When everyone began talking about where they were last July 4th I had to think harder then I think I should have. then it came flooding back to me. I was back in Belfast chilling in the Botanic Gardens, playing frisbee with Karlo and Stevo. Laurence and Megan were reading. Evan was playing guitar. I think Margaret was out and about somewhere. We had a great bbq back at #11 Mt charles, one of many. I loved that smokey allie of a back yard, if that's what we want to call it. Yup Ramana and Petr were about too causing trouble as usual. We had soo much food. I think kedrick made brownies, Megan her crumble, me a red, white and blue trifle. Oh Potato Salad. Yum. Oh I remember Karlo and Steve brought burgers with the bun all frozen in a box to the park. That was great. Ahh I love you guys.
This year I tailgated my first concert. It was the Violent Femmes and Blues Traveler at Redrocks and amazing natural outdoor red rock amphitheatre that over looks Denver. At 9pm we saw about 25 fireworks shows happening down in the city, then as the fireworks burned out Mother nature lite up her show of force with a great lightening show. THAT was beautiful as the sky lite up I thought what a message mother nature was sending. "Silly people yup your fireworks are colorful, but Mine I can liteup the earth and the sky. I can do without running out of steam and will always out power you." What a great message.
Hope you all had a great 4th.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
Sarcasm
Sarcasm seems to be finding me in many places recently, but since my life right now is Americorps NCCC it's my most recent medium for exposure. I would be inclined to believe that perhaps I am just too sensitive to the sharp come backs, the stinging remarks, the laughter disguising angry remarks, but my deep respect for love and the community inform me otherwise. I often interpret sarcasm as teasing in disguise, or anger without confrontation. One friend described sarcasm as "cheap humour at an others expense. Humour for people who don't know how to be funny."
Even in groups where all participate in equally bashing, each equally pointing out every mistake of the others, there seems to be a serious lack of respect for the possibilities of a loving dialogue. Recently team members of mine said they would prefer people laugh and make fun of them when they trip and fall then ask if they are alright.
I know that this is true for many people but I am still appalled when I hear it. When living in Northern Ireland I learned that people like Oprah would never fly in Northern Ireland because their genuineness would be in question. I have heard similar and said similar things of people like Bono. Why is it so hard to accept a genuine loving response? Perhaps because far to often it is used to coerce a gift, favour or fame. Or is it the lack of community depth and relationships which rest on more than the mutual use of the sidewalk?
Recognizing that Northern Ireland and similar places have been shaped by an incredibly deep wound, are we to believe that our community has been equally shaped by a different but equally harming wound? If we are to believe that this wound exists, does our use of sarcasm to mask the wound truly help in the work toward reconciliation. Does the short term relief through sarcasm hurt our long term recovery? Now Northern Ireland is known to have some of the darkest humour, much like ambulance and ER workers, the connections between the two are not hard to make. However the use of humour to collectively gain relief from a serious and difficult time is a wise use of time coupled with other works.
I am digressing. What I am looking at is the replacement of sarcasm with caring dialogue that focuses on the loving/positive aspects of the relationships. Of course without ignoring the hurt. This view of a wounded community is here put into perspective because of my constant search for the good. I know, I KNOW that this search is not my singular quest, but a quest shared by more people than can be counted. I believe that far fewer people actually experience the use of love for coercion than those touched by its effects. Often like in blighted neighborhoods where even if you have had no personal experience with the police you are hardened to their position by the experiences shared in the community. It is that mistrust that breeds the further occurrence of police/community conflict. The work of the police to gain the trust of the community seems that much harder because of the built mistrust. The same definitely goes for those who use sarcasm to hide and release anger without coming to terms with its effects on the self and the other.
Perhaps I have gone to far without truly defining sarcasm and deciding whether there can be constructive and useful sarcasm. I use sarcasm to take jabs at our political figures as has been done for centuries though I personally like to call this wit. Consulting my favorite source for word debates Merriam Webster should help,
Sarcasm: 1:a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain 2:a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual.
Wit: suggests the power to evoke laughter by remarks showing verbal felicity or ingenuity and swift perception especially of the incongruous.
While perhaps with these definitions the differences are unclear the truth still remains that Sarcasm which is used to jab or tease others, however playfully, causes wounds that may be imperceptible to the participants but ripples through the community. I don't know if this is making sense any more but if nothing else sarcasm like teasing and bullying are while sometimes great momentary reliefs of anger they are not constructive ways to actually build a cohesive and strong community.
If we truly believe that love does conquer all, would that mean starting with the conquering of sarcasm that cuts love open like a festering wound in our daily language?
Even in groups where all participate in equally bashing, each equally pointing out every mistake of the others, there seems to be a serious lack of respect for the possibilities of a loving dialogue. Recently team members of mine said they would prefer people laugh and make fun of them when they trip and fall then ask if they are alright.
I know that this is true for many people but I am still appalled when I hear it. When living in Northern Ireland I learned that people like Oprah would never fly in Northern Ireland because their genuineness would be in question. I have heard similar and said similar things of people like Bono. Why is it so hard to accept a genuine loving response? Perhaps because far to often it is used to coerce a gift, favour or fame. Or is it the lack of community depth and relationships which rest on more than the mutual use of the sidewalk?
