CHRISTMAS has come and gone. I heard, here in Heathfield, the Christmas Band of Dougie Oakes’s “A Christmas Story” (Cape Times, December 23). New Year’s Day has also been and gone.
During the days before the new year, many people make resolutions about how they will organise their lives in the coming year. By their own admission, many forget or abandon these resolutions when they are only a few days into the new year, perhaps from pressure of work.
There are also those who consciously do not make new year’s resolutions. One reason, I have heard, is that, instead, people set themselves goals during the course of the year, and try to achieve them, goals being perhaps more realistic ambitions than resolutions.
“Resolution” is intrinsic to the idea of being resolute, which is to be determined, to be unwavering. “Resolution” is also manifested in resolving an issue.
I have recently re-read a wonderful novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee. There the sheriff, towards the end of the novel, makes a resolution and resolves a desperate situation for two families.
The central characters are sister and brother Scout (Jean Louise) and Jem (Jeremy Atticus) Finch. They grow up with their widowed father, Atticus, and the housekeeper/caregiver Calpurnia.
The story plays out in fictional Maycomb county in southern America during the early to mid-1930s during a three-year period.
At the start of the narrative the children are, probably, respectively about 5 and 9 years old.
When they are given air rifles as Christmas presents by their uncle Jack, their father says: "I’d rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the blue jays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
Scout asks a neighbour, Miss Maudie, about her father’s pronouncement. The latter replies: “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but to make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it is a sin to kill a mockingbird.”
The majority of people living in Maycomb are good, comparable with the Protestant family I wrote about in my first Counterpoint.
Of that majority of good people, however, there was a subset who, while there were feelings of friendship and compassion for their family and friends, there were no similar feelings of friendship and compassion for their fellow human beings, for Negroes (the term used for black people at the time).
A key figure in To Kill A Mockingbird is that of Arthur “Boo” Radley. As a young boy, Arthur and some friends raised hell in the county – nothing like the arson, rape and murder we hear about in real cities daily but sufficient to have them spoken to from “three pulpits”.
The boys were eventually called before the judge who decided that they would be sent to what was known here some time ago as a school of industry. The older Mr Radley, who considered this to bring scandal on the family, petitioned the judge to release Arthur into his care, and that Arthur would never again cause any trouble.
And that was the case – because Arthur was not allowed to leave their home. No one saw him for many years. And, in the minds of children at least, myths grew around Arthur Radley. He was perceived as a shadowy, sinister figure, hence nicknamed Boo by the children.
A curious relationship grew between Arthur and the Finch children. He would leave sweets for them, for example, but his older brother, who had taken over the house after their father died, soon put a stop to this.
It is against this background that Finch was appointed by the court to defend a black man, Tim Robinson, in his rape trial because, said the judge, Atticus was the best person to undertake Robinson’s defence because he belonged to the subset that perceived black people as people, not as inferior beings.
There is disapproval on the part of the community because Atticus is to defend a Negro on a charge of raping a white woman.
Despite a lack of medical evidence, and despite the absence of witnesses other than Bob Ewell, the father of the alleged victim, and the alleged victim herself, the jury finds Robinson guilty. While awaiting a review of the trial, he tries to escape from prison and is shot dead.
Bob Ewell was not of the good majority of people in Maycomb county. Indeed, they condemned him for the way he brought up his children, and for the slatternly household he kept going. So, far from being seen as a hero by the people of Maycomb county, Ewell is still cold-shouldered by them.
And this contributes towards Ewell's ongoing chagrin. He carries a grudge against Atticus, but is too cowardly to take action against an adult. He takes out his venom on the Finch children instead. Atticus tried to teach his children about people like Ewell.
One night, as the children are returning home after a school function, Ewell follows them, then goes on the attack. He twists Jem's arm so badly that it cannot be restored to normality. He attacks Scout and would have smothered her but someone picks him off her. The upshot of all this is that Ewell lies dead with a knife wound, and Scout sees the near-unconscious Jem being carried to their home.
The doctor and the sheriff have to be informed. And it is at this point that the sheriff makes a resolution: while Attucus thinks that Jem had stabbed Ewell, the sheriff states firmly that Ewell fell on his own knife, and that is the version of events the court would hear.
Arthur Radley would be kept out of things, otherwise all the ladies of Maycomb county would be on his doorstep offering delicacies.
Yes, agrees Scout, the sheriff is right. Keep Arthur Radley out of the picture, otherwise, says Scout, “It would be sort of like shooting a mockingbird.”
Arthur Radley’s actions that night confirm that he is the mockingbird of the tale. The mockingbird was killed by years of domination by father and brother. But we know the mockingbird killed Ewell.
If Arthur Radley's father and brother had been taught as children to give, to care, to experience empathy and sympathy, perhaps he would have grown up to become a successful family man.
It will be wise to identify the mockingbirds in our families and communities, and take care that they are not treated unfairly.
It was inspiring to read (Cape Times, December 23) an article about teaching one’s children to give. This is in the spirit in which Atticus Finch reared his children.
Children, says the article, should not be made aware only around, say, Christmas time to buy gifts or other nice things for less privileged children. The question is: “How do we raise charitable children who give because they want to and not just because mom and dad said they should?”
The NPO Charity: Water has succeeded in engaging even very young children in raising funds to bring clean, drinkable water to persons who do not have access to such. Besides photographs and a video which depict the dire straits in which people with no access to clean, drinkable water find themselves, children are actively involved in the organisational and fund-raising efforts.
A strong initiative is to encourage children to “give up their birthdays”. Instead of receiving gifts, they are encouraged to raise amounts equivalent to their age for the organisation. There have been astonishing results. Perhaps a worthwhile resolution for 2017 could be: Let’s teach our children how to give and be conscious of the beauty and value of things.