#it is not intended to influence people's views nor to cause arguments | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thorntonkrell-blog-blog · 5 months ago

Text

Adam's Invisible Hand

In the bustling town of Kirkcaldy, Scotland, a man with a mind teeming with revolutionary ideas about commerce and society was penning what would become one of the most influential works in the history of economics.

Adam Smith, with his wig slightly askew and quivering quill in both hand and pocket, leaned over his desk, the flickering candle casting long shadows on the parchment. He had spent years observing, reflecting, and theorizing, and now he was ready to present his thoughts to the world in "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations."

Adam's treatise was not just a dry compilation of economic principles; it was a straight up observation of human behavior, market dynamics, and societal progress. Central to his argument was the concept of the "invisible hand," a metaphor that captured the self-regulating nature of the market. He wrote, "Every individual… neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it… he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

This invisible hand, Smith argued, guided individuals to contribute to the overall good of society through their pursuit of personal profit. The butcher, the baker, and the brewer, each seeking their own economic advantage, inadvertently provided goods and services that benefited their community. It was a radical departure from the prevailing mercantilist views, which emphasized state control and accumulation of wealth through trade surpluses.

Smitty's ideas were born in a time of significant change. The Industrial Revolution was on the horizon, promising unprecedented growth and transformation. Factories began to sprout like magic mushrooms after purple rain, and with them, the promise of mass production and labor divided efficiency. Yet, tnew mushrooms also brought some poison: the rise of monopolies, the exploitation of labor, and the ever-present tension between profit and ethics.

As Smith's book gained traction, its impact was felt far and wide. His vision of a self-regulating market became the bedrock of capitalist thought, influencing policymakers, economists, and entrepreneurs. But the story of capitalism, much like the invisible hand, was not linear. It wove through centuries of innovation, upheaval, and adaptation, continually reshaped by the forces of human ambition and societal needs.

From the smoky factories of 19th-century England to the gleaming skyscrapers of 21st-century New York, the principles and poisons Smith laid down would be tested, contested, and reinvented. The journey of capitalism, driven by the relentless pursuit of progress and profit, would be a tale of triumphs and tragedies, of visionary leaders and forgotten workers, of wealth amassed and lost.

Most of the muddle was occurring in the middle which expected a hand but instead got a trickle and the slaves just got another whippin' along the way while they did most of the work.

The trickle-down theory and the invisible hand both address the dynamics of how wealth and economic benefits circulate through a market economy, but they do so from different perspectives and with different assumptions.

Invisible Hand (Adam Smith):

Concept: The invisible hand is a metaphor introduced by Adam Smith to describe how individuals pursuing their own self-interest can unintentionally benefit society as a whole. According to Smith, when people act in their own economic self-interest, such as a baker striving to make a profit, they contribute to the overall welfare of society by providing goods and services that others need. Mechanism: The idea is that through competition and market forces, resources are allocated efficiently without the need for centralized planning. The self-regulating nature of the market ensures that supply meets demand and that prices adjust to reflect the true cost and value of goods and services. Trickle-Down Theory:

Concept: Trickle-down theory, often associated with supply-side economics, posits that benefits provided to the wealthy or businesses will eventually "trickle down" to the broader population. The theory suggests that when the rich or businesses receive tax cuts, subsidies, or other forms of economic advantage, they will invest in the economy, create jobs, and stimulate growth, ultimately benefiting everyone. Mechanism: The assumption is that economic benefits initially enjoyed by the wealthy will flow through the economy as increased investment, higher employment, and greater consumer spending, leading to improved living standards for all. This theory often underpins policies like tax cuts for high-income earners or deregulation. Application of Trickle-Down Theory to the Invisible Hand:

Shared Philosophy: Both concepts operate under the idea that individual actions driven by self-interest can lead to broader societal benefits. The invisible hand describes how personal pursuit of profit can benefit society, while trickle-down theory suggests that benefits to the wealthy or businesses will eventually benefit the general population.

Market Mechanism: The invisible hand relies on market mechanisms to ensure resources are allocated efficiently and benefits are distributed. Trickle-down theory, however, assumes that benefits given to the wealthy or businesses will naturally translate into broader economic gains through increased investment and spending.

Criticisms and Challenges: Critics argue that trickle-down theory often fails to deliver on its promises. They contend that benefits do not always flow down to the lower-income brackets as expected and that income inequality can widen as the wealthy accumulate more resources. In contrast, the invisible hand's effectiveness is based on the idea of competitive markets and the assumption that market forces will correct imbalances and allocate resources efficiently.

Practical Outcomes: While the invisible hand describes a mechanism of market self-regulation, trickle-down theory often serves as a justification for specific economic policies. The success of these policies in achieving their intended outcomes—i.e., economic growth benefiting all layers of society—depends on various factors, including how well they address market inefficiencies and the extent to which they foster genuine investment and job creation.

In summary, while both the invisible hand and trickle-down theory emphasize the positive outcomes of individual self-interest in a market economy, they operate from different premises. The invisible hand focuses on the natural efficiency of markets, while trickle-down theory emphasizes the benefits of concentrating economic advantages at the top. The effectiveness and real-world implications of these ideas continue to be subjects of significant debate and analysis.

the invisible hand transforms into a "hand job" for the wealthy…how did that happen? ChatGPT The transformation of the "invisible hand" into what some might metaphorically describe as a "hand job" for the wealthy reflects a critique of how economic policies and market dynamics often benefit the affluent disproportionately. Here’s a closer look at how this transformation might be understood:

Original Concept: The Invisible Hand Adam Smith's invisible hand was intended to illustrate how individual self-interest in a competitive market leads to beneficial outcomes for society as a whole. It was about natural market forces and self-regulation, with the belief that everyone, including the poor and wealthy, would benefit from the efficiency and balance created by the market.

Economic Policies and Wealth Concentration Over time, various economic policies and interpretations of market principles have altered the practical effects of the invisible hand:

Supply-Side Economics: The rise of supply-side economics in the late 20th century, which includes trickle-down theory, argued that benefits for businesses and wealthy individuals would lead to overall economic growth. This approach often resulted in significant tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation. The intended effect was that wealth and investment would "trickle down" to lower-income groups, but in practice, this often led to greater income inequality and a concentration of wealth among the richest.

Tax Cuts and Deregulation: Policies that favor the wealthy, such as substantial tax cuts for high-income earners or reductions in corporate taxes, are based on the assumption that these individuals will invest more in the economy. However, when these investments don't always translate into widespread benefits or increased wages for lower-income workers, it can result in the wealthy gaining disproportionately while others see little benefit.

Market Failures and Inequality: While the invisible hand was meant to ensure that markets function efficiently and equitably, real-world market failures can lead to outcomes where the wealthy gain the most. Factors such as monopolies, rent-seeking behavior, and unequal access to resources can distort the market, benefiting those who are already wealthy or powerful.

Critique and Perception: Critics argue that in modern economies, the mechanisms of the invisible hand sometimes fail to address issues of fairness and equity. When the benefits of economic policies primarily serve the interests of the wealthy, it can lead to a perception that the system is rigged in their favor. This critique reflects a view that the economic system may be skewed to favor the rich rather than delivering on the promise of widespread benefit.

Metaphorical Transformation The term "hand job" in this context is used metaphorically to suggest that the benefits of economic policies have been skewed to favor the wealthy. It implies a more cynical view of how economic systems can sometimes cater to the rich at the expense of broader societal benefits.

Reflection and Reform This transformation highlights ongoing debates about economic inequality, fairness, and the role of government in regulating markets. Discussions often center on how to recalibrate economic policies to ensure that they more effectively promote equitable growth and address the needs of all societal members, not just the wealthy.

0 notes

leroibobo · 1 year ago

Text

a super abridged sequel about european jews (mostly ashkenazim)

to preface: the only reason i mention dna is because the origins of european jews is a /lot/ less straightforward and easy to explain than mena jewish history is. and also because z-onists mention it a lot. i think z-onists use dna as an argument that -srael isn't a settler-colonial project because:

they think dna is a valid "claim" to a piece of land, which misunderstands both the concept of indigeneity and that anyone can do/benefit from settler-colonialism despite their actual origins (see: latin american countries generally not having great relationship to indigenous communities, also see this article from decolonize palestine), and also that not everyone who's a victim of -sraeli settler-colonialism is "ethnically palestinian" (see: jerusalemite armenians)

influence from ethnic nationalism in europe which, despite what the most "enlightened europeans" will tell you, still heavily depends on how someone looks/ethnicity, and neither the grisly outcome of wwii nor anything any european countries did after ever really "solved" it (literally just ask any north caucasian their experience being a russian citizen. not to mention the treatment of romani)

there is a completely-unrelated-to-z-onism history of people denying that jewish people are the "real jews" (remember, judaism isn't a "universal religion" like christianity or islam) because the "real jews" would've converted to (insert relevant abrahamic religion here), which to z-onists ties back to their z-onism in that they see mentions of the very real settler-colonialism as this sort of thing (even if they don't tie it to religion), see point 1

most jews (overwhelmingly ashkenazi) nowadays who aren't in palestine live in america or other european settler-colonies that aren't occupied palestine where the general attitude was "judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity" because particularly ashkenazi jews in europe were very much seen as a different "race"/"ethnicity" and discriminated against for it. (europeans can tell different types of white people apart by the distance between their eyesockets.) it being seen as "just a religion" in the us was more or less a way to be safe. z-onists today don't like this because of reason 1, and to a more subconscious extent reason 3.

people who come from cultures based in "universal" religions/beliefs where anyone can convert and be a true believer (christianity and islam, for example) generally approach the topic of judaism from their own pov.

genetics can very easily slip into eugenics if you approach it from a political point of view. z-onists ultimately misuse facts for nationalist purposes, which causes people to be reactionary and use facts against them, and it becomes a whole mess of bullshit. both ashkenazi jewish and romani genetics have a history of being used, abused, and put under a microscope by europeans for a bunch of bullshit purposes (and z-onists continue this longstanding tradition today by doing it to palestinians) and i don't intend to do that here, only to clear things up.

so with that out of the way: the story in the torah of jewish origins is as much of an origin story as any other ethnic groups' at the end of the day, but that doesn't change that there is actual evidence that all "ethnic" european jews (ashkenazim, sephardim, italkim, and romaniote) descend from people who came from the middle east and converted/intermarried with locals in greek colonies/roman italy. the oldest jewish groups in europe are romaniotes (greek) and italkim (italian) - they largely stayed in the general area, though romaniotes also expanded to to the balkans and even up to what's today poland, ukraine, and western russia.

from there it gets murky. a ton of jews moved west into areas of former andalusia and the frankish empire. from there we get the "separation" between ashkenazi (german) jews and sephardic (spanish) jews. both of them eventually became "centers" of judaism on their own right and many jewish people moved back-and-forth between the middle east and europe, and between "ashkenaz" and "sepharad", and this movement between jewish populations would continue up to the 19th century. (for example: a lot of sephardim have the surname "ashkenazi" because their ancestors moved to andalusia from germany.) there were most likely other, much smaller jewish populations who moved to other parts of the continent not mentioned and eventually became ashkenazified or sephardicized (like the ones who might've spoken knaanic).

and yes, there were absolutely converts, even if eventually not that many later on (who would wanna willingly become a member of a persecuted group). according to dna testing, most of these converts were back in antiquity in italy, greece, and even north africa (see study i linked previously) with only a minimal amount were outside of that. jewish communities in both places were endogamous and - in the case of ashkenazis - eventually bottlenecked to a point where they became more or less not very genetically diverse. they sort of became their own ethnicity in a way. this phenomenon follows a common pattern of history - pretty much everyone in the world is "mixed", some more recently than others.

like every jewish diaspora, european jews assimilated to a good degree and spoke ethnolects (ladino, yevanic, etc) of the regions they stayed in, and their "ethnic" stuff was very much also tied to religion (considering how most of their european neighbors saw them, more on that later) with a "local" twist. yiddish kind of an exception to the ethnolects in a way - for one, it only developed around 1300 ce, it has a romance substrate, and it eventually gained a lot of eastern european influences as it went further east (ashkenazi culture is similarly mixed, remember, it's sort of a fusion between two jewish groups, like many mena jews becoming "sephardicized" those jews became "ashkenazified" eventually.) it was easier to keep one language and not continuously change it if you had to move from place to place.

eventually stuff like the expulsions from spain pushed sephardim out of the iberian peninsula and to other places, and the first crusades pushed ashkenazim further east. sephardim for the most part managed to stay comparatively stable in their new places of residence (not that discrimination didn't happen, or that it never happened that they had to leave for somewhere else bc of antisemitism. i detail this more in the op).

ashkenazim, on the other hand, followed a historical pattern of exiled from place > go to place that offered refuge > new antisemitic leader rose up > exiled from place. (sephardim were also in spain a lot longer than ashkenazim were in germany - large-scale jewish settlement on the rhine only began in about 800, from then to the crusades is a meager 200 years.) yes, there were times of prosperity, but there were also a lot of bad times - and ashkenazi jews had it a lot worse - probably the worst - for most of history. many of those countries didn't really see them as much citizens as the other residents, or didn't see them as citizens at all. (immigrants in europe are still a lot of the time not seen as "real" citizens even if they've been there for generations, for example turks in germany.) most were made to live separately, forced into certain jobs (jews were mostly relegated to jobs regarding money, which was seen as jobs not befitting christians, hence the merchant/greed/rich stereotype), severely restricted in movement, and forced to assimilate until and even after the jewish emancipation. (sound familiar?) antisemitism was still very much continuing after that though, at this point (since we're past the enlightenment and religion isn't as big of a thing as it once was) because of "race science".

(a good example of the forcible assimilation is ashkenazi last names - ashkenazim were some of the last europeans to get them, before which they largely used the "x, son/daughter of y" format. the germanic/slavic last names were for the most part given out by governments because a. austria-hungarian empire imposed german names bc they were german elitists and b. russian empire gave out german names just bc they were easier to give out, but also slavic bc of the assimilation, different areas generally had different attitudes about which last names they gave. this isn't unique to ashkenazim, some other jewish populations have similar last names without the ties - for example some "kurdish" jews have last names relating to kurdish tribes because they were literally from the town the tribe's name originated from, not because they were a part of the tribe.)

as a consequence, most ashkenazim did not have as much of a "tie" to their "home countries", because most not only deeply antisemitic ("semitic" to refer to jewish people originates with 18th century german "race scientists" btw), but didn't consider them citizens for a very long time. "ties" were by an large seen as a way to keep themselves safe, even if they were "genuine" ties. a good overview of this phenomenon can be seen in hannah arendt's (an antizionist in her own right) essay we refugees. this is why a vast majority also moved to the us (and other european colonies, like south africa) when they had the opportunity, and where the assimilation with whiteness/"just a religion" attitude came from. not that there wasn't antisemitism over there, but they had an opportunity to "start over" in a place where antisemitism wasn't systemic there like it more or less was/is in europe. (and, ofc, "white" ultimately ended up applying to them.)

this is also why z-onism is super duper ashkenazi. because of [ashkenazi] history, they saw any attempt at "assimilation" as futile because it'd just happen again, and being a "jew" and another "nationality" were mutually exclusive because they were always just jews at the end of the day according to european governments throughout history. the diaspora/diasporic cultures were also something they saw as inherently tied to oppression. (and not palestinian/sephardic/mizrahi ones, which combined with orientalism led to appropriation. nothing wrong with wanting to abandon elements of your culture, or maybe your culture altogether - i think we all do to different points - but the contradictions and power here are pretty obvious.) the initial z-onists likely saw colonialism as a way to "liberate" themselves, and thought the problem was having "left" in the first place, similar to what happened with liberia.

ofc though, like liberia, they'd been living in europe for 1,000 years and were approaching it from a very eurocentric/essentialist and eventually "terra nullis" pov. (and the contemporaneous, reactionary yiddishist movements were largely the same (except without the third one) and never (and still don't, sorry to any yiddishists reading this) addressed the real problem.) many european jews initially disagreed with z-onism (it was europe who was wrong after all, as arendt stated in we refugees) but eventually because of a bunch of historical circumstances, here we are today.

so, ironically, the very thing that managed to keep ashkenazim safe in european colonies (and white-er sephardim too, ftr, the first jews in the americas were sephardic and there was even a few in the confederate government) ended up oppressing palestinians. from a jewish (as in generally jewish, this spread to jews of all stripes nowadays) z-onist's pov, "indigenous people" were who considered their ancestors alien and exiled them over and over, so why should they care about another "indigenous people" saying the same? or, more recently (and in a huge bout of cognitive dissonance), they're also "indigenous" to palestine, and rulers of other places throughout history didn't think they were "indigenous" to whatever countries they ended up in, see the list of reasons i gave at the beginning of this post...

of course, this is combined with the whole colonizer-fear-of-retribution thing and can't be seen standing on its own. (not so much for people repeating this rhetoric from, like, the us but that's another thing.) but liberating palestine and fighting against antisemitism are not mutually exclusive. we can't go back to the social relations of the past at this point, which is why imo we need one democratic state.

some notes on specifically "middle eastern" (mashriqi + iran, caucuses, and turkey) jewish communities/history:

something to keep in mind: judaism isn't "universalist" like christianity or islam - it's easier to marry into it than to convert on your own. conversions historically happened, but not in the same way they did for european and caucasian christians/non-arab muslims.

that being said, a majority of middle eastern jews descend from jewish population who remained in palestine or immigrated/were forced (as is the case with "kurdish" jews) from palestine to other areas and mixed with locals/others who came later (which at some point stopped). pretty much everywhere in the middle east and north africa (me/na) has/had a jewish population like this.

with european jews (as in all of them), the "mixing" was almost entirely during roman times with romans/greeks, and much less later if they left modern-day greece/italy.

