For awhile now I have had this idea that I wanted to get down on paper. Either a short story or maybe a one act play. It’s about two brothers arguing over the nature of humanity. One brother believes that humanity is doomed by its own undertakings. Man has always been a destructive animal and as time evolves this destruction will eventually become all consuming. On the other hand, the second brother argues that man, over millenniums, has shed its unnecessary accoutrements. So, man’s unspoken love affair with death and war will one day fade. Joining the ancestral tail or coarse body hair in primordial history.

The problem is, well maybe not the problem but the catch is, there is no resolution in the end. Neither brother is proven wrong. Who do you believe in the end? I think I have a fairly strong ability to play devil’s advocate on both sides. So, I can argue for both sides, but personally I can’t say which one I truly believe in.

Humanities obsession with hate seems so overwhelming. Which, I think, is an immense basis for destruction. But is hate a psychological disease that will some day have a simple cure, or a cure at all, for that matter? Or, is it just a simple component of nature? Existing as natural ebb to recreation’s flow?

Now, if you will allow me, let me shift gears. I am going to give you two situations of discussions I have had with my friends. Let me start off by saying that I honestly can’t think of anyone I truly hate.

My first discussion was with a friend of mine as we were walk to an ATM so I could withdraw some money. As we walked down the street, we were heckled, for one reason or another, I don’t remember exactly why, by a group of black women. As we passed by my friends mentions how she hates black women. I had to ask her how she could say that. So, she told me that when she was in school she was constantly tormented by the black girls in her class. Naturally, I reprimanded her by saying that you can’t judge all black women by the few that attacked you. I honestly believe in that too.

My second took place with a friend of mine who is enlisted in the army. I don’t remember what started the conversation but it eventually worked its way around to him saying he hates Muslims. I rebuttal with the same philosophy as in the first discussion. He countered with all he had seen and been through. It seemed to me that in order to survive he had to hate. I could say any more. I couldn’t tell him in good conscience to take each man as an individual. In the time it would take for him to evaluate he could be shot or bombed.

Assume that both arguments I’ve told you about are true to nature. Now, I am going to offer this idea. A man alone can destroy a life. Men gathered together can destroy a nation. Both a sin, yet humanity as a whole can collectively perform the greatest of sins. But how do you fight that? Man, in his heart, longs for peace. Humanity’s nature thirst for war. The trouble, it seems, is group mentality. But can you justly punish the individually for the crimes of the group? In group mentality it seems the individual sacrifices his own personal being to be one with the group. The group itself becomes its own single entity. Man is never more evil then when he is cheered on by his peers. So, it almost seems fruitless to attack this segment by segment instead of battling this group beast in its entirety.

What is the answer? I have my theories. Not that they probably haven’t been tried before. Maybe it’s not my place, as an individual, to ask the questions of the majority. Maybe that’s all I can do.