#human brook supremacy | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

arcticdementor · 3 years ago

Link

For millennia the family has stood as the central institution of society—often changing, but always essential. But across the world, from China to North America, and particularly in Europe, family ties are weakening, with the potential to undermine one of the last few precious bits of privacy and intimacy.

Margaret Mead once said, “no matter how many communes anyone invents, the family always creeps back.” But today’s trajectory is not promising. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, family formation and birth rates were declining throughout much of the world, not just in most of the West and East Asia, but also in parts of South American and the Middle East.

The ongoing pandemic appears to be driving birth rates globally down even further, and the longer it lasts, the greater possibility that familial implosion will get far worse, and perhaps intractable. Brookings predicts that COVID will result in 300,000 to 500,000 fewer U.S. births in 2021. Marriage rates have dropped significantly to 35 year lows.

…

These predictions turned out to be vastly exaggerated, with a rapid decline in global hunger. The anticipated population explosion is morphing into something more like an implosion, with much of the world now facing population stagnation, and even contraction. As birth rates have dropped, the only thing holding up population figures in many places is longer lifespans, though recent data suggests these may be getting shorter again .

These trends can be felt in the United States, where the birthrate is sinking. U.S. population growth among the cohort aged between 16 and 64 has dropped from 20 percent in the 1980s to less than 5 percent in the last decade. This is particularly bad for the future of an economy dependent on new workers and consumers.

This demographic transition is even more marked in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and much of Europe, where finding younger workers is becoming a major problem for employers and could result in higher costs or increased movement of jobs to more fecund countries. As the employment base shrinks, some countries, such as Germany, have raised taxes on the existing labor force to pay for the swelling ranks of retirees.

Similar patterns can be seen in China. Expanding workforces like China’s—which grew by 380 million between 1980 and 2012—drove a world-shattering economic boom. Now, this resource is already in peril; birthrates have cratered to historic lows. China’s working-age population (those between 15 and 64 years old) peaked in 2011 and is projected to drop 23 percent by 2050. This plunge will be exacerbated by the effects of the now discarded one-child policy, which led to the aborting of an estimated 37 million Chinese girls since it came into effect in 1980. By 2050, China is projected to have 60 million fewer people under age fifteen, a loss approximately the size of Italy’s total population. The ratio of retirees to working people is expected to have more than tripled by then, which would be one of the most rapid demographic shifts in history, and by 2050 will be roughly 20 percent higher than that of the U.S.

…

Today’s demographic stagnation represents a throwback to earlier times. After the relative buoyant growth in Classical times, the Middle Ages also were a period of global demographic stagnation, caused by famine, pestilence, pervasive celibacy and poverty. Population growth soared with the rise of liberal capitalism in the Early Modern period, aided by changing attitudes toward motherhood, children, and families. Simon Schama describes the Netherlands, the fount of this transition, as a “Republic of Children” built around the nuclear family. The medieval obsession with the Virgin Mother and the unrealistic cherubim typical of Renaissance painting were replaced with domestic images characterized by “uncompromising earthiness.”

We now seem to be moving away from those values, and as in the Middle Ages, becoming less centered around the family. Serfs at least had religion and a sense of community; our societies have become increasingly lonely, with single men hit hardest and children, often without two parents or any siblings, and chained to social media, increasingly isolated around the world. In the U.S. since 1960, the percentage of people in the United States living alone has grown from about 12 percent to 28 percent. Even intimacy is on its way out, particularly among the young; the once swinging age groups now are suffering a “sex recession.”

The percentage of American women who are mothers is at its lowest point in over three decades. Intact families are rarer, and single living more common. In the United States, the rate of single parenthood has grown from 10 percent in 1960 to over 40 percent today. This is very bad news for society, particularly minorities, because intact families tend to have fewer problems relating to prison, school, or poverty.

This social collapse is going global. In Britain, 8 percent of households in 1970 were headed by a single parent; now, the rate is over 25 percent. The percentage of children born outside marriage has doubled over the past three decades, to 40 percent. In the Scandinavian countries, around 40 percent of the population lives alone.

…

In Japan, the harbinger of modern Asian demographics, the number of people living alone is expected to reach 40 percent of the whole population by 2040. Japan has a rising “misery index” of divorces, single motherhood, and spousal and child abuse—all of which accelerates the country’s disastrous demographic decline and deepens class division. More and more people are not only living alone but dying alone. There are estimated to be four thousand “lonely deaths” in Japan every week.

…

The disinclination to form families is often described as generational choice. But American millennial attitudes about family are not significantly different from prior generations, though perhaps with a greater emphasis on gender equality. Among American childless women under age 44, barely 6 percent are “voluntarily childless.” The vast majority of millennials want to get married and have children.

High housing prices, crowded living conditions, and financial pressures certainly account for much of this gap. This phenomenon is particularly marked in the urban centers that dominate the world’s economy and culture. Today many large cities are becoming childless demographic graveyards. Between 2011 and 2019, the number of babies born annually in Manhattan dropped by nearly 15 percent, while the decrease across the city was 9 percent. The nation’s premier urban center could see its infant population shrink by half in the next thirty years. The share of nonfamily households grew three times as fast in gentrifying neighborhoods as in the city overall. In the future, writes Steve LeVine in Axios, shifting local priorities “could write kids out of urban life for good.”

…

Nearly half a century ago, Daniel Bell saw a “new class” rising with values profoundly divergent from the traditional bourgeois norms of self-control, industriousness, and personal responsibility, which together form the essence of familialism. Instead, Bell envisioned a new type of individualism, unmoored from religion and family, which could dissolve the foundations of middle-class culture.

Indeed, for some, particularly in Europe and North America, declining fecundity represents an ideal result, chosen by those who “give up having children to save the planet” in order to reduce the carbon impact of each additional human. The recipe for reducing family size fits with the widely promoted notion of de-growth which has strong support from the oligarchs and financiers associated with the World Economic Forum. The goal is no GDP growth, less consumption, smaller houses, less class mobility, policies likely to reduce birthrates.

Others, particularly feminists and gender activists, celebrate the decline of the family for more ideological reasons. The late feminist icon Betty Frieden once compared housewives to people marching voluntarily into “a concentration camp.” One recent New York Times article even linked women who choose to stay at home with “white supremacy.” Black Lives Matter, true to its quasi-Marxist ideology, has made clear its antipathy to the nuclear family, an attitude widely shared in the mainstream media as well.

The more conventional Marxists in China, for their part, see these post-familial attitudes as a threat to the country’s future. China’s Communist leaders, while officially genuflecting to Maoist ideology, now promote the filial piety central to both traditional folk religion and the Confucianism but long reviled by the founders of the People’s Republic. Once terrified by overpopulation, China’s leaders are seeking ways to raise childbearing and family formation into “socialist” values.

But it’s Japan which again epitomizes the shift in Asian attitudes. There, traditional values such as hard work, sacrifice, and loyalty are largely rejected by the new generation, the shinjinrui or “new race.” These younger Japanese, writes one sociologist, are “pioneering a new sort of high quality, low energy, low growth existence.” Maybe they don’t need much energy since nearly a third of Japanese adults entering their thirties have never had sex. This is not a good predictor for family formation.

…

To succeed, such initiatives have to go beyond cash payments and other incentives, as welcome as these may be. There also needs to be a concerted effort to build family-friendly housing— large apartments, townhomes, and single-family detached houses—that generally attract families with children. Rather than shoehorning forced density into already-dense metros, we can encourage the development of less expensive, family-friendly housing; the shift to the periphery accelerated by the pandemic could help reverse the rapid aging and demographic declines associated with densely packed cities. The rise of remote work—something widely embraced by parents—could boost families by allowing them to work at home or nearby.

These are not issues of right or left, but concern the future of our civilization, not just economically but spiritually. Social democracy, as first developed in places like Sweden, sought to bolster families, not hem them in. Some conservatives have placed similar emphasis on the family unit. The debate should be not the utility of supporting families, but how best to do it.

This is a choice we need to make. A woke utopia, where children and families are rare, upward mobility constrained, and society built around a collective welfare system, would create a society that rewards hedonism and personal self-absorption. There is nothing as binding in a society as the ties created by children, who give us reason to fight against an encroaching dystopia.

#joel kotkin #the american mind #low birth rates #demographics

2 notes · View notes

citylightsbooks · 4 years ago

Text

City Lights Bookstore’s Antiracist Reading List | UPDATED

Human creativity is integral to revolutionary resistance—the urgent plea, the silenced cry, the righteous rage. It is imperative that we educate and illuminate ourselves to deepen our commitment to justice and equity for Black people and all people of color, and to pave the way for radical systemic change.

***

Of Poetry and Protest: From Emmett Til to Trayvon Martin Edited by Philip Cushway and Michael Warr 9780393352733 Norton Have Black Lives Ever Mattered? Mumia Abu-Jamal 9780872867383 City Lights Invisible Man Ralph Ellison 9780679732761 Vintage A Black Women's History of the United States Daina Ramey Berry and Kali N. Gross 9780807033555 Beacon W.E.B. Dubois' Data Portraits: Visualizing Black America The W.E.B. Du Bois Center at the University of Massachusetts Edited by Britt Rusert and Whitney Battle-Baptiste 9781616897062 Princeton Architectural Press Race Man: Selected Works 1960-2015 Julian Bond Edited by Michael G. Long 9780872867949 City Lights Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgot Mikki Kendall 9780525560548 Viking The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration Isabel Wilkerson 9780679763888 Random House

The Echo Tree: The Collected Short Fiction of Henry Dumas Henry Dumas 9781566891493 Coffee House Everywhere You Don't Belong: A Novel Gabrielle Bump 9781616208790 Algonquin The Meaning of Freedom and Other Difficult Dialogues Angela Y. Davis Foreword by Robin D.G. Kelley 9780872865808 City Lights

