Evil is the absence of good... Really?

A source in 1528 stated - 'For the one rotton apple lytell and lytell putrifieth an wholeheap'

Sometime in the 1940's this phrase became 'One rotten apple can spoil the barrel'.

It's an interesting phrase with depth never quite understood by logic - rationally speaking the majority of anything always takes the lead. If nine people voted yes at an ellection and one voted no, the candidate with the majority vote would win, and it would be a landslide victory with a 90% majority.

However if nine apples are in good condition, and one is spoiled... the spoiled one will slowly rot the others.

A reasonable question is why don't the good apples influence the bad one? There are nine of them and there is only one of it...

Well, the rotton apple has something the good ones do not - it used to be good. You see, apples don't grow rotton - they are good until something happens to them - whether that is an environmental factor, an insect or human it needn't matter, the point is, something caused them to change from being 'good' to 'rotten' apples.

So is it possible that the same theory applies to good and evil? St Augustine famously quotes 'For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?' but is it the absence of good that causes evil or is good a stage that leads to evil?

Assuming evil occurs when good becomes influenced by fear - a perfectly good person can become evil due to envy, jealousy competition etc (fear of replacement)... this is natural, and it complies with laws of individualistic survival - becoming evil and scheming can and has in many cases been an excellent way to get rid of a potential threat. But is being good (when evil is, theoretically speaking a stronger instinct) a natural act?

Is it as natural to become good after being evil as it is to become evil after having been good?

Fear

Despite your admirable efforts 2015, I am determined to get a long with you.

I can’t believe its April already, seriously – How?

My wireless internet has been down for the past couple of weeks so amidst researching the history of Sudan on my phone (very tedious) I somehow ended up taking the ‘Richard Step’ personality test to find out what my strengths and weaknesses are.

Honestly, I have no idea how I ended up taking a personality test – I mean of all the things I could have stumbled across. Anyway, this test was actually quite useful but it reminded me of something incredible that happened a couple of days ago.

A very close friend of mine whatsapped me (yes, that is a new term) a link to watch a program on YouTube. The program (usually hilarious) is hosted by a cocktail of women from different backgrounds – but they all share a quality, they are all Americans of an ethnic minority.  

During this particular clip the ladies were asked what their biggest fear in life was/is and as usual they took it in turns to express their fears. One of the hosts however expressed a fear so deep that it managed to make me rethink some of my ideas.

This particular host is married but decided along with her husband that she would never have children. Their decision, often disputed on the show (due to the husband having a change of heart) is something she refers to as her right to be selfish ‘I am a selfish person and I enjoy travelling and being care free’.

During this episode, the host – Jeannie, expressed her fear of one day not being able to provide for her family… The root of her fear was once seeing her father scramble through their trash for food late at night when he thought his wife and children were sleeping.

‘He never ate with us, he always said he wasn’t hungry and had a heavy lunch’ – she stumbled while speaking. Her father cared for them so much, that he would work on an empty stomach and then spend his money on his children and wife before himself.  

The effect that this had on Jeannie was positive to some extent, she became an excessive hard worker and was determined in her life to never let her parents work again… But it also had a negative effect, one that I would never have guessed until her co-host asked her about it.

The trauma that came with finding out that her father was in actual fact suffering for her wellbeing made Jeannie so afraid of one day becoming like that, and she confessed that that is in fact the real reason behind her choice not to have children.

To say I experienced one of Oprah’s ‘Aha’ moments is probably an understatement – and it made me think. On the surface she blames being ‘selfish’ as being the reason for her not wanting to have children, but in reality it is the contrary. She fears so much that she won’t be able to take good care of her children, and equates this with them suffering in life, and due to this irrational fear, she has decided it is better to just not have any children.

But does she realize that this isn’t the same as being selfish?... and is her thought process conscious or subconscious?

I doubt Jeannie is lying when she says ‘I’m selfish’ she probably genuinely believes that she is selfish because to her, the work that needs to be put into having children (which she irrationally overestimates) is not worth having children for – It’s too much effort. 

The childhood trauma caused her to overestimate the responsibility and work that needs to go into having children and therefore she decided (based on this irrational analysis) that she would prevent herself from one of life’s most significant steps – Parenthood.

Which made me think, what are my biggest fears? Do I have 'fears' that are stopping aspects of my life which I would otherwise be enjoying? 

