All Men Aren’t Created Equal!
By Kallys Albert Sr.
Perhaps the most misunderstood phrase of all times relates to Thomas Jefferson’s buzzword “All men are created equal” US declaration of independence (1776). But how equal men are truly created has defied reasonable comprehension within analytical reasoning- thus creating false hope and misconceptions in those who believe. Being created equal, same in amount, number and size at its best is overly an ambiguous statement. All men are not, and can never be created equal in the true sense of equality. At least, not in this universe. Not with the type of people who inhabit it. Not with human the order of things.
While the concept of equality springs from perceived right to receive the same or similar treatment, being equal can be an illusion. Thus, men cherish erroneous hope of being created equal, and by extension of having the right to be treated equally. The idea of men being created equal breathes riotous false hope and in most cases, dawn of empathized humility on one hand, and over exaggerated self-importance on the other. In real-world standard, forces of creation pre-programs a man’s niche in life. In this programmable happenstance, some are favored, or disfavored; lucky or unlucky, liked or disliked. These attributive inequities are there for a purpose – to serve as vindication forces of creation never intended equality; rather, they mirror the self; who a person is, including but not limited to the qualities such as personality and ability that makes one person different from another. This difference manifests in attitudes as distinguished in obvious imbalance in two identifiable classes of men: the maker, or strike lucky and the made or not so lucky men. In this context, the maker exudes exact opposite attributes of the made; arrogance, egoism, pretentiousness and of course assertiveness as in detecting the fate of the later; whose success or doom lies on maker’s mood; compassionate or malevolence.
The strike lucky is characterized by overwhelming self-importance with little or no regards to those around. When he finds himself enthroned in power, he uses unrestrained discretion to showcase supremacy by widening the gulf of separation. His endowment by forces of creation encompasses nature, culture, inheritance, parentage or fluky interpersonal relationship with others which drives him to attainable success. The less he strives –the more realization. In his state of belief – I am superior to others; I’m all that matters; I can do what others cannot do; everybody else is a no body re-echoes in the rhyme of his thoughts. He only hears himself speaks and learns but little. Being on his own element, he belongs to the class now that recreates and makes other men. He can be found among corporate executives who hire and fire, justices of the judicial system who adjudicate others’ fate from their fallible self, politicians who make laws, and government officials who execute these laws, policies and regulations. This is he who represents that personality, that ability that makes one person different from another. According to John Stuart Mill, they consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest, who, at all events, did not hold it at the pleasure of the governed, and whose supremacy men did not venture, perhaps did not desire, to contest, whatever precautions might be taken against its oppressive exercise. On liberty (1806 – 1873).
In contrast, the made, or the not so lucky clad in desperation comes away empty handed; lives and believes this nature imbued disparity changes for own good someday. In this state, being powerless, every possibility his way lays in the hands of the strike lucky. He is the one who cares, worries and concerned about how right things should be done. Who terrifies about obeying the laws, the regulations and the policies. He is the one engulfed in “natural wealth inequality, has lots of debts and very little wealth.” Katherine Peralta. When his portion comes, the strike lucky weighs him down; not in accordance with facts of truth, but from invidious abundance of mind. Down in the dumps, the made is sized a banal perpetrator, as though, he is garbed in such attributive opinion. He fishes for compliment. He represents the factory worker, the handyman, the panhandler, waiters and waitresses and in their assemblages – the governed. Thus, lingering question arise, if all men are created equal, why are some men better endowed than others? Why are there disparity in life’s gifts? Why are some men’s brain highly equipped than others? The answer to these questions reflects the artistic reality evident in the environment – tall and short, fat and thin, big and small, black and white, light and day, hollow and firm, solid and liquid, flat and slope, high and low, ad infinitum. Thus, the forces of creation never intended to make all things, including all men equal. It’s the beauty of creation in ultimate design.
The idea that all men cannot, and will never be created equal is further reinforced by facts of how distasteful, confused, and ugly equality is or can be. We get frustrated when things are so closely in resemblance to defy ease of identification. Yet, the forces of creation had been so cautious that even where there is striking likeness, as in identical twins there’s always a shrill point of delineation for relief. It’s on these premises that some men attain greatness while others don’t, no matter how much they toil. Perhaps these category of men eventually pass-on poor, while those favored attain greatness effortlessly. The sequence of life’s journey clearly outlines unmistaken gifts which shape one’s position either as a maker or the made. Nonetheless, how each of these groups react to and interact with each other within the environment depends more particularly in society they reside; their individual position in life and their pre-programed legacies from forces of creation.
It is from these perspectives that the innate ambiguity in the coinage, all men are created equal becomes real. If it means anything, it’s in the loss of value to truism. Perhaps, the coinage served its purpose – to galvanize revolutionary support and to instill false hope in the most vulnerable of men. Compounding the inherent definitive confusion underlying the phrase are two diametrically opposing concepts – the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in one hand, and the misconception that government derives just power from the consent of the governed on the other; neither of which is by any means true, nor wholesome to wrap one’s hope.
Kallys Albert Sr.
+612-306-1945 (direct line)
Nigerian Citizens for Good Governance
Community Organizing and Education Mission
This post has already been read 3 times!