No Fascist USA!: The John Brown Anti-Klan Committee and Lessons for Today’s Movements Hillary Moore and James Tracy Foreword by Robin D.G. Kelley 9780872867963 City Lights The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander 9781620971932 The New Press Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds adrienne maree brown 9781849352604 AK Black Skin, White Masks Frantz Fanon Translated from the French by Richard Philcox 9780802143006 Grove The Wretched of the Earth Frantz Fanon Translated from the French by Richard Philcox Commentary by Jean-Paul Sartre and Homi K. Bhabha 9780802141323 Grove Citizen: An American Lyric Claudia Rankine 9781555976903 Graywolf How to Be An Antiracist Ibram X. Kendi 9780525509288 One World The Fire Next Time James Baldwin 9780679744726 Random House No Name in the Street James Baldwin 9780307275929 Vintage How To Be Less Stupid About Race: On Racism, White Supremacy, and the Racial Divide Crystal Marie Fleming 9780807039847 Beacon The History of White People Nell Irvin Painter 9780393339741 Norton Heaven Is All Goodbyes: City Lights Pocket Poet Series No. 61 Tongo Eisen-Martin 9780872867451 City Lights Afropessimism Frank WIlderson III 9781631496141 Liveright If They Come in the Morning . . . : Voices of Resistance Edited by Angela Y. Davis 9781784787691 Verso So You Want to Talk About Race Ijeoma Olua 9781580058827 Seal Troublemaker for Justice: The Story of Bayard Ruskin, the Man Behind the March on Washington Jacqueline Houtman, Walter Naegle, and Michael G. Long 9780872867659 City Lights We Are Not Yet Equal: Understanding Our Racial Divide Carol Anderson with Tonya Bolden Foreword by Nic Stone 9781547602520 Bloomsbury Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You - A Remix of the National Book Award-Winning Stamped from the Beginning Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi 9780316453691 Little, Brown Woke: A Young Poet's Call to Justice Mahogany L. Browne with Elizabeth Acevedo and Olivia Gatwood Illustrated by Theodore Taylor III Foreword by Jason Reynolds 9781250311207 Roaring Brook Betty Before X Ilyasah Shabazz with Renée Watson 9780374306106 FSG Clifford's Blues John A. Williams 9781566890809 Coffee House Native Son RIchard Wright 9780061148507 Harper Perennial Training School for Negro Girls Camille Acker 9781936932375 Feminist Press They Can't Kill Us Until They Kill Us: Essays Hanif Abdurraqib 9781937512651 Two Dollar Radio Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption Bryan Stevenson 9780812984965 One World The Source of Self-Regard: Selected Essays, Speeches, and Meditations Toni Morrison 9780525562795 Vintage Oreo Fran Ross 9780811223225 New Directions Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches Audre Lorde Foreword by Cheryl Clarke 9781580911863 Crossing Press Ghost Boys Jewell Parker Rhodes 9780316262262 Little, Brown Monument: Poems New and Selected Natasha Trethewey 9780358118237 Mariner The Sword and the Shield: The Revolutionary Lives of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Peniel E. Joseph 9781541617865 Basic Dear White People Justin Simien Illustrated by Ian O’Phelan 97814769809 37 Ink Black Panther: The Revolutionary Art of Emory Douglas Edited by Sam Durant Preface by Bobby Seale Foreword by Danny Glover 9780847841899 Rizzoli Power to the People: The World of the Black Panthers Stephan Shames and Bobby Seale 9781419722400 Harry N. Abrams Press In the Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition Fred Moten 9780816641000 University of Minnesota Press The Known World: A Novel Edward P. Jones 9780061159176 Amistad Counternarratives: Stories and Novellas John Keene 9780811225526 New Directions Beloved: A Novel Toni Morrison 9781400033416 Vintage The Bluest Eye: A Novel Toni Morrison 9780307278449 Vintage Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination Toni Morrison Vintage 9780679745426 Mumbo Jumbo Ishmael Reed 9780684824772 Scribner Our Nig: Or, Sketches from the Life of a Free Black Harriet E. Wilson Edited with an introduction by Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Richard J. Ellis 9780307477453 Vintage Burn This Book: Notes on Literature and Engagement Edited by Toni Morrison 9780061774010 Harper I’m Not Dying with You Tonight Gilly Segal and Kimberly Jones Sourcebooks Fire 9781492678892 The End of Policing Alex S. Vitale 9781784782924 Verso The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual: A Historical Analysis of the Failure of Black Leadership Harold Cruse 9781590171356 NYRB Classics How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America: Problems in Race, Political Economy, and Society Manning Marable 9781608465118 Haymarket From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor 9781608465620 Haymarket Still Black, Still Strong: Survivors of the War Against Black Revolutionaries Dhoruba Bin Wahad, Assata Shakur, and Mumia Abu-Jamal 9780936756745 Semiotext(e) Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom David W. Blight 9781416590323 Simon & Schuster Parting the Waters : America in the King Years 1954-63 Taylor Branch 9780671687427 Simon & Schuster Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-65 Taylor Branch 9780684848099 Simon & Schuster At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68 Taylor Branch 9780684857138 Simon & Schuster A Taste of Power: A Black Woman's Story Elaine Brown 9780385471077 Anchor Angela Davis: An Autobiography Angela Y. Davis 9780717806676 International Publishers Co. My Bondage and My Freedom Frederick Douglass 9780140439182 Penguin Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself: A New Critical Edition Frederick Douglass and Angela Y. Davis 9780872865273 City Lights Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880 W.E.B. Du Bois 9780684856575 Free Press

#reading list #city lights bookstore #antiracist

97 notes · View notes

heistmaster69 · 4 years ago

Text

pariet lilium

pariet lilium~by @heistmaster69

4th Year Draco Malfoy x OC fic.

~so uhh um I was maybe watching a video about dark academia while writing this and may have gotten a BIT carried away~

gif by @fairylightwishes all credit to them!

Frankie and Cher sat in the back of Potions class while Snape droned on about the effects of crushed versus shaved Bicorn Horn on the end result of a Pepperup potion.

“-now you see that’s exactly what I was talking about. Muggle movie stars are much more attractive than boys at Hogwarts-”

“Leonar-”

“-Dicaprio, yes.” She whispered.

“Frankie that man is gorgeous-”

‘So fine-”

Cher let out a sigh, while Frankie continued. “All the boys from Dead Poets Society-”

“So it’s decided then-”

“Yes. I’m saving my virginity until I’m of age and Leonardo Dicaprio can come and take it fro-”

“Miss. Reed.” Snape deadpanned. “If you and your friends would be so kind as to stop squealing about muggle boys in my class-I would appreciate it. That will be five points from Slytherin.”

Cher kicked Frankie under the table.

“My bad, professor.” She murmured, putting her palm under her chin and turning back to her notes.

Potions had to be her third favorite class, Frankie didn’t mind it at all, it’s just, she was a little distracted, recently. It seemed like her single-ness was beginning to get to her and she found herself daydreaming during class. She didn’t want to be as obsessed as she was, but Frankie couldn’t really help it. She wanted the movie-scene first kiss and the romance novel passion, as unattainable as it is, she craved it.

But the thing is-Frankie never let herself daydream about people she knew. In reality, none of the people she’s liked would ever like her back, and it just hurt her because she knew that no one would ever have feelings for Frankie as she did for them. Every time she let her walls down she got hurt.

A lot of the people Frankie has met have made sure she knows that she will never be as valuable, never as loved, as beautiful, as successful as others because she wasn’t as thin as others. Frankie loved herself. But her ‘friends’, her family? It seemed like they hated her for it...

Magic had always interested Frankie. Being a witch or wizard usually goes over the heads of purebloods, with the mere prospect of having the gift coming so naturally to all of them. Frankie’s isolated upbringing, rarely seeing her parents and being brought up by a strange yet kind tutor who instructed her in all sorts of topics, ranging from basic arithmetic to discovering Frankie’s magical abilities. Ms. Selwyn, around Frankie’s parents, and Kendra, during her tutoring sessions daily during childhood.

These memories with Kendra have a warm haze to them, and whenever Frankie reminisced, a smile would find its way onto her face. We would stand together in the garden, during the golden sunsets, and she would say;

“Magic is an incredible gift, it is beautiful and infinitely important. We hold the power of the universe in our hands.”

Young Frankie would stare wide-eyed, confused, and tug on the side of Kendra’s robe,

“Ms. Kendra, what’s the universe?” Frankie would ask.

“The universe is everything.”

“Everything? How much is that?”

Kendra would smile so gently and kneel down beside Frankie, grasping her small hands and gesturing towards the sky alive with color.

“More than we could ever know.”

Kendra knew the power purebloods held with the Ministry, after all, the Selwyns and the Reeds were a part of the Sacred Twenty-Eight. The Ministry was still hypnotized by the status and the blood purity that these upper-class families held and overlooked the small laws broken by the elite, so Kendra and Frankie would practice small magic in their free time-in secret. The Reeds would never want their precious-little-delicate-perfect-pureblood baby daughter learning anything but the proper protocol for stuffy dinners with the Prewetts, the Malfoys, the Greengrasses, the Bulstrodes, the Parkinsons, the Notts, the Flints, or any other sort of perfect families that they could put in their larger-than-life estate.

Nevertheless, Kendra would take Frankie into the garden behind the mansion, near the rippling brook by a big oak tree. They would sit in the shade of the branches and Frankie would learn about everything her family didn’t want her to know. She learned about the inequality between purebloods, half-bloods, and muggleborns and as Kendra told her of the First Wizarding War, Frankie felt her heart shatter into a thousand pieces. How could someone think they were any better than another human being due to their blood? Their lineage? How they treat those supposedly ‘less than’? This realization caused a rift to form between Frankie and her parents-the entirety of what being Sacred 28 pureblooded perfection was.

She despised it.

Kendra warned her though, she spoke softly the words that shoved Frankie into a vault, locked her away, and threw away the key.

“I don’t know if this will ever change.”

Little Frankie blinked quickly, her wide eyes sore and puffy from tears. “Why?” She cried.

“They will never relinquish the privilege that this supremacy gives them.” Kendra let out a deep sigh and placed a tender hand on Frankie’s shoulder.

“I think you’re wrong, Miss Kendra.”

“I hope I am, Miss Frankie. I think you could make a difference.”

This upbringing of acceptance and wonder from Kendra instilled a unique view of magic in Frankie. She saw it as a privilege and took an interest in a side of magic that tended to be overlooked until necessary. Frankie liked to create spells and potions. Specifically, she had a fixation on wandless magic. It was crazy to her-she could create life from her hands. How so many of her friends and peers overlooked this, she understood but wished more people wouldn’t call people like her Loony Lovegood.

Anyways.

Frankie hid a tattered mahogany-colored, pleather-bound journal in her pillowcase. This journal rarely let the safety of her room, only transferring annually between her estate and Hogwarts. It was never shown to a soul, and it contained her life’s work in what could barely be considered spell-creation. Notes and random scribbles littered the pages, but if it were ever to be lost, Frankie would lose everything she’s done since she was six years, four months, and thirteen days old and Kendra told her about spell-creation. She thinks she would cry.

“Oi Francesca-” A voice called.

“-you’re not allowed to call me that, Blaise.” Frankie chuckled as he jogged up to her, stopping to lean against the wall with a smirk.

