#or how influential it can be for a wider population

[lymooniee]

It really is sad seeing how masculinity is shamed for when it comes to being nonbinary or within the queer community. Like I saw a twitter post about someone who was shaming another nonbinary person because they are masculine and are really fit, yet because they weren't feminine or androgynous enough and leaned more masculine that led to people attacking them. It's like-- nonbinary people don't have to appear any certain way for you?? That isn't the point of being nonbinary, like at all. AMAB nonbinary people who wish to be masculine presenting exist and same for AFAB nonbinary people who want to present themselves as masculine also exist. Let people be, their gender or how they identify themselves doesn't align with how they look. Let them present themselves however they would like too.

[despazito]

what is type drifting in dogs and what does it have to do with the chow?

It's a contentious topic, type drifting refers to the general appearance of a breed changing over time.

I should clarify that it's disingenuous to assert that dogs inherently had better structure 100 years ago, we definitely know more medically and genetically about how dogs work now than we did back then. i'll sometimes see old photos of dogs whose heads i find very pleasing but the postcranial structure is an inharmonious mess (and it's not about what 'looks' right aesthetically, the way joints are arranged decides how efficiently a dog can move which can have some big impacts on working ability and quality of life). we can thank good breeders for smoothing out a lot of those imbalances in their dogs. You know when you see a funny shelter dog that has the proportions of 3 different animals cobbled together? It is the work of breeders that purebreds as a general rule don't have that structural funkiness going on.

Over the years the desired "type" of dogs within a breed becomes standardized (after all the word conformation literally derives from "to conform"), so the population settles for a desired direction to take their breed in. The controversy starts when for whatever reason, usually a variety of factors such as judge preference, breeder preference, whose kennel is bigger or more influential in a given area, etc... that you can see desirable physical appearance drift towards certain traits over others throughout the decades.

These changes can be structurally harmless, the roman nose of the bull terrier doesn't cause any dysfunction and boils down to personal preference of what folks think a perfect bull terrier should look like. Other changes can pose more harm, such as the preference for a french bulldog to have a completely flat face+meaty neck+wider skull+pinched nostrils together creates a dog much more prone to breathing issues.

As a trend though I do feel like a handful of breeds have drifted towards a cobbier build, reduced muzzle length, a more domed head shape, more skin, and more bone. which like, isn't inherently cruel or anything, but i think we should ask ourselves why some dogs are drifting that direction because there also isn't anything to be gained from it beyond aesthetic preference.

Chow chows have gotten quite a bit meatier and stockier, here's some top chows of 2024

compared to prized chows at the turn of the 20th century when they were still novel dogs to the west, there's definitely structural differences and the dogs just looked more moderate overall.

I think where folks get confused is that it's not so much saying that meatier chow are all diseased and should cease to exist, we can still have those chows (within moderation lol), it's the frustration people like me have that the old type champion dogs if shown today would not get praised as good looking chows even though they're still purebred chows and there's nothing wrong with them! I wish clubs were more flexible in this way and were more openminded on what a purebred should look like so long as the dogs are healthy. And i don't believe drawing a line in the sand to call it a different breed is the solution either because on average purebred populations are in need of more gene flow.

How this ties in to china is that chow chow originated in china. the meatier and western type chows can be found there but so can the more moderate old type that has become harder to source from a western breeder nowadays. When you search chow chow on chinese social media (i can't read mandarin but i've copy pasted various terms from chinese dog sources) you will find a more diverse range of dogs. there are dogs that look closer to the ancestral landrace songmao, more western-style dogs, and a wide spectrum of stuff in between (unfortunately extreme breeding happens over there too, i've seen dogs with CRAZY amounts of skin that are even more exaggerated than western type).

If you're like me and have a strong preference towards the old style of chow and the native songmao i think you can understand why we have some strong opinions on the direction that western lines went lol. I'm just absolutely in love with these guys that you can still find in china, I want to meet some so bad!!

(songmao dogs)

[adeepdive]

A Deep Dive

In the ever-evolving landscape of digital content, Tumblr has carved out a unique niche as a haven for creatives. Among the myriad of blogs that populate this platform, those focused on aesthetic photography and visual arts have emerged as some of the most popular and influential. These blogs are not only visually captivating but also serve as powerful tools for personal expression, community building, and even brand development. This article explores the rise of aesthetic photography and visual arts on Tumblr, offering insights into what makes these blogs so compelling and how they contribute to the broader digital ecosystem.

Aesthetic Photography: A Visual Language of Its Own

Aesthetic photography on Tumblr is defined by its focus on beauty, mood, and emotion. Unlike traditional photography that often prioritises technical precision, aesthetic photography is more concerned with the overall feel and atmosphere of an image. This genre often features minimalistic compositions, soft colour palettes, and an emphasis on natural light. Common subjects include landscapes, urban scenes, and everyday objects, all captured in a way that evokes a sense of serenity and introspection.

One of the key reasons for the popularity of aesthetic photography on Tumblr is its ability to convey complex emotions without the need for words. In a world saturated with information, these images offer a moment of pause, inviting viewers to immerse themselves in the visual experience. The images often tell a story or evoke a memory, making them deeply personal to both the creator and the audience.

The Power of Visual Storytelling

Visual arts blogs on Tumblr often go hand-in-hand with aesthetic photography. These blogs curate and share a wide range of visual content, including digital illustrations, graphic designs, and mixed media art. The content is typically arranged in a cohesive and visually pleasing manner, often following specific colour schemes or themes. This level of curation transforms a simple blog into a work of art in itself, making it a destination for those seeking inspiration and creativity.

One of the most significant aspects of these blogs is their ability to tell stories through visuals. Whether it’s a series of photographs capturing the changing seasons or a collection of illustrations depicting a personal journey, these blogs use images to convey narratives that resonate with their audience. This form of storytelling is particularly powerful on a platform like Tumblr, where users are encouraged to engage with content through likes, reblogs, and comments. The interactive nature of Tumblr allows these visual stories to reach a wider audience, creating a sense of community among those who share similar tastes and interests.

Community and Collaboration

Aesthetic photography and visual arts blogs on Tumblr have fostered a strong sense of community. Creators and followers alike engage in conversations about techniques, inspirations, and the meaning behind the art. This collaborative environment encourages learning and growth, making Tumblr a valuable resource for both aspiring and established artists.

Moreover, these blogs often serve as platforms for collaboration. Artists from different backgrounds and disciplines come together to create joint projects, whether it’s a photography series, a zine, or even a virtual exhibition. These collaborations not only enrich the content but also help artists expand their reach and gain exposure to new audiences.

SEO and Brand Development

For artists and photographers looking to establish a brand, Tumblr offers a unique opportunity to build a following organically. By consistently posting high-quality content and engaging with the community, creators can increase their visibility and attract potential clients or collaborators. SEO plays a crucial role in this process, as optimising posts with relevant tags and descriptions can significantly improve a blog’s discoverability.

Tags such as “aesthetic photography,” “visual art,” “minimalism,” and “digital illustration” are essential for reaching the right audience. Additionally, using descriptive captions and alt text not only improves accessibility but also enhances search engine ranking, making the content more likely to appear in relevant searches.

Conclusion: The Future of Aesthetic Blogs on Tumblr

As digital culture continues to evolve, aesthetic photography and visual arts blogs on Tumblr are likely to remain influential. These blogs offer more than just visual appeal; they provide a space for creativity, community, and personal expression. Whether you’re an artist looking to share your work, a brand seeking to connect with a creative audience, or simply a lover of beautiful visuals, Tumblr’s aesthetic photography and visual arts blogs offer something for everyone.

In a world where visual content reigns supreme, these blogs are not just a trend—they are a testament to the enduring power of art and the human desire to create and connect. As the platform continues to grow and adapt, one thing is certain: the aesthetic movement on Tumblr is here to stay, and it will continue to inspire and influence for years to come.

[webee-systems]

What Is Social Media Marketing? An In-Depth Analysis!

Social media marketing, or SMM, stands out as a rapidly growing and influential area of digital marketing, enabling businesses to flourish globally. Through social media platforms, businesses have the opportunity to engage with a broader audience and showcase their products or services. With a significant portion of the global population engaging on social media, leveraging these platforms to promote your business proves to be extremely advantageous.

Unlike several traditional marketing methods, social media marketing liberates businesses to interact with anyone in a short period of time. Moreover, using social media, you can showcase commodities you are serving more prominently to your target audience. Social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, X, etc. deliver information faster than posters, flyers, newspapers, and other traditional marketing mediums.

Understanding Social Media Marketing Basics

1.How Social Media Marketing Works And It’s Key Elements

Social media marketing, or SMM, is an integral part of digital marketing that uses social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc. for brand promotion. It is an easy, time-frindly method of forecasting your brand and the commodities it produces. Social media marketing involves a series of coordinated activities designed to enhance your brand’s online presence and significantly increase its visibility. Through strategic engagement on various platforms, businesses can effectively promote themselves and reach a wider audience. The process involves crore elements of social media, like content creation for posts and videos, actively interacting with followers, analytics for monitoring performance metrics like engagement, impressions, and click-throughs, and lastly advertising using paid promotions to reach wider, targeted audiences.

2.Common Goals of Social Media Marketing

It is very important to learn social media goals before diving into understanding what is social media marketing. Well, social media goals mainly advocate four key points:

Brand Awareness: Social media plays an influential role in developing a brand image for businesses. Ensuring all-time visibility on digital platforms, social media marketing hikes your company’s reputation in the market and helps you gain better brand recognition.

Audience Engagement: Grabbing attention is one of the important factors of a successful business. Without audiences, a business can barely thrive and give a tough fight to competitors. Social media marketing offers the opportunity to reach a vast audience and foster significant engagement.

Lead Generation: Lead generation is another important goal that explains what is social media marketing. By employing various techniques such as promotional content uploads and effective calls to action, social media marketing has the potential to generate valuable leads for your business.

Customer Service: Social media marketing presents an opportunity to enhance customer service. By utilizing these platforms effectively, businesses can foster stronger relationships with their clientele, ultimately leading to improved customer satisfaction and loyalty.

3.Main Types of Social Media Platforms Social media platforms are categorized into different forms, each of which serves unique purposes:

Social networking sites: This includes social media platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, Threads, etc., which give a vast opportunity to build professional and commercial networking.

Video-sharing platforms: Platforms that liberate you to showcase your business through videos and short clips. This category includes common platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and many more.

Microblogging platforms: There are platforms that help businesses convey messages to their audience more prominently. Most importantly, such social platforms allow businesses to maintain more connections with their customers by feeding information on the brand and promotions.

Importance of Social Media Marketing

1. Global Reach and Visibility When global reach and international visibility are primary goals for businesses, no wonder why social media marketing is so important in today’s age. Social media unobstructs ways for brands to reach new markets and people. Unlike traditional marketing methods, social media doesn’t limit your boundaries and helps you expand cross-border. And since SMM is cost-friendly, any business, regardless of their size and industry, can opt for it.

2. Personalized Engagement The shortest and simplest definition for what is social media marketing is maximizing customer engagement to build a brand identity and boost sales! So when the definition emphasizes consumer engagement, it explains why social media marketing is important. Actually, you can build a sense of understanding and trust with your audience through social media posts, comments, and messages. Ultimately, this helps your business develop a loyal customer base, which is beneficial for the long-term growth.

3. Cost-Effectiveness When it comes to compatibility, effectiveness, and cost-friendlyness, social media marketing tops against traditional marketing methods. Without loading the excess burden of expenses and time consumption, social media automatically takes action and delivers positive results at the expected time. SMM campaigns like profile optimization, paid social advertising options, etc. are highly scalable, which also makes SMM ideal for start-ups and growing businesses.

4. Real-Time Customer Insights A business needs constant flow market-related data and insignia to be more modest in the industry. And social media marketing can be a great source for analytics like customer behaviour, their taste, and their preferences. By utilizing such data, you can redefine your marketing strategy and ultimately drag a huge amount of target audience into your business.

Key Elements of Social Media Marketing

When the question is What is social media marketing, components like content creation, engagement, optimization, and advertising are the answers that demonstrate SMM. The combination of these elements plays a crucial role in enabling businesses to attain brand visibility, engagement, and sustainable market growth within the expected time span.

1. Content Creation Content, regardless of this type, is very crucial for a successful social media marketing campaign. You need to plan, draft, and strategize different types of content tailored to your business to receive a fruitful result. Actually, high-quality content specific to your industry targets better and invites more viewers. Moreover, with posts, videos, reels, stories, and infographics, you can be louder and clearer regarding your business acquisitions.

2. Engagement Customer engagement is directly proportional to company sales, ROI, and growth. By actively engaging with audiences and your existing consumers, you can not only be more promotional but also be more customer-friendly. When you directly engage with your consumers through social media, you gain better insignia on their taste, preference, and problems. And using such a metric, you can appear more individualized.

3. Analytics and Optimization One of the most essential key elements of social media marketing is analytics and optimization. A company can effectively realign its business strategy through the use of appropriate performance metrics. Data coming from social media like the likes, shares, reach, and click-through rates provides a raw visualization of how your commodity will run in the market. By regularly analyzing these metrics, brands can determine what content works best and optimize future posts for improved reach and engagement.

Types of Social Media Marketing

Organic SMM, Paid SMM, influencer marketing, and content marketing are the answers to the question What is social media marketing. These four different types of social media marketing play a vital role in developing a brand identity and attracting customers.

1. Organic Social Media Marketing Organic social media marketing is a process of developing a sense of family within the audience by consistently posting content customized to your business and customer needs. The primary motto of social media marketing is to build customer trust over your brand and services you provide. By regularly posting on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, you can stay more connected to your audience and build faith.

