#as a historian I cannot tell you how much it upsets me how people twist the truth | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

remazdo · 5 years

Text

It’s about time I shared this...

On July 3rd I was minding my own business and looking though my Facebook feed, as I am prone to do in times of great boredom, when I stumbled across a news article titled “Trump dismisses need for climate change action: ‘we have the cleanest water we’ve ever had, we have the cleanest air’”. Now normally I do not engage in drama on the internet, I like my quite little corner where I can read and watch everything that is happening, but this time it was different. You see, when it comes to things that have to do with environment, I can feel rather passionate, so I shared and added my own little bit at the top that said

“Cleanest air and water compared to where? Venus? Titan? Flint, Michigan? O___o does anyone know where I can get a copy of these reports?”

I should have known better, I received a few funny comments, and then received the one that prompted the writing of this particular post you are reading now.

“Our Country is one of the cleanest I’ve ever been to. Yes he’s absolutely right if the rest of the world was as clean as America wouldn’t have that problem why don’t you go protest in China”

I was taken aback. It wasn’t that this person wasn’t known to say things like this, it was that I am not accustomed to being the start of or even being a part of such internet drama. I felt something inside myself, something my ancestors probably felt when the faced something they knew was wrong and that something had to be done. The feeling led me to do the one thing I never thought I would, I responded...

“This is very true, and I’m not disputing that fact. I’m actually very glad you brought that up. My point here is that the segregation of countries is causing us to miss other important things. I live in California, and the LA aqueduct drained lake Owens, the dust particles from the now dry lake bed are a carcinogen and particles of that lake have been found in lung cancer patients as far away as Russia.

The point I’m making here is that if one country has bad air, we all have bad air. It doesn’t matter the distance and toxins do not obey borders. Everything in this world is cause and effect, reactions even. If you strike a person in the solar plexus, he will double over. You can then strike him in the face or throat easier because you know where it will be moving. If we stand by as an attacker strikes at us and don’t react then aren’t we giving up? Chemicals, toxins, carcinogens. These are our attacker. By not trying to do something, even if it’s uncomfortable or hard to do, then we are going to be beaten. We need to as a species defend ourselves from the threat. And segregation will only make it harder to do. I’d rather be ready for a fight then pretend one won’t happen.

That being said, I do agree with you that America is one of the more clean countries. I just think it could be cleaner.

also, I want you to know that I’m not trying to upset, I just like a good debate and I love hearing everyone’s side of things. It’s the philosopher in me. I would actually love to talk about this topic further when I’m not heading to work if you are up for it.”

I felt the way I responded would have helped steer my point home, and hopefully prevent the online arguing I am so adverse to...unfortunately that is not how these things tend to go. His response was as follows.

“no debate. It’s liberal fools that destroyed California with open borders. You stated it your self segregation of countries. It’s what keeps out disease. Keeps people safe. You and your ideas are what is killing the American. Dream. Don’t protest here, move to China and do your whining. See how far it gets you.”

The feeling got stronger, I felt like fighting against injustice, standing shoulder to shoulder with my brothers and sisters to save the planet, I heard the ancestors screaming in my ears. I spent the next two days writing a response, but Facebook wouldn’t let me send the whole thing, it was to long. I shared it with two close friends, and they suggested I post it someplace where it may actually do some good, and that leads me to here. I hope you all enjoy the following.

“I really would like to keep this from becoming an argument and keep this strictly scholarly, but I would like to make a few points. The first being that I am not a Democrat, I am republican. But that doesn’t change the fact that I am also a tactician, a science major, and a martial artist. Being those things means a few things. The first of those is that I stand for what the definition of republican means.

Republican: adj.

having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them or characteristic of such government.

I will be adding links below anything in quotations to my sources to allow for citation.

“The core beliefs of the Republican Party are centered on the idea that each person is responsible for their own place within society. The party believes that the government’s role is to enable the people to secure the benefits of society for themselves, their families, and for those who are unable to do so for themselves. Republicans believe in limiting the Government’s intervention in the work of the individual towards prosperity. The government should only intervene when society cannot function at the level of the individual. This also means that the party believes in keeping the government as close to the individual as possible, and should be focused mainly on the state and community level, not centered at a federal level.”

https://www.republicanviews.org/what-is-a-republican-republican-definition/

Now that I believe I have put my political stance in order, let’s move on.

From a tacticians point of view, the only thing we have to loose by repairing the environment is money and time. I would rather prepare for a possible problem and be proactive then pretend it is impossible that it could happen and be reactionary. Preparation is always better then procrastination. To quote Issui Sensei, “During a state of order you should consider and prepare for war and in a time of disorder you should think for the best way to bring about peace.” If you believe we are in a state of order, then you need to be ready for and open to anything that may happen that brings disorder. If you believe we are in a state of disorder, then you shouldn’t be arguing with everyone and should be open to new ideas and thoughts in a hopes to find a way to bring about order again. Anything less then that is ignorance and arrogance.

Next, from a scientific perspective. I am not one that just excepts things blindly, if the president says we have the cleanest air and water, I would like to see the report. That is all. If he said we had the dirtiest water and air, I would want to see the report. The fact is that I don’t just except climate change because. Scientist tells me its real, except it because I myself have done the experiments in my own home and have see the results. I am not excepting the word of someone else, I am excepting my own word on it. That being said, if you could provide me with tangible data that said we are not dooming our species, and it was from a trusted source or from multiple sources, then I would be willing to except it as truth. It really is that simple. If you want to change my mind, it is possible, but you need data, reports, and proof.

Now from a martial artist viewpoint. I think I covered that in my other post, but I will go over it again. If you get into a fight you do everything you can to survive, you punch and kick and bite. It’s my life or theirs. That is what we have here. Not between to people, but between all humans on earth and the threat of extinction. I will fight, and it doesn’t matter where I fight, because no matter how much better America is compared to someone else, it can always be better then its current state. No matter how good you are at fighting, there is always someone better out there, and you can always train harder and be better then yourself. So no matter how good America can be, it can always improve.

Okay, now let’s dissect the “killing the American Dream” statement you made.

The historian James Truslow Adams first defined the American dream in 1931 by saying "The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement." And it is protected in the Declaration of Independence where it says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Here it clearly says all men, not just Americans. It is an ideal that is meant to be without borders and self evident in all people. If you call yourself American then you have to believe in this common ideal.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-american-dream-quotes-and-history-3306009

However, we are seeing this ideal being terribly twisted for personal gain and profit. People’s liberties are being taken, and their rights are being infringed upon. The follow pictures in the link below are examples of those rights being infringed upon. If you can look at these people and tell me that you would be able to do what they are and it wouldn’t be against your inalienable rights then my point is moot, because you will have proven to me that this is the normal way all humans should be treated. But if you wouldn’t willing live the way these people are being forced to live, then you will have to agree with me that it isn’t American to do so, and anyone doing this to another person is not only morally bankrupt, but also un-American. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I think these words have lost their meaning today. And if you say my thoughts here are liberal brain washing, I would state that these ideals are in fact republican based off of the definition above.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BzOctt1ne_x/?igshid=1c05wg1vwiabz

It is true that people spread diseases, it is also true that animals spread disease as well, especially livestock. So if we are to shut our borders to the world, it would only make sense to provide better regulations to livestock as well. Yet that threat is also being over looked. It’s also important to note that my argument was not against border control, but for the well being of our environment. I know that climate change is real, and not because I saw it on the news, I in fact do not watch the news. All the news is propaganda. All news agencies are owned by the same companies. Instead I do my own research rather then just repeating something that some face on the television told me. If people could just get rid of their personal biases, try to work to helping other people, helping the planet, helping life, then we would have a great America again. But while America spends more money on the prison system then the school system, women’s bodies are seen as property of the state, the melanin content of a persons skin dictates your worth in society, or those in need at the steps of the temple are cast out to die in the streets America will never be as great as it could be, no where near. Nowhere in any of the documents for this country does it ever say that hate and segregation are the way to me things better, it only talks about unification and good will towards all men. And THESE are what it really means to be American, Republican, and human. We should be setting the example, not just ignoring it till it goes away and blaming others for not doing enough. America is supposed to be better then that.”

