ALL WE NEED IS LOVE AND HUMANITY............

Humanity Is Learning To Respect The Rigths Of Anyone Regardless Of Their Social Status

Man has developed well in many aspects but he started forgetting the basic things that are required to survive peacefully........i.e he is forgetting to love his neighbors and he gradually stated decreasing the humanity in him and if this continues, one fine day he will be none other than a well groomed beast. so, wake up my dear friends, let us not become the beast.... come on, let us start loving..........

GLOBAL PEACE MOVEMENT

Developing a new Grass-roots Public Movement

The idea of world peace is not new. Utopian and liberal thinkers have been pondering such issues for a long time, but it is only today that we have the means to achieve them. The globalization phenomenon, rapid changes in the international communications technology, and the drastic expansion of the Internet has provided us a window of opportunity, as never before.

We can, and even do, network for global causes. The primary example is the global environmentalist movement of our own age which happens to be a remarkable movement in its own right. But the global peace movement has not yet caught up to its potential. Given the necessary scope of global citizen action, how can it achieve peace? This brings us to the perplexing question of what is fundamentally required to bring it about.

There are many reasons for the turmoil in our age, with feelings of alienation the foremost passion fueling this violence. A fundamental shift in the world at large would be needed to achieve world peace. We must change ourselves in drastic ways for that to happen. We must all recognize that the greatest sentiment fueling the extremist phenomenon is alienation with modernity, crass materialism.

A powerful sense of injustice, which includes social injustice also, is fueling resentment against Western culture and civilization, especially in the Muslim world and other parts of the developing world. The Muslim world is in a crisis of unimaginable proportions. Corruption, injustice, misrule, and lack of visionary leadership are wreaking havoc on these societies, and things are not that much better in other Asian, African, and Latin American societies. Capitalism and western hegemony have their downsides, so to speak.

We cannot have world peace without justice for the deprived, the hapless, and the poorest of the poor and the wronged. Here we are talking of politics and not just varieties shades of economic deprivation. In the Islamic world present injustices are breeding resentment, alienation, frustration and radicalism. In some societies, like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia, and Bangladesh all of the above are now present. However, the glaring issue for Muslims is political. Their political perceptions are what primarily fuel radicalism in a way that history has never witnessed before.

The globalization phenomenon is making it easier for radicalism to spread all over the world. Muslims, especially the romanticizing youth, are enraged as never before. They resent Western cowardice, duplicity, wrongful deployment of military force and the patronage of callous and corrupt governments ruling over them. The troubles are conveniently exported also as Muslims get politicized on the issues of Muslim helplessness, a lack of institutional mechanisms to voice their protests, and the culpability of their own leadership to Western powers. Muslim political issues have galvanized a strong minority to action and violent protest.

For example, injustices meted to Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, southern Thailand, China, Iraq and erstwhile USSR are the primary causes of Islamic radicalism.

It is a common perception that poverty breeds radicalism. It does not. Injustice does. Therefore, justice is the key to peace.

Perceptions shape reality in complex ways. For example, the West (read United States and NATO) have been spreading vast amounts of treasure, military force, and police action in the Muslim world to stop militancy, yet it is growing at an alarming rate. The Global War on Terror has an undue emphasis on the use of force to the detriment of other available nonviolent options.

There is not much push for solving intractable problems likely to cause anti-Western resentment in Muslim masses. There is an intellectual failure here. The Western powers are missing the forest for the trees. This myopic vision cannot work.

The simple fact is that without tolerance there can be no peace. Peace must first start inside each of us in order for us to create peace in the world. We see a total lack of tolerance towards other belief patterns, ideas and ways of life. It must be considered fundamental that without mutual tolerance there can be no peace.

We also have to network globally to achieve world peace one region at a time, meaning that one must primarily focus on his own region. Action begins most easily here, obviously.
For example, in the greater Middle East peace is indeed problematic.

The question is why. We have been convinced that peace in the Middle East is beyond the governments in power in both the West and the Middle East itself. A very strong public pressure is needed to nudge the world’s political leadership to quick action. Unfortunately, the global peace movement is now largely dormant. Therefore, an attempt has to be made to do something about it.

