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.

Invisible Ableism

Greetings,

There are going to be some people who have looked at the title of this article and gone, "What? How can ableism be invisible?" I could simply respond and say the same way that disability can be invisible and that would almost be as accurate as I could get. It becomes invisible when it becomes normalised, as you will see below...

How invisible is ableism? When a person with disabilities does not notice an aspect of ableism in an activity they have been participating in for years. It qualifies as invisible.

For many the attaining of a driver's licence is a simple rite of passage. Lessons often begin toward the end of high/secondary school and continue onward until the tests are completed and the licence is attained. This is not the same for all of us. Possessing a driver's licence is a privilege, a privilege that some of us do not have, sometimes by choice, other times because disabilities disallow us.

Anything that can be taken away is a privilege. Re-read that again (no not bad grammar, do it twice) and have a good think about it. There are some of us who do not realise just how privileged we really are. However, that is a subject for another discussion. For now, we will recognise that a driver's licence is a privilege denied to some due to their disabilities. So, it means every adult in the world does not possess one, even in modern societies where such things are prevalent, and relatively common.

I never thought much of this particular issue until recently. My 18+ Card served as photographic identification (ID), usually sufficing for most things. I have since found somethings where a driver's licence is required as primary ID, where the 18+ Card is not enough. Here, we can see aspects of discrimination and ableism.

However, it was not until very recently that I realised just how prevalent this ableism, based on assumption or ignorance, was present in our lives. I have participated in fencing in a social group since the mid-1990s, am very well-known for it, and have had no reports of safety issues or other issues, at least that have been brought to my attention.

The most recent draft of the rules of this social group in one section states, "If you are not fit to drive, you are not fit to fight!" But I have never been fit to drive in my entire fencing career, and never will be. Taking this rule literally, my fencing career is over at the publication of this set of rules; or some pedantic rules lawyer could read it like that at some tournament in the future.

The statement in the rules is supposed to be a guideline for people, however it exposes a level of expectation certain people with disabilities, such as myself, cannot, and will not, ever meet. I know it is not the intention of the rule to be read like this. The purpose is to set a "known standard" for people to follow, however, this standard is ableist, and is possibly discriminatory due to its potential implications, i.e., is there a hidden requirement that a fencer also possesses a driver's licence?

I have identified this statement not to demand an apology or some sort of recognition. No, I have identified it merely to show the invisible ableism that even well-known (at least within my community) disability advocates such as myself have missed until recently. We all need to stop and examine such things in our lives to see if there are hidden aspects of ableism or discrimination present.

The purpose here is not to vilify, but to educate. To recognise these aspects are present, that we all need to improve, even the people who are most affected by the discrimination based on such concepts. If we, as people with disabilities, can't work together to remove such aspects from our lives, what hope do other people have if they don't have our perspective? 

The issue reveal one of the reasons that such issues need to be discussed with people with disabilities involved in the conversation, as has been said "Not about us, without us." Further, that we all need to look in the mirror and examine what issues may be invisible to us, because they have become normalised, just as a process of our lives.

Cheers,

Henry.

Let's Talk About Words...

 Greetings,

Some will ask why this is not in my Olde Wordes blog, you will be given that answer in the not too distant future. In some ways it really should be in that blog as this has been forgotten and has been relegated to a part of our language's history. This all being said, I am likely to make myself unpopular with some of my readers, though this blog doesn't get particularly many of those. In any case, I hope that you will bear with me until the end...

I will state that political correctness as a concept is a good idea, we should be concerned with how we address people, and be concerned for other's feelings, but there is a point at which this becomes ridiculous. I have spoken about the difficulties of being a gentleman in this modern age. I am a humanist, which means I believe in the true equality of every human to live a happy life, doing what they enjoy so long as it does not impinge on the happiness of another human being. I believe that everyone can be better, and I strive to be so.

