Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, 24 January 2024

I Don't Like "Woke."

 Greetings,

Maybe it is the anaesthesia talking from my medical procedure yesterday, and maybe tomorrow I might look at this article and ditch the lot, but I have a problem with "woke." Instantly, some readers are now going to turn away from this blog, because they are going to expect to hear some right-wing pronouncements, well, you're not. Just wait for my explanation...

I dislike "woke" on etymological terms... maybe this should go in my other blog about the English language... nope, this is a little political, so it can stay right where it is.

"Woke" according to the dictionary definition is the past tense of "wake." This is where my problem begins. It is associated with words such as "woken" or "awoken" which both mean to rise from sleep, meaning it has happened. People are woken from sleep suddenly, i.e., they are dragged from their sleeping state, and I dislike this concept. It is something that has happened, it is in the past, it tells nothing about the person in the present. Did they go back to sleep again?

"Awake" according to the dictionary definition means not sleeping, it is present tense. It is a current state of being. The person has not drifted off back to sleep, they are "awake." This is an active state, and we must be active, rather than passive if we want to stand against the issues of injustice. Hence, I think that the word "awake" is a much better term than "woke" and maybe there should be a shift toward this more active term.

I understand that the expression "stay woke" has a history back to the 1930s in African-American Vernacular English, and it was adopted by those with gender identity issues in the 2010s, though I suspect that many who use the word do not understand this history. I suspect that many have simply adopted the word and think that it simply represents all civil liberties issues. It doesn't.

The civil liberties issues it represents are important, but they are only some of the issues present. However, there is no representation of disability issues present, though most people will think those issues were solved with legislation, they haven't been, as a person with disabilities, I can tell you that for certain. Maybe a new term can include all civil liberties issues, and not leave any out in the cold. I am a humanist at heart, i.e., I believe in being a human being first above all things. I believe that the diversity of humanity is one of its greatest strengths, and that some of the active divisions in our society are actually hurting it. If we could all just treat each other as decent human beings many of our issues could be solved.

Then again, this could be just a pile of idle banter coming from a post-anaesthetic, drug-addled, brain.

Cheers,

Henry.


Wednesday, 11 October 2023

The Problem

Greetings,

A short post, some thoughts on some problems in society, and what I think the the real problems are in fact. Behind every surface problem there is a real problem to be solved. Like a symptom, there is a cause, we need to attack the cause to remove the symptom completely... 

The Problem

The problem is not crime; the problem is poverty.

The problem is not poverty; the problem is greed.

The problem is not politics; the problem is greed.

The problem is not legality or policing; the problem is criminality.

The problem is not criminality; the problem is safety and respect.

The problem is not race; the problem is poverty. 

The problem is not race; the problem is diversity

The problem is not religion; the problem is extremism.

The problem is not gender, sexuality; the problem is acceptance.

The problem is not disability; the problem is inclusivity and diversity.

The problem is not race, or gender, or sexuality, or religion, or disability; the problem is respect.

The problem is not race, or gender, or sexuality, or religion, or disability; the problem is equity.

The real problem is a lack of humanity.


I was going to give an explanation for each of these points, but I think this is enough.

Cheers,

Henry.

Monday, 19 June 2023

Written Within the Pages

 Greetings,

If you do not read the books, you do not know what is contained within the book. Thus, you have no right to assume to know what the author thinks or has written. This can be applied to those who love to quote aphorisms from authors and then go on to attack them, as much as it is to those who claim that this or that writer is of this or that particular political leaning, due to what they have written. How would a person know what their political leaning is, if they have not read what the author has written?

People need to open their eyes. They need to open their eyes and realise that if they do not at least look at these books and authors they hate so much, they will be unprepared for those who use the writings within them. 

The Nazi Party in Germany did not just sprout from the ground, its popularity did not just grow over night it took time and persuasion of people. It was only when people's rights were being infringed upon, when people were being attacked and murdered that some people realised that something was wrong, but the mass of people didn't. The actions that the Nazis took were legal, they were passed by law. Think about that for a moment, those who hid Jews were breaking the law, those who murdered them, homosexuals and disabled people, were doing it legally according to the laws of their country.

How can you defend against a political standpoint if you don't know how it grows?

How can you defend against an ideology if you don't know what its tenets are?

How can you prevent the same things from happening if you don't know how it all started?

Erasing history because it's ugly, or because it makes people uncomfortable is not a good thing. It is criminal because it leaves people unprepared for the same to happen again. They are unprepared because they don't see the warning signs. The threat is not from the idiot skinheads in the streets marching about, it is from those who keep their feelings hidden, who keep their ideologies to themselves, but make small changes to our society to gradually twist things their way.

