#BUT THE CONTEXT AND EVENTS THAT SURROUND THE ANSWERS ARE WHAT IS VITAL TO MY CANON

[vulturereyy]

In your Lurimol head cannon, what is Lurien's relationship with the other 4 Great Knights after he and Hegemol get together? Do they interact more? Or is he just on their peripheral as an important member of the court who also happens to be important to Hegemol?

I can imagine if they didn't pay much attention to Lurien before, that at least Ogrim and Isma would check on him every once in a while after Hegemol succumbed to the infection.

HOOOOOGH thank you so much for this ask because holy shit I think so much about the other knights even if I don't post, and this answer is going to Hurt Me in the most bittersweet way. This is going to be a long one, because I feel like there's a lot of context in my 'canon' that influences how these questions can get answered.

To set the stage first and foremost: In my timeline, Ze'mer is the only one who knows about Lurien and Hegemol's relationship up until the very tail end of it. Ze'mer is the closest to Hegemol out of all the knights, as in my timeline she was the second to join the Pale King's service. Hegemol was responsible for getting her settled in the kingdom, and the two developed a mutually close bond that culminated in them both essentially considering themselves kindred. Hegemol, likewise, is the only one who knows about Ze'mer's relationship with the Traitor Lord's Daughter for a while, though Ze'mer does eventually tell Isma as well.

Lurien's relationship with the remaining Great Knights is cordial and friendly, though I feel he would be hesitant to call any of them friends. The man is quite private, and guards his sense of trust like a hound wounded. He is far from unfriendly towards them, and does trust them with his protection if needed, but does not let them into his personal life. He would have been closest to Ogrim and Isma next given their proximity to the city, though I feel he would have had a high preference for dealing with the latter of the two. This may be a lackluster answer, but I do feel like he would have been far more coworkers with the other four than anyone else. Hegemol and Lurien kept their relationship extremely private, and for good reason:

Both agreed it was an extreme conflict of interest.

Both agreed that they would have to make sure it was not.

Hallownest would always have to come first for the two of them. Hallownest would always have to be the first choice in any decision, without hesitation. That was their duty, after all: to serve their kingdom. The moment they faltered from that path, in their minds, they would have to take measures to ensure that another misstep would not happen again.

The reason that Hegemol and Lurien never let themselves be seen together, never let themselves have a single date in public. They never even let themselves even truly label their own relationship mutually (even though the words 'I love you' were writ in every single cup of tea shared, every single night spent listening to the rain, every single extra hour lain in bed if only to get some more rest beside each other).

The Watcher and his Knight loved Hallownest above all else. Even as they cultivated a small sliver of rebellion together in the form of gentle touches behind velvet curtains, and whispered dates in shops long since closed for the day. They had to love Hallownest above all else, as that was their duty. That was their purpose. That was who they had sworn fealty to. Not the King, not the Lady, but the protection of their Kingdom.

Which is what makes the reveal of their relationship so painfully bitter, when that sense of duty was stripped from anything the Pale King revealed about them.

Hegemol was the most outspoken of the Five against the vessel plan. He was born and raised in a loving family, who ingrained in him from a very young age that all life is precious, and the right to a mind was not only intrinsic, but could be instilled over time. Hegemol was born before Hallownest, before the Pale King granted bugs higher minds. I fully believe there were still some small societies (as evidenced by the fact other bugs can go beyond the kingdom and still be mentally able to hold meaningful social bonds). Hegemol grew up watching bugs that were far more instinctual 'beasts' become more worldly with the gift of masks and the ability to focus themselves. For those reasons alone (there are others, but for simplicity's sake because I know I'm rambling), he voiced active opposition to the plan.

The Pale King, meanwhile, has the gift of foresight. In my canon, he knows that the vessel plan and the Hollow Knight is the only way Hallownest survives, even if it is... In shambles. He does not have the time to consistently defend himself against Hegemol, as much as he (very secretly) applauds his knight's sense of will that he would go against him like this. Hegemol is a testament to the Pale King's triumph through instilling such emotion in a former kingdom of beasts... But now, that mind could spell the downfall of Hallownest.

PK is no fool (at least in this instance). He knows the reputation Hegemol has garnered, especially among his fellow knights, is very well founded. He knows that they look to him for guidance, for example, as a revered older brother who is far, far closer to them than he, as king, would ever be. PK knows keenly the doubts in his judgement that Hegemol has sown into the other's minds, and it's for this reason that he has to nip them at their source.

(My PK has a LOT of mixed feelings about this. This is NOT an easy thing for him to do. But because I also plan to explore this as a main focus in my fic, I want to save all of that struggle and strife for WCWTD ;) )

The way that the other knights (sans Ze'mer) find out about Lurien and Hegemol's relationship is through the Pale King holding it up as leverage to discredit Hegemol's judgement. He uses it as a way to wither away any of the questions the knights had growing on their mind; because to them, this came as a shock. If Hegemol had hid his relationship from them... Then what their king says about it clouding his judgement may have been true. That he was fighting fang and claw against the plan because he did not want to lose his secret lover. This distrust does not happen quickly, but it does come to fruition. Especially when Hegemol succumbs further to the infection and is rendered unable to continue his protests. PK turns their opinions against him, despite how much he and Lurien worked, mutually, to avoid such a fate. And it. Hurts.

To answer your last question, I think Lurien would have isolated himself further after Hegemol's death. I think he would have been gutted not only by the loss of his beloved, but by the betrayal of his king that had to go alongside it. The night of Hegemol's death and PK's plot coming to light is the first and only time Lurien has ever uttered the words 'Hallownest be damned', alone and grieving in his tower. I think he would have refused to see Isma and Ogrim personally, though they would try to at least ensure through conversations with Aedmond, Lurien's butler, that he was still doing... Well enough. Of all the knights, with Hegemol gone, I think Ze'mer would be the only one he would ever allow to step foot in his tower after this, knowing that she and Hegemol were close, and she was likely the only one who admitted to him that she had lost faith in the king, but could see no other way to save Hallownest. And even then, the only time she visited would be to offer him a private trip to Hegemol's grave in the Howling Cliffs, and to leave him with a flower. One to match the bloom she buried alongside her best friend.

Lurien would never take her up on this offer before he became a Dreamer, knowing himself too well that he would have refused to go through the plan if he had to dwell on what transpired any longer.

Eternal sleep was likely a welcome relief for the Watcher.

[seth-shitposts]

Kanan & Dimal

CW// descriptions of dissociation, reference to the grand inquisitor’s suicide attempt, reference to order 66 & everything that followed. Portrayals of slight dermatillomania [i think that’s all the relevant pieces]

UNEDITED AND UNFORMATTED BECAUSE MY INTERNET IS A BITCH

——

Backstory+Context:

What I’m adding in is that he had become a temple guard almost immediately after his knighting, that he and the council had thought and agreed it to be a good idea. His connection to the force is atypical, much different from most Jedi. He doesn’t connect in the same way, and it’s far easier for him to be detached. The line of thought for putting him as a temple guard was that it would be highlighting his strength, since a key element of a guard is choosing to forego all attachment and dedicate to the title.

There was a single oversight on all sides, one that would lead to his obsession and therefore his fall. He hadn’t built a strong sense of self. [It’s one thing to have had a sense of self and then choose to let it go in favor of committing to something higher than yourself. It’s another thing entirely to have not had that foundation before hand.] Because he didn’t go through building that in a secure way, it left him liable for insecurities down the line. There’s a lot he didn’t know about himself and he didn’t know how to figure out, or even be aware of it. One of the major things having been why the force had chosen him, because he didn’t have the same innate empathy that Jedi have. It started as a curiosity to learn more about the force and how it works, to go deeper than the base line of understanding. The answer had to be somewhere. He attempted several times over the course of a few years to learn more about the sith as well, but he was declined from those deep dives.

Through his search, he found a series of journals written by one of the founders of the Jedi Order, but only random volumes. He really resonated with this author; they had written a description of their connection to the force that matched his own, and *that* is something he’s never found before. He thought that maybe this author would have written more not just about their struggles, but how they preserved through them, because he had access to the final volume, which painted an ending where they had worked through their struggles, and now would help build the future that their friends are envisioning to help everyone across the galaxy (thus, beginning what becomes The Jedi Order). All of the other volumes were restricted. The harder he tried to gain access, the more obsessed over it he became, which only led to a more firm decline, resulting in him beginning to have doubts.

(Long story short, Palpatine had planted thoughts similarly to as he had with Anakin and swayed his unsureness of himself to a full betrayal of the order)

———

+[Following the events of s1 finale]+

It draws him back to consciousness at a slow pull before thrusting him back in all at once- the sound of life that surrounds him. A breeze that ruffles through leaves and rustles grass, chirps and clicks of different species of insects, hums and songs of avians as their wings flap in time with a heart beat, constant trickling of water.

It’s all soft… no, it’s separated. Far away. Like his head is trapped in a bubble, but the moment the bubble pops, as does the separated gentleness.

And then it’s all so deafening to his sensitive ears, it reminds him not to allow himself to be so vulnerable and ill informed of unknown surroundings in such a vastly open space.

Alarmed and with lightning shooting through his veins, he rushes to sit up, trying to gather his bearings.

Surrounding him are thick forestry. A quick twist to peek behind him gives him two different pieces of information. One being the sight of some ruin, something older than his knowledge as the only thing that still stands is a stone arch of sorts with scribbled writings. The second vital detail is the fire that shoots halfway up his back.

Fire…

Wincing, he tries to shift his lower back away from the blazing pain. As he does, he realizes he’s moving farther into some pool of water his legs are soaking in. The water is the home of some type of strange colored algae that glows with unique flowering floating on it. It takes him a moment to look to his legs through the clearness of the water. Burns that… look like they had rapidly healed.

He withdraws his limbs from the water to inspect them, and the moment he does, the algae no longer glows.

Picking at the healed scarring gently, he tries to piece together…

The last thing I remember… Speaking to Kanan Jarrus, right before I…

Curling his lip, he glares at the flesh on his bones. I threw myself into an exploding… How in the entirely blasted galaxy did I survive that? How did I wind up on… this…

The last person he had seen before his vision was over taken by flames trying to swallow him whole, forcing him to succumb to the burning inferno of pain enveloping him.

Kanan Jarrus.

He shakes his head in disgust. Fucking nobility of a Jedi, their need to save and spare everyone. No matter the monster.

It had been the last choice that would have been my own. And now…

He can’t very well just return to the inquisitorius, not after the string of failures he’s just weaved for himself. That last one being just a beautiful ribbon to wrap it up. And not going back isn’t going to grant him any safety from what will begin to hunt him. He’s still blood in the water. He can’t wait for the sharks to find him.

It’s pathetic, having run to death with open arms and failing even a task as simple as that. Simple in comparison to what the alternative was. And now… And now there has to be another escape. There’s always…

Dragging his nails across his scalp, he rattles his recollection, but every thought is so, so far away.

Distance…

Separation.

Can’t be tracked with no trail to follow. He doesn’t like it, but it will buy him time until there’s something better; an opportunity.

Until then, a decision has been made. Throw distance between himself and the force.

——

+[Soon after Kallus agrees to help]+

Kallus holds out an indie commlink, “I’ll gather equipment and resources, and once I’m available to meet up with you, I will contact you through this. If you ever have an emergency, contact me. Just to be safe, don’t use-“

The spy halts suddenly, staring up at him, seemingly trying to think.

He can feels his brow twitch from being stared at. “What?”

“Forgive me, I just realized I have never learned your name.”

Growling, he snatches the commlink from Kallus’s open hand. “You don’t need it.”

He can hear that Kallus has some kind of bite back on the tip of his tongue, but thinks better of it, and swallows the bitter words with a second thought. If he’s being honest, he would rather Kallus bite back at him than…

Straightening his shoulders, he places the commlink in one of his most secure pockets, tucking it close to his chest.

——

+[One of the first sessions; probably the first session, ngl.]+

“So,” Smirking, he levels with Kallus, about to enjoy when the moment when realization strikes this blond that he is in way over his head. “Tell me about how exactly you plan on helping me become a Jedi Knight again, Agent Kallus.”

Rolling his eyes, Kallus organizes stolen imperial equipment. “We’ll start with you telling me about the Jedi.”

“Me?”

“Yes, you were a Jedi Knight yourself, so wouldn’t you know the basic principles best?”

Tearing his gaze away from the rebel spy, he crosses his arms over his chest, suddenly finding the wall much more interesting.

“Look, I’m going to need you to be the least bit cooperative if I’m going to be of ay substan-“

“I don’t remember.”

“You don’t remember?” Kallus stops what he’s doing entirely. “What exactly?”

“The principles. Anything, really.” He masks his frustration with an amused smile, turning back to Kallus, hoping to irritate him, with the reality of the situation.

“How do you not remember? What do you mean? What, did you just eviscerate your understanding of your enemy when you decided to leave your station in the empire?”

He isn’t getting he satisfaction he thought he would from this, and he can’t tell if that’s more or less frustrating than the truth he’s having to swallow and now spill. “No,” the syllable is released through gritted teeth. “It’s not that I chose not to remember. It’s that I can’t remember.” Just another blaring fact of his own short comings.

“Elaborate.” Kallus is withholding his own frustration. Withholding it, but still choosing to patiently listen.

“Best I can explain is that after choosing to close myself off from the force, I also shut myself out from the dark side of it. It was shell shocking. For the first time I could breathe properly without having realized before that…” He takes in a sharp breath. “Long story short, my memories are a ‘mess’. Some are twisted versions of the truth and I have no way of figuring it out on my own. I have more gaps than I do recollection.”

He watches as Kallus turns away from him, slowly dragging his fingers through his hair as he tries to process this unexpected challenge. Still feeling bitter at his admission, he waits to see this man who had once not been able to apply the definition ‘quit’ throw in the towel. He had missed it the first go round. He wants to see it for himself.

“Change in steps,” Kallus swiftly strides back to the speeder, “we’re starting from scratch.”

Eyes narrowing as they follow the ex-imperial, he tries to grapple the words just given to him as if it’s a silly little errand. “What?”

“We are going to outline a series of expeditions to find the pieces we need to start with.” Grabbing the most tattered and slapped-together datapad to exist, Kallus begins to break through firewalls to cross reference imperial databanks with ones that existed before the empire itself, to find any trace of a location that may have been overlooked where they could find more information about the Jedi.

Trying to wrap his head around Kallus’s words, he’s reeling as irritation claws its way up his spine. “Would be great, but one of the first orders I had been given as grand inquisitor was to carry out and oversee the destruction of anything relating to the Jedi. There’s nothing-“

“There’s always something. There’s always ones that got away. Ones never found to begin with.” Kallus skims over the lines rapidly. “Don’t be so eager to give up. If you want to turn me in so bad, know that I won’t go down without a fight, but same applies here.” He pulls out an empty datapad and scribbles some locations on it. “I said I would help. Just because you chose to hide some details doesn’t mean I’m done here.”

He can’t tell if he’s more annoyed or further intrigued. Sliding a couple fingers across his jawline, he considers his options.

While he, personally, would see the value in handing over someone like Kallus, nestled so deep in the empire, he’s well aware that the spy wouldn’t get him nearly as far as he would need him to. Going back is still wildly out of the question. The middle ground action, leaving altogether, would just leave him back at where he had been. Aimless, unable to focus. Some could settle for that, and maybe he could too, but…

Maybe entertaining the notion a bit longer will be worth the effort. As the one who had been in charge of overseeing the destruction of the Jedi’s existence, he can remember that he hadn’t entirely agreed with the decision. He had thought the command was purely out of a place of emotion rather than reason. Even if the Jedi had been wrong and mislead, from a scholar standpoint, it would have been smarter to keep their archives, to teach why they thought how they did and show how it would have been misinformed.

But at the time… Had it been another moment where he was thinking through that false clarity? The lense of the dark, had it led him to choosing anger over reason? Or did that come later? Why had he gone through something he didn’t agree with? Or did he actually believe it to be a good idea at the time?

The face of the man who gave him the orders still escapes his memory. Why can’t he remember the face that he followed at the cost of everything? What was he looking to gain? What did he lose?

“Hey,” Kallus’s voice is soft, gentle. “You won’t have to go looking through these places by yourself. I’ll slip away when I have the chance. I’ll also try getting in touch with my informant again. They may have intel that could help.”

He blinks down at the human whose harsh features and guarded demeanor has momentarily shifted to make room for assurance.

“Seeing as how no other option is appealing, you’re still the most interesting choice.” He smirks teasingly, “Regardless of how annoying you get.”

Returning to his usual rigid posture, Kallus rolls his eyes, “I get that frequently, thank you.”

“You really don’t give up, do you? Is chasing ghosts something you’ve just always done?”

“Seems so. We’ll leave for the nearest location in half an hour.”

———

+[After much training and progression and work put into slowly dedicating to this task.]+

+Context for this next part:

Through [redacted], an informant, Kallus is told he has to make the decision to either continue missions with the former grand inquisitor on their own, attempting to gather an understanding of the Jedi that is doomed to be lacking and incomplete, or make contact with Kanan Jarrus and gain his trust when Kallus has yet to have much experience or credibility as fulcrum, having only been given the mantle shortly ago.

Initially, Kanan (rightfully) believes that they have lured him out as a trap and that they are both still loyal to the empire. Only after a lot of convincing is it that Kanan is willing to even hear them out.

