It is not uncommon
For people to assume
That the tough
Because of their capacity
For tolerating discomfort
Have less of a need
To be comforted
When it is no less
Than most.
Often
It is greater.
Copyright 2007 by me, the author. All rights are reserved.
All poems posted in this forum by me, unless stated otherwise, are copyrighted and registered under my legal name with all rights being reserved.
Wrong Assumption
Re: Wrong Assumption
Now this is something I have not seen before Steven.
What has happened that would cause your usual "distance" to be assailed?
Brother Mat.
What has happened that would cause your usual "distance" to be assailed?
Brother Mat.
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
Re: Wrong Assumption
Was it the cuckoo? Can't remember. Anyway...
There is some bird who is a nest parasite, meaning it lays its eggs in another species of bird's nest. The parental bird takes chirping volume as its clue on whom to feed first, all other things being equal. The loudest baby gets the wormy. This is true even if the loudest chirper is a baby-bird shaped speaker which out-chirps its living brothers. Among the baby birds, all other things being equal, the tallest baby has an obvious competitive advantage for reaching and being the receptacle for the food the parent offers.
Now, the bird that is hatched from that orphaned/adopted (cuckoo?) egg is both larger and louder than the biological offspring of the parent birds, ensuring that it will be always be fed preferentially to its adopted siblings. In other words, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
But we're not birds, are we?
I knew a family when I was growing up that consisted of a mother (my math teacher, whom everyone loved), her biological son (my classmate), and an adopted daughter who was a few years younger. They were at the beach one day, and the daughter got caught in an undertow. The mother swam out to rescue her daughter. The daughter was rescued, but the mother then drowned. Which child grieves more? The one whose only mother is now dead, or the one who has managed to lose two in one lifetime? I don't know. After that they both went to live their dad who was far away and I never saw them again.
Well, anyway. These are the things I thought about after reading your poem. This is a response rather than a review or crit.
Oh, the cuckoo
she's a pretty bird
and she warbles as she flies
she don't ever
drink water
but she'll always drink my wine
There is some bird who is a nest parasite, meaning it lays its eggs in another species of bird's nest. The parental bird takes chirping volume as its clue on whom to feed first, all other things being equal. The loudest baby gets the wormy. This is true even if the loudest chirper is a baby-bird shaped speaker which out-chirps its living brothers. Among the baby birds, all other things being equal, the tallest baby has an obvious competitive advantage for reaching and being the receptacle for the food the parent offers.
Now, the bird that is hatched from that orphaned/adopted (cuckoo?) egg is both larger and louder than the biological offspring of the parent birds, ensuring that it will be always be fed preferentially to its adopted siblings. In other words, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
But we're not birds, are we?
I knew a family when I was growing up that consisted of a mother (my math teacher, whom everyone loved), her biological son (my classmate), and an adopted daughter who was a few years younger. They were at the beach one day, and the daughter got caught in an undertow. The mother swam out to rescue her daughter. The daughter was rescued, but the mother then drowned. Which child grieves more? The one whose only mother is now dead, or the one who has managed to lose two in one lifetime? I don't know. After that they both went to live their dad who was far away and I never saw them again.
Well, anyway. These are the things I thought about after reading your poem. This is a response rather than a review or crit.
Oh, the cuckoo
she's a pretty bird
and she warbles as she flies
she don't ever
drink water
but she'll always drink my wine
Re: Wrong Assumption
Brother Mat,
It's a blend of both distance and closeness, this poetry writing thing. I think
you may be sensing a range extension with regards to poetic expression,
though I can't rule out that distances aren't being "assailed."
It's a blend of both distance and closeness, this poetry writing thing. I think
you may be sensing a range extension with regards to poetic expression,
though I can't rule out that distances aren't being "assailed."
Re: Wrong Assumption
Hi Manna,
Implicit in the comparison between birds and us, is that we are born
in a state of dependency upon others for some of our needs.
The fulfilment of some of our needs will be thwarted by squeakier wheels and
other factors and circumstances, even when the best intentions are present. And,
when we are no longer fledglings, the best we can do is to take care of our
needs now as kindly and wisely as we can. -- Just a response, not a review
or a crit.