2. Paid Social Media Marketing One of the most effective and result-driven social media marketing techniques using which businesses can dynamically thrive over digital platforms is paid social media campaigns. By utilizing paid PPC ads, you can amplify your business presence and generate remarkable brand awareness. Actually, paid advertisements on various platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and X provide a tailored targeting option, enabling you to specifically reach your potential customers and expand your consumer base. Moreover, it greatly aids in keeping customers, which is advantageous for achieving long-term business objectives.

3. Influencer Marketing The simplest yet most effective way to target a large number of audiences at the same time is influencer marketing. The simple process of engaging with well-known social media personalities through a marketing collaboration agreement is a straightforward way to enhance your brand’s visibility among their dedicated fan bases. When influencers promote a brand, their audience tends to perceive the endorsement as authentic, resulting in increased engagement and curiosity. And by this way, you increase audience flow into your business and ultimately drive more sales.

4. Content Marketing and Storytelling The core part of audience engagement that determines “what is social media marketing” is content marketing. Comprehensive and insightful content in any format significantly captivates the audience, drawing them into your business. Moreover, storytelling humanizes the brand and makes it more relatable with your customer, which ultimately helps you develop a unique brand identity.

Benefits of Social Media Marketing

1. Improved Brand Awareness Social media marketing, or SMM, directly helps you boost your business’s visibility and brand recognition in your industry. Feeding relevant posts in your social media accounts, SMM helps you maintain a positive image in the market. Consequently, you will attract a larger audience, significantly enhancing your brand presence and enabling you to generate more leads.

2. Better Customer Insights Customer data and analytics is a primary factor that impacts a business’s brand development and growth. Valuable customer insights give you a complete overview of consumers, which determines current market needs that you need to understand. And social media can be a significant source of customer data that can help restructure your business acquisitions and drive sales. Using such data, not only can you strategize your marketing but also reshape your commodity according to market needs.

3. Increased Website Traffic and Conversions In this digital era, the key to running a successful business is digital presence. However, having a complete website sometimes is not enough to grab consumers’ attention, especially when some people use social media over search engines as a source of information. So its better to ponder a professional social media marketing service that gathers a huge mass of target audience and pushes them towards your website, which actually drives traffic and consecutively increases sales.

4. Competitive Edge Competitive edge is another primary benefit that determines what is social media marketing in great detail. When half of the population of the globe regularly logs into social media, it can be a powerful tool to market your brand and generate substantial business growth. Ultimately, using social media to market your brand and your commodities can keep you ahead of your competitors and escalate your organizational ROI.

If you are planning to expand your business to the next level, understanding what is social media marketing is most necessary. It is a complete phenomenon of connecting brands with their target audience, influencing brand identity, customer engagement, and ultimately sales. Social media marketing connects brands with audiences, driving engagement, loyalty, and sales. However, how social media marketing works goes beyond just posting content on feeds. It is a dynamic process of data finding, detailed analysis, strategy creation, and content creation that helps your business achieve its goals. involves strategic content, analytics, and targeted advertising to meet specific business goals. This approach explains why social media marketing is important for brand growth and maintaining customer relationships.

[jollyinfluencersweets]

“San Jose: Redefining the Rules of Digital Engagement”

Introduction

Welcome to the vibrant city of San Jose, where digital engagement is taken to new heights. With its innovative mindset and tech-savvy population, San Jose has become a hub for online marketing and digital communication. In this article, we will explore how San Jose is redefining the rules of digital engagement and establishing itself as a leader in the digital landscape.

San Jose: A Thriving Hub for Online Marketing

San Jose, located in the heart of Silicon Valley, is home to some of the world's biggest technology companies. This thriving ecosystem has created a unique environment where online marketing thrives. With access to cutting-edge technology and a highly skilled workforce, businesses in San Jose have a competitive edge when it comes to digital engagement.

The Power of Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

Search engine optimization (SEO) plays a crucial role in online marketing strategies. By optimizing websites and content for search engines, businesses can increase their visibility and attract more visitors. In San Jose, SEO is taken to another level with advanced techniques and strategies that help businesses rank higher in search engine results pages (SERPs).

Harnessing the Power of Social Media

Social media platforms have revolutionized digital engagement, allowing businesses to connect with their target audience on a personal level. In San Jose, social media marketing is embraced as an essential tool for building brand awareness and driving customer engagement. From Facebook to Instagram, businesses in San Jose are leveraging these platforms to reach their audience effectively.

Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Advertising: Driving Results

Pay-per-click advertising is another powerful tool that businesses in San Jose are utilizing to drive best SEO in San Jose results. By bidding on relevant keywords, businesses can display their ads on search engine results pages or other websites. This targeted approach ensures that businesses only pay when users click on their ads, making it a cost-effective strategy for driving traffic and conversions.

The Rise of Influencer Marketing in San Jose

In recent years, influencer marketing has gained significant traction as a highly effective form of digital engagement. By partnering with influential individuals on social media, businesses in San Jose can tap into their audience and gain credibility. Influencer marketing allows businesses to reach a wider audience and build trust with their target customers.

San Jose's Unique Approach to Content Marketing

Content marketing is an integral part of any successful digital engagement strategy. San Jose SEO Agency In San Jose, businesses understand the importance of creating high-quality, valuable content that resonates with their audience. From blog posts to videos and podcasts, businesses in San Jose are constantly innovating and producing engaging content that drives traffic and boosts conversions.

FAQs about San Jose's Digital Engagement Scene 1. What makes San Jose a leader in digital engagement?

San Jose's close proximity to technology giants and its culture of innovation have positioned it as a leader in digital engagement. The city's tech-savvy population and access to cutting-edge resources give businesses a competitive edge in the digital landscape.

2. How does SEO benefit businesses in San Jose?

SEO helps businesses improve their onlin

[captain-stretch-nuts]

Right you are sir. A history lesson for any uninitiated reader and scholar of geopolitics, and for those who are wondering:

The West had to buy this propaganda I think, the way they saw it even way back in the day. They had to do it back then to continue promoting the idea of American Exceptionalism, and Western Europe agreed to help them do this because the US helped set up quite a few influential new governments in Europe after the second World War. Western Europe NEEDED good relations with the US. Propaganda efforts also could not popularize the idea that Russians were butchers to eastern Europe alongside Hitler in ww2 because it would demoralize/radicalize the Allied soldiers who fought in it since they were also playing a role of liberators from the Nazi regime, and you needed the support of ww2 vets for a military propaganda ideological victory in both the East and West. (This would go on to create some Eastern Europeans who absolutely hated being in the USSR and others who paradoxically really enjoyed it, as with any empire and the people in the territories it conquers, since the days of Rome.)

People also don't always realize how close together, time-wise, that all of Europe threw the yokes of monarchy off themselves, and how it happened right before the two great Wars for a lot of them. Where the collective West fucked up was failing to treat the Middle East well, and bungling relations with them so badly that they grew to commit acts of terrorism against the US and Europe because of legitimately awful treatment since, as far as I can tell, 1954. Eisenhower fucked it up (along with Great Britain) by disrespecting the budding Iranian democracy when they assassinated the Shah, all because they didn't want Iran to nationalize their own oil resource. The West wanted a big piece of it.

This transgression primed all of the Middle East to expect problems from the US and all its western friends in Europe. This was a perfect geopolitical breeding ground for the USSR and the greedy capricious West couldn't have made it easier for the ill-intentioned Stalinist dogs in the East at the time. Now, Khrushchev was YANKING as hard as he could towards the idea of mutual ideological respect alongside the West, rather than existing in opposition to it at that time (and succeeded! He managed the Cuban missile crisis quite reasonably) but it still wasn't enough. The Stalinist cadre ousted him, which meant they could use the absolutely demented Brezhnev to play their earlier geopolitical hand of the Middle East's treatment from the West, in the form of using propaganda to cause the Islamic Revolution in an area that was prevented from self-determining by the US and UK. Hardly any propaganda needed; they used cold, hard facts and were shrewd for doing so. This leads to the spread of McCarthyism in the US as a response to the USSRs informational warfare tactics. Further ideological wars such as Vietnam splintered the West further because the US was a part of the West's ideological foundation after ww2, and the US committed repeated TELEVISED atrocities there that dealt serious damage to the stability of the West. The USSR committed their fair share of atrocities too but they used the breakdown of communication with the West to prevent the wider world from knowing everything they did to effectively propagandize the Middle East. China at this time, after the ideas of Chiang Kai-Shek had no purchase post-ww2, played on the East's ideological side and the West's economic side at the same time once Mao Zedong found some competent lackeys. The stage is set with nothing but overly ambitious pieces of shit as lead roles, right after ww2 and into the Cold War.

This conflict is ongoing and there are more players in this Battle Royale now than ever. But, this is a very expensive game to play and it cannot be played for very long before the general population tires of the games they play at the top. Because, as it ever was, nobody has figured out how to play this game of socioeconomic geopolitical control without pissing EVERYBODY off down here on Earth among the commoners. It happened to Louis XVI, it happened to Kaiser Wilhelm, it happened to Tsar Nicholas, and it will happen again when someone almost thinks they've won the Battle Royale, so to speak.

Civilian casualties in Europe in World war II

by Tartar666

[zero-cycle]

Legacies

The Players have never had a particularly good memory.

Oh, they remember the Builders just fine.Their gigantic castles and worlds are right there, after all, unable to be overlooked. Who hasn’t heard of Grian’s mansion, forever doomed to be unfinished? Or Etho’s cave, the oldest building in all of MInecraft who’s owner still lives? Who hasn’t been told of the beauty of Rivendell, Mezelea or the Ocean Empire and their rulers?

Hermitcraft’s worlds are tourist attractions, spaces for hundreds of people to live later. The Empires have their own population, their citizens telling the tales of their kind rulers and architects. Even the people from the Esempee talk about their benevolent king Eret and how much they built for them.

Similar to them are the Redstoners, their contributions consisting of new machines and farms or entertainment. Their names are whispered among the knowledgeable when they build doors or iron farms or have to time one of their contraptions.

Fighters do not have the benefit of giant monuments to their names but neither do they have trouble being remembered. The marks they leave aren’t a new creative use of blocks or a roof for Players to stay under. Instead, their legacies are the smell of explosions and blood in the air. They were the first to discover how to make end crystals and they started to warp the code around them, all just to give them a small advantage.

Their stories are about the bloody paths they carved through peaceful and war-torn servers. They win tournaments and are crowned with bloody laurels. Everybody in all of MInecraft fears Technoblade. Most Players will never willingly step foot on the battleground called “2b2t” and that for good reasons. The deadly trio of George, Sapnap and Dream is a legend among all fighter communities.

The Parkourers are similar to them. Only their laurels are less blood-soaked because the void kills cleanly and quickly. They tell stories about gods instead. Even though they never mention names, green is their color of luck and prosperity.

The Players don’t remember the people in the shadows.

The Runners are notorious for…well, mostly for being non-notorious. They keep to the shadows, always there but never in the spotlight. They win tourneys and take the crowns home with no fanfare. They fight but they’re not cruel or gloating, instead preferring to leave as fast as they came. Their buildings are often small, practical and they’re fast but not particularly creative with them. They hit jumps only the best parkourers can but never join competitions, they can do advanced redstone yet understand none of it and they’re good at everything but rarely shine with excellence.

The Players don’t remember them.

But the worlds do.

The Players in the big servers like Hypixel might have never heard of Feinberg but the non-player habitants of the wider worlds know different. There’s thousands of blocks he’s placed, hundreds of villagers he’s traded with but that doesn’t matter to a tiny plains biome on an even smaller world. The only thing that matters to the beehive that lives there is the flowers Feinberg carefully cultivated for them. the roof cover he built for them that keeps them safe from every thunder and wind.

Neither have they heard of Silverr, tirelessly working day to day to get better with no thoughts about recognition. Twitch Rivals might have brought him notoriety, might have made some Players aware of him but the villagers on a far away world don’t even know tournaments like that exist. They only know about the polite young man who must have spent days cutting down wood for them. It supplies the village with enough firewood to survive the winter for several years.

Most people don’t know about K4yfour. They are strange, quite unlike normal Players. Nobody would think of them as particularly influential either. They’re wrong, of course. Their tactics have saved a hundred runners and a thousand worlds and even more lives. It’s not an accomplishment they can display on the wall like trophies but it’s visible in every Runner that still runs, in every world they save.

Others might look at Couriway like a hero for his PvP skills but the worlds know better. There are a thousand of them out there that nobody else would have rescued. Nobody else would have even attempted. But Couriway has not earned his crown with blood on his hands and so he goes, steadily, and saves the world, over and over and over.

And the Universe smiles down on a tiny server, tucked at the edges of MInecraft, where mismatched buildings stand next to each other, where scattered blocks ruin the landscape of the nether, where laughter fills the air and plans to do the impossible are made.

They will not be remembered, but they don’t care. They are happy, here at the edge of the universe, far away from any competition or recognition.

They are home.

[misseffie]

Is Gendry illiterate?

Short answer: Probably not. 

Long answer: 

I’ve noticed a lot of fanfiction trying to address Gendry’s illiteracy once he becomes a noble. Most fics depict him as being completely illiterate. Some depict him as having some level of literacy, but not enough for his new position. So let’s try to figure it out, shall we?

