Which is better, to have near-constant change or almost none? In class we read a passage from Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, by Scott Sanders, and he is responding to Salman Rushdie's positive views on migration.
In the passage, Sanders disagrees with Rushdie in that he believes that people should stay in the same place, as opposed to moving around a lot, because it has less negative consequences than migration. I also agree with Sanders, but partially because I'm already against change. If I had my way, I would live in the the same house my whole life, in the same neighborhood, in the same city and I would probably never change things in my house like painting things and whatnot. And yes, I know that's kind of weird, but hey, that's me!
Although there are some consequences to having no change, there really are more when people are always moving around. Aside from the ones mentioned in the passage, another negative repercussion of moving a lot is that kids whose families move a lot either lose friends or don't stay in one place long enough to make any, which would be an extremely hard way to live life.
I can't help but think about people who have to move around a lot and think about how lucky I am to live in one of the safest cities, go to one of the best schools around and have such amazing friends I get to see almost every day. It's kind of weird to think about how different things could be if I were the one that always had to move around.
I really like your concluding paragraph. A lot of of times we don't think about how lucky we are, we just expect it. Good post!
ReplyDelete