K.I.T. said - "I am of the Each One Teach One mindset..."Yep. I agree with that - but let's make it two.
I know it doesn't flow as well - but how about, "Hey you, teach two"?
By teaching one, the line remains flat.
By teaching two (over time) the line becomes more and more steep until there is no need for the line to exist at all.
Maybe we've been approaching this whole thing in the wrong way.
One is too few
and more is overwhelming.
We wouldn't see the results of our redoubled efforts,
but we would pass down an inheritance to our children's children.
9 comments:
John, what's up with taking my Each One, Teach One comment out of context from your 11-17-2009 post, Treading Water?
You didn't need to do this to make your current post good or interesting, nor was it fair to me. In your Treading Water post, you said and asked, "Poverty and oppression are problems that will never be solved. If this is the case, Why even try?"
Each one, teach one, as a motto to live by is all about a starting point, free for any individual to take, and the subsequent rippling effect, and it was in response to your earlier, gloomy theme. My comment response there answered that question as well as satisfied the Logistic Model you promote in this post - which is a snapshot of the Ripple Effect when that motto, as a way of life, mitigates some of the poverty and oppression humanity has always been plagued with.
What I specifically commented in Treading Water was:
"I am of the Each One, Teach One mindset, and seen improved lifestyle with many people as a result. I've seen self-help groups save many a lost soul, and some programs work well in uplifting some of the people who wanted help as much as they needed it.
I was also rescued at least once in my life when I was young and in my darkest hour, by a woman therapist from the Holocaust who herself was rescued. And since that time, I have returned the favor, not her, but to a multitude of people I served.
You are correct about poverty and other social ills being with humanity always. While some people are innately trifling, most want a better life, but as history shows us, many (not all) who hold the money strings are too blind to see they can profit from this, from a cleaner, safer environment to intact families and low crime communities, making life more pleasant for all.
This is where the battle of Good vs. Evil comes into play, in real life and the video story themes. To do nothing is to let Evil win."
problem is not lack of "one" teaching another, its whats being taught.
pop culture is a prolific teacher.
It will take more than one teaching two... maybe one teaching 20, to overcome mass marketing.
We just have to change the model. So far it's very focused on individual results instead of mass results. It's about changing the kids that come in instead of changing the community they live in. It's about pulling that 1 bright kid and elevating him from his circumstances instead of concentrating on one school and changing the whole neighborhood.
It's religiously noble to go after the lost sheep but the shepherd's job is to steer the herd!
Hey FreeMAn, how very Geoffrey Canada of you.
@ KIT - I understood the concept of your comment and of it being a starting point.
I was just pointing out that "I" often make the mistake of helping too few or trying to help too many,
and that neither seems to work for me.
The Logistic Model was used to illustrate our current situation (of not seeing measurable results in our lifetimes), but that future generations will benefit from the choices we make today.
I was AGREEING with you but pointing out "MY" mistakes.
@Brohammas - I don't know to take that as a compliment or look for a ulterior motive. I'll look to the bright side how about that?
There is always a lot of blame on the individual when it's obvious the environment is so toxic that to start any change on the individual level is fools gold. For every 1 you save 20 go without. Somehow education and prosperity has turned into a triage and people are taking pride in saving the ones that could be saved in a while overall losing the battle and potentially the war.
I'm with that! Teach as many as we can. Save all who are willing to be saved although we desire to save everybody!
Thanks for the clarification, John, and by the way, I don't care if people disagree with me, I expect it. However, it seemed taken out of context since my point had been for the individual to start with one person, which is easiest since most people don't have the resources to begin with a group, start a program, or change a policy.
And Freeman is right about saving one but others still go without. You can't save them all, but at least it matters to the ones you do, and often they in turn save others who save others - and the Ripple Effect comes into play.
Apologies if I misunderstood you or came across as oversensitive, particularly since we're all working toward the same goal or we wouldn't be doing what we do.
Indeed teach as many as you are able to. If it's two, good deal. If it's more, even better. To often we teach too few or on the opposite side of the spectrum, too many. In the end we benefit none. It's the simple concepts that go a long way.
Post a Comment