The people must take it upon themselves to move in a networked fashion, in which thousands of local peace groups are meshed into a global alliance. As a loose network of shared ideas, this does not need a structure, and information is enough. The key is public involvement. Ordinary citizens must resolve to take the matter into their own hands.

First, they have to realize the gravity of the situation. Enough is enough. We need to knock some sense into the minds of the world’s leaders and especially the leadership of the Western world. The public must galvanize and rise to force the elected leadership to change course from needless military action to launch a strong global peace agenda. How, and where, do we begin?

The key is education. There is simply no alternative. The mindset of real politics needs to be changed. Certainly, this is no easy task. But where there is a will there is a way. Ordinary citizens need to rise up and grasp the opportunities that are available today. The cry for action beckons to all of us.

A worldwide education is needed to instill new values based on toleration of others, compassion for others, and foremost we must all begin to believe in humanity. The bane of the dominant modern Western civilization is a new level of selfishness, callousness, indifference and seclusion never seen before. Tragically, this is producing self-denial and ostrich-thinking.

Western civilization cannot be stable, peaceful, and prosperous when its neighbors are living in hell. That cannot, and will not, happen. It is time we all realized the gravity of the situation. Although things are bad in many other parts of the world, it is the Muslim world that needs immediate attention as it is breeding the worst type of radicalism seen anytime in history. Things are bad in the Muslim world. There is no sense in denying it. In other parts of Africa and Latin America, and even Asia, things are not that good either.

We must begin to realize that immediate action is needed. The slogan of the environmental movement, think globally and act locally, is very apt for this situation. Muslim resentment has roots in sentiments of injustice. Let us begin to give justice where it is due. Strong public pressure on state administrations can yet save the day. The key is to network to achieve global peace. This is possible today. Given the infrastructure, we can do it.

Everyone must try to make a contribution in bringing peace in their own region. Another aspect is to change the individual and make him or her more conducive to the peace message. We must shed our garb of progress, and materialism for simplicity, sharing with others, compassion for the weak, and primarily love for all.

Love is the prerequisite of peace.

The essence of the global movement has to be love for humanity.

We must instill new values in our youth that calls for massive retooling of our educational institutions, especially higher education.

It must be considered fundamental that a new beginning can be made. Surely we all wish the world was a better place, but maybe one good heart at a time can change all the bad in the present world.

It is for all the people to act on their beliefs.

There is no other choice.

"Everyone Should Treat People With Respect"

"Because we like to be treated kindly,
We ought to treat people in the same way."
The First Sermon
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Leniency means to be sensitive to the feelings of others, so as to convey your ideas to them in a kind and peaceful way that opens their hearts, and minds, without resorting to any harsh words that might turn them away or even become aggressive.

Similarly, when you deal with others, even within your own family, whether your wife children, or parents, you ought to respect their feelings and be kind to them, for this is the way that makes your ideas enter the mind of the others, and make them emotionally ready to be understanding and compassionate.

As for violence, which in this case might be demonstrated by cursing the other, or the of use harsh words that drives him to feel that you are despising or challenging him, or talking to him in a conceited manner that humiliates him, just because you feel that you are in a position of power...

This idea, the need to be kind in your relations with others, whether at home, at work or in any other social dealing has been asserted in several verses in the Glorious Quran. We read" say to My servants that they speak that which is best". If you want to speak to others say the best worlds word, that unite and not disperse words that endears them and not provoke hatred. Words that takes into consideration the intellectual level of those who are hearing them… Just as you choose the best house, the best clothes and the best food, you have to chose the best words for they are for more significant than food or clothes… They might make you enter in a war or drive you into a contict :surely the Shaitan sows dissensions among them; surely the Shaitan is an open enemy to man.

Goodly exhortation

If you want to engage in a dialogue with others, with whom you are of different religious political and social affiliations them , you should Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way.
Even with the people of the Book, we are commanded to adhere to this method of dialogue, Enemies too should be turned into friends through this manner (_And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! He between whom and you was enmity would be as if he were a warm friend).

But there are those who are not ready to enter in a dialogue with you. They depended on the flexing their muscles in a show of force. That is why Allah has excluded those who are unjust among the People of the Book an asked us to treat them as they treat us {If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you transgress ye likewise against him}. This is also what Allah taught His prophet, Noah, to do when his people made fun of him.

