Of SCA Personas

Greetings,

The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms, the "Society")has been associated in one part with medieval and Renaissance recreation, and in another part with LARP. On the one hand the SCA does recreate various arts and crafts, and social elements from the period; on the other we do take on another name and "play the game" as that individual with titles and so forth given for achievement and so forth. I would claim that we can take the persona, while a created character and claim that they are as real as any individual living or dead, because we made them so.

Within the Society, I am known as Henry Fox, an Elizabethan gentleman who is widely travelled thanks to well-off parents, of reasonable stature. I have travelled enough to experience different cultures and take on some of their sword arts. I have learnt the skills of the bow and the sword, the sword taking my preference. I have also learnt some skill with the pen, the pair working together more recently to produce works about the art of the sword. This is his story, and the story that I have taken on as my persona.

Henry Fox is real because I have made him real. His origins are artificial, though he could have existed, being that both his names have been documented to the Elizabethan period. All the history that I have created for him is based on some of my experiences and interests within the Society as I have travelled through it learning and writing as I went. I used the bow in my earlier period because it was a skill that I previously possessed, then took up the sword, both for armoured and civilian combat. Civilian took precedence over the armoured and here I stand. I have written about the civilian combat, as two books and my blog on the subject show.

Henry Fox is a non de plume a pen name, in writers terms. In legal terms, because I have used it in my writing and activities and am known by quite a few people by that name, it is an alias that would be recorded. Henry Walker, alias Henry Fox, is what a legal document would read. Henry Fox is real because I live his life every time I interact within the Society. Henry Fox is real because I interact as him in matters concerning the Society and positions I hold within the Society. Henry Fox is me, and I am him. He is not a fake person, not a fake name plastered on a document somewhere, he is a real person. 

Do not disregard SCA personas, or personas taken within other situations so casually. They should be considered as real as the person who adopts them. For the person who wears the clothes of the one is the other; the person who earns the awards of the one, is the other; the person who stands and learns as one, stands and learns as the other. They are no different, just because a person changes their clothes, does not mean that the learning or the experiences go away; those experiences and learning remain, and enhance them both. They are an advantage not something at which to be scoffed. A different perspective on life can only enhance a person's experience of life.

"when your talk is about mankind, view earthly things as if looking down on them from some point high above -" Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 

Cheers, 

Henry Walker
alias Henry Fox

Why we will never be united...

 Greetings,

There are different reasons that we cannot be divided. I have used "never" in the title, but this a strong word. It is possible, but humans will have to get over things in their nature; that thing in their nature which inflames them, that encourages them to contend with their neighbour. The problem is that we are often told how we are different and these differences are emphasised as important, we are never told how we are similar, how we are alike. These divisions separate us and encourage us to build walls between us and divide ourselves even more. There are those who encourage these divisions, who live on the conflict between one another, and it is not just our governments. Maybe there is hope for us, but it will take something, acknowledging our similarities along with our differences.

Humans like to fight...

Human beings claim that we want peace, that we want to get along with one another, but in our essence it is doubtful a truth. Our politics are about contests one political party competes against another for votes, then they spend their entire time arguing about the best way to run the nation. Even in nations where there is a single party, the party spends a large portion eliminating opposition, defending itself against detractors. We enjoy contests against one another this is evident by the prolific presence of sport and the amount of money people are paid to play against one another. We watch these games where one team competes against another, willing one team to win over the other. Other leisure activities also contain conflict within them, usually adversarial, usually against another group of human beings. This fighting nature makes it difficult for us to be united. 

Every time the fighting nature is focused outwardly, at least relatively, there are still conflicts within. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was condemned around the world. A multi-national force was gathered to stop Saddam Hussein and prevent him from possibly invading Saudi Arabia. Even with evidence of the horrors that Hussein was committing it took months for the force to be assembled. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, it was not until January 1991, that the multi-national force actually began to push the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. While this was happening, there were still demonstrations against the action; even after all the negotiations by the United Nations had failed, all the diplomatic solutions had failed. Those same demonstrations continued throughout the war, not that it lasted all that long.

