Tweet
Can family save the nation?
Barbara Gloudon
Friday, May 11, 2007
"I draw on the concept of family to speak about Jamaica, land we love. My point of reference is not the distortions but exemplary family life."
- Prime Minister Simpson Miller
Barbara Gloudon
I'M ALMOST SURE that the foregoing, from the prime minister's recent budget speech, was missed by some people. If it wasn't, then we should ask why it has received little or no notice, no public reaction. but is the times, as we say.
It has been the practice of national leaders at certain junctures of history to come up with some rallying cry, some idealistic turn of phrase, to catch people's attention, hopefully to move them along the road of nationhood.
Perhaps the most famous in contemporary times is John F Kennedy's: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." These days though, quotes don't cut it so much anymore.
A simpler reason as to why there has been so little comment on Mrs Simpson Miller's vision of the nation as a well-regulated family, may be that the budget speech was so heavily laden with so many items that the "family thing" just got lost along the way. However, it bears considering, if only because we could well do with some symbol of common interest in a time of division, and we're well into that now.
The prime minister alludes to "exemplary family life".
That in itself poses a challenge. What is "exemplary" to you might not be "exemplary" to me. The classic picture of the family of other times showed a father, a mother, not too many children, living in neat surroundings, ordering their business in an atmosphere of harmony and togetherness. The trouble though is that in real, contemporary life, "it nuh go so".
Sit in on any family life study group and you will hear the constant moaning about the missing father, his role in the plight of the family. A popular rationale is that the missing dad is just playing out his inherited role from slavery, when his ancestors procreated to bring strong pickney to work for Backra. Well, Backra time done and gone and so should such backwardness. Unfortunately, its banishment alone will not solve the problem of the missing father. Other strategies have to be found.
More, much more, could be made of an association like the Kingston-based organisation, Fathers Inc, for instance, which has committed itself to encouraging and empowering men, young men especially, to equipping themselves for the fatherhood role. Father's Inc insists that we're selling young fathers short by concentrating on their failings rather than their accomplishments. Many of them are more responsible than we wish to believe, they say, and they challenge us to look at the evidence. I happen to believe also that another group of men - Rastafarians - also need recognition for the special care they give to their children, an act which is not widely acknowledged.
An authority like Prof Barry Chevannes (of Fathers Inc) reminds us that we must also take into account the men who fall into no special category but commit themselves to taking responsibility for the children whom they sired and the women who bore them. Overall, however, we still maintain the stereotype that too many Jamaican men "wutliss" when it comes to involvement with their children. Not true, say the good men. Maybe we need to listen and learn to recognise the difference between man and "man-to" (nearly - most man).
ON SUNDAY, we will celebrate mothers. Leaving aside the cynical view that Mother's Day is just another opportunity for merchandising (that cannot be denied), there's nothing wrong with pausing to acknowledge the contribution of the women who mothered the nation. They deserve the little bit of "something special" if even for one day, for we and they know that when the party is over, it is back to reality and that is a minefield of its own.
Messages concerned with responsible procreation have been given time and time again, yet the challenges continue. Nobody ever said it would be easy, but it would be heartening if we could only see some signs that people are listening, especially younger women who have no excuse for repeating their mothers' mistakes.
POOR PARENTING is another widely recognised contributory factor to indiscipline in schools and the wider society. Only a few days ago former Prime Minister Edward Seaga stepped back into the spotlight to declare that it might have been better to have used the funds allocated to advertising Cricket World Cup for an educational campaign to promote proper parenting instead. I don't know if we needed to have one without the other, but the observation provides grist for the mill.
In the ideal situation for which Prime Minister Simpson Miller is hoping, it shouldn't have to wait on a public relations campaign to convince parents that they should do the right thing. Anybody with an ounce of sense can see for themselves. The centres of authority are nowhere near where they used to be. Grandma and Grandpa "outta road" same like the younger generation. With mother and father away from home too, there's little time left for parenting. Children are trying to make it on their own. How can we blame them when they mess up?
Mrs Simpson Miller told Parliament: "Whatever the context, the positive family experience is about home, a sense of belonging, caring, sharing resources, unity, loyalty - all for one and one for all - security, strength and trust."
It is those qualities of the ideal family that she would wish to see transferred to the nation. Too idealistic? Too sweety-sweety? A colleague of mine with whom I exchange ideas (actually, sometimes it is more of a heated exchange) says he is not impressed. He states that he would take Mrs Simpson Miller more seriously if she had announced compulsory education, starting with the primary level and he wants to hear about the banishment of pit toilets from the yards of basic schools. Until then, he's not prepared to buy into the Ideal Family Treatise. We argued long.
I was intrigued to hear him admit that when he raised the subject with younger colleagues, they were pleased with what the prime minister said. They like the message. Hope for the future? My colleague was not prepared to give in. What about the quote, "One family, with all eyes fixed on the prize of a country which works for all Jamaicans"? That was in the speech too. My friend's hard heart did not melt.
Yet, I believe he knows what's at stake. He - and I - are old enough to realise that if we can't find a way to live together, we're going to perish together. If not Mrs Simpson Miller. then somebody else has to rally us to find a better way. if we won't find it for ourselves. A functional family would be as good a model as any.
DIFFERENT STROKES: Is it only me or did anyone else notice three headlines almost side by side in yesterday's OBSERVER? One said: "Bush praises Haiti for progress". Across the fold, "Haitian migrants say deadly capsize not accident". Not too far removed "US to build centre for fleeing Cubans when Castro dies". You know what jackass say about "world nuh lebel" (level)?
gloudonb@yahoo.com
Barbara Gloudon
Friday, May 11, 2007
"I draw on the concept of family to speak about Jamaica, land we love. My point of reference is not the distortions but exemplary family life."
