#everyone just associates religion as a whole to the far right movement | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

howlingmoonrise · 4 years

Text

Thoughts on Petshop of Horrors: Wandering Ark volumes 1 & 2

(also on dreamwidth)

HOW did I manage to miss the translation of my long-awaited Papa D PSOH series?? I've been stalking it ever since I found the announcement and somehow the fact that @ruthlessnightsscans already put out the first two volumes completely went past my head.

Obviously I had to read it right away, sleep be damned.

this is the edited version of my brain thoughts after i managed to get two sleeps and calm down a bit or it would be a lot more incoherent

The art: the initial pages really remind me of the old art! Unfortunately it goes back to the roundness prevalent since the Shin series (which has only become even rounder with time) not long after. That art style is also a lot less dynamic than the original, I find. It's a bit of a problem on scenes that are supposed to have some tension caused by movement. This is nothing new since, like I said, Sensei has been using this art style since a good while ago. I really miss the original art though. It had a major nostalgia punch to it and a lot more feeling as well.

-- First chapter: "I am on a journey with no destination in mind" just say you're on vacation and go off I guess.

Papa is... weirdly easy-going. I want to say it's because he's not yet mad with grief and his son being taken away and so on, but the glimpses we saw at his time in university definitely didn't paint him this soft. There's no edge to him, on this volume or the next.

Regarding the story itself, I can't say I loved it but it’s not the worst out of all of them (there are four in total between these two volumes, and a third volume is on the way). I liked Koushun's character, but Seiyou annoyed me, especially when he presumed to know what she wanted (or perhaps he didn't presume, but decided for her what was better anyway) - something like I Shall Revive This Species So Breed In My Name Okay Bye. Note also that while Koushun was willing enough to marry (thinking she was marrying someone else but that's another point entirely), the groom himself came in chains. And then Seiyou... locks them in together? Great. Just great. Very conducive to a loving mood indeed, locking a woman with a potentially dangerous stranger who might cause her harm and telling them both to fuck (note. the. chains. you don’t put chains on someone you think is harmless; they never put any on Koushun even when she attacked Seiyou). I was afraid for her when it cut to another scene here, with the last we saw of her being pushed against a wall and being told by the groom that it seemed that he would have to make a child with her. "Rather than hate each other, I want to break that curse"? Seiyou, sweetie, that is NOT the way to make them not hate you. ((The reveal that Koushou is some sort of creature - very PSOH-y - does not help, since putting two wild animals together without them being used to each other is perhaps even more likely to them killing/harming one another.))

MAJOR little mermaid vibes on Koushun standing over a sleeping Seiyou with a knife.

There are quite some parallels with the D species on this tale of bloodshed and revenge. The Ds could stand to learn from this, though historically they don't. "Even if you kill the third prince, the Kagetsu people are already gone. They won't return." Papa himself says that 'winning on the last available tile' is a waste of time, which really resonates with his research into reviving lost species and the issues of his own kind. A reference to the health of descendants when no new blood is introduced is also made here, which might or might not point to our D depending on where in time this Papa is from.

Second chapter: it's... frankly, super choppy. The story is all over the place. On the author's note, Akino herself says that it's a challenge to put the whole life of that empress in 57 pages, and I have to agree. Either it should have been cut to the REALLY relevant parts and worked on them some more, or be discarded in its entirety. It's too rushed. The whole first part was unnecessary: it could have started with her already working at the palace or being chosen as a concubine, and then made references to her previous life in her thoughts instead of wasting several pages on it when that backstory won't be going anywhere (except for some references to Hakubun whom she sees on that other actor - who dies like, two or three pages later, so that's that on that). I do like Ranji herself as a character: she's clever and quick to pick up on things. Her life is just a series of tragedies one after the other, unfortunately.

Papa D is some sort of benevolent helper in this chapter for some reason - this pattern repeats somewhat on the next chapters, but on this one there isn't really anything to gain for him at all, other than perhaps his dubious acquaintance with one of the concubines/future empress, which wouldn't really hold much weight since he met her ?once? apart from near her death.

And then, somehow, the initial Papa D in this chapter was actually Sofu?

Sofu???? I'm calling bullshit. As far as we know - going back to Sofu's own series and flashbacks on the original PSOH, even - Sofu never had a hairstyle of that length, and out of our three known Ds (new!D excluded) he's the one least likely to help a human just because. The ark is also said to travel through space and time, so I'm saying that's Papa D and that's it. Fun aside: on this chapter, Papa says he's the "third generation", meaning that on this series he's probably the youngest existing D (and by inference our D does not exist yet).

Also, some issues with in-story continuity here: when the last emperor dies Ranji still looks fairly young and the emperor-to-be is three years old, a couple pages later she looks a lot more aged but the new emperor is still three years old. To be honest, I think the story would have been tied off much better if A-chan had some connection with Hakubun or the eunuch instead of each having their very brief, individual emotional connections to her - which, in turn, doesn't really make them memorable. The "wishes" thing was interesting, really called back to the old PSOH tradition with the mystical pets and bittersweet be-careful-what-you-wish-for endings.

Third chapter: I think, overall, this was probably the one I liked the best. Can't really bring myself to call it my favourite though, since none of them even begin to compare to the original PSOH chapters. I cackled at the "jawline is too sharp" dialogues and thoughts: with this art style EVERYONE has the same round jaw as every other character, and it's the furthest thing from "sharp" possible.

With this series it really seems like Sensei is giving more focus to trying to tell historically-accurate stories rather than focusing on the stories themselves, as there is a huge amount of superfluous historical information to be found in these volumes.

The empress Elizabeth reminds me of Sofu, in truth. She won't "mind" affairs and the like (read: she will hate it but ignore them) as long as it works towards her ends. Her taking away the newly-born child is a huge parallel to Sofu regarding both Papa and D, and D and new!D. Child-snatching FTW! That being said, I actually kind of liked her, ruthless as she was: the whole reason why Sophie made it as far as crown princess was because Elizabeth valued her hard work. You don't get to hold an empire together without having a steel spine and a cunning mind (or people to do the work for you I guess, but here it doesn’t seem to be the case).

I hate that Sophie had to change even her name and religion to fit her new reality, accurate as it is to history. That sort of thing always messes me up (throwback to the Nazi/teddy bear chapter of the original PSOH series, where there was also a name/religion change for the sake of survival). Not a reflection on the author in any way, I just hate that this is something people had to go through. As something I hated that kinda does reflect on the author, though, was the ugly = terrible association with Pyotr and the maid. Sophie/Catherine is initially said to not be beautiful but she's not depicted in the same way those two are at all.

Papa's benevolence is thankfully offset this chapter by the fact that he does have something to gain here. For some reason Ds doing things merely for the goodness of their hearts kind of rubs me the wrong way unless it's D during or post-Leon.

Most PSOH victims clients: oh a pretty person! WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S AN ANIMAL Sophie/Catherine: a dog you say? sounds kinda hot ngl

Gotta respect how she just jumps straight into the dog affairs. The take-back of the empire was also nicely executed, and I'm always here for ladies in traditionally male clothing.

Fourth chapter:

This is linked semi-directly to the third chapter by virtue of the amber room Papa D craved. Marks also the second time that Papa takes a human on board of the ark.

D, circa end of original PSOH, a single tear rolling down his cheek as he watches Leon plummet towards the earth: Humans have not earned the right to board this ark. Papa D: I'm gonna go for a joyride and take along this human and this human and this human and this human and--

Papa really gives Doctor Who vibes on the ark matter. Travelling through space and time, occasionally taking human companions? The one for this chapter - who I'm guessing might be a cameo from one of Sensei's other series, since I didn't recognize him and there was no backstory for him on the chapter - even has era-appropriate wardrobe changes (at least assuming it's the same person and not just someone who looks similar scratch that they have eyes of different colours so I guess Papa has been giving rides to delivery men now), the second of which leaving me very ??? as to WHEN he is from.

That last Look(TM) reminds me a of Leon Orcot, between the long ponytail and the clothes resembling the ones Leon wore on the last chapter of Shin PSOH (in PSOH time, that would have happened approximately 15 years after the end of the original series, meaning that Papa was already long dead then. Unless Leon's style was just stuck in time, which is also very possible).

It might or might not have endeared him to me for that exact reason. What can I say? I'm a sucker for Leon Orcot, and apparently also for characters that visually remind me of him. ANYWAY.

Why another Nazi-era chapter??? Sensei plz. One was already enough on the original PSOH - it wasn't anywhere near my favourites back then, either - and the fact that this one mostly followed a Nazi colonel didn't help either. Here we witness them tearing down the amber room, "reclaiming" art from all over the world, a father's heartbreaking sacrifice to “save” his daughter’s dog, and Papa D coming to meet the Nazi dude. One would expect the Ds to avoid genocidal racists given the fate of their own species, but apparently the Nazis were relevant enough for not one but TWO Ds to interact with them. Oh well. Either way, I really don't like how Papa appears to not care one way or another - when the D for the original series interacted with people he didn't like, his mask was really fairly obvious (at least for the reader). Perhaps Papa simply has a better mask. Perhaps those nuances were lost to time and round art styles. Perhaps Papa or Sensei just don't give two shits. Guess we'll never know.

EVERYONE seems to comment on the flavour of Papa's tea: it's 4 out of 4 so far for these two volumes, and in this chapter in particular it seems as if it's laced with some kind of truth serum - it seems to be Papa's version of D's (and possibly Sofu's?) incense from the original PSOH. A reference to the original PSOH's Nazi chapter is also made here, with Papa mentioning that Sofu was on friendly terms with Eva Braun: this implicates that in this time they were in closer contact (not surprising since Sofu probably hasn't stolen his still-non-existent kid yet).

The colonel seems to value art over human life - surprise surprise! - so he kills his own comrades to keep the art "safe". A stomach-turning moment comes where they find human golden teeth being kept as treasure, which Papa mentions remelting to turn into golden nuggets. Why, Papa/Sensei, why? It's in poor taste, even if you're testing the colonel the way D did with some of his clients on original PSOH.

At the very least an eerie moment comes next where Papa explains that dead creatures can be revived using DNA. "Even dead people?" Cue Papa's all-seeing stare directly into the reader's eyes (and presumably the colonel's as well) with a backdrop of an inverted black-and-white multitude of graves as he says that future is not very far. Colonel almost shits his pants, with reason when you consider the amount of people the Nazis killed off that would presumably come after them. This almost forgives the teeth comment, and it's probably the first moment in these two volumes when we see some genuine emotion on Papa's face (on this page and the next), creepy and maniac as it might be.

Colonel dude has spent the whole chapter justifying everything under "orders of the fuhrer" so far. Then comes the moment that Papa calls him out by saying that the orders were to burn his sweet dear art so that it wouldn't fall into enemy's hands, and it's here that we see how much of an hypocrite the colonel is when he doesn't want to follow those orders. Suddenly it's "treasures of mankind" (even though he's been stealing them left and right) and the fuhrer is "a fool" (even though he's been using his orders and his "greatness" as justification for everything).

Suddenly, Papa's companion! Who the heck is that! Shoots him! This is someone whose family was killed by the colonel (directly or under his orders) or so he says; he's gripping a piece of art we don't get to see, which is presumably the reason for those deaths. Now in the future! A guy who looks a bit like that other man who shot the colonel, but who I'm not 100% sure if it is or is not the same person because the round art style makes everyone look alike Someone who is definitely not the same guy because his eye colour is different (and who's dressed in a sporty outfit with a long ponytail, which I've mentioned kinda reminds me of Leon) looks for the amber in the place the art was stored, alongside Papa. He flies on the ark (all these humans on the ark, Sofu would have a conniption!) and reminds me of Leon once more while being shouty and holding on to the main mast for dear life.

The sacrificial father mini-plot also gets resolved with the dog returning (but not the father himself) along with a picture with that family. Which is presumably the picture the other dude who shot the colonel was holding, which begs the question: how is he related to them? He doesn't look like any of them, but he did say the colonel killed his family while (presumably) holding that same picture, so hmmm. Maybe he's the dog, colour-scheme aside? But apart from the father, the rest of the family seems to have survived, so it's kind of a strange thing to say since that sort of wording usually means more than one person. Even if he is the dog (my money is on that option), it's not exactly obvious to a reader who's not looking very closely. Some loose ends there, or at least ends that don't really look like they're tied together at all.

"No matter how long winter is, spring will come." Fairly hopeful final words there, Papa D. These echo similar ones spoken by D at the end of Shin PSOH, after running from Leon once more ("someday, the season for returning will come"): perhaps both these Ds are not as pessimistic as to their future, at least at this point? Poor Papa definitely had a change of heart between his series and the ending of original PSOH, unfortunately.

General thoughts: Sensei hasn't quite managed to replicate the feeling of the original PSOH just yet. The storytelling feels a bit shallow and rushed, though the pacing improved from the first volume to the second. There's also very little focus on Papa himself for some reason: he's more of a background character on his own series except for the fourth chapter, which is a very strange narrative choice. In part this might also be because he doesn’t have a permanent companion to discuss/argue with like in previous iterations of the PSOH series. I wonder if the third volume will continue on this trend? I wish it’d delve a bit more into Papa, but either way it’s still nice to get some more PSOH content.

I've heard Vesca will make an appearance next volume, I'm so excited!! Out of Shin PSOH, my favourite chapters were Leon's (surprise surprise!) and the ones with Papa and Vesca on their university days. Papa definitely seemed a lot sharper there, which I miss here - I feel like Sensei has been smoothing out all their edges like with the art style lmao, and in turn it makes them feel a bit lacking since the Ds are not meant to be bland and forgiving and easy-going, at least as per their original portrayal. I've also seen sneak-peaks of Leon and D from author notes of the next volume so I can't wait at the chance to weep at the slightest panel of my son Leon.

A final shoutout to RNS for continuing the PSOH translations! I really can't thank them enough!!

#PetShop of Horrors #pet shop of horrors #psoh #hyouhaku no hakobune hen #papa d #wandering ark #psoh wandering ark #psoh ark adrift #petshop of horrors hyouhaku #howl rambles a lot

24 notes · View notes

silversavant2021 · 3 years

Text

The Least Protected Group...Single Fathers!

There are several laws that protect various groups in our society, and in various areas...employment, wages, education, etc. According to the U.S Federal Law website, “these laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity”. However, although they protect according to gender, there is another group within gender which needs protecting in another specific area. That area is fatherhood, and when it comes to their rights to their children after separation, and/or divorce.

If we look through the articles online, and in booklets on custody we will see a great deal of information on what is called conservatorship and in all of these documents the deciding factor is a term called, “the best interest of the child”. In looking at that statement, we would think it would be both parents but it is not.

In Texas, the Family Code gives the father the same rights as the mother as far as custody of the children however that is rarely carried out. The mother is usually granted the position of custodial parent, even if the father is in a better position of stability in order to have the child(ren).

The imbalance has gotten so great until various states are beginning to take action on behalf of the fathers. In Massachusetts, a ballot initiative was created, and approved 85 to 15 percent on protecting the rights of the father. The ballot was an initiative to approve equal legal and physical custody of the children in the case of divorce. This ballot was requesting that “the courts uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children”. And that state is not the only one requesting this by proposition on behalf of fathers. The Washington Post had an article by Michael Allison Chandler entitled “More than 20 states in 2017 considered laws to promote shared custody of children after divorce.”

One would have to ask; why is this necessary since most custody paperwork state that either parent has the right to conservatorship, or custody? It is because Family Courts use the concept called “best interest of the child” to decide who will hold this position, and that term is wholly subjective. Over the years, this term has been used to give custody, in most cases, to the mother.

Ms. Chandler also states that, “we are led to believe that the plight of fatherless children is caused by husbands walking out on their wives, fathers abandoning their children, and “deadbeat dads” when one of the best-kept secrets in American society today is that two-thirds of divorces are now sought by wives, not husbands”. She claims that the “feminist movement has taught wives that they can seek “liberation” by walking out of their marriage contract and marital duties and still reap the benefits of marriage, i.e. their children and his money.”

In considering the background elements of this controversial topic I interviewed Baba Richard and Sri Namaste Moore, who are “The Infinite Couple” and have a combination of 30+ years of experience, (and success), in dealing with men, women, and couples regarding relationships.

Sri Namaste stated that this basically started with “Women’s Rights” movement, and explained how this played into this situation of mothers being given more rights than fathers in the case of custody.

She elaborated on what two legal rights, which were attached to this movement, brought about:

• Women’s Reproductive Rights:

• Reproductive Rights — claims having the ability to decide whether, and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health. Research suggests that being able to make decisions about one’s own reproductive life and the timing of one’s entry into parenthood is associated with greater relationship stability and satisfaction.

• AbortionRights:

• AccesstoAbortion-IntheUnitedStates,the1973SupremeCourtcaseRoev.Wade established the legal right to abortion. State legislative and executive bodies nonetheless continue to battle over legislation related to access to abortion, including parental consent and notification and mandatory waiting periods. In addition, public funding for abortion remains a contested issue in many states: federal law has banned the use of federal funds for most abortions since 1977, and currently does not allow the use of federal funds for abortion unless the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest or the woman’s life is in danger. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 reinforces these restrictions, but state Medicaid programs have the option to cover abortion in other circumstances using only state, and no federal funds.