We had a chance to unite when the COVID pandemic struck. Still there were arguments between nations about access to vaccines, who was going to do the research, who was going to fund the research, who was going to take the credit, who was going to receive the vaccines. This is not to mention all of the anti-vaccine, pandemic-deniers, and "freedom" seekers who were against the public health measures. Another chance for humanity to unite behind a cause, squandered by people's pet politics and personal biases and ignorance. The same which is still continuing even as I write.

Why are we divided? 

We must look at how we have been divided before we can look at why we are divided, for the how will tell us something of the why. First and foremost, when examining the human being, the first thing that divides us is sexuality, generally this is male and female, but there are also other labels which exist, transgender, for example is another label by which people are known. People are divided by the sexual organs which they possess, but the question of sexuality does not stop there.

In the question of sexuality there is also the question of attraction, to whom the individual is attracted which provides another point by which a person is divided and by which specific communities, and thus divisions are built. There is the emphasis in "normal" society of heteronormality in much of society which supposedly pushes other sexual orientations to the edge. Then other sexual orientations be they bisexual, homosexual, asexual or some other form of sexuality, form communities of their own where they believe their sexuality may be expressed freely. The building of such communities divides us.

We are supposedly divided by race. From one view, there is really one "race", the human race. This is a useful perspective as it unifies rather than divides, however the common approach to the concept is not so unifying a concept. The term race has weight politically and socially, and people will use this as a weapon to divide people to show how they are different. This word is most often tied into the word "racism" a weapon used from both sides. The word ethnicity, is a better description. Again, however, it is dividing people into groups, labelling them as different.

Tied in with ethnicity and race is history, a battleground to say the least especially when one examines the relationships between one some ethnicities and others. These histories are spot-highlighted not to identify those points where they worked together, but where they were divisive. The most often piece of history that will come up is colonialism and how indigenous peoples were treated. This is most often tied in with ethnicity or race.

Politics. Politics is can always be tied to history and ethnicity and it depends on which part of politics that a person wants to examine. Even within an ethnicity politics can divide a people. There are those who go for the right, there are those who go for the left, of politics; most often they do not find much middle ground in between. It only gets worse when it is the extreme of one or the other. Politics is often used by politicians to divide people so they can be controlled, and most people will let them.

Finally, on this list there is religion. This has been a point of division for as long as it has existed. It has been the cause of wars and acts of violence around the world, and still is today. The reason you don't hear about them is that they don't make a big enough impact in the media. Just because you are not looking doesn't mean it is not happening.

Our society is divided by these things and remains divided by these things even at the most important times. Black Lives Matter emphasised the division by race in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and the problems of the division by race, among other things; there were issues within issues. We remain divided by issues of sexuality because there is an element of wanting to know what other people are doing, rather than allowing others privacy, and leaving other people to their way. Why does it matter what someone else is doing in their bedroom if you're not there, and not involved? The problem is that these divisions are perpetuated. 

Divisions perpetuated...

Conflicts are celebrated, or at least the victories of these conflicts are celebrated. These celebrations perpetuate the divisions between people. Battle of Adwa decisive battle of Ethiopia over Italian colonialism. Here we see a celebration of a battle between one ethnic group over another, the raising of an issue which is over a century old, celebrating the victory over colonialism. The same is seen in other parts of the world. The celebration of the Cinco de Mayo is the same, in this case it is the Mexican victory over the French, though many of the tourists who visit to celebrate the holiday have no idea what they are celebrating and are just joining in. The same can be said of many celebrations.

There is a big celebration in Australia which occurs every year, and every year it causes contention. That celebration is Australia Day, it was originally meant to celebrate the landing of the English in Australia; it has since become simply a celebration of being Australian in many Australian's eyes. For the indigenous population of Australia it is often referred to as "Invasion Day" due to the perceived celebration of the invasion of their native land. Once again, a celebration which marks a divisive element it society, though there has been ideas to change it. But there is obviously a division by ethnicity which is hard to close.