“I don’t care, you’re Francesca to me. Anyway, Potions, what happened in poti-” Blaise looked over his shoulder and shouted to Theo. “Oi Theodore, get your arse over here!” Blaise had a thing for using people’s full name-even if it’s not really their name, (ie Daphnessa/Pansleigh.) Frankie rolled her eyes as Theo strolled, shoulders taut, up to Blaise

“Frankie, what happened in Potions? You love potions, you’re always talking about how Potions is a really cool way to learn about how magic affects the world-”

“-Potions is a super cool way to learn about how magic affects the world-” Blaise interjected, wrapping an arm around Theo’s broad shoulders.

Theo turns to Blaise with a sarcastic stare at him. “Yeah, that.”

I want to have a stupid dumb kiss already. Which is stupid dumb and I don’t even care but I’m horny for love.

“Oh, yeah I-I didn’t sleep well last night.” Frankie choked out.

“It was kind of a relief, your constant enthusiasm about Snape’s class is alarming.” Theo snickered. Blaise snorted as he and Theo sauntered towards the Great Hall. Frankie let out a breath and followed soon after the two boys let for lunch to get to the common room.

Frankie’s boots tapped gently against the cold stone floor of the dungeons. Dust hung low in the air, illuminated by the amber glow of hanging torches that littered the walls. The dungeons are always shown as a dingy, disgusting place but Frankie found the common room comforting. She stilled in front of the entrance and spoke softly the password.

“Labebantur anguis.”

The wall dragged inwards with a low scraping sound, revealing her home. The estate is not a home, the estate is merely her stage, acting as the perfect daughter for an audience of haughty purebloods. This common room was perfect, smelling like pine and cotton and the perfect temperature. Green rugs and plush couches in front of a fireplace, tables and booths next to an espresso machine and a tea kettle. Arching windows and pillars showcasing the beauty under the Black Lake. This is home.

She stepped past the commons and walked up the winding stairs to the shared dormitories. Cher laid on Frankie’s bed with Daphne with parchment and quills set out on the emerald silk sheets.

“If you two spill ink on my bed one more time I’ll hex you in your sleep.” Frankie shrugged out of her robe and fell back onto Cher’s bed. The two girls giggled and returned to their subsequent conversations.

Cher was gorgeous. She radiated kindness and had an aura about her that made her seem impenetrable, yet she was humble. She had a crooked smile that never failed to bring one to Frankie’s face. Her eyes shone with emotion and were a deep brown that glimmered at all times. She was incredibly brilliant and the top of many of her classes. With the exception of Potions, Frankie held that spot proudly.

Everyone says that perfect Hermione Granger, the “brightest witch of her age”, is the top of every class, but ever since she had to use her time to deal with the two rambunctious children that are her friends, she holds strong at about fourth. Frankie had to admit, she had a burning jealousy of Granger. She managed to befriend Potter in her first year, as well as make friends with many of the teachers, ace her classes, and save the entire school three times by now. Not to mention, she was also very pretty. This envy flared its deep green color whenever Frankie so much as heard the name Granger.

“Earth to Reed?” Frankie snapped out of her covetous haze and met Daphne’s eyes. “Pansy’s bringing up lunch, get started on your essay, like, now.”

Frankie tipped her head in agreement and reached into her bag to pick out her Astronomy notes. “Five sheets of parchment? Is Professor Sinistra trying to kill us?”

“I think I might just use one sheet for every word: Sorry, I, Don’t, Want, To.” Cher counted on her fingers with a snort.

Daphne tugged at her bottom lip with her pinkie. “Maybe Frankie can use one of the spells from her secret journal to erase this essay from Sinistra’s mind.”

“That spell already exists, you toad.” Pansy swung the door open with several food items floating behind her, a slice of pumpkin bread levitating into Frankie’s waiting hands. “It’s called Obliviate, it has murderous side effects, and, next week it’s Reed’s turn to get the food.”

“Thank you Pans,” Cher cheered, mouth full of a danish pastry.

“Plus, the boys were bugging us to sit with them more often.” Pansy sat beside Frankie, parchment in hand. Daphne rolled her eyes.

“It’s one day a week, they’ll get over it eventually.”

“The students at Uagadou are so lucky. They have a good Astronomy program and they live in a cloud.”

Cher scoffed. “They don’t live in a cloud, Pans, They live in a castle-that’s on a cloud. It’s very particular.”

“I want to live in a castle.”

“You idiot, you do.”

“That’s not what I meant.”

“Then what did you bloody mean?”

“Nothi-whatever-what are we doing for Hogsmeade tomorrow?”

Draco. Bloody. Malfoy.

He walks around the school all high and mighty, like he owns the place, yet he acts like a right prat to many of its inhabitants. It’s like the boy was born with a stick up his arse. Yet, Frankie knew how he was raised, not that it’s an excuse. He doesn’t want to be the way he is, but he’s not some broken boy for her to fix.

She’s had many conversations in the common room with Malfoy after nights of nightmares. She’s shared hugs that linger a second too long and strange glances during lectures. His stone grey eyes held an emotion behind them that she couldn’t understand. It made her uncomfortable, the strange buzz on her skin where his hand met. The fluttery feeling in the pit of her stomach when they got too close. She didn’t like it. It made her feel like a creep.

She sees the way he looks at Cher. Frankie doesn’t compare to a golden, legs-for-days goddess with a waist the same circumference as Frankie’s thigh. Besides, a Malfoy should be with someone the same physical caliber as him. Frankie’s mother prayed to the ghost of Merlin that Frankie would blossom into a beautiful flower, but as her mother continuously reminded her,

“You are a disgrace. Nothing but a weed in a garden of perfection.”

It’s not hard to believe. Many pureblood parents held a disdain for their children in private. Frankie was lucky to have someone like Kendra. Other teenagers didn’t have anyone. Frankie was lucky, not special. A mere weed, removable by a weak pull. A thorn on an otherwise perfect rose, fit to be plucked, ignored by onlookers.

Draco Malfoy was never written in the stars for someone like Frankie.

Not that she liked him or anything. He was, as stated before, a right prat. A good looking one, but a prat nonetheless. They didn’t talk much, at all, instead seeking solace in the late hours of the night, a deep bond hidden from their friends. How could two people who were supposedly so perfect, be so broken?

pariet lilium.

chapter two

55 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 4 years ago

Link

* * * *

It’s very strange to think of Joe Biden as a world-historical figure. For decades, he seemed to me to be a bit of an irritating blowhard who rarely took the chance to edit himself. He was a classic slap-on-the-back backroom pol, with an everyman-on-the-train vibe, who loved the ornaments of public office, and that was basically it.

Washington will always need people like Biden, and he played the part well, but he was hardly a star. He rarely inspired, he made cringe-inducing gaffe after gaffe, his vanity required him to cover up his baldness with what, for a while, looked like a painful rice-paddy of plugs, he plagiarized a speech so obviously and crudely he almost begged to be caught, and despite his rep for retail politics, was terrible at campaigning for president. In 2008, he quit after Iowa, with one percent of the vote.

His big moment came when Barack Obama picked him as his veep. And the choice of Biden was specifically designed, it seems to me, to ruffle no more feathers, and to assuage white working-class discomfort with a young, inexperienced black guy with a funny, foreign-sounding name. Even at the time, it felt to me that Biden’s acceptance speech was fine but not exactly great — but what worked nonetheless was his persona: “It’s hard not to feel affection for this scrappy old guy — especially if you’re a Catholic,” I wrote. “This was a very culturally Catholic speech, especially at the beginning, and Biden will speak to people who might be leery of this young African-American. It was also focused on middle class economic anxiety and spoke about it in intimate ways that voters will immediately understand.”

Twelve years later, this guy is even older and less scrappy but still has the same core appeal: that old Irish dude who can go on a bit but has a heart of gold and hasn’t completely disappeared into the left-liberal elite. The drastically curtailed Covid campaign was a godsend in retrospect because it removed countless opportunities for him to get in his own way, while very successfully projecting and burnishing this image. Yes he could get a bit Abraham-Simpson-y at times, but I confess I began to find that a little comforting after a while, in the era of Trump. The combination of decency, vulnerability and humanness became even more potent up against an indecent, inhuman con-man. It became the stutterer versus the monster.

And Biden’s core appeal, as he has occasionally insisted, is that he ran against the Democratic left, and won because of moderate and older black voters with their heads screwed on right. He was the least online candidate. For race-leftists like Jamelle Bouie, he was part of the problem: “For decades Biden gave liberal cover to white backlash.” For gender-warriors like Rebecca Traister, he was “a comforter of patriarchal impulses toward controlling women’s bodies.” Ben Smith a year and a half ago went for it: “His campaign is stumbling toward launch with all the hallmarks of a Jeb!-level catastrophe — a path that leads straight down … Joe Biden isn’t going to emerge from the 2020 campaign as the nominee. You already knew that.” The sheer smug of it! And the joy of seeing old Joe get the last laugh.

It’s worth recalling the obloquy the woke dumped on Biden in the early stages of the race because this will surely be a battle line if he wins the presidency, and we will have to fight for him and against them if we are not going to sink into deeper tribal warfare. He is one of the last vestiges of the near-extinct rapport between white working-class voters and the Democrats, and if he wins next week, it will be because he has wrested older white voters from the Republican grip, and won white women in a landslide (unlike Clinton), even as his support among blacks and Latinos may come in slightly behind Hillary’s.

Biden ran a campaign, in stark contrast to Clinton’s, focused not on rallying the base around identity grievances, but on persuading the other side with argument and engagement. If you believe in liberal democracy — in persuasion, dialogue, and civility — and want to resist tribalism, Biden may be our unexpected but real last chance. And in this campaign, he has walked the walk.

His core message, which has been remarkably consistent, is not a divisive or partisan one. It is neither angry nor bitter. Despite mockery and scorn from some understandably embittered partisans, he has a hand still held out if Republicans want to cooperate. In this speech at Warm Springs, where Biden invoked the legacy of FDR, you can feel the Obama vibe, so alien to the woke: “Red states, blue states, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, and Liberals. I believe from the bottom of my heart, we can do it. People ask me, why are you so confident Joe? Because we are the United States of America.”

And while he has promised a deep re-structuring and redistribution in the wake of Covid, climate change, and destabilizing inequality, he has done so in pragmatic, rather than ideological, terms. Against the surreal extremism and divisiveness of Trump, he has offered moderation and an appeal to unity. Look at the careful balance he has struck on the protests against police misconduct this summer: “Some of it is just senseless burning and looting and violence that can’t be tolerated and won’t, but much of it is a cry for justice from a community that’s long had a knee of injustice on their neck.” We need both these impulses, if we are to extract real reform from distorting rage, and make it stick.

