"Public" Holidays and Ideas

Greetings,

Five days until the fifth of November. In years past it was a day celebrated, recognised, now forgotten. Used to celebrate "Bonfire Night" as a child in Canberra, I did not know the significance. I thought it was a local thing and did not think much of it when it did not happen in Queensland. This day has been moved along with firework bans and so forth, faded from our calendar. Maybe, this day, should be celebrated, now more than ever.

Our public holidays are mandated by our Parliaments, both State and Federal, they decide how many days we should have off and when; more importantly they decide the reason for the holidays, and what reasons are important enough to mark on our calendars as important. Through this method they exert social control; they decide what is important to us and what is not.

Halloween was not particularly popular in Australia previously, there were some families and groups that celebrated it. Now, it has become a $430 million dollar industry, which is likely the reason that it is now encouraged, or at least not discouraged. There are those who are saying: its not "traditionally" Australian; its all pagan and not Christian so it shouldn't be celebrated; or that it is an American tradition, so its their culture having an impact on ours. There are those who will complain, but it will still occur.

Guy Fawkes Night, or Bonfire Night, as it is often called, that one has been buried, or at least it was mostly buried until "V for Vendetta" reminded people of the date, reminded them of the importance of that date and started making people think about it. Here is a day which used to be celebrated, especially by members of the Commonwealth, for its significance, now it has gone, disappeared from the official calendars. In our current age, it is probably thought of as too rebellious, or has the potential to cause issues with children; even some will believe that we should not be celebrating the life of a terrorist.

Guy Fawkes was technically a traitor and a terrorist, or at least he would have been the second if he had succeeded. The act of blowing up the houses of parliament would have been an act of terror, especially with the members present. It would have caused not only destruction but also death, for a political purpose, certainly a terrorist act by any definition a person would like to call it. So what is Guy Fawkes Night celebrating?

Does it celebrate the life or the death of Guy Fawkes? Or maybe it celebrates something different? The night with bonfires and fireworks commemorates the failure of the Gunpowder Plot i.e., the failure to kill the king. In this way the official reason for Guy Fawkes Night is a pro-establishment, pro-monarchy celebration, as it was the prevention of the killing of King James I and the Parliament. One would think that on this basis it would be a good celebration to have on the calendar, however since the 2005 film "V for Vendetta" the idea has been changed.

The question is has this idea changed for the better or not? Now, thanks to the film, the idea has changed to focus on the idea that Guy Fawkes had, and the fact that his idea lived on longer than he did. Ideas live longer than the people that have them; we are still using the ideas of people who have been dead for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years. The question is what was the idea that Guy Fawkes was promoting, that should be remembered? It is the idea that Guy Fawkes stood for, that he died for, the idea that ideas persist; of course, most take these ideas to be anti-establishmentarian in nature.

What will you do when November the 5th rolls around? Let me leave you with the famous folk verse...

Remember, remember!
The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot;
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!
Guy Fawkes and his companions
Did the scheme contrive,
To blow the King and Parliament
All up alive.
Threescore barrels, laid below,
To prove old England's overthrow.
But, by God's providence, him they catch,
With a dark lantern, lighting a match!
A stick and a stake
For King James's sake!
If you won't give me one,
I'll take two,
The better for me,
And the worse for you.
A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
A penn'orth of cheese to choke him,
A pint of beer to wash it down,
And a jolly good fire to burn him.
Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!
Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

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.

Jekyll and Hyde: Two sides of Personality

 Greetings,

Everyone has those days were they are the sweetest person in the world, where they look like they would give their last coin to feed their fellow man, their shirt to clothe them, and their life to defend them. They also have those days where they keep all the coins for themselves, clothe themselves like an emperor, and only think of what they need to secure for themselves. These see the two different sides of personality, they are simple, and they exist in everyone; no one is excluded. In some people it may not be about possessions, it may be reputation, or family association or other social factors, sometimes these factors are all bound together, but the two sides are there.

In some people there is a close relationship, not much difference, we can't tell when it is one side or the other. They often live lives where good and evil are not matters of concern, the matters of concern are whether they will survive. In others, they are generous and giving, gentle and caring, almost in the extreme, so too it must be noted that their other side is also to the extreme, even if it is never truly seen. There may occasionally be some glimpses, but only if a person looks very carefully.