The issues in Australia are a problem, this is not to be denied. There is a process which needs to be followed and reconciliation which is required to mend the bridges, and some progress has been made. The issue is that there are elements who will perpetuate the differences, who will always claim that there is an issue, who will always claim there is more to be done. There is also the necessity of both sides to come together, to unite. If the problems are perpetuated, if there is no forgiveness in response to the apology, then there is no reconciliation and it will never end.

Poking the bear...

For some reason people enjoy provoking others to respond either to their side, or to show themselves as being against their position; this is primarily to start discussion, highlighting a particular cause. In some cases this is deliberate because they want to highlight the cause that they are passionate about, in other cases it is because they simply want to start discussion, because they enjoy discussion.

There is nothing wrong with lively discussion, even good reasoned argument, when those arguments turn nasty is when there are real problems and divisions are exposed. These divisions can be reduced by the two people agreeing to disagree, but most often they are not; both sides will pick their points and continue to argue their points until the division widens between them and there is a long way back to seeing that they have similarities as well as differences.

Issues should be raised, be they social or political, when they are appropriate, i.e. when they are relevant to the situation, but issues are often raised when a current situation has nothing to do with the  issue raised. A situation is sometimes turned to that particular person's political or social bend so they can highlight their particular social issue, to beat their drum about the social issue. This often causes more division than it does highlight the issue, especially when the issue was not of a concern to begin with; often it results in people being wary about what they speak about with that person, erecting walls, dividing once again.

These issues are often raised for one of two reasons, to make the person look important, to inject themselves into the situation and make themselves the centre of attention, or for making some political or social point. The last one is the most often case with politicians and activists, but it can also occur in normal life situations. Issues are raised just for the pure purpose of highlighting injustices done. Once again, due to the arguments that ensue such issues usually don't result in rational discussion but emotional argument dividing rather than uniting. 

All bad news?

Is it all bad news? Can we never be united? Is there never a time when we can be united, is it never possible for people to come together united? Is there no way?

What has been presented are the ways in which we are not united and the reasons that we have problems uniting. It comes down to a very simple problem; we are too busy looking for reasons that we are different to one another. These differences were presented at the beginning of this discussion. These differences do not acknowledge the things about us that are the same.

We are all human beings.

We all live on this planet.

We all breathe the same air.

We all deserve certain human rights (this one covers a lot of things).

We all have relatively short lives (in comparison to the length of history).

We all have dreams and aspirations.

We all laugh, cry, and smile.

We all have our good days, and our bad.

We all have days when we work hard, and others when we are lazy.

We all want to be well-liked.

Here are ten things that we all have in common. These are things which every human being on the planet shares with every other human being on the planet. If this is not a place to start uniting, then our future truly is bleak. Everyone feels small and helpless looking at the state of the world. You don't have to be a world leader to start the healing, start with a person you know. Talk to them, find commonality with them, acknowledge your differences, but also acknowledge where you are the same. Step outside find another person, do the same thing. Greet people on the street with a friendly smile, bring friendship to the stranger, treat the person in the shop with kindness; if everyone did these small acts all the time the world would be a much nicer place and people would realise they are more alike than they knew.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Of Celebrities

 Greetings,

The subject of celebrities is one which comes up on a regular occasion because the paparazzi and the mass media has their cameras pointed at them all of the time. We hear reports of what this celebrity did and what that celebrity did. We hear often hear about this celebrity's problems with the law, and that celebrity's issues with drugs and alcohol, most recently we have seen one celebrity assaulting another, named as the "slap that was heard around the world" and other such trope. I refuse to name either celebrity that was involved because I do not believe that either should get recognition for being involved in such an incident. We have lost our way, we have lost the reason for celebrities.

