Note: The term I use as a self-descriptor (queer) in this post is still often used as a hateful slur in some communities. I'm sorry if it is a reminder of painful times for you. However, I use it because I was exposed to many slurs, and queer not being one of them, was first exposed to it in a positive, reclaimed light. So here I will continue to use it in a positive and affirming way, because I feel that although the struggle continues, reclaiming slurs is both a rite of equality and a good way to remove power from those who would be hateful.
So I've mentioned queerness before, but I'm going to elaborate on what I mean by that in two parts.
The part I'm going to talk about this week is attraction, romance, and sexuality.
As you can probably tell from the title, I don't quite fit into the cisheteronormative schema, nor do I want to. But let's start at the beginning. Having been raised in a fundamentalist religious family, I always was bombarded with the notion that sex was wrong, lust for women was wrong, etc. The only acceptable outlet was within the bonds of marriage, and anything else, even just responding to a body's natural urges, was the utmost of sin.
For some reason, modern Christianity is hyper-obsessive about sexuality being sinful. Men are considered to be inherently lustful (sinful) and women who don't protect their virtue are just the same (sinful). This is a twisted view of biology, but there you go.
So growing up in this environment, I was pretty strongly affected. It was continuously engrained that attraction to women was lustful and thus sinful. So around puberty, and exploring of romantic feelings, heterosexual attractions were completely forbidden.
Now, I'm not saying my sexuality is due to this. Later I'll explain what I mean. But it did affect how I developed into what I feel today.
In part due to curiosity, in part due to subtle attraction, and in part due to wanting to further understand myself and the body I was in, I became increasingly interested in all aspects of male sexuality. And the more I learned, the more I was able to make sense of the attractions I was feeling.
But in religious fundamentalism, same-sex attraction is the ultimate taboo, to the point that many people even avoid acknowledging that it exists. Or if they do, it's considered a willful sinful choice, the devil's perversion of god's perfect beauty.
So although for a while, I satisfied my curiosity under the mindset that without lust for women, there was no sin, the external homophobia directed at others that I was exposed to started to be internalized inside myself.as deep feelings of guilt and shame. I consistently prayed that god take away my "illness" and hid it from everyone. And I continued to pass as non-queer. But this just exposed me to more vitriolic attitudes about LGBT people in general, because no one felt the need to self-censor.
It would be shocking to more liberal religious groups just how regularly vocally hateful the conservative fundamentalist religious crowd can be. We were warned to steer clear of our gay neighbor, for fear that he would rape us as children. Yes, the "gays are pedos" myth is still alive and strong, even though numerous studies have shown otherwise, that the majority of child sexual abuse is committed by heterosexuals, and that pedophilia is a condition separate from any queer identity, but a mental disorder.
One result of this is that I find the F-slur (commonly applied to gay men, but also to lesbians and anyone else seen as nonconforming) to be offensive when used flippantly. I'm not talking about in a reclaimed sense; for example the show Queer as Folk used it pretty often as a way of desensitizing it, and I laud that. No, I'm denouncing the trend of high-school and college age kids saying things like "that's so gay/queer" or "don't be such a f*g" if one of their friends is seen as behaving too far outside the cishetero norm. That's really offensive, and I don't care if they're just kids, they need to stop.
But anyway, back to my story. So from about the age of 13 until the age of 20, so 7 years, I kept this part of me hidden out of misplaced guilt and shame. Due to reaction formation (psychological thing, look it up, it explains like 90% of everything ever), I bought fully into the conservative mindset. Until community college.
Being exposed to typical people (i.e. not conservative religious fundamentalists) who were accepting of others, or at least not caring about others' sexuality, slowly my walls began to break down. I started reading more online resources about self-understanding and acceptance, and right around this time the "It Gets Better" Project was launched.
Here's where I write a brief aside about that. Although it was inspiring to see so many people who had come to terms with themselves and led fulfilling lives, it was bittersweet, because to the people they are really trying to reach, those trapped in situations where things look bad (like, say, in an unaccepting religious family), it's almost like being teased. To have someone say "yes, my family is totally fine with me" when you know that yours wouldn't be tends to inspire some despair. Which is why the trend of "so and so comes out and their parents are totally cool, isn't that cool" videos going viral is still troubling to me. Because to kids whose families would react poorly, it's just another emotional blow. And actually, in my experience, the most inspiring thing was actually depictions and stories of people who had succeeded despite the lack of acceptance.
Suffice it to say, around the same time I came out as an atheist, I (erringly, I'll explain why) came out as gay. I still use the circumstances as a bit of bittersweet humor: "Pain is when your mother tells you she wishes you'd never been born. Humor is when you come out, and she's already played that card on atheism".
Fast forward about a year, while at university. During the interim, I had moved out of my parents house and rented a room in a very queer-friendly house with a group of amazing 20-somethings. A story for another day.
But anyway, I have a tendency to have long periods of confusion and soul-searching, followed by partial breakthroughs. I wish they'd just come all at once, but whatever. So the one I'm going to talk about now is how I realized I wasn't gay.
No, that doesn't mean the attractions went away, it isn't in any sense an endorsement of the horrible idea of conversion therapy. No, it was more like an uncovering of unconsidered feelings. You see, due to the "lust for women is sin" mantra of fundamentalism from so long ago, I had unconsciously blocked out all attractions to women.
And the breakthrough was realizing this. That I was something more like bisexual/pansexual. Now it doesn't mean that I'm attracted to everyone ever. In fact, it seems that I'm attracted to a lower percent of people than most, but I've found that I can be attracted to anyone, regardless of their sex or gender. This is in the sense of "anyone can cook" like in that one pixar film. It doesn't mean everyone can, but there's a chance that anyone can.
I'm still attracted to more men, but it doesn't mean that I don't find women attractive, or that I disregard possible relationships with them. Because people are all people. Everyone has an aesthetic that they're attracted to, everyone has personality styles they're attracted to, etc. And I feel no need to limit mine when I've already realized that my attractions (and relationships) can and do transcend the inaccurate binary model.
So this is why I consider myself queer. Get over it.
24 January 2015
23 January 2015
Sorry sorry delay for second post
You guise,
At work today, I started developing a headache. And though it was getting worse, I put up the first post with the intention of writing the second after work.
But this headache kept getting worse. And once I got home, I laid down and only just got up a little while ago. And it's still pretty bad.
I can't finish the second post tonight.
At work today, I started developing a headache. And though it was getting worse, I put up the first post with the intention of writing the second after work.
But this headache kept getting worse. And once I got home, I laid down and only just got up a little while ago. And it's still pretty bad.
I can't finish the second post tonight.
The Genius Mind Remembers American History: Part 3 - 18th Century Souses with Guns
So fast forward to the mid 1700s. The Colonies are pretty
busy places. You say it was the success of Jamestown
in VA? Naw, we all know that Amerukuh was founded by the religious
right, prayyyyuuuse the Jayyyyysuuus.
So a few cities were big in those days, like Boston, and New York, and those other ones. In these wonderful cultural centers, life was simple and happy. People spent their days drinking tea and reading Ben Franklin's newspaper and their nights at the high-society centers, the classic pubs. We go to clubs, they went to pubs.
Similar to the business world of today, a lot of deals went down in pub-clubs. Talk of politics and financial deals were conducted with the finesse that only comes after 5 or 6 pints of ale, made by good old Sam Adams. What a dude.
He made his own beer, was involved in politics, and legend has it he invented the roundhouse kick.
So when nasty old King George a la tres decided to tax paper and tea, for the stupid reason of paying off the debts from the French and Indian war (coincidentally to protect the colonists, no biggie you know), who was the first to stand up and say, "we can'tsh letsh him get away wish dissss!"? None other than, well we don't really know, but my money is on old Sammy "beer-breath" Adams.
So these cultured gentlemen, after drinking their fill of the classiest ale, decided to do what any rational person would do: start a race war. Well, another one at least. They dressed up like "Injuns" and attacked some British boats. And tea. Because, goddammit, tea is for the Brits. Well, it's not like we still do thi... wait, what? People still dress like Native Americans (and other races) in culturally insensitive/offensive and stereotyped costumes, like for frat parties or halloween? Geez people, you'd think that we'd have made some progress by now.
Well, anyway, it didn't work. Yeah, Boston harbor was full of tea-bags (look at me all classy, not a single tea-bagging joke). But dude, the British caught on quickly that a bunch of tall lanky white guys with blonde and red and light brown hair probably weren't natives, no matter what cops and firemen went along.
And thus started a civil/revolutionary war.
Well, the war went well. Only a few (hundred) of our boys starved to death, and the British only burned a few of our cities down, destroying precious art and valuables and lives.
But we won! Kinda. With the help of the French, since they didn't like the Brits either. Which seems a bit strange, because since then, there's this weird stereotype about French being ignoble cowards and British being our favorite allies which just really isn't the case.
So now all that was left was the easy task of setting up the government. Enter Sam Adams. And plenty of beer. And that, kids, is why our government is simple, and not wackily complex in any way. Not at all. Electoral college, what? Pre-1750 law precedent, who? Cohesive national identity, huh?
So a few cities were big in those days, like Boston, and New York, and those other ones. In these wonderful cultural centers, life was simple and happy. People spent their days drinking tea and reading Ben Franklin's newspaper and their nights at the high-society centers, the classic pubs. We go to clubs, they went to pubs.
Similar to the business world of today, a lot of deals went down in pub-clubs. Talk of politics and financial deals were conducted with the finesse that only comes after 5 or 6 pints of ale, made by good old Sam Adams. What a dude.
He made his own beer, was involved in politics, and legend has it he invented the roundhouse kick.
So when nasty old King George a la tres decided to tax paper and tea, for the stupid reason of paying off the debts from the French and Indian war (coincidentally to protect the colonists, no biggie you know), who was the first to stand up and say, "we can'tsh letsh him get away wish dissss!"? None other than, well we don't really know, but my money is on old Sammy "beer-breath" Adams.