Part 1: Literacy

We have this assumption that in medieval times no one could read or write unless they were part of the nobility. That is not quite true. Firstly, we have to understand what it meant to be literate by medieval standards: 

“In Medieval times, “Literate” actually meant able to read and write in Latin, which was considered to be the language of learning. Being able to read and write in the vernacular wasn’t considered real learning at all. Most peasants prior to the Black Death (which really shook up society) had little chance to learn - hard labouring work all of the hours of daylight does’t leave a lot of energy for reading or writing.

It’s worth noting, however the panic amongst the ruling classes when translations of The Bible started to appear written in English. This really started in the late 14th Century (about 30 years after the Black Death). The level of panic suggests that the Ruling Classes knew that the numbers of people who could read and write English was far greater than the numbers who could read Latin.”

However, there is no language quite like Latin in Westeros. The closest we come to something similar is High Valyrian. Which noble children seem to have a basic understanding of. We can safely assume that Gendry doesn’t have extensive knowledge of High Valyrian - so he is illiterate in that regard. But I don’t think High Valyrian is as widely used as Latin was in the Middle Ages. It’s also not a language with religious significance. As the Faith of the Seven doesn’t use High Valyrian the way that the Catholic Church used Latin.

So… taking that into account. What I assume that is meant by “literate” in Westeros is being able to read and write in the Common Tongue. 

I will say that even by those parameters I don’t think most of the commoners would have been literate. However, Gendry was not in the same situation as most of the commoners.

Which leads me to... 

Part 2: Socio-economic class in Medieval Times

The level of literacy among the commonfolk has to be examined on a case by case basis.

Literacy among “peasants” varied a lot depending on circumstance. So, for example, it’s not strange that Davos, who was a smuggler prior to meeting Stannis, was illiterate. Or Gilly, who was completely isolated from the world and in terrible conditions.

But Gendry is in a different situation.

As @arsenicandfinelace pointed out in this cool meta:

Gendry was definitely born low-class, as an unrecognised bastard whose mother was a tavern girl (read: one step away from prostitute). But the whole point of apprenticing with Tobho Mott is that that was a major leap forward for him, socially.

As Davos put it in 3x10, “The Street of Steel? You lived in the fancy part of town.” Yes, a tradesman of any kind is leagues below the nobility, and could never ever be worthy of marrying a highborn girl like Arya. But Tobho Mott is a master craftsman, the best armourer in the capital city of a heavily martial country. As far as tradesman go, he’s the best of the best, and charges accordingly.

There’s a reason Varys had to pay out the ass to get Gendry apprenticed there. If he had stayed, completed his apprenticeship, and eventually taken over the workshop, he would have been very wealthy (by commoner standards) and respectable (again, by commomner standards), despite his low birth.

Tobho Mott is a tradesman and a craftsman. He is part of the merchant class. * Merchants are often referred to as a different class from the rest of the population. The merchant class in Medieval Times was closer to the middle class of contemporary times.

“By the 15th century, merchants were the elite class of many towns and their guilds controlled the town government. Guilds were all-powerful and if a merchant was kicked out of one, he would likely not be able to earn a living again.”

Mott would be considered to be part of the merchant class - and not even a common kind of merchant either. He was the best Blacksmith in all of King's Landing, the capital of the Seven Kingdoms. So we can assume that Tobho Mott was a very wealthy and powerful craftsman and merchant.  

“That many 'middle class' people (tradesmen, merchants and the like) could read and write in the late middle ages cannot be disputed.”

I’m not saying that all tradesmen/merchants/craftsmen were literate back then. It was still a smaller percentage than the nobility. Only the richer and more influential of tradesmen would learn Latin. But I think most of them would be literate enough in the vernacular to run a business. Considering Mott’s reputation and his clientele I’m certain that Mott is part of that literate percentage.

In season 2, Arya accidentally reveals to Tywin that she can read. Realizing her mistake she covers up by saying that her father, a ’stonemason', taught her. Of course, I don’t think that completely fooled Tywin but why did Arya say her father was Stonemason. Why did his profession matter at all? Surely it wouldn’t have mattered if he was a fisherman or a farmer... a peasant is a peasant, right?

Wrong.

“The Medieval Stonemason asserts that they were not monks but highly skilled craftsmen who combined the roles of architect, builder, craftsman, designer, and engineer. Many, if not all masons of the Middle Ages learnt their craft through an informal apprentice system”

“Children from merchants and craftsmen were able to study longer and continuous, so they were able to learn Latin at a later age. This way, everyone learned to read and write (some better than others) sufficiently for their trade.”

Stonemasons were the architects of the time and no doubt the top tier was literate.

Many trades (by the 15th C) required reading and writing, so it was taught to apprentices by the masters. We know from apprenticeship agreements that many masters were expected to continue the apprentice's literacy or start it, which makes sense for the wider viability of the trade.

The War of the Roses took place in the late 15th Century. So I’m guessing that that’s the time period that ASOIAF is mostly based on.

Part 3: Level of literacy

I think it’s safe to say that Gendry has some level of literacy. However, his “level” is pretty much up for debate. If he’d finished his apprenticeship it’s likely he’d have a decent level of reading/writing comprehension. However, near the end of his apprenticeship he was kicked out.

I’m not sure how much Gendry could read/write by the time that he was kicked out by Tobho Mott. But he’d already been his apprentice for 10 years (in show canon). More than enough time to get some basic reading/writing/basic math lessons. 

It seems that show!Gendry is more likely to have a higher level of literacy than book!Gendry. In the show, he leaves Tobho Mott at 16, while in the book he is 14. This is just my own impression, but I think his education would be more complete by age 16 than age 14.

Not to mention that book!Gendry is still in the Riverlands and working for outlaws. But in the show we can assume that Gendry has been smithing in King’s Landing for years and it is insinuated that he owns a shop. Meaning he might have reached “Master” status and can take on apprentices of his own. It might seem like Gendry is too young for that. But it’s actually not that strange. 

“Apprentices stayed with their masters for seven to nine years before they were able to claim journeyman status. Journeyman blacksmiths possessed the basic skills necessary to work alongside their master, seek work with other shops, or even open their own businesses.”

Considering that Gendry has been with Mott for 10 years in show!canon, it’s possible that Gendry was a “journeyman” and not an “apprentice” by the time that Ned meets him in season 1. But he might be nearing the end of his apprenticeship in the books.

Guilds also required journeymen to submit work for examination each year in each area of expertise. So, a journeyman who perhaps crafted swords, locks, and keys would need to submit each item to his guild annually for inspection. If the guild approved the craftsmanship of the products, the journeyman could eventually move up to master status.

The process of becoming a master could take from 2 to 5 years. Considering that Gendry is regarded as talented, it’s likely that he achieved this in a shorter period of time. As a journeyman he also needed to work alongside a master for 3 to 4 years before he could obtain master status. Which would still explain why he was so upset at being kicked out by Mott - it’s like someone getting kicked out while they’re trying to obtain a PHD. 

By the time we meet him in season 7 it’s very possible that Gendry is now considered a master of his trade.

He also seems to be making armour and weapons for “Lannisters” which means he has a mostly noble clientele. He probably has plenty of fancy clients asking for custom-made products. With sketches and measurements and all that shit. Which is not surprising since he probably has a de facto reputation simply by merit of being Tobho Mott’s apprentice (lets ignore how dumb it is that no one discovered that Gendry was in King’s Landing since he made no effort to hide who he was or try to hide from the nobility lol).

Conclusion: 

It’s safe to say that Gendry had some access to higher education. He can probably read and write enough for his line of work. It’s likely that his level would still leave much to be desired once he became a noble though. For comparison, imagine if someone left school at age 11 and was then required to write a college-level thesis. So he’d definitely need some “lordly” writing lessons and further education.

Gendry is still wildly uneducated for what he needs to do. So...

This meme is still gold 10/10

* Correction: Though Mott would be considered part of the same socio-economic class as merchants he is primarily a tradesman/craftsman, and would be referred to as such. Since merchants didn’t produce the goods they sold. However they could belong to the same guild, along with artisans and craftsmen. 

[not-xpr-art]

Art Deep Dives #2 - The History of Fanart

Hi everyone!

This post is part of my Art Deep Dives tag, where I ramble about art-y things, often with some relation to art history in some way. 

just so you know, these essays aren’t formal in anyway lol! I just do them for fun & to hopefully be interesting in some way to someone!

This week I’ll be talking about the history and importance of fanart! It’s not the entire history of fanart, just some key moments and points in it that I feel are important!

(this essay is about 2500 words long btw!)

Part 1 - What even is fanart?

I think when a lot of people hear about ‘fanart’, they often think of it as a new thing, something that came along at some point in the last century when media begun to be mass circulated around the world.

But, of course, fanart has existed long before media like Star Wars or Doctor Who were created, and even long before photography was invented, even if it wasn’t necessarily referred to as ‘fanart’ at that time since the concept of ‘intellectual property’ hadn’t been introduced at that point. 

So I think at first we need to define what we even mean when we refer to ‘fanart’... 

Put simply, it’s artwork made by people who are interested in something created by someone else, such as a TV show, film, book, podcast, video game etc. However, by this definition, where do original characters created by the fans as part of franchises fit into the picture? Or celebrity fanart? Or artists who use famous people’s appearances as the base for their own characters? Or what of artworks of media that have long since passed copyright laws (such as Shakespeare works, Austen works, etc)? And where do illustrations of books fit into this?

So perhaps a wider description would be, artworks made by fans of and inspired by something “belonging” to someone else (either a piece of media or... themselves). The issue of this description is that most portraiture would fit into this. So... are we about to call Thomas Gainsborough or Joshua Reynolds, two of the most famous British portrait painters of the 18th century, fanartists? 

I think a lot of people in the art world would scoff at this concept, because even now the feelings surrounding fanart are pretty negative. They see it as less of a valid form of art and instead as ‘derivative’ and ‘unoriginal’. I’ve heard both non-artists and artists alike talk about fanart as ‘not real art’, and then in the next breath they’re praising portraits made by Leonardo da Vinci or Vincent Van Gogh. 

I also think it’s important to note that fanart isn’t exclusively portraiture too. Often artists will draw landscapes, still life works or even abstract pieces based on their favourite media. And as previously mention, a lot of artists and writers create their own characters within a world created by another person. So, for all intents and purposes, that is a form of original art, but it is often still put down in comparison to people who make up an entirely new story and world for their characters. 

Part 2 - Renaissance artists and Bible fanart!?

One of the most common defences I’ve seen for fanart is that Renaissance artists’ basically did Bible and Mythology fanart, and their artwork is considered ‘masterpieces’ so... that’s that!

Right?

Well, if we’re sticking with the definition of fanart being something based on a series of characters or concepts owned by someone else, then Religious or Mythological based art would definitely fit into this. 

(Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Virgin of the Rocks’, currently being held in the National Gallery in London).

But I think it’s important to note that the art world was a very different place in Renaissance Europe. Concepts and characters didn’t belong to any one person or group of people, instead everything was a lot more homogenised. There’s a reason why when we think of figures like Jesus or the Virgin Mary, we have a very particular idea of what they look like (a very white-washed idea, I might add). The same thing goes for portrayals of figures from Greek or Roman mythology. There were often motifs associated with these deities that dated back to Antiquity, and Renaissance artists looked back to this for their inspiration. But there was no one specific point of reference for these ‘characters’ other than the Bible, which didn’t actually ‘belong’ to anyone, not even the church.  

So, I think it’s valid to bring up Renaissance artists and how the modern concept of ‘originality’ in art was less important to artists or patrons, and much of the art they did was exclusively works based on something the artist did not come up with. In my first Art Deep Dive, I talked about how History paintings (which were often Religious or Mythology based) were valued for being the product of an ‘artistic genius’ and their connection to spirituality in comparison to portraits or landscapes that depicted the real contemporary world. 

But do I think it was actually fanart? 

... Probably not... Although I wouldn’t begrudge anyone believing it is, because in a way it does somewhat fit into the definition of fanart. Instead this was to look at how society’s relationship to art has changed drastically in the hundreds of years since that era, as has the purpose of art itself.

And I think it does bring up some interesting discussions of why we are so obsessed with ‘originality’ in art at the moment when it’s not something that was really important before, though! 

Part 3 - What about portraiture? 

So... What about portraiture huh? 

Now, portraiture has existed for as long as art has, essentially, but it took until the Renaissance era and beyond for it to be associated with patrons. Portraiture was more than just ‘old-timey photography’, since it was linked distinctively to a sign of wealth. I mentioned Thomas Gainsborough and Joshua Reynolds earlier, who were two very influential portrait artists of the 18th century, who both fed into a market of middle and upper class patrons wanting their portraits done in this era. 

(This is a piece by Reynolds of the Actress Mrs Siddons as the Tragic Muse).

And in a way this makes portraiture probably the earliest example of fanart as we see it today. 

Except, a part of fanart that people who do it (including myself) often bring up is how it’s connected to a sense of passion and love for something. In a way, portraits done purely as commissions for an aristocrat for profit doesn’t necessarily fit into our modern notion of fanart. 

This brings us back to that darn description of fanart again. Because in our current world fanart can be defined as work of celebrities done as commissions. Except, perhaps, if you’re a known portrait painter (no one says the designer of the postage stamp did fanart of Queen Elizabeth, despite the fact that it... kind of is?). 

So, why is it that a portrait of the Queen is simply a portrait, but one of Billie Eilish is ‘fanart’? Who decides these parameters? And also who decides which one is more ‘worthy’ or ‘valuable’?

Places like the National Portrait Gallery are filled with portraits of famous people from history. But it’s never referred to as the ‘National Fanart Gallery’. I think in a way this boils down to who is doing the art, who the art is of and why they’re painting it. It is funny, though, that the distinction between fanart and portraiture of famous people is so similar that it requires such detailed specifications as to which is which.  

