Who were you before someone told you who you were supposed to be?

By David McElroy · January 11, 2018

At some point in your young life, you were rewarded for being something — and the pleasure of that reward led you to end up believing that was who you really were.

But who were you before that? Who were you before parents and teachers and culture taught you to conform to what they wanted? Do you remember?

Those people rarely say, “This is what I want you to be.” They don’t even necessarily have bad intentions. But the people around you start shaping you into what they believe you ought to be. Sometimes they try to make you into little versions of themselves. Sometimes they’re acting out of fears from their own lives — trying to save you from something which damaged them.

But you were born knowing who you are. Do you remember who that is?

Do you remember when people started rewarding you in ways that made you obedient? I didn’t realize it was going on at the time. I was just another child going through just another routine childhood.

I was praised and rewarded for being smart and compliant. I craved the praise, so I was unconsciously determined to fill the role that got me rewarded. Through more than half a dozen school systems as I grew up — we moved around a lot — I learned how to be the smartest kid in the class. I learned to please teachers by giving them what they wanted. I was a perfect fit for a school system based on compliance with cultural standards.

I learned all sorts of things for my teachers. Those things meant nothing to me, but I craved the rewards I was offered. I craved the attention and love and praise that I experienced when people knew I was the best.

I learned how to be what my parents and teachers and culture wanted, but I forgot all about who I had been before they started shaping me into the model student.

Who was I before that?

I’ve forgotten so much that it’s hard to answer the question, but I was a creator. I had visions of things that could be and I was driven to make those things into reality. I needed to change the world around me in ways that were both big and small. But those visions were captured and redirected into academic pursuits.

Nobody around me had bad intentions, so that’s not the point. Every child and every generation has gone through this. Some of it is absolutely required for us to survive — we have to learn not to play in traffic, for instance — but much of the well-intended training we received was based on others’ desires for us to be like them — or for them to be able to live their lives vicariously through our successes.

I don’t know where you draw the line. Which things are just teaching a child what he needs to know to survive in a culture and which things cause him to be changed irredeemably into something different from what he was born to be?

I don’t know the right answers to those questions, but I’m painfully aware of the questions. No matter how much I’ve thought about it, though, I’ll inevitably make some of the same mistakes with my own children.

But what if I can raise my children to always try to hold onto what they are when they were born? Would that make a difference for them? Would it make a difference if I gave them the essential guidance they needed to remain safe — but if I gave them the sovereignty over their own lives to shape who they are and what they believe?

Do you remember who you were? Can you imagine what you would be today if you hadn’t been manipulated into achieving things which others wanted? Can you imagine which things would matter to you if you weren’t still trying to be good enough for someone who is long gone? Who might even be dead? Can you really get the approval of such ghosts?

I remember bits and pieces of who I was. Those are the bits and pieces that seem to be the most genuine parts of me. They seem to be the parts I’ve unconsciously sacrificed over the last decades to serve.

I have a feeling that getting back in touch with who I was — and then living a life that’s congruent with that person — is key to the resolution of a lifetime of emotional angst. That might be true for you, too.

Who were you before they told you what to become?

Note: I’m the little boy in the photo up top. I don’t remember the little girl’s name, but I’m told she was a close friend when I was that age. We lived on Navajo Trail in the Center Point area of Birmingham at the time.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts