No you didn’t. Trust is a partnership. One that recognizes that humans are fallible and sees people work together to look out for each other for the betterment of the group.
Trust would have seen someone also take a look at the person and, upon realizing his background, point out “This person is not who you think he is.” and the speaker realizing “Oh shit, you’re right. We had better cancel these ceremonies.”
I appreciate the trust that has formed here – with you calling attention to something that may have been miscommunicated. Can you point to where you got the idea that someone did have prior knowledge so that I can correct it? There was no such intent.
Trust would have seen someone point out “This person is not who you think he is.” and the speaker realizing “Oh shit, you’re right. We had better cancel these ceremonies.”
My interpretation of this is that someone would have had to know that this person is not who he thought he was, and given him the heads-up.
With trust, parties look out for each other for the betterment of the group. Just like you have done here – having recognized that something wasn’t quite right and brought it to my attention. (And on that note I have attempted to make that statement more clear on your recommendation. I do hope I have succeeded this time.)
I assume absolutely nobody took the time to look at the honouree. Most likely because nobody actually gives a rat’s ass about his background. If there was trust, it could have been broken if the group pointed out that this person is not worthy of being honoured and the speaker went ahead with it anyway, but to do nothing and then throw him under the bus because nobody cared means there was no trust to begin with.
Add comment