Sri Namaste stated, “Initially, women were supposed to be given Reproductive Rights/Freedoms however a woman had that already, and had already exercised her right when she chose to have unprotected sex. That was/is her exercising her “right to reproduce” by allowing herself to get pregnant. She had a choice to prevent that from happening by several different means.

“Then giving her the sole right to decide to keep the baby, or not, is giving her sovereignty as well. Now she has the right to decide “life or death” with impunity in the case of this child. Even though the child was created by the woman and the man; the father has no rights and even if he wants the baby, (which belongs to him as well), he has no right to it.”

Also, that baby is not “her body”, it is a whole separate entity.

Sri Namaste also stated, “The “double standard” is amazing! If the pregnancy is wanted then, even at the earliest stages, the woman celebrates the pregnancy. She will call the baby “hers”, buys clothes, has a celebration, names the baby, etc. And if she should “miscarry”, (lose the baby), she mourns, has a funeral, etc. HOWEVER, if the pregnancy is unwanted...suddenly it is NOT a baby, it is a fetus – a non-thing.”

I asked her how did all that plays into child custody?

She stated, “Because the woman has already been given “sovereignty” over the baby/fetus before birth so it just carries over when the child is born...she still has those rights. However, everyone should be sovereign over their own life, and when one has a child, that is a “separate” life which belongs to the mother AND the father who made it.”

“Also, because that child is a combination of the mother and the father, she shouldn't be able to make that decision alone, and definitely not on the behalf of the father. The state should be the entity who is stepping in to ensure decisions would be neutral, but they are not.”

I was surprised at how all of this fit together.

In order to get a perspective from a man, from a father’s point of view, and from one who had gone through a divorce and custody within in the court system, I then spoke to Baba Richard, who stated:

“I think fundamentally there is something that is happening here. Once you are a parent then being a good parent is based on time passing and you being engaged in that. In talking about the role of the father, what is happening and is implicit in the whole system is that fatherhood is irrelevant. The “state” is functioning as the “father surrogate” and making decisions as to what the state and the woman are going to do about the child(ren).”

“The father is looked at as an economic contributor at maximum, or somebody that if you refuse, or are not meeting whatever standard they say, economically, then you are punished. The system is already in place that you, father, are here to provide economics so the state and the mother can decide what they are going to do with your resources in order to decide what the future of your child is going to be.”

“Once one starts from a “faulty premise” all decisions after that...none of them can be, “well this is great”, because it is a “domino effect”. Look at fatherhood and motherhood as two parallel lines...train tracks, if you will...equal parallel lines and they must be because they both have equal responsibility for the welfare of what they created. Once we say the only “line” that matters is the motherhood line when going forward, then the fatherhood line veers off...we don’t need that, don’t want that line. So, once you engage with the state those two lines are no longer parallel, and never brought back into parallel. Fatherhood gets a “dotted line” which says “you can pay money but we will decide how often you see the child.”

“Visitation is something you do for someone who is “incarcerated”. You don’t visit your “prodigy”, you don’t “visit” your children, children don’t “visit” you. What are they talking about? Either we ALL visit, or nobody visits. Shared custody by default, NOT an arrangement the father has to negotiate his way into. The presumption should be that BOTH parents will share equal responsibility for raising the child(ren) that they have created between the two of them.”

“When you go into that equation with the idea that “woman create children”, and men- we don’t know what they do...but they are engaged in some level of “malfeasance” or irresponsibility because a child has come forward so now the state needs to come in to make things fair...better...more equitable, for the women. One has to wonder, “how is the state the arbiter between these two people?”

“There is a default belief/assumption that there has been some wrong-doing on the part of the man...the scales are inherently imbalanced and “justice”, the state, is stepping in to balance this inequity. The woman has been victimized by this man through the act of pregnancy and now the state is here to make things right again.”

“You, the woman, being right, and righteous, should be supported in whatever you decide to do. It is impossible for you to not to visit your children because the presumption is that the child is at home, and home is always with YOU.”

However, in the case of the man, let’s bullet point the situation and think like this... “Imagine a world where”:

-You are guilty before the proceedings even start.

-All you will get is a decision as to what level of punishment you will endure.

-You will never be found “not guilty” because this is the nature of things.

-You will incur penalties that are overwhelming in most cases.

There is no court of appeals, the only thing, the most you can get is a lessening of the penalty/sentence but you will have it until the courts decide that you don’t.

“Now where is this? In a foreign country? Or some weird dystopian future where everything has “gone to hell in a handcart”? No, this is what a person live with every day if that person is a MAN, and happen to get divorced from a woman, and there are children involved. Or weren’t married and there are children involved.”

I said, “I don’t understand, why doesn’t the courts give joint custody”? He said...

“It is inherently unfair, and I think that there is a presumption of “guilt” with respect to men who are in court...for whatever reason. When I went for my divorce, the judge, his attitude toward me was hostile for no reason. I am not a criminal, and was not there for an assumption of any criminal activity.”

“While waiting for other people to handle their business I saw many different types of cases. There were people who came through who had committed crimes. I had committed no crime, was only there due to processing a divorce. Me, and this woman, had decided we did not want to go forward in life anymore. I couldn’t understand how I warranted all of this “ire” from the judge? I didn’t know him, personally. We both, (my spouse and I), were there at the same time, and when he talked to her, he was nice, and soft spoken...and then when he talked to me it was, “well, what's this!!!” spoken in anger.

I asked him, “But there are documented “rules” that apply to everybody, even mothers; why aren’t they enforced? He said...

“Because there is another issue as to why things go the way they go. Men are not prepared. Actually, it is almost the opposite of being prepared. They are intentionally unprepared because number one, one of the things that I saw in the four or five guys that I know, including myself when I got divorced, is that they are emotionally exhausted...there is a great deal of stress, strain, etc....and a man has to still keep up everything while all of this going on.”

“One of the things about the linear nature of men is that we, we don't do well with this kind of “stress”. We don’t maintain hatred in “perpetuity”. Even if you look at a man whose been trained as a military soldier...yes, they may be upset about the enemy...but the actual pulling of the trigger, or launching the missile is very dispassionate. This is just a job that he is doing...combatants over there...we got them all right, cool. Let's go home, you know, but they don't usually keep that “emotional charge” every day.

“But it's one of the things about the feminine, and I've seen it, they can hold a grudge. Oh my God...even if the two people haven't been together for decades, kids are grown, and gone on and whatever. And it's like, you want to set her off, mention his name in her presence, and it's just like the day that they got divorced.”

“The point being is that when they go into this court situation, number one, most people don’t have any experience with this...it’s not like buying a car, one gets to do this many times so they know what to expect. When they go into this situation, it's the first time, and they don't know what to think or how it's going to go. Also, all they want is for the pain to stop, and they think that after this, we can be “okay”, it’s official.”

“Most men are at the point where they think, “You know what, I'll start over, whatever car, house, whatever things. I don't care. I don't care about any of that because being able to sleep at night”, even if they have to sleep on a pallet. However, here’s the hinge that door swings on...the men go into this thinking that what she wants is stuff, right? What they find out is what she wants is for him to suffer, and no amount of money, no amount of stuff, all the things that he gave, the “quid to the pro quo” that he thinks is going to happen... doesn’t!”

And so that's a double whammy because then they're shocked because they're like, wait a minute, I gave you what you said you wanted...all the stuff. I let you have whatever it is that you want up to, and including what I considered the most precious...the care of the children. But now he finds that the woman, the court, and the state are thinking, “how much worse can we make this? What else can we do?” Whatever he thought he was going to give, that's not enough, and he is thinking, “Wait a minute, I gave everything so how can that not be enough? There isn’t anything more to give.” And the courts state, “you better come up with something because now we have rules in place that where we're going from present into the future. And now as a state, we can enforce those rules and say, not only have you given all of your material possessions presently, now we are going to look into the future and you will give all your possessions in perpetuity, or until the child(ren) are 18-21 years old.”

“Suddenly, he comes into this realization that the rules that are imposed upon men in that situation are only for men. There are no equivalent rules for women. So, if he doesn't do whatever the court says, then there are penalties and it is NOT that she can’t do what the court says and “be penalized”, it is because she has no rules!”

Personally, I was shocked, and had nothing else to say.

As I began to research further for the solution(s) to this challenge for “fathers”, I decided to do some research on this topic with “Father’s Rights” organizations. I found three agencies, and interviewed the three men who had started, and/or participated in them. What I found was confirming.

The first person interviewed in this arena was Joshua Banks, who is the Founder/Facilitator of IDADS, (Involved Dads of Action Developing and Succeeding), and he is the Program Coordinator. His agency has been in operation since 2015, and his motivation was dealing with families for 7 years as a Pastor. He assisted 300+ people through online summits, and approximately 80 fathers on a weekly basis.

He states, “It is always better for the child when there is joint custody however the system seems to be in opposition to this. It seems that “best interest of the child” always translate to the Mom. A majority of the fathers I deals with want to be involved in their children’s lives, and the few who are reluctant is due to the “toxicity” of the relationship with the mothers.”

His advice to fathers seeking joint custody to:

Engage the Mom, try to get her “onboard”.

As soon as the child is born, go to child support court, (whether you live together or not), so there will be no risk of “arrears”, (even if you only put payment as $100). This is because even if you take care of your child, pay bills in the household, etc. the “child support system” does NOT acknowledge/recognize support paid OUTSIDE of their courts. This will make it easier when you go to Family Court regarding custody.

Build Credibility - Employment, shelter, and a proper environment for his child.

Effort - It won’t be easy, and he will have to “fight”.

Involvement - No matter how difficult it is made, stay involved!

Attorney - If at all possible, get an attorney.

His agency is currently involved with the Attorney General’s Father’s Rights Division; Child Protection Services - Father’s Rights Coalition; and the University of Texas - Child and Family Research Partnership under Dr, Osborn. His agency also receives referrals from Child Protective Services.

The second person I interviewed in this area was Isaac Rowe, who is the Founder of “The Man In Me”, and he is the CEO. His agency has been in operation since 2012, and his motivation was seeing the “fatherless sons” in his arena. He was also troubled by what he saw a friend go through not being able to be with his father...saw it from a “child’s” standpoint. He decided to tell fathers to fight for their rights, and more time with their children. He assists 300+ men through conferences, and speaking engagements, and approximately 80-120 men weekly/bi-weekly.

He states, “Joint custody is always best for the child because everyone is doing their part for the sake of that child. A father’s participation beyond “court appointed visitation” is very important, and valuable to the child. The biggest hinderance I have seen is that the judges will rule against fathers, and there is definitely a double standard.”

He doesn’t have much dealings with the agencies in the area however they have helped fathers to come to his meetings. His advice to fathers seeking joint custody is to:

• Try to co-bond with child,(easier when mom is onboard). • Take care of himself,(spiritually, mentally, physically, financially). • Get in programs to better themselves • Don’t give up,or sign over rights, [you will still have to pay child support]. • Show responsibility; employment, housing, etc. • Don’t get behind in child support payment; no child support arrears.

The last person I interviewed in this area was Marcus Griggs, who is the Director of Fatherhood Services at “The Man In Me”. His motivation was having a well-adjusted dad, and see what not having one had done to youth, and men. He transitioned from working with youth to working with men. Also, he saw the “system” was not set-up for “families”, (which included fathers). He assists 30-40 men on an average.

He said, “All the men I deals with want to “father” their children. I feel that it is better for the children to have both parents, and even research has proven that there is damage to children due to a lack of fathers.”

He states the biggest hinderance to fathers is: • They are not a consideration • They have to“jump thru hoops” to qualify which is not done with mothers.

• Laws are not enforced with mothers.

His advice to fathers seeking custody is to: • Be prepared for an“intake”,which is required of fathers, only. • Get information - know what the requirements are before you go to one.

• Be employed, have a residence, etc. • Have a willingness to fight for their child(ren).

He also said there is a program called “NCP-Choices” which assist fathers with “back child support” however there may be a qualification that the fathers have a “good” relationship with the mother. He also receives referrals from Child Support Services.

I must say that I did note that each person stated some sort of “appeasing of the mother” as a prerequisite to any possibility of getting joint custody, and even a service. This speaks directly to the bias-ness of that system.

In my research I noted several situations, these included the:

Bias-ness of Judicial Systems in Texas, [and in most states]:

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get visitation.

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get joint custody, even when he is qualified.

There are NO rules, requirements, regulations, or qualifications for mothers

Unfairness of the “System”:

• If a woman births a baby, and is unable to take care of it, she gets free

“Government assistance/subsidies” in the form of:

• Medical Care • Food Stamps • Finances Aid

• Housing – Section 8 vouchers/certificate • Free, or Subsidized Daycare • Earned Income Credit on tax returns

However, if a father creates a baby, and he is unable to support it he gets:

• Excessive child support payments, and if he is unable to pay then:

-He loses his driver’s license -He is put in jail. -His income tax is garnisheed.

-He is stigmatized, and alienated from his child.

My question is, “Shouldn’t the one chosen to be the CUSTODIAL PARENT be the ONE who is most capable of, and the most responsible in caring for the child with the LEAST amount of assistance from the government”?

Then there is the case(s) of:

There are REQUIREMENTS which the fathers have to achieve, and which have to be PROVEN in order to have visitation, and/or to be “custodial” parent, when the mothers do not.

If mothers do not allow the fathers to see their child on the appointed days, the courts do not enforce his rights, or penalize her behavior. The father’s are sent to a different court for that.

Fathers are required to take “fathering classes/counseling” and to pay for them, while this is never required of the mother.

In my reviewing the “Standard Possession Order and Parenting Time” on the TXACCESS. ORG website I found the “visitation schedule” that is given to fathers, (yearly time given to spend with their child(ren)):

The schedule of time assigned to fathers in order to see their children are “every first and third weekend, every fifth weekend, 2 hours on Weds. or Thurs. each week”, every other holiday week, and 30 days in the summer. This amount to, (yearly-2020):

Regular Weekends = 48 days

Fifth Weekends = 8 days

Thursdays - 2 hours = 4.3 days

Alternate Hours

• Sub-Total is: 60.3 days a year

Holidays Weeks - alternate between odd/even years (additional 7 days when it is his year).

Summer Vacation - 30 days • Total of 90.3 to 97.3 days a year! That is not even 1/3 of the year!!!

As I began to look at the negative impact on fathers when the mothers are the “custodial parent” I realized something. As a mother of 4 adult children, and 18 grandchildren I realize that women learn how to be “good mothers” by being with their child(ren) on consistent, daily, hands-on basis. When fathers only have “visitation rights” that is minimal access. They do not get the opportunity to properly develop “fathering abilities”, to learn and grow with their child(ren), and/or to actually experience being a “father”. Also, if they aren’t as good at it as mom, then they are penalized for not being “good” at something they were not allowed to do by the court systems, and the mothers, who didn’t allow it.

Finally, there is another challenge to this...according to the US Department of Human Services/Child Protection Resources Online, mothers were more likely to abuse their children than fathers at a percentage of 70.6% vs 29.4%.

According to Allie Morris, of the San Antonio Express-News, it is reported that in 2018, 211 children had died from child abuse in Texas. It is also noted that in half of those deaths, CPS- Child Protection Services had been investigating the cases. If the statistics are true, (from CPS), then in most of those cases the mothers had custody. I have to wonder how many of those cases were because the children were allowed to remain with the mothers, instead of being given to the fathers.

Also, why are courts, and CPS, ignoring this information instead of making it a consideration when determining who would be in the “best interest of the child”?

As you can see, there is a need for legislation to be put in place not only to “protect” fathers from the bias-ness of what is already in place, but children as well. There needs to be a revision of the Judicial System on the behalf of fathers and their children for the future.

#child support #father's rights #children #family

1 note · View note

learrianie · 4 years

Text

What We Do in the Past, Echoes in the Future

Given the state of our country right now due to the unjust killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and so many others, it reminded me of a short essay I wrote about discrimination last year. It covers from the time of the Harlem Renaissance to 2020. How black people in America continue to face the same prejudice time and time again. This particular essay examines Claude McKay’s poem If We Must Die, Danez Smith’s piece dear white america, and Malcolm X’s speech The Ballot or the Bullet.

Not everyone can be at the protests and it can make you feel like you aren’t doing enough to help. If you’re like me, I constantly question “what can I do? how can I help? We can donate to the organizations, but if you can’t afford it, one of the most important things EVERY ONE can and should do is listen. Stay informed. Learn our history. Change the future.

I’ve included both poems and the speech. The Ballot or the Bullet is long, but I urge you all to read it or listen to it on youtube. It’s a difficult conversation to keep having, but we must keep speaking up for the victims of the systematic racism in this country and continue to fight for justice, by any means necessary.

