Rich and Poor: It's a Matter of Perspective

 Greetings,

There is a divide in our societies between "the rich" and "the poor" and this divide is only getting wider. The access to services from either side of this divide is also only getting more and more divided as well as those who end up in government are those from "the rich" rather than the poor as the system is bent in their direction. This will be an examination of the concept of "the rich" and "the poor" and how it is most often a matter of perspective.

When most people think of "the rich" they think of people like the now notorious Elon Musk, possibly Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and other such wealth individuals who influence life in society, or at least attempt to in various ways. These people can more easily be classified as the "ultra-rich". They could stop working and simply wait for their income to roll on in with little effort on their part, still making multi-million dollars from their assets. This is a perspective of those who are reasonably well-off.

Consider politicians. According to public government records, a retiring Australian politician is paid a minimum of $185,000 per annum, with an additional percentage of their annual pay indexed by their years of service, paid for life. This payment is made by legislation, i.e., can be increased by a vote of the same politicians. Their basic salary is $211,250, again adjusted by different service, and adjusted by different methods, and voted by the same politicians who are getting paid the salary. This does not include the various perks they claim, including travel, food and accommodation.

If we then compare this to the average salary in Australia, which is $1,250 per week, or $65,000 per annum (calculated at 52 weeks), it shows a stark contrast between the "average Australian" that these politicians are supposed to represent and the amount they earn. Is it any surprise that politicians in Australia are out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent? 

If we then make a further comparison between the most "vulnerable" in Australian society there is an even starker contrast between the politicians and the people they are supposed to represent. The Age Pension, maximum basic rate, $936.80 per fortnight, or $24,356.80 per annum. The Disability Support Pension, i.e., those who have been declared unable to work, is the same at its maximum rate, in both cases if you are partnered, the rate drops for both of you, resulting in about the same amount. For a single person looking for work, i.e., unemployed, the basic rate is $668.40 per fortnight, or $17,378.4 per annum. With these numbers is it any wonder that politicians have no clue about the situation of people looking for work, or maybe the reason they have little motivation to do so? Most of the people on these payments are too busy worrying about how they are going to survive.

Now, all of these numbers can be found on government websites, as you will find if you click on any of the links. I have not pulled them from social media, or other forms of media, they are not hype or anything, they are the cold, hard facts. 

If we examine the numbers that are presented, a person on the maximum rate, consider that the maximum rate for either the Age or Disability Support pension is getting less than half the average salary of the average Australian. In one case the individual has already worked their entire life, in the other case they have been deemed unable to hold a standard occupation, unable to hold full-time employment. 

Moving entirely away from figures and comparisons between them...

A person may be sitting on a pension of some kind, and be quite happy. Having completed a their work for their career, they may have paid their house off, planned their retirement and be sitting happy with their pension. They could be entirely unconcerned about such things as the gap between how much they are getting as compared to someone else.

In contrast...

A person working at a job may be sitting at some relatively comfortable salary above the average and still not be happy. They could be concerned about how to get their next promotion; once they do that then they can afford the house that they think that they are entitled to; move out of the apartment which is draining a part of their income. They are concerned about all of these things yet could be earning well above the pensioner described above.

Happiness, in my opinion, has nothing to do with how much money you earn. The young working person may be more fiscally-wealthy but I would say that the pensioner has a richer life.

We make comparisons between ourselves on the basis of our fiscal worth, which in many cases are arbitrary, and based on elements of fortune and social statuses. Are there not values which we hold more dear more important? Can we not value each other more on the basis of our worth to society, what we give or gave to society?

The comparison between "rich" and "poor" is a matter of perspective. A person who is of a much lower socio-economic position may find a person who is of a middle-level of socio-economic standing quite wealthy in comparison to themselves, even though the person who is at this middle-level may not consider themselves to be wealthy, especially in comparison to those who are above them. When questions about who is "rich" and who is "poor" eventuate, it is a matter of comparison, a simple matter of perspective. 

Our society is run by those who are at the top, who we call "the rich" I would say that these individuals are more qualified as the "ultra-rich" in reality, well beyond the "average" individual's capacity, if there is such a thing as an "average" individual. If we examine our politicians and where they stand, while they are not quite in this "ultra-rich" position, they surely aspire to join them, and thus approve measures which assist those in such positions, along with themselves to improve their fiscal position. These are the individuals who we need to take a hard, long, look at and decide whether or not they, or the systems which they promote, are truly in the interest of the people they purport to serve.

Cheers,

Henry

"Privilege": Its Meaning and Application

 Greetings,

The subject of "privilege" is one that I am loathe to talk about because everyone has a certain amount of privilege depending on how you look at the terms and the definition which is applied to it. However in the context of the socio-cultural and socio-political context which has been placed upon the term, the definition is more specific, indeed it will have a definition which appears something like below:

"If you talk about privilege, you are talking about the power and advantage that only a small group of people have, usually because of their wealth or their high social class."

This definition is one which was taken from the Collins English Dictionary. This is one of those words which people have added special meaning, indeed it is not actually the word "privilege" they are talking about they are talking about "social privilege". It is likely that for convenience the first word "social" was dropped because it was understood in context, and then the new one was picked up and used so the definition of privilege was changed to have this new definition.

A privilege is simply something that another person or group does not possess, and this can vary over many different things. It was previously stated that everyone is privileged and this is true. Here are some simple statements: 

Everyone is privileged to have been born and survived that event, there are those who do not. So, People are privileged to be alive. 

People are privileged if they do not have a disability. 

People are privileged if they do not have some sort of illness, chronic or acute. 

People are privileged to have regular meals each day, or even to eat once a day. 

People are privileged to have clothes to wear, more so if those clothes are clean. 

There are those who have homes and those who do not, those who do are privileged. The more privileged people own the homes that they live in.

Social Privilege is something else which goes on top of these privileges. These privileges focus on the  social differences between individuals and also highlight some of the differences between individuals which may differ in the privileges which have already been highlighted. The purpose of this concept is to show which group of people stands above or below, and more often than not below, another group of people. Most often this is so the people who are above can be denigrated for their lack of empathy for those below, however often there are circumstances that are unknown and this is used as a simple tool for some social advantage, for the purposes of virtue signalling more than showing some actual social injustice being present. Simply put, everyone has their story, and it is not completely known to everyone.

The concept is supposed to highlight social injustice for the purposes of correcting the injustice, bringing things so there is more equality. Instead the concept is now used as a convenient stick to beat any person who has a disagreement, or who has a different point of view. Most often it is used as a convenient stick when a social issue seems to have been being ignored, even if the individual has no opinion or is unaffected by it, and most often by individuals who do not reflect upon their "privilege".

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

"Public" Holidays and Ideas

Greetings,

Five days until the fifth of November. In years past it was a day celebrated, recognised, now forgotten. Used to celebrate "Bonfire Night" as a child in Canberra, I did not know the significance. I thought it was a local thing and did not think much of it when it did not happen in Queensland. This day has been moved along with firework bans and so forth, faded from our calendar. Maybe, this day, should be celebrated, now more than ever.

Our public holidays are mandated by our Parliaments, both State and Federal, they decide how many days we should have off and when; more importantly they decide the reason for the holidays, and what reasons are important enough to mark on our calendars as important. Through this method they exert social control; they decide what is important to us and what is not.

Halloween was not particularly popular in Australia previously, there were some families and groups that celebrated it. Now, it has become a $430 million dollar industry, which is likely the reason that it is now encouraged, or at least not discouraged. There are those who are saying: its not "traditionally" Australian; its all pagan and not Christian so it shouldn't be celebrated; or that it is an American tradition, so its their culture having an impact on ours. There are those who will complain, but it will still occur.