So these cultured gentlemen, after drinking their fill of the classiest ale, decided to do what any rational person would do: start a race war. Well, another one at least. They dressed up like "Injuns" and attacked some British boats. And tea. Because, goddammit, tea is for the Brits. Well, it's not like we still do thi... wait, what? People still dress like Native Americans (and other races) in culturally insensitive/offensive and stereotyped costumes, like for frat parties or halloween? Geez people, you'd think that we'd have made some progress by now.
Well, anyway, it didn't work. Yeah, Boston harbor was full of tea-bags (look at me all classy, not a single tea-bagging joke). But dude, the British caught on quickly that a bunch of tall lanky white guys with blonde and red and light brown hair probably weren't natives, no matter what cops and firemen went along.
And thus started a civil/revolutionary war.
Well, the war went well. Only a few (hundred) of our boys starved to death, and the British only burned a few of our cities down, destroying precious art and valuables and lives.
But we won! Kinda. With the help of the French, since they didn't like the Brits either. Which seems a bit strange, because since then, there's this weird stereotype about French being ignoble cowards and British being our favorite allies which just really isn't the case.
So now all that was left was the easy task of setting up the government. Enter Sam Adams. And plenty of beer. And that, kids, is why our government is simple, and not wackily complex in any way. Not at all. Electoral college, what? Pre-1750 law precedent, who? Cohesive national identity, huh?
20 January 2015
Coming Soon / Scheduling Issues / Current Plans
Hi all. So I mentioned that I would notify you before posts went up, and I'm gonna keep doing that.
The original W/F post schedule seemed too sparse to me, but the M/W/F schedule coincided poorly with my life at that time. So here's what I'm a gonna do:
This week:
Double post on Friday. Both American History and Things About Me.
Next week:
Undetermined. I have to figure out a good schedule. If I can do all my writing on the weekend, that makes it easier, but I'll let you know with another "coming soon".
Okay, so I know most of you don't really like the American History series / it's kinda really boring.
I get that. But I'm doing that series in particular for me. It gives me a chance outlet to mock some of the messed up things in our past, draw modern conclusions based off that, and is an opportunity for me to brush up on things I didn't know, like I mentioned at the end of last time.
The Things About Me series will also continue on for a while. No spoilers, but since I'm taking an "intersectionality dissected" approach to describe my life, I already have at least 4 more already planned, and an unknown number yet unplanned, plus there's going to be at least one where I draw all the themes together.
Ideally, I'll keep up with Monologue Mondays in the future, but not weekly unless there's pressing issues (I mostly choose based on what arguments show up on social media). Also, possibly other posts, one shots and stuff.
See you Friday!
The original W/F post schedule seemed too sparse to me, but the M/W/F schedule coincided poorly with my life at that time. So here's what I'm a gonna do:
This week:
Double post on Friday. Both American History and Things About Me.
Next week:
Undetermined. I have to figure out a good schedule. If I can do all my writing on the weekend, that makes it easier, but I'll let you know with another "coming soon".
Okay, so I know most of you don't really like the American History series / it's kinda really boring.
I get that. But I'm doing that series in particular for me. It gives me a chance outlet to mock some of the messed up things in our past, draw modern conclusions based off that, and is an opportunity for me to brush up on things I didn't know, like I mentioned at the end of last time.
The Things About Me series will also continue on for a while. No spoilers, but since I'm taking an "intersectionality dissected" approach to describe my life, I already have at least 4 more already planned, and an unknown number yet unplanned, plus there's going to be at least one where I draw all the themes together.
Ideally, I'll keep up with Monologue Mondays in the future, but not weekly unless there's pressing issues (I mostly choose based on what arguments show up on social media). Also, possibly other posts, one shots and stuff.
See you Friday!
17 January 2015
Things You Ought to Know About Me #2: Home school to Grad School
Things You Ought to Know About Me #2: Home school to Grad School
So the way I've planned this series is that each installment will be a standalone description of a single topic, although each one intersects with all the rest. Today I'll talk about my education, and how that's played a huge role in my life, for better or worse.
Note: I'm sorry I couldn't get this post finished and polished in time yesterday. I have to figure out a good update schedule that I can reasonably maintain, and a change in work schedule totally threw me off.
I'll briefly explain for anyone who isn't clear what home school is: I use home school as a generic term for parent or guardian-taught home education (for the sake of simplicity, I'm just going to write parent* from here on out, but I note this because I'm not ignoring the home schoolers who were taught by someone other than a parent, you guise matter too). It was long the only option for rural families, but wasn't popular (and sometimes not allowed) in large cities, as public schools were supposed to make education readily available.
During the '80s, the home schooling movement in larger cities took off in the conservative religious circle due to fear of increasing exposure to the "sinful world." My family joined this movement in the early '90s, and by the time I was old enough to go to school, we had already switched to home school, so I was home schooled entirely until college. Due to the support systems set in place in the '80s, we were able to home school through a private home school group, a gathering of families that filed official affidavits with the state as a private school. This group was responsible for basically the administrative aspects: collecting lesson plans from parents* and recording grades that had been assigned.
Being part of this group is perhaps the most beneficial choice my parents made when they decided to home school. None of us knew it then, but as it turns out, having this administrative framework in place meant that, for some reason, diplomas issued by our school group hold the same weight as public school diplomas, facilitating admission into college. This isn't common to all private schools in the area I grew up.
That being said: exposé time!!
You see, a major part of home school is parental* involvement, with one or both parents* (or other situations because nuclear family is a myth) assuming responsibility for a child's education. Which I'd say is one of, if not the sole, biggest problems with this scheme. It varies by state, but in mine there were no regulations on private school teachers, although public schools require teaching credentials.
Since home school often falls roughly in the category of private schools, this means that often there are no educational requirements for parents* who home school, and personally I've met many who lack a full college education, and some who didn't finish high school.
Now, I in no way advocate forcing everyone to go to college (although I do think high school completion is important), but if you want to be an educator, you need to have AT LEAST the knowledge you purport to teach. Now, the current trend of further deregulation of home schooling, pushed by HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) and others, should be extremely alarming. If anything, home educators need MORE regulation, not less. They need help with properly teaching. They need accessible resources for subjects they aren't familiar with. They don't need blind eyes turned their way.
One example I have is a family I knew, where upon finishing a math book after only a few months, it was decided that since the math book was finished, they didn't need to study math for the remaining 6 months of the school year, but their submitted lesson plans were written such that this math book was apportioned across the whole 9 months. Tell me what school should get away with ignoring a subject for 2/3 of the school year?
What this means is that there's a whole group of children (not all home schoolers, but it's not uncommon either) that are being taught by parents* acting as teachers without any training in being an educator. Maybe this is why home schoolers on average are worse at math than their public and private school counterparts, because math is one of those subjects that's hard to learn and harder to teach. Parenthetical note: I'm good at math, but I'd argue it's despite home school. Neither of my parents know Calculus, which is a bit disconcerting, considering part of my high school education was Calculus.
Where am I going with this? Well, I was also part of a large family (5 kids), so after the age of 11 or so until I graduated high school, there were at least 3 kids being taught simultaneously, in different grades. Only a year ago, with my younger brother's graduation and move on to college has the number dropped down to two: my sisters. And large families aren't uncommon in home schooling; I've met kids from families with over 10 children who home school.
What this means is that home school in my experience isn't as much constant parental* instruction per se, but rather mostly unsupervised self-education with random parental* checks to make sure you're doing your homework. Further, during my middle school years, my ailing grandparents moved to be close to us, further reducing focused time with parental instruction. This is not an environment any child should be made to learn in, and I feel that the only positive thing that arose from this was that I learned how to teach myself.
When I started college, I was amazed at how "easy" it was because there actually was someone who could teach you and help you with homework, and that was a new experience for me. For context, during my home school years, I would be lucky to get 15 minutes of instruction per hour, and more often than not, I'd go hours without assistance, just me and a book, pencil and paper.
This obviously wasn't my parents' intent, but with one working full time and the other in charge of schooling and house upkeep (and later ailing grandparents), they just couldn't keep up.
My older brother and I got the brunt of this self-schooling, and I'm happy to say that after me, the paradigm shifted so that my younger siblings have been able home school while participating in some high school classes at a local religious private school that offers this as an option for home school families. So they get science and math and other difficult subjects with the instruction I never got.
I'm not trying to vilify my parents, rather the system that fooled them. This is the religious conservative base that is offended by things like evolution and sex ed taught in schools, and the view that home schooling will protect your kids and their salvation. It's outright censorship of ideas that are offensive to a certain faith.
So what did I get from home schooling?
Well, on the positive side, I learned to teach myself independently, a skill that was extremely helpful in college. And to some extent, my education was custom tailored to me, so if I struggled with some curriculum, it was switched. And maybe, what with the brain I've got, it was the best route for me. I can't say. I don't actually know if public schools would have been better for me. I only know the problems I had with home schooling.
On the negative side?
First: Due to the questionable legality of home schooling in the early '90s, as well as the scare tactics and propaganda from home school organizations like HSLDA and CHEA (Christian Home Educators Association), many home school parents* were desperately afraid of truancy charges and that Child Protective Services would take their kids away for home schooling. My parents were no exception.
As a result, this meant it was standard practice to instill these same fears in home schooled children. Never talk to adults. Always have a good excuse if asked why you're not in school. You can't go outside during school hours. Social Services wants to take you away from us because we're good christians and they want to send you to public school to learn vile things. &c.
It wasn't until college that I learned what CPS actually does: protect children from abuse and neglect, not seek out religious families and take their kids away.
When kids are terrified of all strangers, and government entities in particular, and parents* similarly afraid keep kids hidden out of sight, this breeds fear and isolation which breeds PTSD and anxiety disorders.
Second: Further, social isolation may not be avoidable in rural environments, but home schoolers in cities should have social contact. We didn't. The only time we got to interact with other kids was twice a week, once for Wednesday night bible clubs and once for Sunday at church. Because of this, I never learned to socialize or behave around people, and never learned to really make friends until college. Sure, there are other contributing factors, but regardless, I was denied socialization that is essential for normal development. Let's also briefly glance too at the many aspects of identity that depend on socialization, and then it makes sense why I don't fit into the "normal" boxes that define everyone else.
