Hereās the super weird story of Vlad the Impaler, also known as the OG Dracula
So the first thing he did, was join this Group called the Order of the Dragon, which were basically just people who fought the turks from time to time.
And also this is where he gets named Vlad Dracula. Dracula meaning son of the Dragon, cuz his dad was also in this group and he was called Vlad Dracul.
Some years later, he become a military leader or something.
But then he got exiled, and or captured.
But then he comes back a new man. He does a bunch of throne claiming and throne reclaiming here and there, but he eventually settles in and starts murdering people.
His main way of solving problems back then, was impaling them. Thatās why heās called Vlad the Impaler.
This was his main way of dealing with problems, and he impaled thousands of people.
There was one time when and Ottoman army came across a forest full of impaled corpses. They pissed themselves and turned around immediately.
when i tell y'all my heart always shatters hearing alu's broken sobs during this scene . . . crispin freeman, you did my baby justice. give this man an oscar.
and the way everyone who is witness to his tears looks on in sadness and disbelief, because tears are the very last thing you would expect from him, especially in the moment of an enemy's defeat. not only does alucard mourn anderson because he always held a significant amount of respect, but anderson's choice of turning his back upon humanity + his death was also a symbol of alucard's dream coming to an end. to be defeated by a human hand. he no longer desired to live an eternal regret, and he saw anderson as one of the main gateways for his curse to finally be put to rest.
alucard versus anderson will always be one of the greatest and most complex rivalries in anime history for me, and this clip alone explains why.
I'll let you in on a secret. I have a doctorate in education, but the fieldās basically just a 100 years old. We donāt really know what weāre doing. Our scholarly understanding of how learning happens is like astronomy 2000 years ago.
Most classroom practice is astrology.
Before the late 19th century, no human society had ever attempted to formally educate the entire populace. It was either aristocracy, meritocracy, or a blend. And always male.
Weāre still smack-dab in the middle of the largest experiment on children ever done.
Most teachers perpetuate the ābankingā model (Freire) used on them by their teachers, who likewise inherited it from theirs, etc.
Thus the elite āLyceumā style of instruction continues even though itās ineffectual with most kids.
Whatās worse, the key strategies weāve discovered, driven by cognitive science & child psychology, are quite regularly dismissed by pencil-pushing, test-driven administrators. Much like Trump ignores science, the majority of principals & superintendents Iāve known flout research.
Some definitions:
Banking model --> kids are like piggy banks: empty till you fill them with knowledge that you're the expert in.
Lyceum --> originally Aristotle's school, where the sons of land-owning citizens learned through lectures and research.
Things we (scholars) DO know:
-Homework doesn't really help, especially younger kids.
-Students don't learn a thing from testing. Most teachers don't either (it's supposed to help them tweak instruction, but that rarely happens).
-Spending too much time on weak subjects HURTS.
Do you want kids to learn? Here's something we've discovered: kids learn things that matter to them, either because the knowledge and skills are "cool," or because .... they give the kids tools to liberate themselves and their communities.
Maintaining the status quo? Nope.
Kids are acutely aware of injustice and by nature rebellious against the systems of authority that keep autonomy away from them.
If you're perpetuating those systems, teachers, you've already freaking lost.
They won't be learning much from you. Except what not to become. Sure, you can wear them down. That's what happened to most of you, isn't it? You saw the hideous flaw in the world and wanted to heal it. But year after numbing year, they made you learn their dogma by rote.
And now many of you are breaking the souls of children, too.
For what?
It's all smoke and mirrors. All the carefully crafted objectives, units and exams.
WE. DON'T. KNOW. HOW. PEOPLE. LEARN.
We barely understand the physical mechanisms behind MEMORY. But we DO know kids aren't empty piggy banks. They are BRIMMING with thought.
The last and most disgusting reality? The thing I hear in classroom after freaking classroom?
Education is all about capitalism.
"You need to learn these skills to get a good job." To be a good laborer. To help the wealthy generate more wealth, while you get scraps.
THAT is why modern education is a failure.
Its basic premise is monstrous.
"Why should I learn to read, Dr. Bowles?"
Because reading is magical. It makes life worth living. And being able to read, you can decode the strategies of your oppressors & stop them w/ their own words.
i have a weird appreciation for Baroque artists, in particular Francois Boucher and Peter Paul Rubens, for depicting the human body in lush detail at a time that predates the standards for bodies to be thin and airbrushed with no wrinkles or cellulite
itās just really interesting to me
so many the things women are taught to hate about their bodiesāpudgy bellies, fat rolls, double chins, and celluliteāused to be ideals of beauty shown in depictions of goddesses
I honestly always find the termĀ āspinsterā as referring to an elderly, never-married woman as funny because you know what?
Wool was a huge industry in Europe in the middle ages. It was hugely in demand, particularly broadcloth, and was a valuable trade good. A great deal of wool was owned by monasteries and landed gentry who owned the land.Ā
And, well, the only way to spin wool into yarn to make broadcloth was by hand.Ā
This was viewed as a feminine occupation, and below the dignity of the monks and male gentry that largely ran the trade.Ā
So what did they do?
They hired women to spin it. And, turns out, this was a stable job that paid very well. Well enough that it was one of the few viable economic options consideredĀ ārespectableā outside of marriage for a woman. A spinster could earn quite a tidy salary for her art, and maintain full control over her own money, no husband required.Ā
So, naturally, women who had little interest in marriage or men? Grabbed this opportunity with both hands and ran with it. Of course, most people didnāt get this, because All Women Want Is Husbands, Right?