Guy Fawkes Night, or Bonfire Night, as it is often called, that one has been buried, or at least it was mostly buried until "V for Vendetta" reminded people of the date, reminded them of the importance of that date and started making people think about it. Here is a day which used to be celebrated, especially by members of the Commonwealth, for its significance, now it has gone, disappeared from the official calendars. In our current age, it is probably thought of as too rebellious, or has the potential to cause issues with children; even some will believe that we should not be celebrating the life of a terrorist.

Guy Fawkes was technically a traitor and a terrorist, or at least he would have been the second if he had succeeded. The act of blowing up the houses of parliament would have been an act of terror, especially with the members present. It would have caused not only destruction but also death, for a political purpose, certainly a terrorist act by any definition a person would like to call it. So what is Guy Fawkes Night celebrating?

Does it celebrate the life or the death of Guy Fawkes? Or maybe it celebrates something different? The night with bonfires and fireworks commemorates the failure of the Gunpowder Plot i.e., the failure to kill the king. In this way the official reason for Guy Fawkes Night is a pro-establishment, pro-monarchy celebration, as it was the prevention of the killing of King James I and the Parliament. One would think that on this basis it would be a good celebration to have on the calendar, however since the 2005 film "V for Vendetta" the idea has been changed.

The question is has this idea changed for the better or not? Now, thanks to the film, the idea has changed to focus on the idea that Guy Fawkes had, and the fact that his idea lived on longer than he did. Ideas live longer than the people that have them; we are still using the ideas of people who have been dead for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years. The question is what was the idea that Guy Fawkes was promoting, that should be remembered? It is the idea that Guy Fawkes stood for, that he died for, the idea that ideas persist; of course, most take these ideas to be anti-establishmentarian in nature.

What will you do when November the 5th rolls around? Let me leave you with the famous folk verse...

Remember, remember!
The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot;
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!
Guy Fawkes and his companions
Did the scheme contrive,
To blow the King and Parliament
All up alive.
Threescore barrels, laid below,
To prove old England's overthrow.
But, by God's providence, him they catch,
With a dark lantern, lighting a match!
A stick and a stake
For King James's sake!
If you won't give me one,
I'll take two,
The better for me,
And the worse for you.
A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
A penn'orth of cheese to choke him,
A pint of beer to wash it down,
And a jolly good fire to burn him.
Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!
Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

Cheers,

Henry. 

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Jekyll and Hyde: Two sides of Personality

 Greetings,

Everyone has those days were they are the sweetest person in the world, where they look like they would give their last coin to feed their fellow man, their shirt to clothe them, and their life to defend them. They also have those days where they keep all the coins for themselves, clothe themselves like an emperor, and only think of what they need to secure for themselves. These see the two different sides of personality, they are simple, and they exist in everyone; no one is excluded. In some people it may not be about possessions, it may be reputation, or family association or other social factors, sometimes these factors are all bound together, but the two sides are there.

In some people there is a close relationship, not much difference, we can't tell when it is one side or the other. They often live lives where good and evil are not matters of concern, the matters of concern are whether they will survive. In others, they are generous and giving, gentle and caring, almost in the extreme, so too it must be noted that their other side is also to the extreme, even if it is never truly seen. There may occasionally be some glimpses, but only if a person looks very carefully.

In the story by Robert Louis Stevenson, Dr Jekyll is a mild-mannered doctor, kind and considerate, a law-abiding citizen. Dr Jekyll takes a potion which turns him in to the monster, Mr Hyde. Hyde who commits murder and all sorts of other evil deeds. It would seem that the potion that Dr Jekyll formulated released Mr Hyde from within him, a second personality, an extreme other person hidden within him. The story looks at questions of personality, as Mr Hyde talks to Dr Jekyll tempting him to take the potion again and again, releasing Mr Hyde more and more making him stronger. We can look at this from different perspectives.

On the one hand, it depends which part of our personality we feed, that is the part of our personality that becomes the stronger of the two. Dr Jekyll feeds Hyde and he becomes strong, almost so much that he becomes irresistible. Mr Hyde indulges all of his passions, he performs deeds that Dr Jekyll never would, in many ways Mr Hyde is the more free of the two. Dr Jekyll is repressed, and part of his temptation to release Mr Hyde is the free indulging of his sensations, the freedom to do what he likes.

This is like the idea that the individual has two wolves within them one black and one white, one good and the other evil. They fight for control of the individual, the one attempting to devour the other. Each grows as a person grows and lives. The question is asked which one of the wolves becomes the strongest? The answer is: the one that you feed. Here again, we have two parts of the personality, one side and the other the strength of each is dependent on which is fed. Not a morality tale so to speak, but one to think about.

Another perspective is that in each of us there is a mild-mannered Dr Jekyll and a monstrous Mr Hyde present, and the gulf of difference between the two depends on the individual. Think about the most tolerant of people, those who do not rage against who are intolerant, but those who do things quietly not seeking praise. Think about those who do good because it is good, they do not think about the positive for themselves. This is their Jekyll, what would their Hyde be like? 

History tells us that it is "the quiet ones that we need to watch." In every case of extreme homicide it is a person who people have labelled as "the quiet one". The individual who is the most dangerous is the one who is the unknown quality, because they do not go broadcasting it. You don't know their anger because they don't say it, they don't broadcast it to everyone. They will make their anger known when they believe it is necessary, and it will be known one way or another.

There are people in our lives who will be loud and they will broadcast their feelings on matters, left, and centre. They will tell us exactly how they feel about things with out any doubt in our minds whatsoever. There are people who will do in the moment, they will act in petty ways to satisfy themselves, attaining their small victories. These are not the people who have the "Jekyll and Hyde personality", they have a personality which is easy to read. You know when and for what reason they will react.

The Jekyll and Hyde personality is the quiet one, the tolerant one, who allows the small slights with indifference, who is polite and friendly. They will do things and be polite, they will remain quiet and not broadcast their opinions, but make them known. Just consider what could be bubbling away underneath if the other side of them is exactly the opposite. 

Or maybe we should simply be a little friendlier and a little bit more polite to everyone we meet?

Cheers,

Henry.

Let's Talk About "Discovery"

 Greetings,

Yesterday 10 October was "Columbus Day" a day which we do not celebrate in Australia because it does not have anything to do with us. The thing about this day is it brings up all discussions about the European arrival on the shores of the Americas. In old textbooks, it will state that "Columbus discovered the Americas." This has been disproven as there were those who arrived before him such as the so-called "Vikings". The following is not going to be a discussion of American history, it is going to be a discussion of the word "discover" and "discovery".

The word "discover" is defined in the Cambridge English dictionary as "to find information, a place, or an object, especially for the first time:", or in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "to make known or visible :" and "to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time :" or in Collins English dictionary as "If you discover something that you did not know about before, you become aware of it or learn of it." or "If a person or thing is discovered, someone finds them, either by accident or because they have been looking for them." or "When someone discovers a new place, substance, scientific fact, or scientific technique, they are the first person to find it or become aware of it." Definitions from three different dictionaries, two of which present extended definitions of the word getting into its particulars. All in essence talk about the act of finding.

The problem is that with some individuals and their particular focus on history, their particular bends on history, they like to use definitions which exclude others, they focus on those definitions which focus on discovery as the finding of something for the first time. The focus on this definition then results in explorers not discovering other places, because they were already known, therefore they couldn't have been the first to find them. This is a rather specific interpretation of the concept of discovery, and using such an interpretation, and extending it to its extreme end little could be discovered because it was always already there first.

Scientists could not be credited with the discovery of electricity, it has always existed in the form of lightning, it was always there. No inhabited continent on the planet could be considered discovered, nor any part of them, because people were already there, and the places were already there. The only things that could be counted as discovered would be new things that were made, fire does not count as it is a natural part of the world, only man-made objects. Further, all the discoveries of ancient civilisations are not discoveries, because they were evidently already there.