What We Do in the Past, Echoes in the Future

By Arriana M. Williams

Literature and art have always been powerful tools for expressing and analyzing the human condition. We write as a way to leave something lasting and tangible for the next generation to, hopefully, improve upon society as a whole. When it comes to the marginalized communities of the world, specifically in our country, the role and value of literature becomes essential in understanding the plights and difficulties these people have faced in history and today. By reading the works created by these men and women, we gain a more intimate and personal insight into their struggles, aspirations, and their outlook of the world and their hopes of a brighter future. As cliché as that may sound, it was the ultimate goal of men like Martin Luther King Jr, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, and so many more. While these men followed in the footsteps of men like Claude McKay, who defined his perspective of racism in his poem “If We Must Die”, they also inspired those who came after them. Men like Danez Smith, who in his poem, “Dear White America”, addresses the typical perspectives white people have towards those of color in America. Although reading and writing is not a cure-all for discrimination or injustices in America, it is hard to deny that the old adage is true. That those who do not learn history, are doomed to repeat it.

Take for example Malcolm X’s speech, "The Ballot or the Bullet". Given as a response to congress deliberating about the Civil Rights Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and origin. This speech is considered to be one of his best as it clearly and sophisticatedly describes how people of color in America must demand equality regardless of economic class or political affiliation. His message was not aimed towards any specific group of black Americans, nor religious associations. Malcolm X was a very relatable figure in that, the way he spoke was how common people spoke. He was intelligent, but he was not a politician.

The tone of his speeches touched people because of how passionate he was, but also how he was just like us. A man who wanted a better life for himself and his people, a man who was genuine in his convictions. Some people consider him to have been a radical, because he believed that the disenfranchised should demand equality “by any means necessary”. His goal was to urge black people to use their votes as a way to progress their civil rights. To do this, he used some humor to connect to the masses. His use of Muhammad Ali as a metaphor in this speech may have been funny, stating that we should not be “singing” for freedom or treading lightly in this fight. But he goes on to say, “But you can swing up on some freedom. Cassius Clay can sing. But singing didn’t help him to become the heavyweight champion of the world. Swinging helped him” (Malcolm X 338). His tone grows from humorous to serious because he tries to exclaim that we must come to terms with when enough is enough. Malcolm X gave this speech in 1964, forty- five years after Claude McKay’s “If We Must Die”, but the message remains the same.

Malcolm X was trying to usher his people into a new world, a new way of thinking and living in America. Claude McKay was originally from Jamaica, but when he moved to the United States for higher education, he experienced racism first-hand which inspired him to begin writing poetry. His poem, “If We Must Die”, is written from the perspective of a black man speaking about fighting back when it comes to racism. The final line is the most powerful stating, “Like men we’ll face the murderous, cowardly pack/Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!” (McKay 139). The speaker says that their blood will not be shed in vain and this poem goes on to display themes of the frustrations and concerns with discrimination and with the state of the country. Written in 1919, this poem is yet another example of people of color no longer willing to take the horrendous treatment of them in America anymore. This is a pattern in the pieces of literature throughout the Harlem Renaissance, when the dynamics in the country were beginning to change, after slavery was abolished but before the civil rights movement began. Basically, black people were beginning to fight back against oppression, just like Malcolm X explained in his speech, even decades after McKay’s poem, that people of color must continue to fight back by any means necessary.

Perhaps to a layman on the subjects of racial experiences, maltreatment, or persecution, it would seem like things have improved when it comes to inequality in America. So why are we still reading about prejudice and racism? All of the men I mentioned, Martin Luther King Jr, Medgar Evers, and Malcolm X were assassinated in this country. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is still room for improvement. Even during the era of our first black president, men and women of color were still living in fear of many threats. In “Dear White America”, Smith uses metaphors for religion and the justice system in our country as examples of how people of color are often the ones left out of “God’s miracles”. He mentions the issue of mass incarceration of black men and says, “I’m sick of calling your recklessness the law” (315) which is a statement of the epidemic of police involved shootings of unarmed black people. Smith goes on to address the typical “white” perspectives towards people of color in America. Like the, “I just don’t see race” and “Why does it always have to be about race” (315).

The poem is written in a way that the speaker is acknowledging the problems with common, white opinions. That they do not understand the harm they cause, but the speaker is attempting to enlighten them from a person of color’s point of view. The piece progresses from just words that are detrimental and hurtful stereotypes, to the ongoing violence black/brown people must endure in this country. The tone of this poem, as in all of the other works, is angry, the speaker does not want to remain silent and in the ends tells the “white audience” that they will create a new world, one that cannot be stolen, sold, beaten, hanged, or shot and that, “this, if only this one, is ours” (315). It is discouraging that from 1919 to 2019 we are still analyzing these types of experiences in literature, because they continue to be relevant. Many people believe that living in a post- Obama America means racism is eradicated, but all it takes is to open a book, watch the news, or check social media to see that notion could not be further from the truth.

What all of these pieces have in common, are the ways in which literature and assembly of like- minded individuals can open up a space for those whose voices might not be heard otherwise. The written word is a medium unlike any other in the way that it can stand the test of time, to be passed down from generation to generation. While some subjects are incredibly depressing to endure, they remain extremely poignant time after time. With something as complicated as racial issues, we need literature to understand the speakers that came before us. To gain more awareness of how far we’ve come, and how much more we have to work on in this country. From Malcolm X, to the poets of today, the similarities far outweigh the differences in their experiences, which is both concerning and comforting in a way. It is unfortunate that people of color are still facing such ordeals today, but that fact that so many before them faced trials and tribulations, it goes to the strength and power they possessed in order to keep fighting. To keep fighting for equality and the advancement of the people.

If We Must Die

BY CLAUDE MCKAY

If we must die, let it not be like hogs Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot, While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs, Making their mock at our accursèd lot. If we must die, O let us nobly die, So that our precious blood may not be shed In vain; then even the monsters we defy Shall be constrained to honor us though dead! O kinsmen! we must meet the common foe! Though far outnumbered let us show us brave, And for their thousand blows deal one death-blow! What though before us lies the open grave? Like men we’ll face the murderous, cowardly pack, Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!

dear white america

BY DANEZ SMITH

i’ve left Earth in search of darker planets, a solar system revolving too near a black hole. i’ve left in search of a new God. i do not trust the God you have given us. my grandmother’s hallelujah is only outdone by the fear she nurses every time the blood-fat summer swallows another child who used to sing in the choir. take your God back. though his songs are beautiful, his miracles are inconsistent. i want the fate of Lazarus for Renisha, want Chucky, Bo, Meech, Trayvon, Sean & Jonylah risen three days after their entombing, their ghost re-gifted flesh & blood, their flesh & blood re-gifted their children. i’ve left Earth, i am equal parts sick of your go back to Africa & i just don’t see race. neither did the poplar tree. we did not build your boats (though we did leave a trail of kin to guide us home). we did not build your prisons (though we did & we fill them too). we did not ask to be part of your America (though are we not America? her joints brittle & dragging a ripped gown through Oakland?). i can’t stand your ground. i’m sick of calling your recklessness the law. each night, i count my brothers. & in the morning, when some do not survive to be counted, i count the holes they leave. i reach for black folks & touch only air. your master magic trick, America. now he’s breathing, now he don’t. abra-cadaver. white bread voodoo. sorcery you claim not to practice, hand my cousin a pistol to do your work. i tried, white people. i tried to love you, but you spent my brother’s funeral making plans for brunch, talking too loud next to his bones. you took one look at the river, plump with the body of boy after girl after sweet boi & ask why does it always have to be about race? because you made it that way! because you put an asterisk on my sister’s gorgeous face! call her pretty (for a black girl)! because black girls go missing without so much as a whisper of where?! because there are no amber alerts for amber-skinned girls! because Jordan boomed. because Emmett whistled. because Huey P. spoke. because Martin preached. because black boys can always be too loud to live. because it’s taken my papa’s & my grandma’s time, my father’s time, my mother’s time, my aunt’s time, my uncle’s time, my brother’s & my sister’s time . . . how much time do you want for your progress? i’ve left Earth to find a place where my kin can be safe, where black people ain’t but people the same color as the good, wet earth, until that means something, until then i bid you well, i bid you war, i bid you our lives to gamble with no more. i’ve left Earth & i am touching everything you beg your telescopes to show you. i’m giving the stars their right names. & this life, this new story & history you cannot steal or sell or cast overboard or hang or beat or drown or own or redline or shackle or silence or cheat or choke or cover up or jail or shoot or jail or shoot or jail or shoot or ruin

this, if only this one, is ours.

The Ballot or the Bullet

by Malcolm X April 3, 1964 Cleveland, Ohio

Mr. Moderator, Brother Lomax, brothers and sisters, friends and enemies: I just can't believe everyone in here is a friend, and I don't want to leave anybody out. The question tonight, as I understand it, is "The Negro Revolt, and Where Do We Go From Here?" or What Next?" In my little humble way of understanding it, it points toward either the ballot or the bullet.

Before we try and explain what is meant by the ballot or the bullet, I would like to clarify something concerning myself. I'm still a Muslim; my religion is still Islam. That's my personal belief. Just as Adam Clayton Powell is a Christian minister who heads the Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York, but at the same time takes part in the political struggles to try and bring about rights to the black people in this country; and Dr. Martin Luther King is a Christian minister down in Atlanta, Georgia, who heads another organization fighting for the civil rights of black people in this country; and Reverend Galamison, I guess you've heard of him, is another Christian minister in New York who has been deeply involved in the school boycotts to eliminate segregated education; well, I myself am a minister, not a Christian minister, but a Muslim minister; and I believe in action on all fronts by whatever means necessary.

Although I'm still a Muslim, I'm not here tonight to discuss my religion. I'm not here to try and change your religion. I'm not here to argue or discuss anything that we differ about, because it's time for us to submerge our differences and realize that it is best for us to first see that we have the same problem, a common problem, a problem that will make you catch hell whether you're a Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Muslim, or a nationalist. Whether you're educated or illiterate, whether you live on the boulevard or in the alley, you're going to catch hell just like I am. We're all in the same boat and we all are going to catch the same hell from the same man. He just happens to be a white man. All of us have suffered here, in this country, political oppression at the hands of the white man, economic exploitation at the hands of the white man, and social degradation at the hands of the white man.

Now in speaking like this, it doesn't mean that we're anti-white, but it does mean we're anti-exploitation, we're anti-degradation, we're anti-oppression. And if the white man doesn't want us to be anti-him, let him stop oppressing and exploiting and degrading us. Whether we are Christians or Muslims or nationalists or agnostics or atheists, we must first learn to forget our differences. If we have differences, let us differ in the closet; when we come out in front, let us not have anything to argue about until we get finished arguing with the man. If the late President Kennedy could get together with Khrushchev and exchange some wheat, we certainly have more in common with each other than Kennedy and Khrushchev had with each other.

If we don't do something real soon, I think you'll have to agree that we're going to be forced either to use the ballot or the bullet. It's one or the other in 1964. It isn't that time is running out -- time has run out!

1964 threatens to be the most explosive year America has ever witnessed. The most explosive year. Why? It's also a political year. It's the year when all of the white politicians will be back in the so-called Negro community jiving you and me for some votes. The year when all of the white political crooks will be right back in your and my community with their false promises, building up our hopes for a letdown, with their trickery and their treachery, with their false promises which they don't intend to keep. As they nourish these dissatisfactions, it can only lead to one thing, an explosion; and now we have the type of black man on the scene in America today -- I'm sorry, Brother Lomax -- who just doesn't intend to turn the other cheek any longer.

Don't let anybody tell you anything about the odds are against you. If they draft you, they send you to Korea and make you face 800 million Chinese. If you can be brave over there, you can be brave right here. These odds aren't as great as those odds. And if you fight here, you will at least know what you're fighting for.

I'm not a politician, not even a student of politics; in fact, I'm not a student of much of anything. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican, and I don't even consider myself an American. If you and I were Americans, there'd be no problem. Those Honkies that just got off the boat, they're already Americans; Polacks are already Americans; the Italian refugees are already Americans. Everything that came out of Europe, every blue-eyed thing, is already an American. And as long as you and I have been over here, we aren't Americans yet.

Well, I am one who doesn't believe in deluding myself. I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American. Why, if birth made you American, you wouldn't need any legislation; you wouldn't need any amendments to the Constitution; you wouldn't be faced with civil-rights filibustering in Washington, D.C., right now. They don't have to pass civil-rights legislation to make a Polack an American.

No, I'm not an American. I'm one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I'm not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver -- no, not I. I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.

These 22 million victims are waking up. Their eyes are coming open. They're beginning to see what they used to only look at. They're becoming politically mature. They are realizing that there are new political trends from coast to coast. As they see these new political trends, it's possible for them to see that every time there's an election the races are so close that they have to have a recount. They had to recount in Massachusetts to see who was going to be governor, it was so close. It was the same way in Rhode Island, in Minnesota, and in many other parts of the country. And the same with Kennedy and Nixon when they ran for president. It was so close they had to count all over again. Well, what does this mean? It means that when white people are evenly divided, and black people have a bloc of votes of their own, it is left up to them to determine who's going to sit in the White House and who's going to be in the dog house.

lt. was the black man's vote that put the present administration in Washington, D.C. Your vote, your dumb vote, your ignorant vote, your wasted vote put in an administration in Washington, D.C., that has seen fit to pass every kind of legislation imaginable, saving you until last, then filibustering on top of that. And your and my leaders have the audacity to run around clapping their hands and talk about how much progress we're making. And what a good president we have. If he wasn't good in Texas, he sure can't be good in Washington, D.C. Because Texas is a lynch state. It is in the same breath as Mississippi, no different; only they lynch you in Texas with a Texas accent and lynch you in Mississippi with a Mississippi accent. And these Negro leaders have the audacity to go and have some coffee in the White House with a Texan, a Southern cracker -- that's all he is -- and then come out and tell you and me that he's going to be better for us because, since he's from the South, he knows how to deal with the Southerners. What kind of logic is that? Let Eastland be president, he's from the South too. He should be better able to deal with them than Johnson.

In this present administration they have in the House of Representatives 257 Democrats to only 177 Republicans. They control two-thirds of the House vote. Why can't they pass something that will help you and me? In the Senate, there are 67 senators who are of the Democratic Party. Only 33 of them are Republicans. Why, the Democrats have got the government sewed up, and you're the one who sewed it up for them. And what have they given you for it? Four years in office, and just now getting around to some civil-rights legislation. Just now, after everything else is gone, out of the way, they're going to sit down now and play with you all summer long -- the same old giant con game that they call filibuster. All those are in cahoots together. Don't you ever think they're not in cahoots together, for the man that is heading the civil- rights filibuster is a man from Georgia named Richard Russell. When Johnson became president, the first man he asked for when he got back to Washington, D.C., was "Dicky" -- that's how tight they are. That's his boy, that's his pal, that's his buddy. But they're playing that old con game. One of them makes believe he's for you, and he's got it fixed where the other one is so tight against you, he never has to keep his promise.

So it's time in 1964 to wake up. And when you see them coming up with that kind of conspiracy, let them know your eyes are open. And let them know you -- something else that's wide open too. It's got to be the ballot or the bullet. The ballot or the bullet. If you're afraid to use an expression like that, you should get on out of the country; you should get back in the cotton patch; you should get back in the alley. They get all the Negro vote, and after they get it, the Negro gets nothing in return. All they did when they got to Washington was give a few big Negroes big jobs. Those big Negroes didn't need big jobs, they already had jobs. That's camouflage, that's trickery, that's treachery, window-dressing. I'm not trying to knock out the Democrats for the Republicans. We'll get to them in a minute. But it is true; you put the Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.

Look at it the way it is. What alibis do they use, since they control Congress and the Senate? What alibi do they use when you and I ask, "Well, when are you going to keep your promise?" They blame the Dixiecrats. What is a Dixiecrat? A Democrat. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat in disguise. The titular head of the Democrats is also the head of the Dixiecrats, because the Dixiecrats are a part of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have never kicked the Dixiecrats out of the party. The Dixiecrats bolted themselves once, but the Democrats didn't put them out. Imagine, these lowdown Southern segregationists put the Northern Democrats down. But the Northern Democrats have never put the Dixiecrats down. No, look at that thing the way it is. They have got a con game going on, a political con game, and you and I are in the middle. It's time for you and me to wake up and start looking at it like it is, and trying to understand it like it is; and then we can deal with it like it is.

The Dixiecrats in Washington, D.C., control the key committees that run the government. The only reason the Dixiecrats control these committees is because they have seniority. The only reason they have seniority is because they come from states where Negroes can't vote. This is not even a government that's based on democracy. lt. is not a government that is made up of representatives of the people. Half of the people in the South can't even vote. Eastland is not even supposed to be in Washington. Half of the senators and congressmen who occupy these key positions in Washington, D.C., are there illegally, are there unconstitutionally.

I was in Washington, D.C., a week ago Thursday, when they were debating whether or not they should let the bill come onto the floor. And in the back of the room where the Senate meets, there's a huge map of the United States, and on that map it shows the location of Negroes throughout the country. And it shows that the Southern section of the country, the states that are most heavily concentrated with Negroes, are the ones that have senators and congressmen standing up filibustering and doing all other kinds of trickery to keep the Negro from being able to vote. This is pitiful. But it's not pitiful for us any longer; it's actually pitiful for the white man, because soon now, as the Negro awakens a little more and sees the vise that he's in, sees the bag that he's in, sees the real game that he's in, then the Negro's going to develop a new tactic.