People complain about eugenics programs. How about the eugenics program by default that is happening in the world right now as a result of price increases? What happens when the poor cannot afford to eat? What happens when people even on benefits from the government cannot afford to keep themselves alive and eat? They die. The prices go up, more people die. It is eugenics by social class, by wealth. If you are not healthy enough to work, or do not have employment, you are priced out of LIFE.

Sounds crazy? Well who controls the ability to change inflation? Who controls the ability to give people on payments enough money to live rather than having them on the poverty line, or below it? Yes, that's right the government. Who do they act in the interest of? Their rich friends, no the so-called "people". Tax breaks do nothing for people on benefits.

What are the policies of these people? What are their true ideologies? How many of those match up to the ideologies of the fascists that people claim to be fighting by preventing people from reading books? Our oligarchical society, I say oligarchical because it takes thousands of dollars to run for office and not everyone has that money, only the top of the money piles, makes pitiful concessions to those below them while hoarding the riches to themselves. 

They complain about the cost of welfare, that the people on payments are not giving back to society. Well have a look at the Nazi policy and how they felt about the disabled, it is pretty much the same. The problem with the budget does not come from those from below, it comes from those from above. If the billionaires and millionaires actually paid any tax, rather than getting tax breaks, the budget would be a lot healthier. Our politicians look at things from the top, they have no clue about the people they represent. They are the enemy that, so-called politically-enlightened people, are ignoring because they foolishly believe we live in a democracy.

They would understand our actual state if they actually read some of the books they are so frightened to read. They would understand what's happening to their society, and what's happening to the people that they are supposedly defending while they are failing to do so, if they picked up the book and read it and understood what's actually happening.

Read the book. 

Yes, it will be ugly. 

No, you won't like it. 

That's not the point.

Get an education.

Learn how you can actually do some good.

Cheers,

Henry.

Monday, 5 September 2022

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

Monday, 18 April 2022

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.

Wednesday, 16 February 2022

Aristotle: The Right-Wing Misogynist

 Greetings,

Through some research and reading in to philosophy it has come to my attention that Aristotle had misogynistic and right-wing tendencies in his political and social thought. He rejected Plato's thought of his Republic, which mind you contains questionable thoughts on the lines of eugenics (no really, it does), describing the flaws in Plato's idea of the perfect society and governmental form. These tendencies need to be discussed in some detail, exposed to the light of discovery so people may understand the flaws of this so-called "great man" of philosophy.

Of Government

"Aristotle was honestly conservative because of the turmoil and disaster that had come out of Athenian democracy." (Durant, 1957: 63) This points toward Aristotle being directed toward the more conservative side of politics as a result of the failures he has seen in the "birth-place of democracy". His reaction to this situation was to reject the Republic of Plato, "Aristotle fights the realism of Plato about universals, and idealism of Plato about government." (Durant, 1957: 64). His view is that maybe Plato's ideal of his communistic society may have worked in the distant past with smaller communities, the problem is that it doesn't work with larger societies with wider divisions of labour.

"where the division of labor into unequally important functions elicits and enlarges the naatural inequality of men, communism breaks down because it provides no adequate incentive for the exertion of superior abilities. The stimulus of gain is necessary to arduous work; and the stimulus of ownership is necessary to proper industry, husbandry and care." (Durant, 1957:64)

All that has been demonstrated so far is that Aristotle is not in favour of Plato's model and that he is not in favour of democracy, or communism for that matter. His political feelings on the matter are further explained in the same text, based upon the problem of the "average" human being, and more important that there are those who are "below average".

How far right?

"Because the people are so easily misled, and so fickle in their views, the ballot should be limited to the intelligent. What we need is a combination of aristocracy and democracy." (Durant, 1957:70). His method would limit the ballot to a selection of the population. His aristocracy is one based on education, the ones who vote are the educated. Only those who have been prepared for the task will be allowed to vote, "the human average, is nearer to the beast than to the god. The great majority of men are natural dunces and sluggards;" (Durant, 1957:65). His politics are hard-hitting and pointed toward an elite making the decisions, at least they will be an educated elite; and it is likely that these will primarily be men.

Of Relationships

"Woman is to man as the slave to the master, the manual to the mental worker, the barbarian to the Greek. Woman is an unfinished man, left standing on a lower step in the scale of development. The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules and the other is ruled; and this principle extends, of necessity, to all mankind." (Durant, 1957:66)

The woman, according to Aristotle is definitively subservient to the man. The one serving the other as is described above. Once again, he attacks Plato's ideas of making woman more like the man so they can do the same sort of things, "rather dissimilarity should be increased; nothing is so attractive as the different." (Durant, 1957:66). Aristotle would not have his women changed to men but kept the same as they are because they are more attractive that way; this is for the purposes of marriage, of course. This reflects his more conservative views.

