NONE OF THE ABOVE

As a child I was very familiar with the saying “the sins of the fathers live after them”. At a point it was changed to the sins of the fathers lives with them. The new saying was brought because people decided it was not good for innocent children to inherit the sins of their fathers or family per se. In my opinion both thoughts are cowardly, especially because it was orchestrated by biased people. I think the first set of people are inhuman, and the second set are biased because both are trying to fulfill selfish agendas. A lot of the people who want children to suffer for the sins of their fathers are often merciless and would never be able to take what they are doing to others, making them cowards. The second set raise privileged children but do not wish to allow them to suffer, also making them cowards.

Image by Sergei Tokmakov, Esq. https://Terms.Law from Pixabay

Am I saying children should never enjoy the labour of their parents, the answer is no. The point I'm trying to point out is that for them to enjoy the labour of their parents they should be thought to make their own wealth so they can at least feel a fraction of the labour their parents went through in order to get to such a level of wealth. And then for suffering for the sins of their parents I also believe it is utterly unfair, but not for the reason a lot of people believe which is usually around the word “innocent”. People don't suffer because they are innocent, they suffer because someone somewhere believes they are less human. And if this is the case (believing a person is less human) because of what someone else has done then it is not justifiable by anything at all. I believe in a world of fairness where everyone should be given the opportunity to make their own decisions and be whoever they wish to be and thus be judged on such a basis.

In this part of the world, it is said that children often grow up to repeat the sins of their fathers and are thus made to avoid it by continual reminder which is commonly called a generational cause of pattern. The way I see it however is though I believe some of these to be true, I don't believe entirely that it is in all cases. Imagine a person whose father and grandfather died as thieves. This child grows up being known as the child of a thief, often from a poverty stricken home with no knowledge or exposure of how to make money. The child finds out that he can be very swift in his movements which comes naturally to him, and a trait he inherited from his father, not being thought on how to use this talent decided to start stealing because he thinks it is what he's good at, would you call it a generational cause or lack of right knowledge of his talent…

Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

From the instance I gave you would see clearly that his actions were based more on a decision to survive with his inherited traits the only way he knows how to, rather than a cause. If such a person grew under a father that could perform magic tricks what are the chances that he wouldn't do so himself. Every Child was a clean slate from birth, with natural traits and genes that could be inherited from a parent. What they decide to do with it is a product of exposure and knowledge which they could acquire on their own if they decide to change the narrative. So with this I would say, before you punish the man, ensure you have taught the child well. And before you bless a man, ensure you have trained the child well. Else the first would repeat mistakes made by predecessors, and the latter would have squadal privileges.

THIS IS MY RESPONSE TO HIVE LEARNER'S PROMPT FOR WEEK 147 EPISODE 2