Too Many "-ists" ... and Mostly Extreme"-ists"

Greetings,

There has been much said in the media about politics and religion over the past months, indeed over the past years. It seems that we are in a period of history in which tension, in one form or another, is the "normal" state of being. Is it any wonder that we have global rates of suicide increasing every year? Politics and religion seem to, once again, or even permanently have been mixed up together.

There just seems to be too much of each within the other. Religion seems to have gone political and politics have become, in many instances, of a religious nature, or at least based on a particular religion. This is not even the real problem. It is just scratching the surface of the problem in my view. The problem is extremism.

The problem is extremism in all of its forms. It does not matter whether it is religious extremism of political extremism. When a position is taken where there the options are "Us" and "Them" and nothing in between there becomes no place for negotiation no place where compromise can be made so agreement can be had. I has been said that uncompromising people are easy to admire. They are also easy to hate as well, and this is also the problem, such extremism breeds with it the seeds of hate.

What there is are too many "-ists" that people tie themselves to and too many radicals of these "-ists", and it does not matter what form of "-ist" it is. Once a radical position is taken where everything concerns this particular "-ist" and can be turned to be about this particular "-ist" then there are problems. Once the views about this "-ist" become radicalised there are problems because there is very little room to move, the word extrem-ist becomes appropriate.

The easy one, at this point in history to point at is fundamental-ist. For the most part when this word is used the first thought is regard to Muslims, and the various acts of terror which have been more recently perpetrated around the world. But, a person must be cautious because the same word can also be applied to Christian, and then a person can talk about Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidians. With regard to fundamental-ists, there are very few religions that can claim absolute purity that they have not had theirs.

So, religion and fundamental-ists, are not a great thing, but the "-ists" of politics are not so squeaky clean either. So we can point to the obvious "dangerous" one anarch-ist, had most of their "fun" back in the nineteenth century with a small spate of activity which was claimed anarchist in the 1960s. There were social-ist terrorists who went on sprees throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. These are but a few examples, of course there is also the environmental-ist, which for most people brings to thought the peace-loving flower-children, but not all of them were. The history books are dotted with examples of what is called eco-terrorism. In each case the radical element of these "-ists" took it upon themselves to perform criminal acts to make their points. In all cases they are extrem-ists.

Where does this leave us? The most important "-ist" that people should be concerned with is coex-ist. This is not possible where there are lines drawn and two distinct sides and "Us" and "Them" determined. In every case there must be room for negotiation and compromise on both sides. There needs to be room for at least the acceptance of the other's point of view, even if there is no agreement. Extremism in all its forms is damaging. Extreme positions about subjects leave little room for negotiation and differing points of view.

"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking
and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition." - Wikipedia

A new definition for humanism needs to be coined, focussing on the individual whose focus is on humanity, and the humanity in each individual. This is the sort of thought that we need to day a thought process which overrides politics and religion and focuses on the common aspects of humanity to find the commonality amongst us all. This individual would in their most radical form be of a sort to seek what universal commonality can be found amongst all and how to achieve this.

In light of recent occurrences in New Zealand, we must take a stand against all forms of terrorism regardless of its cause, political or religious. This is to demonstrate to those who would attempt to use such methods that it is not a legitimate means of  getting what they want. Thus we must take a stand against all forms of terror tactics which would attempt to subvert our way of life or our thoughts.

Each form of terror tactic feeds another which feeds another in an endless cycle of  fear and oppression, it is up to us to take a stand against it NOW. The easiest way of taking this stand is through denial. We deny the terrorist their names in public. We deny them publication of their manifestos. We deny them publication of their acts.

What this also means that we need to take a stand against much of our modern media who use such sensationalist stories to prop up their ratings. They would claim that they are merely informing their public of what is happening with regard to the incident and the results of it, but it is not. If this was the case then why does the same story get played over and over again? Why does every story for the next week get related back to the same incident? Having such material in our faces does nothing but increase the tension in our communities. Switch them off. Having such material causes distress to those who may have been involved or who know those who were involved. Don't share their stories. Terrorism feeds on publicity and modern media is feeding it. Don't feed it, starve it. Let our media outlets know that will not be party to it.

If you need to talk about the incidents, talk about the victims and the families. These are the people who need our support. Deny the terrorist name and fame. Let them be forgotten. Let the real heroes of the day be remembered. The greatest effect of the stand can only be achieve through unity. Not one faith, or one colour or one gender, or one ethnicity, but the unity of all humanity.

