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

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

Define: History

 Greetings,

I have already had my discussion "About History", but I did not give any sort of definition of the term. It would be expected that this process would be reasonably straight-forward; go to the dictionary, pull out a definition, have a nice discussion about the term, all done, right? Not to be so, because like the content, people like to bend it to suit themselves, adding in and leaving out bits to bend it to their particular preferences. The result is that below will be presented some definitions of "history" and some discussion about them.

Dictionary Definition

Noun, “the study of past events” or “a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes” or “a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events” Merriam-Webster (2022) “history” in Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The Merriam-Webster provides three definitions of the same noun, the first two describe history as a thing in and of itself, while the third points toward history a branch of knowledge a means to an end. These definitions point toward a simple collection of events as the main part of the definition, with a slight aspect of discussion of explanation of their causes. The purpose of this collection would seem to be self-fulfilling, recording history to record history.

Noun, “the study of or a record of past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject” Cambridge University Press (2022) “history” in Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The Cambridge University Press definition is similarly simple, focusing on the collection of a record of past events, the only addition in this case is that it might focus on a particular focal subject area, being time, place or subject. This definition indicates that history might narrow the focus to a particular area of interest, but the focus is still on the collection of past events.

Noun, “the branch of knowledge dealing with past events” or “a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle” or “acts, ideas, or events that will or can shape the course of the future; immediate but significant happenings” Dictionary.com (2022) “history” in Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The definition from Dictionary.com has multiple definitions, like the Merriam-Webster. In this case it starts with branch of knowledge, history as a subject, then examines history as a collection of past events, but focuses it on a particular subject area. The last part of the definition indicates some significance to the events, that they shape the future, that the events are significant in some measure. This definition implies that the history will have an impact on the present and future. It is this impact which tends to be the focus in our current age, rather than a simple cataloguing of events.

Post-Modernist Definition

“History is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present-minded  workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians) who go about their work in mutually recognisable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically positioned  and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of uses and abuses  that are logically infinite but which in actuality generally correspond to a range of power bases  that exist at any given moment and which structure and distribute the meanings of histories along a dominant-marginal spectrum.” Jenkins, K. (1991) Rethinking History, Routledge, London

There are a lot of words in Jenkins (1991) definition and there is a lot to work through to understand what it means and the effect that it had and is having on the study of history. The meaning of the definition, in individual parts: "present-minded" meaning that their evaluations of past cultural norms are often based on contemporary norms, not those historically-contemporary norms; "mutually recognisable" meaning that most of their work is recognisable to other historians on the basis of knowledge, ideas and method, not so much to the public; "practically positioned" meaning their location in time and space; "uses and abuses" meaning that their work is usually taken by others and used as evidence to support or deny some other theory or position, which may or may not relate to what has been researched, often carried out by other historians or social groups; "power bases" relating to the "dominant-marginal spectrum" usually based on ethnicity or gender/sexuality, depending on the subject-matter which has been produced by the research performed; and "meanings of histories" which is interpreted by individuals depending on what suits them at the time, regardless of the actual intent of the researcher and author of the history.

The post-modernist definition highlights the method in which history and research into history is taken from the simple recording of events and discussion of the causes as recorded in the dictionary definitions above and twisted about until it can be used for some socio-political purpose. There is no more simple recording of history, there has always got to be a purpose behind it, some sort of cause that can be served, and even if there was no intent for such, then some other person will imply it once it has been published, or use it for such a purpose. The Wikipedia also discusses the subject of history and it will be broken into several parts to show its relationship to both the dictionary definitions and also the definitive argumentative Post-Modernist definition presented above.

Wikipedia

"History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study and the documentation of the past." Wikipedia (2022) “History” in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History, [accessed 7/1/22]

First is a simple definition which goes back to its Greek roots, and is more like the dictionary definition, indicating the study and documentation of the past. A very simple definition of history as a collection and documentation of the past. There is more, as the entry also discusses how history is collected.

""History" is an umbrella term comprising past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of these events." Wikipedia (2022)

The definition is expanded to include not only those events which have documentation, but also those events which live on in memory, these are also collected and form part of history, there is all the aspects of history present, collection and analysis before presentation of the events in some complete form. Each individual who studies a series of events will interpret them in a different way, resulting in different histories, the academic version of this collection prides itself on the analytical process.