(none of this means jewish people are or aren't "indigenous" to palestine, because that's not what that word means.)

like with every other jewish diaspora, middle eastern jewish cultures were heavily influenced by wherever they ended up. on a surface level you can see this in things like food and music.

after the expulsion of jews from spain and portugal, sephardim moved to several places around the world; many across me/na, mostly to the latter. most of the ones who ended up in the former went to present-day egypt, palestine, lebanon, syria, and turkey. a minority ended up in iraq (such as the sassoons' ancestors). like with all formerly-ottoman territories, there was some degree of back and forth between countries and continents.

some sephardim intermarried with local communities, some didn't. some still spoke ladino, some didn't. there was sometimes a wealth gap between musta'arabim and sephardim, and/or they mostly didn't even live in the same places, like in palestine and tunisia. it really depends on the area you're looking at.

regardless, almost all the jewish populations in the area went through "sephardic blending" - a blending of local and sephardic customs - to varying degrees. it's sort of like the cultural blending that came with spanish/portugese colonization in central and south america (except without the colonization).

how they were treated also really depends where/when you're looking. some were consistently dealt a raw hand (like "kurdish" and yemenite jews) while some managed to do fairly well, all things considered (like baghdadi and georgian jews). most where somewhere in between. the big difference between me/na + some balkan and non-byzantine european treatment of jews is due to geography - attitudes in law regarding jews in those areas tended to fall into different patterns.

long story short: most european governments didn't consider anyone who wasn't "christian" a citizen (sometimes even if they'd converted, like roma; it was a cultural/ethnic thing as well), and persecuted them accordingly; justifying this using "race science" when religion became less important there after the enlightenment.

most me/na and the byzantine governments considered jews (and later, christians) citizens, but allowed them certain legal/social opportunities while limiting/banning/imposing others. the extent of both depend on where/when you're looking but it was never universally "equal".

in specifically turkey, egypt, palestine, and the caucuses, there were also ashkenazi communities, who came mainly because living as a jew in non-ottoman europe at the time sucked more than in those places. ottoman territories in the balkans were also a common destination for this sort of migration.

in the case of palestine, there were often religious motivations to go as well, as there were for some other jews who immigrated. several hasidic dynasites more or less came in their entirety, such as the lithuanian/polish/hungarian ones which precede today's neutrei karta.

ashkenazi migration didn't really happen until jewish emancipation in europe for obvious reasons. it also predates zionism - an initially secular movement based on contemporaneous european nationalist ideologies - by some centuries.

most ashkenazi jews today reside in the us, while most sephardic or "mizrahi" jews are in occupied palestine. there, the latter outnumber the former. you're more likely to find certain groups (like "kurds" and yemenites) in occupied palestine than others (like persians and algerians) - usually ones without a western power that backed them from reactionary antisemitic persecution and/or who came from poorer communities. (and no, this doesn't "justify" the occupation).

(not to say there were none who immigrated willingly/"wanted" to go, or that none/all are zionist/anti-zionist. (ben-gvir is of "kuridsh" descent, for example.) i'm not here to parse motivations.)

this, along with a history of racism/chauvinism from the largely-ashkenazi "left", are why many mizrahim vote farther "right".

(in some places, significant numbers of the jewish community stayed, like turkey, tunisia, and iran. in some others, there's evidence of double/single-digit and sometimes crypto-jewish communities.)

worldwide, the former outnumber the latter. this is thought to be because of either a medieval ashkenazi population boom due to decreased population density (not talking about the "khazar theory", which has been proven to be bullshit, btw) or a later, general european one in the 18th/19th centuries due to increased quality of life.

the term "mizrahi" ("oriental", though it doesn't have the same connotation as in english) in its current form comes from the zionist movement in the 1940s/50s to describe me/na jewish settlers/refugees.

(i personally don't find it useful outside of israeli jewish socio-politics and use it on my blog only because it's a term everyone's familiar with.)

about specifically palestinian jews:

the israeli term for palestinian jews is "old yishuv". yishuv means settlement. this is in contrast to the "new yishuv", or settlers from the initial zionist settlement period in 1881-1948. these terms are usually used in the sense of describing historical groups of people (similar to how you would describe "south yemenis" or "czechoslovaks").

palestinian jews were absorbed into the israeli jewish population and have "settler privilege" on account of their being jewish.

they usually got to keep their property unless it was in an "arab area". there's none living in gaza/the west bank right now unless they're settlers.

their individual views on zionism vary as much as any general population's views vary on anything.

(my "palestinian jews" series isn't intended to posit that they all think the same way i do, but to show a side of history not many people know about. any "bias" only comes from the fact that i have a "bias" too. this is a tumblr blog, not an encyclopedia.)

during the initial zionist settlement period, there were palestinian/"old yishuv" jews who were both for zionism and against it. the former have been a part of the occupation and its government for pretty much its entire history.

some immigrated abroad before 1948 and may refer to themselves as "syrian jews". ("syria" was the name given to syria/lebanon/palestine/some parts of iraq during ottoman times.)

ones who stayed or immigrated after for whatever reason mostly refer to themselves as "israeli".

in israeli jewish society, "palestinian" usually implies muslims and christians who are considered "arab" under israeli law. you may get differing degrees of revulsion/understanding of what exactly "palestine"/"palestinians" means but the apartheid means that palestinian =/= jewish.

because of this, usage of "palestinian" as a self-descriptor varies. your likelihood of finding someone descendent from/with ancestry from the "old yishuv" calling themselves a "palestinian jew" in the same way an israeli jew with ancestry in morocco would call themselves a "moroccan jew" is low.

(i use it on here because i'm assuming everyone knows what i mean.)

samaritans aren't 'jewish', they're their own thing, though they count as jewish under israeli law.

#jewish #info

333 notes · View notes

reallifesultanas · 4 years ago

Text

Portrait of Mehmed IV / IV. Mehmed portréja

Birth and childhood

Mehmed was born in January 1642 as the first child of Sultan Ibrahim I and his concubine, Turhan Hatice. His early years were not calm at all. The wetnurse of Prince Mehmed and her son were very much liked by the sultan, who constantly spent time with the nurse's son, Osman, considered him as his own son, while he pushed away Mehmed. Raising a slave’s son as his own caused a huge anomaly in the harem and triggered a lot of rumors. Turhan could not tolerate the humiliation of her son, the heir to the throne, so some said she directly questioned Ibrahim. Others say she sent the wetnurse out of her service, who in turn complained about Turhan’s behavior to the sultan. Either way, Sultan Ibrahim became angry and his anger was directed at Mehmed. He staged a huge scene, then tore Prince Mehmed out of his mother's arms and threw him into a cistern. The child suffered severe head injuries but survived the incident as the servants rushed to his rescue immediately. For the rest of his life, Mehmed had a scar on his forehead due to this event. Although Mehmed would have all the reasons to hate his father, it is not certain that he blamed his father for the incident. From his later manifestations, he seems to have intended his father more because of his mental state and how he ended.

The following years were about dread and humiliation, as Ibrahim became more and more insane, committed more and more inexplicable things, and married one of his young concubines, whom he raised above everyone else. Kösem Sultan and her followers at one point tried to dethrone the mad Sultan to replace him with his son, Mehmed, but to no avail. Lots of heads fell to dust after the rebellion, Kösem Sultan herself was exiled too. We don’t know how Turhan lived through this period, but given the events, she could probably have worried a lot about her son’s life. The relationship between Turhan and Mehmed was very close, perhaps one of the closest during the period of the Sultanate of women. This strong bond may have been formed in the period of common suffering from Ibrahim's madness.

The child sultan

In August 1648, Ibrahim was finally dethroned and locked up by the Janissaries and Kösem Sultan. Soon the statesmen flocked to the palace to take Prince Mehmed to the Janissary Mosque to be proclaimed Sultan there. Kösem Sultan did not allow this, did not hand over her grandson. She argued with the statesmen for hours, eventually agreeing that Prince Mehmed would be proclaimed sultan within the palace, as tradition requires. The statesmen did not ask Mehmed's young mother, but Kösem Sultan, to perform the duties of regent beside Mehmed IV. The statesmen expected Kösem to prepare Turhan and Mehmed for the task ahead of them and to work together with the divan, but Kösem thought otherwise. She wanted to lead the empire herself, as a monarch.

Mehmed was only eight years old when, on October 21, 1649, he and his two younger brothers, Suleiman (later Suleiman II) and Ahmed (later Ahmed II), were circumcised in a ceremony of great splendor. As a child, Mehmed tried to grow up to the tasks he was facing, attending divan meetings regularly with his grandmother. Over time, however, the relationship between the divan members and Kösem Sultan deteriorated and Mehmed was used several times as a tool in the arguments. This made Mehmed's mother more and more worried, so she finally allied with the pashas who were against Kösem.

Relief

There is a lot of legend and half-information about the year 1651. It is so certain that no one liked the monopoly of Kösem Sultan. Over time, all the statesmen turned against her and wanted to remove her from power. Kösem Sultan's only support was coming from some corps of Janissaries, who, whatever happened, supported her. Turhan took advantage on the fact that Kösem did not have any men in the divan. Turhan, with the help of Suleiman Agha, was able to contact the statesmen and immediately gained the support of some of them. The information came to light that Kösem Sultan wanted to dethrone Mehmed and replace him with Saliha Dilaşub's son, Suleiman. That would have meant Mehmed's confinement and death. After all, when Ibrahim I was executed, it was argued that if there was already a sultan (Mehmed), then the existence of the other sultan (Ibrahim) had become obsolete. Others say Kösem Sultan never wanted to do that, only the pashas made Turhan to believe it. Nor can we rule out that Turhan herself invented this excuse to legitimize the removal of Kösem Sultan.

Kösem Sultan was finally strangled during a coup in September 1651 and power passed to Turhan. With this, Mehmed was freed from his grandmother's tyranny and could finally feel safe. His half-brothers, Suleiman and Ahmed, were locked up so they could no longer pose a threat to Mehmed. His mother and chief eunuch Suleiman agha did everything they could to ensure that Mehmed was properly educated so one day he would become a good sultan of the empire. From then on, Mehmed was accompanied to the divan meetings by Turhan, who spoke openly many times. Mehmed relied heavily on his mother's words in the divan. Once, when the pashas informed Mehmed that Egypt had not been able to pay its annual tax, the young sultan turned to his mother and was shocked to ask her that what he was hearing was true. As Mehmed grew older and knew more and more, Turhan attended divan meetings less and less often. But this was not only due to Mehmed's age.

The rebellion

The execution of Kösem Sultan was smoothed by Turhan and her advisers, the Janissaries who were supporting Kösem were accused of her death, and they were executed. Later, however, Turhan and her allies were not so fortunate and in 1656 they had to face a real rebellion. The main reasons for this were the weak Grand Veziers, the resurgent Celali rebellion, and the war with the Venetians. Due to the war people of the capital did not get enough grain, the soldiers were not properly paid, but ordinary people were also increasingly dissatisfied, especially angered by the extreme wealth of those close to the Sultan. Eventually, under the leadership of the Janissaries and Spahis, the people revolted on the fourth of March 1656.

During the rebellion, several of those close to the sultan were brutally executed, the whole capital was ravaged. Eventually, after a few days, the barely 15-year-old sultan met with the leaders of the rebellion. Based on the descriptions, Mehmed trembled in fear, but eventually took strength and asked the rebels what they wanted from him. They handed over a list containing the names of 31 people and demanded their resignation and even execution. Mehmed first tried to evade this by publicly forgiving the 31 people for trying to influence him by taking advantage of his youth. For the soldiers, however, this was not enough, Mehmed was forced to succumb to blackmail.

The mob hung all 31 people on trees next to the Blue Mosque. Among them was Meleki Hatun, whom the sultan especially loved. The soldiers, by the way, did not blame Mehmed, in fact, praised him for finally being mature enough and take control of the empire from his mother and the eunuchs.

Although the capital has been shaken by riots in the past, such a rebellion has never happened before. Not only did the soldiers revolt, but the people also stood by the soldiers as one. Everyone closed their shops, a general strike took place during the rebellion.

After the events, it was clear that the empire needed a strong leader, so eventually, the Turhan Sultan made the very unpopular but violent Köprülü Mehmed Pasha of a Grand Vizier. Köprülü did indeed soon restore order to the empire. Mehmed was traumatized for a lifetime by the event, his next years were about trying to prove his suitability and trying to stay away from Istanbul. Certainly, due to his bad memories of the rebellion, Mehmed spent almost all of his time in Edirne or on a campaign or hunting on the Balkan.

The young sultan

Mehmed was not really interested in politics. This may have something to do with the fact that, on the advice of Mehmed’s teacher, he moved to Edirne with his mother and their entire court after the rebellions. Edirne was safer, had better supplies, and it was also politically advisable to remove the luxurious dynasty from the capital for a short time. Thus, however, the reign also faded into the background of Mehmed's life, as Köprülü arranged everything, discussed only the most necessary things with the sultan, but even those he mostly discussed with Mehmed's mother. The young sultan was then able to discover his own interests, such as hunting, travel, and arts. The young sultan spent a lot of money on artists, he loved all forms of the arts. For example, he employed a large number of non-Muslim musicians in his court.

As events began to calm down and as the empire began to stabilize, it was time to make Mehmed popular. To do this, Mehmed was forced to leave Edirne for a while. Moving to Edirne revived old traditions, as Edirne was also the imperial capital for a period. Therefore, in June 1659, Mehmed and his court traveled to the third imperial capital, Bursa, with great splendor to show themselves. The rather successful tour ended in September when the Sultan visited two forts built by the Turhan Sultan in Çanakkale. Turhan, of course, did not go with her son but remained in the city of Gelibolu, and the sultan was accompanied by Köprülü Mehmed Pasha and the chief black eunuch to the forts. After viewing and inaugurating the fort, Mehmed returned to his mother. Thanks to the tour, Mehmed became very popular, so he was able to leave behind the 1656 wave of hatred.

Then in 1660, another tragedy shook the capital. A huge fire devastated, more powerful than any of the fires ever. Eventually, in restoring the capital, Turhan Hatice worked a lot. She had a huge mosque complex built on the destroyed area and sought to help Muslims who lost everything in the fire. The Jews in the area were less fortunate.

The next break in Mehmed’s life and reign occurred in 1661 when Köprülü Mehmed Pasha died. The pasha was a great master of the ruling, successfully restoring the reputation of the dynasty. Mehmed IV was by his side while he was dying. He was warned by Köprülü, that he should not trust women and follow their advice in politics. Köprülü's anti-feminism is particularly interesting, as he himself could never have become a Grand Vizier without Turhan, but not even an esteemed pasha. Mehmed ultimately did not listen to the words of the dying pasha, as after his death his main support became his mother, Turhan, and his sweetheart, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş. Köprülü Mehmed was replaced by his eldest son, Köprülüzade Fazıl Ahmed Pasa.

The father

As Mehmed grew older, his mother began to send him concubines. That's how Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş became his favorite, eventually became Haseki. Their first child - and presumably Mehmed’s first child - was born in 1660 and was named Hatice, presumably in honor of Turhan Hatice. Soon after, Mehmed moved his entire court to Edirne, making it practically the second most powerful city. It was perfect timing that his firstborn son, Mustafa, was born there in 1664. Mehmed was so pleased with the birth of his son that he gave the child’s mother, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş, amazing gifts and from then on the sultan never left the woman alone, taking her with him on his hunts and even on his campaigns. Together they had at least two more children, Ahmed (later Ahmed III) in 1673 and Fatma Emetullah in 1675. In addition to the four children mentioned above, Mehmed certainly had other children (Ayşe, Bayezid, Ümmügülsüm, Süleyman). The identity of their mother is unknown, it could have been Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş, but even other concubines.

Mehmed is one of the few sultans who has developed a fairly close relationship with his children, especially his eldest son, Mustafa. Most pashas and contemporaries have explicitly condemned and despised the Sultan for spending too much time with his son and not treating him with enough distance as one would expect from a dignity. Mehmed regularly took his sons, especially Mustafa, with him on hunts and campaigns, but he also kept them with him at ceremonies and personally taught them several things, such as riding. And the fact that the sultan ate, drank, and amused with his son was especially repulsive in the eyes of the pashas, as this was considered indecent behavior.

His extremely close relationship with his sons also had an impact on the issue of inheritance. Legend has it that Mehmed’s beloved, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş, tried to persuade him to execute his half-brothers and make their sons his heirs instead. However, knowing the infinitely close relationship between Mehmed and his sons, we cannot rule out that Mehmed himself wanted to change the inheritance. Whoever was the inventor, no one supported the idea, not the people, not the pashas and not even Mehmed’s mother, Turhan Sultan. Turhan, to protect Prince Suleiman and Ahmed from death and her own son, Mehmed from hate, she always kept her two foster sons with her. If Turhan traveled, she took them with her so that Mehmed would not execute them in her absence.

Again on the battlefield

The Sultans since Murad III (in fact, almost since Selim II) have not really taken part in the campaigns, which the soldiers have received with dissatisfaction. It was a huge refreshment from this disappointing situation when Murad IV waged glorious campaigns by himself. It was clear that they could increase Mehmed’s popularity if he also took part in campaigns. Unlike Mehmed's predecessors, he did not follow his soldiers to the battlefield, but stayed behind them, waiting for the news in a safe place. But at least he left the capital and was close to his army. He also regularly took his favorite concubine, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş, with him on these campaigns.

The first such campaign took place in 1672 when Mehmed took the whole harem, his mother, Hasheki, and his sisters with him to Polish territories. They spent a few months near the front and then returned to Edirne. However, the agreement was crossed by the Polish, so in 1673 Mehmed was forced to return to the front. Again he took his sweetheart with him. This is particularly noteworthy because the Sultans had not taken their wives to the battlefield for centuries, and Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş was already advanced with her pregnancy. She gave birth to her second son on the campaign. This was the only case ever when an Ottoman prince was born on the battlefield, away from the security of the capital or the provinces.

In the life of Mehmed, the war with the Polish was the most successful. With their victory, the Ottoman Empire reached the largest geographical extent ever. After the success of the Polish campaign, the Sultan retreated to Edirne, where in 1675 he organized a huge ceremony in which his two sons, Mustafa and Ahmed were circumcised and his eldest daughter, Hatice, was married off. The huge festival was worshiped by the people. From this event, there is a fairly accurate and authentic description of how the sultan looked like. According to the description of one aga, the sultan, who was in his early thirties at the time, was a man of medium stature, strong build, with a sparse beard and fair skin that turned sunburned due to constant outdoor activities.

Then, in 1676, Mehmed embarked on another campaign — again, of course, with his sweetheart by his side — this time against the Russians. The aim of the campaign was to rule over today's Ukrainian - then Polish - territories. Finally, in 1681, the campaign ended with an agreement.