Developing a deep rooted fear during childhood is dangerous because you never rationalize it, at that age you simply don't have the mechanism to, and also, you probably would be too ashamed or embarrassed to talk to anyone about it because you somehow always blame yourself which allows it to grow with you and become buried deeper and deeper within you...

Thinking about your fears can reveal a lot about a person... But the question is, how do we access them? 

Social Media doesn't make us 'Anti-social'

The other day I was sitting at a hospital waiting room when I realized that I'd forgotten my phone.

It was time to face reality...

I could not pretend to be busy today.

I had to find something to look at without looking awkward...

I tried the ceiling, floors, the doors any lifeless object I could see but I found that looking at it for longer than a couple of minutes was extremely difficult - and people passing by those objects thought I was staring at them which made them look at me which then resulted in me looking back at them and confirming that I was in fact staring at them. (Even though I totally wasn't)

The problem with looking at someone is that it immediately makes one of you suspicious. You get the 'Why are you looking at me' stare-back (you are suspicious) or the 'Oh my god am I doing something wrong' stare back (they feel suspected)

I decided to do the only thing possible for me to avoid looking at anyone or anything - I got up, bought some coffee and drank and looked at my cup.

And then it hit me, if I had my phone, what would I be doing?

Probably one of these:

Instagram - looking at photos that mean something to people (90% of which depict their lives)
Facebook - looking at photos that mean something to people I knew (90% of which depict their lives)
Google+ - Reading stranger's ideas and making conversations
Twitter - Absorbing news/opinions of complete strangers
LinkedIn - Looking for creative talents who are where I want to be in life and reading about them

So I'm perfectly happy to look at strangers and their work, opinions even photos online... But when it's in real life, somehow it's strange and weird? The truth is many of us are like this.

But why is this? The other day a friend of mine introduced me to a friend of his. You see, this friend of his knew exactly who I was, I had received a notification from Linkedin that she had viewed my profile (therefore saw a photo of me and knows what I do) - the friend who introduced us had also previously told me that she had commented on my appearance once because I resembled a friend that she used to have.

Yet, during our 'formal introduction' she acted so surprised - as if she had never before set eyes on me. She smiled and greeted me warmly and although she knew exactly who I was before; it wasn't until this meeting that now there has become a social obligation for us to greet each other the next time we met.

That is the key difference between social media socializing and real life socializing.

In social media, if you both see each other, there are many factors that make you unlikely to greet each other - such as one of you might look up the other at 10am and the other starts looking at 6pm - or on a different day, or never.

Which means that neither of you is sure that the other is aware of you. Whereas in real life, you know if someone saw you and smiled or not.

There are many times when a group of people would be sitting together and suddenly they all fall silent and turn to their phones - I think this is because social media allows us to select exactly who we would like to socialize with at any given point. We are no longer obliged to talk to the person who is there - we can choose from a much wider spectrum of people, even those who are in different countries.

I would say that social media simply doesn't make us anti-social, it makes us selectively social which by all means reduces our social etiquette, not our social skills.

Hospital Visits and 'Lom' Culture

When I was younger I used to really love being sick.

It was the best thing that could possibly happen because it meant no school, no homework, never being punished for doing anything wrong and also - everyone had to be nice to me, especially my siblings.

My mother used to glare at anyone who came near me or did something that may potentially stress me out or upset me (even if it was my sister asking for her hairbrush back which I had taken without asking) To my mother, this simply was not the time for that and my sister was being selfish.

(Score!)

Also, my father would shower me with sweets and anything I asked for...

It's no wonder being sick as a child was always perceived by us as 'something really good' I remember actively staying next to my brother for a couple of days to catch his chest infection so that I too could enjoy the royal treatment. I even asked him to cough in my face a couple of times!

But the more I grow the more serious sickness becomes. As children any serious sickness in the family was probably concealed by my parents so that  we wouldn't be affected by it. But now, sickness visits friends, family and very close loved ones and to say it shakes your core is an understatement.

The other day I was in a hospital visiting someone - in Sudan it is a social obligation to visit someone if they are sick, when they get better, if they got married, have a son/daughter who got married, had a baby (the list is endless) and not doing so can result in the ending of friendships or even worse, family divisions due to a concept known as 'Lom' which translates to 'To Blame'.