There is a necessity to take a wider view of the world and not be so particular about words. A discovery is made when an individual finds something, this is very much the case when it is new to them. If Columbus knew about the Americas he wouldn't have accidentally run into it looking for an alternate way to get to India. He may not have been the first European there, but it was a first for him. The same can be said for all the same sorts of voyages, they went out looking for new lands and new places. It was their first time there so it was a discovery for them.

According to the dictionary definition of discovery, the Europeans "discovered" the various locations around the world because it was their first time seeing the places. This is regardless whether or not these places were inhabited or not, and regardless whether or not they had actually been "discovered" by others previously. Australia is a perfect example of this one, the British take pride in claiming its discovery, but there are many individuals who landed on Australia's shores before Captain Cook.

When the definition of a word is limited from its original, and the actions of those previous to us in history are also limited as a result, we lose perspective of our current world. Regardless of whether we support the European explorations and colonisations of the world, there is something to be learned from it, and this needs to be done from an objective point of view. There are at least two sides of the story to be told, and all stories need to be told and heard. Playing with the words, merely muddies the water, and causes issues for clear and concise discourse.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

A Statement About Words

 Greetings,

There is a subject that I have not broached before and I believe it is time, especially with all the talk about Inclusivity being thrown about. I am going to be specific about some words and how I feel about them. In regard to some words I am going to make a statement about how I would prefer to be addressed, in much the same way as a person of a different gender might, but we must discuss this so my intent here is clear.

First, I have no intention of belittling the importance of those of different gender expressing themselves. I believe that every human being has a right to a good and happy life, regardless of their situation. This is regardless of their gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic position, or any other way some interest group may decide to divide people. Part of this is expressing themselves and being known in the way that they prefer, appropriate to their situation. 

Second, those individuals who are not progressive enough to accept change in society, who are so dogged they would prefer to hold on to old ideals, old ways of doing things, there are many historical examples that could be cited which resulted in the fall of these societies due to them not changing with the times. We must move with the times and change as they change, accept what cannot be changed, change what can be changed, and be wise enough to know the difference.

Thirdly, in the pursuit of Inclusivity, as I have previously spoken, society has not done the fine job that it has thought it has, because there is a group of individuals who has been left behind. Maybe it is because they were recognised previously, in laws and so forth, but they are still marginalised. I speak of those with disabilities. To call a society "inclusive" means that consideration has been made for the disabled as well, which for the most part aside from some access changes and statements made, it has not. To achieve this the inherent ableism in the system must be removed.

Fourthly, changing the word does not change the situation, it does not soften the situation that the individual is in. Previously people were called "handicapped", then "disabled", now some call such individuals "differently abled", all in some measure to soften the words. To soften them so the people can be pushed aside, as though they have been dealt with, so people can feel better about themselves. No. The term is inaccurate and offensive.

Here is my statement: I do not accept the definition as "differently abled". I refuse to be called such and find such a term offensive in its nature. Has a person suddenly gained some different ability due to their disability? No. The term is inaccurate, the term is offensive. I am disabled, a part of my person does not function as well as it does in a "normal" human being, this is the accurate term.

Fifthly, I will continue to raise these points and complain in this fashion about the use of such words and their inaccuracies until they are fixed, or until the system truly is inclusive as it claims to be.

Lastly, in regards to "identification" I would most prefer to be referred to as a human being first, as it is the most important characteristic I possess. It is a term of unity. I am a #humanbeingfirst. The divisions weaken us, distract us from the unity which we could all have together. I know that I am one voice, mostly unread on this blog raging into the wind, but it is a cry that I will maintain. It is our only hope to survive. #humanbeingfirst

Regards,

Henry Walker

Identifying Feature

Greetings,

People are described to one another using their identifying features. We do not get to choose how we are described to a third party, that is up to the person doing the describing. This post discusses the different identifying features that we may be described by and looks at how they may, or may not, describe who we are. Some descriptions are accurate, some are not, some features used are appropriate, some are not. This question goes to who we are as human beings.

How do you think someone would describe you? What identifying features do you think a person would use to differentiate you from the next person in the crowd? Consider this and you begin to consider how you are perceived by other people. Just think according to this, you are a list of identifying features, at least until you meet and talk with the individual, and then that list may or may not grow.

Consider a police description of an individual that they are seeking. Sex, racial profile, height, hair cut, hair colour, clothing; then there are any distinguishing marks or features, here they are talking about scars, tattoos, whether they were wearing glasses, difference in gait, method of speech, posture and so forth. Here is another list by which an individual can be defined, is this what defines them, is this who they are?

Each individual can be defined by a simple list of characteristics, a list of boxes that can be ticked or not ticked as the case may be. The same process is used for the medical profession to describe a patient and their symptoms, again they are looking for the identifying features of the malady which the individual is suffering from so they can help them, but first there are other details that are required. These details are personal details, more so than the police description. Anyone who has been to see a medical professional has a file about them listing physical characteristics, maybe this is who we are?

Then there are social characteristics and identifying features that can be identified to highlight one person from the other. Have a look at any survey and you will find a list of questions designed to put a person under a list of characteristics for classification. Gender, age, occupation, these are some very basic ones. If we go deeper then there are family questions, brother, sister, daughter, son, orphan. Even more there are cousin, grandchild, each is a defining characteristic. Friend, enemy, nationality, social class, expanding out into the wider world. Do these things define who we are?

How about titles and ranks? These are also identifying features. Doctor, captain, colonel, general, knight, each of these is a title which is linked to something in the wider world. Some of these titles are earned some of theme are bestowed, given by someone else's decree, because you were thought to be worthy. Worthy because something among your characteristics has reached their ears, and allowed them to make a determination that you deserve to be known, separated from others, separated from the "mere" Mr, Mrs, Ms, and Mx. Do these titles define who we are?  

Maybe we are defined by a combination of all these identifying features all coming together and other elements not mentioned. We are more than a person of a particular race, a person of a particular gender, a person of a particular educational level, a person of a particular occupational status, a person of a particular religious status. We are all human beings first and foremost, and this is what people forget the most easily. Beyond all of these "features" there is a core individual; a human being. Should this not be our first identifying feature and our first concern? Should we not be defined by what sort of human being we are to others?

Cheers,

Henry

A Wasted Time?

 Greetings,

Supposedly I wasted years of my life doing a History degree and Honours because it is useless in today's society. It is not worth anything because we have too many historians out there already. The fact that I finished my Degree and Honours in 2002 is beside the point.

First, I could've studied something more suited to "the market" but I decided to study something which aligned with my passion. Something that was my goal in life, rather than something that was "fiscally sensible". Can you claim to have done the same?

Secondly, there is a quote from Winston Churchill and it is certainly as relevant today as it was when it was first said, "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I would prefer to learn from history than repeat it, or at least point it out to people so they understand that we have been here before and we still have not learnt our lesson.

Thirdly, to all the historical reenactors and budding historians, I simply ask you, where do you think all that wonderful information that you are using as "evidence" for your "arguments" came from in the first place? It did not simply pop out of the ground, it was discovered, researched and interrogated by trained historians for its veracity before being placed in the same sources that you use. 

Fourthly, "History offers the best training for those who are to take part in public affairs" from Polybius in his Histories. Evidence can be found for this in many a statesman who studied history, including John F. Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Winston Churchill. I would never put myself among those people, but maybe if more leaders had studied history then they would know where they are going and where not to go.