Definition

So we may understand what is being spoken about we shall examine some definitions of "celebrity" as they have been presented in various sources. First from the Cambridge Dictionary, it defines celebrity as, "the state of being famous" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/celebrity). A very simple definition, no explanation. There was more to this definition, but this was the essence. A celebrity is a person who is famous, so the definition certainly is not wrong, however there has to be more to this subject. 

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives a two-part answer, "1. the state of being celebrated" and "2. a famous or celebrated person"(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celebrity). The first describes what celebrity means as a word, the second describes what a celebrity is as a person. Here we begin to come to the core of the idea of the celebrity, they are a person who is celebrated for some reason, or they are just famous. The former part of the definition is important the idea that celebrity is "the state of being celebrated". This is a point worth noting and considering.

The last definition that will be examined, and there are quite a few more out there is one from the Wikipedia, this gives the definition of a celebrity, but also examines the grades of celebrity and also the negative sides of celebrity. The Wikipedia articles are always useful as they do give some more in-depth discussion and further places for investigation, its one of the reasons that I always have liked them, more so as their references have improved. Back to the discussion at hand the Wikipedia defines celebrity as follows,

"Celebrity is a condition of fame and broad public recognition of a person or group as a result of the attention given to them by mass media. ... 'Celebrity' usually implies a favorable public image, as opposed to the neutrals 'famous' or 'notable', or the negatives 'infamous' and 'notorious'." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity)

Here the public recognition is a result of the attention given to them by mass media. The individual does not have to have done anything really, they just have to have grabbed the attention of mass media to gain fame and public recognition, a favourable act which was performed in front of the mass media which stands them out helps a lot. It then indicates the grades of celebrity, through the notable to the notorious, who should not garner our attention at all.

Notorious

No sooner than we hear this word these days than it sparks our attention. The individual who is notorious must be a "bad boy or girl" they attract as much attention as those with the positive image in our topsy-turvy twisted turned upside-down world. In a previous age, in at least "polite" society a person who gained a "notorious" reputation would be ostracised from polite society, rejected from their company. In this society, where reputation counted, this was a kind of death, which any person would try and stay away from.

These days "any publicity is good publicity" and this is very sad, because what sort of message is it sending to our younger generation? Think about it. If those people who we are holding up as people who are celebrities, those people who we are supposed to be looking up to, are performing negative activities and getting attention for it, what does it tell children? Especially if the next day the same individual doesn't pay any consequences for their actions.

Public Reactions

In some cases there are some knee-jerk reactions to celebrities doing bad things, a celebrity gets caught being involved in homophobia, or sexual abuse, or some other social crime. There is a call by some people to burn their books or their music, to boycott them, never to buy their stuff, or listen to them again; even the suggestion of a public burning in protest. The same reaction is picked up in the media and is beamed around the world.

The result: more publicity for the individual. What would really hurt a celebrity in these situations? The exact opposite. Don't mention their name. Don't mention them on social media. Refuse to give them any sort of "grass-roots" publicity. Anytime something about them comes on the television or radio, turn it off. Don't watch things about them on the internet. Drown them in silence. Deny them the publicity.

Real Celebrities

People who should be celebrities are people who should be celebrated. Think about members of our emergency services who risk their lives day in and day out, they should be celebrated. The teams of doctors who invented the various COVID vaccines, they should be celebrated. People who keep us safe should be celebrated. The Romans celebrated their returning heroes from campaigns, they celebrated their gladiators, but the celebrations only lasted until they did not deserve them anymore.

The title of celebrity, should be reserved for those who should be celebrated. Why should a person be celebrated just because they have insanely large amounts of money? Why should a person be celebrated because they happened to be born to the right family? What are these people being celebrated for? Our politicians should only be celebrated when they actually do something to be celebrated, and no other time, other than that they are doing a job, just the same as a cleaner, or a person who repairs the roads.

Let's start celebrating the right people for the right reasons.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation 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.

