Text from the image:
The Gichan are the product of a long history of conquest, fueled by their much coveted mountain passes and watersheds. The culture of the Kingdom of Gichan is highly syncretic. It owes its mores and traditions in varying parts to the underlying cultural substrate, to the Ghøwout Empire's centuries of rule, to the practices of their neighbors and to those of the new Gichan regime. To defend its precious lands, Gichan has a well-developped military with a strong core of professional soldiers, Gichan's regime is indissociable from its military: all noble families have a strong military background and it is customary for nobles of all rank to serve as officers for years or even decades.
Gichan was originally the name of a small nation in the mountains up the Cianji River, which became legendary for their unabating resistance in the face of the early Ghøwout Empire. When Ghøwout's northernmost province rebelled and seceded, it took on the name Gichan as a symbol of their resistance against imperial rule.
Gichan society is strongly divided between its military and peasant classes, but its peasants are far from powerless. Peasantry in Gichan is much revered : it is said to carry the nation on its strong back. as it works the fields and crafts the goods that feed and clothe the nation's soldiers. This romanticized potrayal often impedes serious understanding between local leaders and military lords, but fosters an attitude of gratitude towards the peasant's hard toil. In the harsh Gichan lands, a satisfied peasantry is seen as a priority.
Gican society is organized as chains of villages, each with their own village leaders, trading spouses and ressources up and down the mountains. They are ruled in a roughly feudal fashion, paying taxes in labour and goods to local military lords which themselves defer to higher lords up to the Gican royal court. Like in Ghøwout, religious specialists are excluded from this hierarchy: known as chui-chuøn (t. wild men), they are traditional healers and spiritual leaders often living in relative hermitage. In a set of practices long considered uncivilized by the Ghøwout, chui-chuøn wear numerous pelts and animal bones as a symbol of their otherworldly connections and hermitage. Uniquely, chui-chuøn do not wear tail brooches, as a way to signal that they are apart from society and clanship.
The Gichan use a modified Ghøwout script and many ghøwoutish loanwords, but most Gichan do not speak the Ghøwout tongue. They speak a variety of dialects, the most common of which is Tchougougch. Much of the peasantry is multilingual, having learned the language of a neighboring community within Gichan or of the many foreign traders using Gichan's mountain passes.
Gichan's territory has often been coveted and contested, much to the suffering of its locals. The revolution that broke Gichan apart from Ghøwout was strongly backed by the people, who felt Ghøwout had abandoned them in the face of the invading Senq Ha Empire. The Senq Ha had come from overseas and taken the Peninsular lands like a wildfire, and were now at their door, but Ghøwout, weakened by illnesses brought by the conquerors and internal strife, failed to mount a defense for Gichan in time, allowing much of it to be conquered. After this betrayal, the people of the passes, under the rule of two different empires, united and rebelled under the legendary name Gichan. They became the first province to secede from Ghøwout, initiating the Empire's long decline, and one of the first major setbacks of the Senq Ha in their invasion of Uanlikri.
39 notes
·
View notes
Source: Swallow's Nest: A Feminine Reading of the Psalms
1 Why this raging of the nations and vain plotting by their people? 2 Their rulers defy God's will, and the leaders conspire together against Shaddai and Her beloved, saying,
3 "Let us disregard God's commands, and break Her bonds of justice."
4 She who lives in heaven laughs and derides their proud plots.
5 Her Word resounds against them in righteous anger,
and Her fury at their injustice frightens them.
6 "I have chosen my own to rule," She says.
"I will set them in places of power."
7 The decree of God is this:
We are Her children, to whom She has given birth.
8 She promises that the nations will belong to us,
and that the earth shall be ours to its farthest reaches.
9 In Her might we shall break the oppressive strength of the powerful; it will be dashed in pieces like a clay pot.
10 Therefore, O rulers, be wise and be warned! O leaders of the earth,
11 serve God with reverence. With trembling humility
12 kiss Her feet and bow to Her just demands, lest She be angry with you and you perish in your pride.
For Her wrath is an instrument of justice.
Blessed are all who take refuge in the strength of Shaddai!
Possible uses of this psalm according to Power of the Psalms by Anna Riva:
Render an enemy incapable of power over you
Relieve tension (anoint temples and forehead with healing oil and then repeat the last sentence of the psalm over and over)
7 notes
·
View notes
I want to talk about Obi-Wan and Maul
This might end up being kind of long so bear with me, and my thoughts are kind of all over the place and possibly slightly incoherent.
Maul and Obi-Wan had a rivalry that was insanely brutal. (More under the cut.)