Implicit in the comparison between birds and us, is that we are born
in a state of dependency upon others for some of our needs.
The fulfilment of some of our needs will be thwarted by squeakier wheels and
other factors and circumstances, even when the best intentions are present. And,
when we are no longer fledglings, the best we can do is to take care of our
needs now as kindly and wisely as we can. -- Just a response, not a review
or a crit.
Re: Wrong Assumption
Steven,
This moved me, mate. The tough hurt. But who are the tough?
You are
This moved me, mate. The tough hurt. But who are the tough?
You are
'In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer' - Albert Camus
Re: Wrong Assumption
Hi Steven,
I hope what I wrote didn't come off like I was telling you that your poem is wrong. It just led me think about things from my life. I was wondering how a person is supposed to know that a tough person is hurting. All I can do is try to go in to things with love, and I know I often fail or just forget. I don't know if I know how to provide a shoulder for someone who isn't crying.
I hope what I wrote didn't come off like I was telling you that your poem is wrong. It just led me think about things from my life. I was wondering how a person is supposed to know that a tough person is hurting. All I can do is try to go in to things with love, and I know I often fail or just forget. I don't know if I know how to provide a shoulder for someone who isn't crying.
Re: Wrong Assumption
Hi Manna,
You didn't come off as if you were saying that the poem is wrong. Just the opposite,
though, in that it stimulated a personal application: "led me to think about things
from my life." Being able to "know that a tough person is hurting," isn't always
possible and lots of times people miss recognizing it when it is present. Everyone
carries hurting, on some levels, and keeping this in mind can sometimes be helpful.
And sometimes the hurts are outside of conscious awareness. And sometimes
people don't want a shoulder, whether they are or aren't crying -- whether they acknowledge
their own hurting or not. And sometimes, "toughness," builds up walls to keep people
away (making it more difficult to recognize when the tough are hurting). -- The bricks
and mortar of these walls can be isolation, meanness, etc. I suppose a short
response to your wondering, would point to being present as best as we can along
with holding that "love" you spoke of in a way that encompasses compassion for
ourselves and others.
You didn't come off as if you were saying that the poem is wrong. Just the opposite,
though, in that it stimulated a personal application: "led me to think about things
from my life." Being able to "know that a tough person is hurting," isn't always
possible and lots of times people miss recognizing it when it is present. Everyone
carries hurting, on some levels, and keeping this in mind can sometimes be helpful.
And sometimes the hurts are outside of conscious awareness. And sometimes
people don't want a shoulder, whether they are or aren't crying -- whether they acknowledge
their own hurting or not. And sometimes, "toughness," builds up walls to keep people
away (making it more difficult to recognize when the tough are hurting). -- The bricks
and mortar of these walls can be isolation, meanness, etc. I suppose a short
response to your wondering, would point to being present as best as we can along
with holding that "love" you spoke of in a way that encompasses compassion for
ourselves and others.
Re: Wrong Assumption
Hi Steven ~
I've been reading here [naturally
] and now just wish to say that I like very much your insightful, true, and important poem. Recognizing is the first issue, as wrong assumptions are so easily made; dealing with it is the second, as one size does not fit all... and sometimes blundering along is what happens. I particularly enjoyed your response just now to Manna. Compassion for ourselves and others are equally important. I know I'm not saying anything you don't already know, but I'm sure supporting what you've said.
~ Lizzy
I've been reading here [naturally
] and now just wish to say that I like very much your insightful, true, and important poem. Recognizing is the first issue, as wrong assumptions are so easily made; dealing with it is the second, as one size does not fit all... and sometimes blundering along is what happens. I particularly enjoyed your response just now to Manna. Compassion for ourselves and others are equally important. I know I'm not saying anything you don't already know, but I'm sure supporting what you've said.~ Lizzy
"Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken."
~ Oscar Wilde
~ Oscar Wilde
Re: Wrong Assumption
do you think the following could fit the same title Steven?
It is not uncommon
For people to assume
That the cruel
Because of their capacity
For spreading discomfort
Have less of a need
To be comforted
When it is no less
Than most.
Often
It is greater.
Everything being said to you is true; Imagine of what it is true.