So, I think it’s clear to see that where portraiture fits in the history of fanart is a contentious one... 

Part 4 - Shakespeare, Fairy Paintings and other 18th/19th Century Curiosities...

From the late 18th until the late 19th century essentially saw the birth to what we now know as ‘fanart’, in a way. The growth of middle-class audiences in the early part of the 1800′s meant that there was a new found desire for landscape, genre and portrait art. And coupled with the growth of secularism, history paintings in their traditional sense had lost appeal. 

There was also the small matter of media being so much more accessible and wide spread to bigger audiences due to the industrial revolution. Books were being printed more easily and sold and a reasonable price, not to mention that a significant portion of the population could now actually read, or at the very least were given some form of education. More travel and trade (and also colonialism) also lead to an increase of new kinds of media being explored. Birth of the Gothic genre, Science Fiction, Fantasy, etc, all forms of fiction that we’re very familiar with now were only just entering the public’s consciousness at this point.

Much like now, technological advances were both a blessing and curse to the people of this era. And also like now, art was used as a way to express what was happening in the world. A great example of this is JMW Turner’s Flying ,,, which shows an old ship being transported into harbour by a steamboat, something that was very new to this era. It spoke of the new technologies overpowering the old, and the fears a lot of people had because of this.

This lead to the development of Fairy Paintings, to move to a new time of history painting that was more based on folktales and works of fiction by writers like Shakespeare, and were often used as a form of escapism. William Blake is a prominent figure in this type of painting, along with some Pre-Raphaelite painters. 

This is a piece directly based on Shakespeare’s Macbeth by Henry Fuseli and is completely undoubtedly fanart in essentially every way. Many of his works, and the works of his contemporaries, were based on the works of writers like Shakespeare. 

This piece, along with most of his other works, was also exhibited in the Tate Gallery way back in the early 19th century. Fanart like this was openly welcomed into galleries in this era, something that’s a far cry from my art teachers in school and college actively discouraging us from doing any kind of fanart for our projects. 

The mass appeal of these kinds of art lasted well into the 20th century and even after the advent of photography, which created an entirely new kind of media to be consumed. 

I actually think that a lot of this animosity towards fanart stems from a lot of fanart being born from drawing from photos as references, which is why I think artworks that are fanart from an pre-photography era are valued above artworks done now.

Part 5 - The Beginnings of Intellectual Property and Copyright Hell... 

Earlier I mentioned how fanart could be defined as work done inspired by media belonging to someone else. However, this begs the question whether a single person or company can actually own such things as characters and story concepts.

Copyright as we know it today essentially originated in the 18th century. Now, I’m not going to go into all the history of copyright here (partly because it’s confusing af), but essentially throughout the 18th and 19th century all across the world, intellectual property laws were brought in for books & later extended to other media types. They basically prevented any other person or publisher being able to copy, distribute or adapt the piece of media. As many may know, copyright laws run out after a certain amount of time (I believe either between 70 or 100 years), by which time they enter the Public Domain and are free to be used in anyway by anyone. 

Copyright laws can be a real detriment to fanartists, however, particularly when large companies like Disney cracking down on any small hint of one of their characters in the last few years. This feels particularly insidious to me given how most Disney films are based on old fairy-tales and legends. But in using these centuries old stories and giving them the ‘Disney flavour’, they have been able to essentially repackage the original story for their own profit. Disney of course aren’t the only company to do this, but given how Disney own basically everything media-wise now, they are the biggest perpetrator of this at the moment. 

It’s important to note that to this day, copyright doesn’t extend to ideas or themes. As well as this, copyrighted media can be used by people who don’t own it either by asking for permission or via ‘fair use’. But as a lot of Youtubers would tell you, this is often something that is ignored by large companies in favour of holding monopoly over the entire thing. 

This is of course not to say that copyright can’t be a good thing. I believe that artists and creators deserve to have the rights to their individual works. The issue is surrounding big conglomerate companies using copyright not as a way of protecting and supporting their in-house artists, but as a way of boosting profits. 

My thoughts are that copyright laws should exist to prevent other people or companies from stealing or overtly copying/adapting a work made by someone else, not preventing a small freelance artist from selling a couple prints of a drawing from a film Disney made 20+ years ago based on a stories written hundreds of years ago. 

(I know it’s not as simple as this, but you get what I mean lol)

In a big way, copyright laws were what created our modern notion of fanart, since prior to that no-one really had ownership of their works in the same way that copyright allows you. So, even thought I’ve been quite pessimistic about it, fanart really wouldn’t exist without it so... it’s not all bad lol?

Part 6 - Why is any of this important??

I realise that this is a strange question to ask at the end of this essay, but I really wanted to leave my true personal thoughts until the end in order to keep at least a vague sense of being objective through this lol...

To me, fanart is something that made me fall in love with art in the first place, particularly digital art. I was able to find communities of like minded people and make some really good friends, all because of fanart. 

I’ve also spoken to other artists who say how fanart allows them to connect to their favourite shows or characters or celebrities, and a way of expressing their love for something! It’s also often a gateway for artists to get into art as children, and some have said how fanart has allowed them to be more creative in general! 

Fanart is something so intrinsic to fandom culture, so much so that it has existed for as long as people have loved things (even long before the internet). And I know that a lot of public figures who receive fanart, either of themselves or of works they’ve created, often express genuine happiness of being the inspiration for someone else... 

So, fanart is important to us because it’s escapism, it’s freedom, and it brings us together in such a genuine way! 

I wrote this essay because I wanted to truly explore where fanart actually came from, and what I ended up discovering is that the artworld has never been clean-cut separated into ‘original art’ and ‘fanart’! 

The history of fanart is messy, confusing, but one thing is very clear to me: it doesn’t just run parallel to the history of art as a lot of people assume, it is instead interwoven into the fabric of all art! 