In the story by Robert Louis Stevenson, Dr Jekyll is a mild-mannered doctor, kind and considerate, a law-abiding citizen. Dr Jekyll takes a potion which turns him in to the monster, Mr Hyde. Hyde who commits murder and all sorts of other evil deeds. It would seem that the potion that Dr Jekyll formulated released Mr Hyde from within him, a second personality, an extreme other person hidden within him. The story looks at questions of personality, as Mr Hyde talks to Dr Jekyll tempting him to take the potion again and again, releasing Mr Hyde more and more making him stronger. We can look at this from different perspectives.

On the one hand, it depends which part of our personality we feed, that is the part of our personality that becomes the stronger of the two. Dr Jekyll feeds Hyde and he becomes strong, almost so much that he becomes irresistible. Mr Hyde indulges all of his passions, he performs deeds that Dr Jekyll never would, in many ways Mr Hyde is the more free of the two. Dr Jekyll is repressed, and part of his temptation to release Mr Hyde is the free indulging of his sensations, the freedom to do what he likes.

This is like the idea that the individual has two wolves within them one black and one white, one good and the other evil. They fight for control of the individual, the one attempting to devour the other. Each grows as a person grows and lives. The question is asked which one of the wolves becomes the strongest? The answer is: the one that you feed. Here again, we have two parts of the personality, one side and the other the strength of each is dependent on which is fed. Not a morality tale so to speak, but one to think about.

Another perspective is that in each of us there is a mild-mannered Dr Jekyll and a monstrous Mr Hyde present, and the gulf of difference between the two depends on the individual. Think about the most tolerant of people, those who do not rage against who are intolerant, but those who do things quietly not seeking praise. Think about those who do good because it is good, they do not think about the positive for themselves. This is their Jekyll, what would their Hyde be like? 

History tells us that it is "the quiet ones that we need to watch." In every case of extreme homicide it is a person who people have labelled as "the quiet one". The individual who is the most dangerous is the one who is the unknown quality, because they do not go broadcasting it. You don't know their anger because they don't say it, they don't broadcast it to everyone. They will make their anger known when they believe it is necessary, and it will be known one way or another.

There are people in our lives who will be loud and they will broadcast their feelings on matters, left, and centre. They will tell us exactly how they feel about things with out any doubt in our minds whatsoever. There are people who will do in the moment, they will act in petty ways to satisfy themselves, attaining their small victories. These are not the people who have the "Jekyll and Hyde personality", they have a personality which is easy to read. You know when and for what reason they will react.

The Jekyll and Hyde personality is the quiet one, the tolerant one, who allows the small slights with indifference, who is polite and friendly. They will do things and be polite, they will remain quiet and not broadcast their opinions, but make them known. Just consider what could be bubbling away underneath if the other side of them is exactly the opposite. 

Or maybe we should simply be a little friendlier and a little bit more polite to everyone we meet?

Cheers,

Henry.

Let's Talk About "Discovery"

 Greetings,

Yesterday 10 October was "Columbus Day" a day which we do not celebrate in Australia because it does not have anything to do with us. The thing about this day is it brings up all discussions about the European arrival on the shores of the Americas. In old textbooks, it will state that "Columbus discovered the Americas." This has been disproven as there were those who arrived before him such as the so-called "Vikings". The following is not going to be a discussion of American history, it is going to be a discussion of the word "discover" and "discovery".

The word "discover" is defined in the Cambridge English dictionary as "to find information, a place, or an object, especially for the first time:", or in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "to make known or visible :" and "to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time :" or in Collins English dictionary as "If you discover something that you did not know about before, you become aware of it or learn of it." or "If a person or thing is discovered, someone finds them, either by accident or because they have been looking for them." or "When someone discovers a new place, substance, scientific fact, or scientific technique, they are the first person to find it or become aware of it." Definitions from three different dictionaries, two of which present extended definitions of the word getting into its particulars. All in essence talk about the act of finding.

The problem is that with some individuals and their particular focus on history, their particular bends on history, they like to use definitions which exclude others, they focus on those definitions which focus on discovery as the finding of something for the first time. The focus on this definition then results in explorers not discovering other places, because they were already known, therefore they couldn't have been the first to find them. This is a rather specific interpretation of the concept of discovery, and using such an interpretation, and extending it to its extreme end little could be discovered because it was always already there first.

