On Forbearance

 Greetings,

What is forbearance? Why is he rattling on about it? Why is it so important? Yes, these questions I will answer, or at least I will give you my answers to these questions. I think it is one of those words that is not used anymore, it has gone out of circulation. So, it is a concept that we don't think about anymore. It is one that I have come across in parts of my reading and I think it is one we should consider. This question of forbearance is of importance for our associations with others.

What is Forbearance?

"the quality of being patient and being able to forgive someone or control yourself in a difficult situation" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forbearance)

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines forbearance above. It is the quality of being patient with someone else's issues, or about having some self-control in a difficult situation. The definition is applied either to the effect upon another person or upon the self. The "formal" definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary applies primarily to the self, and primarily concerns self-control.

"the quality of someone who is patient and able to deal with a difficult person or situation without becoming angry" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forbearance)

The focus of forbearance from the definitions above would seem to be on self-control, but primarily in dealing with a difficult person or a difficult situation. Here it is expected that the common expectation of patience and self-control are expressed in forbearance, and if we take this as part of its prime expression then we gain understanding. 

Asked, But Not Given

There is often the situation that a person will beg a person's forgiveness because they have been forgetful and forgotten to bring something, or do something for the other. Yet when it comes to another situation, the same person who was forgiven is impatient with the other person and cannot give the same patience, the same forgiveness, the same forbearance as they were given. The situation is also seen when a person with an illness does a bad thing, they expect forgiveness because of their illness.

“Why forbearance. - You suffer, and demand that we should be forbearing towards you when as a result of your suffering you do wrong to things and to men! But what does our forbearance matter! You, however, ought to be more cautious for your own sake! What a fine way of compensating for your suffering it is to go on and destroy your own judgment! Your revenge rebounds upon you yourself when you defame something; it is your own eye you dim, not that of another: you accustom yourself to seeing distortedly!” Nietzsche, F. (1997) Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Translated by R. J. Hollingdale) p.134:214

Nietzsche would argue that the person with the illness should be more careful, more wary in the situation because they know they have the illness. He argues that by allowing their illness to run rampant, letting it have its way, it destroys their judgement. You begin to see in a distorted fashion, everything is viewed askew, primarily about the things the person can be excused for rather than the things that should be countered, avoided or simply dealt with in a more healthy fashion. Learning from these incidences and applying the learning is a start. 

In another case an individual would have no forbearance for those who act the same, even though they do it themselves. There has to be a line, where the excuses stop and a person takes responsibility for their actions and their situation. A person has to question is whether it is right that forbearance is given.

Is it Right?

Why should a person be given forbearance? How have they earned the right? Is a person given forbearance because they had or have no control at the time, or because the individual who gives it does have control at the time? If it is the latter, then the better for the individual who gives than the one who receives, for the giver certainly is the stronger. What of the question of reciprocity? A person who is given forbearance; in equal measure, should they not also be tolerant and patient with others?

The reciprocity is often not seen. Some are excused while others are not, the same occurs with many parts of our world with many parts of our culture that has developed. People expect to be excused because that is the way they have learned, or that is the way they were brought up, or for other reasons and that is fine according to some. Yet others claim the same, and their methods, their ways of doing things have to be changed, there is no forbearance at all. For some, "they need time to learn", so there is some consideration expected. For others, they are expected to have learned, or to learn it quickly.

Forbearance, like self-control, and patience to which it is intimately related to need to be learned by all; they need to be used by all; for the benefit of all. This is the only way it is going to work. 

What you expect, you should give out to begin with and in return.

Cheers,

Henry.

The SCA: A Meritocracy

Greetings

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual member, not as a member of any corporate or organisational body. I am not representing any organisation within or without the Society for Creative Anachronism. Like all of my previous articles, this is my opinion and ideas about the subject.

The SCA

The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) is an international Medieval and Renaissance recreation organisation, and the only one that I know of that can claim to be an international one. There are satellites of the main group all over the world. Its stated purpose on many of its pamphlets is to "live the period the way it should have been." What does this mean exactly? Well, it means that we focus our attention on all the "good" bits of the period, and there are certain elements of the societies of the period the Society brushes aside.