I would like thank anyone who was able to make it through this lengthy post, it was something I felt I needed to put out there into the world.

#Social #politics #climate change #social change #climate activism #activisim #environmental activism

3 notes · View notes

thecatsaesthetics · 7 years

Note

What do you make of RIII's public denial to marry EoY, do you believe him?

Ooooo the public denial, actually I’m quite interested in this nonny, mainly because for once we’re talking about Richard’s perspective, not Elizabeth’s. I think that too often, the romantic feelings of Richard and Elizabeth have too much Elizabeth focus and not enough Richard focus. Richard whether you believe it or not, gave an opinion on his thoughts about the marriage that was recorded. We have no real recordings of Elizabeth’s feelings, but we get some indication with the public denial of Richard’s.

In short, I believe his denial. I don’t believe by March of 1485 Richard had any intention of marrying Elizabeth of York. If he ever thought of marrying her it was at most a very brief idea which was quickly deemed a bad match. (which it would have been) Richard was pretty set on Joanna of Portugal by March of 1485.

Side Note: For me, this is why I don’t see the point in really discussing if Elizabeth’s feelings for Richard were romantic, because what does it matter? Richard never would have married her, he didn’t want to marry her. Had Richard lived she would have gone off to Portugal to marry Duke Manuel. After the denial specifically, he couldn’t have ever married her.

On to the actual denial, what happened, and my speculation! Forgive me this is a long one, enjoy!

Here’s the account of his denial.

“(Richard) Addressing them ‘in a loud and distinct voice’, he ‘showed his grief and displeasure aforesaid and said it never came into his thought or mind to marry in such manner wise, nor willing nor glad of the death of his queen but as sorry and in heart as heavy as man might be …” Mercers’ Account

This is Richard’s public denial, basically, he gave this speech in front of any Lords present in London soon after the death of Anne Neville. This was after rumors began to swirl that the Richard was intending to marry his niece.

Now, this is interesting for a lot of reasons, one Richard did not have to do this. At all. Kings did not give out public denials like this, please someone correct me if I’m wrong, but up until this point, I don’t believe there was ever an English King who gave a public denial like this.

Moreover, I think we have a bit of faulty logic on this notion, many historians I’ve read on Richard make the assumption that if he talked about it that means he actually was looking into it. In my own opinion, this is bad logic, to me, it’s reminiscent of the idea if you’re innocent why get a lawyer. Richard wanting to set the record straight isn’t some admission of guilt as many people just assume.

Also a bit on The Croyland Chronicle, before someone brings it up. It too records this event as well, you can read it here (x). (it’s too long to quote) Now it claims that Sir Richard Ratcliffe and William Catesby, came to the King with 12 Doctors of Divinity to tell him what he was doing was wrong and pointed out to him that this might embolden her family to take revenge for the loss of Anthony Rivers. It then claims that it was Ratcliffe and Catesby who convinced the King to make this denial, cause everyone else was just too afraid to of Richard to do it.

Now, this is sketchy for a lot of reasons, firstly being Ratcliffe and Catesby were not of the kind of rank to speak to the King on this issue. I don’t care how scared the rest of the court was of Richard, they were men without titles. They simply did not have the permission to speak to the King like this. The man who was in Richard’s inner circle who could is conveniently left out, John Howard The Duke of Norfolk. Also Francis Lovell is also left out, and Lovell was very close to Richard III. So placing it as Ratcliffe and Catesby as the only ones who could have told Richard what to do is sketchy at best.

