The tabula rasa, in Locke’s philosophy, was
the theory that, at birth, the human mind is a “blank slate”. In other words,
the absence of preconceived ideas or predetermined goals. If every individual
that ever existed on this planet bears the clean slate at birth, how come the
likes of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Idi Amin among other tyrants have been
birthed in the same blank slate as the likes of Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi
and Martin Luther King Jr.? What really makes the difference?
DIABOLISTS, PSYCHOPATHS,
MONSTERS. HOW ARE THEY MADE?
You have some skepticism or utter disbelief
in Locke’s tabula rasa philosophy? Perhaps, you think even in that “clean
slate”, certain genetic factors have been embedded which would emanate later in
life? Then you are not the only one, at least, not until recently when I had a
little exploration into the biography of the world’s greatest psychopaths. What
are you missing? Let’s have this simple analysis together.
Adolf Hitler, undisputedly, the greatest of
his kind the “great mother” has ever birthed was not always the man we all
remember today for his unspeakable atrocities. Hitler was the fourth of six
children born to Alois Hitler, and his third wife, Klara. Three of Hitler’s
siblings—Gustov, Ida and Otto—died in infancy. When Hitler was eight years old,
he took singing lessons, sang in the church choir, and even considered becoming
a priest. He was an enthusiastic and lively kid, full of life, energy and
passion, just like most others.
His promising life continued until 1900 when
his younger brother, Edmund, died from measles. Hitler suddenly changed from a
confident, outgoing, conscientious student to a morose, detached boy who
constantly fought with his father and teachers. Three years later, his father
died suddenly, and in another four years from his father’s passing, he lost his
mother to breast cancer; an agonizing death that further grounded him. After
then, he applied for several jobs but was repeatedly turned down. He eventually
ran out of money in two years of her mother’s death and was left to live off
the streets without any aid.
Benito Mussolini was another tyrant of note.
After he removed all his political opposition through his secret police and
outlawed labour strikes, he and his followers consolidated their power through
a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship.
While Hitler, surely, had been taught to hate
by the series of unfortunate events that plagued his early life when an
individual’s mindset is almost entirely shaped by their emotions, Mussolini’s
cause had been aided by silence or feeble resistance he encountered.
Of course, it would make a reasonable
argument to point to the hardship the likes of Nelson Mandella and Martin
Luther King Jr. also had to face and never resolved to violence. The fact
remains that every person in this world, born in that clean slate, is a
potential Hitler as well as potential Mandella. Though the inciting stimulus
may vary, we all have our limits.
HOW IS “RIGHT” TO BE
JUDGED?
Depending on how frequently we engage
ourselves in or witness an argument, the debate about what is right or wrong is
almost a thing of daily incidence. For instance, in Nigeria today, you could be
jailed for 14 years for practicing homosexuality. Same is celebrated in the
United States. Same human beings! Same world! How should “right” be judged? It
is totally subjective! Things become right when it is deemed okay by the
majority. The converse is also true. This is the origin of a very big problem
which has so far created us monsters. The majority could be wrong, just like
they felt unconcerned towards Mussolini’s advances. When Hitler was going
about, making his hate speeches, most Jews deemed him a subject of mockery, a
cartoon, a lunatic, but after his ascension to power, the Holocaust he
initiated claimed about 6 million Jewish lives alone. The indifference of the
majority may shed a veil on the violation of students who were forced to wash
toilets as a punishment for coming late to class, but that doesn’t make it
right. The authority only gives lecturers the right to deny students entrance
at worst. It may seem normal if the majority appear to be listless about the
confiscation of students’ phones because it rang in the class when at the very
worst, they could have been sent out of class to forfeit the attendance. When a
student steps out of class to ease himself but was unfortunate that a lecturer
already walked into the class a few minutes before he could return, it would even
have been deemed cruel for such student to forfeit the lecture, but that was
not just it. Despite every plea, the student was not only denied entrance to
join the class but was also denied the permission to remove his bag from the
class so he could go home. His bag was stalked in the class that would last
between 2pm and 5pm while he remained outside for 3 hours till the lecture
finished. The non-partisanship of the majority of the students does not justify
such lecturer.
I WAS WARNED!
Mama warned me to forgo this admission for a
university, where I could earn my degree with respect. She had a prescient
knowledge of what I now encounter, but her precious little girl thought she
knew more. Perhaps, I thought I needed the type of practical experience no university
could offer. Papa warned me too about the lobectomy facility I was going; a
place where individuals with lofty aspirations are turned into imbeciles who
can barely distinguish their right from left. I was just so deaf!
WE HAVE MADE THIS
MONSTROUSITY—FOR OURSELVES
A few months ago, while I was still in
school, I found myself on fire when I enquired from one of my lecturers why he
would trouble me so much to bring my fiancé to meet him. This, for me, is one
of the highest form of intrusion into my private life. As in…not even my
parents have gone that deep yet. Why would he want to meet my partner? To
assist in paying my dowry? To offer matrimonial prayers or advice? Of what
reason was the gesture borne of? I am still confused as I put this piece together.
At first, I thought I was the only one in this silly situation but when I
narrated my adversity to Yemisi, Bimbo, Yetunde, Nikemi, Atinuke, Dunsin,
Kunmolu, Bunmi and Damilola, I realized I was just one of the very many
individuals who have had to suffer similar transgression. From the responses I
got from my erstwhile classmates, it became clear to me why I was condemned for
doing the only thing I though was rational, considering the circumstances.
UNDERSTANDING
RELATIONSHIPS
The first time such demands were asked of
most of them, they perceived it as a joke; just like Hitler was called when he
started his crusade against the Jews. Isn’t it wonderful how the human mind
works when we are faced with situations we are afraid of having to do something
about? If they cannot ask of the correlation with their job discretion, at
least they should be smart enough to wear that frown all over their faces and
back it up with a deafening silence so that the other person would know that
such gesture was absolutely unwarranted and unwelcomed. The worst, the very
worst, they could do is to put that stupid smile on, because in the process,
they would be normalizing what is abominable and make people like me the bad
individuals who would rebel against “advances others deemed normal.” The
philosophy behind most life’s actions and reactions is simple to understand.
Normality is absolutely subjective. Whatever is perceived to be appropriate by
the majority is considered normal, but that doesn’t make it right. While you
could be jailed for 14 years for practicing homosexuality in Nigeria, the act
is publicly celebrated in the United States. Please do not let your
insensitivity make this madness a normality, because that is not the kind of
world I want to live in. By our actions and inactions, no matter how
insignificant, whether deliberately or inadvertently, we create evil that would
come back to haunt us. Also, by the same, we could liberate and put ourselves
in a position of respect where we really should belong.
Comments
Post a Comment