Incorporating a visiting system within the culture although thoughtful and sweet (when done out of intention and not obligation) is extremely exhausting for the recovering patient who sees (and must greet) almost 100 people in the space of 3 hours. The patient needs to rest, however some visitors have driven for as long as four hours just to see the patient, and therefore it is considered ill mannered not to greet them.

If the visitor does not visit, they are perceived negatively by the society, and if the patient gets too many visitors it can be a threat to their recovery as it drastically reduces their sleep time.

So technically it's a lose-lose situation!

Is it possible for a middle ground to be met here? Will highlighting that neither side is happy cause a social revolution?

I think it's worth a try...

The 'Good Girl Complex' In Sudan

Interestingly enough I decided to become a better listener.

I read an article about the importance of listening and how most of us only 'listen' to hear when the person we are communicating with will stop talking so that we may speak. The article explained that this is not listening, and actually, listening is a skill - some people are born with it while others need to learn it.

Although I had come across this idea before, something in the way that this article was worded got through to me - so I decided to learn how to listen.

 I learned that listening includes but isn't limited to audio hearing - it includes watching, thinking and analyzing and most importantly, it involves never giving your opinion as this may mislead the speakers trail of thought.

Thanks to my new skill I have come up with a new theory about Sudanese culture - The Good Girl Complex.

I have grown fascinated by the deep rooted misogyny of this culture and their use of religious text to enforce it. My greatest challenge to date has been accepting that the misogyny is not only preached and practiced by men (which although unfair would seem rational) It's the very fact that women seem to enforce it too - even though this goes against their benefit. You would think that they would be wise enough to realize that at the very root of their practices lies the reinforcement of a system that will never approve their rights to freedom - the same rights boasted by men in the very same culture... However after careful consideration and some 'listening', I realized my own ethnocentric bias... these women may be through my eyes unaware and limited, but through their own they are happy and content.

In this culture roles are very important, men have a role and women have a role and these become more apparent as children become teenagers. Females are expected to participate in chores and give drinks and tea to guests whereas males are expected to drive, grocery shop and carry luggage or even leave their rooms to sleep on the floor in a random part of the house if a guest is over.

This distribution leans towards making men protectors and women protected - and the bias comes to play when exploring other aspects of human behavior such as the need for curiosity. When young, children are allowed to play freely, but the older they get the more restrictive the culture becomes for women and the more open it is for men.

A typical good girl in Sudan would abstain from smoking cigarettes, shisha, taking drugs, drinking alcohol or having extramarital activities. If she is ever caught participating in any of these (particularly the latter) she is very likely to be ostracized from her community and her family however a boy can enjoy these freedoms as long as he keeps it secret, and even if the secret is exposed, if he simply decides to 'change' or 'grow up' he is accepted no doubt. The reasons for this are still unclear to me however the 'good girl complex' is a school of thought that reinforces this ideology.

Although there are many girls and women who abstain from all of the things listed above, unless they live under a rock, they know what these things are or they know their effect or consequences - yet the culture demands they pretend that they don't.

When a conversation came up about the effects of alcohol the other day from a Sudanese male who drinks and was complaining from a hangover, a female immediately pretended she did not know anything about alcohol or it's effects or even what a hangover was. He immediately branded her a good girl and she followed through with the innocent act.

I stayed very quiet, knowing very well that this particular girl's father was a heavy drinker and she knew very well what a hangover was. I also know that she has never drank in her life and so was curious why she would take such a stance when she has nothing to feel guilty about...

And then it hit me - the fact that she needs to pretend that she doesn't know anything, reinforces the idea that women need to be 'protected' from curiosity. The outcome of women becoming curious is unknown in this culture and therefore the culture collectively fears it.

The men in this culture are under a delusion that women only abstain from things if they are completely unaware of them and therefore they restrict female curiosity from very early on in life - women understand this and feed it by pretending they don't know, to reassure the man - and so we have 'The Good Girl Complex'

It's interesting to say the least.

Are Mixed People Better?

Me: Sis, what do you think life would have been like if we were half English?

Sister: *Doesn't even hesitate* - dunno, we would probably just have been even more confused.

Would we have been?

Everyone knows that being mixed is combining two separate races - genetically you would be stronger than both your parents, with stronger in this context meaning healthier and more able to survive as an offspring. You are genetically from two separate geographical locations, and most of the time, you are more attractive than both of those races and well equipped to deal with both the climates of your parents.

