Let’s begin on the premise that whatever theoretical knowledge we’ve acquired, that affirms the equality of all men, is wrong, fictional and in direct contradiction to the original truth!
It’s almost unobtainable to say “All Men Are Equal” and relax in the same sentence, without naturally having a little hunch in your spirit, which tends to agree otherwise…
Our academic and faith-based curriculums, have ridden us off the map, as we naively continue to cling to the moral belief that all men are equal. Well, we aren’t! (by whatever yardstick).
Interestingly, modern civilization hasn’t made much changes from primordial times, where survival was mainly of the fittest.
In our ‘enviable’ but rather high-speed and competitive 21st century, survival is still of the fittest (maybe not necessarily physical).
The segregative nature of ‘Hierarchy’ and the unequal balance of political/economic power, coupled with the variations in physical and psychological strength, makes total mockery of equality amongst men!
There will always be an iron curtain between the tough and the weak, the rulers and the ruled, the masters and the serfs and the men and the women. How you survive, solely depends on you!
We’re resident in a world where great power, dominance and preference, are fastened on the ‘powerful few’, who control the affairs of the others.
Does the law promote equality? Not particularly!
The Rule of Law, which is supposedly created to be supreme over everyone, can be limited, compromised and even made redundant by certain ‘important’ individuals, who are shielded by what is commonly referred to as ‘constitutional immunity.’
As often said, “Strive to be among the powers that be, not against them.”
On the issue of feminism, women are widely believed to be created with a reduced leadership role in their interactions with men.
While I crusade for women’s rights, I believe, women stand a better chance in the pursuit of fair treatment and justice, than they do, seeking equality with men.
The agitation for fair treatment and justice for every individual can be achieved, but equality of humans, can only be a figment of the imagination!
Twitter: @princewill_nimi
Email: princewill.nimi@yahoo.com
Nimi Princewill is a Nigerian creative writer, poet and social reformer. He’s very passionate about the reformation and development of Africa. He’s most notable for his usual controversial opinion on issues that cut across Religion, Sports, Social Lifestyle and Politics.
Opinions expressed in this commentary are not necessarily those of Dominica News Online or its advertisers
The author of his commentary is very answer driven meaning he thinks he has the answer for what he espousing, giving answers not asking questions, regarding the question are all men equal has been questioned by many eminent philosophers, scientist, and politicians and theologians expressing various conflicting opinions. Why do we have to fight for fairness and equality as humans and accept this as something natural. Why do we have to compete against each other and call this natural, it is not of our divine nature to do these things. Why are rights that are our inherent nature has to be given to us by a Government. The divine plane for man is freedom not bondage.We do not need to compete but be creative.
Why do we have hierarchy, where such thing come from and impeded in our human affairs, what about holarchy. When we say that all men are equal i think there is an esoteric meaning to this.
“The segregative nature of ‘Hierarchy’ and the unequal balance of political/economic power, coupled with the variations in physical and psychological strength, makes total mockery of equality amongst men!”..
Overall I concur with this thought, principle, however there will always be an hierarchy amongst the human, animal species, including that of we humans, race, colour , sex, ethnicity, indigenous. I feel I am competitive, and that instinct to fight to show off like the animal that opens up its wings to attract the female. We humans do it naturally and both sexes welcome and enjoy it,. it is natural.
Your essay, a good one, is also competitive (this response for example) and will encourage other writers with a different perspective to comment and professionally raise some issues. Your essay with inspire some, challenge others and awake a good number of us. I welcome your essay and feel honoured to add to this debate. So there is no mockery, there is debate. Thanks
well said my brother..
An important distinction is missing, as the author blurs two concepts to make a point, as many advocates blur them to keep us from the point: Does he mean equality of opportunity, or equality of result? The law DOES promote equality of opportunity, the concept that all citizens play the game under the same rules. Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of results. When the law promotes equality of results–as in the US where Congress and the Supreme Court sometimes view statistical inequality as a call for action, what you get is racism, albeit “remedial” racism. And the beneficiaries don’t benefit, because everyone wonders whether their college degrees and so on are based on scholarship or on pity. Separately, the author conveys a strong sense that it is rich-versus-poor and that he would like equality of result, such as the Venezuela experiment, where high achievers quickly realize achievement is pointless, while low achievers realize achivement is unnecessary…
You rightly mention how many advocates conflate equality of opportunity with equality in general which is why the US is currently embroiled in this pseudo civil rights movement to erase differences between race and sex. But I don’t think that this is what he’s doing here. He mentions physical and psychological qualities so it seems to me he’s speaking in terms of individuals. He also mentions disparities in the judicial system so he could also be viewing this from a systematic perspective which would be in contrast with the idea of equality of opportunity but I’m sure those are very rare cases.
I get his point – for example someone who is rich enough to afford a good lawyer has a better chance in court than someone who does not but the laws and constitution ensure due process for all. This is fair but it is obviously not equal. People who advocate for “equality” would want to erase the advantage of that rich person. That is not fair since that person most likely earned that…