Humility Vs. Supremacy

Humility and Supremacy are opposites of one another.

Humility is about knowing that one is not omnipotent, a god, a deity, all-knowing and above others.
It allows one to learn, and to appreciate and view the world and other people as they really are, without casting personal bias, assumptions, projections, or judgments, which block one's clear perception. 

Supremacy is about believing that one is innately superior. Since it is a belief, it must be continually reinforced and reaffirmed with evidence proving that it is so. When we need to reinforce a belief by gathering evidence to prove that it's true, that means we are not just sitting in a neutral position, allowing it to prove itself.

The moon proves its own existence every night, and so do the stars, and the sun, and the rain. We don't need to do anything to prove they are there, they just show up and show themselves. What we BELIEVE about them, however, is that which we favor to be true, but isn't necessarily, and so we seek evidence to prove that our belief is correct to others, and to ourselves.

There used to be a common belief that the sun, planets, and stars rotate around the Earth, like the moon does.  There were many who held positions of authority who wanted it to be true, and there were all kinds of "papers" written by "scholars" who insisted that it was scientific fact, complete with explanations of WHY it was so. They could not prove it, they just wanted it to be true, probably because it made them FEEL a certain way to believe that they were the center of the Universe, the most important thing. They wanted it so much that they exiled or even killed people who said otherwise.

In modern times, many humans have shown and proved that only the moon rotates around the Earth, but the Earth rotates around the sun, along with the other planets in our solar system, and the stars are very far away "suns" with solar systems of their own, in a larger galaxy, and so on.  

Belief needs to be reinforced over and over. Reality does not need reinforcement, it simply shows up. So when a person feels defensive about their belief being true or not, it's usually because subconsciously they know there isn't really indisputable proof that it's true or real.

There is a common belief throughout the world that there are giant hominids in the wilderness; "Yeti", "Sasquatch", "Bigfoot", the "Abominable Snowman" are names that have been given to this mysterious, elusive creature.

Does it exist, or does it not? Is it real, is it living, is it out there? Or is it a myth?

What we have is evidence that is not rock-solid because it could have been faked, many eye-witness accounts which can't be used as "proof", footage that could have been faked, and legends that go way back. All of this proves zero, zilch, nada. There is no solid proof that the Yeti DOES exist, NOR is there proof that it DOES NOT exist.

And yet, there are people who are adamant believers that the Yeti exists, and there are people who adamantly believe that it DOES NOT exist.

Without proof either way, it's all the same. Believes and skeptics are in the same boat; it's all about BELIEF. So, the "believers" tend to try to gather anything they can find to prove that they're right, and "skeptics" try to gather anything they can find to prove that THEY are right.

It's all futile. There is no way to prove that the Yeti DOES NOT exist, nor is there solid evidence to prove that it does.

On the day that someone can gather enough evidence to proves that the Yeti is really out there, believing that it exists, or NOT believing that it exists, is still all just BELIEF. It's not "fact".

And so it goes with everything else. If one wants to believe in Supremacy, then one will keep trying to gather evidence to reinforce the belief. But if one has humility, then "Supremacy" is moot. It either proves itself, or it doesn't; if it proved itself, it wouldn't need to be reinforced, shown, or proven. Just like the moon, the sun, and the stars. No one would be wondering if it was true or not, and no one would be trying to prove it. 

Why Does Everything Suck... No Rocket Science Required

The more integrity in a community, the more confident, capable, ethical and strong each member feels and behaves, no matter their age, sex, financial or marital status, level of education, or job. Progress, humility, gratitude and good friendships and relationships come easy and are not taken for granted, no one gets trampled; individuals don't have to fit in to a cookie cutter mold in order to be treated with decency by others. They are supported to rise closer to their real potentials without pomp or extra effort; not just certain people, but all of them.

The less integrity in a community, the less confident many are, and the more arrogant and unethical others behave.
True integrity, genuine ethics, self-control, fairness, and empathy (not the same as sympathy or pity) purposely practiced by all members of a community, or at least most, regardless of their financial status, are the requirements for  real civilization.