Of Marriage

"As if to give the male an indispensable advantage, he advises him to defer marriage till the vicinity of thirty-seven, and then to marry a lass of some twenty years." (Durant, 1957:66). The marriage of teens which occurred in the Middle Ages is certainly not a practice advised by Aristotle. Indeed he discusses the importance of waiting until they are of a suitable age before marrying. "The union off male and female when too young is bad for the creation of children; ... Health is more important than love." (Durant, 1957:67). His focus is on the production of off-spring and population control, not the relationship between man and woman, and the former he regards as a matter for the state, along with education.

How will you react?

Had most of these ideas been intimated by some contemporary person of influence, or celebrity today, then all of their books would be burned, CDs ceremoniously smashed and burned, and  products boycotted. However this is Aristotle, from which we get the "Aristotelian logic" among other important thoughts and axioms. His definitive leanings toward the right of politics, they could be explained as being "a part of his culture" or "a part of his time", as could his feelings about the opposite sex. The same were actually used by later generations, as is evident in some medieval cultures; many of his thoughts are still influencing the way we think and the way do things now.

When a book is read it is the expression of an individual's thoughts. The reader then has the option of accepting those thoughts, whole, in part, or not at all. The same could be said of a person's music. You don't have to like an entire album; you don't even have to like the person who produces the music to like it. The important thing here is that there needs to be a separation of the individual from the product.

If you dig deep enough, you will find skeletons in anyone's closet. 

How you react to that skeleton when it is exposed is up to you. Remember that many of the writers of the past were living in vastly different times to our own, this needs to be taken into account when you read their material. Remember, everyone is human and makes mistakes, and has quirks to their character. Is it necessary to burn books and destroy items when a person is "found out"? If this is so, then we are going to run out of books fast, because there are a lot of historical writers that should be first on the chopping block, and a lot that will have to be "excused" because they are "useful"...

One final thought, when does this lead toward censorship?

Cheers,

Henry.

Bibliography

Durant, W. (1957) The Story of Philosophy (2nd edition), Simon and Schuster, New York, p63 

Sunday, 16 January 2022

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.

 

Friday, 7 January 2022

Buried and Forgotten

 Greetings,

One way that we try to forget about things is that we collect things together and then bury them so they can be forgotten. This approach is sometimes accompanied with the burning of the objects and then burying of the associated ashes of the objects. In any case, the concept is to remove the thing from thought, to remove it from sight and from thought. This happens with history, and all sides do it.

Burying History

There have been complaints throughout history in society about the ruling elite burying other people's history, especially when this history is inconvenient for them. Most often this is directed by people of colour against those historically in power, in regard to the slave trade, or appropriation of their native lands, or similar issues. There has been a lack of the recording of the history of those who are not in power, a lack of the recording of their histories in the past. There are historians who are trying to correct this, but the pendulum should be centred, not completely swung in the opposite direction.

The almost reverse is occurring now in some situations where people are tearing down monuments to those of the former ruling elite, because they were involved in historically-incorrect activities such as slave trade. What they do not realise that they are doing is that they are also burying the history that goes along with it, and buried history, is forgotten history. Things that cannot be seen are forgotten, the reason that the monuments are being torn down is because they remind people of what happened. Is this not a good enough reason to leave them where they are?

An Example

Tearing down of Saddam's Statue Firdos Square 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square_statue_destruction

Here is an example of a statue that was torn down, some almost twenty years ago now. Without clicking on the link, do you remember who did it? Was it the US troops or was it the Iraqi citizens? What was the result of this act? Now, read the article attached to the link, read what was thought by someone who was there during this pivotal scene in world history, then think about what has come after-ward. Have a look at the news in Iraq, news that is not currently reported, and see how settled things still aren't.

A Reminder

When something is destroyed, torn down and nothing is left, or put in its place to remind people what was there before, people forget. Go down town, find a block where a new building has just been built, try and remember what the building which stood in its place previously looked like, it's the same thing. We build monuments to remind us of things. We build war monuments not to remind us about the wars, but the sacrifices made by the people who fought in those wars. We have ANZAC and Remembrance Day in Australia, not to glorify war, but to remind us of those who served, and those who still serve.

For your history to be known it needs to be brought into the light. In the tearing down of a monument, all people remember is the tearing down of the monument, and that memory will fade, and quickly. People remember that a group were offended and they destroyed something. Build something that people can walk by, and remember and people will remember it. Then people will remember that someone built something, and they did it for a reason.

Build Don't Destroy

If you go to most cities you will see statues, in some older cities you will see statues that have stood for centuries. They have stood the test of time because they were built, not because something was destroyed. The memories of people in history last because they are brought into the light, not because some other person who opposed them was buried. We remember Leonidas not because he was buried, but because he stood, we remember Xerxes because he stood against Leonidas. We remember him not for what he fought against, but for what he fought for.

