Bob Carr and the inexplicable mind of the human being

Apr 11, 2013 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Sigmund Freud is credited with giving humans valuable tools that we can use to advance knowledge. Some of Freud’s theories have been subjected to relentless revisionist methodologies, particularly his concept of the meaning of dreams but it is doubtful that he will ever be dismissed.
He gave philosophy some valuable insights into the mind particularly the role of the subconscious layer of our mental make-up that he referred to as the Id.
Yet for all the advancements he made in the field of psychology, Freud in his final years on earth admitted that he never understood how the mind of women operated. I am still at a loss as to why Freud singled out women. I don’t think the psyche of the female gender is more difficult to understand than men.
I believe homo sapiens in general cannot be easily understood even though another great philosopher, Arthur Koester (whom our late Education Minister, Dale Bisnauth was not fond of; see his critique of Koester in the PPP’s newspaper, Mirror, September 22, 1996) thought that homo sapiens was essentially a biological animal therefore predictable and deterministic in their behaviour.
Many of the traits of human society are not easily comprehended one of which has beguiled me all my life. When certain well-known persons die, the ethical tradition is to refrain from critical comments even though that person had a negative existence when he/she was alive.
What confounds me is why would society see it as bad manners for scholars to judge harshly those who when they were alive, treated their fellow humans harshly?
I guess it all depends on your experience in life. They say people are what they are, based on their life experiences. A nice lady in her golden years may find it offensive to criticize a former Prime Minister or President or Cabinet Minister when their death is announced. But can you ask a mother who lost a child through political repression to adhere to that taboo? Can you ask a wife whose young husband was taken away from her because of the action of a cruel ruler to be circumspect? Can you ask a scholar to observe tradition and avoid adverse comment when that is not the role of a scholar?
It reminds me of the sacred tenets of journalism. A journalist must report the news at it happens. It would be unprincipled if at the funeral of an internationally famous statesman, a large protest rally was held but because of the global standing of the deceased, the journalist would think it improper to report on the protest. In journalism that would be unprofessional conduct.
Journalism is the description of events as they happen. For me as a trained academic, it is the same principle at work. A famous person dies, the scholar needs to do his/her work –analyze.
Things are beginning to change with regards to this incomprehension of human society. I noticed it when Hugo Chavez died and now Mrs. Thatcher. My favourite newspaper for a very, very long time since my university days has been the Guardian of the UK. I think it is a more independent paper that any other in the rest of the world with the possible exception of the BBC as a media house.
The Guardian (and the BBC) has carried some very critical analyses of Mrs. Thatcher. But the one that has stunned the world was the revelation on Tuesday by the Australian Foreign Minister, Bob Carr that Mrs. Thatcher, after she had retired, made graphically overt racist comments to him even while his non-white wife was in close proximity.
His remarks have been carried around the world. He said that Mrs. Thatcher warned him years ago that he must not let Australia become overwhelmed with Asian immigrants. He went on to describe how Mrs. Thatcher pointed to the example of East Indians going to Fiji then they became a majority and swamped the indigenous Fijans.
Forty years ago, the media would not have carried Mr. Carr’s revelation one day after the death of a former British Prime Minister.
I chose not to follow that ethical tradition when Chavez died. My column the next day was a critical evaluation of his authoritarian. populist rule. In that article, I argued that there was nothing special about Chavez. He was a plain, simple Latin American caudillo like all the other autocrats that went before him, including the Castro brothers.
My assessment of Dale Bisnauth and Reepu Daman Persaud is forthcoming. I guess it is too early yet. You have to respect the dead.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News