These senators and congressmen actually violate the constitutional amendments that guarantee the people of that particular state or county the right to vote. And the Constitution itself has within it the machinery to expel any representative from a state where the voting rights of the people are violated. You don't even need new legislation. Any person in Congress right now, who is there from a state or a district where the voting rights of the people are violated, that particular person should be expelled from Congress. And when you expel him, you've removed one of the obstacles in the path of any real meaningful legislation in this country. In fact, when you expel them, you don't need new legislation, because they will be replaced by black representatives from counties and districts where the black man is in the majority, not in the minority.

If the black man in these Southern states had his full voting rights, the key Dixiecrats in Washington, D. C., which means the key Democrats in Washington, D.C., would lose their seats. The Democratic Party itself would lose its power. It would cease to be powerful as a party. When you see the amount of power that would be lost by the Democratic Party if it were to lose the Dixiecrat wing, or branch, or element, you can see where it's against the interests of the Democrats to give voting rights to Negroes in states where the Democrats have been in complete power and authority ever since the Civil War. You just can't belong to that Party without analyzing it.

I say again, I'm not anti-Democrat, I'm not anti-Republican, I'm not anti-anything. I'm just questioning their sincerity, and some of the strategy that they've been using on our people by promising them promises that they don't intend to keep. When you keep the Democrats in power, you're keeping the Dixiecrats in power. I doubt that my good Brother Lomax will deny that. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for a Dixiecrat. That's why, in 1964, it's time now for you and me to become more politically mature and realize what the ballot is for; what we're supposed to get when we cast a ballot; and that if we don't cast a ballot, it's going to end up in a situation where we're going to have to cast a bullet. It's either a ballot or a bullet.

In the North, they do it a different way. They have a system that's known as gerrymandering, whatever that means. It means when Negroes become too heavily concentrated in a certain area, and begin to gain too much political power, the white man comes along and changes the district lines. You may say, "Why do you keep saying white man?" Because it's the white man who does it. I haven't ever seen any Negro changing any lines. They don't let him get near the line. It's the white man who does this. And usually, it's the white man who grins at you the most, and pats you on the back, and is supposed to be your friend. He may be friendly, but he's not your friend.

So, what I'm trying to impress upon you, in essence, is this: You and I in America are faced not with a segregationist conspiracy, we're faced with a government conspiracy. Everyone who's filibustering is a senator -- that's the government. Everyone who's finagling in Washington, D.C., is a congressman -- that's the government. You don't have anybody putting blocks in your path but people who are a part of the government. The same government that you go abroad to fight for and die for is the government that is in a conspiracy to deprive you of your voting rights, deprive you of your economic opportunities, deprive you of decent housing, deprive you of decent education. You don't need to go to the employer alone, it is the government itself, the government of America, that is responsible for the oppression and exploitation and degradation of black people in this country. And you should drop it in their lap. This government has failed the Negro. This so-called democracy has failed the Negro. And all these white liberals have definitely failed the Negro.

So, where do we go from here? First, we need some friends. We need some new allies. The entire civil-rights struggle needs a new interpretation, a broader interpretation. We need to look at this civil-rights thing from another angle -- from the inside as well as from the outside. To those of us whose philosophy is black nationalism, the only way you can get involved in the civil-rights struggle is give it a new interpretation. That old interpretation excluded us. It kept us out. So, we're giving a new interpretation to the civil-rights struggle, an interpretation that will enable us to come into it, take part in it. And these handkerchief-heads who have been dillydallying and pussy footing and compromising -- we don't intend to let them pussyfoot and dillydally and compromise any longer.

How can you thank a man for giving you what's already yours? How then can you thank him for giving you only part of what's already yours? You haven't even made progress, if what's being given to you, you should have had already. That's not progress. And I love my Brother Lomax, the way he pointed out we're right back where we were in 1954. We're not even as far up as we were in 1954. We're behind where we were in 1954. There's more segregation now than there was in 1954. There's more racial animosity, more racial hatred, more racial violence today in 1964, than there was in 1954. Where is the progress?

And now you're facing a situation where the young Negro's coming up. They don't want to hear that "turn the-other-cheek" stuff, no. In Jacksonville, those were teenagers, they were throwing Molotov cocktails. Negroes have never done that before. But it shows you there's a new deal coming in. There's new thinking coming in. There's new strategy coming in. It'll be Molotov cocktails this month, hand grenades next month, and something else next month. It'll be ballots, or it'll be bullets. It'll be liberty, or it will be death. The only difference about this kind of death -- it'll be reciprocal. You know what is meant by "reciprocal"? That's one of Brother Lomax's words. I stole it from him. I don't usually deal with those big words because I don't usually deal with big people. I deal with small people. I find you can get a whole lot of small people and whip hell out of a whole lot of big people. They haven't got anything to lose, and they've got every thing to gain. And they'll let you know in a minute: "It takes two to tango; when I go, you go."

The black nationalists, those whose philosophy is black nationalism, in bringing about this new interpretation of the entire meaning of civil rights, look upon it as meaning, as Brother Lomax has pointed out, equality of opportunity. Well, we're justified in seeking civil rights, if it means equality of opportunity, because all we're doing there is trying to collect for our investment. Our mothers and fathers invested sweat and blood. Three hundred and ten years we worked in this country without a dime in return -- I mean without a dime in return. You let the white man walk around here talking about how rich this country is, but you never stop to think how it got rich so quick. It got rich because you made it rich.

You take the people who are in this audience right now. They're poor. We're all poor as individuals. Our weekly salary individually amounts to hardly anything. But if you take the salary of everyone in here collectively, it'll fill up a whole lot of baskets. It's a lot of wealth. If you can collect the wages of just these people right here for a year, you'll be rich -- richer than rich. When you look at it like that, think how rich Uncle Sam had to become, not with this handful, but millions of black people. Your and my mother and father, who didn't work an eight-hour shift, but worked from "can't see" in the morning until "can't see" at night, and worked for nothing, making the white man rich, making Uncle Sam rich. This is our investment. This is our contribution, our blood.

Not only did we give of our free labor, we gave of our blood. Every time he had a call to arms, we were the first ones in uniform. We died on every battlefield the white man had. We have made a greater sacrifice than anybody who's standing up in America today. We have made a greater contribution and have collected less. Civil rights, for those of us whose philosophy is black nationalism, means: "Give it to us now. Don't wait for next year. Give it to us yesterday, and that's not fast enough."

I might stop right here to point out one thing. Whenever you're going after something that belongs to you, anyone who's depriving you of the right to have it is a criminal.

Understand that. Whenever you are going after something that is yours, you are within your legal rights to lay claim to it. And anyone who puts forth any effort to deprive you of that which is yours, is breaking the law, is a criminal. And this was pointed out by the Supreme Court decision. It outlawed segregation.

Which means segregation is against the law. Which means a segregationist is breaking the law. A segregationist is a criminal. You can't label him as anything other than that. And when you demonstrate against segregation, the law is on your side. The Supreme Court is on your side.

Now, who is it that opposes you in carrying out the law? The police department itself. With police dogs and clubs. Whenever you demonstrate against segregation, whether it is segregated education, segregated housing, or anything else, the law is on your side, and anyone who stands in the way is not the law any longer. They are breaking the law; they are not representatives of the law. Any time you demonstrate against segregation and a man has the audacity to put a police dog on you, kill that dog, kill him, I'm telling you, kill that dog. I say it, if they put me in jail tomorrow, kill that dog. Then you'll put a stop to it. Now, if these white people in here don't want to see that kind of action, get down and tell the mayor to tell the police department to pull the dogs in. That's all you have to do. If you don't do it, someone else will.

If you don't take this kind of stand, your little children will grow up and look at you and think "shame." If you don't take an uncompromising stand, I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do. And that's the way every Negro should get. Any time you know you're within the law, within your legal rights, within your moral rights, in accord with justice, then die for what you believe in. But don't die alone. Let your dying be reciprocal. This is what is meant by equality. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

When we begin to get in this area, we need new friends, we need new allies. We need to expand the civil-rights struggle to a higher level -- to the level of human rights. Whenever you are in a civil-rights struggle, whether you know it or not, you are confining yourself to the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam. No one from the outside world can speak out in your behalf as long as your struggle is a civil-rights struggle. Civil rights comes within the domestic affairs of this country. All of our African brothers and our Asian brothers and our Latin-American brothers cannot open their mouths and interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States. And as long as it's civil rights, this comes under the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam.

But the United Nations has what's known as the charter of human rights; it has a committee that deals in human rights. You may wonder why all of the atrocities that have been committed in Africa and in Hungary and in Asia, and in Latin America are brought before the UN, and the Negro problem is never brought before the UN. This is part of the conspiracy. This old, tricky blue eyed liberal who is supposed to be your and my friend, supposed to be in our corner, supposed to be subsidizing our struggle, and supposed to be acting in the capacity of an adviser, never tells you anything about human rights. They keep you wrapped up in civil rights. And you spend so much time barking up the civil-rights tree, you don't even know there's a human-rights tree on the same floor.

When you expand the civil-rights struggle to the level of human rights, you can then take the case of the black man in this country before the nations in the UN. You can take it before the General Assembly. You can take Uncle Sam before a world court. But the only level you can do it on is the level of human rights. Civil rights keeps you under his restrictions, under his jurisdiction. Civil rights keeps you in his pocket. Civil rights means you're asking Uncle Sam to treat you right. Human rights are something you were born with. Human rights are your God-given rights. Human rights are the rights that are recognized by all nations of this earth. And any time any one violates your human rights, you can take them to the world court.

Uncle Sam's hands are dripping with blood, dripping with the blood of the black man in this country. He's the earth's number-one hypocrite. He has the audacity -- yes, he has -- imagine him posing as the leader of the free world. The free world! And you over here singing "We Shall Overcome." Expand the civil-rights struggle to the level of human rights. Take it into the United Nations, where our African brothers can throw their weight on our side, where our Asian brothers can throw their weight on our side, where our Latin-American brothers can throw their weight on our side, and where 800 million Chinamen are sitting there waiting to throw their weight on our side.

Let the world know how bloody his hands are. Let the world know the hypocrisy that's practiced over here. Let it be the ballot or the bullet. Let him know that it must be the ballot or the bullet.

When you take your case to Washington, D.C., you're taking it to the criminal who's responsible; it's like running from the wolf to the fox. They're all in cahoots together. They all work political chicanery and make you look like a chump before the eyes of the world. Here you are walking around in America, getting ready to be drafted and sent abroad, like a tin soldier, and when you get over there, people ask you what are you fighting for, and you have to stick your tongue in your cheek. No, take Uncle Sam to court, take him before the world.

By ballot I only mean freedom. Don't you know -- I disagree with Lomax on this issue -- that the ballot is more important than the dollar? Can I prove it? Yes. Look in the UN. There are poor nations in the UN; yet those poor nations can get together with their voting power and keep the rich nations from making a move. They have one nation -- one vote, everyone has an equal vote. And when those brothers from Asia, and Africa and the darker parts of this earth get together, their voting power is sufficient to hold Sam in check. Or Russia in check. Or some other section of the earth in check. So, the ballot is most important.

Right now, in this country, if you and I, 22 million African-Americans -- that's what we are -- Africans who are in America. You're nothing but Africans. Nothing but Africans. In fact, you'd get farther calling yourself African instead of Negro. Africans don't catch hell. You're the only one catching hell. They don't have to pass civil-rights bills for Africans. An African can go anywhere he wants right now. All you've got to do is tie your head up. That's right, go anywhere you want. Just stop being a Negro. Change your name to Hoogagagooba. That'll show you how silly the white man is. You're dealing with a silly man. A friend of mine who's very dark put a turban on his head and went into a restaurant in Atlanta before they called themselves desegregated. He went into a white restaurant, he sat down, they served him, and he said, "What would happen if a Negro came in here? And there he's sitting, black as night, but because he had his head wrapped up the waitress looked back at him and says, "Why, there wouldn't no nigger dare come in here."

So, you're dealing with a man whose bias and prejudice are making him lose his mind, his intelligence, every day. He's frightened. He looks around and sees what's taking place on this earth, and he sees that the pendulum of time is swinging in your direction. The dark people are waking up. They're losing their fear of the white man. No place where he's fighting right now is he winning. Everywhere he's fighting, he's fighting someone your and my complexion. And they're beating him. He can't win any more. He's won his last battle. He failed to win the Korean War. He couldn't win it. He had to sign a truce. That's a loss.

Any time Uncle Sam, with all his machinery for warfare, is held to a draw by some rice eaters, he's lost the battle. He had to sign a truce. America's not supposed to sign a truce. She's supposed to be bad. But she's not bad any more. She's bad as long as she can use her hydrogen bomb, but she can't use hers for fear Russia might use hers. Russia can't use hers, for fear that Sam might use his. So, both of them are weapon- less. They can't use the weapon because each's weapon nullifies the other's. So the only place where action can take place is on the ground. And the white man can't win another war fighting on the ground. Those days are over The black man knows it, the brown man knows it, the red man knows it, and the yellow man knows it. So they engage him in guerrilla warfare. That's not his style. You've got to have heart to be a guerrilla warrior, and he hasn't got any heart. I'm telling you now.

I just want to give you a little briefing on guerrilla warfare because, before you know it, before you know it. It takes heart to be a guerrilla warrior because you're on your own. In conventional warfare you have tanks and a whole lot of other people with you to back you up -- planes over your head and all that kind of stuff. But a guerrilla is on his own. All you have is a rifle, some sneakers and a bowl of rice, and that's all you need -- and a lot of heart. The Japanese on some of those islands in the Pacific, when the American soldiers landed, one Japanese sometimes could hold the whole army off. He'd just wait until the sun went down, and when the sun went down they were all equal. He would take his little blade and slip from bush to bush, and from American to American. The white soldiers couldn't cope with that. Whenever you see a white soldier that fought in the Pacific, he has the shakes, he has a nervous condition, because they scared him to death.

The same thing happened to the French up in French Indochina. People who just a few years previously were rice farmers got together and ran the heavily-mechanized French army out of Indochina. You don't need it -- modern warfare today won't work. This is the day of the guerrilla. They did the same thing in Algeria. Algerians, who were nothing but Bedouins, took a rine and sneaked off to the hills, and de Gaulle and all of his highfalutin' war machinery couldn't defeat those guerrillas. Nowhere on this earth does the white man win in a guerrilla warfare. It's not his speed. Just as guerrilla warfare is prevailing in Asia and in parts of Africa and in parts of Latin America, you've got to be mighty naive, or you've got to play the black man cheap, if you don't think some day he's going to wake up and find that it's got to be the ballot or the bullet.

l would like to say, in closing, a few things concerning the Muslim Mosque, Inc., which we established recently in New York City. It's true we're Muslims and our religion is Islam, but we don't mix our religion with our politics and our economics and our social and civil activities -- not any more We keep our religion in our mosque. After our religious services are over, then as Muslims we become involved in political action, economic action and social and civic action. We become involved with anybody, any where, any time and in any manner that's designed to eliminate the evils, the political, economic and social evils that are afflicting the people of our community.

The political philosophy of black nationalism means that the black man should control the politics and the politicians in his own community; no more. The black man in the black community has to be re-educated into the science of politics so he will know what politics is supposed to bring him in return. Don't be throwing out any ballots. A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.

The political philosophy of black nationalism is being taught in the Christian church. It's being taught in the NAACP. It's being taught in CORE meetings. It's being taught in SNCC Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee meetings. It's being taught in Muslim meetings. It's being taught where nothing but atheists and agnostics come together. It's being taught everywhere. Black people are fed up with the dillydallying, pussyfooting, compromising approach that we've been using toward getting our freedom. We want freedom now, but we're not going to get it saying "We Shall Overcome." We've got to fight until we overcome.

The economic philosophy of black nationalism is pure and simple. It only means that we should control the economy of our community. Why should white people be running all the stores in our community? Why should white people be running the banks of our community? Why should the economy of our community be in the hands of the white man? Why? If a black man can't move his store into a white community, you tell me why a white man should move his store into a black community. The philosophy of black nationalism involves a re-education program in the black community in regards to economics. Our people have to be made to see that any time you take your dollar out of your community and spend it in a community where you don't live, the community where you live will get poorer and poorer, and the community where you spend your money will get richer and richer.

Then you wonder why where you live is always a ghetto or a slum area. And where you and I are concerned, not only do we lose it when we spend it out of the community, but the white man has got all our stores in the community tied up; so that though we spend it in the community, at sundown the man who runs the store takes it over across town somewhere. He's got us in a vise. So the economic philosophy of black nationalism means in every church, in every civic organization, in every fraternal order, it's time now for our people to be come conscious of the importance of controlling the economy of our community. If we own the stores, if we operate the businesses, if we try and establish some industry in our own community, then we're developing to the position where we are creating employment for our own kind. Once you gain control of the economy of your own community, then you don't have to picket and boycott and beg some cracker downtown for a job in his business.