But what is it really like to live not belonging to either race? Or what is it like to belong to two races and look like neither?

I am fully North Sudanese which to most people is considered an oxymoron. Being 'Fully North Sudanese' is like saying I'm 'Fully Arab and African mixed' but because the mixture occurred such a long time ago and there are so many of us it's just silly to say we are mixed. However that's not to say that Sudanese from all over Sudan are not aware of this mixture.

Being raised in the UK played a huge role in my personality formation no doubt, I feel it everyday when I am in Sudan, I know that I am different and so does everyone else but that's more the effects of 'mixed culture' than 'mixed race' and I will post about that at some point - but for now let's keep it about race.

In Sudan people are aware that they are Arab and African - however many shy away from identifying themselves as African. Our names are Arabic and our culture has morphed to suit Arab values and beliefs and embedded within Arab beliefs is 'misogyny' - therefore you find that those with Male Arab ancestors identify themselves more Arab than they do African whereas those whose mother is Arab identify themselves as African.

It's interesting to say the least and at first sight seems harmless, but as I searched deeper I realized that there was much more to this self attributed separatism than just differences in geographical regions. With any mixed child we realize the difference between one race and the other - although your parents might not come from this school of thought, a large portion of the world still attributes one race to be in some way superior to the other. In Sudan Arabs are considered superior to Africans - a prime example of how this is portrayed in the culture is demonstrated by the beauty standards and marriage norms.

A beautiful women is 'White, and has long straight soft hair'. By 'White' they mean of light skinned olive complexion (ranges from Rihanna's to Kim Kardashian's tone) - this standard is more suitable when describing an Arab woman from the UAE or Kuwait - not a Sudanese women who is born with brown short hair of curly/rough texture and a chocolate complexion.

Also,  when an 'Arab' Sudanese wishes to marry, they are faced with great family/societal difficulties if their chosen spouse is more African than Arab - Now, this is where the confusion kicks in.

Aren't we a mixture of Arab and African? So why is it a problem in society for us to re-mix? What on earth has made these people not able to see their African heritage when they look in the mirror? And why do they shy away from it?

What I find interesting is that Sudanese people who were raised in Western society tend to feel more comfortable identifying themselves as black more-so than Arab - whereas the ones raised in Sudan or the Middle East tend to identify themselves as Arabs. It's very interesting to me why the need to choose sides is prevalent.

Perhaps it's time for a dual identity? I am very comfortable being both - and on top of that, I enjoy that I have a mixed personality and some conflicting beliefs. I think that being from both races, and both schools of thought (western and eastern) I am able to identify complexes within both cultures/races without needing to prove one wrong or pick a side because I truly am both.

As dark as my complexion is, I am still Arab.

As light as my complexion is, I am still African.


      

Why are Muslim Men and Women Segregated?

First of all I would like to express my deepest respect for any mother out  there. I did not realise how difficult it is to spend 24 hours with a toddler. Let alone do this daily! Hats off to all mothers.

It seems bizarre to me why this occurs. All Muslims believe the concept of 'Hijab'. Hijab is modesty and covering - they vary however in their interpretation of how to portray the hijab. 

Some believe it to be a headscarf accompanied by long  clothing. Others believe the clothing must be loose. Some believe women have to cover their faces too while others believe hijab is a symbolic act and not a garment and therefore it is about your behavior.            

      

Men too have hijab however little disagree on what a man's hijab is so for the purpose of keeping this short I won't go into specific details about male hijab but if you'd like more info I'm more than happy to discuss it in the future.

Considering that the whole point of the hijab whether it be behavioral or dress-able or both,  is, to allow men and women to mix freely - why is it that they often don't?

I noticed this more-so during dining parties and funeral dinners - when male guests arrive the women are immediately partitioned, even though they are often dressed according to the dress code ideology of hijab which is considered the most risk free interpretation for most Muslims.   

So what's the point in making women cover in the first place if mixing is not allowed to occur anyway?

Surely the purpose of the 'hijab' in whatever context one takes it, is to allow men and women to mix without there being any discomfort to the man or the women due to undesired harassment, so if segregation must occur, what is the point in the hijab in the first place?

Is segregation an Islamic or an Arabian concept?