Tell your truth, but remind yourself that it is one truth among many truths. History is replete with truths; each person has their own story and own truths to tell. Individuals perform actions and individuals tell the stories, it is something that is often forgotten. Each truth needs to be told, as there is always multiple sides to each story that is told. Build don't bury, this is the way to be remembered and have the stories which are important remembered.

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.

Thursday, 28 October 2021

What is My Time Worth? Or Get a "Real" Job

 Greetings,

I have been sitting on this subject for quite some time and it is about time that I write it. We have all been told this idea that there are "real" jobs and there are jobs which are somehow not real. We have also been told that the time of those with "real" jobs is much more valuable than those who don't, and especially more than those who do not "work". This is a piece of capitalist propaganda which has been shoved down our throats so we go and find jobs that will pay money, to keep the capitalist system running, more to the point it will keep the politicians happy because it keeps people off welfare.

Of Politicians and Politics of the Social System

Politicians, especially those of a slightly right-wing persuasion, i.e. not Nazis, but those with who believe in free-market economies, where people should fend for themselves, and with no government interference, they believe there should be little, if any, social welfare. They admit that there will be those incapable of work, mostly the elderly, they make some consideration for veterans, very little for the disabled, and even less for the unemployed. So far as these individuals are concerned the unemployed are lazy, and the only reason that they are not employed is because they have not looked hard enough.

These same politicians tighten the disability evaluation for pensions so it is more and more difficult to get a disability pension, which only increases the length of the unemployment lines. Of course, they don't see it that way, all they see is people who are trying to feign being sick so they don't have to work. In Australia, the disability pensioners are counted in amongst the unemployed. In some other countries, their statistics are lower because the same disability pensioners are not, or are encouraged to study and given the money, so are not counted in those figures. They squeeze the disability pensioners, but leave the aged pensioners mostly alone, because they are a big voting base.

They claim that people should be contributing to their communities by becoming employed, getting off social benefits of every kind that they can and stop being a drain on the system. They don't mention the big tax breaks they promise to their fat-cat friends who give them election contributions. Tax breaks which enable large corporations to pay the smallest amount of tax, and the richest to pay very little. The smallest amount of taxation of these individuals 1%, even 0.5% would pay for the entirety of the social welfare system, and then some. This is what the politicians don't like people to know, and don't want people to think about, especially at election time. Instead they take from the middle and the bottom of society, rather than from the top, where they should be.

"Get a "real" job."

The heading of this section has been used as a line usually spoken by an elder individual (usually male) to a younger individual, who is following their dream, in some movie or sit-com. It is a line which many people will laugh at, and some will even agree with. I will ask the question, what is a "real" job?

Most often the individual who is following their dream is following an occupation which is not of the standard pattern; they want to become a musician, an artist, an actor, or an author, and these are some of the more mundane examples that could be given. There are occupations which are far more extraordinary which could be named. How are any of these less "real" jobs than the person who sits at a desk in an office as a clerk, or office assistant, or similar more standard occupation?

Think. Every time you listen to a piece of music, there was a musician who played and wrote that piece of music. Every time you watch a movie, there are actors on the screen, in all the roles. Every time that you pick up a book, there was an author who wrote that book, indeed every single word you read in a published article of writing, it is the same story. Unless the author waved their rights to that article, they got paid for that piece of writing, just like the musician and actor got paid for their work, because it is their job. A job which they take as serious as any other person takes theirs.

There are other jobs, many of them which we don't get paid for. There are people who are not employed in standard occupations who don't "work" as others do, but their time is valuable.

The Price of Time

There is a depreciation of the time of those who do not "work". In this case, I point to those who do not go to a "nine-to-five" regular, or shift-work job. They don't have standard hours. I point toward the individual who stays at home and performs "home duties". There are many hours of "work" which are not logged because they are not at an official place of business, or because the individual is not officially employed, or because they don't have a "real" job. This is across the board.

The time of these individuals is simply seen as less important. People who work seem to have more pressure on their time so they seem to be more important because they work, and they disregard those who do not do standard occupations or who do not work. Times are changed to the convenience of the individual who works, sometimes to the detriment of the one who does not, with a lack of consideration for their time; it is simply depreciated. Not as much care is taken for those who do not work in such timings. When it comes to the consideration of skills, the same can be said.

There is a depreciation of skilled people because they do not have work. In some instances people have left the workforce to pursue life at home and due to this their skills are somehow depreciated because they are no longer a part of the workforce. Why? Have they somehow lost the skills that they had when they were in the workforce because of this change? Is just because the individual does not expect monetary compensation for their time, the skill worth any less?

Why is it necessary to have a monetary value for a general appreciation of a person's time, effort and skills? This has a lot to do with the enculturation that we have all become accustomed. When something is paid for it has some value attached. Is something which is paid for in time and effort worth any less? We need to reevaluate what people's time, effort and skills are worth. For if people who do not expect payment for such effort suddenly expected such monetary reimbursement, then there would be a great shock by many as to just how much certain services would cost them.

