Australia Day: What's In a Date?

 Greetings,

Every year when the 26th of January rolls around there are celebrations and protests about "Australia Day", or what some people now call "Invasion Day" in empathy for the indigenous peoples who were present on the continent when the Europeans arrived and settled. This is a contentious subject of dates and questions of what will make people happy, and in the end there will always be a group of people who will be unhappy about the date or the celebrations.

26th January is commonly known as "Australia Day" and the beginning of the country, is not accurate, even from an historical perspective. It may have been the date of arrival for settlers to the Colony of New South Wales in 1788. I say "may" because unless someone pulls the logs from Captain Arthur Philip's ship or his personal diary, or some equivalent, we will never know the date of disembarkation.

Either way there is a problem, I say the Colony of New South Wales because "Australia" did not exist until 1901, when it was federated, so historically there is kind of a problem to start with. "Australia" cannot technically count its birth-date back to 1788, but only 1901. Federation, the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia occurred on 1st January. This is kind of an inconvenient day for a celebration of national pride considering the celebrations that already occur on that day.

Almost 100 years before Federation, the 26th of January was more significantly as it marked the beginning of the Rum Rebellion, Australia's only coup d'état, where Governor Bligh (Yes, that Bligh, the one infamous for the mutiny on the "Bounty") was forcefully removed from office by the next governor Governor Macarthur. Australians tend to only get up in arms when they really have had enough, have a look at the Eureka Stockade. Maybe the date should be set to the date of either of these, well it is for the first, 3 December is the other end of the year, for Eureka. Again, not Australia, all before Federation. They do, however point toward the Australian psyche as the larrakin.

Consider that one of the most famous, and beloved folk-heroes in Australian history is one Edward "Ned" Kelly, a bushranger (who attempted to start a rebellion of his own, according to his letters and some of his most ardent historians), and you have much of Australian mentality down; rebels, but lazy ones. Fight for the underdog, but not quite enough energy to stand next to them all that often.

Any date that is chosen is going to annoy some one. There are some who are campaigning to change it to May 8, "Mate Day", Australians are colloquially known as saying "G'day mate." and calling each other "mate" so it is trying to harness this idea. It will coincide with World Red Cross Day and also VE (Victory in Europe) Day, among other days. If it is left the same it will annoy, if it is changed it will annoy. As with any matter of contention, it is a matter of choosing who you are going to annoy, and what's the point of doing it in the first place?

Personally, I think it is more the purpose of the day which is important, not its date, not the remembrance of some small fleet of boats which arrived in some bay some 200+ years ago. It is the gathering of all the people of a nation together, regardless of where they originally came from, where their ancestors were from, and recognise that we are all from here, this is our nation, this is a place which we hold dear to our hearts. Find the things that we have in common with one another, not the differences; find the ways in which we can work together, not against one another; find the ways that we can truly be friends and communities together for the benefit of our nation.

Cheers,

Henry.

Bought Out: Mental Health for the Lower Income Earner

 Greetings,

When a person has mental health issues they are often told to go and seek assistance. In some cases, this can be solved through a simple phone call, in other instances it requires long-term mental health support from a psychologist or psychiatrist. The number of these individuals being recognised has only grown over the past couple of years, which means it should be a "boom time" for psychologists and psychiatrists, and it would seem, like any other occupation or any other business, they are going to forget the reason that they are there and take advantage of the situation, leaving a percentage of the population behind.

Now, you will be told by many that there is a "safety net" for those who cannot afford to pay the full price of these professionals. That Medicare will has a rebate for the money that you initially pay for a consultation. The problem is that a person has to have the money for the consultation in the first place before they can get the rebate. Low income earners and those on social welfare payments most often do not have this kind of money to begin with.

So there are a set of Medicare programs and fee structures so that people on these social welfare payments can access different services without the out-of-pocket expenses that they can't afford. These are what are called "bulk-billing" programs in many instances. The problem is that there are fewer and fewer mental health professionals who accept bulk-billing as an option, even for people on social welfare payments, regardless of their situation. It is almost impossible to find a psychiatrist who bulk-bills, indeed they will not even perform an evaluation of a potential individual bulk-billed, even though the Medicare code is present for such a thing.

Now it would seem that psychologists are following the same pattern as their learned colleagues. A person on social welfare could previously organise to have 6 sessions with a psychologist, with the possibility of extending it to 10 should it be required, each year on a mental health care plan. Effectively these sessions would be organised for the patient bulk-billed with the psychologist in consultation with the general practitioner so the best was being done for the patient. Now, it would seem that these are even being rejected by some psychologists as well for fee-paying arrangements. Fee-paying arrangements that those of a lower socio-economic status cannot afford.