-I am still working the timeline out and locking it down, but this would take place not long after the season 2 finale, Kanan being more on edge and untrusting than ever.

Kallus had believed it wise to bring peace offerings a an attempt to be heard out. Kallus instructed the former inquisitor to retrieve and bring a Jedi artifact while Kallus brought intel.

The former inquisitor had still been undecided on whether he would want or even ask for help from the Jedi knight. It wasn’t until Kanan addressed him directly, asking what his intentions are to be. A bitter response sat on the tip of his tongue, but he caught a glance of Kallus, who’s eyes were still on the Jedi.

Thinking on how far Kallus has put himself out for him, how the spy time and time again met him where he was to figure things out with him, and now how Kallus has chosen to pursue the superior aid directly from the knight at the expense of his own plans and compromising his own position- all because he has faith in him.

He resists the urge to lash his tongue at Kanan and admits to wanting to understand the full picture, learn and preserve the truth.

Eventually, Kallus has to leave and it is just him and Kanan. Kanan is still untrusting. (Again, rightfully)

+++

“I have no reason to trust you. Either of you. Not after everything.”

Pulse still racing, Kanan keeps distance from him, facing harshly in his direction.

Curious. If he’s so against me surviving as a perceived threat, why would he have gone through the effort of keeping me alive? He decides to view this as a trial, a test. Prove himself. Show that he’s taking this seriously, that the sacrifices Kallus chose to make won’t be wasted, that he won’t be left back where he began.

“You’re right. You have no reason to take either of us at our word. Nothing I do or say will take back what has been done. It does not make what I’m pursuing any less true. It’s taken a lot for me to get where I am as I am here today.” He makes sure to keep the distance between them Kanan holds, hands clasped behind his back. “I will be honest, at first I had no intent on taking this seriously, but then Kallus took the time to show me that what I had previously thought to be true were only lies to get me to side my loyalty to the empire. I’m still unsure of many things. I desire nothing more than to stand by the truth. Kallus started me back on that devotion. The only thing I am asking of you is to remind me of who the Jedi were and what they stood for.”

“Why?” The tension in Kanan… shifts. Still present, but different. “You were there, weren’t you?”

Taking a deep breath, he tries to find the right words to string together. This doesn’t get easier for him to digest each time he explains it. He runs the tip of his tongue along his sharpened teeth before he speaks, the slight motion reminding him of his body. “My recollection of the Jedi, my perception of them, had become… twisted as I fell. Overtime, memories shredded until there were few left. As an inquisitor, as a servant of the dark side, I had been under a false belief that I had a clear mind. It wasn’t until I finally distanced myself from the force entirely that I realized that not to be true. And now most days I cannot differentiate between what memories are real, what’s true, or not.”

“Still, why should I help you?” It feels as though the Jedi knight is cutting his eyes at him, holding what is a more than reasonable grudge and distrust towards him.

“Because I am asking for it.” Despite trying to appear calm, he can feel his ire rising like a heat traveling up his spine, setting every cell of skin on fire on its way up. This would be simpler if he just out right says he does not wish to help me. Instead, we’re playing this game.

“What gives you the right to ask? After how many of our people fell at your hands? After the betrayal you committed?” Kanan’s voice slowly rises in volume, adding fuel to the flames in the former inquisitor’s body. “And you just forgot? You forgot?!”

“My inability to remember detail does not negate the damage I’ve done, do not confuse my desire to understand what happened and inability to remember as a cowardly attempt to evade accountability for everything I’ve done, Kanan Jarrus,” he meets Kanan’s spit of fire with the same level of heat. “If you were to be so against rising above and helping me understand where I went wrong and would rather I have died, then why in this blasted galaxy didn’t you let me?!” He can no longer smother the sneer on his lips, a growl almost becoming audible from his vocal cords.

“What in the hell are you talking about?”

“Don’t play ignorant with me! You know what I’m talking about! Back on that star destroyer, when you had bested me in a fight and I made my choice! My way out! When I succumbed to the flames, you and your crew dragged me off that ship and abandoned me on an uninhabited planet!” He glares, the scab of it being ripped open raw right when he had thought it was finally healed.

“I don’t know what you are imaging,” Kanan seethes, the words hissing out from gritting teeth, “I had other priorities than making a futile attempt to save someone who had very clearly made their choice!”

The words wash over his body as though he had been thrown into a lake of ice. His voice loses its rage, “What?” There is no lie, no deceit in the knight’s features. “Then… How did- that doesn’t make- That’s impossible, I shouldn’t have survived- Much less unharmed- healed even-“ Dragging his nail along the ridges on his skull, he can feel his back hit a wall. The walls spin and blur in the background. The foundation that he had scrapped together since waking up in that algae filled pool shatters beneath his very feet. Not because Kanan hadn’t chosen to save him, that what he would have expected- hell, it’s what he would have done himself; but its the fact that now, no he doesn’t have any iota of a clue.

As improbable as it was, Kanan being the one to have pulled him from the fire, it was the only answer that had been viably possible; so much so that he latched onto it. Believed it. Been convinced.

But now? His thoughts are spiraling every which way, wrecking his brain for anything, but there’s no feasible way he should have survived, especially nearly unscathed aside from scarring of the burns he had endured that should have been much more detrimental.

Boots step into his line of vision, dragging him out of his mind slowly. “You’re… serious. About all of this?”

Realizing not until now, he had slid to the ground against the wall.

It’s a fight, trying to get back into his body enough to meet the Jedi’s face. He has to force his eyes to focus on the other’s features. Guarded, but curious, almost open. Something distinctively empathetic. Despite who it is Kanan is talking to.

“Jarrus, I’m always serious.” He screws his eyes shut after pain washes over them from the force he had behind them to manually focus them. His vision blurs in and out when he opens them once more. “I need to see the full picture. I’m sick of only having pieces. I want the truth, nothing more. Nothing less. So I can make informed decisions about what is just.”

Through the blurred vision, he’s able to make out that Kanan offers out a hand.

He only stares at it for a long moment. Not sure if he’s waiting for it to come into focus, if it’s his turn to be distrustful, or if he just isn’t able to get his body to cooperate.

“If you’re willing to be receptive, then I might be willing to help.”

He finds his hand setting into Kanan’s offer. Not without immense effort from himself.

———

+[The second meetup between Kanan and Him?]+

+Contextual notes for this scene: Kanan and the former inquisitor are in a Jedi temple, thus far they have pulled against the grain and become lost in the temple. At this moment, they are in the middle of an argument.

“I may have said that I could help, but you still have yet to prove that you are trustworthy,” the Jedi Knight pushes the words out through gritted teeth, body tense and on edge.

It’s been taking everything in him not to inflame and agitate this man’s every blaring fault and flaw; physical and psychological.

Remember why you’re committing to this. Remember the balance. Let go of that which is fleeting. Return to the pursuit of unbiased truth. Let go of that whic-

“Hey! Don’t ignore me just because I can’t see you!”

Whatever happened to Kanan Jarrus has no just changed his physical abilities, but also his mentality. “You’re lashing out, I am trying to ground myself. It is not a easy process for me. Whatever happened to having nothing to fear? You are currently laying out all this fear in open and it’s the worst temptation.” Remember what Kallus taught you.

“That right there does not make me any more enthused to help you.”

“Then don’t. I will find my way out of this temple. And I’ll find my own way to the light.” His own words are just as guarded and defensive as Kanan’s.

“You’re well aware that’s not an option, you cannot leave on your own-“

A painfully wide grin cuts across his face with a breathless chuckle, “Actually, Kanan Jarrus, I don’t. I told you already, my memory is as about as reliable as your sight. And what’s better is when I cut myself off from the dark, it’s false sense of clarity is not the only thing that left me. My patience has warn thin. I always had an extraordinarily high amount of that, if I remember even that much. But you are cutting it shorter.” He pauses, breath halting in his lungs before he releases after a moment. “You have no reason to trust me, I do not belittle that nor whatever it is you are personally dealing with. I would give you my honesty, but you do not trust it.”

“I don’t know your intentions, I don’t know your allegiances, and I don’t know your values. And you expect me to be willing to trust you? After everything? That you suddenly grew a conscious?” Shaking his head, Kanan sneers. “I shouldn’t even be here.”

He brings his palms up, open hands, open mind, willing mind. “You’re right, I haven’t ‘suddenly grown’ what you would call a conscious. I never had one- even before my fall, and being honest with you, I probably never will.” He uses every bit of will power he can muster to relax the tension within him then turns to face Kanan.

“Figures,” Kanan scoffs, shaking his head as he turns away from him. “Why did I even-“

Taking the extra effort to humble his own tone, he tries to will out every bit of gentleness he’s capable of producing. “If I may continue. Please.” He keeps his voice calm and even.

The knight still looks displeased, but holds his tongue as he turns back to face him.

“I’m not sure why I never had that innate ability, the one to be empathetic, but that doesn’t mean I’m disqualified from the light. I can built skills. I can dedicate myself. More than anything, I want to pursue the truth. It’s been a rough pill for me to swallow that for too long I have confused my perception for it. My perception is but a limited lense of the full picture. What I believe to be truth may not be what is real or what is true. I think, I have been lied to and misled. But I have nothing else to compare to. It’s a battle just for me to stay grounded at all.” He sighs, cutting himself off. “I find that I don’t know…”

A darker hand slides on top of one of his pale palms. He blinks rapidly, trying to force his eyesight to focus back in. He can make out the notable details of Kanan’s face. He’s noticeably calmer.

“I make no promises, nor obligations. But as long as you are making progress, I’ll see what I can help with. You’re right, you’ve lost patience and you’re fighting for real clarity, but you’re willing to be open, to relearn. If you really are after the truth, I will give that to you.” Sighing, Kanan steps back. “I myself have… been more on edge. I’m more guarded than ever now.”

“It’s hard for you to tell if you’re being reasonably cautious or cynically guarded?” He studies Kanan.

“Yeah.”

He watches as the tension Kanan holds does not lessen. He tries to think of someway he could lessen that stress of distrust from the Jedi, maybe finally make some headway. It’s very appearing that the man worries that he is only using this exchange as a way to get the knight to lower his gaurd, get him closer to his crew before springing a trap.

“I have a deal to offer you, something to set your mind at ease?”

Scoffing, Kanan shakes his head, “What could you possibly-“

“You’ll have my word. No harm will befall you or your crew. As long as you tell not a soul about Kallus’s change in allegiance. You will pretend you know nothing.”

Kanan looks taken aback, almost skeptic. “Tell me why.”

He rolls his eyes, “You know full and well that you need to be very clear about your questions while i lack my proximity to the force, Jarrus.”

“Why should I trust that Kallus’s position as a rebel spy- whether he really is or not- holds any importance to you?”

“Because Kallus has risked much more than a shiny little status to help me, to reveal himself to you. I also don’t like owing people, regardless of whether I consider them a friend or not. And at this moment, everything I am working on, everything I’m cultivating to be is owed to him. If it’s a future I owe him, it’s a future I will secure for him.”

———

+[This either will take place at the end of them in the Jedi temple, or during a third or final meet.]+

+The two have just finished a session where the former inquisitor spoke of what events he thinks he can remember before becoming The Grand Inquisitor. It will be snippets from the first set of notes on this post.

+Kanan pieces together that he needs to carve out an identity for himself. That before he can commit himself, he has to at least know himself, or the cycle will only repeat.

“Figure out who I am?” He has been avoiding dwelling on that line of thoughts. It’s visceral, the reaction to not allow himself to. The very thought makes him sick to his stomach and threatens for the planet to swallow him whole. “How- I can’t-“

“You can, but you don’t have too all at once. One piece at a time.”

“Where would I even begin?”

“A name is a start.” Kanan smiles genuinely, almost as a light hearted tease.

“I can’t remember my-“

“It doesn’t have to be what your name once was. You can chose anything.” Kanan rubs his chin after a short pause, “To make it easier to narrow options down, is there anyone in your past that resonated with you? Or something that holds meaning to you?”

He pauses, pieces of the journal series floating in his thoughts. “Maybe, but I cannot remember their full name. Just a couple syllables.”

“That would be as good a start as any. It can be yours, unique to you, inn that light.”

He nods slow, chewing on his lower lip for a moment. He takes a deep breath, Kanan listening intently and patiently.

“My name will be Dimal.”

[card-queen]

My WIP

Genre: Fantasy, Thriller, Mystery Serious in tone but not grim, edgy or explicit in any way.

The working title for the fantasy story I have in mind. The ‘story’ as it is, was designed to be a Strategy RPG with war, conflict, companionship and secrets that shake the foundations of the world at its core.  While much of the original concept has remained, writing it as a novel first has allowed some of the finer points to be enhanced, improved and given new life.

While the story is set in a fantasy world and would go in the fantasy section, the story itself is more along the lines of a spy thriller, starting small and dealing with only one nation before expanding to include all the other big players in the world.

The first story is focused in the country of Ethelia, dealing with the aftermath of a civil uprising and how people have lost faith with their King, choosing to leave Ethelia to join the Crusades in an endless fight in a desolate country across the sea for a chance at glory. What starts the story is a big mystery surrounding an unknown campsite filled with dead bodies and a strange black-haired survivor who may prove to be a vital witness, unravels into a plot to seize the throne of Ethelia, assassinate the two princes and pave the way for a third Yragan invasion. While many of the key questions about the events will be answered within that story, many others are not. For instance, why is Yraga so determined to conquer Ethelia? What was the purpose of that campsite before the men within were slaughtered? Just how powerful are the Fangs of Alcerion and what is their true purpose?

Subsequent stories will travel across the world, with new companions to be found, alliances forged and broken, betrayals that cost lives, betrayals that save the day, secrets, conspiracies and hidden truths buried for generations.

This world is a complex one that will take time to fully evolve, but hopefully this blog will give you enough insight as to what is there to be excited to hear more.

While many of the countries and concepts have been developed enough to mention, this document will only really focus on the characters involved in the first book as they’ve had the most work done to them. Plus, I like to leave room for magic during the planning stage as it allows for extra context, thematic resonance and just stronger ideas that pair better with what surrounds them.

The unprovoked burning of a manor by a wild rebel faction. The murder of a simple woodsman with no known enemies. The slaughter of an unknown military campsite that not even the locals knew about. Three events, all brutal and all seemingly isolated, linked by an unseen connection that seeks to bring the nation of Ethelia to its knees. Castowen Daine, a young captain in charge of keeping peace in the Ethelian town of Peaton, discovers an unmarked campsite whose occupants lay slaughtered and hidden within tents. Their leader, a young nobleman completely unknown to Cas. Amidst the corpses, two survivors were found: a soldier on death’s door and a mysterious woman in black. At the same time, Cas’ brother Conoric discovers the unfortunate remains of the local woodsman; a man with no enemies or friends to speak of, murdered and hidden from view. The tragic events shrouded in mystery seem to have a common thread around the town of Peaton, and Cas comes to understand how close his town, and even the whole of Ethelia, came to devastation. Together, Cas and Conoric find themselves swept up in a bid to find out who or what is threatening Ethelia.

[pottery-and-pomegranates]

‘What is Classical Archaeology? – Greek Archaeology’ by Anthony Snodgrass

Snodgrass's essay, What is Classical Archaeology? – Greek Archaeology, is an exceptionally good starting point for anyone who is interested in Classical, particularly Greek, Archaeology, as it looks at the fundamentals of the subject and helps the reader to build their own opinions.

Scholarly essays often have a habit of being geared towards a certain type of reader, generally with an assumed prior knowledge. The point of this breakdown is not to explore new ideas, but simply to summarise this essay in a way that is, hopefully, more accessible to a wider range of interested people. As such, if you have any questions when reading, please do let me know and I will do my best to help!

In studying Classical Archaeology, one of the biggest questions to start exploring is what Classical Archaeology actually is. The answer to this varies amongst scholars and can alternate between a branch of Art History, Archaeology, Classics, a combination of all three or an entity entirely of its own. Snodgrass explores each of these possibilities, which I will try to break down into a few paragraphs (if any of this interests you, DEFINITELY read the essay - I certainly can't claim this post to be an extensive summary!).

Classics: The study of Classics, i.e. Ancient Greek and Roman texts, is a vital part of Classical Archaeology, and something that sets this discipline apart from other branches of Archaeology. Whilst branches such Prehistoric Archaeology is working purely with recovered artefacts, Classical Archaeologists can use texts of varying kinds to build up a far fuller picture of Classical events. However, this can lead to a reliance on texts, rather than a desire to develop new information and, potentially, contradictions within our knowledge.

Art History: As impossible as it is to separate Classical Archaeology from recovered texts, it is equally as impossible to separate it from Ancient works of art, particularly so as Classical artworks made such an impact on future masterpieces and styles. It is worth noting that Classical Archaeology was once at the heart of both Archaeology and Art History, with figures such as Johann Winckelmann paving the way for Art History of all eras.

Archaeology: Classical Archaeology was, at one stage, the definition of Archaeology itself. Ancient Greece was one of the first eras to be explored, and it was frequently taken for granted that Greece would be the focus of any archaeological organisation. The decline in recent interest could largely be put down to the expansion of archaeologists into different eras and nations. Classical Archaeology can be seen today as a traditional discipline, still managed in a dated way and focused largely on itself rather than the broader issues that Archaeology is set to tackle. To move forward, it is Snodgrass’s belief that Classical Archaeology should be more engaged and entwined with other branches of Archaeology, rather than considering it a discipline entirely in and of its own. However, this does not take away from the fact that Classical Archaeology is a successful discipline with a number of unique strengths.