The social philosophy of black nationalism only means that we have to get together and remove the evils, the vices, alcoholism, drug addiction, and other evils that are destroying the moral fiber of our community. We our selves have to lift the level of our community, the standard of our community to a higher level, make our own society beautiful so that we will be satisfied in our own social circles and won't be running around here trying to knock our way into a social circle where we're not wanted. So I say, in spreading a gospel such as black nationalism, it is not designed to make the black man re-evaluate the white man -- you know him already -- but to make the black man re-evaluate himself. Don't change the white man's mind -- you can't change his mind, and that whole thing about appealing to the moral conscience of America -- America's conscience is bankrupt. She lost all conscience a long time ago. Uncle Sam has no conscience.

They don't know what morals are. They don't try and eliminate an evil because it's evil, or because it's illegal, or because it's immoral; they eliminate it only when it threatens their existence. So you're wasting your time appealing to the moral conscience of a bankrupt man like Uncle Sam. If he had a conscience, he'd straighten this thing out with no more pressure being put upon him. So it is not necessary to change the white man's mind. We have to change our own mind. You can't change his mind about us. We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth so we can develop unity and harmony that's necessary to get this problem solved ourselves. How can we do this? How can we avoid jealousy? How can we avoid the suspicion and the divisions that exist in the community? I'll tell you how.

I have watched how Billy Graham comes into a city, spreading what he calls the gospel of Christ, which is only white nationalism. That's what he is. Billy Graham is a white nationalist; I'm a black nationalist. But since it's the natural tendency for leaders to be jealous and look upon a powerful figure like Graham with suspicion and envy, how is it possible for him to come into a city and get all the cooperation of the church leaders? Don't think because they're church leaders that they don't have weaknesses that make them envious and jealous -- no, everybody's got it. It's not an accident that when they want to choose a cardinal, as Pope I over there in Rome, they get in a closet so you can't hear them cussing and fighting and carrying on.

Billy Graham comes in preaching the gospel of Christ. He evangelizes the gospel. He stirs everybody up, but he never tries to start a church. If he came in trying to start a church, all the churches would be against him. So, he just comes in talking about Christ and tells everybody who gets Christ to go to any church where Christ is; and in this way the church cooperates with him. So we're going to take a page from his book.

Our gospel is black nationalism. We're not trying to threaten the existence of any organization, but we're spreading the gospel of black nationalism. Anywhere there's a church that is also preaching and practicing the gospel of black nationalism, join that church. If the NAACP is preaching and practicing the gospel of black nationalism, join the NAACP. If CORE is spreading and practicing the gospel of black nationalism, join CORE. Join any organization that has a gospel that's for the uplift of the black man. And when you get into it and see them pussyfooting or compromising, pull out of it because that's not black nationalism. We'll find another one.

And in this manner, the organizations will increase in number and in quantity and in quality, and by August, it is then our intention to have a black nationalist convention which will consist of delegates from all over the country who are interested in the political, economic and social philosophy of black nationalism. After these delegates convene, we will hold a seminar; we will hold discussions; we will listen to everyone. We want to hear new ideas and new solutions and new answers. And at that time, if we see fit then to form a black nationalist party, we'll form a black nationalist party. If it's necessary to form a black nationalist army, we'll form a black nationalist army. It'll be the ballot or the bullet. It'll be liberty or it'll be death.

It's time for you and me to stop sitting in this country, letting some cracker senators, Northern crackers and Southern crackers, sit there in Washington, D.C., and come to a conclusion in their mind that you and I are supposed to have civil rights. There's no white man going to tell me anything about my rights. Brothers and sisters, always remember, if it doesn't take senators and congressmen and presidential proclamations to give freedom to the white man, it is not necessary for legislation or proclamation or Supreme Court decisions to give freedom to the black man. You let that white man know, if this is a country of freedom, let it be a country of freedom; and if it's not a country of freedom, change it.

We will work with anybody, anywhere, at any time, who is genuinely interested in tackling the problem head-on, nonviolently as long as the enemy is nonviolent, but violent when the enemy gets violent. We'll work with you on the voter-registration drive, we'll work with you on rent strikes, we'll work with you on school boycotts; I don't believe in any kind of integration; I'm not even worried about it, because I know you're not going to get it anyway; you're not going to get it because you're afraid to die; you've got to be ready to die if you try and force yourself on the white man, because he'll get just as violent as those crackers in Mississippi, right here in Cleveland. But we will still work with you on the school boycotts be cause we're against a segregated school system. A segregated school system produces children who, when they graduate, graduate with crippled minds. But this does not mean that a school is segregated because it's all black. A segregated school means a school that is controlled by people who have no real interest in it whatsoever.

Let me explain what I mean. A segregated district or community is a community in which people live, but outsiders control the politics and the economy of that community. They never refer to the white section as a segregated community. It's the all-Negro section that's a segregated community. Why? The white man controls his own school, his own bank, his own economy, his own politics, his own everything, his own community; but he also controls yours. When you're under someone else's control, you're segregated. They'll always give you the lowest or the worst that there is to offer, but it doesn't mean you're segregated just because you have your own. You've got to control your own. Just like the white man has control of his, you need to control yours.

You know the best way to get rid of segregation? The white man is more afraid of separation than he is of integration. Segregation means that he puts you away from him, but not far enough for you to be out of his jurisdiction; separation means you're gone. And the white man will integrate faster than he'll let you separate. So we will work with you against the segregated school system because it's criminal, because it is absolutely destructive, in every way imaginable, to the minds of the children who have to be exposed to that type of crippling education.

Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing that I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you'd be within your rights -- I mean, you'd be justified; but that would be illegal and we don't do anything illegal. If the white man doesn't want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job.

That's all. And don't let the white man come to you and ask you what you think about what Malcolm says -- why, you old Uncle Tom. He would never ask you if he thought you were going to say, "Amen!" No, he is making a Tom out of you." So, this doesn't mean forming rifle clubs and going out looking for people, but it is time, in 1964, if you are a man, to let that man know. If he's not going to do his job in running the government and providing you and me with the protection that our taxes are supposed to be for, since he spends all those billions for his defense budget, he certainly can't begrudge you and me spending $12 or $15 for a single-shot, or double-action. I hope you understand. Don't go out shooting people, but any time -- brothers and sisters, and especially the men in this audience; some of you wearing Congressional Medals of Honor, with shoulders this wide, chests this big, muscles that big -- any time you and I sit around and read where they bomb a church and murder in cold blood, not some grownups, but four little girls while they were praying to the same God the white man taught them to pray to, and you and I see the government go down and can't find who did it.

Why, this man -- he can find Eichmann hiding down in Argentina somewhere. Let two or three American soldiers, who are minding somebody else's business way over in South Vietnam, get killed, and he'll send battleships, sticking his nose in their business. He wanted to send troops down to Cuba and make them have what he calls free elections -- this old cracker who doesn't have free elections in his own country.

No, if you never see me another time in your life, if I die in the morning, I'll die saying one thing: the ballot or the bullet, the ballot or the bullet.

If a Negro in 1964 has to sit around and wait for some cracker senator to filibuster when it comes to the rights of black people, why, you and I should hang our heads in shame. You talk about a march on Washington in 1963, you haven't seen anything. There's some more going down in '64.

And this time they're not going like they went last year. They're not going singing ''We Shall Overcome." They're not going with white friends. They're not going with placards already painted for them. They're not going with round-trip tickets. They're going with one way tickets. And if they don't want that non-nonviolent army going down there, tell them to bring the filibuster to a halt.

The black nationalists aren't going to wait. Lyndon B. Johnson is the head of the Democratic Party. If he's for civil rights, let him go into the Senate next week and declare himself. Let him go in there right now and declare himself. Let him go in there and denounce the Southern branch of his party. Let him go in there right now and take a moral stand -- right now, not later. Tell him, don't wait until election time. If he waits too long, brothers and sisters, he will be responsible for letting a condition develop in this country which will create a climate that will bring seeds up out of the ground with vegetation on the end of them looking like something these people never dreamed of. In 1964, it's the ballot or the bullet.

Thank you.

#george floyd #ahmaudaubrey #justiceforahmaud #protest #malcolmx #georgefloyd #black lives matter #i cant breathe

34 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 4 years

Quote

Condemning Nazis is a given. But the other question remains: were the many ordinary Germans, insulted by Weimar decadence and hypocrisy, right about lending Nazis (really a whole bunch of right-wing and sometimes left-wing movements, which only later were pruned into Hitler-approved shape) their silent or vocal approval for dismantling Weimar status quo in early 30s? Very few could foresee the sheer scope and violence of things to come, but everyone could make a judgement about elites active at the moment, and notice their smug enjoyment of effective cultural monopoly, and complete unwillingness to cede ground. It's not just that open malice is more attractive to onlookers than insincere, duplicitous one: it's that you feel liberated when refusing to play by the rules your enemy has forced on you, shaking off the rhetorical framing and win-lose-foul conditions. This is most easily understood by people who were bullied as children. Bullies are, contrary to the way normies imagine it, extraordinarily good at not being openly violent; the most talented ones avoid even straighforward verbal abuse, goading others and provoking the victim with clever, biting mockery and concern-trolling advice instead. To an intelligent onlooker, the nature of the act is obvious, but it can get exasperating thinking of how to intervene legitimately, so most don't think. When the despairing victim stops pleading and negotiating and lifts his fist, it's used against him, complained about to the authorities; but it's an act of refusing to justify your appeals to a hopelessly hostile interlocutor, and thus a release from mental prison. It's no wonder school losers are associated in public consciousness with school shooters, and incels, and right-wing extremists, and white supremacists, and Nazis. The problem is, it's not a relatively minor issue of class animus (or class bullying). In modern America, liberals easily brush off every notion of their actions being in any way harmful, and even here we mainly discuss tolerable and sometimes rather abstract problems: censorship of inherently inflammatory beliefs, effective one-party control of mechanisms of social networking, ineffective solutions to social injustices, economic damage, exacerbation of tribalism. But elites like these create a rather suffocating atmosphere. However much we ridicule Alex Jones, he expresses a sentiment far more common than can be admitted in a polite society: that the elites are "Satanic", "parasitic" and actively anti-life in general, to the extent irreconcilable with long-term survival of the group ("...And destroy the great birth right that you are given As builders of this world And builders of countless more to come"). Maybe his target audience really is the 21st century's equivalent of cartoonish superstitious peasants with pitchforks. But from elite's viewpoint, aren't they even less than that, some sort of unattractive local fauna, pests you've formally got to tolerate while developing your industry? As Tucker Carlson allegedly said: "if I could tell working Americans one thing, it's that your elites hate you. I used to hobnob with these people. They hate you, they hate your work, they hate your families, they hate your religion, they hate your way of life." Tucker is playing to his audience, too. And they want to hear what they already feel. Man is a strange creature, a mix of robust and fragile parts. He can live in a pod and eat bugs, grow up inhaling lead and still work for 60 years straight. But stress him out with evidence of inferiority and his cardiovascular system falters, his hormone levels out of whack; put him in a buzzing city and his reproductive ability is drastically reduced; surround him with revolting art and neurosis-inducing propaganda and ugly modernist architecture and he feels that the world is a bleak dystopia despite unprecedented, if a little distasteful, material prosperity in every bite of HFCS-filled junk food. Make him feel unwelcome, at the brink of exile from community, gaslight him into doubting his sanity -- and he'll either break down, eventually dying of despair, or rebel against this increasingly hostile, censorious, alien hellscape and its apparent masters (or, at least, those who seem to revel in his suffering). You can shut down every avenue of legitimate public expression for him, taboo the very words he could use to express his yearnings; but he'll connect the dots on his own, and chances are, he'll do so in the most destructive and misguided way possible. Peter Turchin has this neat idea about elite overproduction as the mechanism of civilizational collapse. Despite the fact that "elite" status is kind of relative by definition, it is possible to make a plurality, if not the majority, of people imbued with the sense of their "eliteness" and all associated values. I wonder if this has something to do with the degree creep in the US and ideological capture of scientific institutions; with the way the noun "elites" is so often accompanied by adjective "educated"; with the enforced cult of credibility and the way mediocre liberals are invested in this image of science-loving erudites who talk in a patronising fashion to the uncouth masses. Then, with a bit of clever coalition-building and immigration policy, it's possible to not only disorganize and shout down the plebs, but also outnumber them; or so the plan goes. It might work; it might fail. If there's no such plan at all, that's a tragedy in and of itself, because it will still be resisted. To answer the question in first paragraph: I suppose ordinary Germans were wrong to support Nazis and their associates even in the early 30s. But Weimar elites were very, very wrong to not share with the common man, both financially and culturally. They could have done everyone a service by toning their hostility down a notch or two. Alas.

Ilforte

#quote #long quote #reddit #the motte #links in quote

1 note · View note

twitchesandstitches · 5 years

Note

Can you tell us about the Thalmor and general Elven supremacists in the CT-verse?

the Thalmor, much like their canon counterparts, are the militant wing of an elven government (possibly CT’s equlivalnt to the Admeri Dominion/Summerset Isle, though spread throughout elven populations and with sympatheizers where elves are oppressed, such as in the CT-versions of Orlais and Tevinter from Dragon Age) that started out as a religious movement.

unlike in canon, where the elven view of things is most likely objectively correct, the Aldmeri idea that all mortals were once immaterial spirits living freely is specifically a religious idea. It’s not factually true (though it is possible); elven religion simply has it as a common notion, though it is less popular an idea among elves who follow the Arda pantheon (that is, the religious practices from Lord of The Rings), whom have more materialist ideas. But the point is that the Thalmor started as a religious movement, with racial overtones.

This expanded over time, and now their overall goal is to unmake the Prime Material Planes for much the same reasons as in canon; they believe that physical existence is, itself, a crime to elves and only by destroying it will they be freed. The deaths of all non-elves are a bonus, as far as its most militant members are concerned.

On a more practical level, most of the Thalmor are not so spiritually minded, and believe that elves are the logical rulers of all existence. It’s born out of the same mentality as the Imperial Commonwealth, though based more in elven superiority rather than baseline human notions. They are akin to humans but better (so they say), they are faster, more agile, just as strong despite their lighter frames, and magic flows far more strongly in them than it ordinarily would with humans. Not only does this mean that elves are typically much larger than humans (12 feet is not unusual for them), but they can be STRONGER than other human variants. The Thalmor, in turn, believe that they are the natural superiors of all beings, and intend to conquer all life, through duplicity or through armed conflict.

The Thalmor are, as a group, generally derived from High Elf/aldmeri stock, you can think of them as the high/golden elf analogue to the drow, as they have very similar ideals and intentions, as well as being absolute bastards, though they have no particular issue with technology.

They do have a particular hatred for the Elemental Planes, the powers that flow from it, and its denizens. Frost giants, elemental dragons, and other such entities are hated by them, due to the Elemental Planes being considered to be the realms of substance; the material realm derives its nature from those planes, so it exists because of them. Therefore the Thalmor pointed at the giants and elementals and yell ‘THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT’.

Elven supremacist groups are, tragically, not unheard of. This is something of a play on the fiction tendency to write elves as acting as though they are better than everyone else. It provides the dark eldar all the reason they require to pillage and ravage worlds, and other elf groups of this nature intend to establish absolute dominion over all reality.

Note, however, that these attitudes are NOT universal among the eldar folk! It’s strongly disliked among the majority of elves, much like how the average human detests the Imperial Commonwealth; the various elf factions adapted from Warcraft detest the elven supremacists, regardless of origin, and the Exodite Eldar analogues really don’t like them. Of particular note, the Imladris elves (the oldest and most respected elven land, largely inhabited by High/Wood Elves and is essentially Rivendell In Space) take the existence of the thalmor and those like them as a personal affront, and work tirelessly to right their wrongs and defend others from their evils. Lady Arwen, the queen of the elves, is particularly vociferous about it, and has struck alliances with many others to confront them directly.

There are, however, sympathetic elven groups who have been harshly oppressed by corrupt humans and other beings; these are inspired by the elves of Dragon Age, and are led by a trickster god incarnated into an elven form. They have no association with the thalmor, but have similar endgame goals; they have been so constantly persecuted, oppressed and tormented at every turn that they have little love for anyone who is not an elf, as in their experience trusting a round ear (or no-ear) means you are already dead. They view themselves lashing out to destroy the multiverse as an act of cosmic self-defense, and feel that they have no alternative. Their particular goal is to forcibly tear down the dimensional barriers between the physical realms and the magical, which would vastly empower the elves but kill most other living things, owing to the rituals involved.

As a whole, the Thalmor and similar groups are more of a problem for the Cobalts, who not only share territory boundaries with the Thalmor’s interests, but have many elves in their ranks and thus the Thalmor tend to target them.

#queued #replies #crossthicc AU #twitchy ideas #serpentking456

1 note · View note

scriptlgbt · 6 years

Text

This question was submitted due to length, and the answer I gave was much longer. So it’s going under a readmore!

Submitted by Tay [no url given].