"History is also an academic discipline which uses narrative to describe, examine, question, and analyze past events, and investigate their patterns of cause and effect." Wikipedia (2022)

 History is an academic discipline, regardless of whether it is practiced inside the halls and classrooms of some academic institution or not. The same level of rigour which is applied to the analysis of evidence which is present in any other area of the humanities applies, or even indeed the sciences. What must be recognised, and often is not is that the creating of a history is selection of events which are recorded and not, depending on their impact on the history. It is a question of qualitative evaluation,  does this event make a significant enough impact to be worth being present in this history? This is affected by the individual's cultural background and the material presented.

"Part of the historian's role is to skillfully and objectively utilize the vast amount of sources from the past, most often found in the archives. The process of creating a narrative inevitably generates a silence as historians remember or emphasize different events of the past." Wikipedia (2022)

Different histories will emphasise different things, it depends on the prime subject matter which is present. There is an unbelievably enormous amount of historical data available on many different subjects, an historian has to choose what they will use and what they will not use. This results in some histories being left behind. 

Does this men that the historian buried or silenced those histories? No, it does not, it just means their emphasis was elsewhere in that history. It certainly does not stop another historian from following the same path, or even politely asking for the material so they can find the path. Acts of recrimination just result in historians being defensive about their sources, and denying access to such sources, this helps no one. 

Why does it matter?

The way we define history is important as it defines our approach to it. If we define it as a search for significant events in history with the purpose of recording those events for posterity, then there is likely to be a much more open approach. If we approach history as a weapon to be used in some socio-political battle where the histories already written are to be abused, and shredded for evidence, historians abused for denying the presence of some aspect because they did not happen to write it, then there is always going to be a problematic discourse with the discipline. Your thoughts on a subject heavily effect your relation with that subject.

I like the Wikipedia's definition of history as it encompasses many of the aspects of history and tells home-truths about the way history works. I appreciate the dictionary definitions as they are simple approaches to the subject and tell simply what the subject is about. I grow concerned about the Post-Modernist definition and approach to history as it deliberately creates a battleground where researchers are more likely to hoard than to share their knowledge and this cannot be good for the discipline overall.

New discoveries are important. Re-writing histories which are incorrect is important, but there is a way to do this which does not put others off-side in the process, a way which encourages a co-operative approach that encourages all to participate in the discourse, rather than having people fight over the resources to prove that they were more right than the other. I will leave you a quote to think about in regard to historical "truth".

“Historical truth, … is elusive, disorderly – and often downright uncomfortable.”
J. Christoph Amberger The Secret History of the Sword

Together we can make them just a little bit more comfortable if we can agree to work toward the same goals, the collection and interpretation of those "truths" to find out which ones are really worth keeping and which ones do more harm than good.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

 

The Smoker: A Dying Breed

Greetings,

The following is something that I wrote after having an experience and a chat with some people while in the centre of Brisbane, Queensland. I am not advocating anyone taking up smoking at all, just asking you to have a look at the situation from a different perspective. I have tried to be as objective as possible with regard to this post, but it is a little difficult.

A further note, I sent this to the editor of the Courier Mail for one of the Letters to the Editor not long after I wrote it with no response. Obviously policy does not allow an even-handed or even counter-argument view on a subject as divisive as smoking.

The Smoker: A Dying Breed

The smoker is a breed of human which is dying out, in both senses of the word. They are subject to the threats of cancer, emphysema and other life-threatening diseases and infections. But they are also subject to other hazards, social disgust, legal ramification, and taxation. Likely, while the former are good reasons to “kick the habit”, as has been coined in modern speech; the latter are also likely to force the smoker out of his ever-dwindling breed.

While quitting smoking has been seen, and is, the healthiest alternative, a new breed of smoker has emerged, “the vaper”. These individuals suck on vapours produced from different flavoured fluids. The studies show that this is a healthier alternative, but is it only time until society turns against these individuals as well?

Amongst the smoking breed there are those who take their habit as some sort of stand, often against some authority. Like a quiet form of protest they smoke as a stand for their habit, forgetting the original reason they started. These are what could be called the “hard-core” smokers who will defend their habit as any other might theirs.