Alone

In 1681 the health of Mehmed's mother, Turhan Sultan, gradually began to deteriorate. Ambassadors write of him as "her condition has greatly deteriorated and there is no hope of treatment." We don’t know exactly what Turhan’s illness was, but her son was certainly devastated. Mehmed, when he was not away from the courtyard, paid homage to his mother every day and discussed all political issues with her. Because of their close relationship, it is almost certain that Turhan's death in 1683 shook her son deeply. In addition to personal loss, Turhan's death also foreshadowed enormous political failures and this was unfortunately foreseeable as early as 1683. At the death of Turhan, the people and pashas all unanimously believed that with the death of the Valide Sultan, the empire had lost its last strong, fundamental pillar. Everyone thought Mehmed alone was unfit to rule.

After the Polish victory, Mehmed thought that he had to complete a mission that Suleiman I himself could not do. Mehmed's goal became Vienna. Vienna which could not be taken in hundred years before, with a much stronger army, and Vienna, which has strengthened a lot in the last hundred years or so. It is not surprising, then, that in 1683 the Ottomans failed miserably in their attempt to conquer Vienna. After the defeat, the sultan tried his best to blame the current Grand Vizier, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha, who was the brother-in-law of the previous Grand-Vezier, Köprülüzade Fazıl Ahmed Pasha who died soon before due to his alcoholism. This was Mehmed's first very serious political mistake after his mother's death.

The following years were about a series of tragedies. The enemies of the Ottoman Empire allied in turn and squeezed the Ottomans more and more out of European territories. This caused general dissatisfaction, and then over time, chaos, executions, financial problems spread throughout the empire, more and more rebellions set in, and even natural disasters plagued the tragic empire.

The beginning of the end

Mehmed's fate was practically sealed by the death of his mother as he became increasingly unpopular. He suffered his final blow in 1687. During the second battle of Mohács, the Ottoman corps practically disintegrated due to the unsuitable Grand Vezier. The Grand Vizier escaped the front immediately. After that, the various military corps left the battlefield without an order and retreated to Istanbul. Mehmed tried to save the situation by appointing a new Grand Vizier, Köprülü Fazıl Mustafa Pasha. Köprülü Fazıl Mustafa Pasha was the younger brother of Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha and the youngest son of the great Köprülü Mehmed Pasha. The new Grand Vizier began negotiations with the leaders of the corps returning to Istanbul for the sake of the empire. Eventually, after lengthy negotiations, they agreed that the sultan should be replaced. Some say that Mehmed believed his son Mustafa would be put in his place, so he voluntarily stood aside. But the pashas and soldiers eventually seated Mehmed's younger brother, Suleiman, who was thus able to begin his reign as Süleyman II after his decades-long closed life.

Mehmed initially lived in Topkapi Palace in isolation, separated from his family, but over time, seeing that he posed no threat to the new ruler, he was allowed to stay in Edirne as well. Mehmed was the first sane sultan to be dethroned but not executed. Previously, only the mentally ill Mustafa I was spared after his dethronement. In addition, unlike Mehmed's predecessor, he did not have to live his remaining years in complete isolation, he enjoyed quite a lot of freedom. He was even able to retain this freedom after 1691 when it was revealed that some were cooperating against Suleiman to put Mehmed IV back on the throne. Mehmed finally died in 1693 in Edirne. His body was transported to Istanbul to be buried in his mother's complex, next to Turhan Hatice Sultan.

Used sources: A. D. Alderson - The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty; L. Peirce - The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire; N. Sakaoğlu - Bu Mülkün Kadın Sultanları; M. Ç. Uluçay - Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları; C. Finkel - Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire; G. Börekçi - Factions and favourites at the courts of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603-17) and his immediate predecessors; S. Faroqhi - The Ottoman Empire and the World; C. Imber - The Ottoman Empire 1300-1650; G. Piterberg - An Ottoman Tragedy, History and Historiography at Play; F. Suraiya - The Cambridge History of Turkey, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839; Howard - A History of the Ottoman Empire; Öztuna - Devletler ve Hanedanlar; F. Davis - The Palace of Topkapi in Istanbul; Y. Öztuna - Genç Osman ve IV. Murad; G. Junne - The black eunuchs of the Ottoman Empire; R. Dankoff - An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya Çelebi; R. Murphey - ‘The Functioning of the Ottoman Army under Murad IV (1623–1639/1032–1049):Key to Understanding of the Relationship Between Center and Periphery; M. Özgüleş - The women who built the Ottoman Empire: Female Patronage and the Architectural Legacy of Gülnüş Sultan

* * *

Születése és gyermekkora

Mehmed 1642 januárjában látta meg a napvilágot I. Ibrahim szultán és ágyasa, Turhan Hatice első gyermekeként. Korai évei egyáltalán nem voltak felhőtlenek, ugyanis Mehmed herceg szoptatósdajkája és annak fia nagyon megtetszettek a szultánnak, aki állandóan a dajka fiát, Oszmánt babusgatta. Saját fiát, Mehmedet csúnya kisbabának tartotta, eltaszította magától. Az, hogy egy rabszolga fiát sajátjaként neveli hatalmas anomáliát okozott a háremben és rengeteg pletykát indított útjára. Turhan nem tűrhette fia, a trónörökös megalázását ezért egyesek szerint kérdőrevonta Ibrahimot. Mások szerint a szoptatósdajkát küldte el szolgálatából, aki pedig elpanaszolta Turhan viselkedését a szultánnak. Akárhogyan is, Ibrahim szultán éktelen haragra gerjedt és dühét Mehmeden vezette le. Hatalmas jelenetet rendezett, majd kitépte Mehmed herceget édesanyja karjából és egy ciszternába hajította. A gyermek súlyos fejsérüléseket szenvedett, de szerencsére a körülöttük lévő szolgálók azonnal megmentésére siettek. Mehmed homlokán élete végéig ott volt az ekkor szerzett sebhely. Bár minden oka meg lett volna, nem biztos, hogy Mehmed hibáztatta apját az eset miatt. Későbbi megnyilvánulásaiból úgy tűnik, inkább szánta apját mentális állapota miatt és azért, amilyen véget ért.

A következő évek a rettegésről és megalázásról szóltak, hiszen Ibrahim egyre őrültebb lett, egyre többször követett el megmagyarázhatatlan dolgokat. Köszem szultána, Ibrahim anyja, követői segítségével egy ponton megpróbálták trónfosztani az őrült szultánt, hogy helyére fiát, Mehmedet ültessék, azonban nem jártak sikerrel. Rengeteg fej hullott porba, Köszemet magát is száműzték. Nem tudjuk, Mehmed mennyit értett az ekkori eseményekből és mennyire voltak hatással későbbi életére. Azonban a tény, hogy gyűlölte a fővárost utalhat arra, hogy Mehmednek nem volt ínyére ez a sok intrika, amely megrontotta a fővárost. Mehmed és édesanyja között nagyon szoros volt a kapcsolat, talán az egyik legszorosabb a Nők szultánátusának időszakából. Ez az erős kapocs is talán a közös szenvedésben és hányattatott időszakban formálódott.

A gyermek szultán

1648 augusztusában végül a janicsárok és Köszem szultána trónfosztották Ibrahimot és elzárták. Hamarosan az államférfiak a palotához sereglettek, hogy elvigyék Mehmed herceget a janicsár mecsetbe, hogy ott szultánjukká kiáltsák ki. Köszem szultána ezt nem engedte, nem adta át unokáját. Órákon át vitatkozott az államférfiakkal, mielőtt végül megegyeztek volna, hogy Mehmed herceget a palotán belül kiáltják ki szultánná, ahogy ezt a hagyományok is megkövetelik. Az államférfiak nem Mehmed fiatal anyját, hanem Köszem szultánát kérték fel, hogy ellássa a régensi feladatokat IV. Mehmed mellett. Az államférfiak azt várták Köszemtől, hogy felkészíti Turhant és Mehmedet a rájuk váró feladatra, Köszem azonban máshogy gondolta. Maga kívánta vezetni a birodalmat, egyeduralkodóként.

Mehmed mindössze nyolc éves volt, mikor 1649. október 21-én két öccsével, Szulejmánnal (későbbi II. Szulejmán) és Ahmeddel (későbbi II. Ahmed) együtt hatalmas pompa övezte szertartás során körülmetélték. Mehmed gyermekként igyekezett helyt állni a rá nehezedő feladatok elvégzésében, rendszeresen vett részt a divan üléseken nagyanyjával. Idővel azonban egyre jobban elmérgesedett a viszony a divan tagok és Köszem között és Mehmedet is többször eszközként használták ezen viták során. Ez egyre jobban aggasztotta Mehmed édesanyját is, így végül a pasákkal kezdett szövetkezni Köszem ellen.

Fellélgezés

Sok a legenda és félinformáció az 1651-es évről. Annyi bizonyos, hogy Köszem egyeduralma senkinek sem tetszett. Idővel az összes államférfi Köszem ellen fordult és el akarták őt távolítani a hatalom közeléből. Köszem egyetlen támasza a janicsárok néhány hadteste volt, akiknek bármi történt is, élvezhette a támogatását. Köszemnek nem lévén embere a divánban, Turhan előnybe került. Turhan ugyanis Szulejmán Aga, a főeunuch, segítségével kapcsolatba kerülhetett az államférfiakkal és néhányuk támogatását azonnal megszerezte. Olyan információk keltek szárnyra, melyek szerint Köszem szultána trónfosztani kívánta Mehmedet és helyére Szulejmán herceget akarta ültetni. Ez egyet jelentett volna Mehmed elzárásával és halálával. Hiszen Ibrahim kivégzésekor is arra hivatkoztak, hogy ha már van egy szultán (Mehmed), akkor a másik szultán (Ibrahim) léte okafogyottá vált. Mások szerint Köszem sosem akart ilyet tenni, csak a pasák hiteték el Turhannal. Azt sem zárhatjuk ki, hogy maga Turhan találta ki ezt, hogy legitimizálja Köszem eltávolítását.

Köszem szultánát végül egy puccs során 1651 szeptemberében megfojtották és a hatalom Turhan Haticére szállt. Ezzel Mehmed felszabadult nagyanyja zsarnoksága alól és végre biztonságban érezhette magát. Féltestvéreit, Szulejmánt és Ahmedet elzárták, így nem jelenthettek veszélyt többé Mehmedre. Édesanyja és a fő eunuch Szulejmán aga mindent megtettek, hogy Mehmed megfelelő oktatásban részesüljön és egy nap jó szultánja legyen a birodalomnak. Innentől kezdve Mehmedet Turhan kísérte a diván ülésekre, aki sokszor nyíltan felszólalt. Mehmed nagyban támaszkodott édesanyja szavaira a divánban. Egyszer, mikor a pasák arról tájékoztatták Mehmedet, hogy Egyiptom nem volt képes befizetni az éves adóját, a fiatal szultán anyjához fordult és döbbenten kérdezte anyját, hogy igaz e amit hall. Ahogy Mehmed idősödött és egyre többet tudott, Turhan mind ritkábban vett részt a divan ülésein. Ám ennek nem Mehmed kora volt az egyetlen oka.

A lázadás

Köszem szultána kivégzését Turhan és tanácsadói könnyedén elsimították, a Köszemet támogató janicsárokat tették felelőssé az események miatt, és őket végezték ki. Később viszont nem voltak ilyen szerencsések és 1656-ben valódi lázadással kellett szembenézniük. Ennek legnagyobb oka a gyenge nagyvezírek, az újjáéledő Celeli lázadás és a velenceiekkel vívott háború voltak. A körülmények miatt nem jutott elég gabona a fővárosba, a katonák nem kaptak rendesen fizetést, de az egyszerű emberek is egyre elégedetlenebbek voltak, különösen dühítette őket a szultánhoz közelállók extrém gazdagsága. Végül a janicsárok és szpáhik vezetésével a nép fellázadt 1656 március negyedikén.

A lázadás során a szultánhoz közelállók közül többeket brutálisan kivégeztek, az egész fővárost feldúlták. Végül néhány nap után a lázadó elérték, hogy az alig 15 éves szultán találkozzon velük. A leírások alapján Mehmed reszketett félelmében, de végül erőt vett magán és megkérdezte a lázadókat, hogy mit akarnak tőle. Erre azok átnyújtottak egy 31 ember nevét tartamazó listát, és lemondásukat, sőt kivégzésüket követelték. Mehmed először úgy próbált kibújni ez alól, hogy nyilvánosan megbocsátotta a 31 embernek, amiért ifjú korát kihasználva befolyásolni próbálták. A katonáknak viszont ez nem volt elég, Mehmed kénytelen volt engedni a zsarolásnak.

A csőcselék mind a 31 embert a Kék Mecset mellett felakasztotta egy egy fára. Köztük volt Meleki Hatun is, akit a szultán különösen szeretett. A katonák egyébként Mehmedet nem hibáztatták, sőt méltatták, amiért végre elég érett és átveheti a birodalom irányítását anyjától és az eunuchoktól.

Bár korábban is rázták meg lázadások a fővárost, ehhez fogható még sosem történt. Nem csak a katonák lázadtak fel, a nép is egy emberként állt ki a katonák mellett és állt be mögéjük. Mindenki bezárta boltjait, általános sztrájk lépett érvénybe a lázadás idejére.

Az események után egyértelmű volt, hogy egy erőskezű vezetőre van szüksége a birodalomnak, így végül Turhan szultána megtette az igen népszerűtlen, de erőskezű Köprülü Mehmed Pasát nagyvezírnek. Köprülü valóban hamarosan rendbeszedte a birodalmat. Mehmedet egy életre traumatizálta az esemény, következő évei arról szóltak, hogy igyekezett bizonyítani alkalmasságát és igyekezett távol maradni Isztambultól. Minden bizonnyal a lázadás okozta rossz emlékei miatt töltötte Mehmed szinte minden idejét Edirnében, hadjáraton vagy a Balkánon vadászatokkal.

A fiatal szultán

Mehmedet nem igazán érdekelte a politika. Ennek alighanem köze lehet ahhoz, hogy Mehmed tanítójának tanácsára a lázadások után Mehmed édesanyjával és egész udvartartásukkal együtt Edirnébe költözött. Edirne biztonságosabb volt, jobb volt az ellátás, és politikai szempontból is tanácsos volt kis időre eltávolítani a fényűző dinasztiát a fővárosból. Így viszont az uralkodás is háttérbeszorult Mehmed életében, hiszen Köprülü intézett mindent, csak a legszükségesebb dolgokat vitatta meg a szultánnal, de még ezeket is inkább annak anyjával tárgyalta. A fiatal szultán ekkor fedezhette fel saját érdeklődési területeit, így a vadászatot, utazást és művészeteket. Az ifjú szultán rengeteget költött művészekre, imádta a művészetek minden formáját. Nagy számban alkalmazott például udvarában nem muszlim zenészeket is.

Ahogy az események kezdtek nyugalmasabbá válni és ahogy a birodalom kezdett stabilizálódni, ideje volt Mehmedet megkedveltetni a néppel. Ehhez pedig Mehmed egy időre kénytelen volt elhagyni Edirnét. Az Edirnébe költözés felélesztette a régi hagyományokat, ugyanis Edirne is volt egy ideig a birodalmi főváros. Ezért 1659 júniusában a harmadik birodalmi fővárosba, Bursába is elutaztak hatalmas pompával, hogy megmutassák magukat. A meglehetősen sikeres körút szeptemberben zárult, amikor a Turhan szultána által Çanakkaleban építtetett két erődöt tekintette meg a szultán. Turhan természetesen nem tartott fiával, hanem Gelibolu városában maradt, a szultánt pedig kísérete mellett Köprülü Mehmed Pasa és a fő fekete eunuch kísérte az erődhöz. Az erőd megtekintése és felavatása után Mehmed visszatért anyjához. A körútnak köszönhetően Mehmed igen népszerű lett, így maga mögött hagyhatta az 1656-os gyűlölethullámot.

1660-ban aztán újabb tragédia rázta meg a fővárost. Hatalmas tűzvész pusztított, hatalmasabb, mint az addigi tüzek bármelyike. Végül sikerült helyreállítani a fővárost, Turhan Hatice hatalmas mecsetkomplexumot építtetett az elpusztult területen és igyekeztek megsegíteni a tűzvészben mindenüket elveszítő muszlimokat. A területen élő zsidók kevésbé voltak szerencsések.

Mehmed életében és uralkodásában a következő törés 1661-ben következett be, mikor meghalt Köprülü Mehmed Pasa. A pasa remekül irányította a birdalmat, sikerrel állította vissza a dinasztia hírnevét. Halálos ágyánál is mellette volt IV. Mehmed, akit Köüprülü figyelmeztetett, hogy nem szabad a nőkben bíznia és az ő tanácsaikat követni a politikában. Köprülü nőellenessége különösen érdekes, hiszen ő maga Turhan nélkül sohasem válhatott volna nagyvezírré, de még csak megbecsült pasává sem. Mehmed végül nem hallgatott a haldokló pasa szavaira, hiszen halála után fő támasza édesanyja, Turhan és kedvese, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş lettek. Köprülü Mehmed helyére pedig annak idősebb fiát, Köprülüzade Fazıl Ahmed Pasát nevezte ki.

A családapa

Mehmed, ahogy egyre idősebb lett édesanyja elkezdett hozzá ágyasokat küldeni, így került hozzá Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş is, aki végül Mehmed Haszekije és kedvence lett. Első gyermekük - és feltehetőleg Mehmed első gyermeke is - 1660-ban jött világra és a Hatice nevet kapta, vélhetően Turhan Hatice tiszteletére. Mehmed nemsokkal később az egész udvartartását áthelyezte Edirnébe, ezzel gyakorlatilag mintegy második fővárossá tette meg az általa annyira kedvelt várost. Tökéletes időzítés volt, hogy elsőszülött fia, Musztafa itt látta meg a napvilágot 1664-ben. Mehmed annyira örült fia születésének, hogy elképesztő ajándékokkal halmozta el a gyermek anyját, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüşt és innentől kezdve a szultán sosem hagyta magára a nőt, magával vitte a vadászataira, sőt hadjárataira is. Együtt még legalább két gyermekük született, Ahmed (későbbi III. Ahmed) 1673-ban és Fatma Emetullah 1675-ben. Mehmednek a fent említett négy gyermeken kívül bizonyosan voltak más gyermekei (Ayşe, Bayezid, Ümmügülsüm, Süleyman). Az ő anyjuk kiléte ismeretlen, lehetett Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş is, de akár más ágyasok is.