Third: I don't mean to be disrespectful, but my home school education was, in my opinion, both better and more complete than the majority of home school families I met and yet subpar in many areas compared to public schools (although in some ways superior). History after WWII was basically ignored. I didn't learn what the civil rights movement entailed or meant, other than Rosa Parks riding a bus, until college. I opted to attend community college because I knew my knowledge wasn't good enough for four year university simply because I had to teach myself math and science.
On the flip side, the standard things I didn't learn were replaced with nonstandard things that not many get a chance to learn, and I think that's been helpful. Instead of 20th century literature, we eschewed Catcher in the Rye for Classical literature, from the ancient Greeks to the Renaissance, from Gilgamesh to Beowulf to Dante to Luther to Calvin to many others that I could list on and on. To college-level Anatomy and Physiology in Sophomore year of high school, and "Historical Dictators and Genocides" for history in Junior year (the 20th century history I got was centered around Hitler, the Soviets, and Communism). I only wish these had come without the expense of the normal things everyone else got.
As I mentioned before, I found college easy because there actually was assistance to learn. I don't attribute my high grades (GPA 4.0 from community college, 3.92 from University) to possession of extremely higher intelligence, but rather that I'd already been wired to learn independently, so having an instructor and actual feedback on homework gave me a competitive advantage. That being said, my IQ above 100 doesn't give me a disadvantage. No, everything was evened out by the disadvantage that I had to learn things in college everyone else learns in middle or high school.
Now I'm in grad school, in a PhD program. Maybe the independence that I was forced to adapt to in home schooling is the reason I got so far. Or maybe it's the reason I was able to get so far despite the gaps that home school left. I think, and I'll expound on it in a different post, that my neurology is such that the independence is natural,, and I just happened to become aware of it out of necessity, so I think I got this far despite the lag home schooling gave me. Through massive effort on my part, I was able to catch up and finish with a university degree 5 years after graduating high school. Considering how behind I'd say I was, only one additional year at community college should be evidence of how hard I worked (sometimes 12 hour school days, in addition to work and homework).
Of the few home school friends I did have, those that went to college mostly started off at community college, for the same reasons I did. It's even become a trend for home school students to start attending community college classes in high school to make up the classes parents* can't teach.
I can't speak for home schoolers around the country, but I can say that in my experience, the majority of home school students I've been exposed to are undersupervised, undersocialized, and undereducated. Sure, there's always the shining examples of when it works. But no one outside of the community gets to really see what's going on. There's no accountability for education. These are mostly parents* who reject the concept of anyone overseeing the quality of their kids' education, because they fear that secular education will corrupt their kids and steal their faith.
This is the reason I write this. I'm in grad school, researching for a PhD. But I'm not a success story of home schooling. I'm a success story of community colleges, university outreach programs, and perseverance. And what with all the issues I've mentioned, I should be a warning story. Sure, I've made it, but I've already mentioned that my education was better than most of the home schoolers I've met.
Home schooling shouldn't be illegal. But it should be held to the same rigor and core standards as public school. It doesn't need deregulation, but should rather be regulated fairly, as everyone else. Will this prevent many families from home schooling? Yes. But should children be exempt from learning due to their parents'* religious objections or simple lack of the requisite education for teaching? NO! Parents* do not have the right to deprive their children of a fundamental institution. And if you're not capable of teaching your children a quality education, then you shouldn't be teaching. Your right of conscience doesn't trump your children's right to learn.
So the way I've planned this series is that each installment will be a standalone description of a single topic, although each one intersects with all the rest. Today I'll talk about my education, and how that's played a huge role in my life, for better or worse.
Note: I'm sorry I couldn't get this post finished and polished in time yesterday. I have to figure out a good update schedule that I can reasonably maintain, and a change in work schedule totally threw me off.
I'll briefly explain for anyone who isn't clear what home school is: I use home school as a generic term for parent or guardian-taught home education (for the sake of simplicity, I'm just going to write parent* from here on out, but I note this because I'm not ignoring the home schoolers who were taught by someone other than a parent, you guise matter too). It was long the only option for rural families, but wasn't popular (and sometimes not allowed) in large cities, as public schools were supposed to make education readily available.
During the '80s, the home schooling movement in larger cities took off in the conservative religious circle due to fear of increasing exposure to the "sinful world." My family joined this movement in the early '90s, and by the time I was old enough to go to school, we had already switched to home school, so I was home schooled entirely until college. Due to the support systems set in place in the '80s, we were able to home school through a private home school group, a gathering of families that filed official affidavits with the state as a private school. This group was responsible for basically the administrative aspects: collecting lesson plans from parents* and recording grades that had been assigned.
Being part of this group is perhaps the most beneficial choice my parents made when they decided to home school. None of us knew it then, but as it turns out, having this administrative framework in place meant that, for some reason, diplomas issued by our school group hold the same weight as public school diplomas, facilitating admission into college. This isn't common to all private schools in the area I grew up.
That being said: exposé time!!
You see, a major part of home school is parental* involvement, with one or both parents* (or other situations because nuclear family is a myth) assuming responsibility for a child's education. Which I'd say is one of, if not the sole, biggest problems with this scheme. It varies by state, but in mine there were no regulations on private school teachers, although public schools require teaching credentials.
Since home school often falls roughly in the category of private schools, this means that often there are no educational requirements for parents* who home school, and personally I've met many who lack a full college education, and some who didn't finish high school.
Now, I in no way advocate forcing everyone to go to college (although I do think high school completion is important), but if you want to be an educator, you need to have AT LEAST the knowledge you purport to teach. Now, the current trend of further deregulation of home schooling, pushed by HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) and others, should be extremely alarming. If anything, home educators need MORE regulation, not less. They need help with properly teaching. They need accessible resources for subjects they aren't familiar with. They don't need blind eyes turned their way.
One example I have is a family I knew, where upon finishing a math book after only a few months, it was decided that since the math book was finished, they didn't need to study math for the remaining 6 months of the school year, but their submitted lesson plans were written such that this math book was apportioned across the whole 9 months. Tell me what school should get away with ignoring a subject for 2/3 of the school year?
What this means is that there's a whole group of children (not all home schoolers, but it's not uncommon either) that are being taught by parents* acting as teachers without any training in being an educator. Maybe this is why home schoolers on average are worse at math than their public and private school counterparts, because math is one of those subjects that's hard to learn and harder to teach. Parenthetical note: I'm good at math, but I'd argue it's despite home school. Neither of my parents know Calculus, which is a bit disconcerting, considering part of my high school education was Calculus.
Where am I going with this? Well, I was also part of a large family (5 kids), so after the age of 11 or so until I graduated high school, there were at least 3 kids being taught simultaneously, in different grades. Only a year ago, with my younger brother's graduation and move on to college has the number dropped down to two: my sisters. And large families aren't uncommon in home schooling; I've met kids from families with over 10 children who home school.
What this means is that home school in my experience isn't as much constant parental* instruction per se, but rather mostly unsupervised self-education with random parental* checks to make sure you're doing your homework. Further, during my middle school years, my ailing grandparents moved to be close to us, further reducing focused time with parental instruction. This is not an environment any child should be made to learn in, and I feel that the only positive thing that arose from this was that I learned how to teach myself.
When I started college, I was amazed at how "easy" it was because there actually was someone who could teach you and help you with homework, and that was a new experience for me. For context, during my home school years, I would be lucky to get 15 minutes of instruction per hour, and more often than not, I'd go hours without assistance, just me and a book, pencil and paper.
This obviously wasn't my parents' intent, but with one working full time and the other in charge of schooling and house upkeep (and later ailing grandparents), they just couldn't keep up.
My older brother and I got the brunt of this self-schooling, and I'm happy to say that after me, the paradigm shifted so that my younger siblings have been able home school while participating in some high school classes at a local religious private school that offers this as an option for home school families. So they get science and math and other difficult subjects with the instruction I never got.
I'm not trying to vilify my parents, rather the system that fooled them. This is the religious conservative base that is offended by things like evolution and sex ed taught in schools, and the view that home schooling will protect your kids and their salvation. It's outright censorship of ideas that are offensive to a certain faith.
So what did I get from home schooling?
Well, on the positive side, I learned to teach myself independently, a skill that was extremely helpful in college. And to some extent, my education was custom tailored to me, so if I struggled with some curriculum, it was switched. And maybe, what with the brain I've got, it was the best route for me. I can't say. I don't actually know if public schools would have been better for me. I only know the problems I had with home schooling.
On the negative side?
First: Due to the questionable legality of home schooling in the early '90s, as well as the scare tactics and propaganda from home school organizations like HSLDA and CHEA (Christian Home Educators Association), many home school parents* were desperately afraid of truancy charges and that Child Protective Services would take their kids away for home schooling. My parents were no exception.
As a result, this meant it was standard practice to instill these same fears in home schooled children. Never talk to adults. Always have a good excuse if asked why you're not in school. You can't go outside during school hours. Social Services wants to take you away from us because we're good christians and they want to send you to public school to learn vile things. &c.
It wasn't until college that I learned what CPS actually does: protect children from abuse and neglect, not seek out religious families and take their kids away.
When kids are terrified of all strangers, and government entities in particular, and parents* similarly afraid keep kids hidden out of sight, this breeds fear and isolation which breeds PTSD and anxiety disorders.
Second: Further, social isolation may not be avoidable in rural environments, but home schoolers in cities should have social contact. We didn't. The only time we got to interact with other kids was twice a week, once for Wednesday night bible clubs and once for Sunday at church. Because of this, I never learned to socialize or behave around people, and never learned to really make friends until college. Sure, there are other contributing factors, but regardless, I was denied socialization that is essential for normal development. Let's also briefly glance too at the many aspects of identity that depend on socialization, and then it makes sense why I don't fit into the "normal" boxes that define everyone else.