Connoisseurship: One of the main strengths within Classical Archaeology is the ability to match contemporary texts with surviving artefacts. Adolf Furtwänger (1853-1907) was a leader in this, aiming to match works of art (and copies) to the text reference, believing that the more copies and more references that one artwork had, the greater it must have been. This, in turn, led to the pursuit of ancient artists, as well as ancient artworks.

J. D. Beazley (1885-1970) explored similar tactics in the medium of pottery, but could not use texts to do so as individual vases are rarely mentioned. Looking at Athenian vases, he analysed the subtleties in the decoration, aiming to group the vases under one hand or group. Recent debates, however, have asked how valuable this work actually is. Those developing on Beazley’s work now tend to look far more at the images, materials etc., wondering what they tell us about Ancient Greece as whole, rather than about the individual artist.

Greek Architecture: When it comes to Greek Architecture, it is worth noting that the scholarly attitude towards this subject is vastly different throughout nations, not least because different countries have varying levels of involvement in excavation sites in Greece. The study of Greek architecture tends to be a far more mathematical discipline than other mediums, focusing on measurements, proportion, physics and symmetry. Furthermore, whilst the study of architecture can often be grouped with the study of Art History, there are comparatively few contemporary texts remaining regarding architecture, making the study of this medium far more akin to branches of archaeology. However, despite the lack of contemporary documentation, Greek architecture has, arguably, made the biggest impact on later practices, as can be seen in a great number of buildings produced far more recently (The British Museum, The White House and many others all see resemblances of Greek Temples).

Topography and Regional Surveys: Ancient Sources largely ignore the physical landscape of Greece, which was only really studied from the 19th Century. Full excavations are not possible on a large scale, and therefore only provide conclusive answers of a small section of land. Doing widespread surveys surrounding the excavations means that the ground can be analysed quickly and without intrusion, but can present surface level evidence that may compliment or contradict that of the excavation. · This development had a major effect on the focus of excavating – widespread surveys took archaeologists away from cities and into the countryside, where discoveries were being made on a massive scale, even if just on the surface of the land. From here, historians could start putting their information into context, looking at a world outside of the major sites and, even, outside of Greece.

Chronology: Ancient Greece is, by comparison to history of similar or earlier times, relatively well documented in terms of a chronology. The history of Greece began to be documented extremely soon after the era’s decline, and an abundance of artefacts such as pottery and inscriptions on architecture and coins are still legible. However, using artefacts for building chronology works along a scale of probability, and nothing deducted in this way can be completely certain. Flexibility is needed when working in this industry, particularly as more scientific methods are developed, helping to make dating more accurate and, potentially, contradicting prior beliefs.

For Ancient Greece, one of the most accurate forms of dating is through pottery – not only were they made in abundance, but the pottery tended to hold images of current events. Furthermore, being able to identify the painter, as Beazley was working on, narrows an artwork down to a period of a single lifetime.

Conclusion: · Ultimately, archaeology should be viewed as a combination of archaeology, art history and classics, as well as its own discipline; allowing one to dominate significantly reduces the scope of the subject and restricts the potential advancements that can be made.

[nezumiismissing]

Authoritarianism Without Leadership and the Formation of Spatial Identity

I think at this point I have probably brought this up in every single one of my analyses, so it’s about time that this topic gets its own breakdown in a full length post (or 2 or 3). There’s a lot to cover and it’s going to get way out there, but hopefully you can find something useful here. And if not, maybe it can at least be entertaining. More exploration of this topic to come at an unspecified time after the convention when my brain decides to enter the No.6 zone again. (and yes it is over 3000 words so, you know, plan for that)

So if you couldn’t tell, the No.6 anime does not have an antagonist, at least not in any traditional sense of the word. The opponent our characters are facing off against, it turns out, is not an evil scientist or an organization or a military, but instead it is the city and its systems that must be either destroyed or reformed by the end of the story. And while those other characters exist within the world of No.6, and all take actions that go directly against the desires of our main characters, they are not fought against especially directly and within the anime have no real identity, instead only existing as part of the whole. But what is the whole exactly? I think the easy answer here is to say that the whole is society, the culture we live within that shapes everything we do in life and that must have some amount of force placed upon it to change in any significant way. But when we say that “society is the whole”, and therefore the antagonist of No.6, what do we mean by that? And how does our perception and interpretation of what it means to be a society impact how we read and understand the story of No.6?

Now, having society be the antagonist of a young adult dystopian series is not something that No.6 came up with, obviously. It's basically a necessity of the genre. But within that structure, although not always apparent at first, there is a lot of variance. These worlds are almost always authoritarian and hierarchical, the result of some massive war or natural disaster that we have been unable to fully heal from, but outside of that, the way in which these worlds are built and understood are vastly different. Some are pretending to be utopias while others give us no image of what it means to be at the “top” and only show suffering. Some take place in over-crowded cities and others have sparse populations of people constantly searching for each other. There are social (and human) experiments, revolutions of all shapes and sizes, monsters and aliens and governments that are all in one way or another trying to reflect the very real events that are taking place in the real world in a way that is perhaps more comprehensible, or at least entertaining. Society as it currently exists is very much the antagonist of these stories, and at the center (and everywhere else) of a society are individual people making decisions that may or may not be good and may or may not have good intentions. So it is easy to see how, when it comes down to it, while society is implicitly understood to be the antagonist, most of these stories focus their energy on the removal of a tangible threat, usually a person or group of people who are determined to be “in charge” of the society and therefore responsible for much of the misery of a dystopia. The No.6 novels also fall into this group, as does the manga. But the No.6 anime, for whatever reason, decided to do something completely different, and something that is arguably much more terrifying.

From here on out I will just refer to the anime as No.6 and will specify if I am mentioning the novels/manga.

In No.6 things do not happen because someone says they need to happen, but they instead happen for…. what reason exactly? We see the mayor referenced briefly in the first episode, so we can assume that he is the one in charge of decision-making, but he makes no actual appearances. The military is clearly shown demolishing the West Block, but who is giving orders? Who is watching over the scientists at the Correctional Facility? Deciding where the wall will expand next if at all? In most stories you would see questions like these answered either near the beginning of the story or revealed at the end, and if it's neither of those then they’ll probably still show up at some point in the middle. But in No.6 there is none of that. There is no one or no group clearly “in charge” of what is happening at any time in regards to the city and its surroundings. Instead, it seems, the city has reached a point in which the details of how these things are occurring are unimportant, and that for the most part, things will unfold with or without the input of an individual or group. The implication of this being that No.6 is somehow separate from its people and government, and is, in a sense, alive.

I think this is largely why the anime is able to be so effective, despite its many other issues. On a surface level, the story lacks any kind of antagonist, making it unclear where exactly it's going. But the existence of the city as an independent entity fills in these odd gaps, creating the image of a society that has, quite literally, lost control of itself. It also makes more concrete the theme of “society vs nature” that is kind of hinted at for most of the story and then kind of shoved in your face at the end with Elyurias and Nezumi’s backstory. But with Elyurias being the physical embodiment of nature, what exactly is it that she is opposing? But before we get into that, some framing and questions (or maybe just one very big question).

What does it mean for a city to be “alive”? Not in the sense that things are happening in it and people are living there, but in the sense that it thinks and feels on its own and makes choices about itself that are not the direct result of human or other external input? Clearly people were responsible for its creation, and took care to create systems that would hold it together. But those systems were not created for the city itself, but rather the survival of the people living within it, with the city and society simply being a result of our need to be social. The city, if we are to see it as a living thing, doesn’t really gain anything from this arrangement so long as we are in control of it, and so will seek out ways to separate itself from us. It does need us to continue existing, however, and so it can’t truly create anything new on its own, and will instead make use of what we have already created. It will warp itself in unexpected ways, or cement systems that otherwise would change or disappear over time, so that it will better serve itself and maintain continuity while still appearing as though run by people. Different people will have varying amounts of control over how this all unfolds, but at a certain point there will be things that can no longer be changed through “traditional” means, at which point people will have to create and impose systems on a large scale that do not fit into the current form the city is in. And this is the point at which No.6 finds itself.

Now, there is a lot of my thinking that I’m skipping over here, especially in regards to how this applies to the real world and the implications that has, but for the purposes of No.6, this is a good starting point. The city that existed before No.6 was “killed”, restructured, and brought back to life as the result of a world war, and at the beginning of the story, we are already at a stage in which this new city has separated itself from its people and become a conscious entity. We see this process from a different perspective in the novels, with characters questioning how everything got to this point as they come to realize that the things they thought they were doing were never in their control in the first place, and that something else had made the city what it was. By omitting these characters entirely though, the anime makes their point clear, “it doesn’t matter who thinks they’re in charge of things, the city will function just fine with or without them”. I would argue that much of this is made possible through the advanced technology available in No.6, making it possible to automate systems in a way that keeps people entirely out of the process of dealing with massive amounts of vital information. You could probably even say that the “essence” of No.6, its identity as a sentient being, is mostly made up of these computerized systems and algorithms that determine everything about how a citizen will live their life.

This is, of course, similar to the way in which Elyurias is understood to operate, the main difference being that she is made up of natural, rather than man-made and technological systems. As sentient, omnipresent beings, they make use of small parts of their greater existence in order to convince different components to act in ways that are beneficial to their continued survival, reproduction, and expansion, with the survival of the individual components being far less of a concern as they are perceived as being easy to replace. Elyurias uses the parasitic bees to infinitely self-replicate, allowing her to endlessly alter and maintain the natural world as she sees fit. No.6, on the other hand, makes use of social and technological systems to convince its citizens to keep things as they are, or expand the limits of the city, or any number of other things it cannot do on its own, but are seen as crucial to its continued existence. Within the context of the story, there is no one person that needs to be “in control” of these actions, since the city is acting in what it sees as its own benefit, but it is also aware that in order to maintain itself, someone must appear in charge, and may even be influenced to believe that that is the case.

The problem with No.6, of course, arises from its desire to continue expanding while otherwise maintaining society as it currently exists. A static city is one that is destined to fall apart, or else have control returned to the people until a new form of stability can be achieved. So in order for No.6 to maintain its identity as an independent entity, it must change in other ways, and thus views expansion and increased complexity as a path forward. When it comes into contact with Elyurias as a result of this expansion though, it is clear that their goals as entities are incompatible and cannot occupy the same space. For Elyurias this necessitates the destruction of No.6, since the city has already been responsible for the damage and destruction of large areas of her “realm”, while No.6 sees her as an opportunity to improve its own systems through the assimilation of her powers into its “realm”. This assimilation, as the city sees it, both expands its power through the elimination and subsequent exploitation of a competing entity, as well as further automates its own processes through the combination of technological and natural systems. None of these benefits are seen by the citizens, of course, and in fact the result would instead be an almost complete removal of their free will, but for No.6’s purposes those effects are inconsequential so long as the people continue existing. 

This formatting can also be extrapolated to describe Shion and Nezumi’s roles and understanding of the world, which clearly play a much more prominent role in the outward text of the series. Shion has a difficult time understanding and accepting No.6’s absolute corruption not because he has no experience with the suffering it has caused or or the inherent problems with hierarchy. Clearly he has been subjected to both of those things quite early on in the series. Instead the issue arises from the fact that while Nezumi, who learned about Elyurias in his childhood and has an understanding of “sentient” non-human systems, Shion has no basis for comprehending this, and is therefore unable to see how No.6 could have become so awful without anyone noticing or intervening, and cannot understand the true nature of the issue without first passing it through the filter of human decision-making processes. Nezumi falls into this as well on several occasions when he claims that the citizens are the ones at fault for the city’s problems. But unlike Shion, this comes from a lack of understanding of the specific systems that make up the city and a need to have a concrete place of blame rather than a belief in complete human control over society. Through this lens, the story of the human characters of No.6 in the anime is one of coming to understand the nature of both human and non-human systems, where they may intersect and overlap, and then determining how change can be brought about when we do not have control, or even meaningful access, to those systems.

So when a city has separated itself from its citizens, when it has become functionally “alive” and begins to behave in ways that no longer benefit or sustain our conception of humanity, what can be done to regain control? Can a city that has become independent be brought back under human control, or must it be destroyed and rebuilt, its structure completely altered so that little if any of what was originally there remains intact? The answer that No.6 seems to give is much more in line with the latter idea (at least in this fictional instance). Because of No.6’s rapid development, there was never a chance for people to fully grasp what they were really doing, and if anyone did realize what had happened, it was far too late to alter the city in a way that took away its power. The city is authoritarian to the point of self-inflicted genocide in an instance of internal social destabilization, and the faulty addition of Elyurias’ power makes this self-destruction incredibly easy. The fact that her assimilation into No.6’s system is incomplete only exacerbates the issue, and is ultimately what leads to its destruction.

The destruction of the wall as a physical presence has any number of meanings, some of which I have written about before and others that I may or may not write about in the future. But within this reading of No.6 as “alive”, what stands out the most is the fact that what ultimately gave the city its independent status was its refusal to even interact with other systems. Its purpose, its role, as an entity was entirely one of self-preservation, born from the paranoia that inevitably followed the war responsible for its creation. By destroying the wall, and allowing people access to “others”, the city cannot remain isolated and reinforce a singular concept of society, therefore losing almost the entirety of its power over people. Without the wall, there is no No.6, and without No.6, people are once again free to build something new.

Just to bring this all back around to where we started, and maybe simplify all that down to something manageable, what does it mean to have an antagonist that is alive, but not human or otherwise sentient in a way that we understand? In No.6’s case, I don’t think it is enough to say that society is the problem, or that by removing a government and installing new leadership, all of the problems can be solved. Unlike in the novels and manga, the anime does not even give us the second option, since there functionally is no government to oppose for the most part. Instead, we are given a city that people have not had influence over for a significant amount of time, one in which “society” is not a single thing shaped by the people that make it up, but is also a social system that is imposed upon people by a non-human force. No.6, as an entity, needs its citizens only to the extent that they are useful to it, namely as a mechanism for expansion and self-defense, but exists as such that the people living within it are completely reliant upon it in every aspect of their lives. Something so simple as putting someone else in the arbitrary position of “leadership” is meaningless when that person has no real power, and so in order to reclaim human control over the entirety of society, an inaccessible entity must be destroyed. In this sense, Nezumi is not wrong to say that No.6 needs to be destroyed completely, and is instead only misled as to what that actually means, mistaking the people living within the confines of the city for the city itself. The defining feature of the city, the wall, also acts as the source of its power and independence, and thus its destruction is functionally equivalent to its death, leaving behind only a loose collection of systems and beliefs that are no longer upheld in any physical or tangible way.

Society is made up of people, that is clear, but what is less obvious is that people are also made up of society. We can recognize that society impacts us and shapes who we are and how we think, but it is perhaps the case that to an even stronger degree, society is operating outside of our own individual or even collective input, and is, in a sense, self-sustaining. Rather than our own beliefs being imposed upon an ever-changing society, it is a preexisting society that imposes itself upon us, deciding when, how, and if things will change. It does change over time, and that of course is due to people’s existence within it, but what No.6 makes clear, to me at least, is that while people are unable to survive without the construction of a society, even if that society is destructive, the society at a certain point will no longer need people to maintain itself outside of the basic definition of its existence, and it is at that point that it becomes much more difficult, and dangerous, to change.

[globalworship]

Christmas: divine humility, powerlessness & poverty are the foundation of all that exists

Scène du massacre des Innocents (“Scene of the massacre of the Innocents”), By the Parisian painter, Léon Cogniet in 1824.

+++

Fr. Kenneth Tanner writes:

God takes the form of a baby because divine helplessness is greater than any other force in the universe.

When on the first Christmas divine humility and powerlessness and poverty are revealed as the foundation of all that exists, this revelation of God in the flesh threatens all human notions of power, all human leadership that rests on exertions of might and personal charisma.

Real Christmas was and remains political. The conception and birth of Jesus—the silent infant who in the beginning spoke all things into existence, and who holds all things together, the helpless child who can do nothing but lay their in glory, the government on his tiny shoulders—set a challenge to all other leaders and governments, visible and invisible.

All temporal rulers instinctively know they are bested here by an eternal kingdom of others-directed, self-sacrificial love that does not seek its own, that does not keep a record of wrongs, that is not jealous, that seeks to serve rather than to be served.

Herod knew the jig was up, that the age of self-seeking rulers was now exposed and that the game was over. Herod turned to murder to try to reimpose the old order, as have so many visible and invisible powers down the centuries since the Incarnation, since God took up permanent residence as a member of the human race in Jesus Christ.

I appreciate the way this artist captures the horror real infants and real mothers faced in the aftermath of the real Christmas, the infamous slaughter of male Hebrew children in and around Bethlehem that we remember today [fourth day of Christmastide].

Fleeting worldly powers desperate to hold on to a false authority that is being defeated by divine humility lash out. They always do, for violence is their defeated way of maintaining strength. God answers them then, now, and I the future with the surrender of a world-converting cross.