In my case I have three different skill-sets, which I perform, three different occupations. I am a writer, historian, and historical fencer/fencing master. Depending on which one of these skills is employed will decide exactly how much I could, in theory, charge a prospective client. I have, and do, perform many of these as a free service, I write three blogs (including this one) for free. I perform historical investigations for my own interest in various subjects and assist with others that friends propose, for free. I also perform training as a historical fencer/fencing master in group sessions, for free, and as a barter-system with some friends in private.

I could, in theory, be charging quite a bit for several of the services which I provide and could be quite happily employed as an independent as per the occupations listed above. Indeed I have my own publishing company which I have published one book, and will be publishing at least one other book, with plans for a couple more. The purpose of this publishing is to get information out there, rather than making money; entirely not a capitalist approach. I would prefer to put the information in the hands of those who are interested. 

I know how much my time is worth. I heavily disagree with this notion of a "real" job, indeed I find it insulting. I think it is false and denigrates many occupations which are disregarded in our world. I think it is a symptom of a capitalist world where we are forced to only value what we is paid for in money. I think that people should appreciate those who spend their time, and value the time that they spend, for if they do not, it could come a time when they will be made to pay for such time, or they will be much less generous with it.

Cheers,

Henry.

Monday, 25 October 2021

About History

 Greetings,

Having seen a lot of things about showing "history that should not be forgotten" I have decided that it is time that I make my comments about history and its writing and its importance. Just to set the record straight; from some one who has actually studied the subject for most of my life, from someone who is actually qualified in the area. Yes, I am one of those rare people who did the course and finished it, hell, I went back and did Honours just to make sure I had it straight. 

Frankly, I am surprised I have not written on this subject sooner considering it is my subject area, more than politics, though much of politics is explained by history, but I suppose we will get to that eventually. I was the kid who decided he wanted to be an historian early in their schooling career, so I have been studying history in some capacity ever since. What does this mean? It means that I have been pawing through old books, comparing incidents then with incidents now. I can say for sure, people have not learned a lot overall.

"Alas! Hegel as right when he said that we learn from history that men never learn anything from history." G.B. Shaw - Preface to Heartbreak House

The Economy

We have a great standard of living in the "First World" (depending on where you look), we have great access to information (again, depending where you look), great access to health-care (again, depending where you look), and amazing technological advances at our finger-tips (do I have to say, "depending where you look"?). What's all this "depending on where you look" business? Well, all of these advances are available to the upper echelons of society for sure, in the First World, but as you go down the social hierarchy, not so much; in some cases very not so much. Why am I pointing this out?

Some couple of centuries ago, in the same equivalent "First World" nations, there were those at the top who lived well, and there were those on the lower rungs who did not live particularly well. No change there. The date has changed, the technology has changed, the economics are all the same. Push it back more centuries you have the same thing. So what has the human race learned over the past several centuries: Greed is good, because it puts you at the top and gets you the best things. So, some will claim that our political system has changed, and improved.

Politics

"POLITICS. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." Ambrose Bierce - The Devil's Dictionary

In most of those same "First World" nations, people enrol to vote, once every four years (depending on the system). They vote for someone who claims that they will do things for them that will improve their lives. Most of these Candidates are members of Parties, who then decide what the individual will actually do if they are voted in. Independents, most often do not have much say, unless they happen to hold the balance of power, and then they choose to follow one side or the other. Once the candidates get into office they become Politicians, who are primarily interested in keeping their position, more than serving their constituents, because the job pays well (go back to the economy bit above because it places them instantly in the upper echelon). The individual gets a choice once every four years, unless there is some special circumstance that causes it to occur earlier.

The most representative democracy was in Athens and only male citizens were allowed to vote. This is held up to be the most representative democracy, the birthplace of democracy, the basis of all democracies which followed it. "It's now better than it was." How? In Republican Florence the noble families were represented in their Republic and decided what would happen in their city and its surrounds. "That's an oligarchy and not representative." Really? How is it any different to the rich families who present their Candidates for elections, or give fat campaign contributions to influence Politicians? How is our supposedly representative democracy any different? Because we get to elect our representatives. See how much funding that costs and see how many "average individuals" could afford it and see if it is truly "representative." They represent whoever gives them the biggest donations, for which they also give big fat tax breaks. Politics is a rotten system that is up for sale to the highest bidder, look at how they vote on social issues.