Second, it paints Catesby in a very good light, Catesby seems to have made a bit of a deal with the Stanleys after or before Bosworth as he writes in his will about them “to pray for my soul as ye have not for my body, as I trusted in you.” while he was still executed, him getting painted in a good light in this is interesting to say the least. Being painted as one of the very men to stand up to Richard III is pretty good in Tudor England now isn’t it?

And finally, their is no way in hell in Medieval England, in 1485, that 12 Doctors of Divinity are making their way to London on such short notice. This is the Croyland Chronicle for you, at times it just reads like the National Enquirer it’s so out there.

So while it records the denial as well, there is a reason to doubt Croyland’s report of the denial.

Now it’s time to get into speculation working with just the denial alone, and not claiming as Richard’s admission of guilt. What could have motived him to give such a denial? Remember Richard had already been accused of a lot of things by this point, so what makes this incident so special that it demands him giving this denial. Here are my three reasons, make of them what you will.

Well one reason could be grief, in the account it does mention, “he showed his grief” which could indicate that during this address that Richard was noticeably upset by the topic. Remember that Richard was also denying murdering his wife here. Now it does seem that Richard and Anne had an affectionate relationship. In fact, even in the most damning accounts of Richard, he is openly affectionate towards Anne, even though it is twisted to make him look like he is using her the open affection in these accounts are there. One of the reasons given by the Croyland Chronicle for Anne’s sickness was Richard neglecting her. Remember propaganda has to be believable to some degree, so while the framing is off, all these accounts lead me to believe Richard and Anne’s relationship had some known affection in it. With this in mind, it could very well be that Richard wasn’t in his right state of mind when giving the address, Richard was after all human and his brother George seems to have had some kind of mental breakdown after the loss of Isabel Neville. Not saying this is what happened to Richard, but grief could have led him to make a very poor political choice here.

Reason Two, Joanna of Portugal. Now by this point arrangments to marry Joanna were well underway. Joanna was an excellent next choice for a bride, she came from the highly respectful country of Portugal, was the legitimate Lancastrian line, would have provided a decent dowry, renewed the English alliance with Portugal, etc. Joanna herself was quite a catch as well, she was deeply religious like Richard, she had been regent to for her father and brother, and had been the heir to the Portuguese throne at one point. Joanna was also a bit of a stickler for piety, she had, in fact, refused to marry the King of France due to his immoral behavior. It is in fact quite the miracle that Richard got her to agree to marry him. So with all this in mind, he might have wanted to prevent the rumors of him killing his wife and trying to marry his niece from reaching her ears, which might have made Joanna back out of the betrothal. Rarely when discussing Richard’s life do people factor in Joanna, historians for the most part just ignore her, so it’s no shock to me that historians haven’t taken this more political reason for the denial. This reason makes a lot of sense to me, more than the other two at times.

And Reason Three, Richard was so personally disgusted by the rumors he just had to deny them. Richard III was a deeply religious man, that cannot be denied, he owned an English Bible in an era where that wasn’t a thing. No matter what your opinions on him are, his faith is well recorded. Now while an Uncle/Niece marriage wasn’t completely out of the ballpark for European royalty, it certainly wasn’t the norm, in fact in terms of English/British Royalty, never has there been a monarch that married his niece. While cousin marriages were commonplace in England, uncle-nieces ones weren’t. Richard could have considered it a sin and had been morally aggrieved over the matter which leads him to the make the denial.

Keep in mind these are just my thoughts and speculation, based on the evidence I find. It could be a number of other reasons I haven’t thought of, or it could even be a mix of these reasons. The world isn’t always so black and white. Overall I don’t see much reason to doubt that Richard’s denial was real.

#richard iii #joanna of portugal #elizabeth of york #this is the stuff I live for!#Nonny

25 notes · View notes