Third: I don't mean to be disrespectful, but my home school education was, in my opinion, both better and more complete than the majority of home school families I met and yet subpar in many areas compared to public schools (although in some ways superior). History after WWII was basically ignored. I didn't learn what the civil rights movement entailed or meant, other than Rosa Parks riding a bus, until college. I opted to attend community college because I knew my knowledge wasn't good enough for four year university simply because I had to teach myself math and science.
On the flip side, the standard things I didn't learn were replaced with nonstandard things that not many get a chance to learn, and I think that's been helpful. Instead of 20th century literature, we eschewed Catcher in the Rye for Classical literature, from the ancient Greeks to the Renaissance, from Gilgamesh to Beowulf to Dante to Luther to Calvin to many others that I could list on and on. To college-level Anatomy and Physiology in Sophomore year of high school, and "Historical Dictators and Genocides" for history in Junior year (the 20th century history I got was centered around Hitler, the Soviets, and Communism). I only wish these had come without the expense of the normal things everyone else got.
As I mentioned before, I found college easy because there actually was assistance to learn. I don't attribute my high grades (GPA 4.0 from community college, 3.92 from University) to possession of extremely higher intelligence, but rather that I'd already been wired to learn independently, so having an instructor and actual feedback on homework gave me a competitive advantage. That being said, my IQ above 100 doesn't give me a disadvantage. No, everything was evened out by the disadvantage that I had to learn things in college everyone else learns in middle or high school.
Now I'm in grad school, in a PhD program. Maybe the independence that I was forced to adapt to in home schooling is the reason I got so far. Or maybe it's the reason I was able to get so far despite the gaps that home school left. I think, and I'll expound on it in a different post, that my neurology is such that the independence is natural,, and I just happened to become aware of it out of necessity, so I think I got this far despite the lag home schooling gave me. Through massive effort on my part, I was able to catch up and finish with a university degree 5 years after graduating high school. Considering how behind I'd say I was, only one additional year at community college should be evidence of how hard I worked (sometimes 12 hour school days, in addition to work and homework).
Of the few home school friends I did have, those that went to college mostly started off at community college, for the same reasons I did. It's even become a trend for home school students to start attending community college classes in high school to make up the classes parents* can't teach.
I can't speak for home schoolers around the country, but I can say that in my experience, the majority of home school students I've been exposed to are undersupervised, undersocialized, and undereducated. Sure, there's always the shining examples of when it works. But no one outside of the community gets to really see what's going on. There's no accountability for education. These are mostly parents* who reject the concept of anyone overseeing the quality of their kids' education, because they fear that secular education will corrupt their kids and steal their faith.
This is the reason I write this. I'm in grad school, researching for a PhD. But I'm not a success story of home schooling. I'm a success story of community colleges, university outreach programs, and perseverance. And what with all the issues I've mentioned, I should be a warning story. Sure, I've made it, but I've already mentioned that my education was better than most of the home schoolers I've met.
Home schooling shouldn't be illegal. But it should be held to the same rigor and core standards as public school. It doesn't need deregulation, but should rather be regulated fairly, as everyone else. Will this prevent many families from home schooling? Yes. But should children be exempt from learning due to their parents'* religious objections or simple lack of the requisite education for teaching? NO! Parents* do not have the right to deprive their children of a fundamental institution. And if you're not capable of teaching your children a quality education, then you shouldn't be teaching. Your right of conscience doesn't trump your children's right to learn.
16 January 2015
Delay for Today's post until Tomorrow
Hi all,
Due to a change in work schedule, and a very busy work week, I didn't get a chance to finish today's post. Usually I finish posts a few days before they go up, but this one is exceptionally deep (since I'm talking about myself) and I'd rather take until tomorrow to finish it than to upload a slap dash version.
Many apologies, and see you tomorrow!
Due to a change in work schedule, and a very busy work week, I didn't get a chance to finish today's post. Usually I finish posts a few days before they go up, but this one is exceptionally deep (since I'm talking about myself) and I'd rather take until tomorrow to finish it than to upload a slap dash version.
Many apologies, and see you tomorrow!
14 January 2015
The Genius Mind Remembers American History: Part 2 - Wars and Witches
The Genius Mind Remembers American History: Part 2 - Wars and Witches
Opening Disclaimer: I confess that I will be very nonfactual in this description of our great nation, and a bit nonsensical. Almost no part of this rambling tale has been fact-checked, intentionally, with the exception of maybe a few dates and other inconsequential details. Don't reference me for your history paper, but if you do, let me know what grade you get.
Note: for this post, I skimmed this Wikipedia article for dates of important events that I remember learning in elementary school, so I think it deserves a reference.
Somewhere along the line, American history was divided up into chunks of importance, which get all the major focus whenever history is taught. It seems the between times often get left out.
Or rather, American History is often formulated in such a way as to contain several "major events" that help maintain a consistent pro-oppressor mythology, and the events in between, which don't contribute to the myth (or that negate it) are left out.
Today's lesson is one of these not-so-important-to-the-myth eras: the period in between the start of colonization and the American Revolution. Sure, you hear little bits and pieces about it, and there's plenty of information available should you desire to know more. But knowledge isn't the goal of these posts. Rather, I'm trying to destroy the myth.
I'll assign this period as spanning from the 1620s to 1760s, so about 140 years that gets about the same dedication in books (and here) as the ten years span of 1773-1783. Surely peacetime has more important lessons than wartime, right?
Except war never really stopped. During this time, the European invaders were almost always at odds with the Native Americans (and with each other), and massacres were pretty common. So, yeah. Remember the sins of the forefathers lest we repeat them. It's generally wrong to go to someone else's home, kill them or chase them away, and claim it for your own. Not to say there wasn't violence on both sides; the Native Americans fought to defend their homeland, and there were some pretty bloody incidents.
In case anyone has any concerns that I'm being Anglophobic, it wasn't just the Brits. Around this time, many cities and colonies were established, by many different countries, including (in no particular order): Sweden, Spain, France, and the Netherlands. A few were founded or heavily populated by minority religious sects, such as the puritans and Quakers. This is the origin of the melting pot mythology. America: the place where everyone* is welcome. *unless your religion is different from the town you live in, or if you're black, native, or general PoC. It's always been a caste system, with European bodies idealized. Think it's changed? Look at disparity between immigration quotas (thanks to the 1920's racists).
Not all of these colonies survived to become states. Some failed, some were joined with other states (Like New Haven, which became part of Connecticut), and some were divided. Around this time, some of the present-day political problems were first established into law. For example, the Dutch brought slavery to America, and African slaves, and the other settlers were quick to adopt this practice. This highly racial discrimination is evident in some of the era's legislature. Maryland was the first, in 1638, to mention slavery in law.
19 years later, the Dutch New Amsterdam (now known as New York) decided to allow Jews to become citizens. Seems fairly cool until you realize that means that before then, being Jewish meant that you weren't allowed to be a citizen.
Oh yeah, and all the issues with Native Americans. So race conflict has been with this country since its forcible invasion.
And of course, all of these groups fought amongst themselves, so war was pretty commonplace.
The issue with allowing religious government centers is evident in my next topic: Salem, founded 1626. In 1692-3, what happened became the permanent legacy of Salem in the public mind. Ruled by puritans, Salem went into a period of mob justice which involved killing "witches". Now, I know it's not standard to learn history from puritan textbooks, but it turns out some of mine were (I'll go into that in a different post). And here's the way it was framed: The witch trials were an unfortunate side-effect of the righteous cause of eliminating the unbelievers and pagans. You read that right. The first account of the witch-trials that I ever read was in favor of them. Yes, these books still get published today, and people still believe these things. In reality, mobs killed innocent people. And even if they were witches, their beliefs are not deserving of death.
This is one of the main reasons that the Establishment clause exists. The founding fathers looked back on the witch-trials in horror, and did what they could to make sure that government persecution of religion was disallowed. Separation of Church and State is a concept that arose directly out of witch hunts.
In 1693, there also was the introduction of rice cultivation. Not an important event, but since it seems like there's this idea that bread is American while rice is Asian, I think it's important to note that rice has been in this country since before we decided it was a country. So rice is as American as apple pie (also an import, thanks, the Dutch!).
Moving along. Lots of local government issues and rebellions happened in this period, including Bacon's rebellion, which isn't all that important but we seem to remember that it's a thing more than the other, lesser known rebellions. Maybe because bacon.
British consolidation of the east coast (except Florida) occurred before 1750, and they gained control of Florida from Spain in 1763.
Around this time, during the 9 years from 1754-1763, the British and French, due to their lasting continental conflicts and irrational hate for each other, decided to fight in the colonies. New France and New England (very original, guise) forces fought, alongside allied Native American tribes. Some tribes did fight for the British (contrary to popular conception).
Turns out, the French weren't nearly as bad to the natives as the British, so they had more allied natives. And that's why we call it the French and Indian War. Also because by sheer numbers, without the Native Americans, the French settlers would have been wiped out. So French Canadians, you have Native Americans to thank for your very existence.
Sorry there's not as much humor in this post, partly due to the fact that joking about murder of natives and religious dissidents isn't quite morally acceptable, partly due to my limited knowledge of this time. Like I said before, this period of time is often skimmed over in favor of the revolution.
A lot of important things happened in this period, and when looking up precise dates, I discovered a lot of things I hadn't heard about (and thus, I didn't write about them). So I'd encourage you to check out the wiki page with all the dates and see if there's any gaps in your historical knowledge too. Solve the mythtery of why most of the history of this period isn't public knowledge.
Opening Disclaimer: I confess that I will be very nonfactual in this description of our great nation, and a bit nonsensical. Almost no part of this rambling tale has been fact-checked, intentionally, with the exception of maybe a few dates and other inconsequential details. Don't reference me for your history paper, but if you do, let me know what grade you get.
Note: for this post, I skimmed this Wikipedia article for dates of important events that I remember learning in elementary school, so I think it deserves a reference.