What they did not know is that in (eventually) killing Jesus Christ they reversed the permanence not only of their rule but of all their violent actions. Violence has no future because of this infant God.

These poor children and all who suffer violence in the meantime have in Jesus Christ a glorious way now to endure beyond suffering and death, to shine forever in the kingdom of their Father, while the kingdoms of this world and their violence await permanent, shameful expiration.

Remember the Innocents. We have inherited a kingdom; we await a world without end. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10220896286054288&set=a.2253573056187&type=3&theater

Fr. Kenneth Tanner is pastor at Holy Redeemer Church in Rochester, Michigan.

+++

Cogniet’s ‘Scène du massacre des Innocents’ asks us to examine ourselves, to consider why this woman would be so scared of us, to examine the ways we have been coopted by the forces of empire, and sided with the powerful over the weak and the poor.

Empires continue to clash. The powerful continue to victimize children to secure their political goals. Mothers still cradled doomed children in their arms all around the world.

Is this the greatest Christmas painting of all time? https://mikefrost.net/greatest-christmas-painting-time/

+++

Dr. Esau McCaulley is an assistant professor of New Testament at Wheaton College and a priest in the Anglican Church in North America. He published an important piece in the New York Times about the ‘slaughter of the innocents.’ The Bloody Fourth Day of Christmas https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/opinion/christmas-feast-of-innocents.html

Here are some excerpts:

The Gospel of Matthew reports that an angel warns Jesus’ family of the impending danger, and they leave the country. Jesus spends the first years of his life on foreign soil, in Egypt. When he finally returns from Egypt, his family cannot settle in their ancestral home of Bethlehem because there is still unrest.

The Bible story, then, depicts Jesus as a refugee fleeing a nation marked by political violence and being displaced within his own country even after some of the violence settles down. And though he avoids murder by Herod, he does not escape death by the state altogether — three decades later, Pontius Pilate, an official of the Roman Empire, pronounces Jesus’ death sentence. Like Herod, Pilate does so to maintain power and remove a threat....

The church calendar calls Christians and others to remember that we live in a world in which political leaders are willing to sacrifice the lives of the innocent on the altar of power. We are forced to recall that this is a world with families on the run, where the weeping of mothers is often not enough to win mercy for their children. More than anything, the story of the innocents calls upon us to consider the moral cost of the perpetual battle for power in which the poor tend to have the highest casualty rate.

But how can such a bloody and sad tale do anything other than add to our despair? The Christmas story must be told in the context of suffering and death because that’s the only way the story makes any sense. Where else can one speak about Christmas other than in a world in which racism, sexism, classism, materialism and the devaluation of human life are commonplace? People are hurting, and the epicenter of that hurt, according to the Feast of the Holy Innocents, remains the focus of God’s concern.

This feast suggests that things that God cares about most do not take place in the centers of power. The truly vital events are happening in refugee camps, detention centers, slums and prisons. The Christmas story is set not in a palace surrounded by dignitaries but among the poor and humble whose lives are always subject to forfeit. It’s a reminder that the church is not most truly herself when she courts power. The church finds her voice when she remembers that God “has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble,” as the Gospel of Luke puts it.

The very telling of the Christmas story is an act of resistance. This is how the biblical story functioned for my ancestors who gathered in the fields and woods of the antebellum South. They saw in the Christian narrative an account of a God who cared for the enslaved and wanted more for them than the whip and the chain. For them Christianity did not merely serve the disinherited — it was for the disinherited, the “weak things” that shamed the strong.

Christians believe that none of this suffering was in vain. The cries of the oppressed do not go forever unanswered. We believe that the children slaughtered by Herod were ushered into the presence of God and will be with him for eternity. The Christian tradition also affirms that Jesus’ suffering served a purpose, that when the state ordered his death, God was at work. Through the slaughter of the truly innocent one, God was emptying death of its power, vanquishing evil and opening the path toward forgiveness and reconciliation.

[folklorestorytime]

Jesus Laughs in the Face of Death

After Jesus was crucified, he was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea before rising from the dead on the third day – we all know this. However, what most of you might not know is that the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by St. Bartholomew the Apostle (one of the Christian Apocrypha) contains a bizarre and undeniably epic story about the events that took place in the afterlife in the two days during which the Son of God was dead. This is the story of how Jesus fought with Death and his six serpent sons, destroyed the Original Sin and unleashed unspeakable tortures upon Judas Iscariot. Suffice to say, none of this is Biblical canon unfortunately. It’s just a really bizarre theological footnote of Bible fanfiction. Before we begin, I would like to briefly rant about someone named Apa Anania. According to the Apocrypha in question, he was a holy man who was taken up into Heaven with Jesus when he ascended on the third day. This character wasn’t referred to in any previous writings and was never mentioned after he was taken up into Heaven. Basically, we have no idea who Anania was – but apparently, he was important enough to be taken up with Jesus. Right, okay so now that I’ve finished bitching about forgotten characters in Christian theology – lets get on with the story. Are you sitting comfortably?

Joseph of Arimathea, stricken with grief, laid the body of the Messiah in His rocky tomb – but while this was going on in the mortal world, Death was visiting Amente (the Coptic equivalent of Purgatory) to inquire as to what had happened to the soul of Christ. He had apparently been searching for said soul for two days and was greatly troubled by his inability to find it. There had been unheard-of trouble when Christ’s soul left his body after the crucifixion, and Death felt that he had to find the errant soul presumably so that it couldn’t cause any more commotion. He called his various companions to him and commanded them to go and visit Christ’s tomb in the hope that His soul might have concealed itself close to his body. Among his companions were his six sons – Gaios, Tryphon, Ophiath, Phthinon, Sotomis and Komphion, left Amente and went to the tomb. However, this deathly entourage was shocked to find that the tomb was now marked with the ‘light of life’ when they visited it. They all sat down behind the tomb and took counsel as to how they should proceed. Eventually Death’s six children concluded that they would wait with the body to hopefully track the Lord’s soul when it went down into Amente so that they could see how he acted when faced with the afterlife. They assumed the forms of serpents and slithered into the tomb – and were immediately confronted with the sight of Jesus’s body lying there in the back of the tomb, with one cloth around his head and another around his face.

Meanwhile, Death was talking to an ominously named figure known as the Pestilence Fiend, who apparently had an overseeing role in the affairs of Amente. Death asked the Fiend if the soul of Christ had been registered as having arrived in Amente, and described to said Fiend the causation for his great concern over the whereabouts of this most powerful of souls. When Christ had died, the pillars of Heaven had trembled, Amente had rocked and quaked, the air was whipped up into a state of disturbance, and the cycles of day and night and the orders of the hours had been thrown into chaos. The fires of Hell had been extinguished and Gehenna (the location according to the Hebrew Bible where the Kings of Judah had sacrificed their children by fire) had gone cold. The gates of Hell had been battered open and their guards had fled, leaving the innumerable servants and ministers and envoys of the damned with nothing to do. The fallen angels had all been scattered and Death’s power had apparently passed into new hands after he himself was destroyed by the power of Christ.

And so, Death was now back with his six sons in the tomb of Jesus. He nervously approached the body of the Saviour and admitted to him (who was still choosing to appear in the form of His dead body) that he had been deeply disturbed by what had happened after his death. While he was saying this, Jesus promptly removed the cloths from his face and looked straight at Death before laughing at him. Utterly terrified, Death ran from the chamber and fell to the ground with his six serpentine sons.

Eventually he regained his senses and got up, once again making his way towards Christ while literally shaking with fear. Jesus once again laughed at him, but this time Death was able to muster the courage to stay and stand before the Son of God. He repeated the question he had previously asked – ‘Who art thou?’ – and judging from the description of the events he once again got no answer. He was left there alone in the tomb to contemplate the situation, eventually coming to the realisation that he might be in the presence of the ‘Good God, Merciful and Compassionate’. However, he still refused to believe that Christ was not obliged to answer him. He stood his ground and started to speak.

Who art thou that laughest? I ask, I speak. Tell me, why dost thou refuse to answer? Thou humblest me, thou makest a mock of me. I will never leave thee, but will cleave unto thee until thou showest me who thou art. I am all-powerful, my power is invincible, thou canst not deceive me.

It seemed that Death did not realise that he was talking to the Lord of All, and in what can only be described as a cosmically epic power move, Jesus went up into Heaven and fetched an army of all the different classes in the hierarchy of angels. The Angels, Archangels, Cherubim, Seraphim, the Four and Twenty Elders (??) and the Powers all stood by the tomb, presumably trapping Death. While Death was unable to act, Jesus descended to Amente and broke open the doors which had been locked in his face, and overturned the cauldrons of flame and put out the vast fields of fire. He swept everything and every soul out of Amente and left it as a barren desert. He bound mysterious figures known as the Shameless Ones and the Ministers of Satan, and fettered a demon named Melkhir with iron chains. In this bizarre campaign across the Coptic cosmology, he also took the time to redeem Adam and deliver man. He set all of Creation free and healed the wounds inflicted by Satan. He also went to Judas Iscariot – and in a decidedly unexpected move for someone famous for his forgiveness – demanded to know why he had betrayed him before declaring that he should now suffer ‘twofold woes’. Judas is also labelled as being the son of the Devil in an alternate version of this passage, and there is an entire page in the document which describes the horrendous tortures inflicted upon Judas. His mouth was filled with thirty serpents embodying every mortal vice, and they destroyed him completely. He was then cast out into the ‘outer darkness’ where ‘utter oblivion shall cover him for ever’ and ‘none shall enquire concerning him’.

Lets just let all that sink in for a bit.

Okay, so now our narrative moves to the third day of Jesus’s temporary death. He rose from the dead and of course left Death now unable to see his body in the tomb. Panicking, Death told the Pestilence Fiend (now referred to as the Pestilence God) to go down into Amente and secure it to keep himself safe until he could track down the missing body of Christ. Death confessed to the Pestilence Fiend that neither he nor his sixfold slithering spawn could overcome it, whether or not it really was the Son of God – of which he was still apparently doubtful. Death followed the Pestilence Fiend down into Amente but was shocked to discover what Jesus had done to the place. The gates had been destroyed, all the fires and their cauldrons lay extinguished and cold, three voices cried out in agony and suffering, and the Worm ‘which never sleeps’ lay among the carnage as well. Death and his sons examined the devastation wrought upon their domain while the angels sung hymns like the Seraphim would over the Offering of the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day.

On the day of the resurrection, a large group of women whose lives had been somehow touched by Jesus (the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene were among them, as well as the unnamed woman forgiven by God in Luke 7:47) congregated outside the tomb of Christ. They stood in the garden of Philogenes (a character introduced in this Apocrypha and then seemingly not mentioned again) who had been responsible for spurring the Jewish people into building another tomb for Jesus for some unexplained reason and he told them about how he had seen the entirety of the angelic host in his garden the previous night. While watching the angelic host in what one can only assume was stunned silence, he witnessed God the Father appear from his tabernacle and raise his Son from the dead. Philogenes therefore witnessed the Resurrection as it was happening.

The narrative then drifts off into describing in epic detail the Resurrection of Christ and how his light covered the entire world with his indomitable angelic host. Jesus then ascends into Heaven and the Apostles follow suite after a further revelation on the Mount of Olives. This story is extremely confusing and convoluted, and it is difficult to tell if the document is meant to contain one coherent narrative or if it simply contains a collection of interesting stories loosely strung together. The first few pages of the original document are unfortunately missing, and the text itself was apparently not in a good condition. It is quite possible that vital information pertaining to the identities of some of the bizarre figures mentioned in the document has been lost. I have done my best to present the story surrounding Jesus decimating Amente and forgiving the Original Sin – the latter of these actions is so insane in the context of Christian belief that it is hard to believe that this document, once again allegedly written by St. Bartholomew the Apostle, hasn’t gotten more attention.

Further Reading:

The Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt by EA Wallis Budge (Original Source)

Analysis from BibleGateway

[girlactionfigure]

IS JERUSALEM A SACRED ISLAMIC CITY?

There is a big difference between a city being sacred in the eyes of God and it being a sacred Islamic city.

BY IMAM TAWHIDI 

Jerusalem is home to around 400,000 Muslims, but is it a sacred city according to Islam? This is a question the majority of Muslims within the political and academic world try to avoid, simply because it opens a rather uncomfortable discussion. In fact, a Muslim asking such a question could face serious consequences; such as society doubting in his/her faith.

Until 2014, I was an Islamist who abhorred Jewish people and was open to waging war against them. Today, however, I am friends with many Jewish faith leaders. This transition wasn’t political, it was rather theological. In brief, I started to question certain claims taught to me by my teachers and Muslim community. I began by asking myself the question, does Jerusalem really belong to Islam and Muslims? To answer this vitally important question, we need to inquire how cities become sacred according to Islam. Sacred cities in Islam Throughout human history, every religion has been associated with an area that has been sanctified, respected and revered. Islam is no different. There are tens of sacred cities in Islam, such as Mecca, Medina, Qum, Karbala and Najaf – due to clear verses of the Koran acknowledging their glory or sayings of Prophet Mohammad assuring Muslims of their exaltation. There is a big difference between a city being sacred in the eyes of God and it being a sacred Islamic city. For example, all prophetic tombs, birthplaces and areas where miracles took place are considered sacred in Islam, but they are not specifically Islamic locations. A sacred Islamic location is a location wherein a significant Islamic event has taken place by either Allah or Prophet Mohammad. Jerusalem in Islamic scripture The Holy Koran states very clearly that the Holy Land, Jerusalem, belongs to the Jewish nation of Moses, the Israelites: “And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember the favor of Allah [God] upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the world” (Koran: 5:20 onwards). The above verse also makes it clear that God “had not given (this land to) anyone among the world” other than the Jewish nation. From this verse, and others of similar context, we understand that Jerusalem is a sacred city according to God, but it is not a sacred Islamic city, due to the fact that its sacredness was established before the existence of Islam. After the emergence of Islam, in the year 621 CE, it is believed that Prophet Mohammad took a miraculous and spiritual night journey to Al-Aqsa Mosque (the Farthest Mosque). This event is reported in the Koran in the following verse: “Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from the Sacred Mosque (Mecca) to al-Masjid al- Aqsa (the Farthest Mosque), whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs…” (Quran 17:1). Two vital matters need to be addressed regarding the above verse: 1. Prophet Mohammad traveling to a location does not make that location “Islamic.” 2. There is little evidence that “Al-Aqsa Mosque” is actually in Jerusalem, and there are a large number of Muslims who believe that “the Farthest Mosque” is a reference to a mosque in the heavens, not on earth; due to the fact that the current Al-Aqsa Mosque did not exist during the lifetime of Prophet Mohammad, making it impossible for him to have visited it. Messengers of both Judaism and Christianity had arrived in Jerusalem to preach their scriptures centuries before Prophet Mohammad. Therefore, it cannot be historically accurate to say that Mohammad brought Islam to Jerusalem before them. Up until the migration of Mohammad to Medina in 622 CE and the official establishment of Islam therein, Islam was a minority religion when compared to the two well-established religions of Judaism and Christianity. Besides, the citizens of Jerusalem who converted to Islam merely changed their own faith, not the entire history of Jerusalem. Thus, neither Islamic scripture nor history  claim that Jerusalem is a sacred Islamic city. Jerusalem meets Islam In May 632 CE, Prophet Mohammad appointed Usama ibn Zaid as the commander of his army to respond to the Romans in an agreed-upon battle within Palestine. The next day Usama set out for his expedition, but he then learnt that Mohammad had died and therefore he returned to Medina. Caliph Abu Bakr then ordered Usama to increase his army to 3,000 men and to attack the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Moab and Byzantine-held Darum, to kill or capture as many as he could and Usama did so. This event proves that up until the demise of Prophet Mohammad, there were no Muslims in what is today known as Palestine, and that it was inhabited by the Romans of the Byzantine. Also, Prophet Mohammad would not wage war against a city full of Muslims. In reality, Islam as a religion officially came to Palestine in the year 636 CE, four years after Mohammad’s death and during the reign of the second caliph of Islam, Omar. The Islamic caliphate conducted an attack on Jerusalem, which was ruled by the Byzantine Romans. The city was placed under a four-month siege commencing in November of that year. After four months of hardship and butchery, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, surrendered Jerusalem to Caliph Omar in 637 CE. When Caliph Omar realized that Islam was still a minority religion in the region, he adopted the jizyah system, forcing Christians and Jewish people to pay tax to the Islamic caliphate. After conducting a massacre of the citizens of Jerusalem, our Caliph Omar came to Jerusalem to appoint his governors. He then built what is known today as “the Aqsa Mosque,” which many Muslims mistakenly think was built by Prophet Mohammad. The mosque in Jerusalem with its golden dome is known to Muslims as “Qubbat al-Sakhrah” (Dome of the Rock), and it was completed in 691 CE by the Umayyad Dynasty, the following Islamic caliphate. It is arguably not permissible for Muslims to pray within Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Qubbat al-Sakhrah, as they are built upon occupied and invaded land. By the ninth century, the Fatimid Dynasty, a Shia Islamic caliphate, ruled a large area of north Africa. They were also terrorists who invaded Palestine and massacred Christians in Jerusalem for siding with the Romans of the Byzantine, who had attempted to regain their conquered land. The notorious caliph of the Fatimid Caliphate, Al-Hakim, caused much damage to the entire region, even killing John VII, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, a provocative act that laid the groundwork for the First Crusade. Due to the defeat of the Crusaders, Muslims became the majority, by the sword and not by the pen. By this time, the entire Mediterranean coast of Palestine had been captured, followed by a series of massacres of the Christian people and a genocide that spread all the way to Damascus and Beirut. Islam became the established religion of Palestine by the ninth century, and became the majority religion of the region throughout the Mamluk Era, between 1250 and 1516. Therefore, we Muslims did not enter Palestine as preachers and convert its nation into Muslims. We murdered their leaders and conducted serial massacres led by both Sunni and Shia terrorist Islamic caliphs. The citizens of Palestine may convert to Islam, but in no way can Palestine be considered Muslim land. Of course, many may dispute this position, but the fact is that the Jews were in this land long before even Christianity arose. Their ancient cultural links remain unbroken, as in the saying each Passover, “Next year in Jerusalem.” Our Arab-Muslim ancestors came out of their deserts as conquerors and not as learners, and as guiders who do not seek the guidance of others. They believed that they had sufficient knowledge and wisdom, and that they did not need to learn anything from others. This delusion of my co-religionists persists to this day, despite the fact that the world has changed. Disturbing events in Islamic history On the other hand, I do not understand the Muslim struggle for Jerusalem. Islamic laws strictly prohibit relieving oneself while facing Mecca, in fact, toilets in all Islamic countries and most Muslim homes do not face Mecca, out of respect to the holy city. Yet Bukhari reports that our Prophet Mohammad used to deliberately and repeatedly relieve himself while facing Jerusalem, even though he could have faced another direction instead. Does it make sense that Palestinians are dying for Jerusalem when their own beloved Prophet used to prefer defecating toward it? Whether Palestine is Jewish land or whether Israel is a state are two completely different debates. A Muslim may reject Israel being a state, but cannot deny the fact that the entire region, including Palestine, is in fact Jewish land.   The writer, an Iranian-born Australian Shia Muslim Imam, is president of the Islamic Association of South Australia.