Content includes these topics/ideas:

- sex/sexuality (including cultural perceptions of it re: the LGBT+ community - now and in more recent history) - marriage as a marker of when sex is ok (and talk about how this attitude has interacted with the community)

- concepts of virginity

Asked:

“Hi, there. I’m going to start off by saying that I am bi myself however I am ousted from every LGBT community I know in real life because I believe in sex after marriage, or if the couple is making plans for marriage. Where I am, over half of the straight community is the same way.

However, every LGBT community here I know in real life, well, most aren’t virgins, and those that were soon weren’t. Also pretty much all of them mention multiple sex partners as well. Therefore I’m pretty much on the outside of the community because they can’t even believe I could consider myself bi until after I experiment.

Therefore I figured I could write a story about the kind of experience I have had. But since I don’t truly know the community well, especially only local communities, I’m not sure if I really understand them.

Also, from reading things from LGBT communities online, I find that a lot of them say no one has to experiment to know your orientation, which is a complete 180 than what I’ve experienced locally. Perhaps I didn’t meet enough people in my community, but I am sure annoyed by the fact they insist that experimenting is required.

I have asked many of them if they had even been in a straight relationship, and when some of them say no, I respond with how do you know? They say they just do. The others who have said yes, realized something was wrong, and only later after experiencing with the same sex realized they were gay. As for the ones who are bi, like I am, all thought they were either straight or gay because they had already been having sexual relationships and then found out they were bi after experimenting with the other gender.

So therefore, I am looking for information that address this issue, preferably worldwide and people from all ages as well as to how prevalent, non existing, or hush hush this is.

Also, I’d like to mention that observing straight people and their attitudes to sex before marriage is sometimes because of religion. However, religion seems to have no effect on LGBT people, the attitudes towards sex before marriage is the same no matter how religious or non religious they are or even which religion.”

Answer:

First I want to say that it sucks that people have discounted your identity based on what you decide regarding your own body. What you’re describing is very much biphobia (or bimisia) and you shouldn’t be made to feel like you have to ‘prove’ who you are to anyone. Yourself knowing who you are, that’s enough. You are bi and nobody can take that from you. As for the community, I know what you are describing. Maybe it might help to tell you that you are part of the community no matter who you associate with or don’t associate with. Lots of folks feel like they don’t belong with folks who share their identities. That’s okay and totally normal. You aren’t obligated to be the same as the next bi person either. You’re still you, you’re still bi.

I know it feels alienating, and I know that this might not feel all that positive to hear. But part of what makes our community empowering to so many (ideally anyway - obviously this isn’t a universal thing) is that it is diverse as heck and in the best of cases (I’m not trying to say this actually happens even most of the time), we have each other’s backs. If you don’t want to have sex you’re still you.

With that said, I think you might want to know, a lot of (I’d argue most maybe, depending where you go) other people in the community don’t feel comfortable using the term “virgin” because it implies that someone is a different person somehow before and/or after sex. And that it’s something that can be taken, like someone is more of a person when they don’t have sex, or like they carry some kind of burden or something they want to get rid of. Neither of those ideas are really comfortable to have projected onto you without your consent. No matter who’s using it, the term usually carries some kind of good/bad judgement of someone else. But the fact of the matter is that everyone should feel empowered to make their own decisions with their bodies and sex lives. You aren’t more or less of a person, no matter what decision you make. (Also, I’m not going to get into this more, but there are survivors of some really horrible things who are triggered by this phrasing.)

This isn’t a judgement on you - I know it’s a big topic and not covered all that well by many people anymore. I could be wrong, or it might be who I hang around, but it feels like there was a lot of conversation on this around 2010 or so and it fizzled out in 2 years because people assumed everyone who was going to get it, already got it. (Which is ridiculous, especially because how diverse our ages, backgrounds are - you’d think we would want to be more welcoming for folks just entering the community to understand this stuff.)

And to be super clear, you’re totally welcome to self refer this way if you want! It is your body, it’s your identity, it’s your call. But there’s a lot of baggage with this term, so you might want to check with other people on how they feel before using that term. Some people might feel either more pressured to have sex (because of wanting to get rid of the term) or more pressured to avoid sex that they do want for fear of judgement.

Neither of those really inspires healthy consent practices.

To get back to the questions, I think what you’ve heard from people online (that experimenting is not required) is probably what’s believed by most community members who are actively at the forefront of these kinds of discussions, on a wider scale. Local communities vary a lot, and things like internet, language, community access, geography, culture, etc, will all make how people feel locally different. Some communities have had their traditional teachings about sex taken away and replaced with other teachings. There’s a lot of variety. Some communities have been forced to move forward or backward on some issues and differently on others.

The idea that experimenting is necessary is usually something people say only to people who are LGBT+, not people who are straight and cis. It’s because straight and cis are seen as the default. If you don’t need to prove that, then you shouldn’t need to prove that you’re different either. I think that this is pretty common sentiment, but I think the views of folks in the community are generally more skewed towards this in cities than rural, and it depends on the cities as well. (I’m also talking about my own perspective as a former rural person who moved to a city as an adult.) And what’s said online is a lot more in sync with what people in cities believe because there are more people to immediately jump in and say something than there is if you’re walking around a small hometown with friends who haven’t either had access to or desire to connect with folks with differing opinions.

There’s a kind of isolation and ruralism that divides communities in ways I think a lot of people don’t pick up on, even when it might seem obvious once you think about it.

Other stuff to look into, I think, would be how the AIDS crisis, marriage equality, and currently in the west; how representation in children’s cartoons and similar affected and currently affects discussions around these topics.

Marriage equality was always an issue (when/where it was an issue) but it was never the core of it. Throughout history, it’s more been about feeling normal as your whole self. Marriage equality was one aspect of that, but the biggest reason that movement really picked up more steam (in the west, during the 70s-10s) was because during the AIDS crisis, visitation rights for people on their deathbeds was far too often reserved for people legally considered to be family. This meant people who were married. A lot of people died alone.

The whole marital vs non-marital sex thing has kind of been a moot point in most places where marriage was illegal anyway.

I know there’s more to be said about how marriage equality has been just as much an issue of racial equality as economic class, and LGBT+ equality. Miscegenation laws, costs associated with marriage certificates and things like hiring someone like a notary(?) to ratify it legally is also a thing.

There’s also how things like ‘common law marriage’ recognition make marriage a bit more subjective in definition too, along with civil unions and other legally recognized partnerships.

During the AIDS crisis, and in desperation, there became this push by some for palatability to cis, straight lawmakers to validate marriage equality so that people could be with their partners when they died. There were people throwing each other under the bus this way and that, and a lot of pushback from people in the community about how they didn’t want to sacrifice who they were, who/how they loved, in order to be respected.

Somewhat relevant is this quote someone shared around the time George Michael died.

In 1998, [George] Michael released “Outside,” which flicked at his arrest six months earlier in a public bathroom and prompted his coming out. The video cheekily features him dressed as an LAPD officer. In 2005 he addressed his inclination to shine a light on uncomfortable issues, telling The Guardian, “Gay people in the media are doing what makes straight people comfortable, and automatically my response to that is to say I’m a dirty filthy f—er and if you can’t deal with it, you can’t deal with it.”

Source

Heteronormativity, and the forceful nature of it, pushed us to feel the need to divide each other by our sex lives. To divert blame and accountability for oppression inward to our own community. It was/is victim blaming.

In all that, there’s been a lot of polarization. It feels like it’s hard to find someone with a neutral view on sex on the whole in our communities because we’re constantly being put on the spot and expected to have a ~hot take~ and be constantly defending whatever we do or don’t do (or do for atypical reasons) with our bodies.

I don’t want to act like I’m better than anyone for feeling differently, and I completely understand where everyone is coming from and the reasons we succumb to the constant battles we’re being placed in against our true interests.

The reality of the matter, is that everybody has a different relationship with sexuality. Everyone has a different experience, or lack thereof (and that’s okay). Some are more similar or different amongst each other than others. There’s no universal “sex is healthy” or “sex is unhealthy” because it’s like everything else out there. There’s cases where it is either, neither, or both even just in one act. It’s okay to feel whatever you feel about it. We need more nuanced discussions about this stuff that actually accounts for the diversity of it all.

And if whatever you’re doing or not doing feels wrong to you somehow, I hope you feel empowered to work through what’s going on. But it’s not a problem to be really into sex or repulsed, or whatever you feel at a given moment. Every variation of this is healthy for somebody. As long as everybody is consenting, that’s what matters.

I know I’m not alone in feeling this way, but I definitely wouldn’t say that’s a universal sentiment, especially judging by the sheer mass of horrible and ignorant things people have said to me/about me as an asexual person who has a lot of sex. But that’s a tangent.

I’m not sure if this explicitly answers your questions, but I hope it helps provide some general things to consider within your writing. There’s pretty much never a full consensus within the LGBT+ community about anything. At most there’s common sentiment.

- mod nat

#mod nat #sexuality #marriage equality #AIDS crisis #sexualization #desexualization #common law marriage #biphobia #bimisia

20 notes · View notes

a-woman-apart · 6 years

Text

Old Obsessions

In the spirit of trying to write at least one post a month- and out of a genuine desire to get a few things off my chest- here I am, writing a post.

I will begin with the life update portion of the post. My health has been somewhat imperiled. I won’t go into details on here (yet), but I’m getting some tests done because I’ve been dealing with some pain. I already have trouble getting out of the house because of depression and anxiety, and these problems are being exacerbated by issues of pain and fatigue. Whatever it is, I’m hoping for a diagnosis that A) shows that it’s an actual thing and I’m not just crazy, and B) is an actual thing that is easily treatable. In the coming weeks to one month I should find out what I need to know.

The second thing of note is that at the end of the month I will be returning to the community college where I graduated from to take some CORE classes. Since most of my courses were in music, and I only took a few COREs, I have two semesters worth of classes to take. I am doing this to save money, and to ensure that when I go on to the university in the fall of next year, I will be jumping immediately into undergraduate-level courses. I am in fact taking so many COREs that by the time I am done I will have an Associate of the Arts degree in addition to my Associate in music- all before I even make it to the university. I do have to take physical education to make that happen- a course that wasn’t required by the university- but that is just one extra thing.

I have “mixed feelings” about returning to school this fall. It is true that I got the whole summer off, for the first time in years, but it still feels so soon to be returning. The thought of being piled on with classwork all over again has brought out feelings of depression and sadness in me. I know that I am following the path that I have set out for myself. My goal is to be college-ready in the fall, but it all feels so overwhelming. I feel excited about the thought of getting another degree in the process of taking all these COREs, but I’ve been in school for 4 years already and I really feel it.

Another discouraging aspect about going to school again is the fact that I probably won’t have the time or energy to get a second job to help pay for my living expenses, unless it’s a side hustle that I can do from home. When I got on SSDI, it meant losing my Medicaid, so I now have $134 taken out of my monthly check to go towards Medicare. In addition to that, I am required to pay $38 a month as a copay for the insurance I get for my mental health visits. That doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but my total income from my job and SSDI is not very much (S/N: I will probably talk to my clinic and see if I still need their insurance now that my Medicare part B has kicked in). Adding almost $200 to my monthly expenses is no joke.

I want to be able to take care of myself. I have always known that I needed to find more hours or better employment. In a way, going to classes again (full-time) is in fact a help to me, because I usually get a Pell Grant refund after my books and classes are paid for. That extra money helps me to put a little in savings and to pay pressing expenses. I’ve always known, though, that I can’t go on depending on those refunds forever. Before I got SSDI, I had SSI, and I was caught between a rock and a hard place where I worked too much to get any meaningful help from them, but too little for the help they did give to cover my expenses. That was the summer that I had to get a second- and for a while a third job- and literally almost killed myself in the process. Later SSI too gave me a huge refund (probably because they had withheld too much from my check) and I used that money for all sorts of things, like paying off my credit card, paying a big portion towards my car note, saving for emergencies and travel, and even giving a bit to charity.

Like I said, though, I want to be able to take care of myself. Whether it’s depending on the Pell Grant or my SSDI, I am still dependent on the government in a huge way. I know the way that my mental health deteriorated when I had my summer jobs was a sign that maybe I’ve been declared disabled for a reason, but I still sometimes feel like I am “not disabled enough” to deserve to still receive services. Without government help, though, I wouldn’t even have insurance for things like my medicine, therapy, and doctor visits, let alone just having enough money to keep my car and stay in my apartment.

When it was just a choice between working and not working, 35-40 hours a week was not a big deal. I worked that plenty of times when I worked in the food industry. I would put in the hours and SSI would give me my check- that had been reduced by around 75%- and together with that and sometimes having food stamps I had a comfortable life. Now that I am a student- and have even more expenses- I just can’t do that anymore. During the summer last year I worked 15 extra hours on the weekend in addition to my 20-hr-a-week library job. I was taking very condensed summer classes as well that took up a huge chunk of my time. My dad was also starting to get sicker that summer and later in the fall someone did a hit-and-run on my vehicle. It is true that today the circumstances would be different. I’ll be doing full-time, but it’s a regular semester. Maybe I could work weekends if I really needed to and if I really tried. The truth is though, that I don’t know if my mental health can withstand that.

Maybe some people can say, “Well, you don’t have to be a student” and that is very true. What is also true is that I may never be able to rise above the poverty line and become self-sufficient if I don’t go to school. Just like working, going to school is an effort to improve my well-being and my contribution to society. The government investing in me now will definitely pay off for them in the future. Even though I now believe that capitalism is bonkers, there is some part of me that takes satisfaction in being able to say that I help feed the economy. Until we have something better and everyone living below the poverty line- not just disabled people like me- gets a basic income from the government, this is the best that we have.

Now I am going to make a total 180 and talk about something that had been the main purpose of this blog when this first started- my religious journey. I think the last time that I wrote a post about where I was with my religion was a couple months ago, when I visited a couple of Universalist Unitarian churches. I haven’t been back since my initial visits, for various reasons, but maybe one is that I am starting to agree with my boyfriend- what I am looking for probably can’t be found inside a church organization.

When my dad passed away in January, I wasn’t angry at God. I had already decided that if there was a Higher Power, it was very possible that said Power didn’t have complete authority to intervene in earthly matters. What it demonstrated to me instead was the failure of the Christian Word of Faith movement and how it sometimes hurts and disappoints its adherents. It didn’t prove to me that miracles never happened, just that they were far less commonplace than evangelists led us to believe and probably explainable using natural terms. It also demonstrated something that is obvious to me but not to many, that people who try to “sell” miracles are misguided at best, or are all liars and charlatans at worst.

I guess that the main reason that I haven’t been writing about it as much is that I’ve just stopped caring. In one post, I mentioned the quote that states that the opposite of love isn’t hate, but apathy. When you hate, you are still giving energy to a person, object, or idea. When you are apathetic, that energy simply isn’t there. This is destructive in its own unique way. Somehow, the ideas of Christianity have lost their place in my life. My family members are all still Christians, but we don’t talk about it. I’ll hear about Girl Defined and shake my head ruefully, but I haven’t put a lot of energy into dismantling their ideas. I’ll skim through my recommendations from Patheos, but no articles jump out at me that I really want to read. I can hear a sermon or see a person preaching on a street corner and feel nothing. I used to want to be able to answer every argument, and I would take aggressive or passionate people stating their beliefs as a personal attack. Now it’s all so blasé to me. “What’s new?” or “Who cares?” are all that I can manage to ask myself in those moments.

In a way, getting here is a personal victory for me. I know that when topics of religion come up, I will always have a point of view to contribute. Crafting that point of view, however, isn’t central to my life anymore. Right now, I am concerned with getting to the next stage in my life. I am about to go to a big university for the first time, and I’m scared. My boyfriend and I have gotten really serious; we want to move in together and share our lives, but we are more than 2000 miles apart and we barely have any money. My youngest brother is preparing to go to college, and my other younger brother is a supervisor at his job. My older brother and my sister-in-law want to build a house on my mom’s property. My little sisters are learning to drive and they want to start working. My mom wants to travel but needs to find some way to get the farm taken care of. We’re all growing older.

Maybe, in saying that, I’m proving the point that it’s important to start thinking about things like “eternity.” To me, it proves the opposite. It takes so much energy just to be focused on the here and now, why waste time planning for an eternity that might not exist? I do know that my dad held on to the hope of eternity until the very end. He burdened himself by worrying that his loved ones might not be able to share it with him. I could never give him the assurance that he needed, but I think he believed that God would make everything right in the end, and I’m happy for him for that. Sometimes it saddens me to think of his way of life dying with him, but ultimately that way of life was not the one that was best for me.

I am turning 28 at the end of next month. Maybe getting older is finally starting to afford me some perspective about the things that really matter. Maybe I will have that zero-fucks-left-to-give attitude that everyone says that you get when you hit 30. All I know is that right now things are looking much clearer to me now. I still feel inadequate as hell, but maybe that never goes away. All I can do is keep moving forward.