He is not perfect, of course. I suspect he is naive on some questions. He realizes, does he not, that when he uses the term “equity” rather than “equality”, with respect to race, he is using code for the crudest racial discrimination. He surely knows that critical race theory is not about being sensitive to the pain of others, but about seeing the U.S. as no less a white supremacy now than under slavery, and liberal constitutionalism as a mere mask for oppression of non-whites. He knows that the Equality Act eviscerates the religious freedom he has previously championed, does he not, and folds the category of sex into one of gender, jeopardizing at the margins both gay and women’s rights? And it should be troubling, it seems to me, that, when confronted with the fact that his son, Hunter, is corrupt in the classic, legal, and swampy way, Biden refuses to see anything wrong with it at all.

But these are quibbles in the grand scheme of things. And it is striking, as David Brooks noted this morning, how deftly Biden has walked through a field of culture war landmines and not see one go off. That has taken discipline — and Biden has shown that he can exercise it. Maybe he learned it from Obama.

His closing message has been about healing — from the wounds of Covid, economic crisis, and resilient racism. And if there is one thing Biden really knows in his heart and soul it is healing. Recovering from the loss of a wife, a daughter and a son requires a profound sense of how to take the hits that life can bring, how to stay strong while accepting vulnerability, and how to move slowly forward.

This is how he put it last week, as he related to the isolating, desolating casualties of Covid19: “Alone in a hospital room, alone in a nursing home, no family, no friends, no loved ones beside them in those final moments, and it haunts so many of the surviving families, families who were never given a chance to say goodbye. I, and many of you know, what loss feels like when you lose someone you love, you feel that deep black hole opening up on your chest and you feel like you’re being swallowed into it.”

I have felt that way for four years now. What I grieve is an idea of America that is decent, generous, big-hearted, and pragmatic, where the identity of a citizen, unqualified, unhyphenated, is the only identity you need. I miss a public discourse where a president takes responsibility even for things beyond his full control, where the fault-lines of history are not mined for ammunition but for greater understanding, where, in Biden’s words, we can once again see the dignity in each other. I am not a fool, and know how hard this will be. But in this old man, with his muscle memory of what we have lost, and his ability to move and change in new ways, we have an unexpected gift.

“I’ve long said the story of America is a story of ordinary people doing extraordinary things,” Joe Biden said last week. Well, ordinary old Joe, it’s your turn now. Do the extraordinary.

ANDREW SULLIVAN

THE WEEKLY DISH

#corrupt GOP #election 2020 #political #Joe Biden

1 note · View note

araitsume · 4 years ago

Text

The Desire of Ages, pp. 698-715: Chapter (75) Before Annas and the Court of Caiaphas

This chapter is based on Matthew 26:57-75; Matthew 27:1; Mark 14:53-72; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:54-71; John 18:13-27.

Over the brook Kedron, past gardens and olive groves, and through the hushed streets of the sleeping city, they hurried Jesus. It was past midnight, and the cries of the hooting mob that followed Him broke sharply upon the still air. The Saviour was bound and closely guarded, and He moved painfully. But in eager haste His captors made their way with Him to the palace of Annas, the ex-high priest.

Annas was the head of the officiating priestly family, and in deference to his age he was recognized by the people as high priest. His counsel was sought and carried out as the voice of God. He must first see Jesus a captive to priestly power. He must be present at the examination of the prisoner, for fear that the less-experienced Caiaphas might fail of securing the object for which they were working. His artifice, cunning, and subtlety must be used on this occasion; for, at all events, Christ's condemnation must be secured.

Christ was to be tried formally before the Sanhedrin; but before Annas He was subjected to a preliminary trial. Under the Roman rule the Sanhedrin could not execute the sentence of death. They could only examine a prisoner, and pass judgment, to be ratified by the Roman authorities. It was therefore necessary to bring against Christ charges that would be regarded as criminal by the Romans. An accusation must also be found which would condemn Him in the eyes of the Jews. Not a few among the priests and rulers had been convicted by Christ's teaching, and only fear of excommunication prevented them from confessing Him. The priests well remembered the question of Nicodemus, “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” John 7:51. This question had for the time broken up the council, and thwarted their plans. Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus were not now to be summoned, but there were others who might dare to speak in favor of justice. The trial must be so conducted as to unite the members of the Sanhedrin against Christ. There were two charges which the priests desired to maintain. If Jesus could be proved a blasphemer, He would be condemned by the Jews. If convicted of sedition, it would secure His condemnation by the Romans. The second charge Annas tried first to establish. He questioned Jesus concerning His disciples and His doctrines, hoping the prisoner would say something that would give him material upon which to work. He thought to draw out some statement to prove that He was seeking to establish a secret society, with the purpose of setting up a new kingdom. Then the priests could deliver Him to the Romans as a disturber of the peace and a creator of insurrection.

Christ read the priest's purpose as an open book. As if reading the inmost soul of His questioner, He denied that there was between Him and His followers any secret bond of union, or that He gathered them secretly and in the darkness to conceal His designs. He had no secrets in regard to His purposes or doctrines. “I spake openly to the world,” He answered; “I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”

The Saviour contrasted His own manner of work with the methods of His accusers. For months they had hunted Him, striving to entrap Him and bring Him before a secret tribunal, where they might obtain by perjury what it was impossible to gain by fair means. Now they were carrying out their purpose. The midnight seizure by a mob, the mockery and abuse before He was condemned, or even accused, was their manner of work, not His. Their action was in violation of the law. Their own rules declared that every man should be treated as innocent until proved guilty. By their own rules the priests stood condemned.

Turning upon His questioner, Jesus said, “Why askest thou Me?” Had not the priests and rulers sent spies to watch His movements, and report His every word? Had not these been present at every gathering of the people, and carried to the priests information of all His sayings and doings? “Ask them which heard Me, what I have said unto them,” replied Jesus; “behold, they know what I said.”

Annas was silenced by the decision of the answer. Fearing that Christ would say something regarding his course of action that he would prefer to keep covered up, he said nothing more to Him at this time. One of his officers, filled with wrath as he saw Annas silenced, struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Answerest Thou the high priest so?”

Christ calmly replied, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?” He spoke no burning words of retaliation. His calm answer came from a heart sinless, patient, and gentle, that would not be provoked.

Christ suffered keenly under abuse and insult. At the hands of the beings whom He had created, and for whom He was making an infinite sacrifice, He received every indignity. And He suffered in proportion to the perfection of His holiness and His hatred of sin. His trial by men who acted as fiends was to Him a perpetual sacrifice. To be surrounded by human beings under the control of Satan was revolting to Him. And He knew that in a moment, by the flashing forth of His divine power, He could lay His cruel tormentors in the dust. This made the trial the harder to bear.

The Jews were looking for a Messiah to be revealed in outward show. They expected Him, by one flash of overmastering will, to change the current of men's thoughts, and force from them an acknowledgment of His supremacy. Thus, they believed, He was to secure His own exaltation, and gratify their ambitious hopes. Thus when Christ was treated with contempt, there came to Him a strong temptation to manifest His divine character. By a word, by a look, He could compel His persecutors to confess that He was Lord above kings and rulers, priests and temple. But it was His difficult task to keep to the position He had chosen as one with humanity.

The angels of heaven witnessed every movement made against their loved Commander. They longed to deliver Christ. Under God the angels are all-powerful. On one occasion, in obedience to the command of Christ, they slew of the Assyrian army in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand men. How easily could the angels, beholding the shameful scene of the trial of Christ, have testified their indignation by consuming the adversaries of God! But they were not commanded to do this. He who could have doomed His enemies to death bore with their cruelty. His love for His Father, and His pledge, made from the foundation of the world, to become the Sin Bearer, led Him to endure uncomplainingly the coarse treatment of those He came to save. It was a part of His mission to bear, in His humanity, all the taunts and abuse that men could heap upon Him. The only hope of humanity was in this submission of Christ to all that He could endure from the hands and hearts of men.

Christ had said nothing that could give His accusers an advantage; yet He was bound, to signify that He was condemned. There must, however, be a pretense of justice. It was necessary that there should be the form of a legal trial. This the authorities were determined to hasten. They knew the regard in which Jesus was held by the people, and feared that if the arrest were noised abroad, a rescue would be attempted. Again, if the trial and execution were not brought about at once, there would be a week's delay on account of the celebration of the Passover. This might defeat their plans. In securing the condemnation of Jesus they depended largely upon the clamor of the mob, many of them the rabble of Jerusalem. Should there be a week's delay, the excitement would abate, and a reaction would be likely to set in. The better part of the people would be aroused in Christ's favor; many would come forward with testimony in His vindication, bringing to light the mighty works He had done. This would excite popular indignation against the Sanhedrin. Their proceedings would be condemned, and Jesus would be set free, to receive new homage from the multitudes. The priests and rulers therefore determined that before their purpose could become known, Jesus should be delivered into the hands of the Romans.

But first of all, an accusation was to be found. They had gained nothing as yet. Annas ordered Jesus to be taken to Caiaphas. Caiaphas belonged to the Sadducees, some of whom were now the most desperate enemies of Jesus. He himself, though wanting in force of character, was fully as severe, heartless, and unscrupulous as was Annas. He would leave no means untried to destroy Jesus. It was now early morning, and very dark; by the light of torches and lanterns the armed band with their prisoner proceeded to the high priest's palace. Here, while the members of the Sanhedrin were coming together, Annas and Caiaphas again questioned Jesus, but without success.

When the council had assembled in the judgment hall, Caiaphas took his seat as presiding officer. On either side were the judges, and those specially interested in the trial. The Roman soldiers were stationed on the platform below the throne. At the foot of the throne stood Jesus. Upon Him the gaze of the whole multitude was fixed. The excitement was intense. Of all the throng He alone was calm and serene. The very atmosphere surrounding Him seemed pervaded by a holy influence.

Caiaphas had regarded Jesus as his rival. The eagerness of the people to hear the Saviour, and their apparent readiness to accept His teachings, had aroused the bitter jealousy of the high priest. But as Caiaphas now looked upon the prisoner, he was struck with admiration for His noble and dignified bearing. A conviction came over him that this Man was akin to God. The next instant he scornfully banished the thought. Immediately his voice was heard in sneering, haughty tones demanding that Jesus work one of His mighty miracles before them. But his words fell upon the Saviour's ears as though He heard them not. The people compared the excited and malignant deportment of Annas and Caiaphas with the calm, majestic bearing of Jesus. Even in the minds of that hardened multitude arose the question, Is this man of godlike presence to be condemned as a criminal?