The Society doesn't do the Inquisition, and up to recently it didn't do the Plague. Certain elements of reality have intruded upon "the game" and have imposed certain elements of the plague upon the game. Within the core of the Society is the chance to show the world a better way.

On the surface, the SCA's traditions seem quaint and medieval, even a little barbaric in certain circumstances. The ruling Crowns (typically a King and Queen) of each Kingdom are chosen by right of arms in a tournament held once every six months. If a person looks below the surface, one finds something more interesting. The individuals who achieve this have to be skilled in their pursuit, have trained to achieve this goal, to become the nominal/titular head of state for this period. The ruling is by right of skill, by ability.

More interestingly, the individuals who hold the real power, the seneschals, think like a president of an organisation, these are selected from among the populace. How? By vote? No, they submit applications, and the best person for the job is selected. This is the case for the SCA, it shows the way as a meritocracy; and has the chance to show the world a better way, a way in which people moved and awarded based on their merits. 

Define "Meritocracy"

To understand exactly what is being spoken about, and to ensure that both author and reader have the same meaning, the term "meritocracy" needs to be defined. There are three different definitions which will be presented, to give a better, more rounded definition. What will be noted with each definition is that success in these systems is based on ability, merit and achievement.

"a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meritocracy)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition is simple and indicates towards individuals being rewarded with increased position and so forth based on their abilities and merits. A meritocracy when examined literally is rule by merit, so this definition goes simply for the source of how individuals attain increased positions.

"a social system, society, or organization in which people get success or power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position:" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The Cambridge Dictionary definition tells both the reason that individuals gain success and power, through their abilities, but also examines the subject from a more current perspective, it could be said, stating that individuals do not gain such successes because of their money or their social position. This makes a comparison between the meritocracy and other systems. The Collins Dictionary definition approaches the definition from a similar approach.

"A meritocracy is a society or social system in which people get status or rewards because of what they achieve, rather than because of their wealth or social status." (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The definition does not only focus on the merits of the individual, but also upon their achievements, and this is also important, especially in regard to our current conversation. There is also comment about how the meritocracy does not focus on the individual's wealth or social status as in the previous definition from the Cambridge Dictionary.

Achievement Through Merit

The SCA has a system of awards intended to highlight the achievements of its members. To present these members as having done something for their local groups, and even wider groups, as something which is significant to the group. This award system is prevalent throughout the Society and is based on award recommendations which are sent highlighting what individuals have been seen to be doing. Individuals are awarded and achieve levels of rank on the basis of merit, rather than any wealth or social standing they might hold outside the Society. 

Officer positions are granted on the basis, where there is more than one individual applying for the position, on the basis of merit, what the individual can bring to the office, rather than any social standing the individual might have, so on the basis of merit. This means that the best person to do the job is, or should be, given the position out of a selection of candidates. Evaluation is on the basis of merit and achievement. 

The method describes forms a blue-print which allows the most talented, those with most merit to rise to the top. This means that the individual who works well with others, and achieves things for the group is more likely to achieve awards and officers than the individual who does not have such merits. Such is the idea behind a meritocracy. It is not a perfect system because there are those who must choose between one individual and another for the awarding of officers and awards, but it certainly, in its best form demonstrates fewer flaws than other systems.

System Comparison

In an aristocratic system, there is a family which has a certain blood-line which means they are in power. Power is inherited because of the family blood-line. The only way to come to power in this system is through inheritance, inter-marriage or violent over-throw, replacing one family with another, and history can be examined for examples of such incidences of each type of change of family inheritance. It does not allow for much change in the system, when in a truly autocratic system.

Many hail the greatness of the democratic system where each individual gets a vote. The history of the democratic system does not bear out this egalitarian approach. In Athens, only male citizens had the vote, which is to say, a smaller percentage of the population. It was not until the twentieth century that both sexes had the vote in many of our "civilised" western societies. 