#life update #core classes #going to university #degree plans #mental health #mental illness #schizoaffective disorder #living with mental illness #living with depression #studyblr #old obsessions #faith #ex-christian #ex-evangelical #eternity #universal basic income #ssdi

1 note · View note

quranreadalong · 6 years

Text

#124, Surah 23

THE QURAN READ-ALONG: DAY 124

Surah 23 is called Al-Muminun, meaning “The Believers”. As far as I recall, it does not contain a single original thought that we have not seen in a previous surah. Because of that, I’m gonna pad this surah with a lot of shit that hasn’t fit in anywhere else. We got some history lessons, we got some, uh, abortion debate. Get ready.

Most of this late Meccan surah concerns Mohammed yelling at disbelievers who question certain aspects of his theology, like resurrection and the afterlife. While the surah as a whole is undoubtedly from Mecca, there are some who believe that parts of it, including the first eleven ayat, are from Medina. You’ll see why in a sec.

The best thing about Al-Muminun is that we’ll only have two more suwar more than 100 ayat long to go once we’ve finished it.

The possibly Medinan, possibly Meccan introductory ayat state the following: Muslims who are humble before Allah in their prayers are awesome and will be successful in life. They avoid “vain conversation” and pay the zakat. They do not have sex with anyone except their wives or their sex slaves. (Those who do have sex with women who are not their slaves or wives are transgressors.) They keep their covenant with Allah and keep up their prayers, so they will go to jannah.

Right. So... what have we got here? It’s mostly neutral, as each ayah is a short little line. I’ll put down the raping of sex slaves as bad and the avoidance of “vain conversation” and paying the zakat as good as per usual.

Here are a few reasons why this section might’ve been from the Medina days. First of all, as you’ll see, the style of these ayat is different from those that come after them--the rest of the surah has longer ayat, and the section after this starts with a totally different train of thought. Second, most (but not all) of the time the word “zakat” is used, it’s a Medinan ayah. (Some say that the zakat mentioned here is meant in a general sense of paying money to the community, rather than the specific tax from Medina with all the rules associated with it.) Finally, the only other suwar that allow raping sex slaves are from Medina. It’s totally possible that this is nonetheless from Mecca, but it’s hard to tell either way. I guess it doesn’t matter much, tho.

Anyway, today’s second section concerns an entirely different topic: fetal development! Allah created humanity (Adam) from clay, “Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging”, ie in his mother’s womb. The “him” here appears to refer to humanity in general, since it doesn’t really make sense in the context of Adam himself. Lo! Allah needeth to work on making his pronouns clearer.

The word translated as “a drop (of seed)” here, by the way, is nutfah. This literally means a drop of liquid, and in the context of conceiving a child refers to semen. So Mohammed is saying that from Adam and Eve’s kids onwards, humans have been created by men splooging into women, thereby forming babies that grow inside their mothers. Fair enough!

The embryology lesson continues in 23:14:

Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation.

So the timeline here is semen -> clot -> lump -> bones -> bones with flesh -> baby. A hadith from Sahih Bukhari elaborates:

The creation of every one of you starts with the process of collecting the material for his body within forty days and forty nights in the womb of his mother. Then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period (40 days) and then he becomes like a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then an angel is sent to him (by Allah) and the angel is allowed (ordered) to write four things; his livelihood, his (date of) death, his deeds, and whether he will be a wretched one or a blessed one (in the Hereafter) and then the soul is breathed into him.

From this, the “drop” stage lasts until day 40 or so. The “clot” stage lasts until 80 days, and the “lump” stage until 120 days. After each stage is completed, according to another hadith, an angel reports to Allah and Allah decides whether he wants the pregnancy to continue or not. After 120 days, the bone stage begins, at which point the fetus receives a soul, its destiny, and becomes “alive” in a religious sense. At least according to that. This other sahih hadith in Sahih Muslim implies something else:

When forty-two nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones, and then says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And your Lord decides as He desires and the angel then puts down that also and then says: My Lord, what about his age? And your Lord decides as He likes it and the angel puts it down. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood? And then the Lord decides as He likes and the angel writes it down, and then the angel gets out with his scroll of destiny in his hand and nothing is added to it and nothing is subtracted from it.

Here, it seems like the fetus’ destiny is decided much earlier on--with the process starting closer to 40 days and its endpoint being left unspecified. This doesn’t explicitly have the breathing-in-soul part, but it nonetheless suggests some form of humanity or “life” is present at an early stage of pregnancy, as the fetus’ lifespan, sex, occupation, etc are all decided here.

Now you may be wondering, based on the above, how Islam in the modern era approaches abortion. The answer: it’s complicated, just like other religions. Like Jesus (one of the rare times I can use this phrase!!), Mohammed did not discuss women intentionally terminating their pregnancies anywhere, either in the Quran or in any ahadith. So Islamic jurists have had to base their opinions on everything I quoted above. Everyone agrees that after 120 days (~17 weeks), it’s not allowed, unless the mother is literally dying or the fetus itself is dying or something.

The question is whether it’s okay before that or not. Some schools of Islamic jurisprudence say it is frowned upon but allowable, at least in some circumstances, based on the Bukhari hadith. Others say it’s absolutely forbidden after 40 days, based on the Muslim hadith, but allowed before that. Still other jurists say it isn’t allowed, period, based on the prohibition against killing one’s children. So to summarize, the main positions on abortion are:

never allowed

allowed up to ~40 days

allowed up to 120 days

Which is correct? No one knows! No one can agree! There is evidence for all three opinions! You can read more about this debate here if you want, but see what happens when you bill yourself as a prophet but can’t get your stories straight... damn it Mohammed!

Anyway...! I assume it goes without saying that, uh, none of the above is an accurate description of fetal development, nor are other... curious ahadith about the topic. It is instead based on what the products of a woman’s miscarriage look like--clotted blood, small lump, identifiable fetus--at the given stages, and the designation of the 120 days point for ensoulment is due to the fact that this is the point at which fetal movement can be felt by the mother (17-18 weeks). This is called “quickening” in English, literally meaning the point at which something comes alive, so in fairness to Mohammed, he’s not the only one who thought of that.

This turned out to be a long section, so I’ll wrap it up with 23:15-16, which just says that all people die and will be raised on the Day of Resurrection. All of that is neutral I guess.

NEXT TIME: Cows! Olive oil!! Death by drowning!!!

The Quran Read-Along: Day 124

Ayat: 16

Good: 2 (23:3-4)

Neutral: 13 (23:1-2, 23:5, 23:7-16)

Bad: 1 (23:6)

Kuffar hell counter: 0

⇚ previous day | next day ⇛

#quranreadalong #surah 23 #al muminun

2 notes · View notes

goldwerdung-blog · 6 years

Text

A small collection of *some* of my “essential quotes”

Weaving Spiders, Come Not Here

"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.” –Hegel

"If you don’t go after what you want, you’ll never have it. If you don’t ask, the answer’s always no. If you don’t step forward, you’re always in the same place." –Nora Roberts

“Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.” ―Jalaluddin Mevlana Rumi

"The white liberal and the white supremacist share the same root postulates. They are different in degree, not kind." –Lerone Bennet Jr., "Tea and Sympathy: Liberals and Other White Hopes"

"Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." –Albert Einstein

"To err is human; to forgive, divine." –Alexander Pope

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." –Friedrich Nietzsche

“I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.” ―Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

"Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!" –John 19:5 (AKJV)

"I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have changed several times since then." –Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

"There are only two types of women - goddesses and doormats." –Pablo Picasso

"After women, flowers are the most lovely thing God has given the world." –Christian Dior

"A woman is like a tea bag - you can't tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water." –Eleanor Roosevelt

"If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman." –Margaret Thatcher

"Think like a queen. A queen is not afraid to fail. Failure is another steppingstone to greatness." –Oprah Winfrey

"Because you are women, people will force their thinking on you, their boundaries on you. They will tell you how to dress, how to behave, who you can meet and where you can go. Don't live in the shadows of people's judgement. Make your own choices in the light of your own wisdom." –Amitabh Bachchan

"Women are made to be loved, not understood." –Oscar Wilde

"My cousin just died. He was only 19. He got stung by a bee - the natural enemy of a tightrope walker." –Dan Rather

"Luge strategy? Lie flat and try not to die." –Carmen Boyle (Olympic Luge Gold Medal winner, 1996)

"What are the three words guaranteed to humiliate men everywhere? 'Hold my purse.'" –Sandra Bullock "And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan.'" –George Burns

"I got kicked out of Riverdance for using my arms." –Michael Flatley

Collection of John Wesley's quotes: [(1) "Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can." (2) "Catch on fire with enthusiasm and people will come for miles to watch you burn." (3) "I set myself on fire and people come to watch me burn." (4) "I look upon the whole world as my parish." (5) "Certainly this is a duty, not a sin. 'Cleanliness is indeed next to godliness.'" (6) "Beware you be not swallowed up in books! An ounce of love is worth a pound of knowledge." (7) "The best thing of all is God is with us." (8) "Though I am always in haste, I am never in a hurry." (9) "Once in seven years I burn all my sermons; for it is a shame if I cannot write better sermons now than I did seven years ago. Passion and prejudice govern the world; only under the name of reason. It is our part, by religion and reason joined, to counteract them all we can."]

"Success is simple. Do what's right, the right way, at the right time." —Colin Powell

"TEACHER SEEKS PUPIL. Must have an earnest desire to save the world. Apply in person." –Quinn, ISHMAEL: AN ADVENTURE OF THE MIND AND SPIRIT

"The how of Pooh? The Tao of who? The Tao of Pooh! While Eeyore frets... ...and Piglet hesitates ...and Rabbit calculates ...and Owl pontificates ...Pooh just is. And that's a clue to the secret wisdom of the Taoists." –Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh

"For better than impulsive Tigger... Or gloomy Eeyore... Or intellectual Owl... Or even lovable Pooh... Piglet herein demonstrates a very important principle of Taoism: the Te – a Chinese word meaning Virtue–of the Small." –Benjamin Hoff, The Te of Piglet

"Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering." —G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right (1820), "Preface"

"Now, if we inquire into the truth of knowledge, it seems that we are asking what knowledge is in itself. Yet in this inquiry knowledge is our object, something that exists for us; and the in-itself that would supposedly result from it would rather be the being of knowledge for us." –Hegel, PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT

"On earth there is no purifier As great as this knowledge. When a man is made perfect in yoga, He knows its truth within his heart. The man of faith, Whose heart is devoted, Whose senses are mastered: He finds Brahman. Enlightened, he passes At once to the highest, The peace beyond passion." –BHAGAVAD-GITA: THE SONG OF GOD

"A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. Nothing ever happens but there is immediate publicity everywhere." –Søren Kierkegaard, THE PRESENT AGE: ON THE DEATH OF REBELLION

"Perhaps no one has yet been truthful enough about what 'truthfulness' is." –Friedrich Nietzsche, ON TRUTH & UNTRUTH

"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair? —Søren Kierkegaard, FEAR & TREMBLING

"Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains." —Jean-Jacques Rousseau, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

"The greatest thing in the world is to know how to live to yourself." —De Montaigne, ON SOLITUDE

"Where there is life, there is faith." —Tolstoy, A CONFESSION

"So it goes." —Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five

"I have this disease late at nights sometimes, involving alcohol and the phone." —Kurt Vonnegut

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." —George Orwell, WHY I WRITE

"Life is long if you know how to use it." –Seneca

"Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darknesses of other people." —Jung

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." —THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

"It's useless to wait–for a breakthrough, for the revolution, the nuclear apocalypse or a social movement. To go on waiting is madness. The catastrophe is not coming, it is here. We are already situated within the collapse of a civilization. It is within this reality that we must choose sides." —THE INVISIBLE COMMITTEE: THE COMING INSURRECTION, née L'insurrection qui vient

"The order of the day," they wrote in their general statutes, "is to put an end to the machinations of the purveyors of injustice, to control them without dominating them."—Richard van Dülmen, The Society of Enlightenment (Polity Press 1992) p. 110

2 notes · View notes

augustcalendar2020monthly-blog · 4 years

Text

Printable Blank Calendar January 2020

In his unbelievable talk that has been proceeding for an impressive period of time, he talked enthusiastically to his vision of a country that was managed also for all, regardless of the race or skin concealing. With this single talk, Martin Luther King Jr. driven the Washington walk, which was very decisive and imperative for the social freedoms improvement. The best achievement of Martin Luther King Jr. in his business as a radical was the allocation of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. This critical law confined isolation by race, concealing, religion, and nationality. The gathering of this law was an uncommon increment for both the considerations protected by Martin Luther King Jr. moreover, the country overall. This movement is the reason of American chance and has been recognized by all people. For this accomplishment, Martin Luther King transformed into the most young individual to get the Nobel Peace Prize. In the 21st century, people need to get accomplishment and make the essential strides on plan. People are busy with work, home, family and various activities and commitments. You can without a lot of a stretch track the activities and events. This is a basic gadget that helps business components and individuals help to stay sifted through just as this makes you progressively profitable. With an online timetable, you can set a report on your tablet and phone.

This will sift through the most huge social affairs and game plans. Here you get January 2020 Printable Calendar with various organization plan – Daily, Weekly, Monthly and Yearly. This is significant standards pictures. If you have to change the timetable as showed by your tendencies the option is available.With the help of a calendar, you make a course of action early for the whole year.Print these January 2020 Calendar Printable and enter your critical dates, events, and social affairs. Save this timetable for basic access. Snap on the download get and use the printable calendar in consistently use to make work more straightforward. These are open in bunches like word, surpass desires, Pdf, format, OneNote and point of view. we are sure you love these associations. The essential and clean setup you get. This configuration is the most valued and pulls in everyone. The timetable is a fundamental bit of our step by step life. They can improve the working structure. Welcome the brilliant month. January is the essential month of the year according to the Georgian and Julian timetable. The first of 7 months to have a period of 31 days. It is the coldest month in by far most of the northern side of the equator and the most sweltering month in by far most of the southern portion of the globe. One more month is started with new desire and a new beginning. Everyone is invigorated and make a course of action for getting a charge out of the day with friends and family.

People are empowered and going crazy. Uncommon activities are made. A couple of individuals take a break. Use the Calendar to note down the nuances. January month has two zodiac sign related – Capricorn and Aquarius. People considered from January 1 to 19 are a person from Capricorn. The guideline quality is they are completely trustworthy, prepared, prudence and incredible chairmen. They like family, custom and music. January 20 to 31 are a person from Aquarius. These kind of people are amazingly unique, independent and humanitarian. They like fun with associates, helping others, an extraordinary crowd and academic talk. Australia day is lauded every year on January 26th. It is an official national event of Australia. On this day Australian gets together for the nations. By lauding this event, Australians compliment the achievements of the past and envision the country's splendid future. People watch sports and partake in outdoors appears. In Sydney, boat race are sifted through. A couple of Australians will open a "piece", which is an occasion of ale in the notable Australian or welcome some Tim Tams – Australia's favored chocolate bread rolls. A calendar goes about as a direct and crucial device that can help individuals with arranging the timetable.

This gadget is an effective one which helps in extending the benefit of the individual by a progressively critical edge. To accomplish the last destinations, everyone needs a stream just like the January 2020 Printable Calendar to keep a note of the huge things and a while later arrangement out everything as necessities be. The January Calendar Template will come in different shapes and appraises or even moved structures. These are the configurations that come in both vertical and even structures and are available in a ton of plan decisions. The plans reach out from high difference plans, blossom plans, Calendars with notes bar, movable clear timetables, shaded timetable formats, etc. The calendars in like manner give an option in contrast to everyone to get it changed by they particularly like. The calendar groups come in changed plans which go about as a month to month coordinator, step by step coordinator, or yearly coordinator for individuals. These are a staggering advantage for come advantageous during the clamoring time of our timetables. In the January introduction, orchestrating helps in breaking the assignments and arranging them fittingly to help Individuals with achieving different spotlights on plan. Looking for January 2020 Printable Calendar? In case to be sure, by then this is the correct webpage page where you will find the latest variety of January plans available to no end download.

0 notes

strangledeggs · 5 years

Text

The Day The Music Dies: Rock And Roll's Iceage

Apparently I wrote this whole thing last year and then never posted it! I think it’s because I was second-guessing its actual quality, but it’s been so long since I posted here that I think I owe any hangers-on some piece of writing, so here’s my concert/discography review of Iceage combined with musings on the perpetual “death of rock and roll”:

July 8th, 2018 Recently, I’ve been reading a posthumous collection of the writing of 60s-generation rock critic Ellen Willis, “Out Of The Vinyl Deeps”. It’s been a fascinating read so far due in part to her intriguing perspectives on various musical acts from the 60s-80s and beyond - but also in part to the bizarre contrast her strongly rock-centric writing forms with a much more recent Vice article by Dan Ozzi I read that heralds (once again) the “death of rock”*. As tiresome as it is to beat this long-deceased horse, I think it’s worth exploring the reasons why Ozzi seems to think that rock’s “death” (which turns out to be more of a clickbait-trick, as he ultimately pulls a 180 to march out the equally-tired counterpart claim “It’s not dead, it’s just underground!”) is actually a good thing and the mistakes he might be making in his assumptions about where it might go next. And throughout this exploration, I’m going to try and weave in a narrative about Iceage, a “rock” band who came of age in this supposedly “anti-rock” era and whose recent modest success and continually developing sound seem to run both parallel to and against Ozzi’s narrative.