Caiaphas, perceiving the influence that was obtaining, hastened the trial. The enemies of Jesus were in great perplexity. They were bent on securing His condemnation, but how to accomplish this they knew not. The members of the council were divided between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. There was bitter animosity and controversy between them; certain disputed points they dared not approach for fear of a quarrel. With a few words Jesus could have excited their prejudices against each other, and thus have averted their wrath from Himself. Caiaphas knew this, and he wished to avoid stirring up a contention. There were plenty of witnesses to prove that Christ had denounced the priests and scribes, that He had called them hypocrites and murderers; but this testimony it was not expedient to bring forward. The Sadducees in their sharp contentions with the Pharisees had used to them similar language. And such testimony would have no weight with the Romans, who were themselves disgusted with the pretensions of the Pharisees. There was abundant evidence that Jesus had disregarded the traditions of the Jews, and had spoken irreverently of many of their ordinances; but in regard to tradition the Pharisees and Sadducees were at swords’ points; and this evidence also would have no weight with the Romans. Christ's enemies dared not accuse Him of Sabbathbreaking, lest an examination should reveal the character of His work. If His miracles of healing were brought to light, the very object of the priests would be defeated.

False witnesses had been bribed to accuse Jesus of inciting rebellion and seeking to establish a separate government. But their testimony proved to be vague and contradictory. Under examination they falsified their own statements.

Early in His ministry Christ had said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” In the figurative language of prophecy, He had thus foretold His own death and resurrection. “He spake of the temple of His body.” John 2:19, 21. These words the Jews had understood in a literal sense, as referring to the temple at Jerusalem. Of all that Christ had said, the priests could find nothing to use against Him save this. By misstating these words they hoped to gain an advantage. The Romans had engaged in rebuilding and embellishing the temple, and they took great pride in it; any contempt shown to it would be sure to excite their indignation. Here Romans and Jews, Pharisees and Sadducees, could meet; for all held the temple in great veneration. On this point two witnesses were found whose testimony was not so contradictory as that of the others had been. One of them, who had been bribed to accuse Jesus, declared, “This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” Thus Christ's words were misstated. If they had been reported exactly as He spoke them, they would not have secured His condemnation even by the Sanhedrin. Had Jesus been a mere man, as the Jews claimed, His declaration would only have indicated an unreasonable, boastful spirit, but could not have been construed into blasphemy. Even as misrepresented by the false witnesses, His words contained nothing which would be regarded by the Romans as a crime worthy of death.

Patiently Jesus listened to the conflicting testimonies. No word did He utter in self-defense. At last His accusers were entangled, confused, and maddened. The trial was making no headway; it seemed that their plottings were to fail. Caiaphas was desperate. One last resort remained; Christ must be forced to condemn Himself. The high priest started from the judgment seat, his face contorted with passion, his voice and demeanor plainly indicating that were it in his power he would strike down the prisoner before him. “Answerest Thou nothing?” he exclaimed; “what is it which these witness against Thee?”

Jesus held His peace. “He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth.” Isaiah 53:7.

At last, Caiaphas, raising his right hand toward heaven, addressed Jesus in the form of a solemn oath: “I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God.”

To this appeal Christ could not remain silent. There was a time to be silent, and a time to speak. He had not spoken until directly questioned. He knew that to answer now would make His death certain. But the appeal was made by the highest acknowledged authority of the nation, and in the name of the Most High. Christ would not fail to show proper respect for the law. More than this, His own relation to the Father was called in question. He must plainly declare His character and mission. Jesus had said to His disciples, “Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32. Now by His own example He repeated the lesson.

Every ear was bent to listen, and every eye was fixed on His face as He answered, “Thou hast said.” A heavenly light seemed to illuminate His pale countenance as He added, “Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

For a moment the divinity of Christ flashed through His guise of humanity. The high priest quailed before the penetrating eyes of the Saviour. That look seemed to read his hidden thoughts, and burn into his heart. Never in afterlife did he forget that searching glance of the persecuted Son of God.

“Hereafter,” said Jesus, “shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” In these words Christ presented the reverse of the scene then taking place. He, the Lord of life and glory, would be seated at God's right hand. He would be the judge of all the earth, and from His decision there could be no appeal. Then every secret thing would be set in the light of God's countenance, and judgment be passed upon every man according to his deeds.

The words of Christ startled the high priest. The thought that there was to be a resurrection of the dead, when all would stand at the bar of God, to be rewarded according to their works, was a thought of terror to Caiaphas. He did not wish to believe that in future he would receive sentence according to his works. There rushed before his mind as a panorama the scenes of the final judgment. For a moment he saw the fearful spectacle of the graves giving up their dead, with the secrets he had hoped were forever hidden. For a moment he felt as if standing before the eternal Judge, whose eye, which sees all things, was reading his soul, bringing to light mysteries supposed to be hidden with the dead.

The scene passed from the priest's vision. Christ's words cut him, the Sadducee, to the quick. Caiaphas had denied the doctrine of the resurrection, the judgment, and a future life. Now he was maddened by satanic fury. Was this man, a prisoner before him, to assail his most cherished theories? Rending his robe, that the people might see his pretended horror, he demanded that without further preliminaries the prisoner be condemned for blasphemy. “What further need have we of witnesses?” he said; “behold, now ye have heard His blasphemy. What think ye?” And they all condemned Him.

Conviction mingled with passion led Caiaphas to do as he did. He was furious with himself for believing Christ's words, and instead of rending his heart under a deep sense of truth, and confessing that Jesus was the Messiah, he rent his priestly robes in determined resistance. This act was deeply significant. Little did Caiaphas realize its meaning. In this act, done to influence the judges and secure Christ's condemnation, the high priest had condemned himself. By the law of God he was disqualified for the priesthood. He had pronounced upon himself the death sentence.

A high priest was not to rend his garments. By the Levitical law, this was prohibited under sentence of death. Under no circumstances, on no occasion, was the priest to rend his robe. It was the custom among the Jews for the garments to be rent at the death of friends, but this custom the priests were not to observe. Express command had been given by Christ to Moses concerning this. Leviticus 10:6.

Everything worn by the priest was to be whole and without blemish. By those beautiful official garments was represented the character of the great antitype, Jesus Christ. Nothing but perfection, in dress and attitude, in word and spirit, could be acceptable to God. He is holy, and His glory and perfection must be represented by the earthly service. Nothing but perfection could properly represent the sacredness of the heavenly service. Finite man might rend his own heart by showing a contrite and humble spirit. This God would discern. But no rent must be made in the priestly robes, for this would mar the representation of heavenly things. The high priest who dared to appear in holy office, and engage in the service of the sanctuary, with a rent robe, was looked upon as having severed himself from God. By rending his garment he cut himself off from being a representative character. He was no longer accepted by God as an officiating priest. This course of action, as exhibited by Caiaphas, showed human passion, human imperfection.

By rending his garments, Caiaphas made of no effect the law of God, to follow the tradition of men. A man-made law provided that in case of blasphemy a priest might rend his garments in horror at the sin, and be guiltless. Thus the law of God was made void by the laws of men.

Each action of the high priest was watched with interest by the people; and Caiaphas thought for effect to display his piety. But in this act, designed as an accusation against Christ, he was reviling the One of whom God had said, “My name is in Him.” Exodus 23:21. He himself was committing blasphemy. Standing under the condemnation of God, he pronounced sentence upon Christ as a blasphemer.

When Caiaphas rent his garment, his act was significant of the place that the Jewish nation as a nation would thereafter occupy toward God. The once favored people of God were separating themselves from Him, and were fast becoming a people disowned by Jehovah. When Christ upon the cross cried out, “It is finished” (John 19:30), and the veil of the temple was rent in twain, the Holy Watcher declared that the Jewish people had rejected Him who was the antitype of all their types, the substance of all their shadows. Israel was divorced from God. Well might Caiaphas then rend his official robes, which signified that he claimed to be a representative of the great High Priest; for no longer had they any meaning for him or for the people. Well might the high priest rend his robes in horror for himself and for the nation.

The Sanhedrin had pronounced Jesus worthy of death; but it was contrary to the Jewish law to try a prisoner by night. In legal condemnation nothing could be done except in the light of day and before a full session of the council. Notwithstanding this, the Saviour was now treated as a condemned criminal, and given up to be abused by the lowest and vilest of humankind. The palace of the high priest surrounded an open court in which the soldiers and the multitude had gathered. Through this court, Jesus was taken to the guardroom, on every side meeting with mockery of His claim to be the Son of God. His own words, “sitting on the right hand of power,” and, “coming in the clouds of heaven,” were jeeringly repeated. While in the guardroom, awaiting His legal trial, He was not protected. The ignorant rabble had seen the cruelty with which He was treated before the council, and from this they took license to manifest all the satanic elements of their nature. Christ's very nobility and godlike bearing goaded them to madness. His meekness, His innocence, His majestic patience, filled them with hatred born of Satan. Mercy and justice were trampled upon. Never was criminal treated in so inhuman a manner as was the Son of God.

But a keener anguish rent the heart of Jesus; the blow that inflicted the deepest pain no enemy's hand could have dealt. While He was undergoing the mockery of an examination before Caiaphas, Christ had been denied by one of His own disciples.

After deserting their Master in the garden, two of the disciples had ventured to follow, at a distance, the mob that had Jesus in charge. These disciples were Peter and John. The priests recognized John as a well-known disciple of Jesus, and admitted him to the hall, hoping that as he witnessed the humiliation of his Leader, he would scorn the idea of such a one being the Son of God. John spoke in favor of Peter, and gained an entrance for him also.

In the court a fire had been kindled; for it was the coldest hour of the night, being just before the dawn. A company drew about the fire, and Peter presumptuously took his place with them. He did not wish to be recognized as a disciple of Jesus. By mingling carelessly with the crowd, he hoped to be taken for one of those who had brought Jesus to the hall.

But as the light flashed upon Peter's face, the woman who kept the door cast a searching glance upon him. She had noticed that he came in with John, she marked the look of dejection on his face, and thought that he might be a disciple of Jesus. She was one of the servants of Caiaphas’ household, and was curious to know. She said to Peter, “Art not thou also one of this Man's disciples?” Peter was startled and confused; the eyes of the company instantly fastened upon him. He pretended not to understand her; but she was persistent, and said to those around her that this man was with Jesus. Peter felt compelled to answer, and said angrily, “Woman, I know Him not.” This was the first denial, and immediately the cock crew. O Peter, so soon ashamed of thy Master! so soon to deny thy Lord!

