Back to Opinion Back to Home

A Village?

    There is an old African saying, or so we are told, which tells us that "It takes a village to raise a child." Most people are familiar with the phrase. It has become a favorite rallying cry of much of the left, since it was introduced by hillary clinton, who has modestly taken on the mantle of the smartest woman in America. There are a number of reasons, for the sudden popularity of this venerable saying, so lately touted by the recent junior senator from new york. It's acceptance among the "progressive" among us, is a given. One big reason, is the fact that this saying originated somewhere outside of western culture. The left knows that all of the real gems of wisdom must come from tribal, eastern, or primitive peoples, rather than from the dominant culture of the world. Certainly the west can learn nothing from it's own, 3000+ year history. The west, it seems, had no time to develop true wisdom, as it was too busy curing disease, developing literacy, law, and science, spreading Christianity, and building a culture which would encompass the Earth.
    One of the prime purposes of the left seems to be the undoing of all of these terrible things, which the West has achieved over the centuries. One means of accomplishing this, is to look to, and advocate the emulation of, the more "natural" cultures, which have spared themselves all of the burdens, and accomplishment of the West. These happy, natural cultures are collectively known as the third world, and have nobly spared themselves all of the benefits and problems of Western culture, mentioned above. Somehow, though, despite these little islands of tribal paradise, westerners do not seem to be in a big hurry to emigrate. It may also be noted that all of these non-Western cultures are marked by poverty, dictatorial governments, disease, starvation and illiteracy. These cultures also tend to have high rates of child mortality and low life spans; but perhaps, in their pristine natural state, these people are just too happy to notice these things.
    Still, each statement should be considered according to it's own merits, and there may be something to the "village" idea. As a matter of fact, anyone who is over the age of about 35 or 40, or who happens to come from a small town, ought to remember the little village in which they spent their childhood. These are mostly gone now, though they can still be found in some places. I certainly remember mine. We didn't call them villages. They were known to us as our neighborhoods, stomping grounds, home turf, or just plain home. These were the areas familiar to us, where we knew people, and felt comfortable. We did not necessarily like everyone there, but they were all known to us, and even our adversaries had a comforting familiarity about them. Our parents, too, knew the area, and the people within it. Any trouble, and they would eventually hear about it. The neighborhood watched out for us and looked after itself, one little village, among the scores of others, which made up the city. We all walked to the same school, and most of us knew, pretty much where everyone else lived, and who everyone else was. Most of the adults knew you on sight, and you were aware of the fact that you were, if not exactly under observation, at least within the collective awareness of the neighborhood. A child in trouble was assured of getting help, while a child who was out of line was equally certain of being held accountable. This was not limited to children; adults were to a greater or lesser extent, treated in the same fashion. Most of this is gone now, at leat in the big cities, broken up by bussing, unified school districts, and government mandates.
    So it would seem, according to my childhood memories, that the village idea may not be such a bad thing. The whole neighborhood idea seems to reinforce something that most conservatives are very supportive of --- standards, expectations, and accountability, if not conformity. This is some very strange stuff, from a liberal source. Certainly it seems to most conservatives, that the left does not care much for standards, and cares even less for accountability, whatever many of them might say, while stumping for votes. The seeming contradiction disappears, as you begin to realize that the village of hillary clinton, is not necessarily the neighborhood of my youth. Hillary's village is less a collection of interlocking lives, learning from each other, and more an ordered, and regulated collection of subjects being indoctrinated by a central authority. This seems much more in line with what the American left desires for us, and certainly seems to be in step with what the socialist movements of other nations have done, once power had been achieved. The village of which Hillary Clinton speaks, and would wish to have us use to raise our children,  is Washington DC. So as it turns out the village rhetoric is just a way of repackaging the kind of intrusive big government which the left has been cheerleading for decades.
    A well known riposte to the "village" idea was that "it doesn't take a village; it takes a family." This pretty much cuts to the heart of the popularity of the "village" idea, among the left. Like most wounds, a glimpse of this one, frightens us by giving us a better look at the inner workings of things, than we are comfortable with. Our friends on the left are not really interested in helping us return to a community of standards, which would benefit, and assist a family in raising children. Hillary's village seeks to depose the family, or at least greatly diminish it's influence, rather than assist it. Her spearheading of the notoriously anti family children's rights movement clearly expresses her ideas about the value of the family, whatever she might say while campaigning. Certainly hillary is no supporter of locally accountable schools, or of religious organizations. So what is left, with which to make a village?
    The village of the left would be more after the fashion of the feudal villages of old. It should be recalled that in the heyday of the village, the upper classes had certain attitudes about the people living there. A villain was a resident of a village, and we all know what that word has come to mean. Vile, too, was derived from village. In point of fact, a village was a collection of people, thought beneath those who ruled them. The duties of the villagers (villains) were to obey orders, work till they dropped, not presume to rise above their lowly station, and have children to follow in their foot steps. Other than these requirements, they were left to themselves, with no one caring too much about what happened to them. Naturally, the lords of the manor did not allow their children to mix with those of the village, any more than hillary would have sent her daughter off to a public school, or Al Gore would have sent his kids off to play midnight basketball. The classes simply do not mix. This is a village already known to those living in socialist or third world countries. It is also an attitude with which those dependent upon government largesse are quite familiar. These villages are not based on standards, particularly when these are the standards that we chose for ourselves. What interests them is regulation, and control.
    This feudal collective, anti family village is not something from the long ago past. It has been tried many times in the last hundred years or so. Huge numbers of orphaned children were raised by the Soviets to be good communists after the end of the Second World War, as huge numbers of young Germans had been raised by the Hitler Youth to be good nazis. The Fascists did similar things in Italy, and the Cubans are still doing it today. It is also happening in muslim schools where tomorrow's terrorists are being trained. All of these institutions have one thing in common. Before they could work, they had first to get control of children away from their families. Don't think that the U.S. is immune to this sort of thing. It is already being test flown in far too many ways in the public schools, those great repositories of intellectualism, order, and standards.
    Many who had the foresight, and the means to escape the "village" being made of most of our city school systems, might wish to paraphrase a bit. To their minds, you might say that "It takes a suburb to raise a child." At any rate, it takes a suburb to raise one safely, and properly, and to assure parents that it is them, rather than the school system, and the political agenda followed so closely by it, which sees to the raising of their children. hilary's village is not the caring nurturing village of parents, and friends, rather it is the village of the social worker, the politically correct school, the child welfare agency, and the foster home. It is interesting, the play of words here. A village is being made of the large governmental institutions, set up to indoctrinate our children, and influence our own thinking. Calling these heavy handed, politically correct abuses, the hand of the village, makes it sound so benign. Perhaps this is the outwardly benign village of The Prisoner TV series. In hilary's village, there is certain to be a place for everyone, and everyone in their place. Perhaps we will even be allowed to use our names rather than numbers.
    To see how the village idea would work, I suppose it is best to look closely at the places in which it is most nearly put in place. This would likely be the inner city areas of most of our large metropolitan areas. These are the places where government agencies are most visable and exert the greatest influence. Everything from lyndon johnson's great society to al gore's midnight basketball has been put into place there. Ah yes, government clinics, all powerful school systems, welfare agencies, child services, recreational programs, and progressive, bureaucratic job programs have made American inner city dwellers the envy of all. Please, set up a village like that for me and my children.
    This is just the type of guidance that I want for my children. An education in a progressive school system, more interested in progressive indoctrination, than actual education, an anti family immoral welfare system which discourages marriage, and rewards careless casual sex. This type of early youthful training should certainly prepare the growing child to take his place in the the rapidly growing village of the prison system, which our government has also kindly set up.