Maul survived being cut in half by Obi-Wan and ended up going insane, no longer connected to reality and living in the sewers for many years. Once Savage took him back to Dathomir and the Nightsisters "fixed" him, he found clarity again and became wholly fixated on Obi-Wan, the only person he had any connection to from his past. He hated all Jedi, but there was no one he hated more than Kenobi.
Obi-Wan, for his part, was horrified to learn that Maul had survived considering Obi-Wan had cut him in half.
Their rivalry is probably one of my favorites in all of Star Wars.
Maul was bloodthirsty, vengeful, and full of rage.
Obi-Wan was the opposite. He was kind, compassionate, took no pleasure from killing others, and loved unconditionally.
And one thing Obi-Wan eventually came to understand about Maul was that Maul had not had a good life. He recognized that Maul was raised to be the person he was because of the cruelty of Darth Sidious.
The Nightsisters handed baby Maul over to Darth Sidious to be trained in the ways of the Sith. Darth Sidious, who is famously cruel and diabolical. Darth Sidious, who raised Maul to be expendable because Maul was just a means to an end for Sidious.
Maul who never grew up experiencing love. He never experienced kindness or compassion. He was raised to be an assassin, a cold-blooded killer, doing anything and everything Sidious asked of him.
And he eventually understood that he had been nothing more than a tool for Sidious.
So he was angry. Alone. Full of hate. And wanted revenge.
And his anger at Obi-Wan was more than just him losing his legs. Obi-Wan caused him to lose the only life he knew. He had no guidance once Sidious was finished with him.
The only life he knew was one of cruelty. He'd never bonded with anyone until he met Savage.
And when Sidious killed Savage, Maul was alone again. (Ironically, Sidious killed Savage the same way Maul had killed Satine like five minutes prior.)
He had no one on his side again.
He tried to connect with Ahsoka, and then with Ezra years later.
But still, more than anything, he wanted to break Obi-Wan the same way that he himself was broken. He wanted to see Obi-Wan lose control and become like him. He was almost successful when he forced Obi-Wan to watch him kill Satine.
But Obi-Wan proved to be unbreakable even in that moment, and Maul's obsession only became stronger, along with his rage.
Maul was unable to comprehend love, and it drove him crazy that Obi-Wan had actually tried to connect with him in the moments leading up to Satine's death. Obi-Wan had tried to show Maul compassion and it infuriated Maul. He hated that Obi-Wan was trying to be kind to him.
Maul was a monster in every way, but he was also a victim raised under the cruelty of Darth Sidious and only knew how to be what Sidious had molded him into.
And on the other side we have Obi-Wan Kenobi. Despite his sass and sharp wit, he is kind and loving. He loved being a Jedi and devoted his life to living by the Jedi code. And he may not have always gotten it right, but he never strayed from the core principles.
(And always be as dramatic as possible.)
I've seen some bizarre criticisms of Obi-Wan that have me scratching my head. His attachment to Anakin, for one, like there isn't a rich and complicated history behind their relationship in the first place.
He's criticized for not killing Anakin so clearly Vader's reign of terror is somehow Obi-Wan's fault.
Let's examine all of this a bit closer.
We often joke about the fact that Obi-Wan has a vast collection of dismembered body parts, but Obi-Wan does not like killing others. He kills when he has no other option.
He prefers to disarm his opponents, quite literally. He cut off Zam Wessell's hand instead of killing her even though she was about to kill him. He just wanted answers. She had no real way of fighting back because he had injured her.
He disarmed the man who was threatening Luke in the cantina in A New Hope. He didn't kill him though. It's not like he was a major threat.
And on Mustafar, he couldn't bring himself to kill Anakin. He cut off one of Anakin's arms and both of his legs, an action that tore him apart because he loved Anakin so much. Anakin was defenseless at that point, and he was also completely on fire thanks to the lava. No part of him imagined that Anakin could have survived being burned alive, and he spent the next ten years hating himself for leaving Anakin to die until he learned that Anakin not only survived but was incredibly angry with him and wanted to kill him.
Just like Maul.
Obi-Wan did not like the idea of killing. At all.
And perhaps it was his attachment to Anakin Skywalker that brought the galaxy to its knees, but that attachment was because he and Anakin had always had a confusing relationship.
Let's take into consideration the fact that Obi-Wan, at the end of The Phantom Menace and only 25-years-old, had just watched his Master die at the hands of Darth Maul, subsequently killed Darth Maul (but not as much as he thought he had), been given the title of Jedi Knight, and taken on nine-year-old Anakin Skywalker (almost immediately after being knighted), a boy who had just been freed from slavery and had to leave his mother behind to pursue a life as a Jedi because being a Jedi had always been his dream.