Even now that each citizen, male or female has the ability to vote at elections, votes are often bought by the politicians with promises of things that they will do; sometimes they fulfil their promises sometimes they don't. People are scared into voting one way or another; how often are governments returned in times of crisis even though they are not actually in the interest of many of the people? People are subject to the propaganda of external influences in the media, and their votes pushed in one direction or the other.

Further, one vote every four years does not give the individual much control over what the politicians do in between times. How many citizens are politically-active at any time other than elections? How many petition, write letters to their local members? How qualified are these individuals to represent our interests?

In many ways the modern democratic system is more of an oligarchy, a rule by the few. On what basis? In a democracy any individual has the ability to represent their people, yes? How often do independents actually get voted in? Why? Often because we don't hear about them because they can't afford the advertising campaign. Most of the politicians' previous occupations place them in the upper strata of society, which means they have the money to start with. The rich get richer; they are out of touch with "the people" which is why the laws are out of touch.

Socialism has been heralded as the great evener, the great saviour of society, it will see the playing field levelled. Everyone will have the same access to resources and so forth. If the system is so effective, so perfect, why did it fail in the Soviet Union? It is simple, it did not level the playing field. It did not have everyone as equal, there was no equality of access to resources. There were still "haves" and "have nots". Socialism did not solve the human tendency for greed; people want more, and more than the next person. The Chairman and his Council of Ministers certainly were treated much better than their comrades in the factories.

A Perfect System?

Is the system that I have described previously within the SCA perfect? Most certainly it is not. It has flaws like any other system that is designed and operated by an organisation of human beings. These flaws need to be acknowledged.

The first problem with the awards system is that for an award to be bestowed, recommendations about the individual for the award need to be written, and not enough get written. In many situations this is because everyone expects that someone else will do it. Or, because the individual does no think that they are important enough that their award will count for something. This is not the case, of course, every recommendation letter is read, and every letter is taken into account, regardless of whom it is from.

The next problem is that there is a human being, or a group of human beings who compares the merits and achievements of individuals. They compare this either to a scale, sometimes internal sometimes external, against which the individual needs to match up to gain that award. Opinions are often gained about the individual and their impact. In each instance there are personal influences which can impact the situation, sometimes these are purely personal, sometimes they are the result of external forces, such as rumour and reputation. Each one of these will impact whether or not an individual gains an award. Essentially, it comes down to the decision of two people.  

Ironically, like the more important decisions of our lives, the more important decisions of the SCA come down to a single person, usually a seneschal. It must be noted that officers within the Society make these important decisions all of the time, on their own, because that is within their officer description. 

There is no perfect system, because there are people involved. Even if an entire system were computerised, the system would still be flawed, because a human would have to write the program, and a human would have to input the data.

Humans make decisions based on their experiences and the various impacts upon their lives including their beliefs and values. Sometimes these beliefs and values come into conflict with one another, we can just hope that there is a way that we can mediate these situations for the best outcome. If the SCA is examined as a society within a society it will be noted that there is a particular approach, while there is violence within the society, there is also a certain gentleness. While there is a certain forceful nature of the society, there is also a definitive politeness. The SCA has sometimes been termed as showing "the pre-1600s the way we would've liked it to have been" or words to that effect, as a political experiment it shows a way forward; putting the best people ahead.

For those of my readers who would like to find out more about the SCA, there are some links to follow below:

https://www.sca.org/

https://lochac.sca.org/ (for Australian readers)

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.

Academic Reading: Reading Documents with Emotional Content

 Greetings,

Reading is a skill, we teach it to children, and it is vital that we do so. For the most part, we restrict what our children read, because certain content is not for their eyes, because they simply would not understand the content, or because their young minds simply could not take it. Adults do not have such restrictions on their reading. Well, actually there is some restrictions on what they are allowed to read, some books are "banned", other documents are "restricted" due to their classified or sensitive nature. 