I’d argue that Ozzi’s first mistake is treating “rock” as a genre that exists in itself, rather than a tenuous category that’s been something of a moving target since its inception in the public consciousness. From the piece’s beginning, Ozzi notes the current chart dominance of hip-hop that increasingly eclipses even the most successful rock acts not only of our time, but even of previous eras. But why should we be treating these categories as separate? In truth, hip-hop is just a re-branding of the same type of music as rock, existing as mere subspecies on the pop music continuum (note that it’s “pop music”, not just “music” - that’s important, and I’ll get into it later). If this seems unintuitive, we could look to the past, which reveals how rock music only assembled itself out of the skeleton of American rhythm and blues of the 30s-50s and later gave way to soul, funk and all the other genres that would form the elements of hip-hop. Arguably, even the electronic music that now dominates the charts and hip-hop beats got its start in relation to pop and rock - just listen to the chugging rhythms of Kraftwerk and then notice how they were sampled on some of the earliest hip-hop singles by Afrika Bambaataa.

But we don’t even need to reach that far back, considering the evidence is right here in front of us: why would Rae Sremmurd name their single “Black Beatles” if they didn’t see themselves as existing on some kind of continuum with the legendary pop/rock band? “Hip-hop is the new rock” is more than just a catch-phrase - it’s a revelation as old as hip-hop’s genesis and can be demonstrated through the crossover success of Run-DMC and Rage Against The Machine, as well as the usual hallelujah’s that accompany mass cultural movements; compare Chuck Berry’s “Hail, hail rock and roll!” with Kanye West’s “Is hip-hop just a euphemism for a new religion?” Even the formal/technical details of the genres can be shown to be similar when broken down, but I won’t bore you with the details of this here. It’s clear that, like most “new waves” in pop music, hip-hop and rock share a symbolic status as emblems of “youth culture”, albeit as it has taken shape in different eras to different demographics.

Suppose, though, that this syncretism isn’t your kind of thing. You might think that, all formal and demographic similarities aside, rock is still noticeably different from hip-hop on an immediate level. And this is important to recognize, too: you wouldn’t ask a famous rock musician to suddenly start rapping or mixing beats; that’s decidedly a different skill set for what can reasonably be labelled a separate genre. So we’ll agree that on some level, rock is of a different breed, and therefore its “death” is something that can be talked about intelligibly. This brings us to Ozzi’s second mistake, which is his diagnosis of the kinds of pitfalls that befell rock, leading to its demise. Rock, he argues, currently suffers from too many “clone” acts, like the endless waves of “post-grunge” Nickelback-esque posers who are still trying to be the next Pearl Jam. He argues that rock seems to naturally follow this cycle in which the underground brings a new sound to the forefront (like grunge), then the new sound is diluted by commercialism and obliterated into blandness as a wave of imitators rush to try and ride the new trend to fame. And now, he concludes, rock will have something of an “underground renaissance” since the imitators will be less attracted to the genre; thus new sounds can abound in indie heaven without the fear of those nasty, co-opting sellouts**.

A nice story, isn’t it? Rock thrives as the underdog because creativity is stifled by commercialism. Only it’s not particularly true; I’d be interested to see Ozzi explain why, if his story is true, rock began as an intensely commercial genre in the 50s*** and remained such for the most part until its recent “demise”. Further, there’s something a little uncomfortable that’s implicit in what Ozzi’s claiming: I buy his take on EDM as a stagnant genre that largely exists to sell products, but does he believe the same is true of hip-hop? Because if so, he’d be flying in the face of most respectable contemporary music criticism. Modern critics have consistently been praising hip-hop as a wellspring of stylistic creativity and innovation for the last three decades, severely undermining the credibility of Ozzi’s narrative. And isn’t hip-hop just as full of uninspired imitators as rock? Why haven’t these profit-motivated trend-riders sunk the genre?

There’s another problem with this story, and I think it relates directly to the kind of revisionist historical trajectory that music sites like Pitchfork and Noisey have been trying to push for. Ozzi makes an interesting assumption in his “underdog” model that made me almost immediately suspicious of it: he seems to equate “underground” with “better”, not just as a relationship between stifling commercialism and the mythical “free artist”, but also as the inverse relationship in which this “free artist” is magically “better” the less bound they are to anyone’s restrictions. To which I will respond****: remember the 60s? The 60s, by many accounts (including many recorded ones), were a time of extreme musical indulgence by the era’s hippie bands. The “free artist” was fully unbound, at least temporarily...and make no mistake, some excellent innovation and music came out of it! But the “jamming” of the 60s bands also represents a kind of nadir in terms of gaps between the audience (critical or popular) and the artist. Even some of the most brilliant performers of the time became prone to some extreme displays of self-indulgence. Indeed, much of the “indie rock” crowd of the last decade still turn up their noses at the 60s for this reason, as do the post-punk and punk movements that predate them. Is the unbound artist always right? Even when this is the result?

But it’s not just the 60s that I want to point the finger at here; I believe there’s a profound hypocrisy going on within later underground movements right up to today, and I would even go so far as to claim that it’s often rooted in a subconscious elitism and racism. Keep in mind, as I develop the following points, that the “jamming” of the 60s had precursors in the blues and jazz that the often-white performers had based their own songs on. Consider that the self-indulgence didn’t disappear after the 60s, either: if anything, it was amplified into the new frontiers of “progressive rock”, which began to imitate classical structures - it’s more complex, see? Punk rock, as I have summarized in another article on its relationship to hip-hop, was largely a reaction to this newfound “refinement” of rock music; it blew a raspberry in the face of bands composing “symphonies” and (gulp) “rock operas”. But both punk and prog faced a common enemy on the charts: disco. While many of the biggest disco hits were by white performers, it was decidedly a “black” genre with its roots in the very black genre of funk. This is important, please remember it.

Whether or not we can credit punk with dethroning prog, disco outlived both and weaved its way into the “new wave” of punk-based rock bands that followed - if you don’t believe me, go back and re-listen to the B-52s and Blondie again. Synthpop and dance music rose up alongside it in the 80s, threatening to take the edge off of rock. Please note here that I only say this in relation to what are likely the perspectives of rock purists. A major part of the point I’m trying to make here is that a new class of rock fans who arose at this point in time, the “purists” who thought rock should be more about returning to what it was like in the 50s-70s before it was “corrupted” by punk and disco, are the ones who help bring about the genre’s downfall. As “rock” came to be associated more and more with the firmly established distorted-guitar sounds of everyone from Chuck Berry to Led Zeppelin, the nostalgic movement of those who wanted to Make Rock Great Again only grew. What’s really intriguing about this movement is how increasingly white it became, as black audiences embraced the new sounds of hip-hop and early house music in the 80s. Soon, the mainstream rock charts were flooded with a horde of Zeppelin imitators in the form of “hair metal”, an ultimately nostalgic and deeply conservative form of rock that sought to undo the perceived damage new wave had done to the genre.

But that’s the mainstream; that’s only half of the problem. While those who still cared about the position of rock on the charts were fretting about what was to become of the genre, those few die-hard punks who hadn’t given up their commitment to total disruption of everything were busy deciding on the answer to that very question. The underground post-punk movement effectively shaped the future of rock, as bands that played just under the new wave radar started incorporating a hodgepodge of bizarre non-rock influences including African music, electronic music, noise and even disco itself. But while this is a fascinating time for innovation in the genre, those who would romanticize it should note that it had an ugly side: for every band like the Talking Heads, who sought to assimilate disco and hip-hop into new hybrid sounds, there were several more pretentious acts who relapsed into prog as they fetishized the work of avant-garde classical composers. What’s really interesting here is that the developing “indie” scene at the time seems to have eaten it all up with equal aplomb; thus dull, ambient muzak and formless noise experimentation (which might normally have had little appeal beyond a select group of devoted acolytes) suddenly became a part of rock’s future DNA just as funk did - maybe even moreso.

As it turned out, this kind of omnivorous attitude led the indie scene down some strange alleyways. Of the various scattered subgenres that emerged to a wider audience in the 90s, one known as “post-rock” was among the most influential. It can sometimes be hard to precisely define post-rock as the terms has, in the past, occasionally been used by music journalists whenever they’re trying to describe a sound that seems to transcend the roots of “classic” rock, but I think post-rock-as-genre can be described in terms of some very specific features that have come to dominate its performers’ tendencies: typically, the songs are long, upwards of 10 minutes; they are largely instrumental, often entirely so; they are organized less like “songs” and more like…“movements” of, er, “symphonies”; the “compositions” (I suppose we’ll call them) tend to be comprised of “textures” rather than the more traditional pop elements such as rhythmic figures, riffs and lyrics - which is not to say it’s devoid of melody...however, the genre does seem to pride itself in its noisiness and “drone-yness”. In short, it seems almost as if post-rock is an attempt to re-cast the “rock band” ensemble as something akin to “high art” by associating it with elements of classical music, effectively trying to establish the genre more in line with the “modern classical” tradition than with pop music. Needless to say, it’s a far cry from punk’s witty mockery, though just as reactionary, I would argue.

Here, we reach the real crux of my argument: it’s interesting to me that my previous statement is actually something of a controversial claim. Today, the influence of this “dull muzak” and “post-rock” remains strong in the modern indie scene - stronger than it was at the time, quite possibly. Certainly stronger than hip-hop or disco’s influence. My suspicion is that this is the source of the elitism and racism I mentioned earlier. The elitism comes in the form of Ozzi’s (and the collective indie scene’s) strange assumptions that underground = better, which leads us to conclude that the ambient fluff that’s plagued post-punk from the start must be better, because it was never in the public spotlight, right? This also sheds some light on the strange persistence of the scene’s distrust of acts that describe themselves simply as “rock”, acts that don’t tag themselves with some subgenre as a sort of dog-whistle disclaimer: HEY, WE’RE NOT LIKE THOSE MAINSTREAM GUYS, WE’RE WEIRD! For such a long time, acts that were simply “rock” like hair metal (which, as far as I know, is not a genre by which the bands involved referred to themselves) were actually privileged on the charts and represented a new low for rock commercialism. Only now, this suspicion persists hopelessly out-of-context; hair metal died 30 years ago, and yet the new generation indie scene still finds it hard to congratulate a straightforward rock band like Wussy, who are in fact in the same financial shoes as the rest of the underground despite writing several album’s worth of songs better than most of what’s come out of it in the past two decades - all because they don’t put on high-art airs.

The racism becomes evident once you realize that the forgotten influences of disco and hip-hop are largely black genres. What’s more, the punk scene (from my observations) has done little to reach out to hip-hop: though rappers increasingly pay tribute to the rock music they were raised on, I see few attempts to try and get black hip-hop acts collaborating with an often-white punk scene. To some degree, I don’t blame them: when a scene consistently chooses white men who noodle aimlessly and atonally on unaccompanied guitars over you*****, why would you want to work with them? It’s almost as if the new tastemakers in rock have grown inexplicably cold to anything that doesn’t elevate them to some kind of status as avant-garde heroes, to anything that shows the slightest touch of warmth towards a wider audience.

Which brings me to Iceage. Iceage is a Danish band that made their international debut in 2011 and are best described as post-punk. They have risen into favour with precisely the type of scene which I spent the previous paragraphs interrogating, and though they’re better than many, they don’t quite escape its worst tendencies. But they do rock, and that has to count for something, doesn’t it?

Seeing as the band only has four studio albums out and has changed its sound significantly on each, I will give a brief overview of their discography here. A brief disclaimer should precede: I have listened to most of these albums only once from start to finish, so take my opinions on them with a grain of salt. That being said, I know what I heard and I know what I like. “New Brigade”, the band’s debut, is arguably their most successful. The single “Broken Bone” is a harsh post-punk explosion of clattering rhythms and guitars that seem to be scrambling to keep up with each other. “White Rune” is more militant and just as catchy, if not moreso. Elsewhere, the album is enjoyable, if a little bit sonically cluttered, but a burst of melody breaks through in the excellent closer “You’re Blessed”.

Seemingly attentive to the problem this clutter could pose, the band focused their sound a little more on the follow-up album “You’re Nothing”; here, the noise feels more artful and the tempos come closer to hardcore punk. Unfortunately, the focus doesn’t help the songs much, and few songs from it made much of a serious impression on me despite enjoying it in the moment.

By this point, Iceage had started to gain something of a more serious following, and their next album, “Plowing Into The Field Of Love”, felt like the biggest “event” of their career since the release of “Broken Bone”. Which is really a shame, since it’s by far their weakest - this happened to be the album where the band inexplicably succumbed to their worst “art rock” tendencies and many of the songs lack rhythmic vitality, drag and ultimately feel directionless. Still, it has what may be their best song on it, a surprise gothic country stomper called “The Lord’s Favourite”. And “Against The Moon” is one of the few exceptions where the band’s experiments with textures here pay off; it’s actually quite pretty (even when you notice that the full line in the chorus is “pissing against the moon”).

The group’s most recent album, “Beyondless”, is something of a return to form. The texture experiments feel more coherent, sometimes evoking jazz fusion, albeit without the virtuosic wankery. Plus there are real songs here: “Pain Killer” and especially “Catch It” are monstrously catchy, and the driving (and aptly-titled) “The Day The Music Dies” boasts a killer guitar riff and horn section. There are still some directionless passages, but otherwise I’ve found it to be their strongest since “New Brigade”.

Of course, the band could easily sink into post-punk anonymity if not for the conspicuous personality of its lead singer, Elias Bender Rønnenfelt. He screams, he roars, he rasps, he strangles these songs with the conviction of one truly dedicated to not giving a shit. It should here be mentioned how much this band improves live: when I saw them recently after the release of “Beyondless”, everything was amped-up energy-wise; a violinist joined the guitar for complementary leads; the riff from “The Day The Music Dies” approached a chugging Nine-Inch-Nails intensity; new rhythmic breakdowns updated old classics like “White Rune”; Elias brought his presence in the form of a suit jacket and his drunken(?) stumbling around the stage. Needless to say, the live show is the way to experience these guys. It’s very much rock, no matter what the critics might try and tell you, and if you love the genre and get a kick out of Elias’s scowling bitterness, it’s worth checking out.

I did, however, mention the band’s tendencies to succumb to some of the pretentiousness of their art rock peers, and such tendencies were not completely absent from the show. The most glaring flaw was the inclusion of new age harpist Mary Lattimore as the only opener. The sound didn’t fit in the slightest and I know I was hardly the only attendee who sat in confusion through it, waiting for the show we came for to really start. This kind of choice once again highlights the very kind of thing that threatens to sink rock as a genre: Iceage might be on the cutting-edge, but cut too deep and you might just slash your chances of reaching a wider audience. I don’t know if they were responsible for the choice of opener or if this was just some sort of label-mate touring deal, so I can’t assign blame properly here, but the choice is baffling either way and deeply reflective of the scene’s aforementioned elitism and racism. Especially the latter, come to think of it - if “Beyondless” contains obvious jazz and soul influences, why not get a black jazz group to join you if you wanted to keep the lineup eclectic? The band’s sound suggests the possibility of such a co-existence, but the faces at the show unfortunately suggest otherwise. It could very well be an unconscious racism, but it would still be nice to see white rock bands pay more than lip service to the black musicians they have always been indebted to.

Something about Iceage feels decidedly “unsafe”, which is an image many punk and post-punk bands have tried to project in the past. In terms of keeping the punk spirit alive, I appreciate this to some degree, but there are times I really do worry about these guys - not in terms of my own safety, but in terms of theirs. The “Rock ‘N’ Roll Suicide”****** has been a recurring theme throughout the genre’s history, and it feels eerily significant that the band performed at a venue called “The 27 Club” the night I saw them. Is there a suicidal impulse in the indie rock scene? I don’t just mean literally - there seems to be a kind of metaphorical death wish in the way these musicians tear out their roots. It’s if those who set out to play rock music don’t actually want to see the genre survive. Not everyone, I’ll grant! There are many great independent groups doing much to keep the music they love alive long past its presumed expiry date. But what to be done for those whose music suggests such self-effacement? And what to be done about the implicit racism that follows this? I’m not about to place the burden of “the future of rock” on Iceage’s shoulders, but it might be worth turning to some of their lyrics for closing remarks:

Performed an exorcism on myself,

Cited prayers and rites of deliverance,

Yet here I am, somehow still possessed,

The future's never starting,

The present never ends,

I left us both bombarded,

But I'm not here to make amends

*“Rock Is Dead, Thank God”.

**Yes, I’m exaggerating a bit here in terms of how he phrases it, but this kind of sentiment definitely exists and he’s not not feeding into it with this narrative.

***Hell, the Who made an excellent concept album satirizing pop commercialism in 1967!

****Not without irony - I was a 90s kid myself.

*****Based on a real show I witnessed. And no, this is not Sonic Youth I’m referring to - Sonic Youth has rhythm!

******Which, you might remember, was a song written by a man who died at 69 - it needn’t always be a tragic early end!

#Music #Music criticism #Rock #Punk #Music analysis #Rock is dead #Rockism

0 notes