Re: Wrong Assumption
Jack,
Seems that those words could fit the same title. But, I'd not use those words as
they appear, because as they do, it could lead to a confusion of enabling
and comfort. That's not a message that I'd want to send.
Seems that those words could fit the same title. But, I'd not use those words as
they appear, because as they do, it could lead to a confusion of enabling
and comfort. That's not a message that I'd want to send.
Re: Wrong Assumption
This story has been on my mind again lately, and I told it to my daughter last night. And it seems to relate to these ideas too.
When I was in first grade, there was a boy in my class whom everyone thought was a naughty boy. He cheated when we played classroom games, and he didn't have many, if any, friends. He was inconsiderate and selfish. I didn't like him. I asked my daughter if she thought he was a naughty boy, and she said she thought he was.
One day on the playground, I was watching him swinging. A girl walked in front of him. She was a good girl with lots of friends, and was a favourite of the teacher. The swing had a wooden seat, and the corner of it caught her in the temple. She was bleeding, and was knocked out. He had tried to stop, but he was a small boy, and he'd been swinging high. One teacher picked up the girl and carried her to the nurse's office. Another teacher came and spanked the boy, who was already obviously feeling bad enough. And it had obviously been an accident.
When we got back to the classroom, the teacher went to the nurse's office to check on the girl, so we students were alone with the boy. He was crying and apologizing. Someone said, "Sorry isn't enough this time. Someone really got hurt." I wish that I had been big enough or strong or brave enough to stick up for him. I knew it had been an accident, but I stayed mum. I knew that he was being punished for being who he was, not for doing what he'd done.
I asked my daughter what she would have done and she said, "I would tell him that I heard him crying, and then I would push him on the swing so high until he said, 'Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!'"
I did try once to be nice to him after this, but he wasn't receptive to my efforts in a way that made me want to keep being nice to him.
When I was in first grade, there was a boy in my class whom everyone thought was a naughty boy. He cheated when we played classroom games, and he didn't have many, if any, friends. He was inconsiderate and selfish. I didn't like him. I asked my daughter if she thought he was a naughty boy, and she said she thought he was.
One day on the playground, I was watching him swinging. A girl walked in front of him. She was a good girl with lots of friends, and was a favourite of the teacher. The swing had a wooden seat, and the corner of it caught her in the temple. She was bleeding, and was knocked out. He had tried to stop, but he was a small boy, and he'd been swinging high. One teacher picked up the girl and carried her to the nurse's office. Another teacher came and spanked the boy, who was already obviously feeling bad enough. And it had obviously been an accident.
When we got back to the classroom, the teacher went to the nurse's office to check on the girl, so we students were alone with the boy. He was crying and apologizing. Someone said, "Sorry isn't enough this time. Someone really got hurt." I wish that I had been big enough or strong or brave enough to stick up for him. I knew it had been an accident, but I stayed mum. I knew that he was being punished for being who he was, not for doing what he'd done.
I asked my daughter what she would have done and she said, "I would tell him that I heard him crying, and then I would push him on the swing so high until he said, 'Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!'"
I did try once to be nice to him after this, but he wasn't receptive to my efforts in a way that made me want to keep being nice to him.
Re: Wrong Assumption
That's a good lesson story, Manna. The only part I'm questioning is your last sentence below. It sounds like he was being punished because of what everyone [but, perhaps, you, who actually saw it happen, but at that point weren't brave enough to speak up about it... I have no doubt what you'd do now... ] actually believed did happen, based on their past experiences with him [which is the point where "who he was" ~ though actually not even that... because it was his past actions ~ set the stage for this] and their apparently not having been an eye witness other than you. Have I got the situation correct? It's a fine point of distinction, but still there, with someone having said, "Sorry isn't enough this time. Someone really got hurt." They probably thought his crying and saying he was sorry didn't mean that he hadn't actually done it on purpose, but was now really afraid of getting into trouble, so was just doing whatever he could to prevent that. It sounds like he was probably living with a lot of turmoil at home and acting out as a result at school. Knowing that doesn't make it all okay, of course. Hopefully, he'd be dealt with differently now. Your daughter's idea was a fun one.