Fifthly, only through a study of history do you have the tools to interrogate history, to discover what is hidden behind the history, to discover the what, the wherefore, the true meaning of the events. Such can not only be applied to events of the past, but can also be applied to events of the present, with a knowledge of the past. "Not to know what happened before one was born is to remain a child." Cicero: De Oratore XXXIV

With these five points in mind, and likely more that I could raise, no I don't think I did waste my time studying history, and I don't think I waste my time studying history. I believe it gives me a better understanding of the world around me, a better understanding than those who have not studied history, or those who have given it a cursory glance. I believe that my years of training in history puts me ahead of those amateurs who study history, for I already know how to interrogate sources, I already know how to write an argument, I already know how to sort the relevant from the irrelevant when examining my sources, because I was trained to do so.

Cheers,

Henry.

My Safe Place is Gone...

Greetings,

They took away my social safe place, the place where I was safer from the virus. It was washed away by bureaucracy and a lack of thought for those less fortunate than others, once again; a misinterpretation of the statistics could be claimed, but still there was no thought. 

Like many other things in this "brave, new world" we live in those with disabilities and illnesses are left behind.  Like the policies of those who think that "trickle down economics" work for the people of a lower socio-economic level. People with disabilities, including those with chronic illnesses are the forgotten victims of progress, forgotten because they are an inconvenient truth that presents their hypocrisy.  I would claim on this basis that statements about "inclusivity" are window-dressing and nothing more.

The rights have been torn from those with no choice, those with chronic illnesses and who are immunocompromised and given to those who made one i.e., not to vaccinate.

In line with its policies, the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) in Australia reviewed its "SCA Lochac COVID Response Plan" and turned it into little response at all. They removed the requirement that attendees were vaccinated removing that shield that was in place, that safe place to go while all the world is insane. They have removed the last barrier to assist in the prevention of these people who are especially vulnerable from contracting COVID-19 at one of their events. 

There are those who cannot have the vaccine. So other people vaccinate as a barrier around them, so they do not pass the virus on to them. There are those who have tried to vaccinate, but cannot vaccinate. So other people vaccinate as a barrier around them, so they do not pass the virus on to them. These are the people who have medical exemptions, they have had medical advice that says that they cannot vaccinate. They could go to events and be shielded, because people at events were vaccinated.

There are those who are especially vulnerable. Here I speak about those who are immunocompromised, and this can occur for many different reasons. On the same list of vulnerable individuals I place those who have chronic health issues, I place myself here as well. The vaccine helps these individuals to protect them and assist them so they are not affected as much by the virus, some fall into the category above. These people could go to events because others formed that shield to protect them.

The shield that I speak of is vaccination. It does a far better job of preventing people from contracting COVID-19 than the human immune system alone. This has been proven again and again. It has also been proven that the vaccine also reduces the effects of COVID-19 if it is contracted. 

Speaking of the human immune system, those who are especially vulnerable will suffer a lot more than the average person who contracts COVID-19 and this is the reason it is so important that the shield of vaccination is in place. The removal of this shield, requiring attendees to be vaccinated, means that it is now dangerous for people who are vulnerable to attend events.

The COVID Response Plan has turned into a shadow of its former self. It looks like the minimal community standards. This is the claim that is made by some, that it is now "in line with community standards."

Look out into the community, check the numbers of people being infected per day (if you can find it) and tell me how well their "plan" is working. The government's plan is all about ensuring that the economy keeps moving along, is this all we are worried about now the almighty dollar? Don't people's lives matter anymore? Have they not realised that people cause the economy to work? Have they not realised that the economy is in bad shape because people are sick, because people don't want to go out because of COVID? Nope, the mighty dollar must roll regardless of what it does to the people.

While this plan is in effect, you will see people choosing to stay away, because it is to dangerous for their health. Such mass gatherings without the protection in place are tantamount to not having a plan at all. What it will result in is having fewer of these vulnerable individuals at events. If that doesn't matter, well, it shows exactly how well the organisation thinks of its members, and how much the word, "inclusivity" really means.

To be "inclusive" you need to include and give access and opportunity to all those who might  otherwise be marginalised, this includes people with disabilities, and those who are medically vulnerable. This policy, this sham plan, is a disgrace and flies in the face of such a concept. By the allowing of some you exclude others for reasons not of their choosing.

People who have such medical issues would not choose to have them, but they had no choice. People who chose not to vaccinate chose not to vaccinate. This policy takes away the rights of those with no choice and gives it to those who made one and denied access to medically-confirmed, scientifically-tested vaccines. This is what it does. I am disappointed that such a decision could be made of such an organisation with such ideals as it claims.

Regretfully,

Henry. 

P.S. This problem with inclusivity is not restricted to the SCA, it is a much broader problem than that. I have previously spoken about the problems with inclusivity in previous posts. 

When Inclusivity Isn't... (Part 2)

Greetings,

The following is some additional notes following from my previous post about "inclusivity". Many of the same themes are present in this post as in this previous article, hence this one has been named as a "Part 2". There is a closer examination of the concept of "inclusivity" and how it is treated and presented. Further there is a demonstration where there have been distinct failures in inclusivity, especially in its approach.

When the word "inclusivity" comes up, sexuality, race, are the two prime ones that are remembered. Disability rarely gets a thought. It is as though, this problem has been taken care of, and doesn't need any attention anymore, the others require more attention. Well, people with disabilities are not going away.

What is Inclusivity?

To begin with there is an examination of what "inclusivity" actually is, what it concerns, the definition of the term. From here there is a foundation to build on from a perspective of common understanding. To begin with here are some dictionary definitions:

From the Cambridge English Dictionary:

noun, "the fact of including all types of people, things or ideas and treating them all fairly and equally:" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inclusivity).

A simple definition which is intended to allow the inclusion of all people equally and fairly. A noble concept in its ideas, but not very specific. It is a simple idea that everyone should be treated fairly, regardless, a very human principle really and one which should be at the foundation of all ideas of interaction, but which is sadly lacking.

From the Collins English Dictionary:

noun, "the fact or policy of not excluding members or participants on the grounds of gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/inclusivity).

This definition brings up the idea of not excluding people on the grounds of various differences that people might have. Here the opposite idea, exclusion is deliberately negated in the definition of inclusion of people, an important point to make, which was missing from the previous. This one also highlights some of the grounds by which a person may be excluded.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

noun, "The practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those having physical or intellectual disabilities or belonging to other minority groups." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/inclusivity) 

Like the previous Collins, it specifies groups that might be discriminated against, but this definition imposes the requirement of people providing equal access and opportunity to the marginalised groups. Here, rather than it being a passive thing that should be done, it is an active process that needs to be followed.

The subtle differences in each definition are important as they show the focus of the definition and show a different focus of the group that wrote the definition. The Cambridge definition focuses on fair treatment for all; a very open definition with no discussion of who might be excluded, just that all should be treated fairly. The Collins definition brought the idea of exclusion, and groups of people who might be excluded; a reverse definition "not excluding" people. The Oxford was pro-active even more so than the Cambridge, not only fair treatment, but provision of services. In a way when a person uses the word inclusivity, it depends on which one they mean.

Inclusion

To add to these definitions is the idea of inclusion. According to the Diversity Council of Australia (DCA), inclusion, the result of inclusivity, is defined as follows:

"Inclusion occurs when a diversity of people (e.g. of different ages, cultural backgrounds, genders) feel valued and respected, have access to opportunities and resources, and can contribute their perspectives and talents to improve their organisation." (https://www.dca.org.au/topics/inclusion)

So this idea of inclusion is the goal of inclusivity it would seem, the inclusion of "a diversity of people" into a group and when they feel that they are "valued and respected, have access to opportunities and resources, and can contribute their perspectives and talents to improve their organisation." This is the  goal of inclusivity at least according to the DCA. 

I would say that according to this definition of inclusion we are quite a way off yet in society in general because there are still barriers for those with disabilities to engage, access, and be valued as individuals with worth. People with disabilities are still viewed as their disability first, then as people second. A problem, rather than a potential asset. How far does the inclusivity extend to those with disabilities? Not just physical, but mental disabilities. Not just the visible, but the invisible as well. 

