I get really tired when I read the news, listen to the news, watch the news, listen to people around me, talk to my own sons, listen to myself, seriously contemplate my own behavior of the blame game. People generally do not want to accept responsibility for their own actions. I have argued that this lack of personal responsibility is why citizens of the U.S. are willing to give up so much liberty, since liberty demands a high level of personal responsibility. Liberty demands personal accountability for your own actions, whether those actions be for your own economic/physical/social good or in the fulfilling of duties undertaken on behalf of others in your community/state/nation/country/world.
Why am I rambling about responsibility and blame games today, because I read an article in the AP last night about China accusing the Dalai Lama of inciting self-immolations among Tibetans. I kept a running tally in past years of Tibetan self-immolations, until it became too emotionally deflating for me to continue (according to the latest numbers we are talking about over 135 men and women killing themselves to protest Chinese occupation/governance of Tibet since 2011).
Self-immolation is first and foremost to be ascribed to the person who chose to take their own life in protest of some personally perceived problem in their life (in this case the sociopolitical problem of PRC governance in Tibet). The person made a choice to douse themselves in an accelerant, start a flame, and place the flame to the accelerant on their own person. Such an action may elicit pity/sympathy/fright/anitpathy/anger on the part of others depending upon how others see the justifiability of the action based on what reason is known to have led the individual to self-immolate. Secondary ascription goes to those people responsible for the socialization of the individual who self-immolated. Who and what causes a person to ascribe to a certain sociopolitical view (family, friends, religious guides, educators, etc.) carries responsibility to the extent that humans do not grow up in a vacuum, we are the products of the social setting in which we live (thus the very different views regarding the same issue held by people who live/have lived in different physcial and social settings). Personal responsibility means accepting responsibility, for instance, for what I require students to read, how I teach students to analyze information, how I demonstrate analysis through lectures, etc. Under this secondary ascription of responsibility, the family and religious leadership have greater responsibility in democratic settings and the state and education have greater responsibility in autocratic settings. Secondary responsibility in the Tibetan case absolutely requires looking at the government and at the family and religious teachings. Again, I really dislike blame games and still place the greatest responsibility for the choice on the person making the choice, even when I am sympathetic to the reasoning that led the person to the choice.
For my two cents, the PRC government representative who says that the Dalai Lama is responsible for Tibetans choosing to self-immolate is cheapening the personal decision of the immolating person. The Tibetan who self-immolates made a choice, we should honor that choice post-event, whether agreeing with the choice or not agreeing. By taking the choice out of the hands of the person and ascribing it to another source, the PRC's government representative is actually denigrating the human right to choose our own course of action. Of course, we might ask, what do you expect from an authoritarian government?
Why am I rambling about responsibility and blame games today, because I read an article in the AP last night about China accusing the Dalai Lama of inciting self-immolations among Tibetans. I kept a running tally in past years of Tibetan self-immolations, until it became too emotionally deflating for me to continue (according to the latest numbers we are talking about over 135 men and women killing themselves to protest Chinese occupation/governance of Tibet since 2011).
Self-immolation is first and foremost to be ascribed to the person who chose to take their own life in protest of some personally perceived problem in their life (in this case the sociopolitical problem of PRC governance in Tibet). The person made a choice to douse themselves in an accelerant, start a flame, and place the flame to the accelerant on their own person. Such an action may elicit pity/sympathy/fright/anitpathy/anger on the part of others depending upon how others see the justifiability of the action based on what reason is known to have led the individual to self-immolate. Secondary ascription goes to those people responsible for the socialization of the individual who self-immolated. Who and what causes a person to ascribe to a certain sociopolitical view (family, friends, religious guides, educators, etc.) carries responsibility to the extent that humans do not grow up in a vacuum, we are the products of the social setting in which we live (thus the very different views regarding the same issue held by people who live/have lived in different physcial and social settings). Personal responsibility means accepting responsibility, for instance, for what I require students to read, how I teach students to analyze information, how I demonstrate analysis through lectures, etc. Under this secondary ascription of responsibility, the family and religious leadership have greater responsibility in democratic settings and the state and education have greater responsibility in autocratic settings. Secondary responsibility in the Tibetan case absolutely requires looking at the government and at the family and religious teachings. Again, I really dislike blame games and still place the greatest responsibility for the choice on the person making the choice, even when I am sympathetic to the reasoning that led the person to the choice.
For my two cents, the PRC government representative who says that the Dalai Lama is responsible for Tibetans choosing to self-immolate is cheapening the personal decision of the immolating person. The Tibetan who self-immolates made a choice, we should honor that choice post-event, whether agreeing with the choice or not agreeing. By taking the choice out of the hands of the person and ascribing it to another source, the PRC's government representative is actually denigrating the human right to choose our own course of action. Of course, we might ask, what do you expect from an authoritarian government?
No comments:
Post a Comment