The disciple John, upon entering the judgment hall, did not try to conceal the fact that he was a follower of Jesus. He did not mingle with the rough company who were reviling his Master. He was not questioned, for he did not assume a false character, and thus lay himself liable to suspicion. He sought a retired corner secure from the notice of the mob, but as near Jesus as it was possible for him to be. Here he could see and hear all that took place at the trial of his Lord.

Peter had not designed that his real character should be known. In assuming an air of indifference he had placed himself on the enemy's ground, and he became an easy prey to temptation. If he had been called to fight for his Master, he would have been a courageous soldier; but when the finger of scorn was pointed at him, he proved himself a coward. Many who do not shrink from active warfare for their Lord are driven by ridicule to deny their faith. By associating with those whom they should avoid, they place themselves in the way of temptation. They invite the enemy to tempt them, and are led to say and do that of which under other circumstances they would never have been guilty. The disciple of Christ who in our day disguises his faith through dread of suffering or reproach denies his Lord as really as did Peter in the judgment hall.

Peter tried to show no interest in the trial of his Master, but his heart was wrung with sorrow as he heard the cruel taunts, and saw the abuse He was suffering. More than this, he was surprised and angry that Jesus should humiliate Himself and His followers by submitting to such treatment. In order to conceal his true feelings, he endeavored to join with the persecutors of Jesus in their untimely jests. But his appearance was unnatural. He was acting a lie, and while seeking to talk unconcernedly he could not restrain expressions of indignation at the abuse heaped upon his Master.

Attention was called to him the second time, and he was again charged with being a follower of Jesus. He now declared with an oath, “I do not know the Man.” Still another opportunity was given him. An hour had passed, when one of the servants of the high priest, being a near kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked him, “Did not I see thee in the garden with Him?” “Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.” At this Peter flew into a rage. The disciples of Jesus were noted for the purity of their language, and in order fully to deceive his questioners, and justify his assumed character, Peter now denied his Master with cursing and swearing. Again the cock crew. Peter heard it then, and he remembered the words of Jesus, “Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice.” Mark 14:30.

While the degrading oaths were fresh upon Peter's lips, and the shrill crowing of the cock was still ringing in his ears, the Saviour turned from the frowning judges, and looked full upon His poor disciple. At the same time Peter's eyes were drawn to his Master. In that gentle countenance he read deep pity and sorrow, but there was no anger there.

The sight of that pale, suffering face, those quivering lips, that look of compassion and forgiveness, pierced his heart like an arrow. Conscience was aroused. Memory was active. Peter called to mind his promise of a few short hours before that he would go with his Lord to prison and to death. He remembered his grief when the Saviour told him in the upper chamber that he would deny his Lord thrice that same night. Peter had just declared that he knew not Jesus, but he now realized with bitter grief how well his Lord knew him, and how accurately He had read his heart, the falseness of which was unknown even to himself.

A tide of memories rushed over him. The Saviour's tender mercy, His kindness and long-suffering, His gentleness and patience toward His erring disciples,—all was remembered. He recalled the caution, “Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” Luke 22:31, 32. He reflected with horror upon his own ingratitude, his falsehood, his perjury. Once more he looked at his Master, and saw a sacrilegious hand raised to smite Him in the face. Unable longer to endure the scene, he rushed, heartbroken, from the hall.

He pressed on in solitude and darkness, he knew not and cared not whither. At last he found himself in Gethsemane. The scene of a few hours before came vividly to his mind. The suffering face of his Lord, stained with bloody sweat and convulsed with anguish, rose before him. He remembered with bitter remorse that Jesus had wept and agonized in prayer alone, while those who should have united with Him in that trying hour were sleeping. He remembered His solemn charge, “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.” Matthew 26:41. He witnessed again the scene in the judgment hall. It was torture to his bleeding heart to know that he had added the heaviest burden to the Saviour's humiliation and grief. On the very spot where Jesus had poured out His soul in agony to His Father, Peter fell upon his face, and wished that he might die.

It was in sleeping when Jesus bade him watch and pray that Peter had prepared the way for his great sin. All the disciples, by sleeping in that critical hour, sustained a great loss. Christ knew the fiery ordeal through which they were to pass. He knew how Satan would work to paralyze their senses that they might be unready for the trial. Therefore it was that He gave them warning. Had those hours in the garden been spent in watching and prayer, Peter would not have been left to depend upon his own feeble strength. He would not have denied his Lord. Had the disciples watched with Christ in His agony, they would have been prepared to behold His suffering upon the cross. They would have understood in some degree the nature of His overpowering anguish. They would have been able to recall His words that foretold His sufferings, His death, and His resurrection. Amid the gloom of the most trying hour, some rays of hope would have lighted up the darkness and sustained their faith.

As soon as it was day, the Sanhedrin again assembled, and again Jesus was brought into the council room. He had declared Himself the Son of God, and they had construed His words into a charge against Him. But they could not condemn Him on this, for many of them had not been present at the night session, and they had not heard His words. And they knew that the Roman tribunal would find in them nothing worthy of death. But if from His own lips they could all hear those words repeated, their object might be gained. His claim to the Messiahship they might construe into a seditious political claim.

“Art Thou the Christ?” they said, “tell us.” But Christ remained silent. They continued to ply Him with questions. At last in tones of mournful pathos He answered, “If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go.” But that they might be left without excuse He added the solemn warning, “Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.”

“Art Thou then the Son of God?” they asked with one voice. He said unto them, “Ye say that I am.” They cried out, “What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of His own mouth.”

And so by the third condemnation of the Jewish authorities, Jesus was to die. All that was now necessary, they thought, was for the Romans to ratify this condemnation, and deliver Him into their hands.

Then came the third scene of abuse and mockery, worse even than that received from the ignorant rabble. In the very presence of the priests and rulers, and with their sanction, this took place. Every feeling of sympathy or humanity had gone out of their hearts. If their arguments were weak, and failed to silence His voice, they had other weapons, such as in all ages have been used to silence heretics,—suffering, and violence, and death.

When the condemnation of Jesus was pronounced by the judges, a satanic fury took possession of the people. The roar of voices was like that of wild beasts. The crowd made a rush toward Jesus, crying, He is guilty, put Him to death! Had it not been for the Roman soldiers, Jesus would not have lived to be nailed to the cross of Calvary. He would have been torn in pieces before His judges, had not Roman authority interfered, and by force of arms restrained the violence of the mob.

Heathen men were angry at the brutal treatment of one against whom nothing had been proved. The Roman officers declared that the Jews in pronouncing condemnation upon Jesus were infringing upon the Roman power, and that it was even against the Jewish law to condemn a man to death upon his own testimony. This intervention brought a momentary lull in the proceedings; but the Jewish leaders were dead alike to pity and to shame.

Priests and rulers forgot the dignity of their office, and abused the Son of God with foul epithets. They taunted Him with His parentage. They declared that His presumption in proclaiming Himself the Messiah made Him deserving of the most ignominious death. The most dissolute men engaged in infamous abuse of the Saviour. An old garment was thrown over His head, and His persecutors struck Him in the face, saying, “Prophesy unto us, Thou Christ, Who is he that smote Thee?” When the garment was removed, one poor wretch spat in His face.

The angels of God faithfully recorded every insulting look, word, and act against their beloved Commander. One day the base men who scorned and spat upon the calm, pale face of Christ will look upon it in its glory, shining brighter than the sun.

1 note · View note

princeescaluswords · 5 years ago

Note

Fandom be like "Druid Scott or Emissary Scott is ~stealing~ from Stiles" when they were never promised Druid!Emissary!Spark!Magic!Stiles + they live so deeply in that twisted verse they crafted years ago because they were mad + Deaton is actually Scott's mentor in canon but you think he has to mentor the yt boy (but why would you want someone deemed ~shady~ as his magical teacher 🤔 it's beyond me.) I personally love Druid!Scott and Emissary!Scott ❤❤❤❤ And would love that AU

I know what you mean, but I think you got your sentences a little backwards there. It’s not that they wanted their favorite white character to be mentored by a shady black man, it was that Deaton was a shady black man because he didn’t want to mentor their favorite white character. In fact, his shadiness was intensified because he didn’t really want to have anything to do with all their favorite white characters.

It is a pure expression of white privilege Just as the need to keep an AU human Scott from being a druid or emissary is white privilege. Just as the need to portray Scott as dumb or naive is white privilege. Just as the need to insist that Scott had no authority over Stiles as alpha of the pack to which Stiles belongs is white supremacy.

Think about it – how many fictions have you read in which Scott submits to being in Derek’s pack and is suddenly happy and fulfilled (yet immediately rendered unimportant). How many fictions have you read where Derek barks orders and his betas scurry to obey? There are a lot of them. How many fictions have you read where Stiles becomes Derek’s second (how does that work?) and they run the pack like a well-oiled machine, where they either brook no backtalk from the betas, or Scott’s objections are treated as the onerous price of doing business. Yet, if you suggest for just a half second that Stiles is not Scott’s equal in every way, that Scott is Stiles’ alpha, their rage and denial know no bounds.

Given this obvious trend, how could they treat Deaton as anything but shady? The moment Deaton defended Scott from Peter, he was suspect. The moment Deaton chose Scott over the Hales, he was suspect. The moment Deaton dared to criticize his white betters, he was suspect. When Deaton hedged his advice, because he didn’t want to say that he was 100% sure when he was not 100% sure, he was hiding something. His job, as a magic negro, was to provide the white characters with everything they needed, when they needed it. What else could you possibly call their rage at Deaton other than white privilege?

No where is this more prevalent than the fandom fantasy that Deaton somehow manufactured Scott’s true alpha status instead of simply recognizing Scott’s potential. It doesn’t matter that Scott becoming a true alpha took nothing away from Stiles or Derek or Peter. Stiles didn’t suddenly stop becoming an archmage because Scott ascended (but look at how many stories there are about how Scott is only a True Alpha because Stiles believed in him – as if Lydia and Liam and Kira and Malia believing in him, real supernaturals with real power, was inconsequential). Derek didn’t lose his pack because Scott was becoming an alpha; Derek lost his pack because he couldn’t bring himself to trust them. Peter didn’t get robbed of being an alpha by Scott – it was taken from him rightly by Derek.

They wanted Deaton to be Stiles’ magical mentor because that would have been the Right Way (aka the White Way) of doing things. The universe would be corrected. So he is shady, and he will always be shady, even though there’s not a single canon incident of him being anything more than reluctant to get involved (something they don’t even blame Stiles for.)

