Are We All Created Equal?

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote what has become one of the most quoted American principles, that in this country we believe that “all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights that among these are of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

What did it really mean?

When it was written it surely referred only to white men since women were not free to vote and people brought to our shores as slaves were certainly given only a very limited freedom with which to pursue happiness. Until the middle of the 19th century, slaves were still considered to be property. And surely American Indians were not considered equal nor were Chinese Coolies who were brought in to work on the rail system.

Well, now even though there is still discrimination based on race, gender or national origin, most Americans would say that they believe that all Americans and perhaps even all people are equally human and should receive equal opportunity to excel (as long as it does not interfere with our own ambitions and those of our loved ones). 

But are we all created equal?

Do we all have equal parents, equal genes, equal intelligence, equal attractiveness, equal health, equal education, equal experiences, equal financial security, equal integrity, equal talent, equal perseverance or equal faith?  Are all doctors, or athletes, or lawyers, or teachers, or parents equal?  Are all of our sub-cultures equal at least relatively?  Do we all have equal opportunity to succeed in whatever we attempt? Do we all enjoy life to the same degree or even close to the same degree?

Is the illegitimate child of a junkie living in the projects really equal in any of these respects to the child of a loving, well educated and well-to-do family that can send their child to the best schools and share the most enriching environments? Do children raised around the worst possible role models really have an equal chance at the future?

And when the children born of advantage manage to succeed, is that success and all that goes with it really theirs alone?  Should they feel free to look down at those who were much less fortunate for not turning their lives around?  Should the financially well-compensated resent having to give significant percentages of their generous incomes to help those who have not fared as well?  Should they cite survival of the fittest as their battle cry against sharing the wealth?

I think that these questions are relevant because we are now forced to consider raising taxes very significantly on the rich in order to help those who have inadequate education, health insurance, housing, nutrition and/or opportunity.  We must do it not only because it is the decent thing to do but because even if we do not really believe that each American citizen has an equal right to succeed, we each believe deep down that we are just as human as the next person.

We all have thoughts and feelings, we all have bodies that are mortal and vulnerable. We all need food, water and air to live, we all must sleep and eliminate our waste products and we all bleed when cut. We all feel pleasure and pain. We all want to survive and to live in relative comfort and security. We all want to love and be loved in return. We are all trying to maintain or improve our self-esteem - our reputation with ourselves.  

I think that this is the cause of most crime. The inherent feeling in the criminal that he is somehow equal to those he preys upon even though their lives seem otherwise. The car thief may be thinking that he deserves that nice car just as much as its rightful owner does. The businessman who cheats his clients may believe deep down that they don’t really deserve to have their money as much as he does. The suicide bomber, so common now in the Middle East, may figure that if he can’t be equal in this lifetime, maybe he can get a leg up on the hereafter.

Not that this is any excuse for improper behavior, but it is an explanation.

Is it then our society’s responsibility to level the playing field so that people in our country can have some real hope for success in this land of presumed equality?

To this end, should those fortunate enough to be able to earn and control tremendous amounts of money be obliged to share more of their wealth with the less fortunate to make up for disadvantages in health care coverage, education, housing and nutrition access? Would this discourage hard work, creativity and risk-taking among the advantaged while only making the unfortunates more dependent and less likely to succeed on their own in the future? Should we let nature work its evolutionary magic on the future of our people? Or should we institute a caste system allowing a certain segment of our society to remain above the rest and another that will forever be at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid?

We could then say that we are all equal but that some are more so than others as they did in Animal Farm.

I think that I have an answer for these questions.

Today, in America, its 300 million citizens, be they male or female, young or old, black, white, yellow, brown or red, rich or poor should be able to pursue life, liberty and happiness to their maximum potential and no American should be homeless, hungry, ignorant or without medical attention when needed.  Every American is at least equally deserving of these basic rights.

While each individual is responsible for his or her actions, it falls on society to seek concurrence about what the society should be like and what each member is expected to do toward that end.  While parents must teach their children, the parents must have a guide, a lesson plan.  That plan should come from the consensus and it should be taught in our schools and reinforced in the workplace and offices of government.

Without taking a nationwide poll, it is possible to come up with certain values that members of our society can agree on. We can agree that while business has the right to make a profit, it does not have a right to become greedy or gluttonous.  The profit a business makes must be a result of completely honest business practices.  Companies and individuals should be held accountable for maintaining high standards of integrity.

While we all can agree that some people deserve greater compensation for their work than others, the degree of difference must be within reason.  One person’s work product may be worth ten or twenty times that of another, it should not be thousands of times greater as it is now for movie stars, super athletes, financiers, CEO’s and opinionators (like Glenn, Sean, Rush, Bill O. and Savage).