So for my fellow fanartists, keep on doing what you’re doing, because your passion and love is palpable in your work, and really isn’t that what fanart is all about anyway??

~~~

Phew... Can you believe I actually did try and keep this short lol?

Anyway, thank you for reaching the end! And a special thank you to the people over at Artfolapp (my username is dangerliesbeforeyou over there btw!) who gave me their thoughts on fanart! 

As always, my ask box is open for anyone who’s interested in discussing this further, and I also have an Art Advice Tag if you need help on improving your art!

[scripttorture]

Can a parent who is a torturer teach his child to become a torturer since childhood, but not teaching it as torture, but the techniques involved, and well, violence and abuse. Is it normal that the child is not being abused himself?? Or would such a parent torture their child if they wanted the child to grow up to become a torturer and take their place one day.

Torturers ‘teach’ on the job. I’m not sure if it would be possible for them to teach these techniques without exposing someone to violence.

 And even if it was that isn’t what they do.

 They bring the people they want to ‘teach’ into the cells with them. They have potential-torturers witnessing torture (and encourage them to participate) from the first day.

 And here’s the thing: this makes sense. It makes sense because torture is functionally simple and because it applies social pressure to the potential-torturer. It makes it harder for them to refuse to torture and implies that they will be at risk of violence if they do.

 The scenario you’re suggesting fundamentally misunderstands torture and torturers. You’re assuming that this stuff is more complex then it is and that torturers are more patient, thoughtful and restrained then they are.

 All of those are common misconceptions that feed into torture apologia.

 It’s OK to be wrong. The important thing now is the next decision you make; where you go from here.

 Child torturers are rare. And while I have heard of cases where children were abusers or torturers I’ve never heard of a case where a parent tried to encourage their biological child to become a torturer.

 There’s quite a lot to unpack and explain there so bear with me while I break this down.

 Child torturers are rare because generally children are not put in positions of authority, and the torturer being in a position of authority is an essential part of the legal definition of torture. Children are not (usually) allowed to become police officers, soldiers, doctors, civil servants, teachers or any of the other professions torturers are drawn from.

 There are ethical reasons for that but there are also practical reasons for it. Children do not make good soldiers. They are typically weaker then adults, have more complex nutritional needs, have shorter attention spans, cope less well with sleep deprivation and are not as good at performing repetitive tasks without fault.

 They are harder to train as soldiers, less physically able to act as soldiers and harder to keep at a base standard of health in a warzone.

 I am not saying children are incapable of torture: I am saying that they are not given the opportunity.

 The cases that I’m aware of involving child torturers are uniformly child soldiers. Usually those children are kidnapped and enslaved. They are not the biological (or adopted) children of the other torturers.

 Sometimes these children are deliberately drawn from despised minority groups. For instance the Daesh use of kidnapped Yezidi boys on suicide missions was part of a wider campaign of genocide.

 Sometimes these children are encouraged to take part in torture as part of strategy to make these children feel like they can’t return home. They’re made to participate in violent criminal acts then told that they will never be forgiven by their society. This is part of how these groups coerce cooperation from their victims.

 So child torturers are rare and the children who are usually in a position where they could be classed as torturers are generally not valued by the groups using them.

 This makes me think that a valued, blood-related child would be less likely to be used as a torturer.

 There’s also the question of why a torturer would want their child to follow in their footsteps.

 Because torturers generally do not enjoy what they do. They report finding the experience distressing and exhausting.

 Some of them frame it as ‘necessary’ and genuinely seem to believe they were doing something helpful. (This is not true, torture does not work). Some of them frame it as a punishment their victims ‘deserved’. Some of them don’t really seem to have much justification at all, everyone else was doing it so they did too.

 But as a general rule torturers don’t report having a positive view of their own job. The typical relationship is more complex.

 They have an inflated sense of their own importance and the importance of their job. They often depict themselves as the ‘only ones doing the real work’ and talk/act as though they’re the most important part of the organisation they’re in.

 But they also report feeling consistently under-valued and overlooked by their organisations. They consistently describe a hugely stressful, pressurised working environment and an atmosphere of continued, unhealthy competition with everyone else.

 Torturers do not take enjoyment in their work. They report finding it physically exhausting, extremely stressful and the development of mental health problems associated with torture.

 They often feel as though they’re at risk of violence from their colleagues and superiors. And they’re not wrong. Looking over modern historical records of regimes like Soviet Russia show that torturers were regularly purged by the state. And the fracturing effect they have on organisations is sometimes enough for them to be attacked by other members of their organisation.

 When this doesn’t happen they burn out. They reach a point where their mental and physical health problems become so severe they can’t even pretend to do the job they were hired for. And then they’re dropped, or ‘encouraged’ to quit.

 They struggle to find any employment. Because by that point they typically have really severe mental illnesses and no useful skills. Plus the general aura of asshole that comes with an inflated sense of self importance and a tendency to lash out at anyone who doesn’t feed that ego. A lot of them end up dependant on other people.

 Basically- I don’t think any torturer would want someone they value to become a torturer.

 Even when torturers see their ‘work’ as essential they don’t see it as a good job. They’re acutely aware of the dangers and the toll it takes on them.

 If this character actually cares for their child at all they’d probably discourage them from being a torturer.

 I think that leaves two broad questions: ‘Do torturers abuse their families?’ and ‘Are torturers typically torture survivors themselves?’

 And neither of those questions have clear answers because of the lack of research on torturers.

 There are reports of torturers who abused their families. But there are so few reports by mental health professionals on torturers that it really is impossible to say if this is a trend. And there are also reports of torturers who never abused their families. Familial abuse by torturers could be in line with familial abuse in the general population.

 There is no evidence to suggest torturers are any more or less likely to abuse their families then anyone else.

 The second question is more complicated because of the assumptions underlying it: people who ask this generally seem to assume that someone who is tortured goes on to become a torturer and…. That isn’t exactly what we see these people reporting.

 Yes some torturers are also torture survivors. Because a lot of them are soldiers and sometimes captured soldiers are tortured.

The pattern I tend to see reported (this is anecdotal because of the lack of research on torturers-) is torturers getting captured after they’ve been torturers for a while. Either by their own side or an opposing side in the context of a conflict. Then they’re tortured.

 Or their area is invaded by an opposing side, they flee the conflict and get targeted with… exactly the same stuff everyone else fleeing the same situation is targeted with.

 The child soldiers I described earlier in the ask seem to be particularly vulnerable to torture and other ill treatment.

 We don’t have a way to measure how many torturers have also been tortured. By which I mean, no one has really done enough research to answer that question.

 The vast majority of torture survivors will never go on to become torturers, because they won’t be put in a position of authority. Mentally ill people are systematically barred from positions of authority in most places. And torture survivors seem to be particularly vulnerable to unemployment.

 So I think torture survivors are unlikely to be put in a position where they could become torturers.

 But, yes torturers are sometimes put in a position where they might become torture victims. We don’t know how often this happens. My impression is that it’s no where near the majority, may be not even a particularly significant minority (though it seems to be more common in some specific areas/circumstances then others).

 Wrapping up: I don’t think it’s a good idea to have a torturer also be a torture survivor in this sort of narrative. I think that’s an incredibly complicated thing to try and handle and I don’t think you’ve got the knowledge base to do it justice yet. I also don’t think it adds anything to the characters as you’ve described them.

 There is no ‘safe’ way to expose someone to torture. Torturers do not try to protect the people they ‘train’, they throw them in at the deep end and encourage them to participate almost straight away.

 But torturers also don’t necessarily see their jobs as ‘good jobs’. They don’t describe it as a legacy they want to pass on.

 Why is it important that this child is actively taught? Could they be exposed to or witness torture in another context? Is it even important that the torturer is their parent? Using another influential adult character would allow the child to keep a more-or-less positive relationship with their parent. And it could make the conflict between child and parent about ‘You allowed this torturer access to me and they showed me awful, traumatising things’ rather then ‘You exposed me to traumatising things and you hurt me’.

 Does familial abuse add to this narrative? Because I’d argue that exposing a child to torture is abusive and it creates another layer of complexity. On top of torture, and the peculiar mindset of torturers, and the mental health problems torture causes in survivors, torturers and witnesses.

 Think about those questions. Go back to the sources page. Read O’Mara’s Why Torture Doesn’t Work and the appendices to Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth. Read Alleg’s The Question.

 And consider whether these elements actually help you to tell the story.

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[comrade-meow]

New Zealand schools have introduced a climate change resource that suggests children “eat less meat and dairy”, even though teachers will not know how much meat or dairy any child in their care has eaten. Opinion pieces in the papers have called for the reduction of meat and dairy in hospital menus, not usually generous sources of such foods, despite the well-known risks of undernutrition, especially of protein, in the frail and elderly. Globally, the influential and once-objective medical journal the Lancet has hosted Eat Lancet, a coalition of vegan and vegetarian technocrats backed by processed food manufacturers, and promoted their agenda. The Guardian newspaper accepted an £626783 grant from the backers of Impossible Foods to run a series of articles against animal agriculture.

These initiatives, aimed at remodelling our food supply in a way that favours the multinational food processing and seed-and-chemical corporations, whose control of many aspects of farming and diet is already problematic, have run far ahead of the scientific community’s efforts to understand the health effects of such dietary change.

Our hunter-gatherer past

The Neolithic Revolution was the first alteration in human affairs that is generally considered worthy of the term Revolution. In Marx’s terms, it saw a change in the means of production sufficient to form new classes aware of their identities, and thus a change in the relations between people. Early humans had fed themselves in an opportunistic, hunter-gatherer fashion that tended to favour a diet of animals supplemented with plants where and when these were available. Large animals made the best meals but gathering activities could collect many smaller ones, as well as eggs, grubs etc.

The people of the Mesolithic era discovered that some animals could be herded and some plants grown in gardens (not usually by the same community, because one activity favours nomadism and the other favours a sedentary habit) but these activities, which greatly improved food security after the decline of the prehistoric mega-fauna due to hunting and climate pressures, tended to occur at the communal level and probably did not create major class differences between the people involved.

The invention of farming

The Neolithic Revolution, which unleashed the human potential for war, creativity, and social division, resulted from the identification of the germs of plants (specifically grains and legumes) as durable sources of energy. If grains were grown (I will use grains in the wider sense of “cereals”, after Braudel, including other dried germs such as peas) and there was a surplus, this surplus would still be edible over the next year, a year when drought or pests or diseases might wipe out the other food sources that hunter-gatherers depended on. This advantage was offset by the nutritional poverty of grain-based diets, so that tuberculosis probably became an endemic disease during this period,[1] but the existence of a less-perishable surplus allowed the diversion of part of the population away from food gathering for large parts of the year, and saw the creation of armies and other workforces.

In Europe, the Neolithic Revolution is dated at around 10,000 BC and its arrangements are a matter of prehistory, but in China this change occurred later and the written record around Bi-gu or grain avoidance includes folk-memories of conflict between grain eating and grain avoiding peoples.

The history of colonisation is the history of the conquest of lactose-intolerant peoples by lactose-tolerant populations, and of non-grain eaters by grain-eaters. In the Indian sub-continent, a combination of dairy herding and a cereal diet high in legumes uniquely allowed the survival of a substantially vegetarian population, and saw the conservation of genes favouring reproduction on such a diet, including genetic polymorphisms still rare in European populations (adaptive mutations only predominate where many individuals without them have failed to survive or reproduce).[2] That the Indian social system became more aggressively class-based than any other is probably no co-incidence; prejudice against meat-eating is still used as a tool of social control against minorities, while meat-eating is one way young Indians today identify as modern and egalitarian. However there were some important exceptions to the trend – the Aztecs were a hunter-gather people who conquered and dominated the Mesolithic agriculturalists of Mexico, and the Mongols were nomadic herders and hunters whose greater stamina and independence allowed them to defeat the rice-fed armies of the Chinese Emperors (after conquering this breadbasket, the successive Mongol Khans seem to have eaten and drunk themselves to death).

Early vegetarian ideology

In the European and Asian cereal-based societies the poorest classes went without meat, supplementing cereals when possible with buttermilk or blood pudding which were more economic replacements. The rich ate as much meat as they could. The idea that an entire society might avoid meat is a recent one with its roots in religious practice, and, insofar as it has any political basis, this flows in two distinct streams – the eco-fascist, in which meat avoidance is a sign of “purity”, most humans are a burden on the Earth, and the Indian vegetarians are of course Aryans. This is something like the vegetarian vision that Adolf Hitler picked up while studying anti-Semitism with Wagner’s heirs at Bayreuth.

And then there is a Marxist-Anarchist, and latterly Intersectional, version, founded on a valuation of animal rights as inseparable from, and a logical extension of, human rights. Vegetarianism was a frequent obsession of the early British Socialists; G.B. Shaw, who derived most of his energy from dairy fat and lived to the age of 94, made himself into a well-known example, and the idea was sufficiently entrenched among the British Socialists and their milieu that H.G. Wells preserved its internal contradictions for posterity in The Time Machine. In his far-future vision, humanity has evolved into two separate species. The Morlocks are descendants of working-class meat-eaters, the Eloi of leisure-class vegetarians – all Wells’ loathing is reserved for the Morlocks, yet it is obvious they are (still) the engineering brains keeping their world running and the Eloi fed. The Eloi are useless for anything but enjoying the sunshine and feeding the Morlocks, and the discordance in Wells’ progressive values as he describes both species is as shocking as anything else in the story.

The first large-scale experiment in plant-based protein was attempted by the Bolsheviks. As usual, it’s hard to separate the roles played by idealism and cynicism in the story, but the bare bones are that the Soviets found their initial attempts to remodel the countryside rebuffed, blamed this on the recaltricance of the kulak class, and set out to destroy them. The problem being that the kulaks, owning most of the cattle and sheep across the Russian Republics, helped to feed the people. Beginning in the 1920s, soy experts from the USA (then the Western world’s leading soy producer) were among the many foreign technicians imported into Russia, and soy processing plants were built and soy production increased to 283,000 tonnes in 1931, the year Stalin unleashed enforced collectivisation and the terror against the kulaks (and also the Kazakhs, a herding people who suffered the largest proportionate loss of life during this period). This led to the loss of millions of animals, either killed by their dispossessed owners or mismanaged by their inexperienced new owners. The soy project was hardly able to prevent the massive famines that followed, and by 1935 soy production had dropped to 54,000 tonnes. Though soy milk would later prove useful during the siege of Leningrad, by the 1930s soy had probably only served one purpose, as a statistic needed aforehand to quell the objections of pragmatic delegates to the destruction of the kulaks and their livestock.

Today we face the revival of this idea, of plant protein that will create a world with no need for animal protein, and the remodelling of life in the countryside, with the new impetus of climate change as its driver. Livestock cycles natural carbon, meaning there is no net addition of C02 to the atmosphere – and its contribution to the shorter-lived methane precursor has not changed since 2000 (methane rises have been due to fracking, methane itself AKA “natural gas”, landfill, and rice production; methane-emitting animals have always existed on Earth in substantial numbers, and have not created a novel situation in the sense that the discovery of coal, oil and gas did). We have recently seen how much global disruption is required to reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions to 2006 levels, levels which will still warm the planet if they continue. It could be still be worth reducing agricultural cycling of CO2 through methane, which is more warming than CO2 if this is cost-free, but is it?

Why humans evolved as meat eaters

