On Monday, I posted an example of one way of looking at the world--a way in which people are empowered to take charge of their own lives, regardless of circumstance. This worldview encourages personal responsibility and spiritual empowerment to overcome obstacles, to lead a successful life, and to inspire others--to be masters of our own fate.
But there is a competing worldview, as well. This perspective was demonstrated in the words of a prominent American recently. Here were some of his words: "We cannot sleepwalk through life." Good. "We cannot be ignorant of history." Yes, I'm with you. "We can’t meet the world with a sense of entitlement." Excellent. "We can’t walk by a homeless man without asking why a society as wealthy as ours allows that state of affairs to occur." Wait, what? "We can’t just lock up a low-level dealer without asking why this boy, barely out of childhood, felt he had no other options." Hold on a second... "We have cousins and uncles and brothers and sisters who we remember were just as smart and just as talented as we were, but somehow got ground down by structures that are unfair and unjust." Oh, my.
Consider the not-so-subtle implications of those last three sentences. "Allows" homelessness to occur? "No other options"? "Structures"? These words all put responsibility on others rather than those involved. Therefore, people aren't homeless because they've made some poor choices in life. We did it to them. People don't sell drugs for selfish reasons. We didn't give them enough ways to say no to that life. People aren't successful because they don't work as hard or seek opportunities for advancement. We have built an unfair system.
Kind of goes against the Invictus mentality, doesn't it? You are not responsible for your life. This was all unavoidable. Other people made your life this way.
But the speaker didn't stop there.
"Yes, you've worked hard, but you've also been lucky. That's a pet peeve of mine: People who have been successful and don’t realize they've been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did." Aside from the terrible grammar of that final line, this is not only a straw-man position, but it also contradicts not just the very essence of Americanism, but of humanity itself.
First the straw-man: everyone is lucky in some way, and those most successful are often the first to admit to their good fortune. To the point above, being homeless may not feel very lucky, but being homeless in America instead of the Amazonian jungles is extremely lucky. Being in prison may not feel very lucky, but being in prison in America instead of a Siberian gulag is extremely lucky. In fact, those participating in the Invictus games may be the most unlucky. These are smart, strong, kind individuals who were trying to be helpful to mankind by fighting evil and oppression around the world. And they had their lives and bodies torn apart. Strangely, they are not the ones complaining about bad luck.
Secondly, being an American is one of the luckiest qualities one can possess. Why do you think more people immigrate here than anywhere else in the world? But the fortune of America only matters if it is acted upon by individuals. Simply being lucky doesn't make one successful. Lebron James hit the genetic jackpot by being 6'8'' and 250 pounds of solid muscle. But he couldn't possibly have become Lebron James without endless hours of practice in gym. The world is filled with "lucky" people who never did anything with their talents. It is the personal drive of the individual that makes the difference. We are all lucky in some way. But only the determined will break away from mediocrity.
These few sentences are the opposite of inspiring. They present a way of life that is hopeless and weak. What is the point of getting out of bed each day if I believe the "structures" of life are unfair, or if I don't have "other options," or if I have no control over my potential for success? If I am not "the captain of my soul," as the poem states, why participate in anything?
Consider these two worldviews carefully and decide what path you will take.
But there is a competing worldview, as well. This perspective was demonstrated in the words of a prominent American recently. Here were some of his words: "We cannot sleepwalk through life." Good. "We cannot be ignorant of history." Yes, I'm with you. "We can’t meet the world with a sense of entitlement." Excellent. "We can’t walk by a homeless man without asking why a society as wealthy as ours allows that state of affairs to occur." Wait, what? "We can’t just lock up a low-level dealer without asking why this boy, barely out of childhood, felt he had no other options." Hold on a second... "We have cousins and uncles and brothers and sisters who we remember were just as smart and just as talented as we were, but somehow got ground down by structures that are unfair and unjust." Oh, my.
Consider the not-so-subtle implications of those last three sentences. "Allows" homelessness to occur? "No other options"? "Structures"? These words all put responsibility on others rather than those involved. Therefore, people aren't homeless because they've made some poor choices in life. We did it to them. People don't sell drugs for selfish reasons. We didn't give them enough ways to say no to that life. People aren't successful because they don't work as hard or seek opportunities for advancement. We have built an unfair system.
Kind of goes against the Invictus mentality, doesn't it? You are not responsible for your life. This was all unavoidable. Other people made your life this way.
But the speaker didn't stop there.
"Yes, you've worked hard, but you've also been lucky. That's a pet peeve of mine: People who have been successful and don’t realize they've been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did." Aside from the terrible grammar of that final line, this is not only a straw-man position, but it also contradicts not just the very essence of Americanism, but of humanity itself.
First the straw-man: everyone is lucky in some way, and those most successful are often the first to admit to their good fortune. To the point above, being homeless may not feel very lucky, but being homeless in America instead of the Amazonian jungles is extremely lucky. Being in prison may not feel very lucky, but being in prison in America instead of a Siberian gulag is extremely lucky. In fact, those participating in the Invictus games may be the most unlucky. These are smart, strong, kind individuals who were trying to be helpful to mankind by fighting evil and oppression around the world. And they had their lives and bodies torn apart. Strangely, they are not the ones complaining about bad luck.
Secondly, being an American is one of the luckiest qualities one can possess. Why do you think more people immigrate here than anywhere else in the world? But the fortune of America only matters if it is acted upon by individuals. Simply being lucky doesn't make one successful. Lebron James hit the genetic jackpot by being 6'8'' and 250 pounds of solid muscle. But he couldn't possibly have become Lebron James without endless hours of practice in gym. The world is filled with "lucky" people who never did anything with their talents. It is the personal drive of the individual that makes the difference. We are all lucky in some way. But only the determined will break away from mediocrity.
These few sentences are the opposite of inspiring. They present a way of life that is hopeless and weak. What is the point of getting out of bed each day if I believe the "structures" of life are unfair, or if I don't have "other options," or if I have no control over my potential for success? If I am not "the captain of my soul," as the poem states, why participate in anything?
Consider these two worldviews carefully and decide what path you will take.