemble those whose lives seem less desirable. None of these factors contributes to challenging ourselves to address the vacancy of responsibility that we have for our neighbor’s well-being. If our only contribution is sympathy, we are not aware of the reality and responsibility that we have, as it is that we are in a position of stability that our neighbor lacks.

How best do we address the plight of another human being? How best do we adjust our perception of another person’s situation? We begin by acknowledging the person as an equal to ourselves, as someone whose life experiences may or may not resemble our own, that for better or worse, has resulted in trauma and/or loss. It is reasonable at this point to conclude that trauma and loss are two contributory factors for why a person can no longer sustain their life, why they have become unable to cope well, and why they may or may not be able to regain what was lost. The question then becomes, what does this person need? Am I able to provide a path for this person to achieve their needs? If we cannot define the need and we cannot define the path, does that mean we cease all action? No, that means we provide what we think a person needs and work toward answering that question more thoroughly by engaging directly with them. We seek viable paths until the right path(s) present(s) itself. We do not hesitate. We do not wait. We act with what we know until we know more. We provide what we have until we can provide more. We offer solutions until the right solution is made realized. That is how we serve each other and minimize the struggle and pain; reach out.