Mehmed azon kevés szultánok közé tartozik, aki meglehetősen szoros kapcsolatot alakított ki gyermekeivel, különösen lgidősebb fiával, Musztafával. A legtöbb pasa és kortárs kifejezetten elítélte és lenézte a szultánt, amiért az túl sok időt tölt fiával és nem viselkedik vele elég távolságtartón, ahogy egy méltóságosságtól elvárható lenne. Mehmed rendszeresen vitte magával fiait - különösen Musztáfát - vadászataira, hadjárataira, de a ceremóniákon is maga mellett tartotta és több dologra személyesen ő tanította meg őket, így például lovagolni is. Az pedig, hogy a szultán együtt evett, ivott és mulatott fiával kifejezetten taszító volt a pasák szemében, hiszen ezt illetlen viselkedésnek tartották.

Extrém szoros viszonya fiaival a trónöröklés kérdésére is hatással volt. A legenda úgy tartja, hogy Mehmedet kedvese, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş szultána igyekezett meggyőzni arról, hogy végeztesse ki elzárva tartott féltestvéreit és helyettük fiaikat tegye meg örökösének. Ismerve azonban a Mehmed és fiai közt fennálló végtelenül szoros viszonyt, nem zárhatjuk ki, hogy maga Mehmed kívánta megváltoztatni az öröklést. Akárki is volt a kifundálója, senki sem támogatta az ötletet, sem a nép, sem a pasák és Mehmed anyja, Turhan szultána sem. Turhan, hogy megóvja Szulejmán és Ahmed hercegeket a haláltól, fiát pedig a bukástól, mindig maga mellett tartotta két nevelt fiát. Ha Turhan utazott, magával vitte őket, nehogy távollétében Mehmed kivégeztesse őket.

Újra a harctéren

A szultánok III. Murad óta (sőt igazából szinte II. Szelim óta) nem igazán vettek részt a hadjáratokon, amit a katonák elégedetlenül fogadtak. Hatalmas felüdülést jelentett ebből a kiábrándító helyzetből IV. Murad uralma, aki dicső hadjáratokat folytatott. Egyértelmű volt tehát, hogy növelni tudnák Mehmed népszerűségét, ha ő is részt vesz a hadjáratokon. Mehmed elődeivel ellentétben nem követte katonáit a harctérre, hanem tőlük hátramaradva, egy biztonságos helyen várta a híreket. Ezekre a hadjáratokra rendszeresen magával vitte kedvenc ágyasát, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüşt is.

Az első ilyen hadjáratra 1672-ben került sor, mikor Mehmed az egész háremét, anyját, Haszekijét, testvéreit is magával vitte a lengyel területekre. Néhány hónapot töltöttek a front közelében, majd visszatértek Edirnébe. A megkötött egyezséget azonban a lengyelek keresztülhúzták, így 1673-ban Mehmed kénytelen volt visszatérni a frontra és magával vitte kedvesét is. Ez azért különösen említésre méltó, mert azontúl, hogy a szultánok évszázadok óta nem vitték harctérre asszonyaikat, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş már előrehaladott terhes volt második fiával, akit végül a hadjáraton szült meg. Ez a valaha volt egyetlen olyan eset, amikor egy oszmán herceg a hadszíntéren született meg, távol a főváros vagy a provinciák biztonságától.

Mehmed életében a lengyelekkel vívott háború volt a legsikeresebb, győzelmükkel az Oszmán Birodalom elérte valaha volt legnagyobb földrajzi kiterjedését. A lengyel hadjárat sikere után a szultán Edirnébe vonult vissza, ahol 1675-ben hatalmas ünnepséget szervezett, melyen két fiát Musztafát és Ahmedet körülmetélték, legidősebb lányát Haticét pedig kiházasította. A hatalmas fesztivált imádták az emberek és innen maradt ránk egy meglehetősen pontos és hiteles leírás arról, hogy maga a szultán hogyan nézett ki. Az egyik aga leírása alapján a szultán - aki ekkor harmincas éveinek elején járt - közepes termetű, erős testalkatú férfi volt, ritkás szakállal és világos bőrrel, mely az állandó szabadtéri tevékenységek miatt napbarnítottba fordult.

1676-ban aztán Mehmed újabb hadjáratra indult - természetesen ismét kedvesével az oldalán -, ezúttal az oroszokkal kívánt megmérkőzni. A hadjárat célja az mai ukrán - akkori lengyel - területek feletti uralom volt. Végül 1681-ben megállapodással zárult le a hadjárat.

Egyedül

Mehmed édesanyjának, Turhan szultánának egészsége 1681-ben fokozatosan romlásnak indult. Követek úgy írnak róla, hogy "állapota nagyon leromlott és nincs remény kezelésre". Nem tudjuk, hogy pontosan mi volt Turhan betegsége, de fiát minden bizonnyal megviselte a helyzet. Mehmed, amikor nem volt távol az udvartól, minden nap tiszteletét tette anyjánál és megvitatott vele minden politikai témát. Szoros viszonyuk miatt, szinte biztosra vehető, hogy Turhan 1683-as halála mélyen megrázta fiát. A személyes veszteségen túl hatalmas politikai kudarcokat is előrevetített Turhan halála és ez sajnos már 1683-ban előre látható volt. Turhan halálakor a nép és pasák mind egyöntetűen úgy gondolták, hogy a valide szultána halálával a birodalom elvesztette utolsó erős, alappillérét. Mindenki úgy gondolta, Mehmed egyedül alkalmatlan az uralkodásra.

Mehmed a lengyel győzelem után úgy gondolta, hogy be kell teljesíteni azt a küldetést, amit maga I. Szulejmán sem tudott megtenni. Mehmed célja Bécs lett. Az a Bécs, amit bő száz évvel korábban sem tudtak bevenni, jóval erősebb hadsereggel és az a Bécs, amely az elmúlt mintegy száz évben rengeteget erősödött. Nem meglepő hát, hogy 1683-ban az oszmánok csúfosan belebuktak a Bécs meghódítására tett kísérletükbe. A vereség után a szultán mindent igyekezett az aktuális nagyvezírre, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasára kenni, aki az alkoholizmusa miatt nem sokkal előbb meghalt Köprülüzade Fazıl Ahmed Pasa sógora volt. Ez volt Mehmed első igen súlyos politikai hibája anyja halála után.

A következő évek a sorozatos tragédiákról szóltak. Az Oszmán Birodalom ellenségei sorra fogtak össze egymással és szorították egyre kintebb az oszmánokat az európai területekről. Ez általános elégedetlenséget okozott, majd idővel káosz, kivégzések, anyagi problémák terjedtek el mindenhol a birodalomban, egyre több lázadás indult útjára és még természeti katasztrófák is sújtották a tragikus helyzetben lévő birodalmat.

A vég kezdete

Gyakorlatilag már anyja halálával megpecsételődött Mehmed sorsa, egyre népszerűtlenebb lett, a végső csapást pedig 1687-ben szenvedte el. A második mohácsi csata során gyakorlatilag szétesett az oszmán hadtest az alkalmatlan nagyevzír miatt, aki azonnal menekülőre fogta. Ezekután a különböző katonai hadtestek saját elhatározásukkal ott hagyták a csatateret és visszavonultak Isztambulba. Mehmed azzal próbálta menteni a helyzetet, hogy új nagyvezírt nevezett ki, Köprülü Fazıl Mustafa Pasát. Köprülü Fazıl Mustafa Pasa, Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasának volt az öccse és a nagy Köprülü Mehmed Pasa legkisebb fia. Az új nagyvezír a birodalom érdekében tárgyalása kezdett az Isztambulba visszaérkező hadtestek vezetőivel. Végül hosszas tárgyalások után arra jutottak, hogy a szultánt le kell váltani. Mehmed egyesek szerint úgy hitte, helyére fiát, Musztafát fogják ültetni, ezért önként félreállt. Ám a pasák és katonák végül Mehmed öccsét, Szulejmánt ültették trónra, aki így évtizedekig tartó elzárt élete után megkezdhette uralkodását II. Szulejmán néven.

Mehmed eleinte a Topkapi Palotában élt elzárva, családjától elválasztva, idővel azonban - látva, hogy nem jelent veszélyt az új uralkodóra - engedélyt kapott, hogy Edirnében is időzzön. Mehmed volt az első épelméjű szultán, akit trónjától megfosztottak ám nem végeztettek ki. Korábban csak a mentálisan beteg I. Musztafa életét kímélték meg trónfosztása után. Emellett Mehmed elődjével ellentétben nem kellett, hogy teljes elzárásban élje le hátralévő éveit, meglehetősen nagy szabadságot élvezett. Még úgy is megtarthatta ezt a szabadságot, hogy 1691-ben kiderült, hogy néhányan szövetkeztek II. Szulejmán ellen, hogy újra IV. Mehmedet ültessék trónra. Mehmed végül 1693-ban hunyt el, Edirnében. Testét onnan Isztambulba szállították, hogy édesanyja komplexumában temessék el, Turhan szultána mellé.

Felhasznált források: A. D. Alderson - The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty; L. Peirce - The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire; N. Sakaoğlu - Bu Mülkün Kadın Sultanları; M. Ç. Uluçay - Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları; C. Finkel - Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire; G. Börekçi - Factions and favourites at the courts of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603-17) and his immediate predecessors; S. Faroqhi - The Ottoman Empire and the World; C. Imber - The Ottoman Empire 1300-1650; G. Piterberg - An Ottoman Tragedy, History and Historiography at Play; F. Suraiya - The Cambridge History of Turkey, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839; Howard - A History of the Ottoman Empire; Öztuna - Devletler ve Hanedanlar; F. Davis - The Palace of Topkapi in Istanbul; Y. Öztuna - Genç Osman ve IV. Murad; G. Junne - The black eunuchs of the Ottoman Empire; R. Dankoff - An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya Çelebi; R. Murphey - ‘The Functioning of the Ottoman Army under Murad IV (1623–1639/1032–1049):Key to Understanding of the Relationship Between Center and Periphery; M. Özgüleş - The women who built the Ottoman Empire: Female Patronage and the Architectural Legacy of Gülnüş Sultan

34 notes · View notes

sherrybaby14 · 5 years ago

Text

Winds Of Winter (1/2)

This is my entry for @youngmoneymilla 15k challenge (Congrats lady)

Prompt: The Winds of Winter – Ramin Djawadi (Game of Thrones)

Summary: A stranger from a rival kingdom comes to your throne for a favor. (Fantasy AU)

Pairing: Steve Rogers x Reader

Warnings: None in this chapter. Part two is gonna have some war/death and smut.

A/N: You don’t need to have seen Game of Thrones to follow this. It’s not GOT fanfic, just fantasy, but heavily inspired by the mythology.

Words: 3k

The stranger’s footsteps echoed across the throne room and you held your chin high as he approached. Stranger wasn’t the right term, though you’d never set eyes on the man you knew who he was the second his presence was announced.

When he arrived in front of you, his blue eyes scanned your face before he dropped to a knee, the coat and wardrobe he wore not nearly enough to survive the raging winter outside your castle’s door.

“Your majesty,” Steve Rogers began speaking but you felt your jaw tighten at the formal title.

“What do you want?” It wasn’t very regal of you to interrupt but being treated this way by someone whose people referred to you as Queen-of-nothing was almost disrespectful.

“My name is Steven Rogers.” He stood.

“I know who you are.” You gave up trying to hold your tongue. “I didn’t ask your name. I asked what you wanted.”

“You know who I am?” He looked shocked.

“I am well within my rights to have you beheaded for showing your face here. Neither you, nor your people are allowed beyond my gates.” You rolled your shoulders back. “After all, it was your ancestors who banished mine here.”

Steve bit his lip. He was choosing his words wisely.

“The banishment of your family, your people.” He shook his head. “I took no part. I wasn’t born, even a thought yet.”

“Neither were any of the people who reside here.” You rose from your throne. “Yet, we honor the treaty. We do not cross into your lands and you keep out of ours.”

It was a prison of ice. The sentence passed on for your grandfather’s rebellion against the crown. Everyone knew the story. Everyone expected your family to wither and die in the harsh north, but instead you’d survived. Your people tougher, stronger because of it.

“I will ask you one more time before I summon an executioner.” You took a step toward him. “Why are you here?”

“I need your help.” The look of defeat on his face made it clear you were his last choice. “The kingdom is at war, its chaos. My home is occupied by an enemy.”

“Yes, a lesser house than your own. Correct? House Rumlow. I heard they murdered your family in a revolt.” You walked to the window. “And that the crown supports them. Who sits on the throne in the South now? House Romanov? House Stark? House Quill? Or is it House Parker now? I can hardly keep up the way you fight each other.”

“I don’t care about the throne.” Steve’s desperation started to show. “I don’t care about any of that. I care about my people, my lands, the ones I am warden too. Rumlow will see them tortured, murdered with glee. He is dangerous.”

“You say you care nothing about the throne, but who is your allegiance to?” You spun to face him, your sky blue cloak sliding against the stone floor. “Because it certainly is not to me.”

“I understand ancient grudges. But you seem well versed in the present times, more so than expected. My home, the estate of Brooklyn, is the farthest North of the great houses. You think he won’t want to expand his lands? Come for you? Maybe not be as lenient about your spies passing through our towns?” Steve’s voice echoed across the walls.

“You expect this Rumlow to expand into my, what do you Southerners call it, wasteland?” You folded your arms. “What I think, is I should sit it out. Watch all of you destroy each other. Do my part to contribute by ending your life right here.”

“You won’t.” Steve pushed out his chest.

“What has you so sure of that?” You did not like him questioning your authority.

“Because there are rumors of you. The Queen beyond the kingdoms. Who has aided her people, grown them in numbers, united other banished here. Stories of kindness, and love for her people. A stunning beauty who would…”

“STOP!” You held your hand up, not wanting to hear any more flatteries or acknowledge the rush of adrenaline. “I do love my people. I love them so much I will not consider sending them to their deaths for a fight that is not theirs.”

There was only five thousand living under your command, though all were trained fighters and stronger than ten southern. Even the youngest.

“I am not asking for your people’s assistance.” Steve gulped and rang his hands in front of him.

“Oh?” You smirked. “Well I suppose you never answered my original inquiry. What do you want?”

“There’s other rumors.” He glanced around the hall, your guards still at the door. “I saw the red comet in the sky, I remember it vividly. Four years ago.”

“Celestial matters bare no influence on my decisions.” You walked back to your throne.

“I know what that means. Your bloodline, your family. Stories, pictures of what once was. They’ve returned. To you.” Steve kept his eyes on you.

A laugh left your mouth as you sat in the chair and shook your head.

“Whatever you’re implying, you are mistaken.” You leaned back.

“I believe. I believe enough I came here alone, unarmed, knowing fully well you could chop my head off.” Steve took a step forward and your guards reacted.

You held a palm up and shook your head. This man was no threat.

“Because I have faith. I have faith that you are as kind and noble as the rumors say. That something unbelieve, magical is happening in your land, and that you are good and just and will not let any more innocent lives be lost.” Steve dropped down to his knees. “Please. Help me. I have an army of two thousand, going to take on an army double that size. I need you. I will welcome you and your people into my kingdom in return.”

“As a guest?” You rolled your eyes.

“No.” Steve brought his hands in front of him. “As a Queen. I have dropped to my knee twice before you. Once you help us win back Brooklyn, I will do so again. In front of all my people, and recognize you as the one true leader. Then I will help you get what you really want.”

“And what is that?” The promise made your blood pressure rise.

“The throne.” He stood up again. “You are correct in the waring houses. The Kingdom needs unity. The North will support your claim.”

“The North?” You snapped as you stood up from the chair. “You think you’re the North? You know nothing about the dangers my people endure. The harsh conditions. Winter, snow, ice.”

“Then accept my offer.” Steve watched as you walked back toward the window. “Take them to your ancestral home. Away from here.”

“I intend to.” You spun on your heels. “Without your assistance. My original plan still stands. I’m going to let you kill each other. Once you’re all a sea of graveyards we will return home, without shedding a drop of blood.”

“Tomorrow.” Steve’s eyes danced on your face, taking you in, making your skin crawl. “The battle is set for dawn.”

“Tomorrow?” You smiled. “What makes you think for a moment I could assist you in that amount of time. Assembling my troops, readying the horses, making the travel.”

“I’m not asking for your troops.” His eyes flashed. “I believe you will help me. Because you know it is right, and my offer is fair.”

“Trusting your people’s offers is what landed my people here.” Steve started to back away. “I will not make the same mistakes as my ancestors.”

“That is what I am counting on.” He bowed. “Dawn.”

“You will be severely disappointed.” Part of you wanted to chase after the Southerner, enjoying your argument more than you had realized.

“I have faith.” He stood again. “In you.”

The words made you unsettled. So much so that you did not get another word out before he left the throne room. Your guards escorting him out. Maybe you should have decapitated him, it would have aided with the pain in the back of your neck he had caused.

Steve left the stone building and looked behind him. That was their castle, it was barely a quarter the size of his own. The rest of the buildings in the tiny town were made from wood. They looked more like huts than houses.

His eyes scanned the people. They wore rich, heavy furs. Of course, they were for protection from the elements, not fashion statement.

Every one of them stopped what they were doing to gawk at him. His way of dress made him stand out, but that wasn’t it. Steve had always prided himself on being tough, strong like his father. But these people, even the youngest were much stronger, faster, harder.

He saw a little girl no more than ten stare at him, a look on her face angry enough he thought she might try to slit his throat.

None of these people had done anything wrong, none rebelled, none fought wars, but they lived here in the frozen lands because of choices their earlier generations had made. The banishment was meant as an extinction, but somehow by some chance they’d survived.

“Pity I was really hoping the Queen was going to chop your head off.” One of the guards shoved his shoulder as they neared his boat.

“Aye.” The other shoved his back. “This one has some meat on him, would’ve made for a fine stew.”

“Stew?” Steve looked over his shoulder.

Both men started laughing, their shoulders bouncing up and down with each chuckle.

“That’s right pretty boy.” The just got a foot in the boat when hard hands hit his back, his shin caught, and he fell forward into the wood. “We eat each up out here. Raw and bloodied.”

The man flashed his teeth at Steve and made a crunching noise.

“Tell your friends.” The other brought his boot up on the boat and kicked him off into the water. “You pretty Kingdom folk our are favorite dinner guests.”