"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." Attr. Simon Cameron, Republican Boss of Pennsylvania (1860)

Social Issues

Social issues abound in our contemporary era. It is not like they have suddenly appeared, several have always been there, they have only more recently been more highlighted. Issues of sexuality are present in the Bible giving indication of their ancient origins. Questions about feminist ideals have been present throughout history with many strong female figures being present throughout history, though many of their histories have been denied, or re-told to suit male historians. Racial issues have been an ever-present issue throughout history, along with religious ones, and the cause of many of the greatest wars of history. It is true that in the last few centuries we have damaged our planet more than in all the centuries previous, and there is something that needs to be done about it, but even this is not something new, the evidence has been there for sometime, with pollution irreversibly damaging and changing environments.

The concept of political correctness, or being politically correct (PC) has been around now for about fifty years, at least according to Wikipedia. This idea has changed our language and changed how we address subjects and also people. It involves the use of inclusive language and so forth to ensure there is no offence given to individuals when speaking. This has been pushed into other areas rather than just language. It has been used to address many of the social issues which were mentioned above to increase the level of tolerance toward people, and reduce friction.

There has been a point where this concept has been pushed to a point where people have, in some situations, become gender-neutral. I will give an example. In a previous time it was polite for a gentleman to open a door for a lady. Now, a female might take offence at this action for its potentially condescending nature. This is a simple example where an act of assistance, of politeness previously has been reversed. The act of assistance may be performed for any individual out of politeness, regardless of gender or other defining feature, it's just a polite thing to do. The reduction of such actions reduce politeness due to the potential of offence that may be caused; an ironic reversal of the inclusive intent of being PC.

Historically, politeness was expected in many different ages and it can be traced through different ages through manuals of the period. This is an aspect which seems to be missing in our current age, a lesson that we have lost. The problem is that we are too busy focusing on our differences to notice the aspects that are the same. It is difficult to convince people to unite against a global threat, such as pollution, or a pandemic, when we are too busy being shown our differences, through the highlighting of historical and present situations of difference. 

Unity

Humanity. This is an important word and one that should unify us all. It is a lesson from history that throughout all of the conflicts and other horrible things that have happened throughout history that we have seen that we have forgotten. Why was the United Nations formed? To bring the world together. How is this possible with all the different religions and races? Because they are all focused (or were focused) on the same thing, a global threat. Unfortunately that has gone for many. We have lost the lessons of history... again.

COVID-19 was a chance to bring the world together again. Instead the nations of the world used it as a chance to fracture the world, to show our differences again. A unified front against the virus would've helped a lot, and likely reduced its effects, but we were too busy looking inward, comparing "us" and "them"... again.

Too often we see people showing the pieces of history which fracture, rather than those that bring us together. They show the ones that "must not be forgotten" because they are shocking; because they show how someone did something bad to another human being, or one group against another group of human beings; because they show our differences; they do not show pieces of our histories where people came together and helped one another, assisted one another, showed their humanity.

The greatest lesson that we can learn from history is that: we all do horrible things; we all make mistakes; we all live on the same planet; we share the air we breathe; we all have people we care about, and who care about us; we all have the capacity to do good things; we all have the capacity to help one another and improve others' lives; we all have the capacity to work together with those who are different to us; we are all really not that different; we are all human beings.

Maybe, just maybe, if we can learn that lesson from history, then this world might have a hope.

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.

Monday, 9 September 2019

On the Same Day...

Greetings,

I am writing this particular article because it is my way of airing my feelings about my current government and their attitudes toward the lower classes, nay the underclass which they have caused to be created as a result of filling the pockets of their fat cat friends. Here I will present two news articles which will present our Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison not in a particularly good light, as it will show the hypocrisy that the Australian public has had to endure under his leadership and indeed under the leadership of every Liberal Prime Minister to date.

The first article points toward his idea of rolling out deductions from welfare payments, forcibly taking rental payments and other payments from welfare recipients (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/rent-to-be-automatically-taken-from-welfare-payments-in-shakeup/ar-AAH1T12?li=AAgfYrC ). This is not long after he was discussing a "cashless card" in which 80% of the recipient's payment was held that "cannot be used to withdraw cash, buy alcohol or gamble" (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-10/scott-morrison-defends-expansion-of-cashless-welfare-card/11493626). This card was is supposed to be rolled out and imposed on recipients of welfare payments, by the looks, regardless of whether they have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or regardless of of whether they have a history of being homeless or defaulting on their rental payments. He is thus again placing all of those people who are on welfare payments in the same group.

The claim is because the states lose $30 million a year through unpaid rent for social housing. So there is some sort of financial reason for this then along with the "its better for the community" thing? Then he should really explain the tax-payer funded $250 million upgrade that he just got to his official plane (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/inside-shark-one-scott-morrisons-new-dollar250million-plane-is-revealed-after-a-commercial-jetstar-airbus-a330-is-transformed-into-a-100-seater-tanker-for-the-prime-minister/ar-AAH1PYT?li=AAgfYrC). So, we all have to tighten our belts and watch what we spend but he is allowed to go and spend money which is not his on his comfort. Of course the claim will be that future Prime Ministers will benefit from this, but why was it needed? I am sure that $250 million would go a long way or at least some way to creating jobs for those people he so desperately wants to "have a go".