Imam Mohamad Tawhidi

[krisihistoryblog-blog]

Does Nazi Racial Thought have a Darwinian descent?

 Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. We are all familiar with it as it has been on the curriculum for decades – but did it inspire Hitler to pursue his racial policies?

A less widely known follow up theory is Social Darwinism. Despite its name, Social Darwinism derived most directly from the writings of Herbert Spencer. He created the idea of the struggle for survival – suggesting that it led to an inevitable progress in society. This broadly meant evolving from the barbarian stage of society (less culturally developed) to the industrial stage (by which humans had evolved enough intellectually to be able to create industrial states).

It was the start of a belief that some races were a lot more ‘developed’ that others, which is a key aspect of racist beliefs in general.

Spencer also coined the term “survival of the fittest”. He was responsible for much of the foundations of Social Darwinism, however Charles Darwin did state that human progress was driven by evolutionary processes – meaning that intelligence was refined by competition.

Historical opinion on whether or not Darwinism played through in Nazi Racial thought varies a lot. Historian George Mosse argues that human evolution was incompatible with Nazi ideology, as they stressed the immutability of the German race. Anne Harrington suggests that Nazis liked some aspects of Social Darwinism, especially the struggle for existence, but not human evolution.

 Most people would think the idea of a common ancestor did not appeal to Nazis, as it would imply human equality, however in the 20th century, most German Darwinists emphasized the inequality and variation. Haeckel and other Darwinists saw evolution as evidence against human equality, not supporting it.

Mein Kampf

In 1925, Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was published. According to the introduction, the aim of the book is to explain his philosophy and his goals. Race superiority is a large theme in the book.  In his speeches and writings Hitler often invoked Darwinian concepts, such as evolution. In one of the chapters, “Race and People”, evolution plays a central role in his argument. Furthermore, that is the only chapter which was also separately published as a pamphlet, which meant it circulated widely and promoted Nazi ideology.

 In the chapter, Hitler explains his beliefs surrounding that he calls “iron laws of nature”. He was very against the mixing of races, as he thought that would go against the natural process of human evolution:

 “If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such case, all her efforts throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”

 He goes into giving examples of places where racial and cultural mixing has occurred on a large scale and places where it hasn’t, in order to show the difference, and what he considered the preserving of a “pure” racial stock. Hitler gives North America as an example of where (at the time) there wasn’t large scale racial mixing.

 “…has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element (North American) does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:

a)            The level of the superior race becomes lowered;

b)            Physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive       drying up of the vital sap.”

 These beliefs may seem quite extreme to people today, but at the time they were a very common value. To give some historical context, Mein Kampf was published in 1925, which coincided with the Great Migration period (1910 -1920). In those years thousands of African Americans moved into industrial cities in America to full the labour shortages after World War One.

This, quite sudden, change in the racial proportions that made up the Northern cities increased racial tension. Segregation was legally enforced, and inter-racial marriages were illegal – which explains the lack of miscegenation. There was also a wide spread belief of White Supremacy – which is very prominently shown by the KKK which was actually at its peak in 1925. Kathleen M. Blee. a sociology professor at the University of Pittsburgh states: "In some places I studied in Indiana," she says, "the local KKK was listed in the city directory, along with sewing clubs and agricultural societies."

 The point of the passage focusing on evolution in this chapter of Mein Kampf is to apply these principles to human racial relations. Thus, making it apparent that Hitler had evolved but were also still evolving, and through his racial policy he aimed to advance human evolution.

 As well as the Aryan race, Hitler also seemed to be a fan of the Nordic race - mostly found in Scandinavia, Northwestern Europe, and countries surrounding the Baltic Sea, such as Germans and Finnic peoples. He believed the Nordic race had developed its key traits such as propensity for hard work, physical prowess, due to the harsh climate. The reason being that in a harsh climate only the most adaptable, strong, most cooperative individuals would survive to pass on their traits.

  Darwinism in the Nazi Biology Curriculum

 Like the majority of Europe, evolutionary biology had been entrenched in the curriculum long before the Nazi take over and continues to be long after their fall from power. Nazis continued to stress evolution, including the evolution of human races. Textbooks espoused Darwinism and rejected Lamarckism (the hypothesis that an organism can pass on characteristics that it has acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime to its offspring).

The picture above is of a race education class, 1943.

 So, to what extend was Darwinism the inspiration of Nazi Racial thinking?

 It is important to note that anti-Semitism was widespread across Europe and Asia and pre-dates the Nazi regime, and so does racism. An example being the large-scale pogroms across the Russian Empire targeting Jews, which started in the beginning of the 19th century. The most commonly known example or racism is the slave trade, also pre-dating the Nazi regime. As prejudice is a deeply rooted issue in human nature it is very hard to pin one event or theory as the cause for another. Thus, it is very hard to pin down the inspiration to the Nazi racial policy as it had many factors varying from geographical location, to genetics, to involvement in the war, and religion.

However, it is clear through Hitler’s entrenched belief of the, to him, direct link between human evolution and racial superiority, that Darwinism does play a fairly significant role in his beliefs.

 While doing research on this, I didn’t find anyone addressing the fact that Hitler could have just been using Darwinism to explain his beliefs as by then it was a largely accepted theory. Giving a theory that leading scientists supported as the basis of Aryan racial superiority would make his beliefs more credible, as opposed to basing them purely off of personal experience or just the common discontent with foreigners, Jews or just different races. Although humans tend to build their beliefs from personal beliefs and emotions, when someone, especially a politician is putting forward an argument which they want to be popularly supported, they do need facts to back it up.

 This is exactly what arguments on racial superiority lack. Throughout history, including today, we do see lots of people from all races believing theirs is the best. People tend to have a certain amount of pride in where they’re from – whether it be a region or country- and while this isn’t inherently wrong in my opinion (excluding extreme cases or violent expressions of such beliefs) it just proves how subjective these beliefs are. Therefore, if someone was trying to convince a whole nation that one race is superior to the other, to the point where the supposedly inferior one has to be eliminated, they would really need some scientific, economic, political etc., figures and facts that they base it on.

 Hitler uses well known and current examples when justifying his belief on the mixing of races and keeping the races “pure”, which on one hand could just be seen as the logical thing to use when presenting an argument as current issues are the most relevant. However, on the hand, using very current examples, which are kind of common knowledge, could be seen as a tactic to target a wider variety of people, some of whom wouldn’t be as informed of the reasoning behind the mentioned examples, this making it easier to pursue them the reason is simpler.

 So, to give a short answer to an issue on which there is no major agreement on, a need for a public support may or may not have been the reasoning behind Hitler basing Nazi racial policy on Darwin’s theory of human evolution.

[theatredirectors]

Sammy Zeisel

Hometown?

Bethesda, MD.

Where are you now?

Chicago, IL.

What's your current project?

I just opened and closed The Late Wedding by Christopher Chen (one of my favorite contemporary playwrights) with a company called The Neighborhood. It was a strange, beautiful, and difficult play about Italo Calvino, heartbreak, and the transmigration of souls performed in the "Rummage Room" of a church. We sourced all of our props from the boxes of shit that were left in the space after the church rummage sale and got some great use out of the organ that happened to be there, too. The whole thing was kind of magical.

I also am in post production on a short film about a girl getting her period for the first time at her friend's birthday party titled The Care and Keeping of You.

Why and how did you get into theatre?

Well, my mom is the Associate Artistic Director of Imagination Stage, a children's theatre in Washington DC. I grew up in rehearsal rooms. As I'd imagine is the case for most of us, I started out acting at summer camps and in school plays. While I was playing Renfield in my high school production of Dracula, it occurred me that I might actually I want to do this for the rest of my life.

What is your directing dream project?

I always find this question difficult because I see myself as highly responsive to the people and places at my disposal. A piece of theatre does not make sense to me out of context.

THAT SAID I love me some Chekhov. Specifically, I've been on a bit of a Cherry Orchard kick recently. There are secrets contained in that play about the potential for (or futility of) human change that speak directly to this moment. The political and the personal are so beautifully intertwined. Plus, it’s goofy as hell.  Chekhov plays embrace the entire contradictory mess of being a human. How to not, as a director, deny those contradictions by providing easy answers? I see that as an ultimate directing challenge.

What kind of theatre excites you?

I like theatre that takes on the responsibility of its liveness. This can happen in so many different ways: virtuosic physicality (a tap dance?), engagement with the audience's imagination (a person becomes a bird?), direct engagement with the audience (playful meta-theatricality?), or--maybe my favorite--some sort of more subtle, silent communion (Annie Baker). A piece of theatre is not just a story, it is an event; a director is not just a storyteller, she is a coordinator of moments in real-time.

I like to see truthful characters interacting within strange theatrical forms. I think that is what we are: deeply human creatures inside of forms that we do not understand. I like theatre that embraces uncertainty and, in that way, coaxes us to into a more comfortable relationship with our own uncertainty. Violence (outward and inward) stems from a need for control within life, and so, theatre that makes us to sit in an uncomfortable state of unknowing has the capacity to make us gentler.

Finally, I seek out any art that contains a little hint of the inarticulable. A piece of art should contain secrets.

Also probably all theatre should be funny.

What do you want to change about theatre today?

We have a lot of conversations about the need for riskier choices when it comes to content. And we do need that. We should be constantly pushing the boundaries of content and honoring stories that have been neglected. But those stories should also be paired with riskier forms. From what I can tell, theatre companies are more frightened by experiments in theatrical form than almost anything else--probably because a challenging form has perhaps the highest potential of turning an audience off (audience members didn't walk out of The Flick because it is about three people who work at a movie theatre). In the age of Netflix, however, if we do not find forms that are inherently theatrical we will become obsolete. But if we find inherently theatrical forms that contain the electricity of live communion, we will be providing something that the world is desperately hungry for.

And obviously we have to figure out some way to make theatre more accessible. Theatre is basically a hobby for rich people. It's just true, and we all know it and are deeply embarrassed by it. But what can we do to combat this? I certainly don't know. But it might have something to do with returning to bare essentials. We need to be paying artists and we need to be lowering ticket prices, so what gives? What if we made our productions with fewer resources? What if we placed the storytelling weight firmly on the back of the actors and the imagination of the audience? After all--engagement, intimacy, communion--this is REALLY what we offer. Within greater constraints, we might cut costs and revive our medium in the meantime.

What is your opinion on getting a directing MFA?

Not sure. Probably right for some and not for others. I am personally intrigued. I would love some time to discover myself outside of the crucible of the "real world."

Who are your theatrical heroes?

Oof ok here are a couple that come to mind right now:

Anne Bogart (her discipline, her articulation, her curiosity),

Will Eno (his verbal playfulness, his sadness, the intimate communion of his plays),

Andre Gregory (his spiritual/minimalistic approach, Vanya on 42nd St.),

Mary Zimmerman (her theatrical imagination, her physicalization, her childlike wonder)

Annie Baker (her lessons in patience, restraint, yearning character),

Edward Albee (his social critique, his plea for honesty, his courage in the face of the void)

Sarah Ruhl (magic, poetry)

Charlie Kaufman (film director, a storytelling North Star)

My mom

Any advice for directors just starting out?

I am a director who is just starting out, so anything I say is also advice to myself. So here are a couple of things I have to tell myself over and over:

You are you. The more directors you watch, the more you see that no two directors do ANYTHING the same way. In fact, equally incredible directors do things in precisely opposite ways. What does that mean? What makes those directors good? They are good because they know themselves. They are working from a place of personal authenticity that no one could have possibly taught them. And so you cannot emulate them. Emulating a good director will make you a bad director. You can only work at getting closer and closer to the director that you were meant to be from the beginning.

Direct stuff. You can only discover who you are as a director by directing. Find cheap-as-shit spaces. Hold rehearsals in your apartment. Produce your own ten-minute play festivals. Do stuff that leads nowhere because it all leads somewhere.

Direct the kind of stuff you say you want to direct. I've had a tough time with this one. It can be scary to actually DO the work that you say you love. Because it's super vulnerable, I guess. But until you present the work that actually feels like your jam, no one will have any idea what your jam is. You probably won't even know. Be brave enough to do the work that turns you on.

Craft is generosity. It's not all about discovering who you are. Directing is a craft. And by that I mean, there are concrete skills involved: how do you create varied stage pictures? How do you make sure an audience hears important information? How do you stage compelling transitions? Maybe think of getting better at these things as acts of generosity. When you put work into these elements, you show an audience that you care about every second of their experience.

You will disappoint yourself. Making stuff comes at a price. You will feel inadequate, and you will make work that doesn't feel like you. Lean in. Hold on to faint glimmers of hope. Do better every time. Inch closer and closer.

Interrogate your privilege. If you are doing this, you are probably the beneficiary of a certain amount of privilege. I am the beneficiary of a massive amount. If this is true for you, acknowledge it. Interrogate the narratives you are drawn to. Think twice before putting yourself on stage. Doubt yourself and listen to the wisdom of the less privileged. Use the love and care you've enjoyed in your life to create loving, caring spaces for others.

Be kind. Be critical of the work you see, but be curious about where your criticism comes from. How would you like your own work to be seen? How can you approach other artist’s work with that same generosity? Separate intention from execution and acknowledge how terrifying it is just to be out here trying. Strive to be an enthusiast: you will learn more, people will want to work with you, and the inside of your own head will be a nicer place to live. (You will also be a better director if you are not driven by ego, insecurity, and a need to prove.)

Don't listen that hard to people's advice. Most people who are giving you advice are telling you what they need to hear, not what you need to hear. Nobody knows what they're doing, and no-one moves forward in the same way.

Read more books, listen to more music, watch more movies, think about things a lot

Plugs!

Rumple: Last year, I developed a children's musical adaptation of Rumpelstiltskin with Chicago folk band, Friends of the Bog. It's a feminist re-telling of the strange old tale, filled with stellar folk jams and tap dancing puppets. It's weird, theatrical, and full of heart (think Pig Pen Theatre Co. meets Spongebob). And we are looking for a home for it. Hit me up if this tickles you and you have a lead.

Beth Hyland: One of the best young playwrights in Chicago or probably the country. She's also my pal. If you don't know her, you should get on that.

Chicago: The reputation that Chicago has for community and authenticity is grounded firmly in reality. Artists are struggling in Chicago as much as they are anywhere else but they are surrounded by their friends. There is vital, community-building theatre happening out here in church rummage rooms and abandoned storefronts. Just saying.

My website. My email: sammyzeisel@gmail.com

[thebestbusinesspodcast]

Five Pillars of Good Health with Maria Whalen

Do you ensure that you are in good health? You may be eating healthy foods, exercising, taking supplements, but do you genuinely know what’s going on with your body? 

Our bodies are made up of complex and interconnected systems. The things we think can help our body may not be the case. As entrepreneurs, being in good health is important because an illness can break any business and life apart.  

In this episode, Maria Whalen joins us to talk about dangerous misconceptions we have around health. She shares the five pillars of good health that we need to focus on instead. We need to be careful with what we ingest and put on our bodies; these can change our body’s foundational systems. 

Maria also shares her journey as an entrepreneur and her experience with illnesses that led her to advocate for the good health of entrepreneurs all around the world.

If you want to learn how to take more care of your health, this episode is for you! 

Here are three reasons why you should listen to the full episode:

Discover the different misconceptions we have surrounding health. 