Scientists could not be credited with the discovery of electricity, it has always existed in the form of lightning, it was always there. No inhabited continent on the planet could be considered discovered, nor any part of them, because people were already there, and the places were already there. The only things that could be counted as discovered would be new things that were made, fire does not count as it is a natural part of the world, only man-made objects. Further, all the discoveries of ancient civilisations are not discoveries, because they were evidently already there.

There is a necessity to take a wider view of the world and not be so particular about words. A discovery is made when an individual finds something, this is very much the case when it is new to them. If Columbus knew about the Americas he wouldn't have accidentally run into it looking for an alternate way to get to India. He may not have been the first European there, but it was a first for him. The same can be said for all the same sorts of voyages, they went out looking for new lands and new places. It was their first time there so it was a discovery for them.

According to the dictionary definition of discovery, the Europeans "discovered" the various locations around the world because it was their first time seeing the places. This is regardless whether or not these places were inhabited or not, and regardless whether or not they had actually been "discovered" by others previously. Australia is a perfect example of this one, the British take pride in claiming its discovery, but there are many individuals who landed on Australia's shores before Captain Cook.

When the definition of a word is limited from its original, and the actions of those previous to us in history are also limited as a result, we lose perspective of our current world. Regardless of whether we support the European explorations and colonisations of the world, there is something to be learned from it, and this needs to be done from an objective point of view. There are at least two sides of the story to be told, and all stories need to be told and heard. Playing with the words, merely muddies the water, and causes issues for clear and concise discourse.

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.

A Statement About Words

 Greetings,

There is a subject that I have not broached before and I believe it is time, especially with all the talk about Inclusivity being thrown about. I am going to be specific about some words and how I feel about them. In regard to some words I am going to make a statement about how I would prefer to be addressed, in much the same way as a person of a different gender might, but we must discuss this so my intent here is clear.

First, I have no intention of belittling the importance of those of different gender expressing themselves. I believe that every human being has a right to a good and happy life, regardless of their situation. This is regardless of their gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic position, or any other way some interest group may decide to divide people. Part of this is expressing themselves and being known in the way that they prefer, appropriate to their situation. 

Second, those individuals who are not progressive enough to accept change in society, who are so dogged they would prefer to hold on to old ideals, old ways of doing things, there are many historical examples that could be cited which resulted in the fall of these societies due to them not changing with the times. We must move with the times and change as they change, accept what cannot be changed, change what can be changed, and be wise enough to know the difference.

Thirdly, in the pursuit of Inclusivity, as I have previously spoken, society has not done the fine job that it has thought it has, because there is a group of individuals who has been left behind. Maybe it is because they were recognised previously, in laws and so forth, but they are still marginalised. I speak of those with disabilities. To call a society "inclusive" means that consideration has been made for the disabled as well, which for the most part aside from some access changes and statements made, it has not. To achieve this the inherent ableism in the system must be removed.

Fourthly, changing the word does not change the situation, it does not soften the situation that the individual is in. Previously people were called "handicapped", then "disabled", now some call such individuals "differently abled", all in some measure to soften the words. To soften them so the people can be pushed aside, as though they have been dealt with, so people can feel better about themselves. No. The term is inaccurate and offensive.

Here is my statement: I do not accept the definition as "differently abled". I refuse to be called such and find such a term offensive in its nature. Has a person suddenly gained some different ability due to their disability? No. The term is inaccurate, the term is offensive. I am disabled, a part of my person does not function as well as it does in a "normal" human being, this is the accurate term.

Fifthly, I will continue to raise these points and complain in this fashion about the use of such words and their inaccuracies until they are fixed, or until the system truly is inclusive as it claims to be.

Lastly, in regards to "identification" I would most prefer to be referred to as a human being first, as it is the most important characteristic I possess. It is a term of unity. I am a #humanbeingfirst. The divisions weaken us, distract us from the unity which we could all have together. I know that I am one voice, mostly unread on this blog raging into the wind, but it is a cry that I will maintain. It is our only hope to survive. #humanbeingfirst

Regards,

Henry Walker

Identifying Feature

Greetings,

People are described to one another using their identifying features. We do not get to choose how we are described to a third party, that is up to the person doing the describing. This post discusses the different identifying features that we may be described by and looks at how they may, or may not, describe who we are. Some descriptions are accurate, some are not, some features used are appropriate, some are not. This question goes to who we are as human beings.