Recognizing that Northern Ireland and similar places have been shaped by an incredibly deep wound, are we to believe that our community has been equally shaped by a different but equally harming wound? If we are to believe that this wound exists, does our use of sarcasm to mask the wound truly help in the work toward reconciliation. Does the short term relief through sarcasm hurt our long term recovery? Now Northern Ireland is known to have some of the darkest humour, much like ambulance and ER workers, the connections between the two are not hard to make. However the use of humour to collectively gain relief from a serious and difficult time is a wise use of time coupled with other works.
I am digressing. What I am looking at is the replacement of sarcasm with caring dialogue that focuses on the loving/positive aspects of the relationships. Of course without ignoring the hurt. This view of a wounded community is here put into perspective because of my constant search for the good. I know, I KNOW that this search is not my singular quest, but a quest shared by more people than can be counted. I believe that far fewer people actually experience the use of love for coercion than those touched by its effects. Often like in blighted neighborhoods where even if you have had no personal experience with the police you are hardened to their position by the experiences shared in the community. It is that mistrust that breeds the further occurrence of police/community conflict. The work of the police to gain the trust of the community seems that much harder because of the built mistrust. The same definitely goes for those who use sarcasm to hide and release anger without coming to terms with its effects on the self and the other.
Perhaps I have gone to far without truly defining sarcasm and deciding whether there can be constructive and useful sarcasm. I use sarcasm to take jabs at our political figures as has been done for centuries though I personally like to call this wit. Consulting my favorite source for word debates Merriam Webster should help,
Sarcasm: 1:a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain 2:a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual.
Wit: suggests the power to evoke laughter by remarks showing verbal felicity or ingenuity and swift perception especially of the incongruous.
While perhaps with these definitions the differences are unclear the truth still remains that Sarcasm which is used to jab or tease others, however playfully, causes wounds that may be imperceptible to the participants but ripples through the community. I don't know if this is making sense any more but if nothing else sarcasm like teasing and bullying are while sometimes great momentary reliefs of anger they are not constructive ways to actually build a cohesive and strong community.
If we truly believe that love does conquer all, would that mean starting with the conquering of sarcasm that cuts love open like a festering wound in our daily language?
Sunday, July 1, 2007
how can we stand by and not try to help, no matter how imperfect our efforts may be?
28 June 2007
Commiting Personally, Acting Globally
By Kenneth Cloke
Mediation is an imperfect process, that employs an imperfect third person, to help imperfect people, come to an imperfect agreement in an imperfect world. Leonard Marlow
Why did you originally decide to become a lawyer, mediator, or arbitrator? Perhaps you will answer, “in order to help people,” or “to make a difference,” or “as an expression of my values” or “to demonstrate my commitment to peacemaking.”
Each of us is searching -- not just for ways to eke out a living, but for work that has meaning and integrity, that allows us to serve others, and that brings us a sense of fulfillment far greater than we could get by simply processing the same sorts of disputes over and over again for years.
At the same time, the problems we face and are increasingly required to solve demand the collective attention of everyone. The emergent crises of global warming, exhaustion of the oceans, air and water pollution, species extinction, drug resistant diseases, global pandemics, overuse of fertilizers, deforestation, loss of arable land, AIDS, decreasing bio-diversity, resort to warfare, nuclear proliferation, narcotics smuggling, organized crime, terrorism, torture, ethnic cleansing, and religious intolerance – none of these can be solved except collaboratively across political, religious, and cultural borders.
In the face of such difficulties, it is easy to think: we are so few, so imperfect, and so poorly prepared, while the problems we face are so vast, multifaceted, and ingrained -- how could we possibly make a difference?
The real question, however, is: how can we stand by and not try to help, no matter how imperfect our efforts may be?
In fact, we know – not just intellectually, but in our hearts, as professionals and experienced conflict resolvers – that there are tangible things we can do, as imperfect as they are. We know a number of techniques for communicating across cultural divides and resolving disputes without warfare.
We have developed skills in communication, facilitation, problem solving, public dialogue, collaborative negotiation, prejudice reduction, mediation, and conflict resolution system design. And it is precisely these skills that the world now needs to solve its problems.
More subtly, all conflicts transpire between people, that is, at the boundaries or borders that separate individuals, cultures, organizations, and nations. Conflict is therefore simply the sound made by the cracks in a system, a boundary condition that can best be resolved by communicating across the many internal and external borders we have erected to keep ourselves safe, or exclude others.
In short, it no longer matters whose end of the boat is sinking. We realize that we are all in this together and need to learn how to communicate with each other and address problems that can no longer be solved individually, even by powerful nation states.
More importantly, aren’t these the very reasons conflict resolution initially inspired us and drew us in? Wouldn’t we all love to see the “promise of mediation” fulfilled, and people living together without endless wars and needless cruelty?
