Sharing Doesn't Work; How about Fratricide?

My family and I were invited to eat at a friend's house tonight. You may ask, why would such a mundane occurrence as a dinner invite merit a blog post? Well, for most families, surely it wouldn't. But for ours, this is quite a rare occasion. You see, I believe our reputation precedes us. With four of the silliest boys on this hemisphere we seldom receive an invite and with good reason too. My wife and I remarked that the host family must surely be so new to Doha that they haven't heard of our tempestuous boys.

Well, after tonight they definitely heard them. If it wasn't Hector screaming frantically for milk, it was the other three fighting relentlessly to dominate their young host's toy car collection. As I listened, or rather attempted not to listen, to Cinci's high-pitched wail as Sherman repeatedly "stealed" his toy from him, I could hear my wife with a veneer of calm and understanding encouraging Sherman to share with his brother. After two hours of our children's shreiking cacaphony, I'm certain our departure relieved our hosts.

Driving home with a few moments to contemplate as my wife dozed and my children, perhaps exhausted from two hours of incessant yelling, settled into a pristine silence, I wondered why my children can't share. " With four boys you'd think they could learn how to share, " I had heard my wife complain to our gracious hosts. Well, maybe sharing just isn't what boys do. The dynastic troubles of monarchies of old are replayed in the microcosm of my family. It seems that boys have always wanted everything within reach.

It's no marvel to me that the first recorded homicide in Western history was fratricide, Cain's killing of Abel. As man developed, it seems, boys had a tendency to quarrel over their share of an inheritance. As families began to acquire wealth, they realized that such capital, rather than being dispersed equally between heirs, should be concentrated under one patriarch in order to preserve the family's wealth. But to whom should go the greatest share? In the West the law of primogeniture entailed the majority of an estate to the oldest male heir, thus solving the internecine feuds that often ensued the death of a powerful patriarch. The Ottoman Turks had a different way of dealing with a boy's inherent desire to obtain his share, they codified the law of fratricide. With the death of the sultan civil war inevitably ensued as brother would contend with brother as each struggled to ascend the throne. Finally, the victor, he who had killed all of his brothers, claimed the spoils, and thus the empire, rather than being entailed away to the various offspring inhabiting the Ottoman harem, was consolidated in the hands of one man.

Unfortunately, neither primogeniture nor institutionalized fraticide appear to be suitable antidotes to the civil strife in my domain. Should we choose to impose primogeniture upon our family, Atticus, I'm sure, would be elated but his brothers would be loathe to acquiesce in his predominance. Although from the high-pitched shrills emanating from our walls the neighbors may conclude that fratricide is the law in our family, I'm afraid my wife doesn't have the stomach for it. So, it would seem that the search for a Pax McColluma will remain elusive in our lands.