Somewhere along the line, American history was divided up into chunks of importance, which get all the major focus whenever history is taught. It seems the between times often get left out.
Or rather, American History is often formulated in such a way as to contain several "major events" that help maintain a consistent pro-oppressor mythology, and the events in between, which don't contribute to the myth (or that negate it) are left out.
Today's lesson is one of these not-so-important-to-the-myth eras: the period in between the start of colonization and the American Revolution. Sure, you hear little bits and pieces about it, and there's plenty of information available should you desire to know more. But knowledge isn't the goal of these posts. Rather, I'm trying to destroy the myth.
I'll assign this period as spanning from the 1620s to 1760s, so about 140 years that gets about the same dedication in books (and here) as the ten years span of 1773-1783. Surely peacetime has more important lessons than wartime, right?
Except war never really stopped. During this time, the European invaders were almost always at odds with the Native Americans (and with each other), and massacres were pretty common. So, yeah. Remember the sins of the forefathers lest we repeat them. It's generally wrong to go to someone else's home, kill them or chase them away, and claim it for your own. Not to say there wasn't violence on both sides; the Native Americans fought to defend their homeland, and there were some pretty bloody incidents.
In case anyone has any concerns that I'm being Anglophobic, it wasn't just the Brits. Around this time, many cities and colonies were established, by many different countries, including (in no particular order): Sweden, Spain, France, and the Netherlands. A few were founded or heavily populated by minority religious sects, such as the puritans and Quakers. This is the origin of the melting pot mythology. America: the place where everyone* is welcome. *unless your religion is different from the town you live in, or if you're black, native, or general PoC. It's always been a caste system, with European bodies idealized. Think it's changed? Look at disparity between immigration quotas (thanks to the 1920's racists).
Not all of these colonies survived to become states. Some failed, some were joined with other states (Like New Haven, which became part of Connecticut), and some were divided. Around this time, some of the present-day political problems were first established into law. For example, the Dutch brought slavery to America, and African slaves, and the other settlers were quick to adopt this practice. This highly racial discrimination is evident in some of the era's legislature. Maryland was the first, in 1638, to mention slavery in law.
19 years later, the Dutch New Amsterdam (now known as New York) decided to allow Jews to become citizens. Seems fairly cool until you realize that means that before then, being Jewish meant that you weren't allowed to be a citizen.
Oh yeah, and all the issues with Native Americans. So race conflict has been with this country since its forcible invasion.
And of course, all of these groups fought amongst themselves, so war was pretty commonplace.
The issue with allowing religious government centers is evident in my next topic: Salem, founded 1626. In 1692-3, what happened became the permanent legacy of Salem in the public mind. Ruled by puritans, Salem went into a period of mob justice which involved killing "witches". Now, I know it's not standard to learn history from puritan textbooks, but it turns out some of mine were (I'll go into that in a different post). And here's the way it was framed: The witch trials were an unfortunate side-effect of the righteous cause of eliminating the unbelievers and pagans. You read that right. The first account of the witch-trials that I ever read was in favor of them. Yes, these books still get published today, and people still believe these things. In reality, mobs killed innocent people. And even if they were witches, their beliefs are not deserving of death.
This is one of the main reasons that the Establishment clause exists. The founding fathers looked back on the witch-trials in horror, and did what they could to make sure that government persecution of religion was disallowed. Separation of Church and State is a concept that arose directly out of witch hunts.
In 1693, there also was the introduction of rice cultivation. Not an important event, but since it seems like there's this idea that bread is American while rice is Asian, I think it's important to note that rice has been in this country since before we decided it was a country. So rice is as American as apple pie (also an import, thanks, the Dutch!).
Moving along. Lots of local government issues and rebellions happened in this period, including Bacon's rebellion, which isn't all that important but we seem to remember that it's a thing more than the other, lesser known rebellions. Maybe because bacon.
British consolidation of the east coast (except Florida) occurred before 1750, and they gained control of Florida from Spain in 1763.
Around this time, during the 9 years from 1754-1763, the British and French, due to their lasting continental conflicts and irrational hate for each other, decided to fight in the colonies. New France and New England (very original, guise) forces fought, alongside allied Native American tribes. Some tribes did fight for the British (contrary to popular conception).
Turns out, the French weren't nearly as bad to the natives as the British, so they had more allied natives. And that's why we call it the French and Indian War. Also because by sheer numbers, without the Native Americans, the French settlers would have been wiped out. So French Canadians, you have Native Americans to thank for your very existence.
Sorry there's not as much humor in this post, partly due to the fact that joking about murder of natives and religious dissidents isn't quite morally acceptable, partly due to my limited knowledge of this time. Like I said before, this period of time is often skimmed over in favor of the revolution.
A lot of important things happened in this period, and when looking up precise dates, I discovered a lot of things I hadn't heard about (and thus, I didn't write about them). So I'd encourage you to check out the wiki page with all the dates and see if there's any gaps in your historical knowledge too. Solve the mythtery of why most of the history of this period isn't public knowledge.
12 January 2015
Opinion Editorial / Monologue Mondays #1
Opinion Editorial / Monologue Mondays #1
In light of recent events, today's topic is Extremists of all Flavors
I would like to start off with a few comments of sympathy:
Toward those injured and the families of those killed in the violence last week in Paris, toward the families that lost loved ones this past year to unjust violence, toward those that suffer ongoing violence and threats of violence.
By now, the attack on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters has been well-discussed, but as part of a bigger sociocultural picture that I'm going to draw on in this editorial series, I feel the need to first discuss religious extremism and freedom of the press.
Regardless of the material they published, the twelve killed did not deserve to die. In the unlikely case that anyone hasn't heard by now: in response to satire directed toward Islam and important figures therein, several French Muslim extremists committed saddening acts of murder of some of the publishers of this material.
Some have argued that the satire published is racist and Islamophobic. Having viewed some of the material myself, I'm inclined to agree. But this argument is a red-herring from the main issue: religious extremists should not kill people.
Dangerously, on the other side of the argument, some have called for Islamic religious leaders to denounce or apologize for the attacks. But Islam as a whole, or rather, the body of Muslims worldwide, is not responsible for the actions of a small number of Islamic extremists. Likewise, Christianity as a whole is not responsible for the actions of Christian extremists, such as Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik, to name just a few. So by calling out religious leaders to denounce such actions is itself an incendiary insult, equating a large body of kind, peaceful, loving, human, broken, just-trying-to-get-along-like-everyone-else individuals with the worst examples of people who happen to share some of the same beliefs. Sure, statements denouncing extremists, like that from Nasralla, leader of Hezbollah, are encouraging, but shouldn't be mandatory.
My point is this: a person's religious belief, though it may inform their actions, is not responsible for those actions. A person is responsible for their own actions and for their own personal interaction with their beliefs.
I'll explain with an example: If a Christian were to kill people because the Old Testament commands death for other religions (Ex. 22; Lev. 20, 24; Deut 13, 17, 18), or killing gay people, people who have sex outside of marriage, and people who cheat on their spouse (Lev. 18, 20, 21), not very many people (at least here in the US) would use that individual's actions as a reason to denounce all of Christianity. Religions evolve. Religious writings, and the interpretation thereof evolve. When a person uses their religious beliefs to justify criminal actions, regardless of faith, that person is a criminal, and deserves societal response. However, this isn't at all justification to blame every person of that faith.
Most of mainstream Christianity would agree that following the letter of the Old Testament law to completion is foolish, and a person who acts to carry out this law is acting against the later commands of Jesus with respect to kindness and forgiveness. Likewise, in Islam, there is a similar concept, a doctrine of abrogation, where the Prophet (PBUH, as a sign of respect toward a religion I do not follow) prescribed conflicting rules at different times, allowing for modification of the "revealed truth" as a situational code. So the calls to war are to be taken with as much seriousness as OT calls to war. As in "not applicable today."
Let's go back to the issue. Charlie Hebdo printed what many interpret as racist/Islamophobic material under the name of satire, under the rights of free press. The journalists and cartoonists involved in that satire had the right to say anything they want without inciting criminal behavior, no matter how vulgar or offensive. Was that nice? No. Does that warrant death? No.
Likewise, Muslims have the right to call that publication out about propagating stereotypes, and to say anything they want without inciting criminal behavior. And for the most part, that's what they did.
Most Muslims in France (and most western countries) are secular. That's why the extremists did this in the first place. From several reports, we know that they're having a hard time recruiting new members from the more secularized European Muslim populations. So how are they going to incite more violence? By polarizing conservatives against the secular Muslims. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of an extremist few is not only wrong, it's dangerous. It's foolish to take allies and force them to be your enemies.
As part of a bigger picture, this is exactly the same issue as with Christian extremists: the hyper-conservative religious right political machine, the young-earth propagandists, the quiver-full, the puritanical, &c. This polarizing "us vs them" mentality is trying to destroy the very diversity that allows life to continue. The virtues of Christianity, and all other faiths, should not be forgotten in the midst of fundamentalist extremists. We, of Earth, of all and no faiths, need to come together in peace, not in war over who's religion is best, but instead sharing ideas and collectively bettering all of us.
What gives me hope for this world is that amidst this tragedy, people rose up in solidarity against violence everywhere and ended it foreve... wait, what? There was a bombing at an NAACP office? And there were parents that refused their daughter's emotional needs, instead pushing her to reject herself because of their Christian beliefs, so she stepped onto a highway and killed herself? And police in the US killed over 1100 people in 2014; that's 3 per day killed by the people we trust to protect us?
Things in the world are still majorly screwed up. Violence spans from isolated incidences, like with the Paris extremists, to institutionalized incidences, like with religious intolerance, racism, sexism, gender and sexual prejudice, class prejudice and wage slavery to multibillionaire corporations and individuals.
We need to build togetherness in the face of such tragedies instead of letting our outrage burn bright and die fast. We need to get on our feet, stand together, and say, as with one voice, "STOP THIS MEANINGLESS VIOLENCE", and make sure that everyone listens. Because we'll keep saying it until they do. Be patient, be kind, be peaceful, be true, be brave, be open-minded.