How do you think someone would describe you? What identifying features do you think a person would use to differentiate you from the next person in the crowd? Consider this and you begin to consider how you are perceived by other people. Just think according to this, you are a list of identifying features, at least until you meet and talk with the individual, and then that list may or may not grow.

Consider a police description of an individual that they are seeking. Sex, racial profile, height, hair cut, hair colour, clothing; then there are any distinguishing marks or features, here they are talking about scars, tattoos, whether they were wearing glasses, difference in gait, method of speech, posture and so forth. Here is another list by which an individual can be defined, is this what defines them, is this who they are?

Each individual can be defined by a simple list of characteristics, a list of boxes that can be ticked or not ticked as the case may be. The same process is used for the medical profession to describe a patient and their symptoms, again they are looking for the identifying features of the malady which the individual is suffering from so they can help them, but first there are other details that are required. These details are personal details, more so than the police description. Anyone who has been to see a medical professional has a file about them listing physical characteristics, maybe this is who we are?

Then there are social characteristics and identifying features that can be identified to highlight one person from the other. Have a look at any survey and you will find a list of questions designed to put a person under a list of characteristics for classification. Gender, age, occupation, these are some very basic ones. If we go deeper then there are family questions, brother, sister, daughter, son, orphan. Even more there are cousin, grandchild, each is a defining characteristic. Friend, enemy, nationality, social class, expanding out into the wider world. Do these things define who we are?

How about titles and ranks? These are also identifying features. Doctor, captain, colonel, general, knight, each of these is a title which is linked to something in the wider world. Some of these titles are earned some of theme are bestowed, given by someone else's decree, because you were thought to be worthy. Worthy because something among your characteristics has reached their ears, and allowed them to make a determination that you deserve to be known, separated from others, separated from the "mere" Mr, Mrs, Ms, and Mx. Do these titles define who we are?  

Maybe we are defined by a combination of all these identifying features all coming together and other elements not mentioned. We are more than a person of a particular race, a person of a particular gender, a person of a particular educational level, a person of a particular occupational status, a person of a particular religious status. We are all human beings first and foremost, and this is what people forget the most easily. Beyond all of these "features" there is a core individual; a human being. Should this not be our first identifying feature and our first concern? Should we not be defined by what sort of human being we are to others?

Cheers,

Henry

A Wasted Time?

 Greetings,

Supposedly I wasted years of my life doing a History degree and Honours because it is useless in today's society. It is not worth anything because we have too many historians out there already. The fact that I finished my Degree and Honours in 2002 is beside the point.

First, I could've studied something more suited to "the market" but I decided to study something which aligned with my passion. Something that was my goal in life, rather than something that was "fiscally sensible". Can you claim to have done the same?

Secondly, there is a quote from Winston Churchill and it is certainly as relevant today as it was when it was first said, "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I would prefer to learn from history than repeat it, or at least point it out to people so they understand that we have been here before and we still have not learnt our lesson.

Thirdly, to all the historical reenactors and budding historians, I simply ask you, where do you think all that wonderful information that you are using as "evidence" for your "arguments" came from in the first place? It did not simply pop out of the ground, it was discovered, researched and interrogated by trained historians for its veracity before being placed in the same sources that you use. 

Fourthly, "History offers the best training for those who are to take part in public affairs" from Polybius in his Histories. Evidence can be found for this in many a statesman who studied history, including John F. Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Winston Churchill. I would never put myself among those people, but maybe if more leaders had studied history then they would know where they are going and where not to go.

Fifthly, only through a study of history do you have the tools to interrogate history, to discover what is hidden behind the history, to discover the what, the wherefore, the true meaning of the events. Such can not only be applied to events of the past, but can also be applied to events of the present, with a knowledge of the past. "Not to know what happened before one was born is to remain a child." Cicero: De Oratore XXXIV

With these five points in mind, and likely more that I could raise, no I don't think I did waste my time studying history, and I don't think I waste my time studying history. I believe it gives me a better understanding of the world around me, a better understanding than those who have not studied history, or those who have given it a cursory glance. I believe that my years of training in history puts me ahead of those amateurs who study history, for I already know how to interrogate sources, I already know how to write an argument, I already know how to sort the relevant from the irrelevant when examining my sources, because I was trained to do so.