#teen wolf fandom problems #fandom racism #alan deaton #scott mccall #alan deaton defense squad

20 notes · View notes

anniekoh · 5 years ago

Photo

The Black Shoals: Offshore Formations of Black and Native Studies Tiffany Lethabo King (2019)

In The Black Shoals Tiffany Lethabo King uses the shoal—an offshore geologic formation that is neither land nor sea—as metaphor, mode of critique, and methodology to theorize the encounter between Black studies and Native studies. King conceptualizes the shoal as a space where Black and Native literary traditions, politics, theory, critique, and art meet in productive, shifting, and contentious ways. These interactions, which often foreground Black and Native discourses of conquest and critiques of humanism, offer alternative insights into understanding how slavery, anti-Blackness, and Indigenous genocide structure white supremacy. Among texts and topics, King examines eighteenth-century British mappings of humanness, Nativeness, and Blackness; Black feminist depictions of Black and Native erotics; Black fungibility as a critique of discourses of labor exploitation; and Black art that rewrites conceptions of the human. In outlining the convergences and disjunctions between Black and Native thought and aesthetics, King identifies the potential to create new epistemologies, lines of critical inquiry, and creative practices.

Speaking of Indigenous Politics: Conversations with Activists, Scholars, and Tribal Leaders edited by J. Kēhaulani Kauanui

Many people learn about Indigenous politics only through the most controversial and confrontational news: the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s efforts to block the Dakota Access Pipeline, for instance, or the battle to protect Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, a site sacred to Native peoples. But most Indigenous activism remains unseen in the mainstream—and so, of course, does its significance. J. Kēhaulani Kauanui set out to change that with her radio program Indigenous Politics. Issue by issue, she interviewed people who talked candidly and in an engaging way about how settler colonialism depends on erasing Native peoples and about how Native peoples can and do resist. Collected here, these conversations speak with clear and compelling voices about a range of Indigenous politics that shape everyday life.

Land desecration, treaty rights, political status, cultural revitalization: these are among the themes taken up by a broad cross-section of interviewees from across the United States and from Canada, Mexico, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Australia, and New Zealand. Some speak from the thick of political action, some from a historical perspective, others from the reaches of Indigenous culture near and far. Writers, like Comanche Paul Chaat Smith, author of Everything You Know about Indians Is Wrong, expand on their work—about gaming and sovereignty, for example, or protecting Native graves, the reclamation of land, or the erasure of Indian identity. These conversations both inform and engage at a moment when their messages could not be more urgent.Contributors: Jessie Little Doe Baird (Mashpee Wampanoag), Omar Barghouti, Lisa Brooks (Abenaki), Kathleen A. Brown-Pérez (Brothertown Indian Nation), Margaret “Marge” Bruchac (Abenaki), Jessica Cattelino, David Cornsilk (Cherokee Nation), Sarah Deer (Muskogee Creek Nation), Philip J. Deloria (Dakota), Tonya Gonnella Frichner (Onondaga Nation), Hone Harawira (Ngapuhi Nui Tonu), Suzan Shown Harjo (Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee), Rashid Khalidi, Winona LaDuke (White Earth Ojibwe), Maria LaHood, James Luna (Luiseño), Aileen Moreton-Robinson (Quandamooka), Chief Mutáwi Mutáhash (Many Hearts) Marilynn “Lynn” Malerba (Mohegan), Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape), Jean M. O’Brien (White Earth Ojibwe), Jonathan Kamakawiwo‘ole Osorio (Kanaka Maoli), Steven Salaita, Paul Chaat Smith (Comanche), Circe Sturm (Mississippi Choctaw descendant), Margo Taméz (Lipan Apache), Chief Richard Velky (Schaghticoke), Patrick Wolfe.

#indigenous studies #black studies

5 notes · View notes

the-hem · 2 years ago

Text

The Method and Practice of Upanishad.

Upanishad means “to bind truth to the mind.” It is used as a framework for analysis of religious writing, almost all of which is encrypted in allegory, in order to discover what is real and true about the nature of God and His Will for us.

The practice of Upanishad is not unlike the drafting of an argumentative essay. There must be a hypothesis, arguments, and conclusions drawn all of which must be provable using statements from within the religious text, litmus tested in practice.

Here are some basic assumptions about all faiths and their documents, which are considered portions of one long Script. The Script and its contributors were ordained by God to help humanity evolve, one person and each generation at a time away from their animal natures and historical mistakes. Success all around, in other words.

Goals do not include helping people obtain forgiveness or salvation, to establish the supremacy of one faith over another, or broker power to any one person, political party, or organization.

God is real, His nature is observable, His Spirit is accessible, and He is actively participating in our affairs. This much we know. Upanishad helps us realize what is omnipresent and evergreen about God but veiled to us because we are rebellious. Rebelliousness against God’s Decrees is forgivable, by Him, not necessarily by the Law, and is highly undesirable.

The more we dig, called hepher in Hebrew, the more worth in scripture we will find. From Parsha Ekev, “Respiration”, (Deuteronomy 7:12–11:25) contained in the Torah,

6 Observe the commands of the Lord your God, walking in obedience to him and revering him. 7 For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land—a land with brooks, streams, and deep springs gushing out into the valleys and hills; 8 a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; 9 a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.

These section of Parsha Ekev, which refers to the inhaling of the Word of God and the exhaling of virtue, is perfect for the application of Upanishad.

The Hypothesis: Torah means “Effort”. The Effort God wants us to undertake is the making of a brilliant civilization. In the Torah this is called Havoth Jair, “villages of enlightenment.”

The place these villages will take place in will be braced by brooks and streams. Water in the Torah is always a threshold. God uses it to separate Self from not-self, light from darkness, intelligence from ignorance, adolescence from manhood. Crossing the Jordan is associated with baptism in Judaism, and is considered separation from the dream like, dumbass-like state of youth into the new territory of adulthood where duty, responsibility, friendship with and without benefits, and equity in God’s bounty culminate.

Wheat represents the alphabet and all the words, sentences and paragraphs upon which civilization depends for its intelligence to develop.

Barley is used to make bread is synonymous with technological development. The ability to farm foodstuffs and provide bread to others is the foundation of civilized life.

Vines signify the making of wine, the hallmark of civilizations that are able to revel in comfort.

Fig trees symbolize peace: guns, wars, strife, rape, extortion none of these are permitted in civilization according to the Torah.

Pomegranates are the learned- persons who extend life and its possibilities by contributing their wisdom and expertise to the complex problems associated with life on earth.

Olive Oil is used for lighting lamps, and signifies clergy. The presence of clergy is another sign a culture is interested in obeying God and achieving repeat success.

Iron in the Torah refers to a man’s tool. There are beneficial and very, very, annoying and destructive uses of iron.

Copper, “scripture” which the Torah says we dig for is the same as the Upanishadic method of the Torah. Copper it is said, is used for the Altar, the place where all sacrifices are made for the forgiveness of sin for the sake of peace on earth.

As the Parsha says, we revere and worship God in order to gain competency with the former, and learn how to improve the conditions on earth by building these villages God stipulates.

The Upanishads and the Torah alike dismisses all faith based arguments, rhetoric and propaganda. There are facts about God and about us out there, hovering waiting for us to make use of them.

It is our duty to use the Script in order to prove we can live here in a way that is balanced, good, kind, and free of trouble. The requirements and measurements of success are above, thanks to the Torah.

Everything we read and practice in the Script should refer back to these founding principals of civilization, and we should grade ourselves, pass or fail?

At present, it seems like we are failing.

The world has been poisoned, it is overheating, there are wars, dictatorships, hundreds of millions of refugees, dying plants, animals, people and places in growing numbers.

We are perennially distracted with issues and persons of no consequence to the problems we simply must contend with and resolve. This is being caused by an attitude problem, one we can change. And for that, and as soon as possible, let us pray, and let us study.

“Did I leave the iron on?” He wonders, and then goes back to the Script. Pumping iron like practicing one’s faith, gets better the more you do it.

1 note · View note

studynjuly · 6 years ago

Text

When you are learning danish, you learn about the two genders for nouns. Neuter- and common gender. It may seem that there are no way to know, which is true, unfortunately. But here are some things you can do and remember when trying to use the right articles for nouns.

The articles

Noun genders are expressed in the article in the sigular form of the noun. Almost all nouns are conjugated this way, though there are some exeptions. You cannot know when a noun is irregular, you just have to learn it by heart.

Common gender

En dreng (a boy)

Drengen (the boy)

Drenge (boys)

Drengene (the boys)

Exeption

En mand (a man)

Manden ( the man)

Mænd (men)

Mændene (the men)

Neuter gender

Et skib (a ship)

Skibet (the ship)

Skibe (ships)

Skibene (the ships)

Exeption

Et får (a sheep)

Fåret (the sheep)

Får (sheep)

Fårene (the sheep)

Some nouns are irregular and like in english, only exist in either singular or plural form. Ex.

No plural

Noget kaffe (some coffee)

Noget græs (some grass)

No singular

Bukser (pants)

Tøj (clothes)

Rules

The list of rules here is from Dansk Sprognævn and kindly translated to English by the Duolingo user tbarasmussen who, by the way, will be glad to help you with any further questions.