I do not want to turn back the system. No, I want people to be treated equally, as human beings. To be given what they need, as human beings. I do not care for divisions of race, nor religion, nor culture, nor ethnicity, nor sexuality, nor gender, nor ability; such differences are simply the definitions of human diversity, and we must appreciate them all. With that all said, let's talk about a word...

To be precise, let's talk about part of a word, a suffix no less, that being, "-man." (Yes, I know I have stepped into hot water already.) Some would have this removed entirely, some would have all instances changed to "-person" to make it genderless. 

I say that the word is already genderless, just like in the word "human", one of my favourite words.

The Latin root of "-man-" has nothing to do with gender, in fact it has nothing even to do with an individual. The Latin root meaning is "hand". This is where we get words like "manual", "manage" and "manufacture", among many other words. This Latin root then links to the suffix "-man" because it is the hand performs the operation, that performs tasks.

The suffix "-man" means "person who operates, performs, or does something" this means that the "-man" in all these words is already genderless, there is no reason to change it.

(For your reference: https://www.wordreference.com/definition/man)

In my opinion, the changing of "-man" to "-person" and other such changes is a "knee-jerk" reaction to the presence of the word "man" being present, which offends some people who are looking to be offended. These people will claim that the presence of such words perpetuates the patriarchy which has perpetuated through history. I think it is a result of people being over-zealous about the language without understanding the origins of the language, without understanding its history.

The same knee-jerk reactions can be seen across language where language has been softened to lessen its impact against groups. We could examine the progression of "shell-shock" to "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" as an example; I have already spoken about language regarding disabilities. Many of these changes have been done without consultation of the individuals who will be affected by these changes, then backed by "politically-astute" or "politically-conscious" individuals so they pass through community requirements so they become accepted.

The more we consciously divide humanity, and continue to do so, the more these rifts will appear. The more these rifts appear, the more people will use these rifts will be used against us to keep us separated. While we are all being kept separated, distracted by the spelling and pronunciation of words, or how they are used, real changes are being affected in our world. Some of these changes we cannot undo once they are done.

Who benefits from people being separated by religion? Who benefits from people being separated by race? Who benefits from being being separated by gender? Who benefits from people being separated by disability? These are the questions that need to be answered, not about the differences. The differences are what make us special, they create the diversity in humanity, and are our strength. They allow us to see the world from different perspectives; if we can only see how we can work together, we might be able to solve the important problems in the world, problems facing humanity. Not problems facing one division of humanity.

Cheers,

Henry.

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.

A Question for "Alpha Males": Where is Your Pack

Greetings,

I am going to speak on a particular social issue and I am going to get hammered from certain parts of our community for writing it. However, this is one of those things that needs to be written, needs to be sent out there, needs to be said. This is something that needs to be corrected in people's thinking of the way the world works.

Why does an "Alpha Male" need a pack?

Simply because without a pack you are a "lone wolf" and contrary to all the cinema and stereo-types which have been created, the surviving "lone wolf" is the exception to the rule. Mostly "lone wolves" die, because they don't have a pack, "lone wolves had a significantly higher mortality than members of packs and pairs." They become lone for a reason, rejected by a pack. This is proven through more studies than just this one.  Oh, and "lone wolves," are exactly that lone, a pack of "lone wolves" is an oxymoron.

What Makes an "Alpha Male" in a pack?

The "alpha male" in the pack is the biggest, it is also the strongest, and so forth. However, even the concept of the "alpha male" has been proven to be false. For the purposes of the discussion and because the concept seems to pervade our society, or at least parts of it we will use it.

The "alpha male" is a leader. Yes, they are strong and they make decisions. They also care for the rest of the pack, they also defend the weaker members of their pack from attack. They do not go out and seek to harm members of their pack as this is counter-productive, as the pack must work together to survive. The "alpha male" will go out of its way to ensure that more of its members survive because this is to its advantage.