Cheers,

Henry.

My Safe Place is Gone...

Greetings,

They took away my social safe place, the place where I was safer from the virus. It was washed away by bureaucracy and a lack of thought for those less fortunate than others, once again; a misinterpretation of the statistics could be claimed, but still there was no thought. 

Like many other things in this "brave, new world" we live in those with disabilities and illnesses are left behind.  Like the policies of those who think that "trickle down economics" work for the people of a lower socio-economic level. People with disabilities, including those with chronic illnesses are the forgotten victims of progress, forgotten because they are an inconvenient truth that presents their hypocrisy.  I would claim on this basis that statements about "inclusivity" are window-dressing and nothing more.

The rights have been torn from those with no choice, those with chronic illnesses and who are immunocompromised and given to those who made one i.e., not to vaccinate.

In line with its policies, the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) in Australia reviewed its "SCA Lochac COVID Response Plan" and turned it into little response at all. They removed the requirement that attendees were vaccinated removing that shield that was in place, that safe place to go while all the world is insane. They have removed the last barrier to assist in the prevention of these people who are especially vulnerable from contracting COVID-19 at one of their events. 

There are those who cannot have the vaccine. So other people vaccinate as a barrier around them, so they do not pass the virus on to them. There are those who have tried to vaccinate, but cannot vaccinate. So other people vaccinate as a barrier around them, so they do not pass the virus on to them. These are the people who have medical exemptions, they have had medical advice that says that they cannot vaccinate. They could go to events and be shielded, because people at events were vaccinated.

There are those who are especially vulnerable. Here I speak about those who are immunocompromised, and this can occur for many different reasons. On the same list of vulnerable individuals I place those who have chronic health issues, I place myself here as well. The vaccine helps these individuals to protect them and assist them so they are not affected as much by the virus, some fall into the category above. These people could go to events because others formed that shield to protect them.

The shield that I speak of is vaccination. It does a far better job of preventing people from contracting COVID-19 than the human immune system alone. This has been proven again and again. It has also been proven that the vaccine also reduces the effects of COVID-19 if it is contracted. 

Speaking of the human immune system, those who are especially vulnerable will suffer a lot more than the average person who contracts COVID-19 and this is the reason it is so important that the shield of vaccination is in place. The removal of this shield, requiring attendees to be vaccinated, means that it is now dangerous for people who are vulnerable to attend events.

The COVID Response Plan has turned into a shadow of its former self. It looks like the minimal community standards. This is the claim that is made by some, that it is now "in line with community standards."

Look out into the community, check the numbers of people being infected per day (if you can find it) and tell me how well their "plan" is working. The government's plan is all about ensuring that the economy keeps moving along, is this all we are worried about now the almighty dollar? Don't people's lives matter anymore? Have they not realised that people cause the economy to work? Have they not realised that the economy is in bad shape because people are sick, because people don't want to go out because of COVID? Nope, the mighty dollar must roll regardless of what it does to the people.

While this plan is in effect, you will see people choosing to stay away, because it is to dangerous for their health. Such mass gatherings without the protection in place are tantamount to not having a plan at all. What it will result in is having fewer of these vulnerable individuals at events. If that doesn't matter, well, it shows exactly how well the organisation thinks of its members, and how much the word, "inclusivity" really means.

To be "inclusive" you need to include and give access and opportunity to all those who might  otherwise be marginalised, this includes people with disabilities, and those who are medically vulnerable. This policy, this sham plan, is a disgrace and flies in the face of such a concept. By the allowing of some you exclude others for reasons not of their choosing.

People who have such medical issues would not choose to have them, but they had no choice. People who chose not to vaccinate chose not to vaccinate. This policy takes away the rights of those with no choice and gives it to those who made one and denied access to medically-confirmed, scientifically-tested vaccines. This is what it does. I am disappointed that such a decision could be made of such an organisation with such ideals as it claims.

Regretfully,

Henry. 

P.S. This problem with inclusivity is not restricted to the SCA, it is a much broader problem than that. I have previously spoken about the problems with inclusivity in previous posts.