What a difference an "e" makes
It's been over a month since I went to see Hotel Rwanda, but I still haven't escaped the impact of it. Rather than experiencing a plenary instant of reflexive horror at the magnitude of the slaughter, the inaction of the international community and my own flippant attitude toward the whole situation when it happened in 1994, I have experience a prolonged sense of frustration with humanity's inability (and my own) to behave, well, humanely.
It is curious to me that we even use the word "humane" to describe compassion or sympathy for others. It seems to me that those two words most commonly used to define "humane" are more often the exception than the rule. Typically, we humans behave with great disregard for others, showing little compassion for those outside our own circle. That circle, depending upon the particular instance in which we might be called upon to show some humanity, could be our immediate family or our neighborhood or our community or even our nation. It could be people who share the same skin color we do or attend the same church or worship the same diety. It could even be people with whom we work or play or share other hobbies and patterns of behavior. But how often do human beings really treat those outside their circles with compassion and sympathy. It seems to me that we are more likely to be suspicious and guarded at our best and downright hostile and destructive at our worst.
Sure, there are some exceptions. Mother Theresa and Ghandi and a handful of others who placed little stock in things that differentiate us as humans and more stock in the fact that we all share - as humans - a common destiny. Why is it that people who behave with the appropriate amount of compassion and sympathy, people who behave humanely, are the exception? They are the heroes. The Oscar Schindlers and Paul Rusesabaginas of the world. Those people that find reasons to be sympathetic and compassionate when the world around them is going to hell instead of becoming fearful, suspicious, insular and incapable of looking beyond the well being of themselves and those who are closest to them.
It seems to me that we ought not include the word "human" in our word describing behavior that is compassionate and sympathetic. Perhaps we should use another word, since there is little that is characteristically human about treating others with sympathy and compassion. Perhaps we should call it "saintly" or "angelic" or "extraordinary" treatment instead of humane treatment. For if we are to be literal to the implied connection to typical human behavior, humane treatment would be ambivilence for most and something akin to Abu Garib or Rwanda or Sudan in some cases.
Unfortunately, the instances of human behavior that live up to the term humane are far less frequent that those that do not. Perhaps that is the way of things. After all, we are just bipedal animals with opposable thumbs for more effectively manipulation of tools and an enlarged brain cavity that enables us to more effectively cogitate on how we might use them. As such, our animal instincts have the full power of our physical mastery of the environment and our cognitive faculties at their disposal.
Humane is something to which we humans aspire, but few of us ever behave humanely when it takes the most courage and can make the most difference. And with centuries of intellectual commitment to notions like justice and freedom and peace unable to stop world wars, genocides, mass destruction of human life by humans and the ease with with we seem to embrace hatred and fear over nobler notions, I wonder if we will ever make the leap from human to humane.
What a difference an "e" makes.
It is curious to me that we even use the word "humane" to describe compassion or sympathy for others. It seems to me that those two words most commonly used to define "humane" are more often the exception than the rule. Typically, we humans behave with great disregard for others, showing little compassion for those outside our own circle. That circle, depending upon the particular instance in which we might be called upon to show some humanity, could be our immediate family or our neighborhood or our community or even our nation. It could be people who share the same skin color we do or attend the same church or worship the same diety. It could even be people with whom we work or play or share other hobbies and patterns of behavior. But how often do human beings really treat those outside their circles with compassion and sympathy. It seems to me that we are more likely to be suspicious and guarded at our best and downright hostile and destructive at our worst.
Sure, there are some exceptions. Mother Theresa and Ghandi and a handful of others who placed little stock in things that differentiate us as humans and more stock in the fact that we all share - as humans - a common destiny. Why is it that people who behave with the appropriate amount of compassion and sympathy, people who behave humanely, are the exception? They are the heroes. The Oscar Schindlers and Paul Rusesabaginas of the world. Those people that find reasons to be sympathetic and compassionate when the world around them is going to hell instead of becoming fearful, suspicious, insular and incapable of looking beyond the well being of themselves and those who are closest to them.
It seems to me that we ought not include the word "human" in our word describing behavior that is compassionate and sympathetic. Perhaps we should use another word, since there is little that is characteristically human about treating others with sympathy and compassion. Perhaps we should call it "saintly" or "angelic" or "extraordinary" treatment instead of humane treatment. For if we are to be literal to the implied connection to typical human behavior, humane treatment would be ambivilence for most and something akin to Abu Garib or Rwanda or Sudan in some cases.
Unfortunately, the instances of human behavior that live up to the term humane are far less frequent that those that do not. Perhaps that is the way of things. After all, we are just bipedal animals with opposable thumbs for more effectively manipulation of tools and an enlarged brain cavity that enables us to more effectively cogitate on how we might use them. As such, our animal instincts have the full power of our physical mastery of the environment and our cognitive faculties at their disposal.
Humane is something to which we humans aspire, but few of us ever behave humanely when it takes the most courage and can make the most difference. And with centuries of intellectual commitment to notions like justice and freedom and peace unable to stop world wars, genocides, mass destruction of human life by humans and the ease with with we seem to embrace hatred and fear over nobler notions, I wonder if we will ever make the leap from human to humane.
What a difference an "e" makes.
posted by Danny Henley at 3/19/2005 11:40:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home