If you ridicule us now we can look down on you with ridicule likewise.

As for those who would have a dialogue with you treat them with good exhortation. For Allah puts everything in its place.

"Nothings Permanent,All We Have Are All Borrowed"

Judge People By What They Can Do,

Not By How They Look!

People in this society like to say "No condition is permanent" - which is a fact. And it implies that the fact that someone is sweeping floors at 11.59pm today in your company today, does not mean s/he cannot be the owner of his/her own successful business the next morning!
Many of us have also heard the saying that "Appearances can be deceptive". I once heard someone say in an American sitcom that "clothes don't make a man". Then there is the dictum "You cannot judge a book by its cover". This last one makes me ask why therefore people who should know better STILL insist on judging others by how they look at a point in time.

This problem persists despite many instances in which the folly of thinking that way has been proven. Some people just refuse to stop judging the ability or competence of others by their looks or appearances.

Society provides us ample evidence as we grow up, to support this NEED for us to always "look below the surface" before drawing conclusions. It reminds us of the need to avoid being superficial in our thinking. Yet, quite frequently, human beings fail (or forget...or refuse!) to take the cue.

In case you wonder how this habit/tendency constitutes a problem, I ask you to consider the possibility that a person(s) fond of judging people by outward appearances are chosen to help select "youthful talents" to represent a particular state in some competitive sporting events.
What is likely to happen is that the initial screening stages would be characterised by random assumptions being made about the abilities of the boys and girls who show up or apply. This could result in non-inclusion of some uniquely talented youngsters whose "looks" or unusual style do not impress the "officials".

Some examples may help here: Historical records tell us that Julius Caesar was an epileptic, yet his name is etched in history till today; Charles Dickens was lame, but that did not stop him from becoming a successful author; Plato was a hunchback, yet today many of us find it apt to quote him on various subjects that he chose to comment on.

Collin Powell started as a floor mopper but is today retired having served in one of the most exalted positions in the American Armed Forces and Government. And then there is the story of Helen (in my opinion "Superwoman") Keller, who was supposed to be multiply handicapped and yet recorded MORE achievements than most "normal" people...The list goes on - underscoring the fact that people can overcome their (seeming) outward limitations to succeed in ways not expected by those who see them.

Maybe I should bring it even closer home. If YOU were asked to pick from a group of ten(10) people, one person who looks like an International athletics champion, would you pick a skinny, frail looking guy with (seemingly) sunken eyes (which incidentally is the typical appearance of many world champion class long distance runners), or would you choose the fierce/aggressive looking guy with rippling muscles(a description befitting most short distance/sprint athletes)? At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I want to say that I am reasonably certain that MANY people would pick someone fitting the latter description!

And yet, in real life, few sports persons in the sprints can boast of having the phenomenal endurance and stamina possessed and displayed during races by long distance runners. To those of us who are uninitiated, they however seldom look the part at first glance. It is only when they demonstrate their innate abilities on the tracks or field that we recognise their genius and THEN begin to believe!

Genius does not show itself on a person's face so that others can see it and then respect or recognise him/her for it. That's why we must NEVER write people off without FIRST (and as often as possible afterward) giving them a FAIR and IMPARTIAL opportunity to SHOW what they can do" - Tayo K. Solagbade

But the problem with this attitude many of us have of wanting to SEE first, without giving the person a chance to SHOW what s/he can do is that since we are often initially unwilling to give them a chance because their "looks" or appearances suggest they CANNOT, the chances of such geniuses getting past a "screening" stage talk less of being allowed to contest for places in the real competition will be VERY slim.

Just as it is with sports, so it is in life. We need to learn to stop using people's outward appearances to JUDGE what they can or cannot do. It would be so much better - for us, those we assess, and the rest of society - if we focus on "teasing" out people's FULL potentials so we can draw accurate assessments of the value they can add to us at any point in time.

Treat people as what they were what they ought to be, and you help them become what they're capable of being" - Johann Von Goethe

Self-Development/Performance Enhancement Specialist - Tayo Solagbade - works as a Multipreneur, helping individuals/businesses develop and implement tools/strategies to achieve their goals, faster and more profitably.