There are also a host of other texts people will read, and they will cause them to have an emotional response. This is often because of the nature of the text as compared to the cultural upbringing of the individual, or the historical significance of the author, or what the text may have led to or been used for. It is these text which I would like to address. To truly read something as an intellectual, and appreciate it for its intellectual value, the emotional response needs to be removed. This is the only way that we may gain a greater understanding of our world, both the positive and the negative, for only this way will we be able to combat the negative. If we do not understand it how can we hope to do anything about it?

I have read Industrial Society and Its Future, the manifesto of Theodore ("Ted") Kaczynski known as the "Unabomber"; he conducted a nationwide bombing campaign across the United States which lasted for 17 years and killed 3 people and injured 23 others.  Why would I want to read the manifesto of some "madman"? It contains some interesting information, and an interesting view of society. Does this potentially make me one of his disciples? Is it going to inspire me to go on a bombing campaign in order to change the world? I think not. I do not believe this is the way to change the world, nor do I now believe that his methods were correct. I read it to understand his perspective, to understand him. To understand why he thought it was necessary to do what he did. A person's writing is a small window into their mind... including what you are reading now.

So the question is can you read something with emotional content, without the emotion clouding your impression of the document? If you can, this is an intellectual or academic reading of the document.  This is a logical, as in read with logic rather than emotion controlling you, reading of the document. The intellectual discussion of a document should contain no emotional content, only discussion of what's present in the document, nothing of what emotion may have placed there.

Emotion clouds our senses, derails the intellect, gets in its way, sees things in the intent of the writer which are not necessarily present or meant in the words. It will put meaning to words which are on the page, often to the most extreme, positive or negative, depending on the document being read. Keeping emotion at bay may be particularly difficult when the document is particularly personal. We feel this when a letter is written to us, because it is personal, but it is also felt when it may attack one of our belief systems, or raise the spectre of one of the ghosts of the past, some dark secret of history; maybe not even personal history, it may be cultural history.

Let's take the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, there are those who would tell you that reading his works is tantamount to reading the work of the Nazis, due to the concepts which they took from his work and then turned and twisted to suit to their purposes. Something anyone who has actually read Nietzsche's work can tell you. Further anyone who has delved into his life can tell you it was his sister not Nietzsche himself who invited the Nazis in and gave them access to his papers. Nietzsche was not in any state to be receiving guests by that stage, his health would not allow it, as anyone who read his biography could tell you. 

Nietzsche's work bears the mere taint of Nazism and there are people who will not read it because of this, because it sets them afire, sets their emotions in a frenzy. How can they call themselves led by their intellects if this is the case? There are works which bear the marks of history which have much greater reason to cause such response, but in the individual who is reading academically, reading letting their intellect guide them rather than their emotion it should not. How about Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler? If this is not the heart of what real Nazis feel what else could be? If a person was to read this it could tell us what the Nazis believed, what philosophies brought them to power, what ideals that similar movements even follow today, because they are still reading it. Aside from that, if a person wants to understand Adolf Hitler it is the best source, because he wrote it. For the historian, it is a primary source, just like a birth certificate, or a school newsletter, nothing more. This is the way that such documents should be approached, with the emotional content removed.

Another document which sparks controversy was published more than 500 years ago, yet its mention, in certain parts of the community sparks debate and emotional response. The book I speak of is the Malleus Maleficarum by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, published in Latin, and is also known as the "Hammer of Witches". This book has been the subject of much debate since it was published. In some circles it is considered an "evil" book because it supposedly drove the witch trials in the 16th- and 17th-centuries, and it certainly has some part to play here. Ironically, 

"The top theologians of the Inquisition at the Faculty of Cologne condemned the book as recommending unethical and illegal procedures, as well as being inconsistent with Catholic doctrines of demonology." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum)

In any case, it is another text, which just at its mention will strike people an emotional response. The book itself is a view into the perspectives of the subject, at least from one point of view, from the period. For the historian, especially one investigating such practices, of either side, from that period, it is a primary source. It needs to be read academically, intellectually, without any emotion attached to the reading to gain the greatest benefit. Without such reading, the information will be interpreted, bent by a person's emotional response to the content, and a warped sense of the contents will be gained.