Could we realize that while we each are different, excelling in some areas but not in others, we each are here for a reason and we are necessary parts of an infinite whole?  Just as the nose is better at smelling, the foot is better for walking and our eyes are better for seeing. Each part of the human body is different but necessary for the functioning of the entire body.  Every part deserves to get blood and oxygen even though some parts seem to be bigger consumers than others.

In our human drama, it seems that even the people with the least to offer have an important role to play.  If we were equal physically, there would be no cause for compassion. If we were all equally gifted, there would be no cause for kindness.  If we all acted equally there would be no cause for tolerance.

Let us strive to ensure that all Americans receive at least the basic ingredients for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Surely we are all equal to that much human dignity.

Ridding The World of Bad Words

Lately, certain words usually only referred to by using their first letter, have been identified for elimination.  What these words represent and the effect they have on people have made these forbidden words unworthy of human utterance.

There is the “N” word that is used extensively in America’s most famous novel, “Huckleberry Finn.”  Since this word appears more than 200 times in Mark Twain’s book, many schools refused to let their students read it.  Recently, a new edition was published substituting the “n” word with the word “slave,” considered a much more tolerable label for human beings.

During a recent governor’s race, someone in the background used the “w” word about a candidate during a telephone call made by his opponent.  The word was meant to highlight this female candidate’s willingness to do anything for money.  The woman feigned great offense to her new title in such a way that the name seemed too good to describe her. She claimed that the word was an affront to every woman in the state. But was it a sexist slur? Should it no longer be used?

Now there is a movement to get people to stop using the “r” word out of consideration for people with learning challenges.  Using this word with any reference should be stopped, immediately, advocates urge.

And then there is the word so bad that I don’t even use its letter.  It is the one between “e” and “g.” While it describes what most people seem to greatly enjoy, it is considered unspeakable.  There is now a record using the full word in its title and throughout the song.  Is this pushing artistic freedom too far? Can this word followed by the second person singular be used at least when listening to a terribly dishonest politician lie on T.V.? (I must admit that at times I get so upset at disingenuous congressmen that I sometimes yell out “letter between “e” and “g” to your second person singular” while watching them on T.V.  I can only hope that nobody has heard me.)

What other words should be limited to just their first initial if mentioned at all?

Surely all words that can be deemed racial or ethnic slurs could be banned or limited to their first initial.  We could have the “J” word, the “k” word (the worse, though lower case, version of the prior letter’s word), the “C” word (or the Ch if allowed two letters), the “P” word (all the jokes would be “P” jokes) and so on.

Then there are the words that denigrate character, like the “w” word that was so politicized recently.  There could be the initialization of the “l” word for people who don’t speak the truth, the “p” word for those who appear too gluttonous, and the “g” word for those of us who like airing the laundry of our friends and acquaintances. 

But then we come to words like the “r” word.  These words add insult to injury.  They help us point out and ridicule the physical or mental shortcomings of others.  Words like “stupid,” “ugly,” “moron,” “dumb,” “homely,” “short,” “stubby,” “coward,” “dimwit,” and “slug,” could be forever banned because of the hurt they cause those given these labels which are frontal assaults on their self-esteem and feelings of adequacy.

There is another solution, one that would save countless adjectives that could be reconditioned and used for peaceful purposes.  Rather than limiting the kind of words available for use, why not work on creating and nurturing a culture that has such understanding and compassion that such words lose their negative meaning?  Not only would we be beyond even considering expressing vulgarity or insensitivity, the victims of even the then very occasional use of these terms would see them only as sad reflections of the speakers, and have compassion for their ignorance and apparent feelings of inadequacy.

But can a culture change? This question has risen in the minds of many watching the events in the Middle East and Northern Africa.  Can these cultures change what seems to be their collective DNA?  Can tribal nations come together as one people?  Can education and exposure to the civilized world help them radically change their brutal attitudes, beliefs and behaviors?

The same could be asked about ours.  Can we wean ourselves away from the violence and greed that drives some of our worst behavior?  Can the elite learn to take less and give more? Can we spread intelligence and consideration to all corners and all aspects of our culture?  Can we come together to end poverty and its resultant crime in our land?  Can we come to learn that bigger is not always better and that more is sometimes less?  Can our politicians stop their petty squabbling and partisan rhetoric and try their best to solve our country’s pressing problems?

I think that the answer is “yes” for us and an almost “maybe” for some of the other cultures mentioned. Germany and Japan changed dramatically after World War II.  I think that we are seeing that happening in China and India.  Even in the Middle East there is the beginning of a recognition that their way doesn’t work anymore and probably never did.  It will take them a while to realize that first they must stop subjugating women even if that makes the men feel even more inadequate. Men there will not be free of their tyrants until they stop being tyrants to their women.

We will never to ban enough bad words to make all our people feel that their self esteem is not under assault.  But we can work harder to ban ignorance and perhaps, to give all our people reason to have high self esteem making using negative terms against others unimaginable.