Understand the foundational pillars of good health. 

Learn what makes an entrepreneur successful and why we need to keep moving forward. 

Resources

Check out EWG to learn how to buy healthier personal care products and food! 

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

Killing the Victim Before the Victim Kills You by Derek M. Watson, Larry Pinci, and Daniel L. Tocchini

Reality for a Change by Ennio Salucci

Contact Maria through the email support@intentionalnetwork.com. 

You can also follow her work on Intentional Network.

Episode Highlights

The Problem with Health Perceptions

Maria shares her hardships with illnesses and her experience with Western medicine. 

The more she studied to cure herself, the more she saw problems with the perception of health and medicine.

There is a lot of marketing hype around green smoothies and the likes. 

It's dangerous to think that you're already healthy just because you eat and drink certain things. 

Five Pillars of Good Health

Maria hopes to share ways of never becoming sick. 

No one is teaching how our body works. It is why there are a lot of misconceptions about health. 

We need to know the foundations of good health first. 

The five foundational pillars are the immune system, hormonal system, DNA, physical structure, and mental-emotional component.

Imbalance Is the Source of Sickness

Ask yourself these questions every time you are not in good health: What am I doing that’s in my body’s way? What is it I’m not giving my body that it’s asking for?

Once you identify the culprit, you can fix the source and damage. 

How can we cause an imbalance in our DNA? Tune in to Maria’s answers in the full episode. 

Is Detox Helpful? 

Maria shares cleansing and detox should be done in the right context. 

Everything needs to be in proper order, just like in business. 

Don’t take shortcuts towards good health.

The skin is the largest organ in your body, and anything you put on it goes straight to the bloodstream. 

How can we be more conscious about our food and products? Listen to the full episode to hear more.  

Learn the Way Your Body Works 

All of us experience some form of inflammation. We need to learn why this happens. 

When we want to nourish our bones, it’s not about taking more calcium. Taking calcium can actually cause more harm. 

We need to understand the physiology of our body as a system. 

The Illusion of Feeling Good 

People often disregard the foundational pillars because they already feel 'good.' 

Don’t wait until your body breaks down before you start working on your foundation.

Don’t claim to be in good health when you don’t know what’s happening beneath the surface.

When influencing your hormones, you should understand that prescriptions work differently for people. 

Tune in to the episode to hear about influencing your hormones! 

Interconnection of Systems

Your body is made up of different systems. 

You cannot isolate a single system; you will need to address the whole system. 

For example, losing weight needs to be strategic: suddenly losing weight will cause toxins typically stored in fat tissue to be released into your body.

How to Become Successful

Becoming successful takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. 

You also need to have a vision that’s big enough to push you through the pain of transformation. 

A lot of successful people came to be due to a sense of urgency and need. 

Common Attitude of Entrepreneurs

One important skill to master is smart networking. 

Become invested in other people’s products and events. 

Build strong relationships no matter what you get out of it. 

Make sure to provide people value before asking for anything in return. 

Get out there and do the work. Meet people outside of your usual circles. 

Balancing Work and Life

When balancing work and life, you need to look at the counterbalance. 

Make sure to recover in between the times of hard work. 

Keep yourself in check, so you don't burn out. 

Moving Forward

Keep moving and failing forward. 

Don’t dwell on yesterday’s mistakes because you need to keep moving. 

When you focus on mistakes, you’ll tend to stop and get left behind. 

About Maria

Maria Whalen is the pioneer of Invincible Wellness™, a system that gives people the power to handle almost anything when it comes to health. She is a fierce advocate for personal health freedom, sustainability, and independence in all things. Maria has helped entrepreneurs, leaders, lawyers, doctors, and all kinds of people around the world.   

Growing up, Maria suffered from several illnesses, including three autoimmune diseases, lupus among them. Western doctors and alternative health practitioners could not help her. It got to a point where Maria went in and out of comas every few weeks. Due to these painful experiences, she went on a quest to find true health and vitality. 

Maria's experience led her to become the resident expert on WAKEUPTV.COM on the Pop Network. Also, she has shared stages or worked with several big names in personal development, business, finance, and health. This list includes people like Deepak Chopra, Jack Canfield, Loral Langemeier, Les Brown, and even Queen Elizabeth’s doctor, Dr. Peter Fisher, to name a few. 

Interested in Maria’s work? Follow her on Intentional Network. You can also email her through support@intentionalnetwork.com. 

Enjoy the Podcast?

If this podcast inspired you to know more about how you can become a successful entrepreneur, then hit subscribe and share it with your friends.

Rate us! We would love to hear from you. Leave us a review and help us reach more people aspiring to become successful entrepreneurs.

For updates and more episodes, visit our website. Subscribe and tune in on Apple Podcast. You can find us on Facebook and Instagram.

P.S.

Do you already have a successful business that is up and running, able to pay its bills with profit left over?

Are you interested in growing your business, automating or streamlining things, and staying one step ahead of your competition?

📨 If your answer is YES to all three questions, visit https://www.members.bestbusinesscoach.ca/problems-we-fix/ to see if we can fix what's holding you back.

Check out this episode!

[isobelhigginbotham]

10/12/19 Research Proposal

1. What is your object?

The object I have chosen to predicate my research on is the DUROM.1991.155.a-b ‘Turtle Ship’. The bronze model of a Korean Turtle Ship mounted in a wood and glass case struck me as a fascinating item that required scrupulous examination. Bishop Richard Rutt (1925-2011) gifted the Turtle Ship to the Durham Oriental Museum as part of an extensive collection of beautiful antiques.

2. Initial Description

The preliminary stage of my research is an introductory description of my chosen object. This reproduction of a Turtle Ship, also known as a ‘Geobukseon’, is modelled on the Korean naval warship predominantly used during the Joseon dynasty dating from the early 15th century to the mid 19thcentury. Gifted by Bishop Richard Rutt (1925-2011), the date on the metal plaque reads 1965, shortly before the end of his sojourn in Korea. The Turtle Ship article is a burnished form of bronze, with the measurements 290mm x 390mm x 305mm. It is a unique replica of the most illustrious Korean warship customarily associated with Admiral Yi Sun-Sin, the redeemer of Korea.

3. Rational for choice:

I find myself constantly absorbed with the extensive history of conflict concerning the greatest kingdoms across the globe. The geographical relationship between Japan and Korea is one of very close proximity and for many centuries this relationship has been defined by political communications and aggressive military warfare. The sea route between the two empires meant naval conflict was generally common.

I am more familiar with the conventional open-topped battleships used in early naval warfare, so I found this Turtle Ship captivating with its unusual conformation. Prior to researching this object, I was not acquainted with the fearsome turtle design and an entirely enclosed upper deck. Knowing that the Korean navy was strong due to the failure of the 16th century Japanese invasions, I was drawn to this Turtle Ship in order to supplement my understanding of the powerful architecture of naval vessels.

During my initial visit to the Oriental museum I was drawn to the Turtle Ship model due to the configured intricacy of all the elements. With the model almost able to fit within the grasp of my hand, it features 14 miniature bronze oars, cannon ramparts and a small anchor. Subjectively, the component appearing the most absorbing was the fixed dragonhead on the bow of the ship. Combined with the terrifying spikes on the roof of the ship, the dragonhead aids the ship’s purpose of intimidating its opponents. Typically, the dragon in Eastern history is rich in symbolic meaning, often affiliated with strength and vitality. Mesmerised by the ferocious jaws of the beast, I am enthusiastic to investigate the anatomy of meaning surrounding this object.

Through my reading of The Hare With Amber Eyes, I was intrigued by Edmund de Waal’s enthusiasm in tracing the historical narrative surrounding certain objects of art, in his case, the netsuke (Traditionally, a small carved object, worn as a component of Japanese dress). Through diligent research of the Turtle Ship gifted by Bishop Richard Rutt, I too look forward to tracing the evolution of this antique’s lineage. I hope that through time spent examining my object of desire, I will begin to possess a unique understanding of the history. A history, where I can assemble the aesthetic beauty and meaning surrounding not only the entity itself, but of Korea and the man who gifted the item to the museum at the outset.

It was not only the object itself that seemed to grasp my attention, it was also the donator of the item, Bishop Richard Rutt. Bonded to the front of the teal wooden base is an engraved plaque. Supposedly presented by Kim Yong Kwan, I am intrigued as to why this particular item was offered to the Bishop. As my research continues, I hope to augment my understanding of Rutt’s missionary work in Korea. In these early stages, I will consider the link between Rutt, Korea and why he would be gifted such an object.

4. Contact with the Oriental Museum:

After my initial visit to the Oriental museum, I returned to reconsider the abundance of antiques displayed in the exhibitions. After repeatedly being drawn to the Korean artefacts, I could not take my eyes off the enchanting Turtle Ship model. I organised a meeting with the museum curator, Rachel Barclay. She aided my initial research of the database and antique collections. After Rachel provided me with Bishop Richard Rutt’s archive, I meticulously read through the log of gifted objects to the museum. She was helpful in suggesting areas I could potentially explore. Through recommendations of source materials and giving me access to the conservation report of the Turtle Ship antique, I was able to observe the item in further detail. Following the meeting with Rachel, she sent me a collection of photos in high resolution. I can refer to the photos alongside my research as a reference point.

5. Review of existing information:

I am at an advantage as there is substantial information surrounding my chosen object. During my meeting with Rachel, I was fortunate to see the list of donated objects given by Bishop Rutt. There is an abundance of information concerning Bishop Rut and this will supplement my research of the object and his link with Korea. Additionally, I was able to read the conservation report of the Turtle Ship, which has extensive information regarding its anatomy. As a famous Korean warship used by the Royal Korean Navy, there is a plethora of data surrounding the object and its purpose. The area that is perhaps the most transparent surrounds the Navy Admiral Kim Yong-Kwan. I hope to gain more clarification of why this was originally gifted to Bishop Rutt and the reason behind the gift being the Turtle Ship.

6. Literature Review:

In order to attain a contextual understanding of the Turtle Ship and its link with Korean culture, I will begin by reading Dragon’s Head and A Serpent’s Tail: Ming China and the First Great East Asian War, 1592-1598. A book by Kenneth M. Swope, I hope it will prove invaluable to the preliminary stage of my research. The Japanese invasion of Korea starting in 1592 was a monumental event in the history of pre-modern Asia. This book will supplement my understanding of Japanese and Korean relations, illustrating the emergence of Japan’s appetite to expand its own influence cross-nationally. In order to achieve insight into the use of naval warships during this invasion, I will turn to Stephen Turnbull’s ‘Samurai Invasion: Japan’s Korean War 1592-1598’. Included in his work is an examination of different naval vessels used throughout the conflict, with mention of the infamous Turtle Ship.

Sequential to this, in order to comprehend the Turtle Ship in its historical context, I will read another of Stephen Turnbull’s bountiful books, ‘Fighting Ships in the Far East (2)’, in which one observes the author expounding about Hideyoshi’s invasion of Korea in 1592. Additionally, Turnbull goes into great depth over East Asia’s most famous naval vessel, the Turtle Ship itself. He spends much time describing the history of the ship in full technical detail. I will be able to use his anatomical depth as a reference for when I am endeavouring to explore my object in greater detail. I will be able to use this book as a reference for apprehending the object I have chosen in its broader cultural context.

An abundance of information is available concerning Bishop Richard Rutt. Indeed, it might be useful to refer to his book, ‘Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary’. In order to make suggestions about Rutt’s involvement with Korea, it will be necessary to browse certain subjects covered in the book such as history and art. Understanding Rutt’s association with Korea will help to answer my research questions found later in this proposal. Notably, there are also many articles written about Rutt’s missionary action in Korea. As there is little data on his involvement with Kim Yong Kwan, hopefully extensive research into Rutt will help provide me with answers as to why the Turtle Ship model was originally presented to him. Articles online are featured in The Telegraph and The Church Times, covering an impressive life story of Bishop Richard Rutt.

7. Further sources:

In order to complement my study of Korean culture and art, the British Museum has a wide variety of rich material representing the history of Korea. Within the exhibitions, the objects on display date from 300AD up until the present. Additionally, the online collection provides a surfeit of items that can aid my knowledge of Korean culture, especially with reference to the military manifestations. Through a brief look on the collection, it appears there too is a model of a Turtle Ship donated by the Republic of Korea Navy. It might be useful to contact the museum to inquire about access to photos of the model, in order to bolster the research on comparative objects.

8. Research Questions:

1. Why did Admiral Kim Yong Kwan present Bishop Richard Rutt with the model Turtle Ship?

Bishop Richard Rutt was a Christian missionary spending an unprecedented amount of time serving as a priest in Korea. With subtle links to the Royal Navy, is this why Kim Yong Kwan (Chief of Naval operations in the Korean Navy) presented Rutt with the ship? Looking at the meaning from a different dimension, did he present it as a symbol of Korean power to rival the overarching influence of Western dominance?

2. Does this replica of a Turtle Ship sit parallel with the technical descriptions found in the literature sources?

Focusing on the object itself, does the replica match the literature depictions? Is it a more modern form of construction? Does it fit the fundamental purpose of the Turtle Ship?

3. Why was the Turtle Ship Korea’s most valued war vessel? Why did Admiral Yi Sun-shin design the boat this way? How does the design of the ship and its purpose reach broader Korean cultural contexts?

9. Reflective Analysis:

At this initial juncture, I have identified a profusion of resources regarding ‘Geobukseons’ (Turtle Ships) as well as findings on the donator of the object, Bishop Richard Rutt. At this preliminary stage, there are many routes that are possible to undertake. So, the challenge I have to face over the next few months is to whittle down my data in order to suit the requirements of my research questions. In order to maintain a focused route with my study, it will be valuable to keep my research log regularly up to date. In doing so, I can keep track of my venture towards the greater meaning and significance my object might hold.

[onewhodresses-blog]

A New Way to Navigate One Who Dresses

If the mission of One Who Dresses were to be distilled to a single thing it would likely be this: to answer the question what is style? It's a big question—one that can invite us on a winding, wondrous personal journey if we're ready.

I've been thinking about this journey, your journey and mine, through the content that lives here and in the context of the direction the site will move in the time to come, and it occurred to me that a journey like this, with its twists and turns, needs something in the way of direction. So, introducing: What is Style- a map to the One Who Dresses universe. Style is presented here as a function of six determinants: what we wear, what we think, who we dress, how we live, what we behold, and what surrounds us. These determinants are now the site's main navigation categories so content will be organized in such a way that you can dive deeply into any one of the six facets of style, or step back and take in the larger picture.

_________

these are the six components of style and the primary way the site's content will be organized

 fashion- what we wear

Clothes, the outermost layer of style, are all too frequently mistaken for the only layer of style. This content celebrates clothes in context, looking closely at creative styling ideas, exploring the elements of a stylish wardrobe, and examining how clothes help to define our personal style. 

Notable reads:

philosophy- what we think

But of course style doesn't start or end with a piece of clothing; who we are matters, and what we think about the world is an important part of who we are. Accordingly, our philosophy on life and fashion and everything in between is a vital part of our style.

Notable reads:

spirit- who we dress

Style is nothing if not an outgrowth of the human spirit. Here we lavish attention on how our spirit—our creativity and uniqueness, our intention for our clothes and the interaction between our substance and our surface—contributes dynamically to the impact we make in our clothes.

Notable reads:

joie de vivre- how we live 

We started with the clothes on our bodies, traveled inward to the mind and spirit, and now we turn outward to the life we live in our clothes. Style emanates from a life good and well lived, from relishing in the joys of living, and from a life of purpose. 

Notable reads:

beauty- what we behold

The pursuit of beauty is a fundamental need, and a core desire that exists at the heart of fashion. But beauty is frequently co-opted by consumerism, leaving us feeling empty instead of filled up. This work serves to reclaim beauty as a substantive, nurturing part of the human experience.

Notable reads:

objects- what surrounds us

Objects enrich our lives. Considering them less from a strictly utilitarian place and more from the perspective of their aesthetic, emotional,and energetic charge, the goal is to gain an appreciation for the power of our things and to learn to surround ourselves with objects of meaning and beauty.

Notable reads:

_________

beyond this main navigation are six more categories that content will fall into:

my style

Here, I'll share my personal experimentations with the art of dress, including what inspires me and how I translate my ideas on fashion, and the evolution of my thinking, to the clothes I wear. This space will document the unfolding of my personal style journey.

Notable reads:

style matters

Home to the site's in-depth explorations of all things style-related. In a way, style matters brings all the pieces together and puts forward a set work designed to somehow challenge our thinking on style, push the boundaries of our understanding of style, or cast style in an interesting light.

Notable reads:

profiles

One of the most significant sources of style inspiration is to peek into the clothes or persona or mind of someone who believes that fashion fundamentally tells a human story. This forum exists to shine a spotlight on compelling people wearing clothes, making clothes, and beyond.

Notable reads:

runway

Fashion is a living and breathing entity, and runway fashion gives us a pulse of what's alive in fashion's organism at the moment. Here, we celebrate the creativity and beauty of the fashion industry, and don't shy away from being critical of it as well. 

Notable reads:

happenings

Happenings covers current events, museum exhibits, and pieces that reflect what's in the news and other goings on. 

