The antiques dealer recommended by our real estate agent drove up from Eden to look at the piano, and ended up agreeing to take several pieces of furniture, some old doilies and dresses and a couple of pieces of our Great Uncle Ces’s artwork as well. Steve* was quite a character, pushing aside silvery dreadlocks and hoisting up his trousers as he inspected our wares and explained his unique approach to long distance driving. Steve took a long stroll in the garden with mum over a cup of tea and 'tut tutted' in a very supportive way when she complained about how the new paint job had stripped the house of its character. He then enlisted my siblings in a morning of heavy lifting in order to squeeze everything into his truck. When he finally left, more than a week after his first visit, he surprised mum with a goodbye kiss on the cheek. Overall there had been some lovely interactions with beautiful people throughout this very difficult process.
Yet, at the 11th hour, only a couple of days before settlement, we received an intimidating letter of demand from the buyer’s solicitor, accusing us of chopping down a tree during the settlement period without their consent. This wasn’t the case at all. A large gum tree had fallen down in a storm about 6 months earlier, and mum had brought someone in to chop up the fallen tree into smaller pieces. The resulting logs were then carefully positioned alongside walking paths in mum's beloved rainforest at the back of the garden. Various stumps became seats, or little tables for potted plants. The larger trunk was still there, with its upended roots blending into 6 months of overgrowth. It had been visible exactly like that throughout the marketing campaign for the sale of the house and we had photos to prove it. Yet, the replies came back in legal jargon as determined as ever. We’d chopped down the gum tree without their consent and would have to remove the entire tree's remains within 24 hours or they’d withhold part of the final price.
I was shocked and angry. ‘How could they be so cruel?’ I asked mum’s solicitor, who calmly guided the process with his signature pragmatism until the buyer's solicitor finally backed off, and the sale went through with a mere moment to spare. But the whole incident left a bitter taste in my mouth.
| Mum's beloved garden |
This wasn’t my first experience of people behaving badly. When others have behaved in ways that I experience as disingenuous, unreasonable, manipulative or lacking in empathy I feel incredibly angry. Whether it’s on the global political stage, in workplaces, or in community groups, I’ve seen how those with power can wield that power over others, how the truth can be twisted to serve a particular purpose, and how individual interests can override the greater good.
When the property dispute happened, I admitted on social media that I felt ill-equipped to deal with human cruelty. As a Quaker, I was raised amongst hippies and activists, people who courageously spoke truth to power and worked tirelessly for social justice. I was also encouraged to "Walk cheerfully over the earth, answering that of God in everyone". When faced with blatant cruelty and injustice, I find it challenging to see the good in those who actively cause harm to others. I asked the hive mind how I can stay true to the peaceful values of my upbringing while still channelling my rage into a focused, productive fight for justice.
It turned out that people had lots to say on the subject. Some reflected that Quakers, because of our focus on seeing the good in others, can struggle with holding people accountable, setting boundaries and resolving conflict in a healthy way. Others found comfort in the laws and policies that govern human behaviour. Some felt compassion for tyrants and bullies. Others reflected that anger is a good thing if channelled towards positive social change. After all, it is what’s led to progress on women’s liberation, racial justice and other civil rights. And then a couple of friends admonished me privately for taking things so personally. Other people are simply doing business in the way that they know works for them. If I wasn’t so sensitive, it wouldn’t bother me so much.
And there is some truth to this last assertion. I comfortably identify as a highly sensitive person. (Which is different to being “too sensitive”, by the way.) An article about Why Emotionally Intelligent People Struggle Most in Toxic Workplaces particularly resonated with me. The author states that “the people who feel things most deeply are the ones most easily broken by a toxic environment. Not the most brittle. Not the least capable. The most attuned”. Perhaps it’s because of my sensitivity, which is both a strength and a vulnerability, that I notice cruelty and injustice and want to do all I can to overcome it. But, in unhealthy environments, the article says, the efforts of emotionally intelligent people to improve relationships, have honest conversations and name what isn’t working often go unrewarded and are sometimes brutally punished.
I also think I became a bit too focussed on cruelty, and started seeing it everywhere. At just the right time, I remembered about a book that a friend gave me called “Human kind”. This book explains that in so much of literature, film and the media there is a deeply rooted belief that humans are by nature selfish, cruel and unkind. That in times of disaster it's every person for themself. Think 'Lord of the Flies', 'Titanic' (the movie), and Hurricane Katrina.
Yet, this book explores actual evidence from history that tells a different story. Humans, it turns out, are overwhelmingly willing to die for strangers, they band together in times of adversity, and are generally decent. Survivors of the twin towers' collapse in New York shared later that people were incredibly generous towards one another during that catastrophe, even insisting that strangers go ahead of them down the fire stairs, knowing that such kindness could cost them their own life. During WW2, leaders of both England and Germany assumed that civilisation would quickly collapse following the bombing of a major city. Yet, ordinary people in both countries continued with their everyday lives, demonstrating humour, resilience and courage. And after the dust settled in New Orleans, it turned out that the extent of looting, rape and murder was nowhere near what the media had implied. Instead researchers found that the overwhelming majority of activity during the aftermath of the hurricane was pro-social in nature.
And there is the story of Celine Cremer, a Belgian hiker who went missing in Tasmania. People came over from several other states of Australia and even from overseas, without knowing this person, to participate in the search. Celine’s mother gave an emotional thank you speech at the end of the search. The idea that complete strangers would do this for her family gave her immense comfort and hope about humanity. Perhaps, the book suggests, those with power, whose intentions are questionable, assume that everyone else is the same. In reality, the vast majority of us behave in ways that are helpful, community-oriented and kind.
Back to the question of walking cheerfully over the earth answering that of God in others. How do I do this with integrity when there’s been significant hurt or injustice? I turned to those more enlightened than me for answers. The Desiderata poem which I have displayed in my hallway offers balanced advice, saying "As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all people". I hold onto that idea of 'without surrender'. And when I recently watched Emily Provance’s 2025 Swarthmore Lecture on "A Testimony of Community", one of the minutes she shares at the end hints at how to find that balance: “How we respond to provocation is how we demonstrate Christ’s way”. Theologian Walter Wink outlines how "Christ’s way" of responding to provocation is, in fact, deeply radical. Rejecting the paths of passive submission and violent retaliation, Jesus suggests a third way of nonviolent resistance. This approach demands immense moral courage and creativity to assert one's humanity without resorting to the violence of one's opponent.
Well, the past six months has been a lesson in leaning in to that challenge. I’ve gravitated towards teams and community groups where empathy, honesty, integrity and courage are valued and lived out. This has restored my faith in “human kind”, and I feel a strength, a calm, and a sense of emotional safety return. And in times of provocation, so to speak, I have tried to draw on the strength gained from these positive experiences to set and maintain boundaries, participate in creative, non-violent actions to oppose structural violence, and respectfully cut ties when the relationship is not likely to improve. And I've found that the bitterness that I felt so strongly at the time of the house sale has gradually been replaced with a degree of compassion. We left the family home for the last time with a strong sense of community that had been built over several decades, and of being held by a force greater than ourselves. I hope that the new owners also experience the joy and fulfilment that comes with being part of communities of human kind-ness.
| The seat my brother made |
*name changed