Who is to be included, and how much?

There is often discussions about racial and sexual issues, but very little when it comes to disabilities. People stand proud about being associated with a person with sexual issues, they stand proud when there is some race related issue, even in another country. When it comes to an issue related to disabilities people shrug their shoulders, they think it is all too hard for them.

"Pride Month" happened this year in June, and there were notes of support about being free to express your sexuality and flags waved all over the place. "Disability Pride Month" occurred the month later, nothing.

There have been improvements: ramps, Braille notifications, some improvements in Public Health, but as far as representation goes, the disabled population is lagging behind. In Australia, the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) has helped some, and left a lot behind, because of the endless paperwork and the seeming policy of instantly rejecting the first claim, regardless of the evidence. Just to get rid of those who are not willing to push their claims through, to go the extra steps to be heard. The NDIS doesn't spend its budget, because the claims get denied.

The Paralympics have helped the profile of disabled people, but they are forgotten, and forgotten in a big way in some instances. Here are two articles to show you how: "David Weir: Disability sports being 'forgotten' between Paralympics" and "Rio 2016: 'A lot of Paralympians are forgotten about'". If you're really interested in this particular topic, I recommend watching "Rising Phoenix" on Netflix about some of the history of the Paralympics and some of the issues that it has been through along with some of the amazing stories of the Paralympians.

Social Group Policies

There are many social and sporting groups which now claim that they are inclusive, that they have "Inclusivity Policies" as a part of the organisational documents of their organisation. So far there has been a lot done for people in regard to accepting people with different sexuality, race, religion, even politics in some instances. When it comes to disabilities, this is the breaking point. So long as the government regulations are followed, they believe that they are covered. But is this really enough, is this really the inclusivity that they claim?

Here's a simple question if you're in a social or sporting group, if a person with a disability approaches your group and wants to join, and fully participate, what is your first response? Is it to consider all the problems, or is it to consider the possible solutions?

If your answer is to instantly claim that there are too many issues for the person with disabilities to engage in the social or sporting group, then I would claim that your claim of inclusivity is "convenient inclusivity" because it does not require any expenditure of energy on your part.

If on the other hand, you are willing to do your best, see exactly what the individual can and cannot do, see if it is possible for them to engage safely with the group, then you are being inclusive. Then it is not inclusivity of convenience. There are activities which people with certain disabilities cannot participate, but you will not find out what they can participate in if you do not try, and that is all people with disabilities want. They want to have a go, they want people to try and help them fit in.

What can you do?

For true inclusivity all the groups must be included in equal measure. Examine the definition of "Inclusion" as defined by the DCA and you will find that in many instances people with disabilities are lagging behind in a big way. This is primarily due to archaic approaches to disabilities, with the approach of seeing what the disabled cannot, rather than what they can do. 

A simple examination of blind sport will show that people with that disability are involved in many different sports including, fencing, archery, cricket, golf, judo and shooting. A simple examination of the wide variety of sports participated in at the Paralympics will show the many different sports individuals with disabilities can play and to what capacity they can involve themselves. 

When it comes to people with disabilities it should not be a question of what they cannot do but what they can do. This is the only way that we will ever get near the lofty ideals of the idea of "inclusivity" and "inclusion" as they are defined. Start looking at the person as a human being, not as their disability, or their sexuality, or their race or any other feature. See what they have in common with you, this is the way forward.

Cheers,

Henry.

Protest or Riot: What's the Difference?

 Greetings,

The protest is a legitimate form of political resistance and statement. It is a legitimate way to make a political issue made known. Let me be first clear about this at the beginning of this discussion. I have no issue with people gathering and marching, or gathering in a public place and making speeches. The issue is where it becomes a criminal activity, and the supposedly blurry line in between, that in fact is not so blurry.

A Protest

The protest march disrupts traffic and the normal flow, this is its purpose. This is the way the individuals involved gain attention for its cause. The amount of people marching, the banners displayed, chanting slogans and statements, often now the use of bullhorns. All of these things are designed to draw the person's eye to the march, to draw the attention to the issue which is being made known.

In some places, these marches are organised with the local law enforcement agencies so roads can be closed so there are no incidences with traffic, and so they can be on-hand to offer assistance, and to provide a measure of prevention of criminal incidences. The ones where they are organised in this fashion with law enforcement notification, with permission to march, these are most often peaceful marches. There are few incidences and little law enforcement involvement as a result.

The presence of law enforcement will increase with the number of protesters, they respond to the number of people in the march. They also respond to the nature of the crowd. This will decide what sort of gear they will bring with them when they arrive at the march. The law enforcement personnel respond to the actions of the protestors, this is an important note that must be remembered as we go along.

Can certain law enforcement agencies be heavy-handed in their treatment of protestors? Yes. Is there a recorded history of law enforcement agencies being heavy handed in their treatment of protestors in certain countries? Yes. These facts are acknowledged. However, it must also be acknowledged that there are some who have violent and criminal intent when they involve themselves in the marches.

The Other Protest

There are other protest marches, where individuals gather with the intention of highlighting a political purpose, however they are also there with criminal intent. They are also there with criminally disruptive intent. There is a difference between this sort of march and the one described above. There are the same banners, marching, slogans and chanting, bullhorns being used. 

However within the crowd there are a group of individuals who are intent on disrupting the march and causing violent activity to occur. These violent activities often occur when marches of different political or social ideals meet. Regardless of ideology, religious or political, there are those who will cause violence and criminal activity, for that is their reason for being there. These individuals are often masked and carry weapons, they have violent intent.

Criminal Activity

A person who strikes another person is guilty of assault, it is a criminal charge, it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what creed, colour or ideology the other person is, or if they are expressing their political beliefs, the person has just committed assault. A person who strikes a police officer is guilty of the same charge. A person who throws an object through a window, strikes a car with another object, or destroys something is guilty of vandalism at the least, wilful damage at a higher charge, both of which are also criminal charges. The person has just committed a criminal act.

When a group of protestors starts committing the acts described above, or other such criminal acts including assault, looting as a result of breaking windows, they have turned their political gathering into a criminal gathering; they have turned their protest into a riot. It has turned the lawful assembly (the protest) into an unlawful assembly (a riot) and the law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to act to protect the lives and the property of the public. Law-abiding persons should disperse and immediately disassociate themselves from such an assembly.

A law enforcement officer who sees a criminal act in process is duty-bound to attempt to arrest that individual, because they have committed that criminal act. Not because they are a protestor. Not because they are an oppressive part of the system, but because they have committed a criminal act. If the individual had not committed a criminal act the law enforcement officer would not be arresting the individual.

Result

A person can go to a protest and march for their particular cause. They can join like-minded individuals and march through the streets shouting their slogans and singing their songs to bring attention to their cause. The organisers of the march should allow the police to know about the protest, to give legitimacy to the march and the cause, in some places it also legalises the assembly.

So long as the individuals march in a peaceful fashion and do not commit any criminal acts there should be no entanglement with law enforcement. For some causes they believe that any attention they get is good, because it spreads their cause around; this should not be the aim of a protest, a peaceful protest while it does not get much publicity in the media, will not get the people involved branded as criminals either. Think about your true intentions, and choices. Then think about their consequences.

Cheers,

Henry.

When Inclusivity Isn't...

 Greetings,

There has been a lot of talk about "inclusivity" and I am all for it. I believe that everyone should be included, not discriminated against for any difference. The problem is that sometimes "inclusivity" is not inclusive as it could be. There is always a lot of talk regarding "inclusivity" regarding people of different gender, race, and sexuality, however when it comes to people with disability, they tend to fall off the end, forgotten even though they are different.

There was a great noise about "Pride Month", regarding people's different sexuality, a great claim for inclusivity. No mention of those with disability, probably because they would get their chance a little later on...

