What if we knew everything? By that I mean, when we met somebody, we knew everything about them; if we knew all of their memories, past, and childhood. What if we felt the feeling of failure, the vision of misty eyes, the movement of the chilly wind. What if we held the soft doll in our hands, opened the book to the aging smell, tasted the sweet salt of the sea. What if our mother never came home, the ringing never stopped, the cold tear-washed blade on our chest. We slip on the rocks, climb till our hands rub bare, read our tired eyes to sleep. Would we ever judge anymore? Could we criticize somebody else if we had felt and experienced what they had? Would we even be ourselves anymore, unique? David Sedaris’s intake of Hugh’s childhood seems to make himself rather more dynamic. He has his own memories, but now he has a greater variety to choose from for enjoyment. He has a larger selection to create his adventure. Sedaris’s thinking has become more exciting in this way, but he didn’t have powers. He didn’t have some supernatural ability to take somebody’s memory. He listened. He conversed and took. He claimed to be a thief, but what kind of robber is notorious for taking what is willingly given? All we have to do is listen.
Since childhood, we are all told to watch out for chemicals. We have to watch out for laundry detergent, bleach, and dishwasher fluid. Even the health inducing handsoap was considered a fatal execution in the mouth. The unknown was always dangerous. Naturally, most children’s curiosity outweigh the thoughts of consequences and harm is done. This sort of experimentation is done consecutively throughout childhood, learning lessons of what not to deal with. Unfortunately, the main lesson is never learned. The caution that needs to be tied with venturing seems to always fall short. Chet Raymo’s piece “A Measure of Restraint” addresses this problem. It seems that humanity will never learn its lesson. Humans will always strive to be better, faster, flashier, and stronger. So often is does the gung-ho mentality backfire and can sometimes hurt more than it helps. Radiation alone contributes to many of these mistakes. Enhanced foods and pesticides harm the necessities of food. Even the air we breathe is contaminated for the want of speed and convenience. If this trend continues, the Earth and even all living beings will begin to deteriorate. Things that were not meant to be discovered could ultimately discover our downfall. The curiosity really could kill the cat this time. The child burnt by the stove. The mouse too far in the mousetrap. The human too deep into science.
Sanders claims that migration has taken over the minds of society and that “settling in...[has] a chance of making a durable home for ourselves...and our descendants”. But what claim can this possibly be? Had all mankind followed this principle, Africa would hold a lot of people. In fact, ALL people. Both common religions and science agree on one thing: humanity started in one place. If the human race had followed Sanders’s mentality, the word “opportunity” would have no meaning. Referencing a more recent situation, the foundation of America was built on immigration. The early settlers immigrated. The later settlers immigrated. People still immigrate today. Even the Native Americans migrated within their country! If they had stayed, “rooted” in their territories, they would have starved. They moved because of opportunity. Even Sanders’s mother was the daughter of an immigrant doctor. If there was no immigration, would Sanders have been able to write Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World? Even more so, would Sanders himself even exist? One might say that it’s all based on chance anyways. That it was just chance by chance that Sanders and all descendents of the start of humanity was chance. How are all of those chances possible though? What makes them viable to happen? I am the son of immigrants. I believe in the opportunity of moving. I am the opportunity of moving. I can’t stay put.
Women are often perceived to be the innocent, the victims. Although many females could take offense to this, men do as well. With every victim there is a culprit. It seems ironic that it is usually males that are assumed to be the culprit, even before there is a victim. Most people would assume this phenomenon to be true for most older males ranging from teenagers to adults. That is false. Ever since young boys are able to talk and walk, they are blamed. Broken vase? Probably the younger brother. Snacks disappearing around the house? Again, the brother. Broken lawn equipment or wreckage outside? Those rascal boys down the street. Recently, I’ve noticed in my work place (Kumon, a well-known children’s english/math tutoring center), I have received a symptom of this judgement. I am not directly affected with the kind of blame from before, but rather a cursory preference that leaves me feeling unwanted. There are both boys and girls working at my Kumon center, all around my age, but on my certain workday, I am the only male worker. Many times, I’ve seen parents that guide their children to ask help from another worker, which in my case, is always female. This happens even if they’re busy or is helping another student, while I am closer, (attempting to be) sitting calmly and patiently to be asked for assistance. This doesn’t happen all the time, but I recognize a look that parents have, one where you can see their minds acting quickly to analyze that it would be safer to have their children with the nice girl rather than the potentially dangerous boy. I surely am not there to harm their children, I merely want a paycheck and quite enjoy seeing children successfully tackling academic barriers. I can relate to Staple's piece, Black Men and Public Space. Although, I am not African-American, I can compare myself to the "sketchy" male stereotype that he is included in. Like Staples though, I’ve learned to accept this fact and move on. My judgement of the parents do not change and in the end it’s about the child’s needs. Not mine.