I Violated Facebook's "Community Standards"

 Greetings,

In the course of a message yesterday (15 March 2022) I had the occurrence to violate Facebook's "Community Standards" in specific regard to violence. This was the second time that it occurred and using the same word in the same context. It would seem that either a) the human monitors of Facebook cannot read context, or b) the monitors of these standards on Facebook are totally automated. I will lay further claim to that second part later on in my explanation and in the course of my story below.

In the first incident, on 4 March 2022, there was image of an elder lady running with the caption that read "I run so I don't stab people in the face with a fondue fork." or something similar. In response to this, in jest, as the author and person who placed the meme would have known, I replied: "Ironically, that's why I stab people in the face, so I don't have to run." Seconds later I was picked up for violating the "Community Standards in regard to violence. It asked whether I disagreed, I did, it summarily rejected my claim, and posted the following which I screen-shot.

I then posted the same screenshot as a "status" to which I got zero response from Facebook. I had a good laugh about it for quite a few days as friends responded to it. I don't believe the post has even been removed. 

It would seem that their monitors can read text, but can't read the same text when it is contained within an image. This is where I would clearly claim that they are using a text-based selector looking for certain words or phrases, rather than actual individuals. I laughed this breach off, did not bother following it up.

Now for the important background material for those who have not read my Bio. I am involved in fencing, which means that I put on a fencing mask, gloves and pick up a sword with a rubber blunt on the end and then go out with friends and then we learn the best ways to strike one another, based on treatises from the Medieval and Renaissance period. I do this quite a bit, and have become relatively proficient at it. I have been know to say that I don't run because I want to think that I have developed the capacity to have learnt to stand and fight, hence the comment made. A few of my friends have also been cautioned about posts in jest about "going out and stabbing friends" and similar comments.

All this leads up to the second violation of these Community Standards which are variably enforced as noted previously, (no problem with words in images). It would seem that Facebook has something against fencers because as soon as you mention "striking", "thrusting", "stabbing" or even "swords" in some instances, Facebook comes down hard on you. This makes it difficult for the fencing community, both sport fencers and historical fencers alike to socialise on Facebook and talk about what they do. This is actually how my second breach came about.

I said, "Fencing is the best thing for COVID... You wear masks, and if anyone comes within 1.5m, you stab them." In each case, I have had emoticons with laughing faces to make sure it was understood that it was in jest. It would seem that the monitors can't read emoticons or language, or intent either. So, being my second "offence" against the Community Standards, and  Yes, I disagreed with the decision, which was summarily ignored. I was banned from posting for 24-hrs and my feed will be limited for a month. 

This is even more ironic because the idea for the comment came from an image which I downloaded straight from Facebook...

This time I took it to the Oversight Board because if a person cannot talk about fencing without getting this treatment, then something needs to be done. I indicated in my submission that their restriction of certain words and phrases restricts the fencing community, an international one, from communicating and that maybe they might find another way of communicating if Facebook was not going to be accommodating. I also pointed out that my comments were in jest, that clearly such violations are monitored by bots and not by human beings. I don't know if it will do anything, but I have to try and will be making submissions every time this occurs over a fencing-related comment from now on.

The other choice is to play within the rules of Facebook all the time and deliberately censor fencing words that might be taken to be offensive or violent, and when people ask, I will explain the situation and make my protest in this fashion. I think a combination of the two will be best because as this post proves, I doubt that I am going to hold my "tongue."

Cheers,

Henry.

Misinterpretations and Misquotation

 Greetings,

We have all seen someone take a quote from the Bible or the Koran and use it to their particular purposes, to push their particular cause ahead. Most often this particular verse has been cherry-picked among others that the writer or speaker does not want to hear about. The same thing happens with more secular texts as well, a piece of text is examined, a quotation is removed from its context and the individual then uses it completely removed from this context to make a particular point that they are driving at regardless of what the original intent of the writer was, most often it is evident that the quote has been lifted from popular culture and the individual has not read the works of the individual.

