Last week was a milestone for me. My 101st Off Centre column.
Celebrating 101? And doing it when yuh reach 102?
Well, it’s the darndest thing: I have for years had this recurring sense of dread on behalf of a batsman who reaches exactly one hundred. He gets the applause, drinks in the moment and in his intoxication he plays an overexcited shot and returns to the pavilion, only to discover that the scorers had got it wrong – he was short by one.
I don’t know that any batsman has ever been that unfortunate, but I tell you truthfully that I have had that uncomfortable feeling over and over again. So I prefer 101. And consequently, one more, as I see it, seals the deal.
Anyway, when a batsman reaches 50 or a hundred, the fuss he makes is understandable. At least he worked towards a milestone goal – with resoluteness, shrewdness, intelligent management of the situation, his eyes on that at first distant but then nearer and nearer finish line. So he celebrates his handiwork in accomplishing a targeted goal.
With anniversaries and the like – especially birthdays – we usually don’t have a specific aim and plan and method of execution to achieve the particular landmark.
Hence, without those weighty reasons to celebrate ourselves, we should perhaps just thank God and our parents who gave us life (traditional view – what is the atheist’s construction? Oh yes: Big Bang, then maybe wham bam). Not forgetting others who helped us along the way.
We should, too, reflect on lessons learnt that may be useful for the future.
Therefore, I am not celebrating this like a batsman’s century (or 101) ’cause I had no goal of reaching a certain number of articles. I just aimed to produce a good one each time.
So for this “anniversary” I say thanks to God and to the Editor who thought I could make a good hand of writing a weekly column. I am also extremely grateful to my sounding-board wife, whose soul-case I have boddered out more than 101 times, as well as to others who have encouraged me.
And I am reflecting . . .
I got the opportunity to share some off-the-beaten-track perspectives about calypso, the Alexandra School situation, teachers, Independence, Christmas, love, old people, young people, the Common Entrance Exam, the dumbing-down I Am A Bajan, “obeah” talk, and Duguid’s mother tongue.
And about the dotish “patriotism” of The Pledge and Bim I Love You, emotional incorrectness, school touting, the Democratic Labour Party’s “Barbados is more than an economy” mantra, dangerous workplaces, apologies and non-apologies, story, the last general election, limiting the “tenure” of Sagicor UWI players – and, of course, much more.
But you know what? The world did not change. No surprise to me. It helps to know a thing or two about people. Not many folks read to learn and change. They read to see if you agree with them. They read to discuss – or argue.
That has firmed up my resolve to read with the aim of living better, learning and growing – not searching for endorsements of my viewpoint.
Sometimes you get misrepresented – and it is not necessarily a comprehension thing per se, nor wilful. As a former long-time teacher of English I know that miscues in responses (paraphrases, summaries, answers to questions) occur even among those with good decoding and other language-processing skills.
A major reason is that although comprehension requires the reader’s use of prior knowledge, the use of prior perspectives is often inimical to accurate understanding. People often read carelessly when they encounter a viewpoint that clashes with theirs.
This has taught me that when I come across a view that contradicts mine, I must make sure that I understand clearly what the person is saying. My supreme task is to ensure that I accurately “get it” rather than rush to my own defence. My stance should not be my guiding light.
So I take the time to read the disagreeing piece many, many times, allowing for intervening days. You see, I know that “thin skin is the only skin human beings come with” (Meg Greenfield) and I have learnt that one of our lifelong tasks is to make our skin know its place.
Then there is the matter of personal attacks. Sometimes people use the ad hominem way. It is not enough for them to disagree with you; they must denigrate you too – as if they have bought into what an acquaintance of mine once said in tongue-in-cheek support of that approach, “The argument en got nuh feelings; human beings do!”
But I have learnt to consider this: if I want to win you to my view, why would I think I could accomplish that by treating you in an undignifying way? Right behaviour is more important than right opinion.
Onward!
• Sherwyn Walters is a writer who became a teacher, a song analyst, a broadcaster and an editor.