Notable reads:

brands

In a world of anonymous clothing, this site's brand coverage seeks to foster a connection between the makers of the clothes we wear (and the things we own) and ourselves. This content will highlight brands doing things slowly, more responsibly, and with greater intention. 

Notable reads:

___

As always, I'm eager for your thoughts and feedback, and to hear whether this is helpful for you or how it could be more helpful. Most importantly, I'm looking forward to continuing on this journey with you. 

[connorfergusonccc]

Cultural Worldview - Queer - Bleurgh! - Michael O’Rourke

Considering ‘queer’ as a cultural worldview is difficult. The very vague definition of queer allows for an enourmous sense of diversity that in itself becomes a melting pot of cultural worldviews. Which is why I need to be specific: What about queer differentiates it as a worldview? The answer to this is couched within sexuality and gender. Not the labels of gay, lesbian, bisexual and onward, but instead queer as a perspective that critiques, questions and radically departs from constructed heteronormative understandings of sexuality and gender. To be queer is therefore having the ability to step outside of dominant understandings of the world and be able to cut through it, to shape the experiences of gender and sexuality into whatever they deem to be most fulfilling to them. To say this is a perspective shared by all people is incorrect. To make gross a generalisation, a gay male may only want to pursue his sexuality as pursuing a sexual relationship with another man and will undertake this by appropriating the heteronormative confines of what a sexual relationship entails and no further. This worldview instead looks to queer theory as a more intellectualised dismissal and reconfiguration of what is considered erotic and sexual. 

‘Stanley Cavell asks that we “learn to maintain our disgust more easily than we learn to maintain what disgusts us”

I love investigating this quote in its relation to the ontology of the olfactory. The smell in a queer context being a objectively hedonistic experiment with bodily fluids. When considering this, the disgust naturally comes from the bodily fluids and the interactivity it has with most of the senses and therefore how we are programmed to react consciously and subconsciously to the stimulation of these senses. This reading asks: “Why?” To go off course a little bit to make my point, I reflect on perceptions of the olfactory in medieval Europe. The smell of excrement, rot and decay must have been in the air (mind the pun). However, the smell would have been normalised in a way where it would not have been perceived as being as disgusting as we would perceive it today. To bring it back, it seems inherently queer to investigate an eroticism around bodily fluids and to disassemble reactions of disgust in which would normally be contributed to by smell and how we are programmed to react to it.

Interestingly, we understand our bodies in a way that is convenient to us. The article departs from this and argues literally any part of the body could be erogenous. For instance: “it is Freud who suggests that the anal zone is comparable to the mouth since the tongue leads to the gullet down to the alimentary canal and ultimately to the organ of expulsion. We are, for Freud, when we kiss, eating the other’s shit, their waste.” While for me, this springs thoughts such as - when I kiss someone with bad breath, I am smelling their food being digested. However, in the article this is just part of the argument that emphasises the de-privileging of genitalia as an erogenous zone and therefore considering how any part of the body has the potential to be erogenous. In this it is important to consider the role  that destabilizing our perceptions of our senses would have in this. Of course, this is complex. There are also linguistic ramifications created from a history of discourses that compound our understandings of what is and isn’t disgusting.

The article brings forth examples of sexual acts deemed disgusting, as creating intrigue. The taboo surrounding such acts comes with intrigue as to perform these acts would have a sense of liberation in overcoming various sensations that must come before finding it unequivocably erotic. There is an undeniable visceral reaction to viewing this (relating to increasing popularity of such fetishes in pornography). “We realise we cannot leave, cannot event look away. No one can. The crowd is transfixed by the scene of intimacy and display, control and abandon, ferocity and abjection.” Although sight seems to be the main medium through which the spectacle is experience, it undeniably provokes a reaction from the memory of the smell. It is the smell that has the strongest links and connotations surrounding whether we find these things disgusting. In reflecting on this, while this reading is arguably repulsive to consider, it doesn’t reflect queer perception of sex. It does reflect a queer reading on sex. The critique of how we perceive and view our bodies in a sexual light doesn’t mean that we have to enjoy that which we are programmed to be grossed out by. Voices in this article admit finding sexual excitement in some acts, but finding the smell as being something they could not get over. In this, while we valorize sight and hearing, it is actually smell that becomes the main contributing factor to our perception and therefore opinion on topics such as this. 

In my opinion, I appreciate disassembling what we are programmed to know and believe about the world. Queer theory seems to do this in a way that is fairly neutral when concerning topics such as this. While we acknowledge that our understanding of the world is largely constructed, inherited or subjective, it doesn’t assert whether stepping outside of this construct is beneficial or not. Although points out that our beliefs could be oppressive, it merely suggests that it is different and possible. What I found interesting is the way the senses are shaped by and shape these critiques. Especially, how smell functions as vital in understanding this topic (how could it not). In considering this I also wonder about my own body. Random thought - why is it that people are not repulsed by the smell of the waste produced by their own bodies but are so repulsed by the smell of the waste of another? Is it purely biological, or is it cultural?

[revolutionary-pirate]

Tell us about the connection between Sons of Liberty and the navy please!

Gladly, anon!! (Sorry this took so long, some unexpected circumstances came up that occupied my time for a few days and I also had a lot of information and context to cover in order to complete this ask. It’s probably more information than necessary, but I got excited [it’s long so I put it in a read more]. Also, I didn’t source as I went like I usually do and didn’t want to go back through and individually source all of my points so I dumped all my sources at the end. A lot of the information is tangled and it’s kinda a bitch when you have to source each part of the sentence with something different and I just took a final and didn’t want to do it. So anyway, Here you go:  )Congress was very hesitant about creating a Continental Navy, thinking it complete and utter madness to do so. Britain had the greatest Navy in the world and the Colonies had not a ship to call their own because the colonies had been completely reliant on the British Navy until then. John Adams was the loudest supporter of the creation of a navy in Congress, fighting hard to convince them all of how able the colonists were to undergo such a herculean task and how vital any sort of maritime effort would be to the defense of the Colonies, but Congress wasn’t having any of it. They did not think that there was even a slim chance that it would do the colonies any good in any way shape or form and would only serve to deepen a conflict with Britain that they weren’t ready to commit to yet. The people had no such qualms.

The very first, official, naval battle of the American Revolution began on June 11, 1775, almost two months after the first shot had been fired at Lexington and just days before the formation of the Continental Army. Since Lexington, the British had become completely pinned down in Boston with very limited supplies and a heavy reliance on merchants at sea in order to survive the Patriot’s Seige of Boston. As more troops were set to arrive in the city, General Thomas Gage and Vice Admiral Samuel Graves knew that they had to build more barracks for their soldiers and that, in order to do that, they needed lumber. Gage and Graves turned to a Loyalist, Boston merchant by the name of Ichabod Jones and tasked him with sailing to Machias, Massachusettes (now Maine) in order to acquire lumber from them in exchange for flour, pork, salt, and other supplies.Machias was an isolated, frontier settlement that was almost entirely dependent upon trading its lumber and firewood to Boston for supplies necessary to their survival. When the Continental Congress resolved that no one trade their lumber with Boston because it would aid the besieged British Army, Machias was crippled. They were eventually forced to petition the Massachusetts Congress in May for relief when their population was facing potential starvation because they hardly had three week’s supply of food left in storage. Gage and Graves felt that they could take advantage of this situation by sending in Jones.

On June 2, 1775, Jones arrived in Machias with his two ships, the Unity and the Polly. Jones had held frequent business in Machias for the last ten years and even owned a house there because he did dealings there so often. As a result, Jones was well aware that there were Patriots in Machias that would not take kindly to his visit nor to his mission because tensions had been running high ever since Lexington. Concerns about Patriot interference with the mission from all along the Massachusetts coast were great enough that Graves was informed that “some of the inhabitants of the Eastern parts of this Province have threatened to intercept and destroy the Vessels of Mr. Ichabod Jones … ” Graves acknowledged the fear but did not cancel the trip because acquiring the lumber was very important for the British Army. Instead, Graves arranged an escort for Jones in the form of the H.M.S. Margaretta, captained by James Moore. When Jones arrived at Machias with his armed escort, it had only served to fuel tensions amongst the colonists who were suspicious of Jones’ intentions for seeking business with them. 

On June 3rd, Jones, in an effort to curb tensions and ensure the carrying out of the trade deal, distributed a petition amongst the citizens asking for their support in “carrying Lumber to Boston, & to protect him and his property, at all events” in exchange for the town’s much-needed provisions he’d brought aboard the Unity to trade. Jones did not, however, receive a satisfactory amount of signatures to content him, so he called upon his nephew, Stephen Jones, who was an influential resident of Machias, to arrange a meeting with the citizens of the town on June 6th in order to vote on the matter. At this meeting, Jones claimed that the only way that he could get Vice Admiral Graves to permit him to leave Boston with provisions for Machias was if he’d promised him that he’d return with a cargo full of lumber and that Graves had sent the Margaretta with him in order to ensure that he fulfilled his part of the bargain. Much of the citizens, with little reason to doubt him, voted in favor of the proposition because they were in dire need of those supplies, because they were nervous about the fact that the Margaretta was within firing range of the town and might attack them if they said no, and because it was only conjectured that the lumber requested was for supplying the British Army. The townspeople had no way of knowing at the time if it was true or not, but a minority group of citizens wasn’t buying “Jones’s Scheme” and voted no.After the vote, Jones brought his two sloops, the Unity and the Polly, to the wharf and began unloading and distributing the supplies to the citizens. Jones, however, made a grave mistake when he refused to grant supplies to everyone who had voted in opposition to him because among them were Benjamin Foster, leader of the Local Militia, and Jeremiah O’Brien, one of the village leaders, both of whom were also leading members of the local chapter of the Sons of Liberty. Jones wanted to avoid conflict, but, instead, his pride had been a spark. Another spark came at the expense of Captain Moore of the Margaretta. There was a liberty pole, or, rather, liberty tree in this case, that had been erected by O’Brien and his brothers after a unanimous vote from the townspeople to do so immediately after learning of what had transpired at Lexington and Concord back in April. The liberty tree was Machias’ pledge and declaration to the world that they were dedicated to resisting the British Empire’s tyranny and that they would sacrifice their lives in defense of their colony. Machias’ liberty tree was made from the trunk of the tallest tree that the O’Brien family could find and it stood in one of the highest points of the town, overlooking the river, and was one of the most conspicuous sights in the village. Moore, anchored in that river, was incredibly irritated by the sight of it. In The Liberty Pole, a Tale of Machias, it was written that:

Observing the Liberty Pole, Captain Moore landed, and demanded of a group who had collected around the landing-place, who had erected it. “That pole, sir,” Answered John O’Brien [one of Jeremiah’s brothers], “was erected by the unanimous approval of the people of Machias.”

“Well, sir,” rejoined the officer, “with or without their approval, it is my duty to declare it must come down.”“Must come down!” repeated O’Brien, with some warmth; “those words are very easily spoken, my friend. You will find, I apprehend, that it is easier to make than it will be to enforce a demand of this kind.”“What! Am I to understand that resistance will be made? Will the people of Machias dare to disregard an order, not originating with me, gentlemen, but with the government whose officer I am?”“The People of Machias,” replied O’Brien, “will dare do anything in maintenance of their principles and rights.”“It is useless to bandy words,” rejoined the officer, a little nettled at the determined spirit manifested around him; “My orders are peremptory and must be obeyed. That Liberty Pole must be taken down, or it will be my painful duty to fire upon the town.”