Facebook strikes again...

The quote from Friedrich Nietzsche's 1895 book Twilight of the Idols is "Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger." Dr. Jen Wolkin has clearly not read the entire text by Nietzsche, nor does she know anything about the author of the piece or she would not have had such a superficial understanding of this common misquoting from his book. It is not glorifying trauma but encouraging the individual to use the trauma as fuel to spur them on in life rather than letting the trauma destroy them. 

The assumption that Nietzsche is glorifying trauma means that Dr. Wolkin has taken the common misquote, the popularised version of the quote, from Nietzsche and then used it for her convenience without doing the decency of doing the research to find out the background of the author or the material around it. The result being that she has reversed the meaning of what Nietzsche wanted to say, not a glorification of trauma, but that the individual can survive, and spur themselves on.

Nietzsche follows this maxim in his book with the following, "Help yourself, then everyone will help you. Principle of brotherly love." Once again, encouraging the individual to stand on their own two feet and help themselves out of their current tribulations, so then others can help them. For is it not the case that only until we ask for help that we can gain help? This will be turned to say that people should help one another without being asked. How can we if we don't know help is required, especially on a personal level?

About Nietzsche...

Nietzsche went to war as an orderly. He also suffered from various chronic physical and mental conditions which altered his life. The result of which, caused him to become the "freelance" writer that he became, living off a pension from the University of Basel. His writings come from his trials and tribulations with these chronic conditions, from his traumas and his fighting with them. He comes from a position of first-hand experience of trauma, so is a person who speaks from experience when speaking about it.

Do the research first, then quote it...

If you are going to quote something, at least do the author the service of doing the research and finding our where the quote came from, and what they actually said not the popularised, often mangled, version of what is assumed that they said. Do some research about the person who said it, find out about the individual and the reason they might have been influenced to say it; certainly a person's life has a lot of influence on what they write. I certainly would not have begun a blog on fibromyalgia without a diagnosis or being affected by the condition.

I can say that I did my research and had a look at you Dr Wolkin. I would say that while we both have some things in common, in regard to chronic pain, there are some things about us which are quite different. I would suggest you have a closer look at Friedrich Nietzsche, you will find more in common with him than you might see on the surface. Have a look at his life before you read, like the rest of us it explains how he writes and explains what he writes about. He was, after all the one who said amor fati - love your fate. For who better to live your fate, or your life, than you? The concept which has been linked to the Stoic philosophers Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Clearly this is not one of the quotes of his that makes it into the mainstream. Let me leave you with one last quote from Nietzsche to think about...

“You are willing to assume responsibility for everything! Except, that is, for your dreams! What miserable weakness, what lack of consistent courage! Nothing is more your own than your dreams! Nothing more your own work! Content, form, duration, performer, spectator - in these comedies you are all of this yourself!” Nietzsche, F. (1997) Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Translated by R. J. Hollingdale), p78 - 128

There are many different interpretations which one might make of this quotation. The one that I find most appealing is not about controlling your dreams while asleep. The one that I find most appealing is about living your dreams while you are awake; for no one knows your dreams, what you want to do and what you want to be, better than you. Who better than you to live those dreams?

Cheers,

Henry.

What's 100% Effective? Vaccine Arguments

 Greetings,

One of the complaints about the COVID vaccines has been that they are not 100% effective and they are not 100% safe. Well, I hate to be the person to tell people, but there is nothing in this world which is 100% effective and 100% safe, yet the same people use a variety of these products everyday of their lives. Further some of these things which they use can be dangerous, just as they claim that the COVID vaccines can be. Hell, I am not even just going to focus on the COVID vaccine, let's open this to all vaccines, and many of us had these when we were children. You know those shots that prevented you from getting things such as measles, mumps, rubella, Hepatitis B, tetanus, diptheria, tuberculosis and many more.