We're all on this planet together, we all at the core are the same, so we all need to work together to harness our diversity and underlying similarity so we (and earth-life in general) can keep existing. United we survive, divided we kill each other and everything else. Which option do you choose?
In light of recent events, today's topic is Extremists of all Flavors
I would like to start off with a few comments of sympathy:
Toward those injured and the families of those killed in the violence last week in Paris, toward the families that lost loved ones this past year to unjust violence, toward those that suffer ongoing violence and threats of violence.
By now, the attack on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters has been well-discussed, but as part of a bigger sociocultural picture that I'm going to draw on in this editorial series, I feel the need to first discuss religious extremism and freedom of the press.
Regardless of the material they published, the twelve killed did not deserve to die. In the unlikely case that anyone hasn't heard by now: in response to satire directed toward Islam and important figures therein, several French Muslim extremists committed saddening acts of murder of some of the publishers of this material.
Some have argued that the satire published is racist and Islamophobic. Having viewed some of the material myself, I'm inclined to agree. But this argument is a red-herring from the main issue: religious extremists should not kill people.
Dangerously, on the other side of the argument, some have called for Islamic religious leaders to denounce or apologize for the attacks. But Islam as a whole, or rather, the body of Muslims worldwide, is not responsible for the actions of a small number of Islamic extremists. Likewise, Christianity as a whole is not responsible for the actions of Christian extremists, such as Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik, to name just a few. So by calling out religious leaders to denounce such actions is itself an incendiary insult, equating a large body of kind, peaceful, loving, human, broken, just-trying-to-get-along-like-everyone-else individuals with the worst examples of people who happen to share some of the same beliefs. Sure, statements denouncing extremists, like that from Nasralla, leader of Hezbollah, are encouraging, but shouldn't be mandatory.
My point is this: a person's religious belief, though it may inform their actions, is not responsible for those actions. A person is responsible for their own actions and for their own personal interaction with their beliefs.
I'll explain with an example: If a Christian were to kill people because the Old Testament commands death for other religions (Ex. 22; Lev. 20, 24; Deut 13, 17, 18), or killing gay people, people who have sex outside of marriage, and people who cheat on their spouse (Lev. 18, 20, 21), not very many people (at least here in the US) would use that individual's actions as a reason to denounce all of Christianity. Religions evolve. Religious writings, and the interpretation thereof evolve. When a person uses their religious beliefs to justify criminal actions, regardless of faith, that person is a criminal, and deserves societal response. However, this isn't at all justification to blame every person of that faith.
Most of mainstream Christianity would agree that following the letter of the Old Testament law to completion is foolish, and a person who acts to carry out this law is acting against the later commands of Jesus with respect to kindness and forgiveness. Likewise, in Islam, there is a similar concept, a doctrine of abrogation, where the Prophet (PBUH, as a sign of respect toward a religion I do not follow) prescribed conflicting rules at different times, allowing for modification of the "revealed truth" as a situational code. So the calls to war are to be taken with as much seriousness as OT calls to war. As in "not applicable today."
Let's go back to the issue. Charlie Hebdo printed what many interpret as racist/Islamophobic material under the name of satire, under the rights of free press. The journalists and cartoonists involved in that satire had the right to say anything they want without inciting criminal behavior, no matter how vulgar or offensive. Was that nice? No. Does that warrant death? No.
Likewise, Muslims have the right to call that publication out about propagating stereotypes, and to say anything they want without inciting criminal behavior. And for the most part, that's what they did.
Most Muslims in France (and most western countries) are secular. That's why the extremists did this in the first place. From several reports, we know that they're having a hard time recruiting new members from the more secularized European Muslim populations. So how are they going to incite more violence? By polarizing conservatives against the secular Muslims. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of an extremist few is not only wrong, it's dangerous. It's foolish to take allies and force them to be your enemies.
As part of a bigger picture, this is exactly the same issue as with Christian extremists: the hyper-conservative religious right political machine, the young-earth propagandists, the quiver-full, the puritanical, &c. This polarizing "us vs them" mentality is trying to destroy the very diversity that allows life to continue. The virtues of Christianity, and all other faiths, should not be forgotten in the midst of fundamentalist extremists. We, of Earth, of all and no faiths, need to come together in peace, not in war over who's religion is best, but instead sharing ideas and collectively bettering all of us.
What gives me hope for this world is that amidst this tragedy, people rose up in solidarity against violence everywhere and ended it foreve... wait, what? There was a bombing at an NAACP office? And there were parents that refused their daughter's emotional needs, instead pushing her to reject herself because of their Christian beliefs, so she stepped onto a highway and killed herself? And police in the US killed over 1100 people in 2014; that's 3 per day killed by the people we trust to protect us?
Things in the world are still majorly screwed up. Violence spans from isolated incidences, like with the Paris extremists, to institutionalized incidences, like with religious intolerance, racism, sexism, gender and sexual prejudice, class prejudice and wage slavery to multibillionaire corporations and individuals.
We need to build togetherness in the face of such tragedies instead of letting our outrage burn bright and die fast. We need to get on our feet, stand together, and say, as with one voice, "STOP THIS MEANINGLESS VIOLENCE", and make sure that everyone listens. Because we'll keep saying it until they do. Be patient, be kind, be peaceful, be true, be brave, be open-minded.
We're all on this planet together, we all at the core are the same, so we all need to work together to harness our diversity and underlying similarity so we (and earth-life in general) can keep existing. United we survive, divided we kill each other and everything else. Which option do you choose?
11 January 2015
A Brief Editorial Note
Why am I, as writer of this blog, failing good style and reasonable writing by not providing links and references to things I mention in passing?
Does this count as plagiarism? I'd argue no. I'm not copying any text, and the things I write are my own original commentary on the topics I choose to discuss. It would be hubristic for me to assume that you take all my written words as facts, and I strongly encourage you, if you don't already, to research any topic I mention, and to check any statements I make, other than my own personal anecdotes.
If I mention something without a citation, know that all texts and more broadly all language is derivative. It's not my job to re-write the news for you; I'm not a journalist. It's not my job to be your history teacher; I'm a satirist. It's not my job to preach to you; I just share my opinions and stories and humor without asking anything in return.
If I feel like I am heavily drawing on a specific reference, I will cite it. If you feel that I'm drawing on your work without linking to you, talk to me and we can resolve it, but my intent is to not draw on anyone's work, only public knowledge, conversation, or my own personal experiences.
Professionally, of course I include references and citations in my work. But this is an opinion blog!
Does this count as plagiarism? I'd argue no. I'm not copying any text, and the things I write are my own original commentary on the topics I choose to discuss. It would be hubristic for me to assume that you take all my written words as facts, and I strongly encourage you, if you don't already, to research any topic I mention, and to check any statements I make, other than my own personal anecdotes.
If I mention something without a citation, know that all texts and more broadly all language is derivative. It's not my job to re-write the news for you; I'm not a journalist. It's not my job to be your history teacher; I'm a satirist. It's not my job to preach to you; I just share my opinions and stories and humor without asking anything in return.
If I feel like I am heavily drawing on a specific reference, I will cite it. If you feel that I'm drawing on your work without linking to you, talk to me and we can resolve it, but my intent is to not draw on anyone's work, only public knowledge, conversation, or my own personal experiences.
Professionally, of course I include references and citations in my work. But this is an opinion blog!
10 January 2015
Coming Soon
Opinion Editorial / Monologue Mondays #1
Jan 12th, 2015.
The Genius Mind Remembers American History #2
Jan 14th, 2015.
Things You Ought to Know About Me #2
Jan 16th, 2015.
Jan 12th, 2015.
The Genius Mind Remembers American History #2
Jan 14th, 2015.
Things You Ought to Know About Me #2
Jan 16th, 2015.
09 January 2015
What You Ought to Know About Me: Part 1 - Metaphysical Beliefs
What You Ought to Know About Me: Part 1 - Metaphysical Beliefs
Disclaimer: the major religion featured in this story, namely Protestant Christianity, is not my current belief. What does this mean? I'll talk about why and how my beliefs changed, what aspects of religion have affected me, and what I currently believe. If I challenge your faith and deeply held dogmas, I do so with the intent to broaden your mind, not belittle your soul. My intent is not to offend anyone, rather to explore metaphysics, as in "religious beliefs that cannot be proven by science or evidence." Don't send me your long letter explaining how I should believe the way you do, trying to proselytize me “back to the faith.” As always, comments are welcome.
I suppose it's in fashion to extend PTSD trigger warnings to topics that may be traumatic or uncomfortable for readers with bad past experiences. I respect that if you are reading one of my posts about religion, you have either the discretion to choose your reading material for yourself or the gross inattention to detail that would lead you to read something that may bother you. So by all means, if stories about the intersection between conservative fundamentalism and religion may bother, upset, or trigger you, stop reading and hang on for a more palatable topic. Otherwise, read on.
This story, in unrevised form, was once titled "How Religion Logic-ed Itself Away".
Now it is untitled, other than “Metaphysical Beliefs.” My hubris, once strong, has been broken. I won't try to convince you that your beliefs are wrong. But I will tell you how I came about mine.
From my earliest memories, I was raised Christian. Or rather, as much as anyone can be raised to belief something, I was trained in the dogma and doctrine of Protestant Christianity. Some of my earliest memories of socialization are in being among other small children, being taught biblical ideas. A child, not old enough or agile enough to tie a shoe, being asked to recount the biblical creation narrative, being told that wrongdoings are sin, and that when you do wrong, God is going to punish you.
We went to church at least biweekly. On Sundays, there was early morning bible study for the parents and Sunday-school for the kids, followed by a joined Sunday Service. And then again, on Wednesday nights, for kids' bible clubs, where candy and toys were used to encourage rote memorization of the verse or passage for that week. I stayed in this program, albeit across different churches, until graduating high school.