"No to RACISM"

It is natural to see a person with an acid eroded face and to turn away, or to see a crowd of people on the street and to want to find out what is happening. A child who has an overwhelming desire to own, say, a pen, but does not have the money to pay for it and therefore steals it in a shop is acting naturally. He is only acting in accordance with his desires. And what could be more natural than to beat up a person who “makes the moves” on your partner or simply gets on your nerves. Freud declared that the limits set by society and culture cause irritation and discontent. At any rate, all of us have probably at some time experienced the wish to be rid of all tradition, norms, laws and to do what we want regardless of how others will react to it. On the whole, however, we do not submit to the natural tendencies in ourselves. On the contrary, life together with others, with our family, with society forces us to suppress our natural reactions. Otherwise it is simply difficult to get along. Self-control in society is considered an obligation, and although it is not difficult to understand, why, for instance, we want to say something abhorrent to a person who has publicly criticised us, lack of control in such a situation is usually regarded as condemnable, and an explanation for it is not perceived as justification. What is racism? I would, of course, like to add racism to the natural reactions which are worth suppressing in ourselves and others. First of all about the concept. “Racism” is one of those words whose meaning changes depending on the user. In its more narrow sense it means a hypothesis that people can be divided into a small number of groups and classified according to anatomical structure and skin colour, that a specific body of psychological characteristics and abilities corresponds to each of the groups, and that there is a certain hierarchy amongst the groups, meaning that some are to be judged higher than others. In this interpretation racism emerged in the middle of the 19th century, and a classical representative of it is Gobino. It peaked during the Nazi regime and disintegrated to a large degree after World War II. This hypothesis has many shortcomings. First of all, there is no doubt that people differ in appearance, but nothing bears witness to the idea that these anatomical differences clearly characterise, say, three races. And, by the way, have you ever met a person with white skin or noticed how black are the blacks? Secondly, even speaking of only one person’s abilities and characteristics, it is difficult to determine their causes. And even if it were possible to prove that Swedes are tight-fisted and Danes are naive, it would still not be apparent that there is a link between these characteristics and their anatomical build. Thirdly, everyone who has bothered to show an interest in the lives of other nations will have found that it is not true, for instance, that black people have a weak intellect, but a well-developed sense of smell, as Gobino declared. Fourthly, it is difficult to find reason for the hierarchy criteria, because, if, say, a criterion for excellence is a beard, then those who cannot have beards are, of course, beings of a lower category, but it is not clear why a beard should specifically be regarded as a criterion for excellence. Even if it were true that whites have intellect, but no sense of smell, and blacks have a sense of smell, but no intellect, it still cannot be concluded that blacks, therefore, should be considered higher beings than whites. At any rate, it seems that a hostile attitude towards persons with different coloured skin is not always due to racism in this interpretation. Prejudices against persons of other races already existed before the 19th century theories, and criticism of these theories can only partly change people’s attitudes towards “strangers”. Therefore next to the “classical” definition of racism, a new definition has appeared which is mostly used by people for whom a hostile, mistrusting attitude towards a person because of the colour of his skin is not acceptable. Racism in this meaning is not a hypothesis or theory, but a prejudiced attitude. Prejudiced, because it cannot be explained rationally and usually no-one even tries to do so. Let us use the example from the discussions of Zvaigzne’s experiences in a London hospital. She had to suffer through the careless and intolerant behaviour of the hospital staff at a time when one least of all wants to test one’s capacity for tolerance. However, the fact that the hospital staff were mostly black women still does not lead to a logical generalisation about the intolerance of blacks. It is actually very easy to imagine a situation where the same woman has ended up in a Soviet era maternity ward here in Latvia, and the staff are just as careless. But I find it hard to imagine that in this situation “Zvaigzne” would conclude that all whites are horrible and heartless, would join the “black panther” movement or do anything else so radical. In this case her glance would move past the skin colour and would stop at something else. If the nurses turned out to be Russians, she might conclude that all Russians are bad, or she might criticize the health care system or the hospital, or the specific persons. However, upon seeing a black nurse, she does not see other options, and that is significant. In my opinion there is something natural in suspicions, distaste, and prejudice against persons with a different