The intellect is used to read a thing. The individual then allows their mind to interpret what they have read. If, the emotion is allowed to override the intellect in the interpretation process, then the interpretation becomes warped, or may even be blocked. The emotion will allow an interpretation based on only what it feels, the intellect requires evidence to reinforce the interpretation, some proof of the interpretation. For the academic, and the academic reading, the intellect must win out. This is how we gain information, this is how we gain facts. Not truth, truth is a matter for philosophy, but facts.

The emotional content should be acknowledged. You should accept how the document makes you feel, but you need to get past this to read the document properly. You should even record how the document makes you feel when reading it, as this is important information, put it as a side-note. But, the emotional content should not dominate the discussion of the document, at least for an academic discussion of the document. How the document makes the person feel, or how the document may make others feel is irrelevant to the document's academic relevance or use. There would not be many documents left if all the documents with "emotional content" were destroyed, indeed it is vital that these documents are preserved so we remember where we went wrong, so we can improve ourselves.

Arguments. It is said that there are three sides to an argument; one side, the other side, and the truth. A person who wants to get anywhere near the elusive "truth". Needs to read documents from both sides of a discussion or argument, only then will you begin to understand the entire picture. Most of the time we know "our" side very well, but the other side is very hazy. They may not even be an enemy per se, we just don't know "them" particularly well, so we don't communicate well. When the miscommunication occurs because we don't know "them" and they don't know "us" this is when they become "the enemy". Could they have stopped becoming "the enemy" by knowing them better? Likely.

Miyamoto Musashi says, “It is difficult to know yourself if you do not know others.” By reading what is written by the other side of an argument, or by an opposing intellectual discussion, or an opposing political thought, we not only begin to know them but also know our own strengths and weaknesses. Sun Tzu, the ancient military strategist talks about knowing enemy and knowing yourself. To do this in an intellectual sense requires us to read what they have read and understand the documents which form their foundation. This cannot be done if a person is choked with emotion every time the read something by the person, or about their political view, or concerning their way of life. 

Remove the emotion from your reading and read intellectually, let your logic what its designed to do, read from an academic perspective, and you will discover all sorts of different things about the world.

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.

Unenforced Rules

 Greetings,

There are rules and legislation which are intended to protect us from harm, but what good are these rules and legislation if they are not enforced in some measure? Laws are only as strong as those people who are willing to enforce the laws, even if they do not believe in the laws. It is not their job to believe in the laws, it is their job to enforce them. A prime candidate for this one is in Queensland, Australia, in regard to the wearing of masks on public transport, no doubt soon to be repealed as restrictions soften.

The Rule

On the Queensland Government website it is still stated that:

"Public Transport and ride share: must wear a mask including while waiting for the transport in a public space such as a bus stop, taxi rank or train station."

(https://www.covid19.qld.gov.au/government-actions/roadmap-to-easing-queenslands-restrictions)

Indeed, if you go to a Translink (Queensland Transport/Queensland Rail) railway station you will find a sign which looks something like this:

The sign clearly states that wearing a mask is "mandatory on public transport". A person travelling on public transport must therefore wear a face mask to travel, or face some penalty. This would be the logical reading of this wouldn't it? People who do not, should be stopped and either forced to wear one or have some sort of penalty imposed, yes? Why is it then that we see so many people who happily travel, and have travelled on public transport without a face mask?

First, some of these individuals have exemptions, this is understood. But by and large the ones who do not do not have these exemptions. Yet, these individuals walk past officials of all kinds without being stopped. I would put it down to that they have no consideration for their fellow man. You do not wear a face mask in a pandemic only for your benefit, but also for the benefit of those around you. These individuals are simply showing how selfish they are. Moving back to the point of the matter.

These unmasked individuals walk past a variety of officials unchallenged. I would ask, who has the authority to enforce this rule? What penalty is there for not wearing a mask on a train or other form of public transport, with this legislation in place? Some of this will be answered. Some of this will fall into some very "grey" areas.

Definitions

1. Face mask

"Face mask means a flat surgical mask, P2/N95 mask or a cloth face mask with three layers that covers the nose and mouth (but does not include a face shield).