Then maybe take into account the fact that Obi-Wan Kenobi was grieving the loss of Qui-Gon while Anakin struggled with being away from Shmi for the first time in his life. Obi-Wan didn't just train Anakin in the ways of the Jedi, he raised Anakin. He treated Anakin like a brother while Anakin said Obi-Wan was the closest thing he ever had to a father. Obi-Wan has always been good with children, and it's only natural that he would take on a parental type of role despite the fact he was only 16 years older than Anakin. He loved Anakin the way a brother would, and it did blind him to some of Anakin's more concerning habits, but Anakin also kept his biggest sins a secret because he was ashamed of himself, and he never wanted to know what it felt like to have Obi-Wan be disappointed in him.
Their relationship was messy because they were attached to each other, but Obi-Wan still did his best to teach Anakin. It had been Qui-Gon's final wish for him to train the boy, and Obi-Wan trusted his master.
So it was his attachment to Anakin that prevented him from killing Anakin aka Darth Vader, but it was very in character for him to choose not to do so. He always believed there were other ways to fight back.
And in the end, not killing Anakin had been the right choice. Anakin is the one who defeated Sidious (at the cost of his own life too) in an act of love for his son Luke and returned balance to the Force.
Obi-Wan didn't want to kill Maul either, but Maul gave him no choice. Maul was now a threat to Luke.
Maul lived a tormented, lonely life because he was never able to come to terms with the pain and anguish he'd experienced as a child that turned him into the monster he was throughout the rest of his life.
Obi-Wan (Ben) was able to rise above the suffering he'd endured and made peace with what had happened during and after the Clone Wars. He was so very much connected to the Force by this point because he had finally been able to let go of the tragedies of his past.
When he defeated Maul, he didn't treat it as a victory. He cradled Maul in his arms the same way he had held Qui-Gon and Satine when they died by Maul's hand.
He offered compassion to Maul despite Maul's atrocities, and in doing so, allowed Maul to experience peace for the first time in his long life.
In his final moments, he was treated with the dignity he had never given any of his victims.
And I think, in the end, Maul finally understood what he had been deprived of his entire life.
Obi-Wan was a true Jedi. He might have made a few errors along his journey, like everyone else does. He proved he was a master not by his skills with a lightsaber but by his ability to show compassion to those who don't necessarily deserve it because they are the ones who usually need it the most.
Star Wars Rebels gave us such beautiful closure to a rivalry that spanned decades.
24 notes
·
View notes
I don’t believe in “international law.”
“Abolish the courts” applies to both “domestic” courts as well as foreign/global legal bodies. I’m not sure how any reasonable and compassionate person can look at, for example, some panel of privileged adults judging a child or teenager on whether they should be locked up for killing their abusive parent, that they have the power to do so, that the survivor’s revictimization or freedom depends on the feelings of these remote privileged adults and not feel that this entire system and this entire notion of “judging” is a sham, is inherently a risk to the autonomy of the vulnerable and oppressed. How arrogant is the presumption that some outsider, merely because they have power and respectability and legitimacy, can have the full picture of the interiority of an oppressed person who’s been through and/or going through hell, who should be the foremost expert on their own situation and the epistemic authority regarding themself, as if their experience of “abuse” or “oppression” cannot be considered “real” until some outsider validates it first?
And likewise I found it deeply depressing and cruel that the Palestinians or their allies have to go to a court in an entirely different country to argue and plead for Palestinians’ basic rights and persuade a group of privileged people to acknowledge them, hinging their prospects on which ruling they would decide on, when they should not have to do that in the first place, and they should have autonomy and not be beholden to the potentially negative, oppressive judgment of some outsiders in the first place! That is a travesty.
I don’t say this to imply that the efforts of lawyers defending the oppressed in front of a court are easy, unimportant, irrelevant, entirely unimpactful, or callous, or that there is no context where invoking the language of “illegal under international law” or “war crimes” is useful or helpful in discussions or raising awareness; they are working within an unjust system trying to give the victims the best chances they can have in it, and preventing things from being even worse. Likewise, I respect lawyers who defend child abuse victims or adult domestic abuse victims or sexual violence victims etc. But we should interpret such situations with a basic understanding that that is not all activism can offer, nor should trying to game the system more in our favor be the ultimate end goal.
I also don’t say this to imply that international law/the UN and individual nation-state law/state governments are identical. There’s a key difference in that the former lacks the same kind of enforcement power the latter has, and is not set by a single cohesive entity with unilateral interests and power to wield. But the other similarities are there. (“International law” derives its own legitimacy from the consent of nation-states which sign on to it, which in turn derive their own legitimacy in doing so from the purported consent of their governed, which is necessarily invalid.)
14 notes
·
View notes