To be

I must confess that I find confessing noncathartic.

We all have done something we're probably not proud of and coming to terms with it is probably rather difficult. Wronging someone is probably the easiest, as forgiving others is, in my opinion, easier than forgiving yourself. But making mistakes you can't revert can only fill you with regret.

We spend our time panicking over a decision already made and waste time hesitating or repeating the scenario to yourself with different outcomes. Maybe hoping for a miracle. This time used to worry and fret over something we cannot alter anymore can probably be better off used doing something else to offset it.

My personal philosophy for regret or making a mistake is simply to accept it and move on. Very lackadaisical. But I never mistake it for an excuse not to remedy a situation but something like scoring low on a test or forgetting homework, I simply not fret and work harder next time.

Blood Ran Thin

Family is a very sensitive subject. They are to maintain to relationships and when they fall apart, the pain and regret amount far higher than losing a friend. Why is it so troublesome?

Eugene already rejects his father as a pagan, which caused a separation between himself and his sister. The two siblings are on opposite spectrums of the economic scale and the familial loyalty instilled in Eugene has him do...nothing. Not even the most basic of assistances of giving financial aid. Eugene's actions are thus far "justified" by religion, his faith in Catholicism. He is very unforgiving (in a religion that preaches forgiveness, no less) and makes no exception for family. This almost crazed adherence to his beliefs over his family poses some concerns among his blood ties.

Famiy should look out for one another. Family should be willing to help whenever help is requested. But falling outs have their devastations magnified. Are we right to cal, Eugene wrong?

Yams Again

Even as time passes and a culture evolves, many elements remain from pre-European contact to present day in Nigeria, the unsuitable umbrella term that it is.

Within the city, Christianity is fully installed as the primary religion of choice, as presented in Purple Hibiscus, and European style schooling and et cetera is found more often than trees in a forest. However, a remnant of Igbo culture still remains steadfastedly intact: the value of strength. Though the definition and traits of strength have changed, physical to more academic, it is still the defining characteristic when considering community influence. The self-made man is also of praise. A man is not judged by his father's worth, something both Okonkwo and Kambili's father know and have a history of viewing their own fathers with disdain. The result is their own harsher treatment of their respective children, wanting for them to avoid the misfortunes they experienced. 

In both cases, outside forces have been set in motion, likely in direct competition with both men. Invasion by the white man and coup d'etat are outside the realm of control of practically anyone. Will history rear its head and decide to repeat itself?

There Can Only Be One

Religion is peculiar. How exactly were those of faith convinced to believe in something based on word alone, especially something supposedly beyond comprehension as the Christian deity. 

I just find the whole deal illogical, mostly because of the explaination for the phenomena we have now. Not to say that scientist are not allowed to be religious, as science could be explained by how their deity built the world. But how does it lead to some people rejecting evolution and other such "blasphemies?" 

And then to call another religion's god(s) false on essentially the same basis that one's own is true is beyond me. It boils down to just "you're wrong, I'm right so I don't need proof." The conversion of others is usually through force or the appeal of an accepting society to those worse off.

I am not against religion, nor those who choose to partake in it. Rather, I'm curious as to why.

Things

"'That is very bad,' said Obierika's eldest brother. 'But what is good in one place is bad in another place.'"

The idea of tolerance is a very valiant one, aiming to accept those who are different. This, in theory, should include those who are intolerant. If one is to accept all humans, no matter their worldview, what would accepting someone with a worldview contrary to everything one stands for mean? Forcing our own ideals on others even if those ideals are good is still a hypocritical act. It's almost as if the world requires evil to erase other evils.

We do not live in a perfect society. We have exactly every type of prejudice in existence living and breathing the same air as the most unassuming of us. The main difference is that we recognize them as prejudices rather than as staples of our culture. For a very long time, subjugation of others for who they were was very common place, but it was accepted because it was tradition, it was how it was, because they knew no different. Erasing those "traditions" have done a good for bigger picture.

It seems the route of hypocrisy is preferable to the route of dehumanization.