The considerate smoker is one who will ensure that they are away from non-smokers, or are in the company of other smokers. They will do their best to ensure that their habit has the least effect on those around them. If in mixed company, they will do their best to ensure their smoke is blown away from non-smokers. They will always ensure that their butts are extinguished properly and also disposed of properly. Yet they are lumped in with those with no consideration.

The inconsiderate smoker lights up where they feel like regardless of the company and regardless of the feelings of others. They have no consideration for the effect their smoke may have on others. They may even be offended if their inconsiderate smoking is pointed out to them and thus will react angrily and with no remorse.

Smokers have been banned from playgrounds, which is sensible so they do not have an effect on the young lungs of children. Smokers have also been banned from bus stops, public transport, public buildings and most covered areas. The considerate smoker would absent themselves from most of these without legislation in place; yet they are chased away and threatened with legal action.

The result of these bans is that we see smokers clustered together like social outcasts. Areas have been designated for smokers and smokers congregate in these areas to smoke. Ironically, some non-smokers will approach these spaces and complain about the smoke. Just as with any group of people, there are also the “radical non-smokers”.

The true bane of the smokers’ existence is both the “radical non-smoker” and the “radical ex-smoker”. Like evangelicals they feel it is their purpose in life to convert or persecute smokers wherever they may be found. They are mortally offended if they can smell smoke on a breeze and will expect the smoker to move regardless of the situation. They will quote evidence of the damage and cost of smoking, even though this is now evident, often in graphic detail, on every pack which is bought. What they do not realise is that they harm their cause taking such a stance.

Nicotine is a drug, pure and simple, and an addictive one at that. Alcohol is also a drug, and a poison, yet smoking products are taxed and legislated against far more strongly, even though it could be proven that the damage caused by alcohol is far more costly.

What is also not known is that some of those smokers are doing it for their health. For some it is a simple and relatively quick form of pain relief when access to other drugs and pain relief are not available. For others it provides a measure of stress relief in situations where other methods are not possible.

Smokers are a dying breed, and they know it. They know the risks of their habit. They are not all the same and they do not all smoke for the same reasons. Unless you have been in the smoker’s shoes you do not know as much as you think. Have some consideration before you speak out against their habit, our “nanny state” may decide that your habit or hobby is too dangerous and anti-social next.

Cheers,

Henry.

Noli Nothis Permittere to Terere.

Greetings,

The statement for the title of this blog is in latin and it says, "Don't let the bastards wear you down." So, this will be a discussion about people who annoy us and what to do about them. In many ways it will be more about attitudes toward things and how to deal with those inevitable nuisances which we all run into in our lives. There will be some aspects of dealing with people in those situations, but for the most part it will be focussed on the attitude a person takes to the situation.

Have a look again at the Latin statement and you will see two words which will look familiar and similar to words in English. "Nothis" looks like "nothing" and "permittere" looks like "permit", and this is where the realisation should start. The only real way that a person can really get under our skin and annoy us and get us down is if we permit them to do so. By permitting them nothing we take control ourselves we gain control of the situation. You are in control of how you are going to think and react to something use this power to your benefit. This is where your attitude to the situation becomes more important than anything else.

It is pretty much guaranteed that we will all run into those people who will annoy us or who we just simply will not get along with. Some of these people it will seem just feel like they are trying to annoy us and get in the way of what we want to do. The important thing here is that they can only annoy us and prevent us from doing what we want if we allow them to do so. There is always another path to what we want to do, it may take longer, but it will be there. For the most part the best solution is to ignore these people who annoy us and just leave them behind. Give them no credit and they will not have the power to annoy us.

Especially is the case where you are doing something that you love and there is an individual or even some individuals who are annoying you or making the thing less enjoyable because of their presence. This is one of those situations where you need to take a good hard look at things stand up and say to yourself, "I am not going to permit this so and so, this butthead, this bastard to ruin my fun." If you love something enough and enjoy something enough their presence should not hamper your enjoyment. Do not allow them to ruin something that you enjoy. The only person who has any control over that is you.

All in all the best defence against the bastards of our lives is a good attitude and some grit. Knuckle down do what you love and don't let anyone get in your way.

Cheers,

Henry.