This month is Disability Pride Month, what has been said? Where are all the announcements? Where are all the people marching in the streets in support of those with disability? Or maybe we aren't that far along yet, or maybe it isn't popular anymore so people don't bother saying anything about it.

Disability Pride Flag

This is the Disability Pride flag, it looks a lot like the flag that was flown for Pride Month last month, however there are some differences that should be noted, note the smaller number of colours, note the black background. Each of these has an important statement to make, a symbolism.

"The Disability Pride Flag was created by Ann Magill, a disabled woman, and each of its elements symbolizes a different part of the disability community.

1. The Black Field: this field represents the disabled people who have lost their lives due not only to their illness, but also to negligence, suicide and eugenics
2. The Colors: Each color on this flag represents a different aspect of disability or impairment

• Red: physical disabilities
• Yellow: cognitive and intellectual disabilities
• White: invisible and undiagnosed disabilities
• Blue: mental illness
• Green: sensory perception disabilities" (https://news.stonybrook.edu/university/july-is-disability-pride-month/)

Unless everyone is included it is not inclusive. If some portion of humanity is not included then it is not inclusive. Just because some portion of the community seems to be the focus of attention at a moment, because they are louder than others doesn't mean that another should be forgotten.

Yes, I have a stake in this one, I am a person who has a disability. I will have a voice, and I will be heard, if only by the few who read these entries.

Update: The Disability Pride Flag was changed because the above design with its lightning bolt design was causing issues for people with epilepsy and other conditions, so the jagged lines were removed. So here is the new design:

The colours remain, it is just the design that was changed. I was happy to have this brought to my attention so I could change the image here.

Cheers,

Henry.

Of Public Health

 Greetings,

I have seen a lot on social media about the public health systems of various countries, especially in the wake of the decisions made in the United States in regard to abortion and so forth. There has been much touting about the Australian Public Health system and how wonderful it is. There are wonderful things about it, and there are also things which are not so wonderful about it, so lets have an examination, at least from my perspective.

You can go to an Australian hospital, as an Australian citizen, carrying a Medicare card and get emergency medical care without having to pay for the medical care you receive. You can attend any of the outpatient clinics at Australian hospitals without having to pay for them, so long as you hold a Medicare card, and a Health Care card. The second being issued to those with a low income, or those who are on government payments.

The problem with this, if General Practitioners out in the community refuse to bulk-bill their patients, even those on Health Care cards. Then the same individuals go to the hospital for non-emergency reasons and the lines extend out the doors at emergency departments. The other choice for these individuals is to choose between eating and getting non-emergency medical assistance. This is only the state for the physical medical needs.

It is near to impossible to find a bulk-billing Psychiatrist, or a bulk-billing Psychologist, forcing people to either remain untreated for mental health problems, or wait until they are so bad they need crisis help services. Once again, for low income earners or those on government payments it comes down to seeking mental health treatment or eating in many instances. This means that such crisis help services, or outpatient services at hospitals are also hemorrhaging patients, or resulting in long wait periods for help.

At the hospitals, even with the outpatient services, which were mentioned before, there is a triage process, meaning that the people who need the services get them first. This is a good thing. In this case they go by Category, with Category 1 (Cat. 1) being the first to be seen and Cat. 3 being seen at the end because they are considered least on the triage scale. A person on Cat. 3 has a wait of anywhere up to 365 days to be seen by a an outpatient service. In some instances, unless you keep track of it, you can occasionally "fall off" the waiting list, and have to start the process all over again. 

So, there are some wonderful things about the Australian Public Health system, there are also some not so great things. Some people can afford Private Health, and thus can afford to pay for medical and mental care, there are others who cannot. The Public Health system was built for those who cannot afford to pay for such services. There is a limit, however to where the Public system simply cannot support the load and the Private system has to bear some of it.

If the Medicare rebate was increased to make it affordable for professionals, medical and mental, then they might be more available in the Private system, and this would take some of the pressure off the Public Health system. Another alternative would be to increase the government payments to reflect the current state of affordability of such medical systems, to make such payments actually livable. Of course, it would seem that the government has other priorities (paying off their campaign supporters, for one), focusing on other projects other than Public Health.

Cutting into the soft underbelly of society is much easier than taking from the top where there is much more to spare, but they might not get funding for their next campaign. Maybe if the governments actually focused on running the country rather than winning the next election, or staying popular with "important" people, things might actually get somewhere and society might actually improve as a whole. Of course, such a radical move would take a brave set of politicians, and there don't seem to be any of those out there anymore.

Cheers,

Henry. 

Of SCA Personas

Greetings,

The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms, the "Society")has been associated in one part with medieval and Renaissance recreation, and in another part with LARP. On the one hand the SCA does recreate various arts and crafts, and social elements from the period; on the other we do take on another name and "play the game" as that individual with titles and so forth given for achievement and so forth. I would claim that we can take the persona, while a created character and claim that they are as real as any individual living or dead, because we made them so.

Within the Society, I am known as Henry Fox, an Elizabethan gentleman who is widely travelled thanks to well-off parents, of reasonable stature. I have travelled enough to experience different cultures and take on some of their sword arts. I have learnt the skills of the bow and the sword, the sword taking my preference. I have also learnt some skill with the pen, the pair working together more recently to produce works about the art of the sword. This is his story, and the story that I have taken on as my persona.

Henry Fox is real because I have made him real. His origins are artificial, though he could have existed, being that both his names have been documented to the Elizabethan period. All the history that I have created for him is based on some of my experiences and interests within the Society as I have travelled through it learning and writing as I went. I used the bow in my earlier period because it was a skill that I previously possessed, then took up the sword, both for armoured and civilian combat. Civilian took precedence over the armoured and here I stand. I have written about the civilian combat, as two books and my blog on the subject show.

Henry Fox is a non de plume a pen name, in writers terms. In legal terms, because I have used it in my writing and activities and am known by quite a few people by that name, it is an alias that would be recorded. Henry Walker, alias Henry Fox, is what a legal document would read. Henry Fox is real because I live his life every time I interact within the Society. Henry Fox is real because I interact as him in matters concerning the Society and positions I hold within the Society. Henry Fox is me, and I am him. He is not a fake person, not a fake name plastered on a document somewhere, he is a real person. 

Do not disregard SCA personas, or personas taken within other situations so casually. They should be considered as real as the person who adopts them. For the person who wears the clothes of the one is the other; the person who earns the awards of the one, is the other; the person who stands and learns as one, stands and learns as the other. They are no different, just because a person changes their clothes, does not mean that the learning or the experiences go away; those experiences and learning remain, and enhance them both. They are an advantage not something at which to be scoffed. A different perspective on life can only enhance a person's experience of life.

"when your talk is about mankind, view earthly things as if looking down on them from some point high above -" Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 

Cheers, 

Henry Walker
alias Henry Fox

Why we will never be united...

 Greetings,

There are different reasons that we cannot be divided. I have used "never" in the title, but this a strong word. It is possible, but humans will have to get over things in their nature; that thing in their nature which inflames them, that encourages them to contend with their neighbour. The problem is that we are often told how we are different and these differences are emphasised as important, we are never told how we are similar, how we are alike. These divisions separate us and encourage us to build walls between us and divide ourselves even more. There are those who encourage these divisions, who live on the conflict between one another, and it is not just our governments. Maybe there is hope for us, but it will take something, acknowledging our similarities along with our differences.

Humans like to fight...

Human beings claim that we want peace, that we want to get along with one another, but in our essence it is doubtful a truth. Our politics are about contests one political party competes against another for votes, then they spend their entire time arguing about the best way to run the nation. Even in nations where there is a single party, the party spends a large portion eliminating opposition, defending itself against detractors. We enjoy contests against one another this is evident by the prolific presence of sport and the amount of money people are paid to play against one another. We watch these games where one team competes against another, willing one team to win over the other. Other leisure activities also contain conflict within them, usually adversarial, usually against another group of human beings. This fighting nature makes it difficult for us to be united. 