Watch this video for wolves in the wild, yes a pack of them. Watch how they follow one another, sticking together for the benefit of the pack. Working for the benefit of the whole rather than the individual.

What does all this mean?

There needs to be a correction in our idea of the so-called "alpha male" if we are going to continue to use this concept in a social sense (even thought the original concept is false). It needs to be recognised for what it originally was the leader of the pack. A one who worked for the group, who worked to the benefit of the group rather than themselves.

If you're big, strong and dominant, but you're not a leader, and you are not working toward the improvement of a group, seeking to improve the lives of others, you are no "alpha male." You're a "lone wolf" and your destiny is to be shut out, because "lone wolves" are removed from the pack for a reason. They have no use to the pack, the pack always comes first.

Real strong people are those who put other's needs before their own, because they can. They have the strength and resources to do so, so they do so. Not because they are told to, or because they are required but because that is the way things are done. This modern "alpha male" concept needs to be either reconstructed or removed, corrected to what a pack leader does or simply eliminated, because it does no good for society as a whole as it is currently.

Next time you are told someone is an "alpha male," ask the where their pack is, and if they don't have one, it's just an ego-trip to fill in some hole in their personality...

Cheers,

Henry.

"White People": A Racial Slur

 Greetings,

There has been quite a bit of conversation, especially over the past years, about people identifying as one nation or another, identifying with their "roots" especially. There has been identification of "First Nations" people, within the boundaries of various current national boundaries. However, when it comes to "white people," they are overlooked. 

In fact, I would state that "white people" in itself is a racial slur. Why? If you examine all of the "white people" within a national boundary these days, you will find many different cultures and many different languages. It is important to recognise the original inhabitants even if they were white as well. Further, it is important to recognise that due to immigration you will often find a lot of different cultures within a national boundary, even if they are all "white."

This term, "white people" is offensive in the same way as any other generalisation of culture is offensive. It is merely not recognised by most because "white people" are the dominant, "white people" were the "conquerors" and "settlers." This is primarily used as a slur to categorise negative attributes or actions, either historical or current, which are being implied, what needs to be recognised is not all "white people" are committing these offences. There are all sorts of "white people." Then again, the same applies to "black people."

We should not say "black people" in the same way, for the same reasons. Under the heading of "black people" there are people of African descent, people of Pacific Island descent, and people of Australian indigenous descent, and likely others. They all certainly do not have the same cultures, as they did not live under the same environmental conditions, and they did not develop the same way. Categorisation by colour of skin, shape of face (Caucasian, Negro, etc.), all of these things may be biologically possible and tell us something about our roots, and common roots, in prehistory, but they should not be used to generally categorise people in a socio-cultural sense. Wouldn't it be nice if we were just all "people," without the necessity of the socio-cultural tags?  

There are discussions of "cultural appropriation" in regard to certain cultures. "Cultural appropriation is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation) There seems to be a lot of regard and concern for some cultures and not others. It would seem that European cultures "white" cultures are ignored when it comes to this, because they are the "dominant culture," but offense can still remain. We need to be careful about how we deal with all cultures, regardless of where they originate, regardless of their time period, regardless if they are "dominant" or not. We need to be respectful of all cultures and how we present them.

Now, there are those who are going to claim that I am some sort of "white supremacist" or "Nazi" for making the statements that I have (likely, because I will be classified as "white"), and I consider these individuals foolish beyond words. To them, you have missed the point of what I have been saying. I am a firm believer in levelling the playing field in all aspects. The same care should be taken with all people and all cultures, regardless of the colour of their skin, nation's origin, or religious beliefs.

Maybe I should've changed the title to: Why can't we all just be "people"?

I apply the same to gender and sexual orientation for that matter. Care needs to be taken how we address one another as individuals, and as groups, even how we think about one another.

We need to begin to understand one another so we can begin to heal. This is the way forward. Hopefully then we can begin to see ourselves as "humanity" and work toward a better world.

Cheers,

Henry.

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.