Both men chuckled as they licked their lips. Steve knew they were joking, or at least hoped as much. He picked up his oar and began to row across the sea.

Soon the village vanished from view. Steve tried not to think about the icy waters below him, the danger in the small boat breaking, drowning into the cold abyss. He knew coming out here was a risk, but he had no other option.

That was his first time seeing the ice-queen. He’d heard her described as exotic, plain, short, tall, feminine, manish, dark, light and every other possible descriptor. Nobody south of here had ever really laid eyes on her. The warring descriptions were an enigma. She was an enigma.

He saw the red comet, he knew what it had meant. Nobody believed him and insisted it was folk lore. But Steve was always a believer.

She may have rolled her eyes, chuckled a little, but she wasn’t on the floor in hysterics at his suggestion. That comet meant something that night.

By the time he reached the other side of the water, the rise in temperature was noticeable. His horse remained untouched. Steve didn’t bother dragging the boat, the weight would slow them down too much and it was still a several hour ride to his encampment.

“I have faith.” He rubbed his horse’s neck as he untied her from the tree. “She will help us.”

“The pansy boy is gone.” Bucky, your guard and second in command came back into the room.

“You’re not really considering giving him aid?” Sam, your guard and third was close behind him. “The nerve of him, walking in here like the two of you are equals.”

“I’m no better than anyone else.” You crossed your arms. “His proposal was interesting.”

“You look beautiful by the way.” Sam looked you up and down. “Like a true queen.”

“It was my mother’s.” You smoothed down the thick light blue gown, the matching cloak over your shoulders. “I should change.”

Your scouts spotted the visitor long before his arrival. You wanted to look the regal part but were much more used to dressing in the same manner as everyone else.

“You should have killed him.” Bucky was never one for pleasantries. “I would’ve done it. Taken his head back to his men myself.”

“We’re not barbarians.” You smiled at your men. “Besides, he let some rumors slip. If we are going to take back the kingdom we may need ally’s.”

“That’s not the plan.” Bucky made a fist. “We let them battle each other. Swoop in and take out the tired victor. It’s days away. All the troops are ready.”

“Did that man strike you as an oppressor?” You walked toward the door. “One who wishes to keep us locked up here?”

“He struck me as desperate.” Sam added. “And a bit delusional.”

When the winter winds hit you, you tightened the cloak. Bucky and Sam walked behind as your greeted a few of your people on your walk.

“You look stunning!” A little girl yelled. “A true queen!”

“Delusional?” You waved and shook some hands. “What makes you say that?”

You arrived at the ice cliff that protected your village from further elements, walking around the edge to the opening in the mountain side.

“The promises he made. Does he really think his people will bend the knee to you? Recognize you as their leader? It would never be that simple.” Sam and Bucky followed you into the darkness of the cave.

“Thor? Loki? Hela?” You walked further. “It’s alright. You can come out now.”

You stopped walking, deep enough it was pitch black.

“No. It wouldn’t.” You sighed. “But he confirmed they know we’re plotting our return.”

The dark began to fade as red filled the area, the crawling almost shaking the mountain.

“I am so sorry you had to hide.” You went toward the giant head, putting your hand on Thor’s nose when he came into view. “It seems more people are aware of your existence than I imagined. But that’s alright. I think it’s time we introduced you three to the world.”

There was a low screech from Hela as a shot of fire came out of her mouth. You saw Bucky and Sam in the glow, getting better at hiding their terror, but not so much you couldn’t see it on their faces.

“Just think.” You walked around to Thor’s back, climbing on board as he dipped his wing. “You two look that scared and they’re on our side. Just imagine what the enemy will face.”

“Scared?” Sam sounded shocked.

“Me? Scared?” Bucky scoffed. “Never.”

“Right.” You leaned down to Thor as he began to crawl forward.

You were certain Steve Rogers was out of view. Thor raced through the cave until the daylight came and then moved to flight. You held on as he took you up, up, up. Loki and Hela right behind you.

Your people were used to seeing the dragons and paid no attention to your little flight.

You’d always planned on taking your them south, but forever envisioned it as a hostile trip. Never once anticipating an invitation, let alone the opportunity to be seen as a savior.

Thor dipped down into an ice cavern, flying along the frozen rivers. Loki and Hela screeched at each other behind you.

The dragons, your people, you, none knew what it felt like to feel warmth surround them. Always living in the snow and ice. You wanted more for them. Maybe Steve Roger’s welcoming was the start.

Thor shot up in the air and you held on tighter, bracing yourself to his back as he flew up the side of a glacier.

Then again, maybe Bucky was right. You were heading down either way. Who was Steve Rogers to deserve your trust?

#steve rogers x reader #steve rogers #marvel au #avengers au #dragons #fantasy #steve rogers au

328 notes · View notes

palmerasenfuego · 5 years ago

Text

An Open Letter to His Cop Father

My hope is to make clear, maybe for the first time, my perspective on a variety of points of contention between you and me, not so that we can reconcile them necessarily, but so that I won't feel the need to tiptoe around you any more. Addressing this problem I have with codependency and self-censorship has been my task ever since I left my ex, and I think you yourself would agree that in the last year and a half, I have become much more vibrant and present than I ever was as the kowtowed ghost who let his controlling girlfriend dictate the terms of his existence. In the following letter I strove to be unsparing, but only for the sake of clarity. I don't hold any resentment towards you. I want to take ownership of my own role in our dynamic so that we can move into the future, unencumbered.

A few months ago, you and I argued over my career with regard to the classes I plan on taking for my Masters in library science. After we'd each calmed down, you said that you were only suggesting I keep my options open, as we'd both noted that the future of public libraries, and indeed social services generally, is uncertain at best and possibly doomed. You merely meant to suggest that I look into classes that would prepare me for information career opportunities in the private sector, in the probable case that public libraries no longer exist in the future.

At the time I didn't want to argue any more, and I agreed that you had made good points. I would keep my options open. What you didn't understand, however, was that I only grew "defensive" about my plans after I thought I presented them as exactly what you claimed to be suggesting—that is, I would look into a variety of library and information science related fields while keeping my focus, somewhat idealistically, on public libraries. But then you interjected, as you so often do, with all the reasons why my plan might not be such a great idea. Had I considered the uncertain future of public libraries? (Of course I had.) Wouldn't a librarianship at a prestigious museum be a more stable and lucrative career? (Maybe, but nothing's a safe bet.)

Because I stood my ground, because I intend to fight for what I believe in while I still can, you accused me of being 'defensive.' There's always an underlying tension between us, you said, which is something I don't deny. Why do I always seem resentful? you asked. You accused me of only viewing you as a resource to draw on without any care for you as my father, a totally unfair and manipulative thing to say of your son who followed you and your other son for a decade, watching you coach his brother’s baseball team, without him; your son who desperately wished his father understood his art and literature recommendations, but knows they'll usually go unheeded; your son who, despite knowing what his father did to his mother, and resenting that his father won't speak with his mother at all, still loves his father.

You can't seem to recognize sometimes that your mistakes could have had any effect on the way you and I relate, and I think you think any antagonism between us is me blindly rebelling, an absurd image to have of me, the most docile black sheep any flock has ever had. To be clear, what causes the tension between us is a feeling in me that I won't even be heard if you've previously decided you're in the right. So rather than speak up, I generally keep my mouth shut, which is not healthy for me, nor is it productive of the kind of relationship I'd hope to have as an adult with my father.

You would prefer that I not stake my future on public librarianship, because you would not do that. Therefore, I shouldn't do that. I don't care whether you disagree with me. Ultimately, none of this letter is about convincing you of anything. What I want to address is that I have never felt like my voice would be heard, by you or anyone, really, which is in part a result of having my perspective so often subjected to critical (over)analysis from you, as in our argument over public libraries. Or, it’s a result of having my enthusiasm mocked anytime you and my brother didn't appreciate something I did. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a masterpiece of American art, and you Philistines didn't watch more than 15 minutes of it, but to this day you make fun of me for wanting to watch it with you.

When we had disagreements over any supposed transgression on my part, you quickly dropped the pretense towards being a concerned parent to assume your interrogation persona, with me the guilty-until-proven-innocent suspect. One of the oldest tricks to get someone to fess up is asking the same question several times, forcing the suspect to repeat their story. Any time you seemed suspicious I wasn't answering your questions straight, it would be "You sure? Positive? Nothing else?" The only thing missing was the aluminum chairs and the spotlight in my face. All disagreements were structured this way, with you above, already having the answers, and me below, forced to acquiesce to the judgement presumed. Attempts to defend myself when I felt I was unfairly accused were met with the reprimand to not "talk back," something I've internalized deeply, corrosively, finding myself drawn, in friendships and in love, to those who shout me down or laugh me out. As a result, my natural cowardice and timidity have festered for years.

You have long urged me, since childhood, to be more assertive, less passive, to stop "playing the victim," and these were not unfair or inaccurate criticisms. Like Kafka with his father, none of this is to say I blame you for the effect you've had on me and my inability to speak up. I was a timid child, easily influenced by social pressure and a need for approval, most especially from you. From my child's view I was enamored of what you seemed to represent, which I suppose is unremarkable, as sons and fathers go. Perhaps also unremarkable of fathers and sons is how elusive your approval seemed to be. There was never outright disapproval of me from you, and I always knew you "supported" me. But let's not pretend like we at times did not and do not appear alien to one another. Which is normal, healthy, so long as it's accepted, because we’re separate people, but the trouble fathers and sons get into is they each seek validation from the other—the father struggles to impose his own standards on the son and see his progeny flourish as so judged by the standards imposed, and the son seeks to establish himself as his own person, separate but unable to escape the looming shadow of his father, the son's primary model for what a person is.

One instance where I probably tried to voice an objection to your discipline, an instance where I knew the gravity of the issue you wanted to convey but disagreed that what I'd done deserved such a strong reprimand from you, was when I drew a Klansman in my notebook, being the bored and doodling 8th grade boy that I was, watching a documentary about the Klan in history class. I wasn't approving of the Klan by drawing a man in a pointed hood, but to your credit, you saw an opportunity to make clear the need to take seriously the violence and oppression that African-Americans have faced in this country, and to never trivialize symbols of that violence and hatred. (Fatefully, I was similarly firmly scolded by my mom when she saw a swastika in one of my notebooks, which is when I learned my Polish grandmother escaped the Nazis as a small child in the belly of a freight ship, traumatized by the sight of dead stowaways floating past her, and this after the death of her brother at the hands of fascist thugs.)

When the black community today raises the cry "Black Lives Matter," what they want is a reckoning from American society for the way that black life has historically been deemed disposable. Africans were ripped from their mother country, brutalized on a treacherous trans-Atlantic voyage, and sold off in a land where the climate and environment were entirely alien, their various languages as unintelligible to one another as to their masters. They were subjected to centuries of horrific slavery, whippings, rape, and familial rupture. Any who managed to escaped their bondage risked dogged, murderous pursuit by slave patrols. The de facto opponents of slavery won a civil war and slavery was abolished, and for another century black people were terrorized with lynchings by whites (who were never prosecuted), all while being denied economic opportunity and treated as less-than-second-class citizens in public spaces, not to mention suffering a complete lack of political representation. It wasn't until 1968 that the political rights of African-Americans were codified into federal law, but the mere granting of rights does nothing to address the long term devastation wrought on the black community, which built this country for free, this country that so long denied them not only equal rights and opportunity, but denied them their humanity. And to this day, black people go murdered, in broad daylight, in their cars, or while they sleep, both by the police and by others, without justice. "Black Lives Matter" needs to be said because American society does not seem to acknowledge that black life matters, despite America's lofty ideals for itself as a place of equal protection under the law. If black lives matter, then all lives matter, but not all lives matter until black lives matter.

Saying "Blue Lives Matter" is to be presented with that history, turn it around and say "Yeah, well what about us cops?" No one chooses to be black; all cops choose to be cops. If you want the profession of policing to have the respect you demand people give it, then cops should be aware what they're signing up for: a thankless, demoralizing job that answers to the public, and not the other way around. To say "My job is hard so we matter too!" when, after centuries of oppression, the black community says, "Our lives matter!" is a gross exercise in bad faith. This is why "Blue Lives Matter" is offensive, utterly bankrupt beyond the expression of resentment towards an imagined enemy. American society has no doubts about the value of the lives of police officers. What easier way is there to bring the full force of the American justice system, with a swift investigation and aggressive prosecution, than to murder a cop? The justice system has time and again demonstrated the societal value of police officers' lives. The same can not be said of black lives, which is why "Blue Lives Matter" is far more trivializing of the racism still faced by black people in America than some 13-year-old kid's drawing of a Klansman.

Part of me worries that writing this is futile, that you'll see this as another instance of me "talking back," i.e. saying what challenges your airtight prosecutor's argument. Another part of me thinks what I’m saying resonates with your bedrock American and Catholic values. After all, I had to get my principles from somewhere. But if this doesn't move you, I will rest well knowing that at the very least I'm not shutting myself up any more, and that I'll finally be coming to you as a man and not as your child, facing you squarely, head no longer bowed.

I love you.

#blm #letter

4 notes · View notes

notesfromthefielddesk · 4 years ago

Text

Episode 5 - Judith Butler

Episode link; https://open.spotify.com/episode/6yCPTlFz7uk7nhojByDwRI?si=5fc75b929803458e

John J: I bet you can guess where I am. I concluded that it was probably best for me to come back to London, tail between my legs so I can apologise. I’m up on the fourth floor of the social sciences building. When I came on the open day I saw all these old buildings in the centre of town. But of course the social science building is about twenty minutes walk away in what you might charitably call a “brutalist” building. Other people...might call it ugly. A reflection I am sure of anthropologies perceived value. Look we aren’t the law department you know lots of students and money and career paths and a separate library. But whatever I mean the quality of the education we get in this building is in my view better. I mean laws fine... if you’re into that kind of thing.

Sorry, I got off track there. My sister studied law. Good for her I guess. Anyway, you’ve seen a hallway like this one before, every few steps there's a pushpin board with some notices for psychology experiments run by undergrads and events which happened two years ago. I’m opposite a display case with books written by people from the department. There is a draft from the window behind me which is one of those single pane deals with that adhesive plastic which I assume is to stop the glass shattering? But it’s peeling away at the corners. It was a nightmare getting up here, the lift on one side of the building only goes up to the third floor, so once I got there, I had to drag the desk to the lift on the other side of the building to get up here. Then Susans office is back on the other side. So I’m sweaty and umm quite nervous about facing Susan. Who I am pretty sure hates me. I should say there is someone else waiting here, What did you say your name was;

Julie K: I didn’t, it’s Julie.

JJ: Hi, umm thanks for being quiet while i did the intro…(awkward) So what’s your research about?

JK: I’m not sure really, still at the planning phase but something about gender I think… maybe about cocoa farmers..

JJ: Like de Beauvoir? (Doesn’t leave room for an answer) But she’s not really an anthropologist?

JK: So?

JJ: So… she was a philosopher, an ethicist to be exact, that’s not really anthropology. Is it?

JK: I never even said I was using de Beauvoir.

JJ: (Not listening) Although…(goes into a spiel about de Beauvoir which I need to research) de Beauvoir did argue that the views of individuals are socially and culturally produced. She said “one is not born a woman but becomes one.” She said women are taught through social interactions three facts; 1. That women need to fulfill the needs of men. 2. Their women’s self worth was built on external validation a.k.a being pretty and 3. They have less influence because they have less legal rights. De Beauvouir said that dolls given to young girls are an example of the way girls are taught to think. She said young girls identify with the doll and through it learn to see themselves as pretty objects without their own agency, which is just a fancy way of saying choice. None of this is innate to being a woman, they aren’t born objects but made into them by society which aims to suppress them. Which is kind of like Geertz and his webs of significance. Except Geertz said you spun your own webs where as De Beauvoir seems to think society spins the webs around women trapping them in certain norms. Women, De Beauvoir said, needed to see these constructs to escape them. Like how, if a fly is in a bottle, it needs to first see the bottle to get out.

(Smug pause)

JK: Why did you just explain De Beauvoir to me?

(awkward Johnson noises)

JK: And yeah De Beauvoir is a start but like the waves of feminism built up on each other, so did the people who studied gender: so where De Beauvoir pointed out the distinction between sex and gender, Butler makes the line between them a bit fuzzy. Or.. she actually questions it. Sex, according to Butler, is not just the biological one, and gender the socially constructed one. Sex is socially constucted as well. Which people find a tricky idea right? Like, men have penises, women have vaginas, there are biological facts. But what Butler is pointing out is not about biology but about categories, and that we’re not born with sex just as we’re not born with gender. Man and woman are two really broad categories with a lot of variation within them. Women with beards, men with boobs etc. All these biological features, are features that we have grouped into categories of sexes. Remember Caster Semenya? She was the South African runner who was so fast people complained that she must be a man. She was forced to undergo sexual verification procedures which determined her to be a woman. However, it was later decided that her testosterone was too high to compete as a woman. If the binary between men and women is as clear as we’re socialised to believe then surely that would have been determined the first time around. The truth is, what we call “woman” is a collection of traits which we as a society have agreed make someone a woman. It’s like that shower realisation that maybe what we’re all agreeing is red is being experienced differently by every person! And guess what the way we’re judging whether someone is a woman is not biological, or otherwise you wouldn’t say “hello miss” till you’d seen a DNA test. It’s based on a whole bunch of other assumptions about how a woman acts and looks, which are socially constructed!

Butler said, influenced by Austin, that Gender and sex are a performance. We behave in certain ways which conform to certain categories but we don’t have a free choice in those behaviours because society has set the stage that forces us all to conform. It’s like that bit in fleabag when she says “Sometimes I worry, I wouldn’t be such a feminist if I had bigger tits.” Maybe she’s right you know like if you conform to society's ideas of femininity, like having big tits, then it’s harder to break out of the performance? So maybe you, explaining De Beauvouir to me, is you, performing your masculinity? The set dressing around you, you know your masters degree, the desk, the books, your tweed suit, Western societal expectations, inform you that you should not only be smart but demonstrate that fact by showing off that intelligence by explaining De Beauvouir. Whereas my set dressing tells me to be quiet and let you explain, despite me being the one who studies gender. Thinking about it this way, and realising the performance of it all, gives women more agency, you know, which means choice. In De Beauvoir women should not act in feminine ways because by not conforming you’re resisting patriarchy. But in Butler’s view if you’re a woman who likes make-up, more power to you, the problem is with the category that says make-up equals female.