Every time the fighting nature is focused outwardly, at least relatively, there are still conflicts within. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was condemned around the world. A multi-national force was gathered to stop Saddam Hussein and prevent him from possibly invading Saudi Arabia. Even with evidence of the horrors that Hussein was committing it took months for the force to be assembled. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, it was not until January 1991, that the multi-national force actually began to push the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. While this was happening, there were still demonstrations against the action; even after all the negotiations by the United Nations had failed, all the diplomatic solutions had failed. Those same demonstrations continued throughout the war, not that it lasted all that long.

We had a chance to unite when the COVID pandemic struck. Still there were arguments between nations about access to vaccines, who was going to do the research, who was going to fund the research, who was going to take the credit, who was going to receive the vaccines. This is not to mention all of the anti-vaccine, pandemic-deniers, and "freedom" seekers who were against the public health measures. Another chance for humanity to unite behind a cause, squandered by people's pet politics and personal biases and ignorance. The same which is still continuing even as I write.

Why are we divided? 

We must look at how we have been divided before we can look at why we are divided, for the how will tell us something of the why. First and foremost, when examining the human being, the first thing that divides us is sexuality, generally this is male and female, but there are also other labels which exist, transgender, for example is another label by which people are known. People are divided by the sexual organs which they possess, but the question of sexuality does not stop there.

In the question of sexuality there is also the question of attraction, to whom the individual is attracted which provides another point by which a person is divided and by which specific communities, and thus divisions are built. There is the emphasis in "normal" society of heteronormality in much of society which supposedly pushes other sexual orientations to the edge. Then other sexual orientations be they bisexual, homosexual, asexual or some other form of sexuality, form communities of their own where they believe their sexuality may be expressed freely. The building of such communities divides us.

We are supposedly divided by race. From one view, there is really one "race", the human race. This is a useful perspective as it unifies rather than divides, however the common approach to the concept is not so unifying a concept. The term race has weight politically and socially, and people will use this as a weapon to divide people to show how they are different. This word is most often tied into the word "racism" a weapon used from both sides. The word ethnicity, is a better description. Again, however, it is dividing people into groups, labelling them as different.

Tied in with ethnicity and race is history, a battleground to say the least especially when one examines the relationships between one some ethnicities and others. These histories are spot-highlighted not to identify those points where they worked together, but where they were divisive. The most often piece of history that will come up is colonialism and how indigenous peoples were treated. This is most often tied in with ethnicity or race.

Politics. Politics is can always be tied to history and ethnicity and it depends on which part of politics that a person wants to examine. Even within an ethnicity politics can divide a people. There are those who go for the right, there are those who go for the left, of politics; most often they do not find much middle ground in between. It only gets worse when it is the extreme of one or the other. Politics is often used by politicians to divide people so they can be controlled, and most people will let them.

Finally, on this list there is religion. This has been a point of division for as long as it has existed. It has been the cause of wars and acts of violence around the world, and still is today. The reason you don't hear about them is that they don't make a big enough impact in the media. Just because you are not looking doesn't mean it is not happening.

Our society is divided by these things and remains divided by these things even at the most important times. Black Lives Matter emphasised the division by race in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and the problems of the division by race, among other things; there were issues within issues. We remain divided by issues of sexuality because there is an element of wanting to know what other people are doing, rather than allowing others privacy, and leaving other people to their way. Why does it matter what someone else is doing in their bedroom if you're not there, and not involved? The problem is that these divisions are perpetuated. 

Divisions perpetuated...

Conflicts are celebrated, or at least the victories of these conflicts are celebrated. These celebrations perpetuate the divisions between people. Battle of Adwa decisive battle of Ethiopia over Italian colonialism. Here we see a celebration of a battle between one ethnic group over another, the raising of an issue which is over a century old, celebrating the victory over colonialism. The same is seen in other parts of the world. The celebration of the Cinco de Mayo is the same, in this case it is the Mexican victory over the French, though many of the tourists who visit to celebrate the holiday have no idea what they are celebrating and are just joining in. The same can be said of many celebrations.

There is a big celebration in Australia which occurs every year, and every year it causes contention. That celebration is Australia Day, it was originally meant to celebrate the landing of the English in Australia; it has since become simply a celebration of being Australian in many Australian's eyes. For the indigenous population of Australia it is often referred to as "Invasion Day" due to the perceived celebration of the invasion of their native land. Once again, a celebration which marks a divisive element it society, though there has been ideas to change it. But there is obviously a division by ethnicity which is hard to close.

The issues in Australia are a problem, this is not to be denied. There is a process which needs to be followed and reconciliation which is required to mend the bridges, and some progress has been made. The issue is that there are elements who will perpetuate the differences, who will always claim that there is an issue, who will always claim there is more to be done. There is also the necessity of both sides to come together, to unite. If the problems are perpetuated, if there is no forgiveness in response to the apology, then there is no reconciliation and it will never end.

Poking the bear...

For some reason people enjoy provoking others to respond either to their side, or to show themselves as being against their position; this is primarily to start discussion, highlighting a particular cause. In some cases this is deliberate because they want to highlight the cause that they are passionate about, in other cases it is because they simply want to start discussion, because they enjoy discussion.

There is nothing wrong with lively discussion, even good reasoned argument, when those arguments turn nasty is when there are real problems and divisions are exposed. These divisions can be reduced by the two people agreeing to disagree, but most often they are not; both sides will pick their points and continue to argue their points until the division widens between them and there is a long way back to seeing that they have similarities as well as differences.

Issues should be raised, be they social or political, when they are appropriate, i.e. when they are relevant to the situation, but issues are often raised when a current situation has nothing to do with the  issue raised. A situation is sometimes turned to that particular person's political or social bend so they can highlight their particular social issue, to beat their drum about the social issue. This often causes more division than it does highlight the issue, especially when the issue was not of a concern to begin with; often it results in people being wary about what they speak about with that person, erecting walls, dividing once again.

These issues are often raised for one of two reasons, to make the person look important, to inject themselves into the situation and make themselves the centre of attention, or for making some political or social point. The last one is the most often case with politicians and activists, but it can also occur in normal life situations. Issues are raised just for the pure purpose of highlighting injustices done. Once again, due to the arguments that ensue such issues usually don't result in rational discussion but emotional argument dividing rather than uniting. 

All bad news?

Is it all bad news? Can we never be united? Is there never a time when we can be united, is it never possible for people to come together united? Is there no way?

What has been presented are the ways in which we are not united and the reasons that we have problems uniting. It comes down to a very simple problem; we are too busy looking for reasons that we are different to one another. These differences were presented at the beginning of this discussion. These differences do not acknowledge the things about us that are the same.

We are all human beings.

We all live on this planet.

We all breathe the same air.

We all deserve certain human rights (this one covers a lot of things).

We all have relatively short lives (in comparison to the length of history).

We all have dreams and aspirations.

We all laugh, cry, and smile.

We all have our good days, and our bad.

We all have days when we work hard, and others when we are lazy.

We all want to be well-liked.

Here are ten things that we all have in common. These are things which every human being on the planet shares with every other human being on the planet. If this is not a place to start uniting, then our future truly is bleak. Everyone feels small and helpless looking at the state of the world. You don't have to be a world leader to start the healing, start with a person you know. Talk to them, find commonality with them, acknowledge your differences, but also acknowledge where you are the same. Step outside find another person, do the same thing. Greet people on the street with a friendly smile, bring friendship to the stranger, treat the person in the shop with kindness; if everyone did these small acts all the time the world would be a much nicer place and people would realise they are more alike than they knew.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Of Celebrities

 Greetings,

The subject of celebrities is one which comes up on a regular occasion because the paparazzi and the mass media has their cameras pointed at them all of the time. We hear reports of what this celebrity did and what that celebrity did. We hear often hear about this celebrity's problems with the law, and that celebrity's issues with drugs and alcohol, most recently we have seen one celebrity assaulting another, named as the "slap that was heard around the world" and other such trope. I refuse to name either celebrity that was involved because I do not believe that either should get recognition for being involved in such an incident. We have lost our way, we have lost the reason for celebrities.