The arrogance of this individual and his government is insulting. They give donations and tax breaks to the corporations and "big money" and then complain that the most vulnerable of society are a drain on society. Even though if the tax breaks and perks were cut off the welfare system would easily be funded. They take money away from education and wonder why the country is not keeping up with other countries in the quest for technology and new ideas. They take away from health and complain that people are being a drain on the public health system and also allow private companies to hike up private insurance. Is it any wonder the nation is having troubles?

Write to the Prime Minister and your local Member of Parliament, I already have. Tell them that what you think they are doing is wrong and tell them the reasons why. Explain to them that they are hurting the nation that they are supposedly trying to help. Hopefully, eventually, they will listen to us and we won't have to wait until election time to get scared into voting for them again.

Cheers,

Henry.

Wednesday, 21 August 2019

Taking Political Action

Greetings,

The following discussion is about political action and what it means to take political action. There are people who think that they are taking political action when they are actually not. They believe that they are trying to make a difference but they are actually not really. So the following will discuss methods of taking political action and their effects.

Not Political Action

There are some who think that political action is as simple as making people aware of injustice. This is only a very mild form of political action, if it can even qualify. People think that spreading information is sufficient political action for them to feel satisfied with themselves about having "done something" when in actual fact, most of the time it really does not qualify unless the information is of a truly restricted nature i.e. like whistle-blower level. So there are two actions which people think they are being political, but they are mostly just stirring the pot, and not really having particularly much effect.

Article Cross-Posting

Our social media feeds seem to be filled with people complaining about the actions of government or corporations. They seem to be filled with articles shared from various sources, some are reputable and some are not so reputable about various issues. Posting these articles does make people aware of the issues which are about, but it does not qualify as political action. Neither does a long rant underneath it in the comments. It raises awareness but does not do much else.

The "Meme"

Memes seem to have sprung up all over the place. Some of them are down-right hilarious, unfortunately these are not the ones that are being discussed here. The ones that are being discussed here, and "images with words attached" is the general definition which is being used here, are ones which are designed, like the articles above to stir people to action. For the most part, the most action that will be seen is some comment in the section below on a social media site. Much like Article Cross-Posting above, this does not qualify as political action. It may raise awareness of some social or political injustice, but it is not political action. It will not affect the government or corporations whom the meme is about.

Political Action

For something to qualify as political action it has to have an effect on the establishment. This means that either the government or a corporation has to stop and take notice of the action of the individual. this is the reason why the previous actions do not qualify as political action. They inform people, but so do journalists as part of their everyday job, and most of them would not think they are being political. The most important thing about this list is that while it covers the full extent of political action it does not in any way condone any sort of violent act against any individual or entity.

Voting

When political action is discussed this is the most common form which is recognised. Once every three or four years the voting public can decide to change the government. This is political action as the government, and corporations to a point, need to take notice of how people are voting and convince them to vote for them to keep them in power. This is the simplest and laziest form of  the use of political power and some people even decline to exercise this properly, and in some nations, at all. This is not the only way that an individual can exercise political power or effectively pressure the government or corporations.

Signing petitions

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of active petitions currently active and they are not all that difficult to find. Thanks to the internet we have organisations such as change.org which have made them electronic which means that we do not even have to sign on a piece of paper, but can sign from the comfort and convenience of our own homes. Signing these petitions is a form of political action as once the signatures are acquired they can be presented to politicians to present the view of the people on a particular issue. Where a person puts their contact details with their signature it holds more weight and, depending on the petition, could bring the person to notice of certain agencies. Of course there is a risk with any real political action that is to make a difference. However, in the same way as Voting, this is a relatively lazy form of political action, especially with the convenience of internet, electronic petitions.

Writing to Ministers

Any person may write to a Minister or Member of Parliament. A letter will carry more weight if the individual is a registered voter, and even more if the individual is one of that Member's constituents. Of course it will carry more weight if the letter is backed up with evidence and is not simply a rant or a complaint. The point being that writing to a Minister or Shadow Minister takes some effort, and this is appreciated by the reader and thus this is taken into account when the letter is read. This carries far more weight than simply signing a petition because you have taken the time to share your thoughts on a particular subject, which is obviously of importance to you. It can also easily be claimed that letters carry more weight than petitions because of the time taken to write them, especially when they are well-researched. The combination of letters and petitions is also useful. This is a form of political action which people do not seem to be as aware of as they should be.