- Prime Minister Simpson Miller
Barbara Gloudon I'M ALMOST SURE that the foregoing, from the prime minister's recent budget speech, was missed by some people. If it wasn't, then we should ask why it has received little or no notice, no public reaction. but is the times, as we say.
It has been the practice of national leaders at certain junctures of history to come up with some rallying cry, some idealistic turn of phrase, to catch people's attention, hopefully to move them along the road of nationhood.
Perhaps the most famous in contemporary times is John F Kennedy's: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." These days though, quotes don't cut it so much anymore.
A simpler reason as to why there has been so little comment on Mrs Simpson Miller's vision of the nation as a well-regulated family, may be that the budget speech was so heavily laden with so many items that the "family thing" just got lost along the way. However, it bears considering, if only because we could well do with some symbol of common interest in a time of division, and we're well into that now.
The prime minister alludes to "exemplary family life".
That in itself poses a challenge. What is "exemplary" to you might not be "exemplary" to me. The classic picture of the family of other times showed a father, a mother, not too many children, living in neat surroundings, ordering their business in an atmosphere of harmony and togetherness. The trouble though is that in real, contemporary life, "it nuh go so".
Sit in on any family life study group and you will hear the constant moaning about the missing father, his role in the plight of the family. A popular rationale is that the missing dad is just playing out his inherited role from slavery, when his ancestors procreated to bring strong pickney to work for Backra. Well, Backra time done and gone and so should such backwardness. Unfortunately, its banishment alone will not solve the problem of the missing father. Other strategies have to be found.
More, much more, could be made of an association like the Kingston-based organisation, Fathers Inc, for instance, which has committed itself to encouraging and empowering men, young men especially, to equipping themselves for the fatherhood role. Father's Inc insists that we're selling young fathers short by concentrating on their failings rather than their accomplishments. Many of them are more responsible than we wish to believe, they say, and they challenge us to look at the evidence. I happen to believe also that another group of men - Rastafarians - also need recognition for the special care they give to their children, an act which is not widely acknowledged.
An authority like Prof Barry Chevannes (of Fathers Inc) reminds us that we must also take into account the men who fall into no special category but commit themselves to taking responsibility for the children whom they sired and the women who bore them. Overall, however, we still maintain the stereotype that too many Jamaican men "wutliss" when it comes to involvement with their children. Not true, say the good men. Maybe we need to listen and learn to recognise the difference between man and "man-to" (nearly - most man).
ON SUNDAY, we will celebrate mothers. Leaving aside the cynical view that Mother's Day is just another opportunity for merchandising (that cannot be denied), there's nothing wrong with pausing to acknowledge the contribution of the women who mothered the nation. They deserve the little bit of "something special" if even for one day, for we and they know that when the party is over, it is back to reality and that is a minefield of its own.
Messages concerned with responsible procreation have been given time and time again, yet the challenges continue. Nobody ever said it would be easy, but it would be heartening if we could only see some signs that people are listening, especially younger women who have no excuse for repeating their mothers' mistakes.
POOR PARENTING is another widely recognised contributory factor to indiscipline in schools and the wider society. Only a few days ago former Prime Minister Edward Seaga stepped back into the spotlight to declare that it might have been better to have used the funds allocated to advertising Cricket World Cup for an educational campaign to promote proper parenting instead. I don't know if we needed to have one without the other, but the observation provides grist for the mill.
In the ideal situation for which Prime Minister Simpson Miller is hoping, it shouldn't have to wait on a public relations campaign to convince parents that they should do the right thing. Anybody with an ounce of sense can see for themselves. The centres of authority are nowhere near where they used to be. Grandma and Grandpa "outta road" same like the younger generation. With mother and father away from home too, there's little time left for parenting. Children are trying to make it on their own. How can we blame them when they mess up?
Mrs Simpson Miller told Parliament: "Whatever the context, the positive family experience is about home, a sense of belonging, caring, sharing resources, unity, loyalty - all for one and one for all - security, strength and trust."
It is those qualities of the ideal family that she would wish to see transferred to the nation. Too idealistic? Too sweety-sweety? A colleague of mine with whom I exchange ideas (actually, sometimes it is more of a heated exchange) says he is not impressed. He states that he would take Mrs Simpson Miller more seriously if she had announced compulsory education, starting with the primary level and he wants to hear about the banishment of pit toilets from the yards of basic schools. Until then, he's not prepared to buy into the Ideal Family Treatise. We argued long.
I was intrigued to hear him admit that when he raised the subject with younger colleagues, they were pleased with what the prime minister said. They like the message. Hope for the future? My colleague was not prepared to give in. What about the quote, "One family, with all eyes fixed on the prize of a country which works for all Jamaicans"? That was in the speech too. My friend's hard heart did not melt.
Yet, I believe he knows what's at stake. He - and I - are old enough to realise that if we can't find a way to live together, we're going to perish together. If not Mrs Simpson Miller. then somebody else has to rally us to find a better way. if we won't find it for ourselves. A functional family would be as good a model as any.
DIFFERENT STROKES: Is it only me or did anyone else notice three headlines almost side by side in yesterday's OBSERVER? One said: "Bush praises Haiti for progress". Across the fold, "Haitian migrants say deadly capsize not accident". Not too far removed "US to build centre for fleeing Cubans when Castro dies". You know what jackass say about "world nuh lebel" (level)?
gloudonb@yahoo.com
Comment