Cheers,

Henry.

Stop Biting My Fingers I am Trying to Help

Greetings,

I like to think that I am a reasonably open-minded sort of individual. I do not think that some mob of middle-aged men should be determining what is right for women's bodies. I also think that the same women should be paid the same as their male counter-parts for the same job. One could say that I am a believer in  equity between the sexes because equality is just not possible because we are different, and this is an awesome thing.

Of course I like to treat people equally as well. Then I get bombarded by articles such as this one: "That's not what chivalry is, but OK" (https://goingmedievalblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/thats-not-what-chivalry-is-but-ok/). An article which is written by a qualified individual in academia, and it does a wonderful job of beating up on the male counter-part for their misunderstanding of "chivalry" and how it does not apply today. Well, let me just say, I have some corrections for the article, and some updates which need to be said.

First of all, the aspects of "chivalry" said "Nice Guys" are hitting you with are not the historical versions at all. Yes, there they have it wrong. It is because they have been hit with the romanticised Victorian ideal of chivalry rather than what it actually was. This is a concept, by the way, which is bred into many of us so that we will treat women with respect. That being said, let us move on.

Now we have diffused some of the bit where we understand that the "Nice Guy" has no concept of "real" chivalry, let's look at some places where the author also needs to have a bit of a fact check. The author states that, "War horses, who were big bois, because they had to carry the weight of all that armour, were incredibly expensive, as was armour in and of itself." Yes, armour was expensive and so were horses. On the other hand, armour, as has been soundly proven by actual collections of actual artefacts is not all that heavy. I recommend looking at some of the brilliant research embarked upon by Daniel Jaquet, especially his obstacle run in armour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw) to have an idea about armour in the real world.

With regard to horses, the weight of the horse was to increase the weight of the charge against the opponent, not because the armour was so heavy. Likewise, the destrier was designed for battle, not for wandering around the countryside, which would be the reason for the palfrey for daily work, and not suitable for carrying an armoured man. Once again, in both cases, academia demonstrates its lack of knowledge of actual medieval martial arts and warfare. 

Then there is a long list of discussion about various papers of courtly love, however they conveniently stop before the beginning of the 15th-century, so Castiglione, Erasmus and various Renaissance authors conveniently miss out. Thus we miss out on the High Middle Ages and the development of the courtier and his training, and further along the gentleman. So thus the relationship through the Victorian ideals to the modern era is conveniently missed.

Just to finish this particular article off the author signs of with, "The TL/DR? That’s not what chivalry is, and you are being a sexist muppet right now. Off you pop." Great way for an academic of any kind to sign off, trying to stay in with the "in" crowd? Well, you will pretty much marginalise the entire male audience with that one. Even if, like myself, they would be really interested in hearing stories of women's achievements in medieval history and have written about such subjects (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2018/05/myth-debunking-female-combat-training.html).

It is exactly this sort of article which immediately puts men offside with regard to the sexism debate. There is no question of middle ground, there is only one and that states all men are inconsiderate and should be shunned. It is the case that the "feminazi" is just as bad as the chauvinist/misogynist and as far as I am concerned are just as bad as one another. Two extremists, just at opposite ends of the scale.

Where does all of this lead? It leads to some very simple things. There are men out there who do respect women and who are looking out for their best interests the best that they can, and that they are interested in women's history. Of course these same men do prefer not to have the misdeeds of men of the past shoved down their throats nor where their ancestors did things in inconvenient ways.

People are interested in historical and current social phenomenon, but they are much more interesting when the whole story is told so that we can understand how we came to the place where we are now. Not skipping over a couple of hundred years and just saying that something is being used wrongly. They say that only through understanding the past can we not make the same mistakes in the future, well all of that past must be told, not just snippets which suit the social/political rantings at an author's convenience.

Understanding is important. You cannot understand the "Nice Guys'" understanding of chivalry unless you look at the entire picture and how it was fed to them. Understand that it is not the medieval version. How can it apply? Understand it is a version of the concept which has filtered through the humanism of the Renaissance and also the Romanticism of the Victorian age to an ideal of what it was. Take these things into account and you will find it is quite positive not only toward women, but people in general. Once there is even a little more understanding between the sexes things will improve quite a bit.

Ask yourself, what does writing the article serve? And please try not to bite the fingers of those who are actually trying to help.

Cheers,

Henry.