Do we become our parent or does the idea that every child from a broken home will or must have the same home? This is a background check on a very salient matter that dominate our society, making certain class or factions less responsible for their inadequacies and at the same time building up excuses for it.
This matter also makes another faction anxious of what the future really holds. It puts the question, do they really own their future or is it as the mercies of some fallacies that needs to be addressed.
It is believed that people who come from homes that are not haven, filled with argument, infidelity, lack of love, often find themselves replicating the same. To limit the scope, a man whose father is abusive, an infidel, a drunk for example often find themselves in the same position. But how true is that? Does that mean we all have a destiny we have no control over or does the fulfilment of the religious idea that “curses” persist from generation to generation really exist? Are we really the owner of our lives or life is just a mysterious cycle of behavior and attitude passes through the gene and we have no control about it.
Here is a short story of the ola’s family. Ola is a fine young man whose childhood experience a fair share of loneliness, abuse, lack of a father figure to name but a few. His father was married to three wives and had a big height of disregard for his family. He was rich and lived a luxurious life only to end up in bitterness and ola believes his life is basically a mirror of this father’s.
Tade, ola’s brother, on the other hand faced this same discomfort but turned out to be a loving father with a beautiful home. Let me also chip in that ola and Tade’s grandfather lived in the exact same line the father lived. What really was the problem? For a fact, they were all victims of an unknown force that permeate through their lineage, but what changed for Tade. This brings to the stand the question of if really the individualistic nature of humans exist. And also not to lay aside this established stance that we all are product of experience and influence but do we have a say about how we treat those influences?
Ola’s was basically viewed from the lens of his father and also his grandfather. Did he have a say or it is just the result of the so called religious tag “generational curse”. And if that is the case, then this so called curse really do exist and it must be selective.
Tade’s life is a whole new narrative, to a great extent distorts every thought established on the idea of generational curses or any form of influence. His life poses the narrative that claims the existence of a blank slate and a height degree of individualism. He owned his life never putting his background to consideration. Ola on the other hand poses an idea that our parent and our perception of them leaves some permanent imprint in our lives and we cannot do anything to change that.
Hence the idea of generational curse. But how true are all this premises? Is our idea of generational curse an excuse for our irresponsibility and negligence? Because on one hand, this so called generationally cursed individuals were victims of a situation they had no control over and that built up the mentality.
All Ola saw was a life painted by his father. Following this line of thought, can it be posited that the phrase generational curse can and I think should be replaced by the phrase “transitional victims”. Because the victim’s lifestyle produced a cause and effect situation which was transferred to his son which became another victims. But is this really true, are we all results of cause and effect? But Tade’s narrative seems to differ. So here is the argument, is the idea of generational curse real or are we the author of our own fortune?