~ Lizzy
Someone said, "Sorry isn't enough this time. Someone really got hurt." I wish that I had been big enough or strong enough to stick up for him. I knew it had been an accident, but I stayed mum. I knew that he was being punished for being who he was, not for doing what he'd done.
~ Lizzy
"Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken."
~ Oscar Wilde
~ Oscar Wilde
Re: Wrong Assumption
Do you think everyone believed that a six year old boy could have stopped a swing that was moving at full force? Maybe his head had been lolled back the way a child will do on a swing. Maybe he'd just been looking the other way. I think when a child says, "It was an accident. I didn't mean it," it is easy enough to know if he's speaking the truth. If he'd meant to hit her, he'd have an aura of either pride or guilt.
Who he was - The Whipping Boy. It's easy to punish the whipping boy. That's what happens to whipping boys.
Who he was - The Whipping Boy. It's easy to punish the whipping boy. That's what happens to whipping boys.
Re: Wrong Assumption
Hi Manna ~
I had no preconceptions about the situation with the boy and girl and the swing. Wrong assumptions can go either way, though.
Sometimes, children [and adults] can do something out of meanness which can have far worse consequences than ever anticipated. A little girl both knocked out and bleeding is a pretty serious situation at any age, but when so young and small, even more frightening and dramatic for those responsible for her care and welfare [in this case the teachers].
I know it was obvious to you that it was an accident because you said it was, and from your description, that was because you saw it happen. I didn't get the impression that the others necessarily did, though. Something like that would happen very quickly. So, when one teacher took the little girl to the office, the other teacher came over and spanked him. I know from some things that happened in school when I was there, that there were some abuses that took place against children. Spanking was allowed and it was sometimes harder spanking than it should have been; and other times there was spanking when there shouldn't have been any, at all. Generally, the excessiveness was done by male teachers against junior high or high school boys.
You were there and I wasn't, so you saw and heard how he reacted. Still, fear of serious punishment, and having already been spanked can cause a child to deny something they've done, intentionally or not. It doesn't come under either pride or guilt. Just plain fear. If he was inconsiderate and selfish and had few friends, it's also possible he was angry enough to take it out on someone [or for the teacher to have made a wrong assumption that that's what he had done]. If he cheated on games and was selfish, he might also 'selfishly' lie to keep from getting into worse trouble than he already had. If it had been something he'd done on purpose, who knows what may have waited for him at home. He may already have been being abused there and knew if he admitted to this that he'd be beaten black and blue. I've also seen children say they were sorry for something they did, even though they did it on purpose. Sometimes they've denied it at first and only later admitted it. Other times they admitted it right away. Other times, they never admitted it and presumably it really was an accident, or another child [who was also believable] continues to insist that it was done on purpose. I'm not saying that any of this is how it was with him; however, I'm saying that it could have been... either direction.
I'm familiar with what's called a "target child" ~ in families or in schools. A child who gets blamed/punished for things they didn't do. It could be that the child has issues of their own, which lend to their becoming a target child; or they remind a parent of a 'detested' absent parent; or in school, they're a younger sibling of an older one, who really was a troublemaker; etc. The list goes on.
It could be that he got punished just for who he was; or it could be that with his history of behaviour, that it was honestly more difficult for the teachers and other students to believe his denials, and he got punished due to a false belief regarding his culpability, and his history of behaviour is what leant to that. It sounded like the other students really thought that he had done it on purpose, too, and that he was just apologizing for what happened; and then denying that he'd done it on purpose, as well. From what you've written, it doesn't sound like they believed him. From what you've written, it also sounds like he didn't do it on purpose; and I get that from your own account of what you saw. It would have been helpful to everyone if one of the teachers had facilitated your being able to speak up and give your account, by simply asking if anyone saw what happened. I remember schoolground incidents where that was done. Even if the other kids said, "He did it on purpose," if one child were to say, "I saw it happen and he didn't do it on purpose," I believe that child would be listened to very seriously.