The first church I remember was a larger church, complete with an orchestral choir, but it was farther from home, too far to commute at two hours distant. By the time I was 6 or so, we had transitioned to a more local church. This was a traditional protestant church,that my grandparents had started attending years earlier, so even though my grandparents had moved out of state before I was born, the other congregants were all people that my family had a history with. For example, my mom went to high-school and college with some of the women, now themselves mothers.
Now when I was about 7, our church went through a series of changes. The old Senior pastor resigned and retired (out of age, not any shame). The new pastor was a kind, nice, intelligent sort of fellow, although looking back I'd say he was socially a bit odd. He would teach faith logically, presenting presuppositions clearly, and building upon them with reason. True, faith necessitates assumptions of things not observed, so it can't be proven. But faith built with logic is stronger than faith built without logic.
However, this season of rationality was short lived, only a few years. The pastor's wife divorced him to go live with her lover. Yikes. Well, of course this set the prim and proper ladies of the church chatting, and soon the pastor, through no fault of his own, lost his position, and was dismissed in shame. You see, that's the thing about my experiences with religion. It doesn't matter what a person does as much as what people think of a person.
His replacement was the polar opposite. Logic, reasoning, acknowledging the presence of assumptions? No! For him, everything was "Faith, faith, blind faith". Faith, built on logic? No! Dogma and acceptance of what he said! Looking back, I see him as representative of most evangelical Christianity today. “Accept that what I believe to be true is true, and you get to go to heaven!” Nothing more than candy and trinkets for adults.
Here is where my story takes a dark turn.
By now, we had moved, and disgruntled with the “candy-coated gospel”, my parents (read: my mom) decided to change churches. After cycling through a few churches, we settled on one that pleased my parents. Nominally a more critical and reasoning church, again despite unproven assumptions, this group worked out most things logically. And from a significant amount of time here, I learned church-logic (question everything, except the things we can't prove). Every church I've spent a significant amount of time in had some sort of logic, yet all failed at the point of examining the assumptions.
Why is this a dark turn? Well, did you know that puritans still exist today? You see, the Puritans were an English Calvinistic sect of Protestant Christianity. Which became Reformation Protestantism. Or in this case, Reformed Baptist Protestantism. The “Reformed” refers to the reformation of the 16th Century, which, applied in England, was the Puritans.
So when we moved to this seemingly more logical Reformed Baptist congregation, what I experienced was remarkably like visiting Salem in the 1600s. I will share with you a few anecdotes of the many that are seared into my memory.
First Example: While it's not that uncommon in American churches, this church focused more energy on “sexual sins”, including anything viewed as homosexuality. This wasn't a place of open minds, where people could talk about the many different factors involved in identity, no, this was a place where any “sexual deviancy” was directly caused by spiritual warfare, a direct attack and temptation from devils and demons. One of the last sermons I endured at this mouth of hell was a two hour long rant from a visiting pastor that ended in vehement calls to purge the congregation of homosexuals, advocating that they be expelled (since we can't kill them the way god wants without getting into legal trouble). Yeah, he mentioned that “god says that it is better to be dead and stoned than gay.” That really was damaging as a young closeted queer person.
Second Example: Not to say that this church hates on just gay people, there's plenty of hate to go around. Remember, all of these beliefs are based on the unchallenged assumption that the bible is true, and extrapolating from there. By which I mean to say “hate the fornicators too!” One Sunday, at the beginning of the church service, I got to witness a public excommunication. You see, one of the college students who attended the church had acquired a girlfriend, and reports (rumors) that they were sleeping together had made their way to the pastor. So start the church service, and then the pastor presents the charges to the church members, the members vote then and there, and the poor college student is immediately removed from the church.
Third Example: The aforementioned was not the only excommunication I've witnessed. The next is when a couple in the church separates, pending possible divorce. The church government hears about it. And divorce is a sin. Screw you, get out , don't come back.
Seriously, this church was the most rational I've attended (as in, despite unwarranted assumptions, based everything on logic), but is also the scariest group of people I've ever met. These aren't people that have trouble with empathy, these are people who think that god is sending you to hell so why bother caring about you.
Fast forward to college years, when I had my first real introduction to academic logic. Sad to say, I never learned to think critically in high school, in home-school at that point it's all rote memorization and stimulus/response type stuff. It was only in community college, through the process of examining things scientifically, that I learned to question the initial assumptions my faith was based on. I spent months poring over any materials related to critical thinking that I could. And when examined, Christianity fell apart.
Sure, if you take the existence of a god as given, and assume that god is omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnipotent (all powerful), then everything works just fine. God just does things he wants to and you deserve it, so screw you, ZAP! (Lightning bolt) To use a Biblical analogy, it doesn't matter if you've built a house of logic, if you build it on the foundation of sand of faulty assumptions, the storm will blow it down. The presuppositions of Christianity assume a lot without any evidence, and this is called 'faith'. I call it 'bad logic'. Example: You never hear Christians say 'if god existed...', yet you always hear 'god must exist because...' Many christians try to prove god from the assumption that there is a god. No one comes to the conclusion of god without first assuming god.
When I told my parents, they asked me which of my professors and friends were teaching me to 'hate god'. Here's my response. No one. No one taught me to 'hate god'. My professors taught me logic, and I learned to use it. If anything, Christianity had taught me to accept assumptions without reasoning.
See, here's the part where it gets fuzzy. Now, five years after rejecting Christianity, I can't tell you what I believe. I'm not sure.
I can tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe in divinity. I don't believe in prescribed ethics.
I can tell you that I believe in science, or rather that by using reason and math, we can become better at explaining the world. But I also believe that we can never explain everything 100%. Godel's theora are responsible for that.
What do I believe religiously? I suppose you could call me an atheist agnostic. I don't believe that a god exists, but I may be wrong. I don't believe that anything truly matters, but that gives me the freedom to do anything. I suppose I'd fall somewhere in between zen inebriation and ascetic anhedonia.
Now, I don't condemn Christians.
Believe what you want, just make sure of two things:
1.) Make sure your belief system does not harm or discriminate against others. This includes politically, people! If someone else wants to do something that doesn't involve you, your property, or those under your care, then even if you think it's wrong, you don't have the right to stop them. Now, I'm not saying don't stop murderers. Those you should stop. But, for example, if someone identifies a certain way, that doesn't directly affect you so just shut up.
2.) Examine yourself logically. If you are fine with certain assumptions, great, but don't expect everyone to be. And that also means you don't get to walk around telling everyone else they're headed for hell. Sure, you can believe that, but I believe that churches are establishing a physical manifestation of the idea of hell on earth. That doesn't mean I should run into churches shouting “Judge not lest ye be judged! Woe to you teachers and hypocrites, you who are like whitewashed tombs, filled with death!”
That being said, I do take several key ideas from Christianity as well as other religions. If there's anything we can learn from Jesus, it's to be kind and respectful of each other, to not point out past shortcomings, but to be supportive and loving. Religions throughout time have worked to tell people how to behave toward one another, and I respect this. I want the love of Christianity, the selflessness of Buddhism, the respect of nature of the Animists, ethics, etc.
Religion, as a social construct, bears intersection with different systems of belief.
07 January 2015
The Genius Mind Remembers American History: Part 1 - Petticoats and Pilgrims
For all you lovers of America and History.
The Genius Mind Remembers American History: Part 1 - Petticoats and Pilgrims
This series is a revised and expanded version of my original short series: "A Student's Version of American History" (retitled as I'm no longer a college student, but would rather like to continue this series).
Opening Disclaimer: I confess that I will be very nonfactual in this description of our great nation, and a bit nonsensical. Almost no part of this rambling tale has been fact-checked, intentionally, with the exception of maybe a few dates and other inconsequential details. Don't reference me for your history paper, but if you do, let me know what grade you get.
Part 1 - Petticoats and Pilgrims
For hundreds of years, there was a kingdom. A kingdom on an island. An Island close to the edge of known civilization.
Five-Score and Fifteen years prior, a stupid man who thought the earth was a lot smaller than it was "discovered" inhabited islands in a new continent that turned out not to be Asia. We'd give the guy a break but he turned out to be not so good of a guy, and not so good of a governor. He kinda killed a lot of people. But this story isn't about him, the country he was from, or the country he sailed for.
The kingdom, on an island, close to the edge of known civilization, began to reach out and try to take over the world. It was called "England" after "Angle Land" because everyone was a square (un-hip, not cool, thinking inside the box). I mean big time. It was totally improper to even think of seeing a fine lady in her petticoat (her lounge-wear / underwear). Squares, most of them. But really, most people were in those times.
Now comes James 4/1. Yes, he has two numbers because he was twice king, fourth James for Scotland and first for England. Five-Score and Fifteen years after dumbass "I swear it's Asia, you guise!", in 1607, James May-First (is what I'll call him) sent people to settle on the mainland of North America (named for a map-maker called Amerigo, not anyone presently discussed. History is weird, y'all).
So: 1607, Englanders grab some land, call it their own, and start with the killing of people who were there first. No big deal, if you have a gun and they don't, it's called "Colonization" not "Mass-Murder." Now, if they fight back, it's "Savage Raids" not "Self-defense." See how language conspires with prevalent culture?
Around this time, James 4/1 also starts cracking down on religion in the home country. "Freedom of Belief" within a civil government was a concept that wouldn't exist for a while.
But, during this time in the mother country, there was a group of people that were the biggest squares of all. These guise were of the mindset that logic and science were for the 'heathens', and that the real rules of life were from god. But the substance of these rules conflicted with the state church. They got it into their head that everyone else was filthy bad, since all of those other guys were thinking about women in their petticoats. For shame! These were the separatist puritans. So, they decided to separate from the state church.
So these puritans decided to move away (and now call themselves Pilgrims). And where to go, but Holland? Now, I mean, you've probably heard of Amsterdam's Red-light district, right? Well, it was pretty much the same. Here's how I see it going down.
Pilgrim husband: "Honey, we need to get away from all of this sin in England. Where shall we go?"
Pilgrim wife: "Ooooh, how about Holland? I hear they have neat Tulips there!"