It would seem that rather than "doing no harm" as the Hippocratic Oath requires the doctor, and the psychiatrist is certainly a doctor, they are also certainly doing no good at the same time. It would seem that the almighty dollar rules the day again and being healthy in the case of mental health is only something that the wealthy are allowed to have access to and the lower income will be left, until something drastic happens. Why is some catastrophic event required before something is done?

Low income individuals are, once again, being bought out of health.

Cheers,

Henry.

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.

 

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.

What Can We Learn from Movie "Bad Guys"?

 Greetings,

In general, we watch movies to be entertained. This is the primary reason that I watch them, to switch off for a little while and be taken on a journey, to be told a story. Within these stories, lessons can be taught, in much the same way that old fables were told, leaving a moral behind. Movies can have subtext within them about social issues, or other things. They can simply tell us something about our lives, or help us deal with some element of our lives, even give us ideas. It is most surprising that while most people focus on the hero or protagonist of the journey, on the "good guys," there are lessons that can be learned from the "bad guys" as well, if we close enough attention. The "bad guys" that have been selected are some of my favourites, you should consider your own list.

Yes, there are a few plot spoilers, hard to explain this whole thing without them.

1. Hannibal Lecter 

The first movie the character Hannibal Lecter appears in is "Silence of the Lambs" (1991), played by Sir Anthony Hopkins. The same character has appeared again in several movies following his exploits and also a Netflix series. The American Film Institute, or AFI, awarded the character No.1 on their Villains list for the "AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains".

What do we know of Hannibal Lecter? For those who have never seen the films, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, also known as "Hannibal the Cannibal" is a character created by Thomas Harris. A former forensic psychiatrist turned serial killer, and who eats his victims. Throughout the movies we see his predilection for violence of the most outrageous kind. 

What can we learn from such a character? What can we learn from an individual who has turned his back on many of the social mores? That is actually rather easy. His violence has timing. He begins in a cell, he waits until the opportune moment to strike, when his targets are at their most vulnerable. So he has timing and patience. His violence also has precision, it is not directed at everyone, only select targets. He projects civility, he talks with others in a civil manner. When he escapes he gets a job and acts in a civil manner toward people. This relates back to his timing and his precision.

Within the mind of the character there are these lessons that can be learned, that it is useful to be polite to everyone that a person meets, because a person never knows who the other might be. The movies teach other lessons, but I think this is the most telling. Politeness doesn't cost us anything.

2. Jason Voorhees

Jason Voorhees appears first in "Friday the 13th Part 2" (1981) as the killer, not the first movie and then appears in series of movies all the way up to "Jason X" (2001) which takes place in the future, for the strict series. Not to mention the re-boot in 2009. Added to this there is a cross-over movie with Freddy Kruger in "Freddy vs Jason" (2003), making twelve movies. 

Jason does not utter a singe line of dialogue throughout the entire set of movies. He just goes about his business killing off, mostly. horny late-teens who come to Camp Crystal Lake through various methods, his favourite method being with a machete. He is known for wearing a hockey goal-keeper's mask,  carrying a machete, and being relentless in his task. The one thing that is for sure, Jason keeps coming back and that nothing will stop him from completing his goal.

From Jason we can learn tenacity. When something knocks us down, we simply get back up again and keep coming back. With the assistance of his writers he keeps getting resurrected, we can't do that but similar things can be applied to other problems in life, not giving up on them. The single-minded focus of Jason can also be an asset, something that can drive us toward our goal.

The Jason movies mostly teach the watchers that people should not go places where they should not go, and where locals tell them they should not go. If the locals keep away from an area, there is a reason that they keep away from that area, in our normal lives it may not be some "psycho-killer" but it may be an equally good reason. The final lesson, actions have consequences.

3. The Kurgan

The Kurgan is the "bad guy" in "Highlander" (1986) and is played by Clancy Brown. It is said that should he win "the prize" then men would suffer an age of darkness. He only appears in the first of the "Highlander" movies, even though it is said that he is the strongest of the immortals.

There are rules that the immortals follow as they try to claim "the prize". They battle against one another in single combats, usually when one another are drawn together. Eventually when few are left there is a "Gathering" where the remaining few will fight for "the prize". It is mostly this "Gathering" that the movie focuses on and the conflict between the protagonist and the Kurgan. They don't fight on holy ground, that is one of their traditions. 

