Us and Them.

These are two very conflicting, almost contradictory, words. US being me and my family; my cohort; my language speakers; with my skin colour; with my belief system – in other words my “comfort zone”. 

 

But THEM – they are none of the above and are therefore unknown; not to be trusted; possibly dangerous; certainly to be avoided if at all possible.

 

Now I’m sure this has been so since humans formed tribes for protection purposes many, many, millennia in the past. One would hope that the antagonism, hatred, death and destruction that resulted would, by now, be something to look back on with shame.

 

Unfortunately not. Now, far from casting blame I would just draw attention to what I, personally, consider to be some of the underlying “causes” for this very, not to say, dangerous, situation:-

 

Formal religion hasn’t helped. In fact it has, in my view, been the underlying cause of much grief. Think the Crusades – those infamous campaigns to recapture the “Holy City” of Jerusalem that had been taken by the Islamic Sultanates ruling over large swathes of the “Holy Land”. Them – Bad Islamists and Us – Good Christians. 

 

Then there have been the millennia long “antagonism” between various sects of ALL religions – Catholic vs Protestant; Sunni vs Shia. Hindus don’t like Muslims (and visa versa) – so the simmering conflict between India and Pakistan continues. Then of course the Jews – they killed Jesus, you see, so no one likes them!

 

Through the great sweep of history to the present day – South America and the Spanish “conquest” of the Aztecs; the “colonisation” of North America, Africa, Australia, India and many Asian countries has been a, possibly, subconscious example of scapegoating. Then there were the religious wars - Protestant vs Catholicism  - of the 16^th and 17^th centuries and even today with the “differences” in Palestine and Israel, Turkey and Armenia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. 

 

The wall between the state of Israel and the Palestinian territories on the West Bank is a “protection”. As well as being a security fence, it also represents a psychic barrier. The danger is that people come to think that those on the "other side" are irredeemably evil and inhuman.

 

This is similar in intention to the now demolished “Berlin Wall” – the wall built between the Evil Capitalist West and the Good Communist East (the USSR).  

 

Then of course the most horrendous of all “differences”, those charged by Hitler for causing the financial collapse of Germany after the First World War (1914 – 1918) - the millions of Jews, Gypsies and mentally troubled, exterminated at the hands of the Nazis during the 1930s and early 1940s.

 

The list is almost endless.  And what has been achieved?

 

Nothing. Except a retreat to and repositioning of the old standby – the Scapegoat.

 

It’s all YOUR fault. 

Scapegoating: A Chilling Truth About Human Behaviour.

 

When it comes to interpersonal conflict, humans have long preferred to blame other individuals 

or groups rather than look, deeply, at their own behaviour. Scapegoating is when an individual or group selects another person or group to bear the responsibility for any conflict or social dis-function. The person or group that is targeted and blamed is the scapegoat.

 

This can be understood if it is believed that the person who falls into the scapegoat role would typically be a person who is the least like the in-group members who seek cohesion and conformity among each other. After all, one of the functions of conformity and cohesion in groups is survival, and outsiders who demonstrate difference from the group, may be considered a threat.

History is practically written by a narrative of scapegoating. In the Torah (first compiled in about the 6^th Century BCE), it is said that men who engage in homosexual behaviour should be stoned to death. In the late seventeenth century, some locals in colonial Massachusetts didn’t no how to settle political and religious differences, so when a few women started acting on their own, they were labelled as witches and hanged. And of course, survivors of sexual assault are frequently branded at fault by the perpetrators and by systems of power.

Some people wonder how we could be so fatally blind, but the chilling truth is that in each of these examples, the people who blamed the scapegoat genuinely believed the ‘scapegoat’ was wrong and deserved punishment. Invariably, when we hear about these instances, our own reactions are of outrage. “How could someone do such a thing? Surely, we would know better than those people?”

The thing is, our outrage at scapegoating often contains an assumption – that the perpetrators intentionally blamed or targeted the scapegoat. Thus, they are bad, and we are good. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, and we’re all, subconsciously guilty of similar scapegoating dynamics, however difficult this is to acknowledge.

Only a quick glance at history, as previously mentioned, is needed to reveal the chilling truth that humans prefer to scapegoat and save face, than to sit with and accept their own “stuff”. This doesn’t necessarily make some people “bad” and other people “good,” but scapegoating does illustrate how complex human psychology can be. Ultimately, scapegoating will not cease to exist as long as people continue to have minds that cannot tolerate personal internal conflict or an acceptance of their own shortcomings. We all indulge in the belief that we are good human beings.

It is also a little acknowledged truth that the people we meet tend to be, almost mirrors to see ourselves reflected. What we might not like to see in our reflection, we "transfer" to the "other" as a dislike of THAT person. And so it goes on!

For all the technological progress humans have made, the progress of our social dynamics has not advanced nearly as steadily.

It is still US (good people) and THEM (bad people).

If antidepressants drugs are so effective ….

If antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs are so effective why are they being prescribed in ever increasing numbers? Something is out of kilter here.