          Note – a scarf or bandana is not a face mask." 

(https://www.health.qld.gov.au/system-governance/legislation/cho-public-health-directions-under-expanded-public-health-act-powers/mandatory-masks)

Going by the definition from the Queensland Government documentation, there are lots of alternative "masks" which do not qualify. Wrapping a piece of cloth about your face, or sticking your nose and mouth beneath your shirt do not qualify. Neither, does it seem, do many of the home-made masks which have been produced and worn in their thousands... according to the definition, some only have two layers. One big "grey area" that people like to ignore when quoting the rules and regulations. It would seem that this definition has been relaxed a bit with the shortage of commercially available masks, without having been re-written from its original.

A lot could be said about the proper wearing of the mask. How some people think that having it under your chin is sufficient, because they are "wearing" it. For some others having their nose pointing out above it is also alright. The mask must cover your mouth and your nose to do the job properly. You might as well not be wearing it at all. It is like having safety glasses worn on your elbow while working; or leaving your kitchen mitts in your pocket while you pick up the hot tray out of the oven; or your hard-hat hanging on your belt, none of which will protect you. I think this is sufficient on this subject... at least for now.

2. Emergency Officer

"Emergency officer (public health) means an emergency officer appointed under the Public Health Act 2005.

          Note: Emergency officers appointed under the Public Health Act 2005 include public health                  officers and police."

From the same document as the previous as would be clear, because the definitions should all be drawn from the same document. This will impact on who is able to impose the penalty which is detailed below. The definition states that officers are appointed under the Act, and include public health officers and police. There is no mention of public transport personnel, who are thus prevented from acting. So, they can make a rule, but not enforce the rule; a tiger with no teeth, and no claws, it would seem. If a public transport officer were inclined, they could detain an individual, but I surely have not seen it. Police patrol trains, but not as often as unmasked individuals are present, and they are mostly looking for train-jumpers, i.e. people not paying fares. More revenue-raising, at least speeding fines convince people to slow down; Queensland Transport is the only state transport reputedly to have made a profit, so it's not like they need the money. Speaking of fines...

Penalties

Should a police officer decide to detain an individual for a breach of the Public Health Act 2005, which is what not wearing a mask, under a condition where wearing a mask is mandatory is concerned, occurs. Then the penalty is detailed in its usual bureaucratic fashion.

"PART 3 – PENALTIES

A person to whom the direction applies commits an offence if the person fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the direction.

Section 362D of the Public Health Act 2005 provides:

Failure to comply with public health directions

A person to whom a public health direction applies must comply with the direction unless the person has a reasonable excuse.

Maximum penalty—100 penalty units."

(https://www.health.qld.gov.au/system-governance/legislation/cho-public-health-directions-under-expanded-public-health-act-powers/mandatory-masks)  

The penalty does not look particularly stiff, for those who have no idea what a "penalty unit" consists. This requires further research to ascertain how much such a penalty is worth. So I did some digging, to be as forthcoming with the information as possible. 

According to the Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2015, the prescribed value of a penalty unit is $137.85, meaning the maximum penalty is $13,785. Obviously this would not be imposed for a person simply not wearing a mask, but could be imposed for other breaches of the same Public Health Act 2005. A person, resisting arrest, spitting on an officer, while not wearing a mask, while in the process of a legal detention could be up for a quite severe penalty, for example. 

What's the Point?

Rules and regulations, we like to think and hope, that they are written for our benefit. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, the increase in restrictions on certain activities and additional requirements has been to prevent its spread. Some will claim it has been to restrict our freedoms. 

Here is a counter-point argument to the restriction of freedoms argument, especially one for all the conspiracy types out there. For years the governments have been trying to get into our lives to identify us; They have installed cameras on buildings and in public transport to identify us. Now they are asking us to wear masks which cover up half our faces, which make it harder to identify us, and its a conspiracy to restrict our freedoms. I would think that the mask mandates would be embraced. Now you have a reason to walk into places you could never have before with a mask on and no one will bat an eyelid. You're talking about waking people up, how about you actually do something for other people and fulfil your identity-defeating dreams, and wear a mask.