When the two main characters meet, at the end of the meeting the Kurgan remarks, "I have something to say! It's better to burn out than to fade away!" This is an inspiration to life, more it is an inspiration to live a full life rather than just let it go quietly away. Through the entire movie we see individuals who have lived for hundreds of years, whose lives are decided in duels, their ends are swift. They are not affected by illness or other forms of death, only death by the sword. The entire story of the "Highlander" is to live your life well, before it passes by your eyes and is gone.

4. Emperor Palpatine

Emperor Palpatine is the ultimate "bad guy" from the Star Wars franchise, chronologically, he is first seen in "Episode V: Emperor Strikes Back" (1980) where he is seen as the master to Darth Vader, who is previously seen as the ultimate "bad guy" and main antagonist to Luke Skywalker. However his first appearance as the story goes is as Senator Palpatine in "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" (1999). It could be claimed that the first three episodes or movies are actually the story of his rise to power.

Over the span of three movies he rises from a Senator of a relatively out of the way planet in the Republic, first to become Grand Chancellor of the Republic, and then Emperor. He manipulates the Senate so they would vote him into the position, and give him the power to put him in a position where he can rule the galaxy. He does this by clever dealings and political manipulation, and some personal manipulation along the way. 

The question is he really a "bad guy"? There is much talk about the Light and the Dark side of the Force throughout the movies. Maybe it is a matter of perspective, maybe it is just power and it is the manner in which one uses that decides whether a person is evil or not. It is evident that he has done some terrible things, such as wiping out the Jedi, or at least getting others to do it for him. On the other hand, he brought order to the galaxy as he also destroyed the leaders of seditious systems who were going to divide the galaxy. He did bring order to the galaxy for a period.

We learn from the Emperor about playing the long-game. There are things which do not go according to his plan, but he has patience and waits for things to fall into place before acting. He looks at his long-term objective and sacrifices immediate goals to put himself in a position to achieve his long-term goals. He wouldn't have had Anakin Skywalker, later Darth Vader, as an apprentice if he had approached him early, he had to wait until the time was right.

5. Tyler Durden

Continuing on with characters who are questionable "bad guys" we have Tyler Durden, who is played by Brad Pitt in "Fight Club" (1999) he stands as the alter-ego of the Narrator, played by Edward Norton. The pair of them get along very well for the most part of the movie, but there is a split toward the end of the movie where Jack realises Tyler's intent and goes against it. Jack being the protagonist means that Tyler is the antagonist, thus the "bad guy" of the movie.

The question needs to be asked, just as with Emperor Palpatine, above, is he really a "bad guy"? Yes, he causes the protagonist consternation. Yes, he causes property damage on a large scale, or at least three buildings' worth. Yes, he causes untold financial chaos in the end of the movie, to which we never see the results. He also takes the Narrator out of his boring life and allows him to live a better one, free of his previous constraints. Indeed he frees, it would seem, hundreds if not thousands of others from theirs as well. Through his property destruction he erases the debt, bringing everyone back to zero, would this not be better for everyone?

The greatest thing that Tyler Durden teaches, comes from a line just over half-an-hour into the film, "The things you own end up owning you." Think about this carefully and you will see the truth of it. If you buy a car, you need to fill it with fuel, pay registration, insurance, and licensing fees. If you own a house you need to pay rates, and if you don't own it mortgage; if you don't rent or leasing fees, and bond. Even if you have other stuff, you still have to have a place to keep it, to look after it.

Tyler Durden teaches us what freedom is, what it means to be truly free in our modern society, what means to go against the mainstream. The fight clubs he sets up are against the norm because people in our modern day don't want to fight for the most part, they will avoid it as much as they can. Our modern society has tried to drive our fighting instincts from us. He goes against most things in society; he does not dress conventionally; they live in a rundown place on the edge of town; they do what they have to interacting with society to survive and nothing more. Most people could not deal with this level of freedom for many reasons, but his character reminds us that it does exist.

Watch and Learn

Movies tell us stories to entertain us, but within these stories there are lessons. Sometimes these lessons are stark and obvious, sometimes they are hidden within the context and sub-text of the movie. Sometimes you have to look at characters you might not have expected to learn those lessons. 

Most of the time we look at the protagonist and what they do for the answers, for how to deal with a situation. Sometimes it is helpful to also look elsewhere, at the companions of the protagonist, or maybe even at the antagonists, those who oppose the protagonist. The actions of those who stand against one another can be as useful a lesson, each side being as important as the other.

Look further afield. Broaden your mind, and you will find some interesting things to be learned all about you.

Cheers,

Henry.

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.