skin colour. It is an attitude that is very wide-spread and difficult to overcome. I don’t know how it comes into being and why it is so characteristic of people (and, of course, not only of whites). I also don’t know why racism has emerged in Latvia. What kind of people are we? A large part of the discussion about George Steele’s interview addressed the issue of whether Latvia is a racist country and if it is, then to what extent. First of all I want to draw attention to the fact that Steele spoke of his experience in different countries, but the headline of the article led one to conclude that he had said that “the most racist society” is in Latvia, which is not one and the same thing. However, the comparison is risky at any rate because the criteria by which we can compare are not quite clear. Is Latvia a more racist country than the USA? Well, in what sense... Not all problems which are important in the US are just as significant in Latvia and the other way round. Name calling on the street is, of course, conspicuous, but by no means the only sign of racism. Therefore, I believe that this type of comparison in this situation is unwarranted. However, the examples mentioned in the discussion, and again I must say in my opinion, show that first of all a racist attitude in Latvia is not being concealed and society is tolerant towards its manifestations. Secondly, it is difficult to say whether Latvia’s inhabitants should or should not be called racists, but racism certainly exists in Latvia. I am convinced by my own experience of the truth of both statements. For example, I have often heard Latvians speak compassionately of capitals of other countries where there are so many “blacks”. Meaning, it really is difficult for our new-found white brothers in the west. Why there are so many people in the west who do not resemble the “northern type Arians” is a long story, but hatred against blacks among Latvians and also other Eastern European nations is peculiar, because there has been little contact and there is no specific reason for the dislike. This means that the cause of racism can be found in problems in society which are not linked directly to racism. I can only express my suspicions that one of the causes of racism could be xenophobia, which could be characteristic for many Latvians, because our historical experience is such that the protagonists of global dramas have always been careless towards the Latvian nation. We can also mention social problems and the tension which definitely exists in Latvia. For example one of the most dangerous scenarios of Latvian and Russian integration, I think, is the uniting of various nationalities to vent their discontent on the black students who have come to Latvia, or say, DJ’s. What kind of people do we want to be? Finally I want to stress, that the question of what Latvia is like must be separated from the question of what kind of Latvia we want. The answer to the second question is not an evaluation of facts. A choice needs to be made. Let’s imagine one of the choices: we want Latvia to be “Latvian”. Does that mean that blacks should not be allowed to cross the border? That would be strange, because not only are blacks not Latvian, Norwegians and the English are also not Latvian. Can Norwegians and the English be allowed to live and work in a “Latvian Latvia”? If we answer yes, then we need to explain why Norwegians are better than people from Sri Lanka. And as I already mentioned, the criterion could not really be race. If we want others to work in Latvia besides the existing inhabitants, and we do not want to be racists, then we don’t really have a reason to ban people of different skin colour, but if we don’t want this, then the ban should apply to Norwegians and English as well. If blacks are allowed to cross the border of a “Latvian Latvia”, will they suddenly not become our sons and daughters-in-law? One aspect is that it is again difficult to justify why one should fear a black son-in-law, bet even more interesting is the question of who, in this “Latvian Latvia”, will control who marries whom. The Freedom Party advertisement first of all is paternalistic, as it is based on the assumption that you cannot rely on Latvian women themselves. Someone needs to protect them and keep them at a distance from black men, because they (the women, of course) may suddenly not understand what they really need. And that might be just the beginning. Soon Latvians might start listening to foreign music, eat strange food, speak loudly and gesticulate with their hands: behave like animals. It would be better for society to keep an eye on their own, and tell them whom to marry, what to sing and what to wear, wouldn’t it? Racism, unfortunately, is natural. It is difficult to limit with reason. Elsewhere, intolerance towards racism has also often emerged not as a result of contemplation, but by way of painful experience. The incident mentioned by one of the participants in the discussion at Little Rock Central High School in 1957, when soldiers were brought in to protect black school children on their way to school, left a shocking impression on Americans who were able to watch the developments of the event with the aid of a relatively new medium, the television. It is doubtful that anything will substantially change in Latvia before we realise close-up what is so frightening about racism. But it would be nice if the discussion on politika.lv or George Steele’s interviews made at least someone prick up their ears.