Then, bell hooks came along and recognized that a woman’s race, political history, social position, economic status among other factors influence the way her value is perceived. And that none of these factors can be left out.

She also rightfully pointed out how the feminist movement is dominated by white women fighting for white women’s, upper class, causes. She mentions how this actually kind of imitates the power structure of white patriarchy. So that’s not good.

(Pause this was all said very breathlessly)

JK: So. I don’t really know how I’m going to approach this at first seemingly small subject of doing research about women who are cocoa farmers in a small town in Ghana, cause that’s what I think I want to do, but then I can’t just look at those women in that small town and their cocoa farms, you know? I feel like I have to think about the whole world and all the thoughts that go in that world before I can even begin to research something like that. Like, for example one part of it for me is that the domestic work these women do isn’t considered work. Which Crawford says is a function of capitalism, like before capitalism, all work which helped make sure everyone could survive, like cooking, was considered work but now work is only labour exchanged for money. She wrote that based on Marx and Engels. So do I need to read Marx now? Am I freaking out? I don’t even know anymore.

JK: I don’t know.. I think it’s important to look at feminism in an intersectional way you know..as if standing on a traffic intersection, with all kinds of different directions that influence a possible accident. The car could’ve come from just one direction, or maybe all of them! This term is coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, by the way. So you can not really study gender without studying capitalism, or race, or (post)colonial studies. Because they will intertwine and overlap and influence each other and you can’t look at one without the other. You know?!

JJ: uhh that’s a lot. Do you have, like an extract that sort of sums some of this up?

JK: Umm I mean I guess hold on (riffling paper) yeah this…

Starts to play the music

JK: Did you just put on music to go under me reading?

JJ: uh yeah - do you mind?

JK: Umm I mean, I guess not -

Music plays (here we need an extract.)

Okay, so well.. In Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (1990) Butler said that “Although the unproblematic unity of “women” is often invoked to construct a solidarity of identity, a split is introduced in the feminist subject by the distinction between sex and gender. Originally intended to dispute the biology-is-destiny formulation the distinction between sex and gender served the argument that whatever biological intractability sex appears to have, gender is culturally constructed: hence, gender is neither causal result of sex nor as seemingly fixed as sex. (…) When the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a freefloating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily a female one.”

She then continues to show that sex is just as culturally and socially constructed as gender: “If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender: indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all. It would make no sense then, to define gender as the cultural interpretation of sex, if sex itself is a gendered category (..) As a result, gender is not to culture as sex is to nature; gender is also the discursive/cultural means by which ‘sexed nature’ or ‘a natural sex’ is produced and established as ‘prediscursive’, prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts. (p.7)

She goes on about the performance of sex and gender by writing that “(..) gender proves to be performative - that is, constituting the identity it is purported to be. In this sense, gender is always a doing, though not a doing by a subject who might be said to preexist the deed. (..) There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results.’

And then bell hooks, with no capital letters by the way, or Gloria Jean Watkins, wrote in 1981, before Butler, that “It is obvious that many women have appropriated feminism to serve their own ends, especially those white women who have been at the forefront of the movement; but rather than resigning myself to this appropriation I choose to re-appropriate the term “feminism,” to focus on the fact that to be “feminist” in any authentic sense of the term is to want for all people, female and male, liberation from sexist role patterns, domination, and oppression.”

An important thing she then mentions is that “[Our] struggle for liberation has significance only if it takes place within a feminist movement that has as its fundamental goal the liberation of all people.”

This aligns with Crenshaw’s term ‘intersectionality’: “Intersectionality is a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it interlocks and intersects.”(https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality-more-two-decades-later#:~:text=Crenshaw%3A%20Intersectionality%20is%20a%20lens,where%20it%20interlocks%20and%20intersects.) “Cultural patterns of oppression are not only interrelated but are bound together and influenced by the intersectional systems of society. Examples of this include race, gender, class, ability, and ethnicity.”

JK: Hey, there are a few of us doing our research in Ghana. We leave in like a month so if you want to do your research there, other people will be around.

JJ: Oh, okay, yeah i’ll umm think about it.

(door opens)

S: (in a happy voice) Oh hello Julie, (with displeasure) John. You can come in now John, Julie I’ll be with you shortly.

JJ: Okay, Umm julie would you help me to move the desk in there?

S: Leave the fucking desk.

JJ: Can I bring my microphone?

S: Sure just, quickly yeah?

JJ: Susan

S: Johnathan

JJ: it’s actually not short for Johnathan

S: What? What else could it possibly be short for?

JJ: Johnty

S: With a h?

JJ: Yeah with a H

S: Okay...I’m going to stick with John.

JJ: First of all I just wanted to say I did some soul searching in Bali -

S: you and everyone doing a gap year.

JJ: And i’m really sorry, I want to take it seriously now and -

S: Yeah, I listened to episode 4. Do you think that does it? One episode where you say oops biffed it a bit, i’m a bad academic and maybe a misogynist then you’re done? How has your behaviour changed? Did you reply to my emails? Mark any assignments? Run a tutorial?

JJ: Well in my defence I had the epiphany after about two weeks so I missed a couple but after that I flew straight back here!

S: Look here is what is going to happen. I’ve reassigned your students and classes. I want to fire you but the department has made it clear to me that we need your fathers money.

JJ: Grandfather,

S: Shut up. So if you’re serious about taking this seriously here is what is going to happen. I want you to go away, get all this podcast shit out of your system and come back and do your job properly. To make it worth the department's time I want you to make it about Tsing. The students don’t really get what she is trying to say and i guess your podcast will be a good change of pace. And! I want a research proposal, a real one, not just (mocking voice) “desk go in field.” then come back and do your job properly okay? If you don’t you’re fired. You have a month to be back here, two podcast episodes and a proposal. Now get out.

JJ: Look I get it and I can see you’re angry. But I need you to know that if you look out the window behind you -

S: No.

JJ: But the guy he’s in the building opposite.

S: I don’t care

JJ: He has binoculars! If you’ll look you’ll know I wasn’t completely lying!

S: Even if there is a man with binoculars over there what does that prove?

JJ: He’s waving!

S: Get out.

JJ: Okay. Bye.

Credits

JJ: Okay, umm weird I just found this note in my pocket. It says “stop mentioning me on your podcast. Firstly, i’m not a bad guy just because of that Papua New Guinea stuff. Secondly, I'm meant to be undercover. And third the more you mention me the more you build anticipation for the reveal. You’re creating an untenable situation for yourself.

Yours,

K”

What the fuck!

#anthropology #feminist #podcast #transcript #arts and entertainment #arts #culture #society

0 notes

bootlegvajrayana-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Journaling

Last year: The visitation of Dakinis through my body, in the form of Yumi; that crazy witch! who haunts and loves me still in the aftermath of her blazing wisdom... ...of course, there is not exactly a ‘me’ left --> rather, there are memories and re-memberings, a sense of the aggregates of Form (this body) Sensation, Perception, Volition and Consciousness having become heaped upon with the karmic con-sequences of the sequential cons of karma.

The bliss of Samsara was exactly Awakening...

Now, there is a sense of my non-binary Being as a ‘stable’ sense of knowing, and of course this is exactly non-binary with confusion, with vacillation ‘between’ an ‘existing’ binary which needs neither navigation nor dissolution since it is already empty and not in the least bit located as Real, not in the least! *** After reading Jaron Lanier’s brilliant “Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now” I finally went ahead and deleted my account last night. So technically, today, Monday 18th June 2018 would be Day 1 of being off of Facebook. Admittedly, I am struggling a bit more with the idea of getting off of Instagram; I had already been, for some time, weaning myself off of dependency on Facebook, though it lingered in the background as a place for my voyeurism (and as a catalyst for generalised chronic social anxiety; not because I thought others had it ‘better than me’ or whatever, but only in terms of encountering the Samsaric omnipresence of rage, and wounded resentments of my already multiply-marginalised friends... I was and am no longer convinced that it was healthy for my mental health OR for our longer term political survival, despite the clearly GREAT things about the medium (e.g. that the disparate rag tag group of us might be aggregated as a network of ‘friends’ in the virtual-ised safe space of my Newsfeed and/or particular Facebook groups). Lanier’s point in his book on why we should delete our social media accounts boils down essentially to the argument that, in their existing form (particularly platforms like Facebook and Instagram), it is a zero sum game. Their business model is based off of mysterious algorithms that intend to keep their users hooked by fine-tuning our dopaminergic responses to what is shown on our feeds, while maximising the likelihood that we will click on advertising links that cater specifically to the triggered insecurities in ourselves. Given such a model, what has happened is the dangling of the carrot of ‘connectivity’ and ‘friendship’ and for that matter, the promise of popularity, a throng of fans supporting our own righteous causes, etc., while at the same time all of this being foundationally contingent on our giving our consent to being psychopolitically manipulated to remain on their platforms. Now of course, we can argue that this is no different from any other for-profit business. With one caveat: In the case of Facebook and Instagram, because of the nature of the technology, this necessarily selects not only for that which will give us the most instant pleasure, but also that which gives us the most anxiety; after all, it is the most outrageous kinds of things that will be most likely to elicit a click-bait kind of response; as a result, Truth is compromised, and knee-jerk paranoid reactivities are prioritised in terms of what ultimately gets shown through all our scrolls through... Of course, I am writing here as a racialised queer person (as a 3rd culture kid of MalaysianChineseAustralian heritage) who was networked disproportionately with other folks who experience multiple interstices of oppression; The medium is the message --> In addition to already living challenging everyday experiences, Facebook exacerbates this by normalising a kind of ‘discourse’ in which the loudest, brashest, and most extremist forms of polemic, including of those on ‘our side’ are disproportionately represented on my feed... even if it is only to trigger my emphatically reactive disagreement ... This in itself is a ludicrous manipulation of our tendencies to ethnocentrism... *** In choosing to quit Facebook, I was not and am not intending to make a comment about its being ‘all bad’; I am genuinely scared and grieving some of the aspects of what was possible for me in communication and creativity as a result of my using Facebook (e.g. instant-shares and feedback around poetry, political thoughts, etc.) that I am unlikely to find any easy replacement for. Additionally, I am aware that professional opportunities have come my way in the past because of connections through Facebook, that will now likely diminish as I have chosen this particular bridge to burn as I consider my next steps in how I want to relate more healthfully in my own constructions of truth and meaningness... The mandala of my FriendList, already meticulously parsed out according to whether I would be comfortable outing myself as trans/non-binary/femme to them as particular individuals, or whether we shared religious proclivities, whether they were people of colour like me, etc. had become unwieldly, insofar as I noticed that I was spending more of my time giving my creative and intellectual labour away on Facebook for free (self-justifying this as being about the generativity of intrinsic motivation) than I was focussing on connecting with friends in real life, and outside of the quiet safety of my own home as I have been managing a ‘social transition’ (of my gender identity ... largely, in other words, in my own head, and mediated through the gazes of those who saw me as filtered through the internet).

I have chosen to quit Facebook, because I think, in part, I would like to figure out what it might mean to go through my transition without being further influenced by those particular algorithms which root any kind of egoic investment in the conditions of anxiety, precarity, and only illusory solidarities with ‘frenemies’ who seem more eager to tear down what is disagreed with, than to lift up what is good and offer constructive feedback for what might be improved... * To be clear, I do not think that these habits are inherent in the particular individuals who may have indulged most in this kind of rhetorical battling... Facebook itself has normalised a culture of paranoia in which perfectly rational actors are, in fact, perfectly rational by operating from a baseline of battle, poised for war. After all, when it looks like hundreds of real people are espousing vile opinions and perspectives that cause genuine harm to those who encounter them, it does take a kind of heroism to speak out and speak back, and shut it down as quickly as we can... right? ...Not if, of course, in the first instance, those hundreds of horrible perspectives are actually just amplifications of pre-existing tendencies, tendencies that may themselves find their way into the habits of those on ‘our side’ ... I found myself balking at the extent to which perfectly good people, ‘friends’ (i.e. colleagues, ex-colleagues, wider-networked folks, friends of friends, etc.) wounded by the pathos of imperialism, colonisation, racism, cishetpatriarchy and so on, started to engage in the very behaviours that we denounced in our political opponents: --> Bullying --> Exaggerated polemics --> Outright lying (i.e. making up ‘facts’ that are not facts) --> Refusing accountability --> Tearing down those who try --> Calling on friends for money and business and then refusing accountability for exploitative practice I realised soon enough that there was no way any of this could be remedied through the medium ... It was the medium itself that was rewarding this --> After all, even if none of us genuinely like this, the culture of fear and paranoia it engenders creates a wolf-pack kind of situation, where it is the pile ons, the likes and the dislikes, the drama created, etc. that feeds Facebook its money, while those of us whose lives and mental health have been stirred up in addiction to the use of the platform itself are being mined for our habits of use (I am more likely to remain on Facebook if I am still-stuck angry with some shit-poster, for example, than I am if everything was already-resolved and I was already-happy with my life), and then being subjected to more and more information that would be targeted to trigger us in our (otherwise justifiable) angers and passions. *** I am only now beginning to realise how fucked up I have become from having spent so much time in my young adult life being molded by these terrible logics under neoliberalism. The paradox of capitalism, in this sense, is that I cannot now deny any of the good things that came from my use! I learned new vocabularies, was exposed to new perspectives, etc. etc. At the same time, I am now committed to engendering new ways of relating to others in my life, including investing more deeply in fewer friendships, so that I can be far less lonely and angry than I have been, and perhaps so I can stop viewing any potential friend from the perspective of how quickly I can tear them apart for something wrong they’ve done, and perhaps instead look them in the eye and allow my heart to melt a little bit before offering loving kindness that bolsters all of our humanity, in the service of a healing that is desperately needed, in this age of fascist precarities.

#3ck #racism #buddhism #Facebook #social media #fasting #truth #dharma #love

1 note · View note

onedayatatimeblog · 4 years ago

Text

Episode 1: “This Is It”

One Day at a Time

Alejandra Guzman

Key Characters in the Episode

↠ Penelope (MC): US Army Nurse Corps Veteran; single mother of two ↠ Elena: Penelope’s daughter ↠ Alex: Penelope’s son ↠ Lydia: Penelope’s mother and Elena and Alex’s grandmother ↠ Schneider: Landlord and good friend of the Alvarez family ↠ Dr. Berkowitz: Penelope’s boss at work

Episode Overview:

Penelope and Lydia try to convince Elena to have a traditional quinceañera to celebrate her 15th birthday and honor her Cuban roots (Wolfe, 2017). This conversation brings about many disagreements and perspectives on what the celebration represents. As the episode unfolds, topics about Cuban culture, expected gender roles, mental health stigma, military service, and immigration emerge. Although the family faces a series of complexities in life, as they seek to understand each other and their connection to certain things, the family realizes despite divergent viewpoints, their love and support for each other is most important. After constant debates between Elena, Penelope, and Lydia, a meaningful conversation between Elena and Penelope takes place. In which they reconcile, and afterwards Elena agrees to the have the celebration.

Race, Ethnicity, and Culture:

The entirety of the show is based on a Cuban American family’s experiences with aspects of life in America, therefore, ethnicity and culture, are continuously present. In this episode, conversations about Cuban culture are a main focus, as the family tries to convince Elena to celebrate her quinceañera. Particularly Lydia is concerned that their Cuban roots will be forgotten, as American culture dominates. In an argument about the quinceañera, Lydia says “you are throwing away your Cuban heritage” (Wolfe, 2017). The concept of heritage is very important to Lydia because it is part of the family’s identity. The comment suggests minorities in the US often struggle with keeping their roots, as children start to move away from them. Author Nadine Naber (2010) brings attention to this through an Arab lens. She writes about how transgressing parent expectations causes cultural loss, and the struggle immigrant generations face trying to strengthen cultural continuity, while adapting to American life (p. 76-77). So although heritage seems personally important to just Lydia, many immigrant families feel the same way.

This show does a good job at representing the Latinx community and the majority of the cast itself is Latinx. However, some stereotypes emerge and reinforce unrealistic ideas about the diverse ethnic groups under the umbrella term Latinx. A reinforced stereotype is that Latinx folks are loud, especially women. In this episode, the family is noisy and Penelope and Lydia do dominate conversations as they speak loudly and freely. This draws the false belief that Latinx folks are loud and always ready to celebrate. Although I do not see it as a negative stereotype, it still influences what we think about Latinx folks, so when a person does not fit this expectation, they are seen as outsiders of the culture.Furthermore, since quinceañeras are a Latinx tradition that celebrate the transition into womanhood, many assume Latinas want one. However, as in Elena’s case many girls do not see it as an important life event, nor want want one. Whitney Pow (2012) addressed how these stereotypes can be harmful. She stated that the few portrayals of certain cultures in the media are often full of stereotypes, which turn into what people expect of that specific culture, which creates a form of identity erasure (p. 84).

In this episode, the inclusion of Schneider highlights the power and privileges that come with race and even gender. In many instances, Schneider pitched in his opinion, without thinking about his position in the Alvarez family and the privilege of his culture. His presence brings attention to the unconscious implications of race. In one scene, Schneider seeks to have a conversation with Elena to convince her to have her quinceañera. Despite not having an understanding of the culture or history, he pitched in his opinion. In another scene, when Alex questions the family’s income, Schneider tries to step up to explain the situation. I think this comes to imply how white folks have privilege that makes them feel entitled to speak on behalf of things they have no personal connection to. Along with Schneider’s race, his gender also gives him privilege. And although he might not intend to come off as rude in these instances, the way he instantly interfered before Penelope could speak, shows how he unconsciously places himself in a higher position to her.

Gender & Sexuality:

In this episode, the implication is that the main characters are all cisgender. However, as the show progresses, representation of gender and sexuality diversifies. At the moment, there is a balance of male and female characters, which all seem to speak evenly. Although, the narrative is more focused on Penelope, as she is centered as the single mother dealing with the complexities of life, family, and culture. In this particular episode, many gender stereotypes emerge to reinforce ideas about gendered expectations, but also many are challenged, which demonstrates the awareness of the cast.