The percentage of the population with some sort of mental issue remains fairly constant at about one person in five (in developed countries that is). But the number of prescriptions issued for antidepressants and antipsychotics are increasing year by year – according to the New York Times “In 2011 alone, they and other antipsychotic drugs were prescribed to 3.1 million Americans at a cost of $18.2 billion, a 13 percent increase over the previous year, according to the market research firm IMS Health.” Again, according to the American Psychological Association (APA) “The use of psychotropic drugs by adult Americans increased 22 percent from 2001 to 2010, with one in five adults now taking at least one psychotropic medication, according to industry data.”  

In Australia the rate of increase in such medications is similar with the rate per 1,000 population of community-dispensed prescriptions for mental health-related medications increased from 2005–06 to 2009–10 by an annual average increase of 2% - roughly 10% in five years or (extrapolating the figures) roughly 20% in ten years (Australian Medicare records).

In the same ten year period the population of the US increased by (again roughly) 10% and that of Australia by roughly 12%.

In summary then – populations of both the USA and Australia have increased by about 10%-12% in the years2001 – 2010 but mental health medication has increased at roughly 20% - 22% in the period.

It may not be a widely known fact but documented research constantly shows that antidepressants and antipsychotics are only marginally more effective than a placebo (a sugar pill). Yet the pharmaceutical companies – they are huge money making organizations – keep telling us otherwise.

My point is IF (and it is a big if) these drugs - which have been around in one form or another for about fifty years - are so effective, and if the percentage of people with mental health issues has remained constant at about  1 in 5 for years, why then is the use of these drugs increasing?

As I said at the beginning of this post – something is out of kilter!!

Why do we ignore Arab influence on the West?

Forgetting the influence of Islam and Arabic scholars on Western culture and demonising them is not very clever. We need to recall the fact that Christianity started in the Middle East – among the Semitic people (those very same people - Jews and Arabs that history now condemns) so why demonise them? They are part of us. If we complain that “they” think and do things differently from “us” remember that “we” think and do things differently from “them”! So who is right? And does it really matter?

The current rigidity of political agendas, media alignment or religious thinking – be it Islamic, Christian or Judaic and the rise of the fundamentalism,  is a strong indication of desperation and a lack of desire for change – even an inability to see the need for change. A “them or us” or the even  more divisive, “are you with us or against us” attitude is grounded in ideology, in ignorance and lacks common sense. This malicious talk gives rise to the false belief that “my” religion is better than yours – therefore yours is inferior to mine; therefore, by default, I am better than you. This is dangerous thinking and gives rise to many of the problem that beset the world today. What concerns me is the  injustice that this type thinking engenders which, unfortunately,  is prevalent everywhere.

What is the difference between extremists of whatever faith, Christian, Islamic or Jewish? There are none that I can see. All worship God – by that name or by any one of many “sacred” names. God is God, but they are all blind to the fact that life, in whatever form, is a dynamic process.

In the11^th century Pope Urban II promised Christians an “eternal” reward if they joined a crusade against the Muslims to help “restore” the Holy Land to Christianity!! I wonder where I have heard this before? Don’t forget that the current crop of Muslim clerics (some of whom advocate violence against the “great Satan” – America)  make the same promises for those who sacrifice their lives for the “cause”. Violence of any kind is the result of moral bankruptcy.

The 11^th Century Crusaders shouted “God wills it” as they attacked Arab fortifications – the current 21^st Century Muslim Jihadist shouts, “It is the will of Allah” as he detonates a bomb!

So what is new?

Did you know that about the year 960 AD the Arabs were performing successful cataract operations with sharpened fish bones; that their knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, agronomy and science in general was centuries ahead of the “West”? Similarly with their manufacturing skills and philosophical understanding – they were way ahead of us “Westies”.

At this same time in history Christian clerics where arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin (I kid you not)!!

At this time in history (the 10^th Century) the favoured  “Western” form of justice was a trial by ordeal – a brutal and crude judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined by subjecting them to an unpleasant, usually dangerous experiences. In some cases, the accused were considered innocent only if they survive the test or if their injuries healed.  At that period of history the Arabs had a complete legal system and while we might not agree with all aspects of the way it is interpreted and applied, it is still operating today.

Laws and institutions have to adapt with the developments in our understanding. As we become more enlightened in our thinking, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change according to circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.  To do otherwise is to condemn our “civilised” society to remain forever under the regimen of our (possibly) less enlightened ancestors.  Fundamentalists, with their avowed intention to “go back to basics” and apply religious dogma according to a strict, literal, interpretation of the written word are a road block to this progress. This is possibly what has happened in the recent history of the Arabs and Islam and the Catholic Church.

There is also the fact that human activity will always – over a period of time – revert to the mean. By this I suggest that the swings from extreme left wing political views to extreme right wing political views will, over time, become more moderate and revert to the centre.

Over time the same will happen with any human activity. Corrupt authorities will give way to extreme puritanical regimes, which will in turn, over a period of years, change to a less extreme and more tolerant form of governance. But without a revolution (the Arab Spring?) or enlightened leadership this will take generations.

Rigid thought patterns and fundamentalism is the same however it is practiced. Really there is no difference – human nature is, after all, human  nature!!

(I am indebted to the author Jonathon Lyons  and his interesting book entitled  “The House of Wisdom” – subtitled ‘how the Arabs transformed Western Civilization’  which vastly increased my knowledge on this subject.)