Husband: "Holland, huh? Let's go to Amsterdam then. Let me change all my coins into bills for the strippe- I mean for the street-fairs, he he he."
Wife: "I've always wanted to go to Amsterdam. I'm so curious to see the Dyk- I mean dikes, he he he."
Well, obviously, these zealous pilgrims got tired of the sex and the depravity and moved, right?
No! They decided to move, get this, their kids were learning to speak Dutch.
Yeah, kids growing up near shipping ports with little supervision, close to the sailors and bar wenches and street-walkers? That's fine, but god forbid they speak *gasp* Dutch! So in 1617 these fine logical good christians decided to move away from the Netherlands.
And they decided to return to England. But by now, King James May-First, and basically everyone else, was fed up with these guise. Total buzz-kills, the lot of them. Tell us not to think of women in their petticoats, will they?
So the King says "Yeah, no. I'm gonna persecute you and make you be good and nice Anglicans again so you can stop getting on our cases about the petticoats."
In response, the Pilgrims say "Well, we've heard about a land far away, where no one has even heard of petticoats. So, there will be no petticoat-thinking there." In reality, there was a lot of planning, and years of bureaucracy, but eventually, they got approval to "just go away, get the hell out, go to goddamn america."
So they did. They got on boats, and sailed. And sailed, and sailed, and sailed. And many months later, they sailed, and sailed, and sailed. Geez. Crossing the ocean with wind power sure takes a long time.
And then, they hit land, and subsequently established the first colony in... wait, what? The pilgrims weren't the first colony? No, remember those people in 1607. These idiots decided to flee their home country to a new continent to start a new life. They just happened to choose a continent that had already been colonized by their old home country.
But at least there were no petticoats to look at.
The Genius Mind Remembers American History: Part 1 - Petticoats and Pilgrims
This series is a revised and expanded version of my original short series: "A Student's Version of American History" (retitled as I'm no longer a college student, but would rather like to continue this series).
Opening Disclaimer: I confess that I will be very nonfactual in this description of our great nation, and a bit nonsensical. Almost no part of this rambling tale has been fact-checked, intentionally, with the exception of maybe a few dates and other inconsequential details. Don't reference me for your history paper, but if you do, let me know what grade you get.
Part 1 - Petticoats and Pilgrims
For hundreds of years, there was a kingdom. A kingdom on an island. An Island close to the edge of known civilization.
Five-Score and Fifteen years prior, a stupid man who thought the earth was a lot smaller than it was "discovered" inhabited islands in a new continent that turned out not to be Asia. We'd give the guy a break but he turned out to be not so good of a guy, and not so good of a governor. He kinda killed a lot of people. But this story isn't about him, the country he was from, or the country he sailed for.
The kingdom, on an island, close to the edge of known civilization, began to reach out and try to take over the world. It was called "England" after "Angle Land" because everyone was a square (un-hip, not cool, thinking inside the box). I mean big time. It was totally improper to even think of seeing a fine lady in her petticoat (her lounge-wear / underwear). Squares, most of them. But really, most people were in those times.
Now comes James 4/1. Yes, he has two numbers because he was twice king, fourth James for Scotland and first for England. Five-Score and Fifteen years after dumbass "I swear it's Asia, you guise!", in 1607, James May-First (is what I'll call him) sent people to settle on the mainland of North America (named for a map-maker called Amerigo, not anyone presently discussed. History is weird, y'all).
So: 1607, Englanders grab some land, call it their own, and start with the killing of people who were there first. No big deal, if you have a gun and they don't, it's called "Colonization" not "Mass-Murder." Now, if they fight back, it's "Savage Raids" not "Self-defense." See how language conspires with prevalent culture?
Around this time, James 4/1 also starts cracking down on religion in the home country. "Freedom of Belief" within a civil government was a concept that wouldn't exist for a while.
But, during this time in the mother country, there was a group of people that were the biggest squares of all. These guise were of the mindset that logic and science were for the 'heathens', and that the real rules of life were from god. But the substance of these rules conflicted with the state church. They got it into their head that everyone else was filthy bad, since all of those other guys were thinking about women in their petticoats. For shame! These were the separatist puritans. So, they decided to separate from the state church.
So these puritans decided to move away (and now call themselves Pilgrims). And where to go, but Holland? Now, I mean, you've probably heard of Amsterdam's Red-light district, right? Well, it was pretty much the same. Here's how I see it going down.
Pilgrim husband: "Honey, we need to get away from all of this sin in England. Where shall we go?"
Pilgrim wife: "Ooooh, how about Holland? I hear they have neat Tulips there!"
Husband: "Holland, huh? Let's go to Amsterdam then. Let me change all my coins into bills for the strippe- I mean for the street-fairs, he he he."
Wife: "I've always wanted to go to Amsterdam. I'm so curious to see the Dyk- I mean dikes, he he he."
Well, obviously, these zealous pilgrims got tired of the sex and the depravity and moved, right?
No! They decided to move, get this, their kids were learning to speak Dutch.
Yeah, kids growing up near shipping ports with little supervision, close to the sailors and bar wenches and street-walkers? That's fine, but god forbid they speak *gasp* Dutch! So in 1617 these fine logical good christians decided to move away from the Netherlands.
And they decided to return to England. But by now, King James May-First, and basically everyone else, was fed up with these guise. Total buzz-kills, the lot of them. Tell us not to think of women in their petticoats, will they?
So the King says "Yeah, no. I'm gonna persecute you and make you be good and nice Anglicans again so you can stop getting on our cases about the petticoats."
In response, the Pilgrims say "Well, we've heard about a land far away, where no one has even heard of petticoats. So, there will be no petticoat-thinking there." In reality, there was a lot of planning, and years of bureaucracy, but eventually, they got approval to "just go away, get the hell out, go to goddamn america."
So they did. They got on boats, and sailed. And sailed, and sailed, and sailed. And many months later, they sailed, and sailed, and sailed. Geez. Crossing the ocean with wind power sure takes a long time.
And then, they hit land, and subsequently established the first colony in... wait, what? The pilgrims weren't the first colony? No, remember those people in 1607. These idiots decided to flee their home country to a new continent to start a new life. They just happened to choose a continent that had already been colonized by their old home country.
But at least there were no petticoats to look at.
05 January 2015
Coming Soon: American History and Personal Stories
What's new in TGM 2015? Old content will be expanded and re-released.
New articles and stories will be written. But most importantly, you can know when they'll become available, because I'll tell you!
How, you ask? With "Coming Soon:" announcements! I'm so very original.
Without further ado:
The Genius Mind Remembers American History: Part 1
This revision of my mildly popular series boasts increased sarcasm, more back-story, and no sense whatsoever. Expect new chapters, and more details!
Re-debuts Jan 7th, 2015.
What You Ought to Know About Me: Part 1
New Content (Sorta)! This will be a series of articles, with some content previous posts and some new content. Beliefs and identities can be fluid, so this series will focus on where I am now (or where I'll be at the moment of writing), so although I may draw on past work, it will definitely be as fresh and new as I myself have become.
Debuts Jan 9th, 2015.
New articles and stories will be written. But most importantly, you can know when they'll become available, because I'll tell you!
How, you ask? With "Coming Soon:" announcements! I'm so very original.
Without further ado:
The Genius Mind Remembers American History: Part 1
This revision of my mildly popular series boasts increased sarcasm, more back-story, and no sense whatsoever. Expect new chapters, and more details!
Re-debuts Jan 7th, 2015.
What You Ought to Know About Me: Part 1
New Content (Sorta)! This will be a series of articles, with some content previous posts and some new content. Beliefs and identities can be fluid, so this series will focus on where I am now (or where I'll be at the moment of writing), so although I may draw on past work, it will definitely be as fresh and new as I myself have become.
Debuts Jan 9th, 2015.
The Genius Mind 2015
Hello, and welcome to The Genius Mind, my own personal blog.
While I've sporadically used this domain for about seven years now, it has undergone several reboots and mass purging of old posts. Anyone who previously followed TGM will notice that this is the first post in about a year, and will appear as the first post on TGM 2015.
What is TGM 2015? It's my final reboot of The Genius Mind. This blog will not undergo any more hard-resets, it'll either grow strong or fail miserably.
Why remove old posts you ask? The answer is two-pronged.
For one, not all of my former posts are gone forever, and will, with heavy revision, be made available again. This includes the "American History" series as well as some of my more personal stories.
On the other hand, I've grown as a person, changed with time. Some of the posts may be too irredeemably short to salvage. Others may no longer reflect my personal views.
What should you expect going forward? Well, since this blog is entirely due to my singular effort, don't expect things to be fast or post-a-day. I am currently in grad school, so my free time is limited, and I do like doing other things too.
Do expect more ideas and stories about myself, do expect more sarcastic revisiting of historical and current event. Do expect liberal queerness, critical exploration of culture and society, and my written opinions.
Well, with that I'll get to writing and revision.
Jos.
While I've sporadically used this domain for about seven years now, it has undergone several reboots and mass purging of old posts. Anyone who previously followed TGM will notice that this is the first post in about a year, and will appear as the first post on TGM 2015.
What is TGM 2015? It's my final reboot of The Genius Mind. This blog will not undergo any more hard-resets, it'll either grow strong or fail miserably.
Why remove old posts you ask? The answer is two-pronged.
For one, not all of my former posts are gone forever, and will, with heavy revision, be made available again. This includes the "American History" series as well as some of my more personal stories.
On the other hand, I've grown as a person, changed with time. Some of the posts may be too irredeemably short to salvage. Others may no longer reflect my personal views.
What should you expect going forward? Well, since this blog is entirely due to my singular effort, don't expect things to be fast or post-a-day. I am currently in grad school, so my free time is limited, and I do like doing other things too.
Do expect more ideas and stories about myself, do expect more sarcastic revisiting of historical and current event. Do expect liberal queerness, critical exploration of culture and society, and my written opinions.
Well, with that I'll get to writing and revision.
Jos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)