In the beginning, a patient at Penelope’s work sees a picture of her in an army uniform, and assumes it was a Halloween costume. This largely implies that society has not fully accepted women in military services, as it is seen as a male dominated sphere. In a later scene, a particular stereotype that stood out is the one about boys growing up to be the man of the house, when a father is absent. Alex is only a middle schooler, yet he feels he needs to grow up to be the family provider. This norm exists in many cultures, but it is very prevalent in Latinx culture because it ties into the idea of machismo. It brings a sense of manliness and pride to be able to protect and provide for your family. A way that Penelope defies this stereotype is by demonstrating that women can be providers too. She is a single working mother, and provides most of the family’s income. Penelope also raises her kids against expected gender roles. In one instance she asks both Alex and Elena to help in the kitchen, instead of reinforcing the idea that cooking and cleaning are a woman's job.

Towards the end, Elena is surprised to find out her mother has feminist views, and Penelope’s response is “I can assemble a rifle in thirteen seconds. I’m a total badass” (Wolfe, 2017). This expresses how feminist are stereotyped to be loud, obnoxious, man haters, for the abolishment of patriarchy. Which is mainly born from liberal and social feminism, as these currently have more outward expressions (Kirk, 2020, p. 9). This erases the reality, that feminist fight to address various issues and in many ways. It also suggests that to be a feminist one is suppose to be a certain way. For instance, Elena’s feminism is never questioned because of her open expressions and appearance. In regards to sexuality, Latina women are often hyper-sexualized and exoticized in the media. This is problematic because it reinforces the idea that women of color do not fit Western beauty ideals, and only certain aspects of them are desired. Whitney Pow (2012) addresses this “exoticization” as causing harm because it presents certain communities as unable to assimilate, which is untrue (p. 84). In this show, Elena is portrayed as a nerdy feminist that dresses tomboyish, which breaks away from this hyper-sexualization of Latinas, allowing her to assimilate. However, it can still be harmful because it portrays the message that if a woman of color does not seem exotic, she is not desired.

Subtle Remarks With Larger Political Implications:

Within this episode, topics brought up seem as if only relevant to some characters due to context, however, many remarks have larger implications. For instance, Penelope is prescribed antidepressants to help with her depression and PTSD from being deployed in Afghanistan. However, she is hesitant to take them because “Cubans suffer in silence” and she does not want her mother to think she is a drug addict. Later on when Lydia sees Penelope about to take the antidepressants, she says “you don’t need drugs, you need your husband” (Wolfe, 2017). This scene implies the stigma around mental illness, particularly in the Latinx community. Speaking from a Latinx perspective, often times older generations have a hard time understanding mental health, and are quick to label people as weak for resorting to taking medications. Furthermore, saying that Penelope needs her husband also implies that women need men. Lydia goes on to justify that Penelope’s husband is doing the right thing, by leaving to earn money as the provider. Although a subtle remark, it reinforces the idea that women rely on men and basically a man is all they need, as he will provide.

In another scene, Elena pretends to be her grandmother to demonstrate Lydias view on the quinceañera. Elena proceeds to say “I worked so hard to give you an opportunity in this land of the free and home of the brave” (Wolfe). This subtle remark draws attention to immigration. Lydia herself immigrated from Cuba to the US, to have a better future. The comment suggests how often individuals who face undesirable conditions in their home country, look to the US as a place of opportunities. During the end, Penelope also admits the main reason for wanting Elena to have a quinceañera was because she wanted people to say “look at the amazing single mom pulling it all together by herself” (Wolfe, 2017). Although specific to Penelope, this is an undertone of how a lot of women feel the need to prove themselves. Specifically, single mothers feel the need to go above and beyond, apart from doing a two-person job alone, just to receive some simple acceptance and validation for their efforts.

References:

Kirk, G., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (2020). Untangling the “F”-word. In Gendered Lives: Intersectional perspectives (7th ed., pp. 2-17). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Naber, N. (2010). Decolonizing Culture: Beyond Orientalist and Anti-Orientalist Feminisms.In Gendered Lives: Intersectional Perspectives (7th ed., pp. 76-83). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Pow, W. (2012). That’s Not Who I Am: Calling Out and Challenging Stereotypes of Asian Americans. In Gendered Lives: Intersectional Perspectives (7th ed., pp. 84-88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wolfe, D. (Staff Writer), & Hochman, S. (Co-Producer). (2017, January 6). This Is It (Season 1, Episode 1) [TV series episode]. In N. Lear & B. Miller (Executive Producers), One Day at a Time. Netflix.

0 notes

basicsofislam · 5 years ago

Text

ISLAM 101: Muslim Beliefs: Existence and Oneness of God Almighty: THE UNIVERSE AND GOD’S EXISTENCE

The existence of God is too evident to need any arguments. Some saintly scholars even have stated that God is more manifest than any other being, but that those who lack insight cannot see Him. Others have said that He is concealed from direct perception because of the intensity of His Self-manifestation.

However, the great influence of positivist and materialist schools of thought on science and on all people of recent centuries makes it necessary to discuss this most manifest truth. As this now-prevalent “scientific” world-view reduces existence to what can be perceived directly, it blinds itself to those invisible dimensions of existence that are far vaster than the visible.

Let us reflect on one simple historical fact: Since the beginning of human life, the overwhelming majority of humanity has believed that God exists. This belief alone is enough to establish God’s Existence. Those who do not believe cannot claim to be smarter than those who do. Among past and present-day believers are innovative scientists, scholars, researchers and, most importantly, saints and Prophets, who are the experts in the field. In addition, people usually confuse the non-acceptance of something’s existence with the acceptance of its non-existence. While the former is only a negation or a rejection, the latter is a judgment that requires proof. No one has ever proven God’s non-existence, for to do so is impossible, whereas countless arguments prove His existence. This point may be clarified through the following comparison.

Suppose there is a large palace with 1,000 entrances, 999 of which are open and one which appears to be closed. No one could reasonably claim that the palace cannot be entered. Unbelievers are like those who, in order to assert that the palace cannot be entered, confine their (and others’) attention only to the door that is seemingly closed. The doors to God’s existence are open to everybody, provided that they sincerely intend to enter through them.

The most important factor leading many, especially those under the spell of materialistic science and its worldview, to fix their eyes on the apparently closed door is causality. Causality leads to the vicious chain of cause and effect, for each cause is also an effect. Moreover, the effect is totally different from the cause. All things and effects are usually so full of art and beneficial purposes that even if all causes gathered they would be unable to produce one single thing, let alone their simple immediate causes.

In order for a cause to produce an effect, it has to be able to produce the whole universe in which that effect takes place, for that effect cannot exist without the whole universe. Nor can they exist separately. Materialist scientists imagine powerless, dependent, and ignorant causes to be responsible for the existence of beings and things, and thus fancy them to possess absolute qualities. In this way they are implying (tacitly believing) that each of those causes possesses qualities that only can be attributed to God.

However, the latest discoveries of modern science, like the universe’s unity and its parts’ inseparability, exclude the possibility of all the explanations put forward by materialistic science. They demonstrate that all entities, whether in nature or in the laws and causes attributed to them, are devoid of power and knowledge. They are contingent, transient, and dependent beings. But the properties attributed to any of these entities need infinite qualities like absolute power and knowledge.

This shows that causality is by no means necessarily linked with “objective” study or “neutral” scientific investigation. It is no more than a personal opinion. Moreover, it is an opinion that is irrational and devoid of sense.

When we study the universe, we see that all beings utterly refute the false claims of materialist and atheistic reasoning through their order, mutual relationship, and duties. They affirm that they are nothing but the property and creatures of a Single Creator. Each rejects the false notions of chance and causality, ascribes all other beings to its own Creator, and proves that the Creator has no partners. Indeed, when the Creator’s Unity is known and understood correctly, it becomes clear that nothing requires that causes should possess any power. Thus they cannot be partners to the Creator, for it is impossible for them to be so.

The universe is a document for believers to use. The Qur’an informs us that believing in God is to assent with one’s heart to the Creator with all His Attributes supported by the universe’s testimony. The true affirmation of God’s Unity is a judgment, a confirmation, an assent, and an acceptance that can find its Owner present with all things. It sees in all things a path leading to its Owner, and regards nothing as an obstacle to His Presence. If this were not the case, it would be necessary to tear and cast aside the universe in order to find Him, which is impossible for us.

The universe has been made in the form of an intelligible book so as to make known its Author. The book, which addresses humanity, seeks to make humanity read the book and its parts, and respond with worship and thanks to its Author’s will. Humanity attains to that worship by uncovering the order in the Book of the Universe through scientific study and displaying the functioning of the universe’s beings and workings.

The universe is not passive or neutral. We cannot interpret it as we wish, for there is only one correct way of looking at the world, one universal world-view common to all humanity. This view is taught to us in the Qur’an as well as in the Book of the Universe by our Creator. This means that the Qur’anic world-view recognizes that the perception of the world differs relatively from one person to another. It allows for plurality within unity so that a universal dialogue is possible. This world-view contains no fragmentation or conflict, only harmony, assistance, peace, and compassion.

The materialist scientific world-view is based on radical fragmentation, for it views nature as a mechanism with no inherent value and meaning. It isolates an object by cutting off its connections with the rest of the world, and studies it within its immediate environment.

But our perception of ourselves tells us that we are meaningful and part of the whole universe, and that everything must have a meaning and be part of the universe. Materialist science has left the subject—humanity—out of the universe and, insofar as this science is taking over, people feel that they have no place in this world. Thus they are isolated and live lives without meaning, except in a very limited, egoistic sense. People are alienated from their environment and from themselves.

The universe is an inseparable whole. Indeed, the unity observed in its totality, including humanity, is so clear that no one can deny it. Thus the materialistic approach to the scientific method has to be reconsidered. This method is reductionist, for it reduces everything to fragments and then attributes each fragment to causes. But in reality, all things are interconnected and interdependent, for it is impossible to attribute anything, however small, to causes that are themselves transient and contingent. Since whatever is responsible for one thing must be responsible for everything, we cannot have one thing without the whole.

Why can we ascribe a thing to its antecedents in time but not to its neighbors in space? Why should a thing be able to produce another thing just because it happened before? All modern scientists know that space and time are fully equivalent and unified into a four-dimensional continuum in which both “here” and “there” and “before” and “after” are relative. In this four-dimensional space, the temporal sequence is converted into a simultaneous co-existence, the side-by-side existence of all things. Thus causality appears to be an idea limited to a prejudiced experience of the world.

Causality does have some meaning. Opposites are mingled in this world: truth with falsehood, light with darkness, good with evil, white with black, and so on. Since people have ingrained inclinations toward both good and evil, they are tested in this world to determine whether they will use their free will and other faculties in the way of truth and good or otherwise

Divine Wisdom requires that the veil of causes and laws be drawn before Divine Power’s operations. If God had willed, He could train the planets with His “Hands” in a way observable by us or let visible angels administer them. Then we would not be speaking of the laws of causes involved, such as gravitation. Or, in order to communicate His Commandments, God could speak to each person directly without sending any Prophets, or could write His Name with stars in the sky in order to compel us to believe in His Existence and Oneness. But in this case, humanity’s earthly existence would not be an arena of trial that pushes us to new developments and discoveries in science and technology, thereby enabling us to remove one veil more from the meaning of existence.

Like a mirror’s two sides, existence has two aspects or dimensions: one visible and material, known as the Realm of Opposites and (in most cases) Imperfections, and the transparent, pure, and perfect spiritual realm. The material dimension must—and does—contain events and phenomena that appear disagreeable to us. Those who cannot perceive the Divine Wisdom behind all things may even criticize the Almighty for those disagreeable events and phenomena. To prevent that, God uses natural laws and causes to veil His acts. For example, so that we do not criticize God or His Angel of Death for the loss of our beloved ones or our own death, God places diseases and natural disasters (among other “agents” or “causes”) between Himself and death.

On account of this world of testing and trial’s essential imperfection, we encounter and suffer from many deficiencies and shortcomings. In absolute terms, every event and phenomenon is good and beautiful in itself or in its consequences. Whatever God does or decrees is good, beautiful, and just. Injustice, ugliness, and evil are only apparent or superficial and arise from humanity’s errors and abuses. For example, although a court may pass an unjust sentence on you, you should know that Destiny permits that judgment because of a crime that you are hiding. Whatever befalls us is usually the result of self-wronging, an evil that we ourselves have done. However, those who lack the necessary sound reasoning and judgment to understand the Divine Wisdom behind events and phenomena may impute directly to God the apparent ugliness or evil, imperfections and shortcomings, experienced in worldly life, even though God is absolutely free of any defect or imperfection.

Therefore, so that people do not ascribe any ugliness or evil to God, His Glory and Grandeur require that natural causes and laws be a veil before His acts, while belief in His Unity demands that those causes and laws should not be ascribed to any kind of creative power.

If God Almighty acted in the world directly, and not through causes and laws, we would be unable to develop scientific knowledge or live even an instant of a happy life free of fear and anxiety. We can observe and study patterns in phenomena thanks to God’s acting from behind natural causes and laws. Otherwise, each event would be a miracle. The regularity within the flux and mutability of events and phenomena makes them comprehensible to us, and so awakens within us the desire to wonder and reflect, which is a principal factor in establishing science. For the same reason, we are able to plan and arrange our future affairs to some degree. Just consider how life would be if we did not know whether the sun would rise tomorrow!

Whoever owns such attributes as beauty and perfection desires to know them and make them known. God owns absolute beauty and perfection and is independent of all things. He also owns a holy, transcendent love and thus a sacred desire to display His Beauty and Perfection. If He showed His Names and Attributes directly, without the “medium” of causes and laws, we could not endure them. He manifests them as he does and by degrees within the confines of time and space so that we can connect with them, reflect on them, and perceive them. The gradual manifestation of Divine Names and Attributes is also a reason for our curiosity and wonder about them.

7 notes · View notes

uncommonsensetherapy · 4 years ago

Text

reinventing selfishness

A yogi by lifestyle, my intentions are to replicate the healing effects yoga has had on my body to as many people as possible. Through yoga I learned mindful awareness, a state of internal bliss as well as unifying understanding to be the keys to clearing chaotic connections within our body. Here I merely hope to offer awareness to the etymology of the word selfish to help us build healthier connections with our body, mind and soul that clear duality around the term.

I have been thinking about this article for well over three years, letting life guide me through what I needed to be able to write it at the depth my heart felt it - knowing deep inside that we as a culture need to reinvent the way we look at selfishness. So many good people suffer inside because of this word - selfish -that they learned defines their inherent capacity to receive love at a very early age. Many religions and parenting styles teach that we must shame children in order for them to be responsible for their actions. On the contrary, others go radically in the other direction, glorifying ego in a way that makes it seem dirty.

As people, we seem to be stuck in a pendulum swing between ego-abolition and ego-aggrandizement, failing to see the healthy, happy medium in-between the divide. While the battles of life destroy the middle ground, it seems many of us have either forgotten that it’s still there or given up hope that it will ever be a stable, nourishing ground to grow harmonious community and people within.

We know in yoga that we must be calm in order for the souls of this plane to harmonize with their environment in a stable way. The ancient texts speak up-and-down on chaos and its inevitability to cause reactions within us if we do not train ourselves on mindfully responding instead. Unfortunately, this requires us to be very selfish - so full of ourselves that we spend much time with ourselves learning who we are, why we are, and what we are in the raw.

As a yoga professional for seven years, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard that yoga is for rich white women with nothing better to do. I also cannot tell you how deeply scarring that was to hear every single time - not because I believe it, but because I understand all perspectives of it and how dastardly it is for us to throw shade on what so many people have found in this practice, let alone the enlightenment it sheds throughout the world.

I want you to be selfish - so selfish you learn to stay with your heart in every, single moment and make every, single person uncomfortable with it triggered because of how jealous they are you’re willing to choose yourself. My deepest heart hopes you become so selfish you choose faith over your religion - faith that whatever you believe in believes in you, speaks with you, and loves you so much that it would never want you or anyone else to stay in pain. If you become so selfish you learn to heal yourself from the inside-out, I support it, 100%.

The Etymology of Selfish

The term selfish was coined by the Presbyterians in the 1630s during a time of conservative proliferation but didn’t find its way into the mainstream until atheist Richard Dawkins wrote his book “The Selfish Gene” in 1976, which talked about biological inheritance and genes within us that cause beings of life to be selfish, or largely desire personal replication. Dawkins writes: let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs.

Now I should state I have no intention on shading either religion nor anti-religion, rather intend to gently shade the chaos arguments against anything cause so we can focus on the light that becoming aware of both helps shed on what’s going on at a larger level - beyond the politics, let’s say.

Looking at the man behind the words before we abolition or aggrandize his offering, Richard Dawkins lives his life to proliferate his ideals while stating this - believing science to be a better source of understanding for the world over religion when it comes to understanding life. No shade! That’s great - I hope he lives to light up the world for perspectives like his that heal within that belief.

What’s ironic to me here is that Mr. Dawkins fails to see that even science proves you must see from the perspective of the observer to understand what they are going through before denying their claims. Science also understands the placebo effect to be a real thing - our beliefs healing us. What if some people can heal themselves with their mind and others can’t? Are the gullible ones more or less fortunate? Who says what’s really healing them? And does it matter if in the end both sides are being healed as they desire?

If we live in a world of multiple perspectives - here discussing a world of believers and of knowers - the world must be created to support both for both to live harmoniously together, period. There cannot be a right and a wrong way of doing things rather a way to go right into knowledge and a way to go left into belief. The reality is, if both are present, both are available to be explored by the people thus most people will have a mix of both components within themselves. There’s enough diversity to feed the masses healthy food if health ever becomes the priority over diversity.

Analyzing Our Own Selfishness

How do videos like the one below make you to feel inside, for better or worse?

If you struggle with the word selfish, you may be irritated, bothered, or otherwise triggered in a negative way by these kind of social posts. This exploration of oneself may make no sense to you so much it feels like nonsense, but is it? Or is it merely a modern expression of our genetics?

Our biology influences us to replicate - to spread our influence. While it used to be more physically-oriented - wanting to have power over large populations and create large families - it’s grown more viral in our day-and-age with our awareness of these urges. Now we tend to post our replications and feel like we are doing a good job when people view it and especially when they like it.

What if, as a selfish individual soul, this person believes she came here to explore the body? To empower others to love themselves - as they are - even if who they are wants to feel more beautiful with a digital filter? To spread the influence of self love in this unique way? What if that’s what we are all doing? What if those of us who aren’t sharing aren’t because they don’t care? Is everyone not doing exactly what they selfishly believe best to be loving?