Don't Know What's In It

Most people don't know what's in most of the things that they consume. Most people don't read the packaging, don't understand what the ingredients are, and don't care. This goes as much for food as it does for medication. Unless you are a specialist in pharmacology, I challenge you to name the composition of any drug that you take on a regular basis. Let's go even more simple than that, name all the constituent chemical components of panadol or aspirin. Yet people will quite happily take these off the shelf and take them without any question about what's in them. Further, most people give no regard to the fact that they can also be dangerous if not taken as directed. 

They Can Be Dangerous

Yes, so can scissors if they are used incorrectly, or a knife, or any sharp implement you find in your home. For that matter if we are confining things to a medical nature, to go back to good old panadol. If you take more than the prescribed amount in the prescribed period, panadol can kill you, and if it does not kill you it can leave you with permanent liver damage. Indeed, if you already have liver damage from some other reason, it is advised that you don't take the stuff because it can cause further liver damage. This is "just" panadol.

They're not 100% Effective

There is a long list of things which are not 100% effective that we still use, in fact there is nothing which is 100% effective. Ask anyone who has been amazed that they have gotten pregnant after using contraceptive protection. Neither the contraceptive pill nor condoms are 100% effective, yet they are used. Parachutes are not 100% effective, there is always the chance that they will fail, this is the reason that they now include an emergency parachute, and even that is not 100% effective. The flu vaccine is not 100% effective, in fact it is usually only 75% effective protecting against three out of four strains of the influenza virus, but some protection is better than none in my books. Notice how you need a "booster" for tetanus every 10 years or so? Do you know why? Same reason we need boosters for the COVID vaccine, to maintain its effectiveness over time.

Things are improving...

Over time scientists will become more familiar with the COVID-19 virus, and its different strains, and they will develop better and more effective ways of dealing with it, and more effective vaccines. We need to be patient and follow what they say. Mistakes will be made, and the initial attempts will be not as effective as later versions, however it is important that the support is there.

More importantly each of us has an important role to play in spreading the right information. Properly sourced information, information which can be backed by science, not conjecture, not some half-baked theory of some amateur, but by scientists. Getting a vaccine doesn't just protect you, it protects your family and friends, you are doing something for your loved ones, and their loved ones. It is for the greater good that you do it, not just yourself. Look at the bigger picture for a change, rather than just yourself.

Cheers,

Henry.

A Splash of Colour: Actor Casting Priorities

 Greetings,

There has been a tendency in an effort to follow certain rules of "inclusivity" of late, to deliberately cast persons various lifestyles and ethnicities in particular roles in movies. In some cases it is simply adding a single representative member from each of these groups in the cast, even as characters to ensure that the movie or series is considered inclusive enough. I have referred to this in the title as "a splash of colour" because it is paying lip-service to inclusivity nothing more.

Word Use

A small note on wording, I am going to use the word ethnicity not race when referring to people of different colour or different cultural background, because it is the correct term to use. There is one race, the human race, we have multiple ethnicities within that race, and multiple cultures within those ethnicities. The more people realise that that they have more in common with one another, the easier it is that they will find ways to work together, so we need to find words to unite us, to take back words to unite us. Racism rolls off the tongue nicely, Ethnicism or ethnicitism does not. Lets kill the word, kill the idea. Make racism against humanity (as it is), not just against one group of humans.

From a Position of Privilege?

First there is going to be the complaint that I am a white male complaining about things in regard to race and sexuality so I am speaking from a position of "privilege" so I have no right to do so. Actually, I do because I watch movies and series, and because I am a human being. More to the point because I will be speaking from the perspective of a minority which often gets forgotten in these casting choices, and often played badly in movies and series, those with mental illness, and those with disabilities, but my discussion of the lack of representation of my minority, and its misrepresentation in movies will come later.