Definition

So we may understand what is being spoken about we shall examine some definitions of "celebrity" as they have been presented in various sources. First from the Cambridge Dictionary, it defines celebrity as, "the state of being famous" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/celebrity). A very simple definition, no explanation. There was more to this definition, but this was the essence. A celebrity is a person who is famous, so the definition certainly is not wrong, however there has to be more to this subject. 

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives a two-part answer, "1. the state of being celebrated" and "2. a famous or celebrated person"(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celebrity). The first describes what celebrity means as a word, the second describes what a celebrity is as a person. Here we begin to come to the core of the idea of the celebrity, they are a person who is celebrated for some reason, or they are just famous. The former part of the definition is important the idea that celebrity is "the state of being celebrated". This is a point worth noting and considering.

The last definition that will be examined, and there are quite a few more out there is one from the Wikipedia, this gives the definition of a celebrity, but also examines the grades of celebrity and also the negative sides of celebrity. The Wikipedia articles are always useful as they do give some more in-depth discussion and further places for investigation, its one of the reasons that I always have liked them, more so as their references have improved. Back to the discussion at hand the Wikipedia defines celebrity as follows,

"Celebrity is a condition of fame and broad public recognition of a person or group as a result of the attention given to them by mass media. ... 'Celebrity' usually implies a favorable public image, as opposed to the neutrals 'famous' or 'notable', or the negatives 'infamous' and 'notorious'." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity)

Here the public recognition is a result of the attention given to them by mass media. The individual does not have to have done anything really, they just have to have grabbed the attention of mass media to gain fame and public recognition, a favourable act which was performed in front of the mass media which stands them out helps a lot. It then indicates the grades of celebrity, through the notable to the notorious, who should not garner our attention at all.

Notorious

No sooner than we hear this word these days than it sparks our attention. The individual who is notorious must be a "bad boy or girl" they attract as much attention as those with the positive image in our topsy-turvy twisted turned upside-down world. In a previous age, in at least "polite" society a person who gained a "notorious" reputation would be ostracised from polite society, rejected from their company. In this society, where reputation counted, this was a kind of death, which any person would try and stay away from.

These days "any publicity is good publicity" and this is very sad, because what sort of message is it sending to our younger generation? Think about it. If those people who we are holding up as people who are celebrities, those people who we are supposed to be looking up to, are performing negative activities and getting attention for it, what does it tell children? Especially if the next day the same individual doesn't pay any consequences for their actions.

Public Reactions

In some cases there are some knee-jerk reactions to celebrities doing bad things, a celebrity gets caught being involved in homophobia, or sexual abuse, or some other social crime. There is a call by some people to burn their books or their music, to boycott them, never to buy their stuff, or listen to them again; even the suggestion of a public burning in protest. The same reaction is picked up in the media and is beamed around the world.

The result: more publicity for the individual. What would really hurt a celebrity in these situations? The exact opposite. Don't mention their name. Don't mention them on social media. Refuse to give them any sort of "grass-roots" publicity. Anytime something about them comes on the television or radio, turn it off. Don't watch things about them on the internet. Drown them in silence. Deny them the publicity.

Real Celebrities

People who should be celebrities are people who should be celebrated. Think about members of our emergency services who risk their lives day in and day out, they should be celebrated. The teams of doctors who invented the various COVID vaccines, they should be celebrated. People who keep us safe should be celebrated. The Romans celebrated their returning heroes from campaigns, they celebrated their gladiators, but the celebrations only lasted until they did not deserve them anymore.

The title of celebrity, should be reserved for those who should be celebrated. Why should a person be celebrated just because they have insanely large amounts of money? Why should a person be celebrated because they happened to be born to the right family? What are these people being celebrated for? Our politicians should only be celebrated when they actually do something to be celebrated, and no other time, other than that they are doing a job, just the same as a cleaner, or a person who repairs the roads.

Let's start celebrating the right people for the right reasons.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

I Violated Facebook's "Community Standards"

 Greetings,

In the course of a message yesterday (15 March 2022) I had the occurrence to violate Facebook's "Community Standards" in specific regard to violence. This was the second time that it occurred and using the same word in the same context. It would seem that either a) the human monitors of Facebook cannot read context, or b) the monitors of these standards on Facebook are totally automated. I will lay further claim to that second part later on in my explanation and in the course of my story below.

In the first incident, on 4 March 2022, there was image of an elder lady running with the caption that read "I run so I don't stab people in the face with a fondue fork." or something similar. In response to this, in jest, as the author and person who placed the meme would have known, I replied: "Ironically, that's why I stab people in the face, so I don't have to run." Seconds later I was picked up for violating the "Community Standards in regard to violence. It asked whether I disagreed, I did, it summarily rejected my claim, and posted the following which I screen-shot.

I then posted the same screenshot as a "status" to which I got zero response from Facebook. I had a good laugh about it for quite a few days as friends responded to it. I don't believe the post has even been removed. 

It would seem that their monitors can read text, but can't read the same text when it is contained within an image. This is where I would clearly claim that they are using a text-based selector looking for certain words or phrases, rather than actual individuals. I laughed this breach off, did not bother following it up.

Now for the important background material for those who have not read my Bio. I am involved in fencing, which means that I put on a fencing mask, gloves and pick up a sword with a rubber blunt on the end and then go out with friends and then we learn the best ways to strike one another, based on treatises from the Medieval and Renaissance period. I do this quite a bit, and have become relatively proficient at it. I have been know to say that I don't run because I want to think that I have developed the capacity to have learnt to stand and fight, hence the comment made. A few of my friends have also been cautioned about posts in jest about "going out and stabbing friends" and similar comments.

All this leads up to the second violation of these Community Standards which are variably enforced as noted previously, (no problem with words in images). It would seem that Facebook has something against fencers because as soon as you mention "striking", "thrusting", "stabbing" or even "swords" in some instances, Facebook comes down hard on you. This makes it difficult for the fencing community, both sport fencers and historical fencers alike to socialise on Facebook and talk about what they do. This is actually how my second breach came about.

I said, "Fencing is the best thing for COVID... You wear masks, and if anyone comes within 1.5m, you stab them." In each case, I have had emoticons with laughing faces to make sure it was understood that it was in jest. It would seem that the monitors can't read emoticons or language, or intent either. So, being my second "offence" against the Community Standards, and  Yes, I disagreed with the decision, which was summarily ignored. I was banned from posting for 24-hrs and my feed will be limited for a month. 

This is even more ironic because the idea for the comment came from an image which I downloaded straight from Facebook...

This time I took it to the Oversight Board because if a person cannot talk about fencing without getting this treatment, then something needs to be done. I indicated in my submission that their restriction of certain words and phrases restricts the fencing community, an international one, from communicating and that maybe they might find another way of communicating if Facebook was not going to be accommodating. I also pointed out that my comments were in jest, that clearly such violations are monitored by bots and not by human beings. I don't know if it will do anything, but I have to try and will be making submissions every time this occurs over a fencing-related comment from now on.

The other choice is to play within the rules of Facebook all the time and deliberately censor fencing words that might be taken to be offensive or violent, and when people ask, I will explain the situation and make my protest in this fashion. I think a combination of the two will be best because as this post proves, I doubt that I am going to hold my "tongue."

Cheers,

Henry.