COMMON (EN)

Used with the majority of all Danish nouns (75%)

Typically used with words describing animals and human being; for example:

en dreng (a boy)

en far (a dad)

en lærer (a teacher)

en kone (a wife)

en udlænding (a foreigner)

en tysker (a German)

en hund (a dog)

en kat (a cat)

en ko (a cow)

en laks (a salmon)

en hest (a horse)

en mus (a mouse)

EXCEPTION et barn (a child)

EXCEPTION et menneske (a human)

EXCEPTION et postbud (a letter carrier)

EXCEPTION et dyr (an animal)

EXCEPTION et egern (a squirrel)

EXCEPTION et svin (a pig; a swine)

Typically used with words describing plants, trees, and fruits; for example:

en birk (a birch)

en blomst (a flower)

en bøg (a beech)

en nød (a nut)

en pære (a pear)

en banan (a banana)

en eg (an oak tree)

en rose (a rose)

en tulipan (a tulip)

EXCEPTION et bær (a berry)

EXCEPTION et frø (seed)

EXCEPTION et løg (an onion)

EXCEPTION et træ (a tree)

EXCEPTION et æble (an apple)

Typically used with words describing streams; for example:

en å (a stream; a small river)

en flod (a river)

en strøm (a stream)

en bæk (a brook)

Typically used with words ending on -else, -ance, -dom, -ence, -er, -hed, -ing, -isme, -sion, -ør; for example:

en bevægelse (a move)

en forsinkelse (a delay)

en overraskelse (a surprise)

en skuffelse (a disappointment)

en tilladelse (a permission)

en ambulance (an ambulance)

en chance (a chance)

en debutant (a debutant)

en variant (a variant)

en ejendom (a property)

en sygdom (an illness)

en kompetence (a competence)

en konference (a conference)

en bager (a baker)

en hastighed (a speed)

en lejlighed (a flat)

en parkering (a parking)

en stilling (a job)

fascismen (the fascism)

kommunismen (the communism)

en diskussion (a discussion)

en direktør (a business manager)

en frisør (a hairdresser; a barber)

EXCEPTION et spøgelse (a ghost)

EXCEPTION et værelse (a room)

NEUTER (ET)

Typically used with words describing substances or masses, for example:

brødet (the bread)

glasset (the glass)

guldet (the gold)

jernet (the iron)

kødet (the meat)

papiret (the paper)

sølvet (the silver)

vandet (the water)

EXCEPTION jorden (the earth; the ground)

EXCEPTION luften (the air)

EXCEPTION regnen (the rain)

Typically used with words describing areas and location

et amt (a county)

et distrikt (a district)

et kontinent (a continent)

et land (a country)

et sogn (a parish)

et torv (a square)

EXCEPTION en by (a city)

EXCEPTION en gård (a farm)

EXCEPTION en ø (an island)

Typically used with words ending –dømme, -ri, -ed, -um; for example:

et herredømme (a supremacy)

et omdømme (a reputation)

et bageri (a bakery)

et hoved (a head)

et marked (a market)

et gymnasium (a high school)

et museum (a museum)

Things to remember

You can always ask a native speaker if you are unsure of a noun, they are usually happy to help you

When reading and listening to danish, you quickly get at grasp of what words are neuter.

Most native speakers dont mind it when you gender a noun incorrecly. Its not that big of a deal and dosn’t make the sentence incomprehensible

Hope this post helps some people :-)

#studyblr #studying #danish #Learning Danish #danish grammar #grammar #noun #danish nouns #julesoriginal #langblr #language

18 notes · View notes

coprelawland · 4 years ago

Text

George Floyd’s Legislative Legacy

By Madeline Thulin, University of Colorado Boulder Class of 2020

April 7, 2021

After the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020” was introduced to create more police accountability and increase racial equity. Roger Fergusson, CIA of TIAA said of Floyd’s death that, "The haunting video of Mr. Floyd's last breaths is a sobering reflection of this national crisis. ...This is a time when we must embrace our differences and become more inclusive. No group should ever be targeted for racism, harassment or other form of discrimination.” [8]

George Floyd, a black man from Minneapolis, was killed by white police officers. Floyd was accused of buying cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill. The four police officers—Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao—were fired the day after Floyd’s death by the Minneapolis Police Department. Derek Chauvin, the officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck causing asphyxiation, was charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter on May 29 [1]. According to the Minnesota statute, third-degree murder charges result when an individual causes the death of a person “by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard to human life” [10]. An individual found guilty of third-degree murder charges faces a prison sentence of either no more than 25 years or a fine of no more than $40,000, or both. According to the Minnesota statue, second-degree manslaughter occurs when an individual “creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another” [10]. An individual found guilty of second degree manslaughter faces imprisonment for no longer than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000, or both [10].

On June 3, more serious charges of second-degree murder charges were brought against Mr. Chauvin. According to the Minnesota statute, an individual who causes the death of a person “by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life”. An individual who is found guilty faces a prison sentence of no more than 40 years [10].

The other three former officers have been accused of aiding and abetting second-degree murder by the Hennepin County prosecutor [1]. Aiding and abetting second degree murder applies to “an individual who assists in a crime, but does not commit the crime himself” [9]. In Minnesota, an individual found guilty of aiding and abetting second-degree murder faces imprisonment of no more than three years, or $5000 in fines, or both [11].

Mr. Floyd’s death precipitated a nationwide civil movement focused on racial equality and law enforcement accountability. One of the Black Lives Matter platform encouraged mass participation in order to “join the [Black Lives Matter] Movement to fight for Freedom, Liberation and Justice” in “support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end State-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever” [2]. Floyd’s death became a uniting symbol nationwide and globally of institutional racism. Individuals and corporations supported legislation which would result in police reform, and of “overdue reparations to Black Americans” [3]. Floyd’s death also raised awareness of other tragedies based on racism such as Breonna Taylor’s death. This increased awareness of troubling racial inequality in the United States is resulting in legislative changes nationwide as well as prohibiting racial profiling at federal, state and local levels.

The major legislative change due to George Floyd’s death will result from the H.R. 7120 “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020” after consideration by the Senate. This act “addresses a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability. It includes measures to increase accountability for law enforcement misconduct, to enhance transparency and data collection, and to eliminate discriminatory policing practices” [4]. This act also increases culpability measures for police officers which makes it easier to convict a law enforcement officer due to misconduct while limits qualified immunity as a defense for police officers. Qualified immunity in the United States allows immunity to police officers who are performing discretionary duties. By limiting qualified immunity for police officers, officers have less protection from private civil action. This act also increases the power of the Department of Justice which can now “issue subpoenas in investigations of police departments for a pattern or practice of discrimination” [4].

It includes a section on racial profiling sparked by the civil rights and discriminatory nature of George Floyd’s death. The bill creates a “framework to prohibit racial profiling at the federal, state, and local levels” [4]. Additionally, new requirements for law enforcement officers and agencies have arisen. These requirements include training in an implicit bias program established by the Attorney General [15]. In addition, racial profiling is illegal with the Attorney General creating regulations at a state and local level. Federal law enforcement officers or agencies are required to wear body cameras or risk appropriate disciplinary action. Finally, law enforcement officers and agencies must report data of use-of-force incidents. Each state and Indian Tribe is required to take an audit and send their reports to the Attorney General [15]. Implicit bias training allows a person access to the knowledge of how much implicit bias they have on a given topic. The reason implicit bias is important is that once a person knows their implicit bias, they can work to remove it or can take their biases into account. This can decrease incidents of racism and increase equality. Implicit bias training for law enforcement officers will allow the officers insight into their own bias. This allows the officer an option to work in a more equitably fashion. The provisions of this act increase accountability on law enforcement officers.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, supports the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020”. The NAACP is “the largest and most pre-eminent civil rights organization in the nation” [5]. Because the NAACP focuses on civil rights of non-white individuals, their approval of the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020” demonstrates the widespread support of this civil rights bill. They specifically approve of the provisions that address police conduct such as qualified immunity, data collection on forceful police encounters, police body cameras and uniform policies that specify the use of force. The NAACP also supports the provisions of the bill related to community. The limit of military equipment on U.S. streets and an end to race and religious profiling are included in the image of a healthier community.

One of the reasons the George Floyd killing was so shocking was because it was such a nonchalant and gross show of police overreaction against Black and Brown people. That said, qualified immunity exists. In the Pearson v. Callahan, “qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably” [12]. Qualified immunity is meant to protect public officials which would allow them to do their job effectively. Not all police undergo implicit bias training. While implicit bias training improves knowledge and awareness of bias, research indicates “it may not have much effect on police incidents involving minorities” [13]. Additionally, there have been discussions over using profiling in larger scale policing because profiling can effectively narrow down suspects in criminal investigation [14].

George Floyd’s legacy almost one year after his death is profound. On March 3, 2021 the House passed the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act” with a 220-212 vote. "Never again should an unarmed individual be murdered or brutalized by someone who is supposed to serve and protect them," said Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., in a statement. "Never again should the world be subject to witnessing what we saw happen to George Floyd in the streets in Minnesota." [6]. In order for this bill to be put into effect, it must be considered and approved by the Senate. The “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act” would result in a “series of police reform measures in the wake of national uprising against racial injustice and police brutality” [7].

As Barak Obama said, "Let's not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves." [8]

______________________________________________________________

[1] Hill, E.; Tiefenthaler, A.; Triebert, C.; Jordan, D.; Willis, H.; Stein, R; (2020, May 31). How George Floyd was Killed in Police Custody. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html

[2] Black Lives Matter. (2021, March 22). Take Action. Black Lives Matter. https://blacklivesmatter.com

[3] Blackenship, M. and Reeves, R. (2020, July 10). From the George Floyd Movement to a Black Lives Matter movement, in tweets. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/07/10/from-the-george-floyd-moment-to-a-black-lives-matter-movement-in-tweets/

[4] Bass, Karen (2020, July 20). H.R. 7120 – George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020. Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120

[5] NAACP (2020, July 22). The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020. NAACP. https://www.naacp.org/latest/george-floyd-justice-policing-act-2020/

[6] Weiner, C. (2021, March 3). House Approves Police Reform Bill Named After George Floyd. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973111306/house-approves-police-reform-bill-named-after-george-floyd

[7] Behrmann, S. and Santucci, J. (2021, March 4). ‘We Must Act Now’: House passes Police Reform Bill named for George Floyd. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/03/house-passes-george-floyd-police-reform-bill/6904980002/

[8] Kretchmener, H. (2020, June 4). How Leaders are Reacting to the US George Floyd protests. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/george-floyd-racial-inequality-quotes-leaders-barak-obama/

[9] Justia. (2018, April). Aiding and Abetting. Justia. https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/aiding-abetting/

[10] VOA News (2020, June 3). What Do 2nd-Degree Murder, 3rd-Degree Murder, Manslaughter Charges Mean? VOA News. https://www.voanews.com/usa/nation-turmoil-george-floyd-protests/what-do-2nd-degree-murder-3rd-degree-murder-manslaughter

[11] Segal Defense P.A. (2021). How Serious is Aiding an Offender in Minnesota? Segal Defense P.A. https://www.segaldefense.com/serious-aiding-offender-minnesota/

[12] Legal Information Institute (2021, March 23). Qualified Immunity. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

[13] The IACP (2021, March 23). Evaluation of Implicit Bias Training. The IACP. https://www.theiacp.org/resources/evaluation-of-implicit-bias-training

[14] The Atlantic Beach Official Website (2021, March 23). Bias-Based Profiling. The Atlantic Beach Official Website. https://coab.us/475/Bias-Based-Profiling

[15] Congress (2020, July 20). H.R. 7120. Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120/text#toc-HA857A12484134F7A9FCDFF44C2E90DA9

0 notes