If a rule is made then it should be enforceable and it should be enforced. In the case of those not wearing masks on public transport: they should be removed at the next stop in the case of trains, denied entry, if they try to board buses; and fined and if they are caught by police. Only enforcement, and public notification of this enforcement; let people know that people are being fined, or removed from public transport, will cause certain people to stop and actually consider following the rules put in place. 

There is a certain portion of the community who will follow legislation and rules because they know its purpose; to keep people healthy and safe. These are not the people that are being described here. These people are happy to comply, more than willing to do so, concerned for their own standing, if not good citizens concerned for other's welfare.

If not all public transport personnel, then at least the Transit Officers should, at least for the period of the pandemic, have the power as well as their usual duties, the power to enforce public health mandates as well. There needs to be more enforcement of this rule to have any effect on those members of the public who have not realised its import, and need to be reminded that if being a "good citizen" is not enough, there is always the "other" way, which will cost them more than the price of a mask.

Cheers,

Henry.

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.

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.

On Fortitude

 Greetings,

Fortitude seems to be an old word, one that does not come up very often. It is a concept which people have ideas about, but it is not often seen in the modern world, which is unfortunate. There are instances and events where it is expressed, but it should be more generally known. It is a characteristic which can determine the individual who will achieve their goals and the one who will not. To understand a thing a person must first know what's being discussed.

To begin with there needs to be some discussion of definition. The first comes from the Oxford dictionary and states that fortitude is, "courage in pain or adversity." A second definition which gives a little bit more about the subject comes from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and provides not only a definition of the word but a secondary definition not used. "1 : strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage. 2 obsolete : strength."

Both of these sources point toward fortitude as strength of some description, in one example it is simply strength, in the others it is the strength to face adversity, strength of mind, having the courage to face such adversities and continue onward. This concept of strength which is present in the concept of fortitude comes from its Latin root.

"Fortitude comes from the Latin word fortis, meaning "strong," and in English it has always been used primarily to describe strength of mind. For a time, the word was also used to mean physical strength"

This is, again, sourced from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and accompanies the definition of the word, for those who would read on a little bit further than the definition. It notes that while fortitude has been primarily used to describe strength of mind, as indicated previously, the word has also been used as indicated by its Latin root, to simply describe physical strength. When looking at such things the Latin word "fortitudo" is used to describe: strength, bravery, valour, and courage. 

Fortitude is a characteristic which we see in some people, they strive despite the odds of success, and they are admired for such efforts, so they should be. A person who works to better themselves should be encouraged to do so. A person who seeks to fulfil a goal they have set themselves should be encouraged to push onward to that goal. 

Too often in our modern world we see a person strive, and others who have chosen not to strive, to remain settled, complacent, comfortable, not willing to risk what they have. The settled ones try to cut those who strive down, trying to bring them back. A person who stands out from the rest because they have chosen to do good things, to push their limits, to improve themselves, is criticised, shown how they are leaving others behind, shown how they stand out as if it is a bad thing rather than encouraged. Sometimes this is called the "tall poppy" syndrome. It is because they are envious of the success, they are envious of the fortitude of these individuals.

How often do we see that people look for the easy way out? They look for they easy road to take. How much easier is it to stay at home rather than travel? How often do we decide not to attend things because it might be bad weather? The lack of fortitude is evident in many places, even in what is praised by society; avoiding taxes, short-cutting jobs, finding an easy way rather than the proper way. These little things reduce our fortitude encourage us to give up and find the easy way out.

The individual with fortitude will push through the difficulties, will choose to take the road that takes them to their destination regardless of how it looks, regardless of how windy or bumpy it might be. For the individual with fortitude the journey to the destination is as fulfilling as reaching the destination, and they will push through the difficulties, whatever they may be. 

Do you strive for your goals, or sit complacently, sitting comfortably? Do you encourage or do you discourage? Do you have fortitude? 

Cheers,

Henry.