As I said, I wasn't there, and am only going on how I've read and understood your description of it. It just didn't come across to me as the teacher spanking him just to be spanking him because of who he was. It came across as her really believing that he was responsible for what happened to the little girl, in the sense of her thinking he meant to hit/maybe kick her, but just not expecting it to go the way it did. What I'm saying doesn't really have to do with his guilt or lack of it, but rather what the teacher really did or didn't believe when she spanked him. A teacher could pretty easily believe that a child wouldn't be likely to just admit to something so dramatic, and to even deny it. I'm focusing more heavily on that end of it only because it seems likely the teacher may really have believed [since spanking by teachers was an option back then] that he should be spanked.
~ Lizzy
I had no preconceptions about the situation with the boy and girl and the swing. Wrong assumptions can go either way, though.
Sometimes, children [and adults] can do something out of meanness which can have far worse consequences than ever anticipated. A little girl both knocked out and bleeding is a pretty serious situation at any age, but when so young and small, even more frightening and dramatic for those responsible for her care and welfare [in this case the teachers].
I know it was obvious to you that it was an accident because you said it was, and from your description, that was because you saw it happen. I didn't get the impression that the others necessarily did, though. Something like that would happen very quickly. So, when one teacher took the little girl to the office, the other teacher came over and spanked him. I know from some things that happened in school when I was there, that there were some abuses that took place against children. Spanking was allowed and it was sometimes harder spanking than it should have been; and other times there was spanking when there shouldn't have been any, at all. Generally, the excessiveness was done by male teachers against junior high or high school boys.
You were there and I wasn't, so you saw and heard how he reacted. Still, fear of serious punishment, and having already been spanked can cause a child to deny something they've done, intentionally or not. It doesn't come under either pride or guilt. Just plain fear. If he was inconsiderate and selfish and had few friends, it's also possible he was angry enough to take it out on someone [or for the teacher to have made a wrong assumption that that's what he had done]. If he cheated on games and was selfish, he might also 'selfishly' lie to keep from getting into worse trouble than he already had. If it had been something he'd done on purpose, who knows what may have waited for him at home. He may already have been being abused there and knew if he admitted to this that he'd be beaten black and blue. I've also seen children say they were sorry for something they did, even though they did it on purpose. Sometimes they've denied it at first and only later admitted it. Other times they admitted it right away. Other times, they never admitted it and presumably it really was an accident, or another child [who was also believable] continues to insist that it was done on purpose. I'm not saying that any of this is how it was with him; however, I'm saying that it could have been... either direction.
I'm familiar with what's called a "target child" ~ in families or in schools. A child who gets blamed/punished for things they didn't do. It could be that the child has issues of their own, which lend to their becoming a target child; or they remind a parent of a 'detested' absent parent; or in school, they're a younger sibling of an older one, who really was a troublemaker; etc. The list goes on.
It could be that he got punished just for who he was; or it could be that with his history of behaviour, that it was honestly more difficult for the teachers and other students to believe his denials, and he got punished due to a false belief regarding his culpability, and his history of behaviour is what leant to that. It sounded like the other students really thought that he had done it on purpose, too, and that he was just apologizing for what happened; and then denying that he'd done it on purpose, as well. From what you've written, it doesn't sound like they believed him. From what you've written, it also sounds like he didn't do it on purpose; and I get that from your own account of what you saw. It would have been helpful to everyone if one of the teachers had facilitated your being able to speak up and give your account, by simply asking if anyone saw what happened. I remember schoolground incidents where that was done. Even if the other kids said, "He did it on purpose," if one child were to say, "I saw it happen and he didn't do it on purpose," I believe that child would be listened to very seriously.
As I said, I wasn't there, and am only going on how I've read and understood your description of it. It just didn't come across to me as the teacher spanking him just to be spanking him because of who he was. It came across as her really believing that he was responsible for what happened to the little girl, in the sense of her thinking he meant to hit/maybe kick her, but just not expecting it to go the way it did. What I'm saying doesn't really have to do with his guilt or lack of it, but rather what the teacher really did or didn't believe when she spanked him. A teacher could pretty easily believe that a child wouldn't be likely to just admit to something so dramatic, and to even deny it. I'm focusing more heavily on that end of it only because it seems likely the teacher may really have believed [since spanking by teachers was an option back then] that he should be spanked.
~ Lizzy
"Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken."
~ Oscar Wilde
~ Oscar Wilde