The Token Minority

How many movies and series have we seen of late where there has been the token person of colour, gay male, gay female, and so forth? In this case the casting directors have not chosen these individuals in the cases of those of a particular ethnicity because it was required for the role, but because they needed one to be representative. Or where characters were changed to be inclusive so alternate life-styles were present, and they grated against the original story, especially when they came from an original book or other source. These actions within the movie-making process are an attempt to appease some and make the movie more appealing to others.

Shouldn't the role go to the actor who is the best for the part, regardless what colour their skin happens to be? An example: in the original comic Nick Fury is white. In the Marvel movies he is was cast as Samuel L. Jackson, and he did an excellent job in the role; he suited the part. Jackson held the role, not because of the colour of his skin, but by the skill of his acting. Let the actor who is best suited to the role have the role, regardless of their ethnicity. In picking token roles for people of particular ethnic groups, they stand out more than if they were allowed to be cast and fill the roles like any other.

Misrepresented Minorities

The two minorities which are either misrepresented in movies, or are completely absent are those with disabilities, especially invisible disabilities, and those with mental illness. Yet, there are no great complaints about this misrepresentation, or lack of representation in movies or series. They seem to be swept underneath the carpet, pushed to one side, ignored at best, abused at worst.

Mental Illness

When mental illness is represented in movies there is one of three representations that is primarily present: criminally insane, military PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and socially inept. For the first group you have characters like The Riddler, Harley Quinn, The Joker, serial killers of different breeds and so forth. Mostly these people are presented as "insane" which has pushed them to be anti-social and criminal. The result of the way mental illness was played on the screen meant that people at large thought that schizophrenia and Multiple Personality Disorder were the same thing, which they are not. Next you have the military PTSD, which is a real problem in our society mind you. The soldier who has come home from war, or who is still in a war-zone, who experiences extreme "fight or flight" responses, or withdraws from society in general. There are aspects of PTSD that are seen in civilian life as well, usually as the result of abuse of some kind, but not always. The final group is the socially inept, Rain Man and Mercury Rising, both show two different perspectives of mental illness, but at an extreme end of the scale, so the individuals always have extreme difficulty dealing with society. These are extreme examples of these conditions, there are also other examples of both of these conditions, milder and with different symptoms. Yet, none of these, even the explanations, are completely representative of mental illness, only a single aspect of it within a single diagnosis. 

Disabilities

The first thing that someone will respond with is what about Professor. X? He's in a wheel-chair. Yes, played by a person who is perfectly able to walk, who does not have any idea about what it is like to really be stuck in that wheelchair every day of his life. There are a few notable actors with invisible disabilities, Morgan Freeman is one who has fibromyalgia, these are not represented on the screen. You don't see many movies with a person with a disability in movies. Ivar the Boneless is a classic character from "Vikings", born with a bone defect; are there any others even in the background with physical disabilities? Even as a result of battle? Yet, there is no great complaint about the lack of representation of disabilities being present on the screen, either big or small, even as extras. Well, let mine be the first voice of complaint. 

Tell the Story...

The focus of directors should be to put the best cast together so they can tell the best story that they can. They should allow their casting directors to find the actors who are most suitable to the roles which are present in the script, regardless of ethnicity or any other factor. If they need a particular ethnicity of an actor for a particular reason i.e. the movie is set in Africa, they need lots of darker skinned actors, then this should guide their choice. The important thing is to ensure that they have the actors to tell the story.

If a person is going to complain about "inclusivity" and have to ensure that all types of people are included and are represented, they should be at least represented properly, not some token splash of colour. My continued argument to these individuals would be to ensure that they would fight to include people with disabilities as well in their "inclusiveness" because people with disabilities, physical and mental are sure a minority as well. Most of us are happy to be a minority, because it would mean more sick people.

Remember, change the words and things will lose their power. I will reiterate again. There is one human race, there are many ethnicities and many cultures. The more we begin to change the narrative, and change the word, come together, show how we are the same not different, the harder it is to break us apart. A single stick may be easily broken, a bunch of sticks together is much more difficult to break.

Cheers,

Henry.