Animal foods, and especially red meat, supply a constellation of nutrients not found together (if they are found at all) in any plant food. Nutrients are those chemicals essential for the functioning of the human organism, and plants, but not livestock, can survive well without nutrients such as amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals that are essential to humans. Surviving as a vegetarian or vegan is possible for some (perhaps assuming the genetic variants referred to earlier are present) but to thrive requires knowledge of these nutrients, where to find them, how to process the foods that supply them, or how to supplement them. Thriving as an omnivore or even a complete carnivore does not – nutritional sufficiency is the reason we evolved eating meat and other animal foods long before we learned there were such things as essential nutrients.

The reasons for avoiding meat or all animal foods can have a class basis – veganism may be taken up by educated middle-class adults, more likely to be exposed to “health food” ideas and aware of the need to supplement, some of whom then commercialise their habits as social media “influencers”. Meat avoidance is also being adopted increasingly by educated middle-class children for identity or compassionate reasons, but the poor may also avoid meat because of its cost when a loaf of bread or a packet of flavoured noodles can be bought for a dollar; these two motivations sometimes coincide when students in temporary poverty make a virtue of what they perceive to be a necessity.

Does the meat-avoiding behaviour of young people have unintended costs? Several observational studies have looked at the characteristics of meat-avoiding populations and found alarming increases in depression, anxiety and self-harm.

“The majority of studies, and especially the higher quality studies, showed that those who avoided meat consumption had significantly higher rates or risk of depression, anxiety, and/or self-harm behaviors. There was mixed evidence for temporal relations, but study designs and a lack of rigor precluded inferences of causal relations. Our study does not support meat avoidance as a strategy to benefit psychological health.”[3]

How can we explain these correlations? Why should we assume that they are causal?There are several lines of evidence to support a causal link: 1) several nutrients found in meat and animal foods are important factors in mood and cognition; vitamin B12, iron, carnitine, DHA, choline and tryptophan are some examples.[4] 2) the fatty acid mix in dairy and red meat has a similar composition to that of amniotic fluid and breast milk which has anxiolytic (anti-anxiety) effects in young animals.[5] 3) soy is a convenient and cheap replacement for animal protein; soy processing in Western diets results in a 10-fold higher level of the estrogenic contaminant isoflavone than that found in Asian diets.[6] Soy isoflavone causes anxiety behaviour in young female animals, and there is evidence supporting psychotropic and hormonal effects in humans.[7,8,9.10] Interestingly, while right-wing critiques of soy eating focus on effects it can have on young men, the scientific evidence for adverse effects in younger females, converting to HRT-like benefits after menopause, is stronger.[11] 4) other toxins found in plants, such as salicylates and oxalates, as well as problematic proteins such as gliadin/gluten and zein, may be present at higher levels in meat-free diets (but are not unique to them). A vegan mince sold in Countdown supermarkets is simply a coloured blend of soy protein and gluten, a protein linked to the risk of schizophrenia.[12] In the New Zealand context it would be relatively easy to confirm or dispute some of these associations. Everyone admitted to hospital for longer than a day supplies their dietary preferences. The dietetic preference data from psychiatric admissions could be both linked to outcomes over time and compared with the population average distribution, or the distribution in a ward where diet is least likely to play a role in admissions.

Iron deficiency in women

Young women in New Zealand are the most likely to report being vegan or vegetarian in surveys, as elsewhere in the world. Vegans in the Gender Studies field generate papers linking meat to masculinity, with the implication that this masculinity is toxic and might be improved by a plant-based diet.[13] The corollary of this belief – that women may therefore be weakened by meat-avoidance – is never considered. In a 1980 essay by Gloria Steinem called The Politics of Food (in the collection Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions) she describes some of the cultural constructs by which women are deprived of the good nutrition which men use to stay dominant. The belief that men need to eat red meat more often than women may have been valid when the average man was more likely to have to survive an attack by a wild bear than the average woman, but today it is mainly women who suffer from serious iron deficiency. The rate – and the cost to the health system – is increasing in New Zealand as more women give up meat. Iron deficiency anaemia in early pregnancy is associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in children, not an outcome that will increase the mother’s autonomy.[14]

In Georg Büchner’s 19th century “working class tragedy” Woyzeck, filmed by Werner Herzog with Klaus Kinski in the leading role and the subject of an opera by Alban Berg, the title character, a soldier, is subject to experimentation by a sadistic army doctor. The experiment involves Woyzeck living on nothing but peas. Peas may supply a complete protein, but Woyzeck goes insane; the deprivation being the final straw in his alienation. James Cameron, the film-maker responsible for Avatar and Titanic, is investing heavily in pea protein as if this were his gift to New Zealand. I am not sure whether he has watched Woyzeck – one would think he has.

Plant-based vs meat-based

Again, we have the specificity of plant germs as commodity; their low cost of production, long storage life and versatility of processing outcomes makes them an ideal investment and a robust one, as poverty and adversity increases their consumption, as we saw during the 2020 Lockdown Event. However, a plant-based burger is nutritionally greatly inferior to a meat burger, and that burger is often the most nutritious single food item many will people eat in the course of their day. The current push to eat a plant-based diet for “planetary health” is something that all the multinational food processors have signed up and provided funding for, and why not – Coca Cola, Unilever, Nestlé have always sold us plant-based foods. We notice that while iron-deficiency anaemia increases in New Zealand with the reason in plain sight, Nestlé scientists here in NZ are developing a more potent form of supplemental iron to add value to their products as their parent company backs the push to reduce meat. (As usual, it’s hard to separate the roles played by idealism and cynicism in the story). But, you may well ask, isn’t eating meat linked to an increased risk of cancer and heart disease? These associations are small to begin with, but they are also intensely confounded by social class and educational status. Supposing a factory that makes a carcinogenic chemical is hiring. Who is more likely to apply for that job – a meat eater (who will likely have a bigger family to support, among other considerations) or a vegan? Who, so to speak, eats all the pies, and needs food that is filling and nutritious without having to give it much thought? Who is more likely to work two jobs and be exposed to the disruptive metabolic effect of shift work? Carcinogen exposure and shift work are just two of the confounding variables ignored in diet epidemiology. (That meat-eating in Western populations may symbolise or associate with labour itself – as it did for H.G. Wells when he wrote The Time Machine – is not a consideration I have found discussed in the epidemiological literature.)

Certainly one can think of mechanisms that might link meat to disease, as one can with any food, but one can also think of protective mechanisms; several of the nutrients found mainly or only in animal foods are required for various antioxidant and immune defensive enzymes, and some like carnitine and EPA even have a place in the management of heart disease. The argument against meat-eating should not be confused with the argument for sometimes rationing a valuable food that is in short supply. The wartime rationing of meat in the UK is thought to have improved the health of the poorest by guaranteeing a greater supply than they had had previously, at a more affordable price. In Europe, the peasants who supplied the cities with meat, dairy and luxury foods such as oysters were sometimes forced by network disruptions to consume these foods – which many of them had never tasted before – with benefit to their own health.

The plant-based agenda can scarcely be expected to recognise these benefits, or understand the argument summarised by Williams and Dunbar (with regard to the vitamin nicotinamide and amino acid tryptophan in their tuberculosis paper), that if better data collection and analysis resulted in us ”…returning to our egalitarian past and redistributing meat or its components that supply NAD (avoiding both the highs and the lows between individuals and over individual lifetimes) [this] may be more effective than subsidizing corn grain (while the increased prosperity from unlocking human potential should pay for the intervention).”[1] Progress – which includes unlocking human potential from the chains of preventable mental and physical disease – depends on good data, and we do not yet seem to collate the data required to know whether or for whom plant-based diets are safe in New Zealand.

George Henderson works as a researcher for Professor Grant Schofield and the team behind the What The Fat books and the social enterprise PreKure, which has been running free lifestyle and health programs through the lockdown. He is the author or co-author of several scientific articles and letters published by the BMJ, Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, the JAMA, and other journals, including an influential review of low carbohydrate diets in diabetes management for the New Zealand Medical Journal. A musician, songwriter and amateur musicologist, he has recently presented a series of podcasts on 20th century women composers for Karyn Hay’s Lately show on RNZ.

References:

[1] Williams AC, Dunbar RI. Big brains, meat, tuberculosis, and the nicotinamide switches: co-evolutionary relationships with modern repercussions?. Int J Tryptophan Res. 2013;6:73‐88. Published 2013 Oct 15. doi:10.4137/IJTR.S12838 [2] Kothapalli KS, Ye K, Gadgil MS, et al. Positive Selection on a Regulatory Insertion-Deletion Polymorphism in FADS2 Influences Apparent Endogenous Synthesis of Arachidonic Acid. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;33(7):1726‐1739. doi:10.1093/molbev/msw049

[3] Urska Dobersek, Gabrielle Wy, Joshua Adkins, Sydney Altmeyer, Kaitlin Krout, Carl J. Lavie & Edward Archer (2020) Meat and mental health: a systematic review of meat abstention and depression, anxiety, and related phenomena, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1741505 [4] Frédéric Leroy & Nathan Cofnas (2019) Should dietary guidelines recommend low red meat intake?, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1657063 [5] Contreras CM, Rodríguez-Landa JF, García-Ríos RI, Cueto-Escobedo J, Guillen-Ruiz G, Bernal-Morales B. Myristic acid produces anxiolytic-like effects in Wistar rats in the elevated plus maze. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:492141. doi:10.1155/2014/492141 [6] Fernandez-Lopez A, Lamothe V, Delample M, Denayrolles M, Bennetau-Pelissero C. Removing isoflavones from modern soyfood: Why and how?. Food Chem. 2016;210:286‐294. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.04.126 [7] Hicks KD, Sullivan AW, Cao J, Sluzas E, Rebuli M, Patisaul HB. Interaction of bisphenol A (BPA) and soy phytoestrogens on sexually dimorphic sociosexual behaviors in male and female rats. Horm Behav. 2016;84:121‐126. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.06.010 [8] Tillett T. Full of beans? Early soy exposure associated with less feminine play in girls [published correction appears in Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Jan;120(1):A17]. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(12):A525. doi:10.1289/ehp.119-a525b [9] Adgent MA, Daniels JL, Rogan WJ, et al. Early-life soy exposure and age at menarche. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012;26(2):163‐175. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2011.01244.x [10] Hibbeln, J.R., SanGiovanni, J.P., Golding, J., Emmett, P.M., Northstone, K., Davis, J.M., Schuckit, M. and Heron, J. (2017), Meat Consumption During Pregnancy and Substance Misuse Among Adolescent Offspring: Stratification of TCN2 Genetic Variants. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 41: 1928-1937. doi:10.1111/acer.13494 [11] Patisaul HB, Jefferson W. The pros and cons of phytoestrogens. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2010;31(4):400‐419. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2010.03.003 [12] Čiháková D, Eaton WW, Talor MV, et al. Gliadin-related antibodies in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2018;195:585‐586. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2017.08.051 [13] Jessica Greenebaum & Brandon Dexter (2018) Vegan men and hybrid masculinity, Journal of Gender Studies, 27:6, 637-648, DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2017.1287064 [14] Wiegersma AM, Dalman C, Lee BK, Karlsson H, Gardner RM. Association of Prenatal Maternal Anemia With Neurodevelopmental Disorders. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(12):1294–1304. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2309

[opiatemasses]

Professional sport: Are men and women equal?

In order to become professional in any sport there are many barriers and adversities to overcome. It’s accepted that in life nothing is given to us. However, it is important to recognise that there are many situations, specifically in elite sport where women are not on a level playing field. There are many hindrances that stop or slow down the progression of female athletes.

Women’s sport has come a long way in the last 100 years and those barriers stopping the professionalisation are slowly being chipped away. Although these barriers that stop women from being professional athletes are still very present. I aim to shed light onto these areas and spark conversation as to why and how they exist in this day and age, and what is being done to continue the progress being made for professional sportswomen.

Defining the term ‘professionalisation’:

There are recognisable criteria for what constitutes a professional athlete. All sportspeople at this level will be expected to carry themselves in a well-behaved manner. They should also display good values such as honesty, being charitable, being respectful and hard-working just to name a few examples. A professional athlete must also be committed to the position they hold, also acting in a way which embodies the position of a role model to a younger generation of aspiring athletes. There is also a financial element to professional sport. They would receive funding in terms of the kit they are provided, the transport they take to and from competition and payment on top of expenses is also a condition. They are essentially being paid a living wage to compete within the world of sport.

Historical context:

In order to understand the state in which women’s professional sport is in now, we need to understand the historical context. As stated, women in professional sport encounter many problems and have done for many years. Women’s baseball is a perfect example. Talented young women who played softball were scouted to play baseball but only given the opportunity to play professionally due to the vacancy of male athletes going to war in the 1940s. There were many examples of inequality ranging from the expected feminine appearance and etiquette of the female athletes, both when they were and weren’t competing. In addition, the wage they were given was affected, the content of the contracts they signed and all the way to the closure of the league when the male baseball players returned. This raises the issue that sport was seen to be a ‘male preserve’ and not accessible to women.

The timeline of women’s professional baseball:

The video maps out the timeline of women’s baseball in the 40s:

Sport as a male preserve:

Writing in 1986, Eric Dunning describes sport as a ‘place that serves to insulate men from wider social changes threatening to undermine their traditional, taken for granted, superior social status’. This infers that sport was seen to be a safe haven from any external inputs, and that meant exclusively keeping it a male only activity.

Barriers to professionalisation:

In modern day sport there are still obstructions for women trying to not only become but remain a professional athlete in their chosen discipline. The topic of professional sport for women is more common and more women are professional in recent times, but there are still elements of inequality that exist. Some examples of this are stereotypical expectations, pay inequality and content of contracts.

The ‘feminine aesthetic’:

Firstly, the stereotypical feminine aesthetic where female athletes are expected to look attractive and presentable and are expected to upkeep and maintain this image. An example where the promotion of this was displayed by Sepp Blatter in 2004 when he stated that women footballers should ‘play in more feminine clothes like they do in volleyball’. These comments from the FIFA president were said as a claim that these changes may help grow the women game, but those ideas were not welcomed or accepted. The article below reflects that:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jan/16/football.gender

Pay inequality:

Secondly, pay inequality. As mentioned, a common idea of being professional is that an athlete will receive a salary above the expenses they pay in order to make a living. 50% of professional football players who are women do not get a salary, and 30% of them need second jobs in order to make a living. This is a significant problem as it will deter young girls from wanting to become professional footballers. At the elite end of professional football the differences in money is enormous. An example of this is comparing Neymar’s wage at PSG to the combined wage total of every female player in the top 7 women’s leagues. Neymar’s annual wage totalled to £32.9 million compared to £32.8 million divided by 1693 female players in the 2017/18 season. See the link below for a deeper insight:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5117491/Neymar-wages-seven-womens-leagues-combined.html

Contracts:

Thirdly, professional contracts and what they entail. A contract is essentially an agreement between a higher power such as a club and an individual athlete such as a player. Professional women’s football does not only have differences to the men’s game in a financial & player image sense, but also with their contracts which in turn affect their way of life. On average women in elite level football are given a contract which will tie them into a professional deal for a single year, although just less than 50% of women don’t receive a contract at all. The players that do receive their short-term contracts tend to have certain clauses which can bring everything to an abrupt end, such as injury. It is not uncommon that if a professional female footballer sustains a long term / severe injury then their contract can be terminated with immediate effect. This may also apply to lower-level professional male athletes, but this would never be seen at the elite level end of men’s football, sparking the question… where is the equality? See the link below for further information:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6422497/amp/Injured-Womens-Super-League-players-sacked-three-months-notice.html

 What do these barriers promote?

 Whistle blowing:

Essentially what that means is that a person is willing to stand up and make their voice heard in order to promote positive change. Andrew Goldsmith In 2015 defined this action: ‘The act of whistleblowing centres on reporting an illegal (or unethical) act by an observer who possesses inside information of the wrongdoing’. Looking at how the term ‘Whistle blowing’ in professional female sport is not only present but also key. An individual who follows the defined action of Dunning is essentially risking what little they already have being taken away from them, in terms of salary, contracts and treatment, in order to try to push further into the direction of positive change.

Examples of whistle blowing:

Retired footballer Abby Wambach delivered a speech at a graduation ceremony along-side two high profile male athletes who both had significantly a greater net worth. She took this opportunity and called on the younger generation of athletes to not only be grateful for the opportunities they are given in sport and settle, but to keep fighting for women’s professional sport to where it is considered equal to men. Linked below explains in more detail:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5768613/Former-soccer-star-Abby-Wambach-delivers-best-commencement-speech-year.html

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the path is clear on women’s professional sport. There have been many struggles in history which have carried through into the present day, in terms of the accessibility and opportunity for professionalisation of women’ sport. Although it has been made apparent from both historical and current day examples that there is a movement and belief in pressing for equality. Through the work of activists, women will never be excluded from an element of our society or settle for less than what they are worth. Both in a financial sense but in a respected sense also.

There is still a long way to go to reach true equality in the world of professional sport. But what can we do to influence change? Moving forward we as individuals have a responsibility of spreading the story of it so far, having the courage to openly conversate on this topic with people who are unaware will educate those on the message that needs to be carried forward. The topic of women’s professionalisation should be actively advocated by both genders as the aim of this conversation is to educate all about the inequality on hand. Also, those in influential positions need to utilise their platform to help increase the reach of this message, influencers have great power in our society in relation to shifting beliefs and opinions of their followers, therefore making this an effective action. The cold hard facts of inequality must be taught to the younger population so that they are more equipped to form their own opinions which in turn put them in a better position to influence positive change in the future. We need to ask ourselves as a society on a regular basis ‘what do we believe is right?’, and what we need to do about the situations that rectifying. This will ensure that our ways are never outdated, and the movement of women’s sport is always progressing. Women’s professional sport is not equal to men. Let’s change that.

N0784705

References:

Dunning, E. (1986). Sport as a male preserve: Notes on the social sources of masculine identity and its transformations. Theory, Culture & Society, 3(1), 79-90.

Goldsmith, A. L. (2015). Whistleblowing Intention in Sport: Perceptions, Antecedent Conditions, and Cost-Benefit Analysis (Doctoral dissertation).

[theculturedmarxist]

It’s been a full month since Election Day, and Donald Trump still refuses to concede to Joe Biden. Instead, he continues to insist that he won, making baseless accusations of widespread election fraud and enlisting the aid of a comical crew of sycophants to press legal challenges to the vote totals in swing states—all of which have been laughed out of court. Trump’s ongoing efforts to overturn millions of votes have prompted a public debate over whether to describe his actions as a “coup” or something similar. This is just the most recent phase of a wider debate dating back to the beginning of Trump’s presidency over whether Trump represents a “fascist” or “authoritarian” rupture with the Republican Party pre-2016.

One of the leading critics of that interpretation has been Corey Robin, a professor of political science at the CUNY Graduate Center and the author of an influential and controversial 2011 book on the history of conservative thought, The Reactionary Mind. This week, I spoke to Robin about the Trump presidency as it enters its final months. In contrast to the popular conception of Trump as an incipient fascist dictator and a break with American liberal institutions and norms, for Robin, Trump threatens liberalism only to the extent that movement conservatism in general has over many decades, and is otherwise a weak leader whose power is largely constrained by broader political conditions. Whether or not one fully agrees with every point, Robin offers a provocative alternative to some of the more unhinged reactions to the Trump era from the self-proclaimed Resistance.

This interview has been lightly edited. It originally appeared in yesterday’s email newsletter, to which you can subscribe here.

David Klion: It’s pretty clear at this point that we are not going through an actual coup and that Biden is going to be inaugurated as president on January 20th, whether Trump wants to admit it or not. At the same time, nothing quite like what’s happening now has ever happened before in the United States. How would you describe what Trump and his dead-enders are doing, and how concerned should we be in terms of the stability of US political institutions?

Corey Robin: You can’t understand what’s happening now without a historical perspective on conservatism and the right. The right was born in response to the French Revolution, as a reaction against the democratic emancipation of the commoner. Across more than two centuries and many continents, the right has never lost that reactionary ethos.

But what the right learned, slowly, over time, was that to mobilize against a democratic and democratizing left, it could not simply assert a traditional, static, and familiar defense of hierarchy; instead, it had to mobilize a dynamic movement of the masses, a populist politics of the right to counter the masses of the left. That populism was never democratic, but it knew how to draw from the tropes of democracy to push back against democracy. It learned how to use the languages of racism, nationalism, imperialism, and sexism to give a broad circle of the masses a taste of privilege over their subordinates. The fruition of that long learning process—of using populist vernaculars against democracy—was the American right that emerged in response to the 1960s and the New Deal.

For all the talk of Trump’s populism and racism and nationalism, the fact is that he was far less successful at using those vernaculars to mobilize the masses than his predecessors on the right—Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush. Nixon and Reagan were re-elected with large popular majorities. Trump, like Bush, lost the popular majority the first time around, and unlike Bush, lost it a second time around.

What Trump and the Republican Party have grown increasingly dependent upon are not populism or mass politics of any sort, but rather the Electoral College, the Senate, and the courts. Historically speaking, this is a great—and terrible—reversion for the right, a return to the time when it depended not on its popular touch but on its control over anti-democratic state institutions. It makes today’s right a lot weaker than the right of the Reagan era, and makes it seem much more like the Tories of early 19th-century Britain.

This is why you now see Trump doing what he’s trying to do with the vote. The Republicans can’t win presidential campaigns the way they once did: Since 1992, they have won the popular vote exactly once. Their only hope now is a combination of the Electoral College and the courts.

Far from being concerned about US institutions being insufficiently stable or resilient enough to contain Trump or a similar figure, I’m far more concerned about the stifling stability and resilience of institutions like the Electoral College, the courts, and the Senate, and their ability to prop up Trump and the GOP.

DK: You’ve maintained from the beginning that Trump is actually a historically weak president, in spite of his authoritarian bluster. Can you elaborate on why you thought so back in 2017, how those predictions have been borne out since, and what makes Trump weaker than other recent presidents?

CR: I thought Trump was weak for two reasons, neither having anything to do with his skill or character, but with larger political forces and structures.

The first is that conservatism is an inherently reactionary politics that depends on the real threat of an active, emancipatory left: not the specter of a threat, not the discourse on Twitter, but an actual social movement that has taken state power and is engaged in a project of dispossession of elites. When the left is defeated or disappears, the right’s power ebbs. That is what has happened in the US. The left is, historically speaking, relatively weak, so it’s difficult for the right to get the juice it needs.

Trump’s presidency reflected that: Compared to the Republican presidencies of Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush, Trump’s was significantly less transformational, and its legacy is far less assured. Next to “law and order” and ���the silent majority” (which Nixon made part of our political grammar), next to “the era of big government is over” (which Reagan bequeathed to Clinton as the ruling doctrine of the age), next to Bush’s war on terror and the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, none of Trump’s attempts to permanently transform the political climate—not of the Republican Party but of the whole political culture—seems even remotely comparable. With the exception of the tax cuts, Trump was hardly able to get much legislation through Congress; many of his executive orders will be undone by Biden; the only custodian of his legacy, ironically, will be the courts, which many had seen as the antidote to Trumpism and caretaker of the rule of law.

The second reason I thought Trump would be weak is that all presidents are elected to oppose or defend a larger political regime. A regime, in US political history, is the combination of ideology, interests, and policies that govern over an extended period of time. In American history, we had the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican regime, Jackson’s Democratic regime, Lincoln’s Republican regime, FDR’s New Deal regime, and now Reagan’s free market regime. Whatever the party of a specific president elected may be, he will be forced to operate under the larger regime’s assumptions and expectations of good governance. Bill Clinton was a Democrat, but he had to govern like a Republican; Eisenhower was a Republican, but he had to govern like a Democrat.

There are some presidents who are affiliated with a dominant regime, but the regime is vulnerable. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter were those kinds of presidents, and they are considered to be among the weakest. From the moment Trump was elected, I thought he belonged in that Hoover/Carter category. The Reagan regime is increasingly unable to provide the answers and policies to govern the country, much in the same way that the New Deal seemed unable to offer answers during the 1970s. The fact of that weakness made Trump quite weak. Again, the fact that he was so unable to push through legislation, that his budgets were more liberal, in some ways, than Barack Obama’s, and that the Republicans, when they controlled all the elected branches of government, were not able to implement big parts of their program—all that suggests how weak the Republican regime is.

In the coming years, once the emotional context of Trump’s presidency fades away, I think more and more people will see just how weak he really was.

DK: The historian Timothy Snyder, among other prominent public intellectuals, has argued that Trump’s approach to the presidency resembles that of 20th-century dictators like Hitler or Mussolini. The obvious counter is that Trump is going to submit to the election result, but are people like Snyder completely off-base? Trump may be lazy and incompetent, and US institutions may be stronger than some predicted, but is it fair to characterize Trump and his hardcore supporters as far-right, illiberal, even fascist, and at the very least a test of how much strain the Constitution can endure?

CR: There is no question, in my mind, that Trump and his supporters are far-right and illiberal. I’ve said so from the beginning. One of my differences with Snyder and people who subscribe to the view that Trump is a fascist or authoritarian is that their desire to call Trump that often arises from a failure to understand conservatism more generally, which has always been a far-right and illiberal and anti-liberal form of politics. Many of the attributes people decry in Trump and his followers were primary features of the conservatism I was describing in The Reactionary Mind (and got a lot of flak from liberals for so describing). To my mind, the comparisons between Trump and Hitler or Mussolini come from people who only began thinking about American conservatism and the Republican Party when Trump came along.

I would also reject some of the premises of your question. The issue is not that Trump is lazy or incompetent, though he is. As I said in my previous answer, the real reason for Trump’s ineffectiveness has virtually nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the larger forces on the right that I discussed. Virtually any Republican president elected in 2016 (and I’m not sure anyone but Trump could have been elected) would have been as constrained in their effectiveness as Trump has been.

Conversely, I also think it’s wrong to say that the reason Trump didn’t prevail is that the institutions were stronger than people feared. This is part of an argument that is often falsely posed by liberals and the left: If you assert that Trump is weak and will fail, as I have said from the beginning, people assume that means that the institutions will constrain him. That’s nonsense: American institutions have often been the friend of the most authoritarian projects, as I argued in my first book, Fear: The History of a Political Idea. And in fact, to the extent that Trump’s politics had any juice at all, it was precisely because the institutions support that politics. Where would Trump be without the Electoral College or the Senate confirming his judges and justices—and where would Trumpism be under a Biden administration without the Senate and the courts?

It’s ironic to me that people would choose this moment, and Trump’s presidency, to assign the label “fascist” to the right, for what fascism is about, above all else, is a politics of strength and will. That’s why fascists traditionally loathe the constitutional order: because they think it constrains the assertion of political will. The irony of Trumpist/GOP politics is that it is completely dependent upon the constitutional order. In that regard, it’s almost the complete opposite of fascism.

DK: Okay, we’ve made it through the Trump era, almost, probably. But are we really out of the woods? How strong a president do you expect Biden to be, and is the US at any risk of drifting toward illiberalism in the foreseeable future?

CR: We’re definitely not out of the woods, but not for the reason I think you mean. What we’ve learned over the last decade—and what Trump’s bombast allowed many liberals and the left to avoid—is how much our political institutions constrain action. Assuming the Democrats don’t win the Senate seats in Georgia, we are going to reach the end of 2022 having endured 12 years of political immobility. That is, from Obama’s time in office after the midterms of 2010 to Biden’s time after the midterms of 2022, we’ll have had virtually no legislation dealing with any of the challenges of the day and a lot of executive orders that temporarily change things and then get undone by the next president. It seems so strange to me that people spoke so much of authoritarianism under Trump when what we’ve been seeing for years now, including the Trump years, is political impotence, the absence of political will. And without the left getting its act together, I don’t see that changing any time soon. That is something to be very worried about.

David Klion is the newsletter editor for Jewish Currents.

[alexsmitposts]

Why Nagorno-Karabakh and Why Now? Several months ago, I wrote that things had been tense on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone since the collapse of the USSR, but only now are we hearing of a resumption of active hostilities, the deployment of heavy weaponry and heated engagements. Observers on the ground have no doubt that the heaviest fighting in years is going on, and this is only the early stages of what may develop into a larger geopolitical conflict, involving proxy sources. Each side is posting videos of their forces destroying the heavy armour of the other. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia may be playing to a domestic audience by mobilising, but Turkey is involved too. As ever, anything involving military aggression in support of an ally also plays well for a Turkish domestic audience. Outside meddling in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict is nothing new, and one should keep in mind that much is below the surface. Different actors have different reasons for wanting this conflict to either remain frozen or escalate, and what happens will be governed by how much these actors respect each other, or don’t. Moscow and Washington may be happy for the conflict to stay frozen, as they can then pursue their own agenda, goes the traditional theory. Those who don’t like either Moscow or Washington, either now or historically, see a potential geopolitical victory over both sides in resolving the conflict by force when the big boys have failed to do so. All the while neither country fully develops, and the status quo is maintained, at least in the case of Azerbaijan. After thirty years, negotiations have not worked and the populace of Azerbaijan is tired, seeing others spout off about “territorial integrity” while not being interested in restoring its own. Mutual Cards House Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) was the first US Congressman to condemn Azerbaijan’s alleged pre-emptive attack back in July, saying, “I am very concerned by the recent provocative and destabilising actions taken by Azerbaijan in recent days along the Armenian border, including the shelling of Armenian soldiers.” His diatribe continued with “how these actions must also be viewed in the context of Azerbaijan’s consistently bellicose rhetoric towards Armenia and Artsakh, and its refusal to allow international monitoring of their borders. I urge the State Department to make clear to all parties the need for restraint and diplomacy, and reduced tensions.” Making such statements about one side of a conflict is hardly going to reduce tensions. But Schiff is talking to Armenian donors to his campaign chest, and Armenian voters in his district. The Armenian lobby has always been better organised than the Azeri one, another factor which might propel Azerbaijan to war against what it sees as the rest of the world. But that very imbalance of international support can be used to win friends. Back in the 90s MEGA Oil, a US-CIA proxy company, was importing fighters from Afghanistan to fight on the side of Azerbaijan to keep some balance on the battlefield. The Azeris could not fight, as they lacked training and equipment, and seemed to have no taste for it. But an Armenian victory would have benefitted Russia, its greatest ally, more than the US, and, however, much the US listens to Armenians, it wouldn’t want that perceived threat to its own interests. Turkey obviously supports Azerbaijan, as it is a fellow Turkish nation. Once again, the Turkic Council, this little-known international forum few are interested in, is showing that it is more ruthless than any other in achieving its aims, which are ultimately about the religious and ethnic cleansing of the highest order. Turkey now needs to relocate Syrian operatives and other US/Saudi trained and paid “freedom fighters,” and is glad the opportunity this long-frozen conflict presents. With all sides playing what appears to be a very big game of chicken, a sudden influx of mercenaries with nothing else to do is certain to change the situation in Turkey’s favour—or at least that was the plan. All Of A Sudden The conflict has been more or less frozen since 1994 when Armenia occupied not only Karabakh itself, which is ethnically Armenian, but several districts surrounding it, which are not. Armenia argues that this has actually prevented further conflict, but the US used the same argument to destroy the Native American population, and Argentina’s “disappeared” died of the same logic. Things are spinning in a different direction now with offensive fighting, and pro-war rallies in Baku. Several weeks prior to the start of fighting in July I personally saw lots of Green Evergreen containers, freight forwarding company, crossing the Georgian border. Border guards and customs officials both told me that it was not possible to check them, but agreed that weapons were within. I wouldn’t put anything past Ankara either, despite the danger of Turkish engagement in the Caucasus inviting an immediate and strong response from Moscow. The two governments have already locked horns in Syria and Libya, but this has not dissuaded Turkey from pursuing an ever more openly aggressive international agenda. Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing The bits and pieces I have read about who has started it this time just don’t add up. What is written says nothing, which is why I am all the more suspect, especially about pro-war protests. Take for example, “… thousands of protestors rallied earlier in the centre of Baku, calling on the government to mobilize troops and retake Nagorno-Karabakh. News outlets estimated that 30 to 50 thousand protestors gathered in front of the parliament building.” Why now, and why is this one of the international news items chosen to be reported? If the Azeri are tired of this frozen conflict, tens of thousands of them are not going to come into the streets demanding further engagement with it unless they think they can end it on terms they find acceptable. So, who has guaranteed what, and why are they bothering? However, the move towards conflict is still more likely to have come from the Azeri side. Armenia has done pretty well out of international sanctions and blockades imposed since 1994. These have enabled it to remain friendly with Russia, its only real supporter, and find a way for good terms with the West, without compromising its national independence. No other regional state can do this, but if the conflict ended, Armenia would have to find a wider group of friends and sink back into the pack like the rest. It is money paid by US and Turkish defence contractors, and therefore by the US government indirectly, which is painting the conflict in a new light. Azerbaijani oil prices are low, Dutch Disease is running rampant, there is little diversity in the economy and corruption is well-ingrained and supported by networks of patronage (especially the ruling family). Armenia has similar problems. The Pashinyan government has been highly criticised by a wealthy and influential political and business figure, Gagik Tsarukyan, and some legal and political backlash has been felt in this case. The trial of former president Kocharyan is also sputtering along in fits and starts, and a major reform package directed at the country’s Constitutional Court has also brought up significant controversy. But none of that dents Armenia’s dependence on Russia, and the benefits it is gaining from that which the US never wanted it to. It seems the US wants Armenia back in the pack, and this is the way of getting it there. Certainly, it will act as this is a regional affair to be sorted out by the local players, diplomatically or by brute force. Old Hands Make Light Work Who might be linking these indirect US government funds to the Azeri side? No one is ever likely to put their head above the parapet. But as often happens in this region, the name Matthew Bryza is one which keeps coming into the frame. Bryza was once the US Ambassador to Turkey, and subsequently Azerbaijan. He is married to Zeyno Baran, a Turkish-born foreign policy analyst at the Hudson Institute. She has worked with Neo-Con think tanks in the past, which is why Bryza kept insisting in interviews that he no longer worked for the (Bush) White House but for the State Department, even when he was not being asked a question about this. In 2005 Baran told a US Senate hearing that she opposed the Congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide, a position generally seen as partisan as that of Richard Verrall’s book on the Nazi atrocities, “Did Six Million Really Die?”At the same time, Bryza was busy telling reporters that Turkey was his “second home,” and was removed as Ambassador when he too made statements opposing the Armenian Genocide. Bryza is no longer a diplomat. He claims to earn his living as a consultant on “business and democratic development,” which is a not very subtle way of saying that he is still finding new markets and areas of influence for his friends, but is no longer restricted by diplomatic protocols. But he is still a regular visitor to Turkey and is a board member of Turcas Petrol, which is linked to the Party of War in the US and the corporate interests behind it. His explanation is that Turcas is “a private company that is traded on the Istanbul stock exchange” but “has no affiliation of any sort with the Turkish Government (or the Azerbaijani Government). In fact, the Turkish Government’s energy policies often work against the commercial interests of Turcas.” This is despite the fact that Turcas is an affiliate of SOCAR, the Azerbaijan state oil company. Through this, the Azerbaijani and Turkish governments either own, fund or sponsor most business in the Caucasus, thereby buying off many politicians along the way. In Georgia in particular, you see a connection with SOCAR (share ownership, personnel, supply) whenever you look at the lists of business owners, or investigate the many businesses whose known real owners do not appear on the published lists. This helps explain why Georgia, having partly reformed itself since the Saakashvili years, is no longer the regional arms smuggling hub but has simply exchanged illegal arms for semi-legal oil. Turkish and Iranian business interests have been subject to investigation in Georgia on charges of oil smuggling. New, modern-day versions of MEGA Oil, US-funded companies, have inevitably been involved. These include Frontera Resources, a company which once ostensibly left Georgian, but re-entered it when a new US Ambassador was appointed. Following this, the Government of Georgia suddenly decided not to terminate its contract with Frontera Resources Georgia Corporation, under hard US pressure, and allowed the company to continue operating in part of the original contract area, where oil has been produced since Soviet times. The justification used for this at the time was that this was necessary, “especially in times of low oil prices and heating up conflicts.” The phrase “heating up” cannot refer to new conflicts but to dormant ones which are starting again. Making such a comment casually, when talking about a seemingly unrelated issue, is an old trick for establishing in the minds of listeners that everyone knows a conflict is going to heat up again. Which conflict is being referred to, and to whom is it inevitable that the fighting will resume? You Know Who Still Knows Too Much Do we have anything else which will support this assertion? In the words of an old radio show, “It’s That Man Again.” If the US is up to something by proxy, it always chooses the same, compromised mouthpiece. The aforementioned Mikheil Saakashvili, the President of Georgia when Bryza was the US envoy to the region, can’t live in Georgia anymore because he is wanted there on a multitude of criminal charges. Having been ratlined out to Ukraine and given a job in its government, he was also expelled from there facing more criminal charges. He has since lived in Poland and Hungary, also US allies like the other two countries, where he likewise faces multiple criminal charges. Saakashvili has more criminal indictments against his name than Al Capone and Pol Pot put together. Yet his US protectors (for now) present him as a politician and buy him column space in newspapers that otherwise don’t care about him, or are sick of seeing his name. Misha has suddenly reappeared from wherever he is hiding now with the following statement: Nagorno Karabakh is Sovereign Territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan and nothing will change it. What does he have to gain by saying this, especially now, given how many Armenians live in Georgia, and he ruined his own relations with Azerbaijan by making advances to Aliyev’s wife? All Saakashvili has to live for is the continued protection of his handlers. They want to build a climate of opinion in which everyone expects Azerbaijan to go to war with Armenia over the injustice of the Armenian occupation. The Azeri government and people may not be interested, but they can easily be blackmailed or at least manipulated by international opinion pointing fingers at them for not doing what they expect, as if they are not worthy of support, independence, or office. However strong the Armenian lobby is, the US interest is paramount. An ongoing war, and funding committed to it, always ensures policy continuations in election years, regardless of who wins those elections. The US wants this war, and its Armenian lobby will donate more to politicians who blame Azerbaijan for it, in the hope of getting more US themselves in return if Azerbaijan is successful. The only question is how much Turkey will be blamed for pulling the trigger when it is all over.

[sciencespies]

The giant panda is a conservation icon, but the success story masks a dark truth

https://sciencespies.com/nature/the-giant-panda-is-a-conservation-icon-but-the-success-story-masks-a-dark-truth/

The giant panda is a conservation icon, but the success story masks a dark truth

At a time when we crave good news, the giant panda is a beacon of environmental optimism. Since becoming an icon for the conservation movement in the 1980s, 67 panda reserves and countless wildlife corridors have been created in the bamboo forested mountain ranges of central China.

The most recent census suggests all that effort has paid off. There are 1,864 pandas living in the wild today, up from 1,000 in the late 1970s.

But in a new study, researchers discovered that what’s good for the panda may not necessarily be good for the rest of the ecosystem. After studying images from camera traps over 10 years, they found that large carnivores – the leopard, snow leopard, wolf and dhole (an Asian wild dog) – have retreated from where giant pandas have thrived.

Their numbers appear to have fallen significantly in these panda reserves, and the researchers note that the wolf and dhole may be functionally extinct within them, while the tiger has already been driven to extinction here. Panda conservation doesn’t appear to be benefiting other species, or the wider ecosystem.

These findings shake the foundations of one of conservation’s most enduring ideas – that investing time and money into protecting particular large, influential species can pay dividends for the other species and habitats they coexist with.

In the aftermath of that revelation, what do we really know about how to protect ecosystems and save wildlife from extinction?

Protected areas (PAs) where the four large carnivore species still exist (black bars), and where they have died out (grey bars) throughout the giant panda’s range in China. (Li et al., Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2020)

How to think about ecosystems

Single species conservation was the dominant idea during the latter half of the 20th century. Conservation groups and governments identified particular species in need of urgent help and used their images to raise public support to help save them from extinction.

The poster children of this approach were the giant panda and the tiger. Both of which have been success stories, for the target species at least.

But while lavishing these charismatic species with attention and resources, this approach tends to overlook less attractive species, such as worms, despite them potentially having more ecological value.

Today, conservationists place much greater emphasis on protecting ecosystems and entire landscapes. The logic being that you can more effectively maintain an area’s ecology if you treat it as a functional system.

A useful analogy is to compare an ecosystem with an organism, such as the human body. Each is made up of many working systems, whose roles are maintained by species in the case of the former, and organs in the latter.

A respiratory system needs healthy lungs, but both depend on the rest of the body’s systems. The lungs need healthy arms and legs to find and collect nourishment. The digestive system needs to be able to process that food to unlock the nutrients for the rest of the body, while the circulatory system needs to transport them to the lungs so they can do their work to keep the organism alive.

Alternatively, replace our organism with an aeroplane. For the aeroplane to fly and land safely, all the components need to work. If an engineer only maintains one component, like the engine, and ignores the wings, wheels and navigation system, the flight is going to end badly.

The lesson from both analogies is that all components and the roles they perform are necessary for keeping the whole functional and healthy. An aeroplane may only tolerate the loss of so many rivets, before losing one that’s vital, or losing enough to cause mechanical breakdown.

Losing the function of one organ can cause multiple systems to fail within the body.

Focusing on a single species in conservation isn’t necessarily wrong, though. A focal species can act as a flagship, an ambassador that raises support (and money) for conservation of an entire area. Pandas are very good at this.

But there are also umbrella species. For example, beavers modify their habitats so extensively that they create numerous niches for other species to occupy. In that sense they’re like an umbrella, that if protected, will provide shelter for other species.

So why did panda-targeted conservation fail to revive populations of large carnivores in central China? Well, a panda’s habitat requirements are small compared to a wolf’s or a leopard’s, and the threats facing them in the wild are very different.

Pandas are also famous for their specialised diet – a carnivore turned herbivore – and so their needs differ greatly from your average large predator. Put simply, a habitat catered to sedate, bamboo-munching pandas isn’t likely to help a nomadic, meat-loving leopard.

Conserving large carnivores

Large carnivores don’t have it easy worldwide. They need large areas of suitable habitat and lots of prey. In most areas they once occupied, humans have destroyed habitat, removed native prey species and killed large carnivores by gun, trap or poison, either because they hunt livestock or because they are seen as a danger.

The tiger is one of the few large carnivores whose populations have increased in recent years. India has seen its tiger population grow by a third since 2014. Considering the challenges of coexisting with these large predators – animals that occasionally kill humans – this success is impressive.

India’s approach to tiger conservation prizes tolerance, education and working closely with the communities that live alongside this species above all else. Part of that education is recognising the tiger as just one part of the ecosystem, all of which needs protection.

What the panda study tells us is that we cannot assume a flagship species will also be an umbrella species. While individual species are important, some are more important than others for maintaining a healthy ecosystem.

Jason Gilchrist, Ecologist, Edinburgh Napier University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

#Nature

[superchartisland]

Syndicate (Bullfrog/Electronic Arts, Amiga, 1993)

Have we done a cyberpunk dystopia on AAA yet? Speedball 2 was a bit too focused on the contest of sport for its wider world to count. Exolon didn’t have enough inhabitants. Impossible Mission came closest but has its own idiosyncratic niche (plus: too damn suave). So I guess the lovingly detailed high tech gloom of Syndicate was something new to many gamers. Its suit-encased guards and harsh architecture, its world of advertising screens and missions for corporate saboteurs presented in medi-scan silhouette, green lines and data all around: all novel and, more importantly, cool.

It’s an educated guess, but one drawing on assumptions I make in a spirit of generosity. Because this way, the fact that playing it for the first time didn’t do much for me isn’t just a result of failures. It’s a result of successes, in that it can be put down to Syndicate’s aesthetic having succeeded so thoroughly as to become one of gaming’s defaults. Not that we can’t still have a good dispute over what cyberpunk, or indeed Cyberpunk, really means, obviously. I’ve played a dozen better technological cautionary tales; we’ll be getting to a few of them in this project. Without any personal nostalgia for Syndicate, it’s hard to see it as anything other than an inferior take on familiar themes.

It doesn’t help that it has some serious oddities even in the implementation of its aesthetic and story, possibly an inevitable side effect of being a trailblazer. Its tales of cybercorporate rivalry and stealing cyberresearch are accessed via a Risk-looking world map where you take over each region of the world in turn through carrying out assassinations and persuasions and the like. Once you’ve taken places over, you can go back to the map and stick high taxes on all of the residents to fund your cyberresearch and, presumably, continue to deny said residents affordable cyberhealthcare. But the disconnect in scale between the two concepts of what you’re doing is massive. There is space to fill in the gaps in my head, conjecture about how in each level I’m intervening in the one key action that tips the balance and leads to overall control, but it’s not very satisfying.

The actual method you use to carry these things out is part of that too. Syndicate has you clicking around on an isometric view to direct individual members of a squad around to stake out territory and fire at enemies. It then adds on all sorts of bells and whistles in terms of destructible territory, different weapons, and enemies and soldiers who don’t go down in one hit. It ties things back to the overall picture by being able to use your money to kit out your squad better, including upgrading their body parts (and it happily has nothing to say on the subject of whether this makes them less human). The level of detail is impressive but never quite joins up the fighting to the wider picture. And while Syndicate leaves vast uncrossable gaps, the level of detail is does have is enough to take away much of the mystery and intrigue that an even vaguer look at its world could have left. Later games having shorn it of any blinding sheen of cool, it’s hard to see anything else but the gaps.

Another thing that it’s hard to ignore when looking at Syndicate in retrospect is that it’s made by one of the big names of British gaming, Bullfrog (not to be confused with Bulldog, of the vaguely Bullfroggy Feud). We’re going to me meeting Bullfrog less than you might expect, having already missed out on the big and influential (and slightly slowburning) Populous, but Syndicate gives some pointers for the future. Receiving mission briefings about how you have to clear the enemy corporation scum out of an up and coming town because head office thinks it’s a very promising base for your marketing boys to experiment with? It’s pointed satire, but again all the detail of the game (and the time you spend shooting people) doesn’t fully connect with it. Perhaps taking on capitalism in a setting with a theme closer to present reality might prove more profitable?

Amiga chart, Edge 001, October 1993