Finding practical, meaningful ways to overcome these difficulties and fulfill the deeper call of our spirits and our profession will not be quick or easy. Yet we become powerful in the face of our fears and are able to recognize the deeper meaning of our lives when we commit to making a difference in the world.
To make a real difference, we need to build local capacity to prevent, resolve and recover from conflicts. We need to recruit volunteers from the dispute resolution community to train mediators in other countries in a wide range of skills: to resolve community, environmental, and public policy disputes; to initiate restorative justice and victim-offender programs; to facilitate public dialogue and problem solving; to expand skills in group facilitation, informal problem solving, team building, and consensus decision making; to design multi-door courthouses; to promote prejudice reduction, bias awareness and community building; to encourage forgiveness and reconciliation; and to apply conflict resolution systems design principles to a broad range of social, economic, political, and environmental disputes.
As imperfect as we are, there are many opportunities for dispute resolution practitioners to experience a deep sense of personal fulfillment and make a genuine contribution to a more peaceful planet by assisting people and societies around the world that have been wounded by violence.
Doing so will not only allow us to reconnect with our original intentions, it will make tangible the wisdom of our profession and contribute measurably to world improvement.
To learn more about Mediators without Borders, contact mediatorswithoutborders@gmail.com, visit the website at http://www.mediatorswithoutborders.org/, or post your questions and concerns here.
Commiting Personally, Acting Globally
By Kenneth Cloke
Mediation is an imperfect process, that employs an imperfect third person, to help imperfect people, come to an imperfect agreement in an imperfect world. Leonard Marlow
Why did you originally decide to become a lawyer, mediator, or arbitrator? Perhaps you will answer, “in order to help people,” or “to make a difference,” or “as an expression of my values” or “to demonstrate my commitment to peacemaking.”
Each of us is searching -- not just for ways to eke out a living, but for work that has meaning and integrity, that allows us to serve others, and that brings us a sense of fulfillment far greater than we could get by simply processing the same sorts of disputes over and over again for years.
At the same time, the problems we face and are increasingly required to solve demand the collective attention of everyone. The emergent crises of global warming, exhaustion of the oceans, air and water pollution, species extinction, drug resistant diseases, global pandemics, overuse of fertilizers, deforestation, loss of arable land, AIDS, decreasing bio-diversity, resort to warfare, nuclear proliferation, narcotics smuggling, organized crime, terrorism, torture, ethnic cleansing, and religious intolerance – none of these can be solved except collaboratively across political, religious, and cultural borders.
In the face of such difficulties, it is easy to think: we are so few, so imperfect, and so poorly prepared, while the problems we face are so vast, multifaceted, and ingrained -- how could we possibly make a difference?
The real question, however, is: how can we stand by and not try to help, no matter how imperfect our efforts may be?
In fact, we know – not just intellectually, but in our hearts, as professionals and experienced conflict resolvers – that there are tangible things we can do, as imperfect as they are. We know a number of techniques for communicating across cultural divides and resolving disputes without warfare.
We have developed skills in communication, facilitation, problem solving, public dialogue, collaborative negotiation, prejudice reduction, mediation, and conflict resolution system design. And it is precisely these skills that the world now needs to solve its problems.
More subtly, all conflicts transpire between people, that is, at the boundaries or borders that separate individuals, cultures, organizations, and nations. Conflict is therefore simply the sound made by the cracks in a system, a boundary condition that can best be resolved by communicating across the many internal and external borders we have erected to keep ourselves safe, or exclude others.
In short, it no longer matters whose end of the boat is sinking. We realize that we are all in this together and need to learn how to communicate with each other and address problems that can no longer be solved individually, even by powerful nation states.
More importantly, aren’t these the very reasons conflict resolution initially inspired us and drew us in? Wouldn’t we all love to see the “promise of mediation” fulfilled, and people living together without endless wars and needless cruelty?
Finding practical, meaningful ways to overcome these difficulties and fulfill the deeper call of our spirits and our profession will not be quick or easy. Yet we become powerful in the face of our fears and are able to recognize the deeper meaning of our lives when we commit to making a difference in the world.
To make a real difference, we need to build local capacity to prevent, resolve and recover from conflicts. We need to recruit volunteers from the dispute resolution community to train mediators in other countries in a wide range of skills: to resolve community, environmental, and public policy disputes; to initiate restorative justice and victim-offender programs; to facilitate public dialogue and problem solving; to expand skills in group facilitation, informal problem solving, team building, and consensus decision making; to design multi-door courthouses; to promote prejudice reduction, bias awareness and community building; to encourage forgiveness and reconciliation; and to apply conflict resolution systems design principles to a broad range of social, economic, political, and environmental disputes.
As imperfect as we are, there are many opportunities for dispute resolution practitioners to experience a deep sense of personal fulfillment and make a genuine contribution to a more peaceful planet by assisting people and societies around the world that have been wounded by violence.
Doing so will not only allow us to reconnect with our original intentions, it will make tangible the wisdom of our profession and contribute measurably to world improvement.
To learn more about Mediators without Borders, contact mediatorswithoutborders@gmail.com, visit the website at http://www.mediatorswithoutborders.org/, or post your questions and concerns here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)