Writing petitions and collecting names

Hasn't this been covered? No, the previous was merely signing the petition. This is writing the petition and collecting the names, being the instigator of the action. Just as it was previously stated, a combination of letters and petitions is a way of making people listen to issues which are present in a community. The letters and the petitions should be sent one after the other, and the petition should always be followed up by another letter so that the issue cannot be forgotten. Petitions are designed to gather a "ground-swell" of support for a cause. They are also useful for gaining contacts with people who may be willing and able to assist further in the cause. This form of political action has a long historical record.

Protesting

Protesting is the most well-known form of political action because it is public. The 1960s and 1970s made protesting famous, but it existed and was used well before this time. This, again, is the idea of using a "ground-swell" to demonstrate that there are a large group of the population which are concerned about a particular issue or set of issues. For many they are just an inconvenience which block roads and stop the flow of traffic, and this is actually their point. Protests are designed to make people take notice by causing an inconvenience through the massing of individuals. The other idea behind protests is that there is greater safety and greater force in numbers. One person can be ignored, but when hundreds of people get together, it is more difficult to ignore. Protests, for the most part, are designed to be non-violent, and the ones which turn violent are usually the result of a small group of people on either or both sides of the protest which stir up trouble. Protests are a form of political action which demonstrate an individual's dedication to a cause.

Violent Political Action

The forms of political action which have been described previously are intended to be non-violent. The prime one which can turn violent is the protest, which, as discussed, is usually the result of a radicalised group of individuals within the whole which cause the protest to turn violent. There are forms of violent political action which often make the news, which will be mentioned here, but not heavily detailed, as they are not the focus.

Terrorist acts are acts of violence perpetrated to cause fear for a social, political, or religious aim. These acts are usually perpetrated against civilian targets rather than military targets and are designed to cause disruption. They have previously been used as a form of political action and been used effectively so to bring governments to the negotiating table. Their nature has changed in recent times, as has the approach to them. Such actions are now considered criminal and not a legitimate form of political action.

Driven further along terrorist action can turn into revolution, but this requires the support of a large part of the population to succeed. Or at least complicity with a large part of the population to succeed. This is the most radical form of political action and involves taking over the entire government, usually by force.

Conclusion

There have been various forms of political action discussed. Clearly non-violent political action should always be the aim of the individual toward gaining their goals. What should also be noted is that there are more ways of exercising legitimate political power than just through the ballot. These should be taken into account. When a person truly supports a cause then these actions will be present. Posting articles and memes on social media is good for raising awareness but it does little else. More needs to be done to be considered "politically active".

Cheers,

Henry.

Saturday, 18 May 2019

All Queensland's Fault?

Greetings,

Australia has just voted for 2019, and the results are in and they are not what some people wanted. So as a result there is a lot of throwing around of blame as to whose fault it is. Several people who I have seen on Facebook and other media have been blaming the result on Queensland, due to its some what conservative nature, hence its backing for One Nation and other conservative parties. To this there are somethings that need to be set straight.

First and foremost, where I live in Rankin, the Labor candidate is being returned, so it was not my electorate who can be blamed for this mess. So the fingers can stop being pointed in this direction for a start.

Next, we have a look at some numbers, there are 151 electorates in Australia, 30 of these are in Queensland, it is a fifth of the electorates. What about the rest of the country? What about the other states? There are more electorates in Victoria and New South Wales. To gain what it required the Labour-National Party would require more than just Queensland. The evidence points to them getting it too (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-19/federal-election-map-coalition-defies-polls-retains-power/11127084?section=politics).

So before everyone tries to go blaming one state for the failure of an election maybe they should look at home first for the blame, if any blame should be leveled at all. Clearly the Coalition ran a better campaign than did Labor and other parties. What now?

My question for all those people who don't like it is, what are you going to do about it? When these politicians do something you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Just sit there and complain? When was the last time you wrote to your local Minister or Shadow Minister? When was the last time you marched? Australia is generally politically apathetic, and our politicians know it. This is the reason why the know they can get away with what they do. If you think that the vote is your only power then you are underestimating yourself.

Cheers,

Henry.

Tuesday, 19 March 2019

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does this leave us? The most important "-ist" that people should be concerned with is coex-ist. This is not possible where there are lines drawn and two distinct sides and "Us" and "Them" determined. In every case there must be room for negotiation and compromise on both sides. There needs to be room for at least the acceptance of the other's point of view, even if there is no agreement. Extremism in all its forms is damaging. Extreme positions about subjects leave little room for negotiation and differing points of view.
"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking
and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition." - Wikipedia
A new definition for humanism needs to be coined, focussing on the individual whose focus is on humanity, and the humanity in each individual. This is the sort of thought that we need to day a thought process which overrides politics and religion and focuses on the common aspects of humanity to find the commonality amongst us all. This individual would in their most radical form be of a sort to seek what universal commonality can be found amongst all and how to achieve this.

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Henry.