Stephen Jones, Ichabod Jones’ nephew, intervened and convinced Moore not to follow through with his threat and said that if he could arrange another town vote they might vote in favor of taking it down. A meeting was called, and it was voted that the pole remain. Captain Moore, fearful that he might lose the respect of his crew should his threat go unexecuted, decided to pick a day upon which they would fire at the town. Jeremiah O’Brien, Foster, and others began to secretly formulate a plan of defense in the event that an attack actually comes and sent word to the surrounding villages and areas calling for aid. Stephen stepped in again and said that the townspeople hadn’t all come to the meeting and that a second meeting should take place so that all of the citizens would have the opportunity to express their vote. It was voted almost unanimously by the whole town that the pole remain where it had been erected until it rotted. Moore retaliated with another threat to burn the village to the ground for their insolence in one hour if that pole still remained and had to be, once again, restrained from carrying it out when Stephen called to have a third meeting take place on June 12th while also reminding Moore that Vice Admiral Graves had told the Captain not to provoke the townspeople, but it was far too late for that.According to The Life of Captain Jeremiah O’Brien, Benjamin Foster and a group of his militiamen met two miles south of town on the Saturday afternoon of June 10th to concoct a two-pronged plan to seize both Ichabod, Stephen, Moore, and the other officer of the Margaretta while they were attending church the next afternoon and to then seize the British ships in the bay. They sent a few men to the home of the O’Briens to get their thoughts on the plan. The father, Morris O’Brien, tried to dissuade Foster and his party from carrying out their plan because Machias relied completely on the sea for survival, they were very far away from any sort of help, and carrying out their plan would no doubt bring about the immediate destruction of their village. Foster would not be dissuaded and Jeremiah O’Brien with his five younger brothers (Gideon, John, William, Dennis, and Joseph), despite their father’s concern, all decided to join forces with Foster, Jeremiah taking charge of the plan alongside him.At around 10 o’clock the next morning, a group of men gathered together once more for a secret meeting where they discussed the agreement by the surrounding villages to provide aid and the full plan in detail with everyone: seize the officers of the Margaretta and Jones while they were at church then capture the British Vessels, hopefully avoiding any and all bloodshed in the process. Opinions of the plan were divided, many not sure that the plan was feasible and what attacking the British might mean in the grand scheme of things. Foster reminded them all that they were already at war with Britain, that blood had already been shed at Lexington and Concord, and that the sooner they joined in the war efforts the better. This convinced many of them, but some voices were still a little hesitant about a plan that sounded so dangerous. Foster then boldly stepped forward, crossed the brook by which they were meeting, and said “Let all who are willing to strike for Freedom, follow me. Those who are in favor of British tyranny, and think it right to send lumber to Boston wherewith to build barracks for our oppressors, may stay where they are.” Jeremiah was right on Foster’s heels and was followed quickly by his brothers, then soon the entire party was crossing after them in unanimous support of the plan. They had just made their own Declaration of War, deciding to fight the British on their own terms.They split into two groups, one would attend the church service and, at the signal of a whistle, seize the targets. Another party would surround the meeting house and, in the event that any of their targets escape the building, be there to prevent their further escape and capture them outside. As the plan was moving into action and everyone was taking their positions outside, the pastor’s slave glanced out the window and spotted a small group of men crossing the river on log rafts with muskets in hand and thought they might be British soldiers. He cried out and then leaped out a window, booking it for the forest, and throwing the congregation into turmoil in the process. Moore and Jones both quickly realized what was happening and escaped from the meeting house before the people in position within the congregation could catch them, Moore leaping through a window and gunning for his ship while followed by his officer and Jones sprinting for the woods into which he’d vanish for a couple days. Moore and his man reached the landing and the two of them clamored into a boat sent from the Margaretta and began rowing back to the ship, followed to the shore closely by several pursuers. Jones’ nephew, Stephen, was not so lucky and was successfully captured by the villagers and held prisoner.Moore, upon returning to the Margaretta, weighed anchor and fired a few shots over the town as a threat to anyone considering pursuit and then moved down river a short way. The people, more determined than before, followed in all manner of small boats and canoes, firing upon the retreating ship with their muskets for several minutes. Moore dropped anchor again and sent word to the citizens that if Ichabod Jones or either of the sloops, the Unity or the Polly, were harmed, then he would burn the village to the ground. The message only served to further rally the citizens of Machias and it’s leaders against him. The whole town decided then and there that Jones was not going to be returning to Boston with the lumber and the Margaretta was going to be theirs. A group of Foster and O’Brien’s men, armed with muskets, were dispatched to where the Margaretta had anchored itself and began to open fire upon her from their elevated position, demanding that the British “Strike to the Sons of Liberty!” The British ship was unable to fire back at them because the guns of the ship could not be angled high enough to reach them. The citizens once more commanded that Moore “Strike to the Sons of Liberty or Die” to which Moore replied that he was “not yet ready” and gunfire resumed. This went on for about fifteen minutes before Moore was forced to retreat from the shore, the main boom snapping in the harsh winds and crippling the ship’s maneuverability in the process. Moore sailed his ship out of range and the gunfire petered out, the townspeople dispersing as night began to fall. That night, a group of men set out in canoes and small boats, attempting to board the Margaretta but were ultimately repelled.The next morning, on the 12th, Moore began to plan his escape to the sea, an eye on the shore to monitor the town’s movements. Jeremiah O’Brien, all his brothers, and around thirty men armed with muskets, knives, pistols, axes, pitchforks or whatever sharp weapons they could get their hands on, commandeered the Unity, which had been brought to the wharf by his second youngest Brother, Dennis, and three other young men. They then built a breastwork upon the deck with the lumber that had been loaded on the ship so far and then loaded it up with supplies to prepare it for battle before setting a course for the Margaretta. Seeing all of this through his spyglass, Moore cut the Margaretta from a ship in the harbour he had latched onto and plundered for supplies and then weighed anchor, starting down the river and towards the bay where he’d take another ship in order to replace his broken main boom and to seize the captain of the ship to act as a pilot for his. Foster, in the meantime, unable to take the Polly because it had been stripped of its sails and rigging, commandeered a sloop from a nearby village of Falmouth called the Falmouth Packet with twenty men and sailed to meet O’Brien and the Unity. Unfortunately, however, The Falmouth Packet ran aground in the morning’s low tide and they were unable to dislodge the ship, meaning they were stuck until the mid-day tide rolled back in. He sent a messenger ahead to O’Brien to inform him of what had happened and when the news reached the Unity, the men on board determined that they would seize the Margaretta without them and set a determined course for the British schooner once more. The Unity was the fastest of the three ships that had come into the Machias harbor with Jones and was quickly gaining water on the fleeing Margaretta. It was at this time that the citizens suddenly realized they didn’t have a captain. They had set out to sea on an impulse to take on a Britsh Warship and hadn’t even considered how they were going to go about it. By unanimous vote, they elected Jeremiah O’Brien to be their captain. The first thing O’Brien did as captain was to offer the chance to any person on board having second thoughts to go back ashore. Three men took him up on that and were given a small boat in which they could row back to the village. Captain O’Brien then turned back to the rest of the men and reportedly said: “Now, my brave fellows, having got rid of those white livered cowards, our first business will be to get along side of the schooner yonder; and the first man who boards her shall be entitled to the palm of honor.” Captain Moore, seeing the Unity gaining on him, cut all of the small boats trailing from their stern loose into the bay, but the Unity was still gaining on him fast despite Moore’s hour-long headstart. Captain Moore, now convinced that he was going to be overtaken, shouted back to the Unity “Sloop ahoy! keep off or I’ll fire!” Captain O’Brien, not at all deterred, called back, “In America’s name I demand your surrender!” Moore threatened again to fire upon the Unity and one of the other men onboard the sloop shouted back “Fire away and be damned!” And so Moore opened fire on the Unity with his canons.In the first volley, one of the men on board the Unity was killed and another wounded. Another man stepped up in the dead man’s place and took aim, killing the Margaretta’s helmsmen with a bullet through the skull. This shot drove everyone on board the Margaretta off the quarterdeck and into hiding as a volley of musket fire from the Unity rained down upon them. Without a helmsman to steer the Margaretta, the ship shifted in its course and the two ships collided. The bowsprit of the Unity tore the mainsail of the Margaretta and tangled the two ships together momentarily. In that moment Jeremiah’s brother, John, leaped from the bowsprit of the Unity and onto the Margaretta before the two ships parted, leaving him alone on the deck of the enemy ship. John was fired upon by seven British sailors but was unharmed, then the British charged at him with their bayonets and he dived overboard amid another volley of musket fire and swam back to the Unity where he was promptly helped back aboard to face Jeremiah, who shook his brother’s hand and told him that he won the palm of honor as promised but that he should get back in position and be ready to properly board the enemy ship, damn it.With his brother back on board, Captain O’Brien ordered that the Unity be brought alongside the Margaretta and the two ships lashed together with grappling hooks. Twenty armed men from the Unity were appointed to board the Margaretta and the two opposing crews began to engage in hand to hand combat at the railings, struggling to gain the upper hand one way or the other. Moore climbed onto the railing of his quarterdeck and brandished his sword, encouraging his men, but the fight was not going in his favor. Moore ordered that the hand grenades be brought up and he immediately began to lob them at the Unity. Upon recognizing that Captain O’Brien was undoubtedly their leader, he decided that killing him would probably demoralize the Americans and started lobbing several directly at him. O’Brien, probably by sheer luck, was unharmed by any of these attempts. Two bullets were buried into Moore’s chest by a sharpshooting moose-hunter on the Unity and Moore fell to the deck, mortally wounded. O’Brien, seeing this, called out to his men “To your feet, lads! The schooner is ours! Follow me! Board!” and everyone mobilized, following their captain over the railings and onto the Margaretta where they began to engage the British in direct hand-to-hand combat. The second in command of the Margaretta fled below deck as the Americans poured onto their ship and the British, realizing they no longer had anyone to lead them and that the Americans were winning the fight, surrendered. The whole battle had lasted for an hour and Captain Jeremiah O’Brien gained the honor of securing the first American victory of the Revolutionary War as the British flag and the captain’s sword were both surrendered to him. All in all, four British sailors, including Moore who died from his wounds within the next two days, and three Machias citizens were killed in the fighting as well as the Captain that Moore and forced to serve him that day. Some eight or nine citizens were wounded in all. The Americans took the British sailors captive and then repaired their ships before returning to Machias that afternoon to great celebrations on all sides for their victory. Ichabod Jones would emerge from the woods two days after the fighting and would be captured as well. The people of Machias then had to ask themselves “What now?” because they hadn’t thought that far ahead yet and had no idea what to do with their prisoners and the looming threat of British retaliation upon their small town. They began to fortify their town, outfitted a number of ships for a new career in authorized Privateering, and received supplies from the Massachusettes Congress. On June 26th, 1775 the Massachusetts Congress resolved that O’Brien and Foster be allowed to keep the three ships and all of their cargo that they had taken and that they be authorized to improve the ships and use them as they see appropriate for the defense of their colony.The Unity was outfitted with the arms of the Margaretta and was renamed the Machias Liberty and remained under O’Brien’s command. It became the first armed cruiser employed in the American Revolution. Following the Battle of Machias, increasingly more and more local ships and shipowners throughout the colonies began to take on the role of a quasi-navy. All of this began to support John Adams’ argument to Congress that the colonists would and could take on the Royal Navy themselves under the right circumstances and succeed because of how ferociously the colonists believed in the cause of their war.O’Brien and Foster captured two more British ships sent to punish O’Brien for taking the Margaretta and added them to their growing fleet exactly one month later on July 12th, 1775. On July 18th, the Continental Congress finally resolved that each colony should be allowed to be responsible for protecting its own coast. Both Foster and O’Brien were then sent to address the Massachusets Congress and met George Washington, who had just recently assumed command of the army, along the way and were invited to dine with him before moving on. The Massachusetts Congress greeted them both warmly upon their arrival and celebrated the news of their latest prizes. O’Brien was then appointed Captain of the Marine of the Massachusetts Colony and charged with defending the Massachusettes Coast and intercepting supply vessels coming in to support the British Army.Rhode Island became the first state to establish an actual Navy in August 1775, and began to petition Congress about the formation of a Continental Navy in October, but did not convince the Continental Congress to do so. George Washington also began to form his own makeshift Navy in August-September, tasking his aide-de-camp, Joseph Reed, with organizing efforts to snag unescorted British Merchant ships alongside shipowner/soldier, John Glover, and Shipping Businessman/future Aide, Stephen Moylan. The three of them outfitted several ships and created what’s known today as “Washington’s Navy” that successfully privateered along the coast.The final push to creating a Continental Navy would come soon after with a letter from John Barry, who would later become the first commissioned officer of the Continental Navy, that stated two English Brigs were sailing towards Quebec with Ammunition for the Canadian forces. A committee consisting of John Adams, Silas Deane, and John Langdon was formed to come up with a solution. They quickly proposed the formation of a group of ships to intercept them. Congress was not thrilled. They still did not think it entirely doable and was convinced that forming a navy would corrupt the morals of their sailors. Adams assured them that the benefits outweighed their concerns and on October 13, 1775, the Continental Navy, consisting of ten ships, was ordered to be formed. While waiting for the warships to be built, Washington’s Navy would succeed in taking one of the two unarmed Brigs mentioned by Barry that were sailing for Canada, acquiring enough arms and ammunition to supply 2,000 men.And to think, it all began when a small village so far north it was practically in Canada and had only heard rumors that war had begun, looked at the British and decided “Not today” then proceeded to successfully capture three Royal Navy ships out on the water and began to convince everyone that, you know what? Maybe we can do this.Sources: 1. Life of Captain Jeremiah O’Brien by Andrew M. Sherman2. The Liberty Pole, a Tale of Machias3. Rebels Under Sail by William Fowler Jr.4. The Struggle for Sea Power by Sam Willis5. John Adams by David McCullough6. The Village of Machias Confronts The Royal Navy by Michael Cecere7. The First Naval Battle of The American Revolution 8. George Washington’s Indispensable Men by Arthur C. Lefkowitz

[oysterdead2-blog]

20+ Career Tips From Successful Philadelphians to Help You Kick Off 2019

Advice

Sage words on networking, planning, taking risks and never giving up. Here’s to a wiser you in 2019.

Career advice from successful Philadelphians.

Yes, we’ve made it to 2019, but that doesn’t mean we have to throw all of 2018 away. Last year, we interviewed more than 50 successful Philadelphians in our weekly I Love My Job column, and each professional had something powerful to say about navigating work and careers. To kick off the new year, we’re looking back at that advice to give us the career push we need. Check out the list below for sage words on networking, planning, taking risks and never giving up. Here’s to a wiser you in 2019.

On Having Faith

When I started my career I wish I knew that… everything works out the way it should. That everything works out for the best. You only know the road you take. You don’t know the road not taken because you didn’t take it. You just have to have confidence that everything works out for the best. –Michael Barkann, NBC Sports Philadelphia Sportscaster 

On Taking Risks

The best piece of career advice I can give is… don’t be afraid to take risks. If something doesn’t go right, learn from it but don’t wallow in failure. Don’t spend a lot of time feeling sorry for yourself. When we fail, we should fail forward and fail forward fast. – Maitreyi Roy, Bartram’s Garden executive director

The career advice I give to young people is… don’t be afraid to raise your hand and take on things that are outside what you think you were hired to do. If you’re interested, volunteer to do that thing. It exposes you to new people and gets you more visibility. –Ebony Lee, Comcast Cable senior vice president of strategic development 

On the Importance of Practice

The one piece of career advice I always like to give is…Find out what you’re good at, then perfect it. If you can do what you’ve been blessed to do and couple that with what somebody else has been blessed to do, then you can come up with something fantastic and exciting. –Kenny Gamble, Philadelphia International Records legend; founder and real estate developer at Universal Companies

For those of you looking to break into photography, I suggest… going out and shooting as much as possible. Also, get out of your comfort zone. You’ll never know what you can achieve if you don’t try. –Samantha Madera, Mayor’s photographer

On Listening and Reading

The best career advice I’ve ever been given… is to listen. Listening is vitally important for success. And to read as much as you can about everything you can. I think knowing a little about a lot of things helps round out a person. You’ll be surprised how much that knowledge helps you and pops up in your day-to-day activities and in your job. Reading things in and around your industry and outside of your industry can make you a better person in business. You can relate to people better. –Kevin Mozzucola, Philadelphia Auto Show executive director

On Planning

An important lesson that’s stuck with me throughout life is… if you fail to plan, then you plan to fail. My dad would always say that to me, and I took that to heart. The older I get, the more I realize that plans can change. You can do whatever you want but you just have to set a clear path to get there. –Tina Wells, Buzz Marketing Group CEO 

On Networking

Networking is… about blocking and tackling. It’s not any different now than it was 100 years ago. You still have to go to events and meet people, but it’s about remembering names. And you should try to remember one unique thing about the person you met because you’ll need to follow up with that person. We all love when someone remembers something about us. It cuts through the clutter.–Kevin Mozzucola, Philadelphia Auto Show executive director

The best career advice I’ve ever been given is… about the power of networking. It sounds generic but building and maintaining relationships is so important. –Natanya DiBona, Philly Diner en Blanc organizer

On Leadership

A lesson I’ve learned about leadership over the past 10 years is… it’s all about empowerment and enablement. Hire people smarter than you. Arm them with the tools and resources they need to succeed. And treat people with respect. I believe in a servant-leadership model as opposed to command and control. –Matt Kull, Revzilla CEO

On Public Speaking

I honed my speaking skills by… reading a Dr. Seuss book called “Oh Say Can You Say?” to my kids before bed. It’s a book of tongue twisters that I’d read faster and faster each time, and I’d pronounce every syllable. My kids got sick of it. I’d recommend this to every young broadcaster. –Michael Barkann, NBC Sports Philadelphia Sportscaster 

On Morning Routines

My morning routine involves… reading something that’s very inspirational, like Marianne Williamson or a book by Oprah called The Wisdom of Sundays. I also do a morning practice inspired by Kevion Stirdivant. It focuses on setting intentions, and reaffirming them every morning. And finally, I consider what my three goals are for the day. –Tina Wells, Buzz Marketing Group CEO 

On Success and Failure

The best piece of career advice I’ve ever been given is… in times of success, look out the window to your people’s hard work and dedication. In times of failure, look in the mirror for how you could have done a better job. –Asher Raphael, Power Home Remodeling co-CEO

A piece of career advice I like to share is… if you haven’t failed, you haven’t tried. What matters is succeeding, and every woman can. She just has to be surrounded by supportive people in her life. And she has to believe in herself and believe in the possibility that she can be successful and just persist. –Gloria Allred, civil rights attorney

Being successful is… becoming what you want to be and not allowing outside influences to let you deviate from your idea of what success is. –Michael Banks, AACC president

On Finding Motivation

When I need some motivation I usually… go for a run or do something physical. I unplug for a little when I’m feeling burned out. For general inspiration I like to find great TED talks to get the motors spinning. I also like going to industry conferences or events to get a broader view of our market. If you spend too much time in the office, you start to get tunnel vision within the context of your walls.–Matt Kull, Revzilla CEO

When I hit a creative roadblock, I… travel to see something new. – Watson Mere, Digital artist

Something that motivates me is…. making others smile and if I could be a role model to someone, for the youth especially. There aren’t enough positive role models out there. It would be the most flattering thing for someone to say they look up to me. And I like to live my life with this Maya Angelou quote in mind: “People will forget what you said. People will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” –Sheila Hess, Philadelphia city representative

On Hustle

The most important thing I learned about starting a company is… your success will depend on your hustle. – Todd Carmichael, La Colombe CEO

On Sacrifice

To all the women looking to be the boss, I suggest… you be willing to make sacrifices. You’ve got to be willing to make tough decisions. It comes at a price, and it’s not for everybody. There are real sacrifices and difficult decisions you have to make in terms of balancing the quality of your life. And you just have to be willing to take that on. –Judith M. von Seldeneck, Diversified Search founder 

A mantra I live by is… short-term sacrifice for long-term rewards. That drives me everyday. I have to give things up in the interim for the things I really want. –Michael Banks, AACC president

On Career Advancement

For women trying to break into this field and rise up, I’d say… never take “no” for an answer. That’s just a rule that I like to live by. I think that if you believe in something and you feel strongly about something, never take “no” for an answer. Stick to your guns. I also think mentoring is very important. If you find someone whom you really admire, someone whom you can really learn from, you shouldn’t think twice about asking that person to mentor you. – Dana Valenti, Kimco Realty director of development

My advice to all women is… you need to be resilient in fighting for what you believe in and what you’re trying to accomplish. You can’t stop at “no.” You have to keep pushing. With all of us pushing and pushing, eventually, and you can see it now, starting, you’ll get there. The inertia is natural. You have to have a tough skin and be resilient. –Joanne Ryder, Beneficial Bank executive vice president and chief administration officer

On imposter syndrome… I was advised early on, particularly by women in leadership positions, that when you’re in the room you need to behave like you belong there. You may have your own doubts but you need to sit at the table, engage and believe you belong there. –Ebony Lee, Comcast Cable senior vice president of strategic development 

On Quitting

Advice I’d give to anyone starting a business in Philly is… don’t quit. You have to change it up all the time. If you give your idea a chance and it’s not taking hold but you want to stay in business, you have to figure out what works for you that customers want. For three months, I lived in the basement of my first store. I would take a shower at my girlfriend’s house. I did that because I could not see myself working for anyone else. There’s no shame in working for someone else. If you can see yourself working for somebody else, and you’re in business, you probably should go work for someone else. –Mike Supermodel, Jinxed founder and owner

On Passion

The best career advice I’ve ever been given is… two things: to go with what I feel the most passionate about and to not sell myself short. Basically, ask for what you want. –Mike Shaffer, Philly Buffalo Exchange Manager

On Building Relationships

The best career advice I’ve ever received is… take time to develop your own relationships because relationships are really meaningful in this industry. –Dana Valenti, Kimco Realty’s director of development

On Finding Happiness With Work

To those who are unhappy with their current jobs/careers I say… on the one hand, how important is the work that they’re doing? If it’s really important, that’s a factor in staying with it. And how much do they need the things they get for their work, meaning money? If [money] is really important, then I would suggest they stay with it and find happiness in another direction. But if the answers to those questions are that the work that I’m doing are perhaps not that important, and what I get out of it is not what I need, then you should be casting a wider net in life. –Dean Malissa, George Washington portrayer

On Switching Careers

To someone looking to switch gears in their career later on in life I say… it comes back to my mantra: be as good as you say you are. Really perfect your skill and your craft. Be honest and trustworthy and someone that’s reliable. Those are a lot of the intangible skills that transcend any particular type of business. –Justin Wineburgh, Alkemy X president and CEO

On Not Asking for Permission

The best piece of advice I’ve ever got is… from a woman I worked for early on. She always told me, “Don’t ever ask for permission.” I’ve kept that in the back of my mind. I never ask for permission. –Joanne Ryder, Beneficial Bank executive vice president and chief administration officer

Source: https://www.phillymag.com/business/2019/01/02/career-tips-from-successful-philadelphians/