Without them, we have what we have now. Chaos, self-righteousness, power-tripping, fear-mongering, and martyr-complexes all over the place.

All it would take to cure our current societal ailments is a little effort toward self-control and maturity.

How Do Adults In Your Community Or Family Treat The Kids

Here's a clue about the world we live in now.. in healthy, happy, well-rounded societies (that aren't inundated with control mongers), regardless of average income, it's typical for children to connect with and remain connected with friends and acquaintances of their parents, and extended family, and be able to rely on them for solid guidance, friendship, and support.
In antisocial control freak societies, you see the opposite of that quite often.

Adults don't make connections with other people's children as a "normal" thing, or stay connected to them, or have any idea how to mentor them.
Many don't even do that with their own.
Or they ONLY treat certain children decently whom they include in a chosen "clique", and judge other children negatively who don't "fit in", even children who are in their family, or local circles, groups, or community.

They put the burden of finding adult support, connections, and mentors on the children, as if the children have to "prove" that they're "good enough" to warrant attention or (proper) guidance from adults, or friendship and acceptance.

Adults in such groups may triangulate KIDS, gossip and spread rumors ABOUT children, or about kids' parents, and will often ostracize and reject KIDS from their cliques, and encourage the kids in their family to do the same.
(Instead of teaching them NOT to create cliques, gossip, single out, bully, and ostracize... through guidance, and modeling mature adult behavior, which includes caring about children).
So adults MIGHT show acceptance or approval toward a couple of kids who fit a certain mold that they LIKE, (usually who remind them of themselves), but that's it; the rest of the children get treated like 'rugrats, like they're just walking annoyances that cost resources and time, and get underfoot.

Also, many parents in these types of communities typically don't make an effort to connect with other families for reasons of "family" (as opposed to reasons of shared substance use or other adult-only "common interests"). And they don't LIKE IT when their kids make normal connections with actually-responsible, kid-friendly adult friends, or with adults who actually WOULD be a mentor to them; not because they're "worried about the adult's behavior" but because of jealousy or insecurity.
     (These same parents will often allow another blatantly irresponsible adult to be in contact with their kids, just because the person is one of their "buddies", but NOT a person with real integrity or the ability to mentor... the kid might LIKE them, and then what? The kid might learn how to see through B.S... wouldn't want that...)
      Before going blaming the parents for all of it, can't get off so easy. It actually does take the village to raise a child. It doesn't take a village if one lives in the woods, with no other human contact, because that's all the child is going to experience. But if the child is going to be raised in a "village", then the "village" the child comes in contact with IS already involved in raising and influencing that child, whether they like it or not. When they treat the child poorly, shun the child, bully the child, or treat the child's parent poorly, they are affecting the child directly.
It doesn't take "Mr. or Ms. Perfect" or "Mr. or Ms. Community Leader"  to be a positive (as opposed to negative) influence on children, it just takes not being a self-centered jerk, and having consideration and respect (including self-respect).
Having and displaying basic decency, fairness, and manners, and keep the ridiculous sexism to a minimum for the benefit of both boys and girls.
one over the other does neither any favors, it just instigates superiority and inferiority complexes, and causes them problems in adulthood when they're trying to deal with others in society, have good relationships, and lead happy lives. 

("Children" are still "children" when they're teens, legally till they're 21, they aren't grown up just because they look adult-like. And they're still young adults in their 20s, they're not experienced, life-worn older people who could possibly know what they haven't learned yet. Adult responsibility doesn't just STOP when kids don't look little anymore.)

Addendum: There is a very big difference between infantalizing young people and guiding/mentoring them.


[in-fuhn-tl-ahyz, -tahy-lahyz, in-fan-tl-ahyz] 
verb (used with object), in·fan·til·ized, in·fan·til·iz·ing.
to keep in or reduce to an infantile state.
to treat or regard as infantile or immature.