Ayurveda helped me to understand that what each of us needs to be healthy is very, very different and won’t look the same for everyone. Thinking of touch alone - a vata (or anxious) person craves pressured touch while a pitta (or angsty) person cares less about pressure specifically and more about the intention from where the touch is coming from. A kapha (or lethargic) person prefers it gentle. For each of these states, these preferences are most healing.

An Ayurvedic Take on Selfishness

I am selfishly passionate about Ayurveda because it helps me be selfish enough to prioritize taking care of myself, which has been revolutionary in my healing. As someone who fought most of my life to not be selfish, I came to realize the biggest thing it did was create a very unhealthy connection with my own body as well as other bodies taking care of themselves.

How could he/she be so selfish, spending so much of their time on themselves? I won’t be like that! I will only give myself what I need. Unfortunately, we like to think we only need food, shelter and water, but what we also need is warmth. We need to feel warm inside our bodies to want to go inside our bodies, and, unfortunately, running away from or resisting being selfish only causes us to go fiery or cold, which in Ayurveda we know turns us aggressive, anxious, exhausted and/or detached.

On the other hand, just accepting we are all selfish is liable to turn us a bit greedy. We call these imbalanced states vata, pitta, and kapha in Ayurveda and they are the primary focus of healing momentary imbalances or dis-eases in the body. So is there a healthy way for us to live with our selfish gene? Of course.

It all comes back to awareness, bliss and understanding. The Ayurvedic approach helps us to understanding by connecting us with our primary imbalances - are we more manic and anxious about life than feels healthy? More intense and aggressive? More passive and greedy? Do any of these words trigger us from wanting to identify with them? Do we feel all of them?

Through Ayurveda we understand mania and anxiety tend to be our primary imbalances in modern times but that most of us are imbalanced in all ways. Unless we are consciously choosing our health, modern life throws us off-balance just by living in the circus. We are all selfish, and it’s honestly a good thing. We are all also different, so we have to be selfish in order to understand those differences and mindfully acclimate them into our environments.

I could talk for days on Ayurveda and it’s wonderful, countless benefits. Here’s a three and a half hour training powerpoint I use to teach yoga teachers, check it out to learn more about Ayurveda and how it helps us to become mindfully selfish people who can balance our knowledge and our beliefs within. There’s all kinds of links at the bottom for you to take quizzes to learn your imbalances, how to heal them, and what it all basically means / where it came from.

#selfish #selfie #self centered #ayurveda #dosha #vata #pitta #kapha

0 notes

comebeforegod · 6 years ago

Text

Why Are There Over 2, 000 Christian Denominations? It’s Because …

By Li Meng

Hello brothers and sisters of Find the Shepherd!

All over the whole world, the believers in Jesus have been divided into many denominations. In mainland China alone, there is the Justification by Faith, the Charismatic Church, the Shouters, the Great Praise Church, the Three Grades of Servants Church, the True Jesus Church, and so on.

I can’t understand it. Since we all believe in the Lord Jesus and read the same Bible, why do so many denominations appear? Can we gain the Lord’s approval by believing in the Lord this way?

Li Meng

Hello Sister Li Meng,

Your questions touch on very practical issues. Most brothers and sisters are also confused about this. With regard to this aspect of truth, we’d like to first fellowship how the various denominations come into being.

Different denominations arise because of people’s one-sided understanding of the Bible and their arrogant nature.

We believers in the Lord all know Christianity came into being as a result of the work of the Lord Jesus, and originally was personally led and shepherded by Him. At that time, the followers wouldn’t deviate from the right way and thus there were no divisions. But after the Lord Jesus ascended to heaven and His disciples and apostles passed away, different denominations gradually appeared. Why did these denominations form? Let’s look at what God’s words say and we’ll understand. God says: “People have studied the Bible for all these years, they have come up with so many explanations, and put in so much work; they also have many differences of opinion about the Bible, which they debate endlessly, such that over two thousand different denominations have been formed today.”

From God’s words we can see that the main reason for different denominations being formed is because the people who believe in the Lord have their own one-sided understanding of the Bible. We all know that the Lord Jesus left when He finished the work of crucifixion, and then the followers of the Lord Jesus began to spread His gospel. Because the followers of God don’t have a pure understanding of the teachings in the Bible, many of them take their one-sided understanding of the Bible as doctrines for establishing a church, and hold on tight to them. For example, some people took the words of Paul: “For with the heart man believes to righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made to salvation” (Rom 10:10), then they created the Justification by Faith; some people adhere to the words of the Lord Jesus: “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat: 4:17), and they think the “Repentance Denomination” is what is most in line with the Lord’s will. Every denomination has its own one-sided understanding of the Bible. Furthermore, people have the satanic dispositions of arrogance, conceit, self-rightness, self-importance etc. They think that they have gifts and erudition, that their understanding of the Bible is the purest, and that only they are right. Therefore, they strongly deny or judge others’ opinions, and show off by explaining the Bible’s teachings. They draw a group of people around themselves and set up a denomination for themselves. This is how denominations arise. For two thousand years, because of different doctrines Christians have debated endlessly and formed new denominations; they attack, despise, argue with and exclude each other, and can never be united as one. This is how one church developed into over two thousand denominations. From this we can see that the establishment of denominations comes from humans. It is not what the Lord Jesus requires, nor is it in accordance with God’s will at all.

People in organized religions who believe in God will be entrapped by people, will worship and follow people, and will never understand the truth or know God.

From the cause of the formation of the different denominations, we can see that religious leaders all rely on their own understanding of the Bible to do work and preach, rather than following the Lord’s teachings to serve God. Then what’s the substance of their work? What will be the consequences if we join such denominations to believe in God? God’s words say: “Pastors and leaders in the religious world, for example, rely on their gifts and positions to do their work. People who follow them for a long time will be infected by their gifts and be influenced by some of what they are. They focus on people’s gifts, abilities and knowledge, and they pay attention to some supernatural things and many profound unrealistic doctrines (of course, these profound doctrines are unattainable). They do not focus on changes to people’s disposition, but rather they focus on training people’s preaching and working abilities, improving people’s knowledge and rich religious doctrines. They do not focus on how much people’s disposition is changed or how much people understand the truth. They do not concern themselves with the substance of people, much less try to know people’s normal and abnormal states. They do not counter people’s notions or reveal their notions, much less mend their deficiencies or corruptions. Most of the people who follow them serve by their natural gifts, and what they express is knowledge and vague religious truth, which are out of touch with reality and are completely unable to confer people with life.”

From God’s words we know that religious leaders and pastors all rely on theological knowledge and doctrines to do work and preach. They don’t resolve the believers’ various improper views about belief in God or their corruptions. For example, in the midst of the attacks and arguments among different denominations, the pastors all insist that their opinions are right and others’ are wrong. They never reflect on their own deviations or errors, nor do they know that they are revealing their arrogant disposition. And they certainly don’t communicate God’s will to help believers know God. Instead, they always avoid practical issues and just talk about empty theories. Their fellowshiping has nothing to do with getting rid of the bondage of sin; they just want to display their talent and how blessed they are, and show off their theological knowledge and theories. Once the believers have listened to the pastors for a long while, they are inevitably affected and influenced by them. They adore the pastors’ talent and how blessed they are, admire them for being eloquent and good at talking, wish that they could also have rich biblical knowledge, and be good at talking, preaching and spreading the gospel like the pastors so that they can also win the envy and admiration of others. As a result, they no longer pay attention to putting God’s words into practice or trying to figure out God’s intentions, but just follow the ceremonies and regulations. As such, religious believers are just like the people who believed in God in the temple at the end of the Age of Law, unable to enjoy the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus, no matter how many years they have believed in God, they cannot understand the truth or know God, and their disposition doesn’t change. So, the substance of believing in God in a religious context is merely worshiping and following human leaders but not truly following God.

Leave religion, keep pace with God’s work, and return before God.

It is recorded in the Bible that: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it” (Isa 2:2).

God’s words say: “Bring … people throughout every religion and denomination, under the dominion of one God. Regardless of what religion you belong to, ultimately you will all submit under the dominion of God. Only God Himself can carry out this work; it cannot be done by any religious head. There are several major religions in the world, and each has its own head, or leader, and the followers are spread across different countries and regions all over the world; every country, be it large or small, has different religions within it. However, regardless of how many religions there are across the world, all people within the universe ultimately exist under the guidance of one God…. All things are in the hands of the Creator, and in the end they will all return to the hands of the Creator. Mankind was originally made by God, and regardless of the religion, every person will return under the dominion of God—this is inevitable.”

From God’s words we can see that in the late period of the last days, all religions will become one and all peoples will return to the house of God. In the last days, God needs to undertake a stage of work of saving mankind so that all those who truly yearn for the appearance of God can hear God’s voice, leave their denominations and return before God. This work cannot be done by anyone but God Himself. God can create us, lead us, and moreover, bring us to a glorious destination—this is the symbol of God’s authority, as well as the symbol of His unique disposition, which cannot be replaced by any religious figure or leader. There are over two thousand denominations in the world, but they were all established by humans. The sheep of God will finally walk away from the denominations and return under the dominion of the Creator, and it is thus that all denominations will become one. This is the work that God intends to accomplish in the last days. No matter how much status the pastors and elders have, they are all people corrupted by Satan. They can’t even save themselves, so how can they save others? Only the one true God who rules over all things can save us from the affliction of Satan and guide us to come before Him. Now is the time of the last days, and many people are testifying that the Lord Jesus has returned. We should let go of our notions, leave religion, and search for God’s work and words of the last days. This is the choice of a wise person.

#Devotionals #Spiritual Life #Crucial Questions

0 notes

midgetmeredith · 8 years ago

Note

hi~ i read your about page where you said you might write up your reasons for not liking some ft ships like the whole debate with fraxus/miraxus & chendy/rowen but i couldn't find anything on it on your blog so i wondered what were your thoughts on that? i know there's fandom arguments about homophobia and crackshipping there too. i’m a multishipper but i really like your anti posts for naruto so i thought if you had any ft ones then they might be as good! �

Thank you! I’m really glad youthat like my Naruto posts. They’re pretty controversial, so nice commentsare always appreciated! 😅 Dude, I haven’t updatedby ‘about’ page in months, so doing that write-up completely passedmy mind… Thanks for being interested though! I guess I’ll spill:

Right, this might be quitecontroversial, so remember that any opinions expressed are just personalpreferences/reasons, okay? ⚠️

Like I said on my page, “Ihave a ‘manga > anime’ complex thanks to Studio Pierrot, so I only readFT. I wanted to avoid filler brainwashing, bias and only know of canon withthis series, after the mess with Naruto…” Therefore, I only really ship thatwhich I believe is substantially depicted/suggested in canon, and kind of havea bit of a pet peeve for anything outside of that.[ #1 justificationdisclaimer! ]

( 1 ) Mir/axus [ &Fraxus ]

So I was genuinelysurprised that Mir/axus was even a thing when I started searching the fandom’s tag, onceI’d caught up. I don’t know if they’ve been implied in filler, but theywere non-existent as a romantic pair in the manga. Honestly, theyhardly had any on-panel interaction… Like, the only evidence that came tomind for “logical” reasoning behind them was chapter 380’s cover art.(Maybe 329’s, at a push.) I even tried to find somesupposed “moments” under their Wikia page, but that listed was merelyscarce interaction with no romantic subtext; each synopsis was pretty muchgrasping for straws.

Here’s the thing –you mentioned the fandom discourse of “homophobic” accusations,right? Now, I too hate when shippers (in any fandom) cry that simplybecause others don’t ship a queer pairing. Like, c’mon. But, inthis case (and Wendy’s), I must admit that I do find it somewhatrelevant… Idk if this ship’s popularity (and, more so, acceptance alongsidethe actual semi-canon pairs) is because most have been influenced byexternal material or if it’s just because there’s no other member of the opposite sex that they’re paired with, but Fraxus was actually suggested in canon; emphaticallyfrom Freed’s point of view! Even on Laxus’ side, numerous chapters have moments that – here’s the thing – anyone would undeniablyaccept if either Freed or Laxus were female*.

[ My earlier volumes are enclosed in my bookcase, but I have 49 – 57 (Avatar – Alvarez) on-hand beside my bed, so I skimmed through to find (max.) five pages to evidence Laxus’ P.O.V. ‘cause this post will already be long enough. ]

Chapter 416: “At this rate, I won’t be able to protect what’s important to me.”

It’s also worth noting that the official tankōbon/volume translation of this reads: “I’m not strong enough to protect the people I love yet.”

Chapter 460.

Chapter 462: “But that ain’t important now. All I’ve got on my mind… Is bringing the pain to the bastard who took out Freed and the others.”

Chapter 472: “So you’re the one who did a number on Freed and the others?”

Chapter 473: “Thanks a lot, Freed… There’s no wizard that could break your spells…”

*That’s the key consideration – that if you were to replace either’s gender for that of the opposite sex, it changes how these scenes are perceived. These panels, for example, are dismissed by those who oppose Fraxus, but they would be regarded as “ship moments” and a validation of Laxus’ affection if you were to replace Freed’s name in the dialogue and/or presence in the panels with a female (Mira)!

That’s why I can kind ofunderstand these claims, ’cause the existence and general fandomacceptance of these ships is very heteronormative in that respect (i.e.ignoring present queer pairings for heterosexual ‘crack-ships’) which makes it kind of discriminatory; reminiscent of homophobia perhaps. Although, I agree that term is a little extreme, as it doesn’t seem intentionally prejudiced. And whilst Freed is emphatically portrayed as queer, Laxus’ sexualityis a little more implicit, yet he is assumed straight by default… It’sironic/hypocritical because the majority of ships across all fandoms are typically founded upon onecharacter’s feelings, whilst neither Mira nor Laxus have shown said romanticinterest in each-other.

( 2 ) Ro/Wen [ &Chendy ]

Again, I hate Ro/Wen dueto a similar reasoning. Finding out that they even existed as a ship wasbaffling, tbh! I mean, at least Mir/axus had the cover as some rationale,but Ro/Wen is based solely on them being the same age… Talk aboutheteronormative? Also, technically, that’s an incorrect claim, due to the sevenyear time-skip in which she remained frozen. Like, she’s actually thesame age as Sting & Rogue. But you don’t find her forced with them. Why,because they’re older and that’s frowned upon? You know, despite the samepremise applying to Ro/Wen; since Romeo was half Wendy’s age when she wasintroduced (6 & 12).

The ship can’t even besupported with evidence, since they had no significant canoninteraction until the Alvarez Arc. Their only other contact was in an omake.Yet their age difference is evident in both; dismissing any reach atromantic subtext. In the omake, Romeo refers to Wendy as “nee[-chan]”.Similarly, she is presented comforting him like a child in their limited Alvarez panels, with him lookingup to her as that same sister figure. I have seen some of these shippers disregard Chendy asbeing “platonic”, when Romeo and Wendy’s dynamic isactually – canonically and strictly – such.

Chendy, however, do have asubstantial, visibly and literally present, mutual bond. They have extensive,plentiful interaction, as well as actually present romanticsubtext… I know that it may be difficult for (I guess) anyone outside of theLGBT+ community or a truly ‘open’ one to understand, due to ourheteronormative society – as Chendy are often disregarded as “justfriends” (🙄) – but many of theirmoments transcend platonic affection and bear intense likeness to theother romantic pairs’ depictions. For example, they are also featuredalongside the semi-canon couples in art-work, like Mashima’s couple sketches onTwitter.

Not to mention thatfriendship is the foundation of any healthy, romantic relationship! Of coursethey’re going to be best friends before engaging in such, particularly in thecase of same-sex pairs. Yet no-one uses this dialogue (of labellingeach-other as “friends”) against NaLu, despite them stating the otheras that same description on numerous occasions. But despite the justification mentioned above,Chendy are still dismissed. Again, if either were the male, it would be a completely different situation… I mean, since people shipcharacters based solely on covers and all – chapter 421’s cover (amongothers)?

Summary:

Obviously there’s nothingwrong with crack-shipping! And, no, not liking a queer pair [more than astraight one] doesn’t make you “homophobic”. But – in the case ofFraxus 🆚 Mir/axus& Chendy 🆚 Ro/Wen –I think that there is something kind of messed up with arrogantly defying acharacter’s canon depicted/suggested sexuality and/or romantic interest(s).There is something somewhat discriminatory about disregarding theirother prevalent, significant and actually developed bonds, to the extent that someone’sheteronormativity is so severe that they substitute a same-sex character foran irrelevant one of the opposite sex, who does not even have decentinteraction with the character in question; fabricated entirely from theridiculous, inaccurate [R/W] rationale of them being “the same age” or merelysharing a chapter cover.

That sounds much harsherthan I intended, I’m so sorry! Btw, I don’t blame shippers –everyone is (obviously) allowed to ship what they want! What’s stated above issimply why I’m against Mir/axus and Ro/Wen, especially as an avidsupporter of the LGBTQ+ community, a bisexual myself and a university scholar who has studied/written about this field.

[ I’ve updated by ‘about’ page now too, btw! ]

#fraxus #chendy #anti miraxus #anti rowen #fairy tail #fairy tail text #answered #pro fraxus #pro chendy

116 notes · View notes

focusontheeasternlightning-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Why Are There Over 2, 000 Christian Denominations? It’s Because …

By Li Meng

Hello brothers and sisters of Find the Shepherd!

All over the whole world, the believers in Jesus have been divided into many denominations.

In mainland China alone, there is the Justification by Faith, the Charismatic Church, the Shouters, the Great Praise Church, the Three Grades of Servants Church, the True Jesus Church, and so on. I can’t understand it. Since we all believe in the Lord Jesus and read the same Bible, why do so many denominations appear? Can we gain the Lord’s approval by believing in the Lord this way?

Li Meng

Hello Sister Li Meng,

Different denominations arise because of people’s one-sided understanding of the Bible and their arrogant nature.

People in organized religions who believe in God will be entrapped by people, will worship and follow people, and will never understand the truth or know God.

Leave religion, keep pace with God’s work, and return before God.

That’s a bit of our understanding. We hope it can bring you some help. If you have any other questions, you are welcome to write to us again.

Sincerely yours,

Find the Shepherd!

#Devotionals #Spiritual Life #Crucial Questions

0 notes