"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.