Dear Oscar,

There are those who think that freedom is the absolute priority, freedom to say and do and be, and to some extent I understand the argument. But it also has to be recognised that absolute freedom would mean that people are free to undertake acts of atrocity, and I could not subscribe to that. So the question comes to be: freedom on whose terms?

I am sure you believed in your life time that you should have been free to lead the life that you wished to live, and there has now been over a century of civil unrest and political challenge throughout the world in order to try to achieve that. I suppose the attainment of such a level of freedom would have to ask the question as to whether these ‘freedoms’ were being won at the expense of others, and if that is not the case then all well and good.

But then again surely priorities should be far more basic, and commonly shared. Food, shelter, warmth, water; from such basics everything else can be built and developed. But it pains me to report, Oscar, that even in the advanced state of human evolution that we currently exist, there are still people who experience hunger, thirst, lack of protection against the elements. It is as if overlooking the plight of the weakest is somehow acceptable, with states, religions, charities, all looking the other way. Of course no single person can achieve enough to change it all, but so much of the collective consciousness seems to be about now knowing, not recognising, not responding. Preserve the self before you make any attempt to preserve the other – that appears to be the overriding philosophy. Again, I can understand the argument, but surely some awareness of the plight of others would benefit the whole.

I have travelled, Oscar, in the country of Vietnam, in the capital of Hanoi. What impressed me the most is that crossing the road was about simply stepping off the kerb, with awareness, with due care, and mingling with the hubbub. All traffic would give way to the weakest, so that pedestrians were given right of way, and motor vehicles would work around their needs. Just as cars would work around the needs of motorcyclists, and lorries of cars. It looked rather a chaotic system, but it seemed to work very effectively. What was most impressive, was that ‘giving way’, and understanding the needs of the weaker, were the order of the day. It seems to me that this could be translated in a much broader sense into our understanding of each other, and our recognition that selfish squandering is of little benefit to the whole.

Did you care, Oscar, for those who were weaker than you, less influential, less powerful, with no voice, no right to be heard, no social recognition? I think to some extent you came to, but only as you experienced levels of privation.

Best wishes,

Algernon B. Duffoure.