So when people sayĀ āspinsterā as inĀ āspinster auntā, they are TRYING to conjure up an image of a little old lady who is lonely and bitter.Ā
But what I HEAR are the smiles and laughter of a million women as they earned their own money in their own homes and controlled their own fortunes and lived life on their own terms, and damn what society expected of them.Ā
Quick links to all the updated chapters as well as related illustrations!Ā
HELLSING THE BENEDICTION CHAPTER 1: EPICTETUS [ HEREĀ ]
HELLSING THE BENEDICTION CHAPTER 2:Ā SOVEREIGN STATE [ HERE ]
HELLSING THE BENEDICTION CHAPTER 3: THE 9TH SUNRISE [ HERE ]
HELLSING THE BENEDICTION TUMBLR PAGE [ HERE ]
RELATED ILLUSTRATIONS
ALL HALLOWS EVE ILLUSTRATION [ HERE ]
THE HELLHOUND AND THE HECKPUPPY [ HERE ]
I know there's some ambiguity around why Alucard turned Seras, but I think it's safe to say that he admired her courage to not give up even though she was facing impossible odds.
BUT part of me personally thinks a teeny, tiny smidgen of the Abridged version got it right. ("Oh come on, you look like a puppy!") And he just straight up felt bad and couldn't leave little puppy-eyed Seras there to die all alone.
A wonderful topic.
I love it.
The former is definitely correct. He admits it to Walter.
In general we do know that he admires āhumansā, who refuse to give up no matter the odds - like Andersen.
The latter .... is not impossible... It certainly was her determination and all ... but according to the OVA, he too admitted to have done it because of some feelings.
In the German dub he straight up says he did it because of āhuman feelingsā [āeine kleine menschliche Regungā], which definitely refers to some gentler feelings - which might be as well sympathy.
Spoiler Alert!!! Do not read if you want to watch it and wish to see it with 'fresh eyes'! :-)
This time I will address some parts of the philosophical and yes the bureaucratic aspect of the Good Place
- I wonāt get into every philosophical aspect of the show, just to the parts that stung me.
This perspective means also that Chidi Anagonye HAS TO BE ADDRESSED ā in my opinion, without him a vital part of the Good Place would have been nothing more than a boring ā afterlife seriesā.
The first time Chidi was introduced, he himself explained, that he is a philosophy professor and through Chidi Michael made clear: āthis is the Good Placeā because look, we have philosophy professor who tries to be his best self every day in and after his life. (This connects to my analysis Part 1 if you havenāt read it and you are interested: Part 1 )
And I think that if you try to be really a morally correct person you probably will never be able to choose anything ā Chidiās one and only fault in terms of his personality.
But what does the show want to tell us with this kind of character and the topic of ethics, morals and philosophy?
When I read that, I understood immediately that every time I tried to do something, I began questioning myself - so much that it made me
being a philosopher does not make you automatically a good person: Chidi did ask Janet where the other philosophers were (like Plato, Kant etc.). Janet answered him that those philosophers he mentioned are in the Bad place, because they e.g. supported slavery (and finally a show pointing out that good ideas do not mean that the persons behind these good ideas have a good approach towards humans in general or vice versa)
For example:
I have read Immanuel Kants theory of the categorical imperative or in German: der kategorische Imperativ. I will try to explain it as good as I can and as short as possible, haha: The categorical imperative is basically about a morally positive action and to understand if it is morally positive, you have to question your maxim, meaning: 'is this situation also a positive action in another situation or does it benefit you only in this moment?' Because if it only helps you in this specific, particular situation than it is bound to a aim or purpose and has now general validation.
When I read that, I understood immediately that everytime I tried to do something, I began questioning myself - so much that it made me still. And I think sometimes that is good - and sometimes is not.
But as I said I won't go too deep into this aspect.
Chidi has met a lot of people that did like and did love him ā but not his profession. And I think to show a person this way is very intriguing: He tries to make the right choice and he tries to do that so hard, that he ends up not deciding at all. For me it shows that even though we should try to be our best version every day, it does not mean we should follow ideas, concepts, theories blindly. I see this as huge criticism on philosophy and I think it as an important point: we cannot simply take all those 'philosophical manuals' and not decide in the end - something that Chidi also comes to realize.
And I think that is beautiful, too! For someone who questions everything that he does, every step he finally accepts that we as humans do not have an 'answer' but sometimes we do have 'the answer' :-) He made a decision. Wonderful character development!!
Okay, moving on to the other aspect of this part: bureaucratic aspects.
When I finished the whole series I came to realize what really triggered me: Even the afterlife has his bureaucratic world...
And then I was like: ewww. Because who likes it? (Maybe some people do, and that is fine ofc!) Haha.
So, yeah my second thought was: okay, why did they not build a situation where everyone of the humans has to do some bureaucratic s***? Because, that would have been entertaining.
Other than that I loved how hell / the Bad Place was depicted: attractive people in timeless fashion. Not what one would expect (at least for me, it was refreshing).
Also in my eyes the Janets are a big part of the bureaucracy:
This is also what stung me: Janet is for me a symbol of knowledge and bureaucracy - because even though it is a lot of paperwork we all know for a society (even the Good and the Bad place have their specific Janets) needs its knowledge manifested (partially) into bureaucracy: Who are you? Do you exist? And do you have a passport? There are people in our world that - sadly - do not have a passport, there are people in our world that have a passport but with not a lot of human rights compared to other passports. And this thought struck me. Because if Janet is a bureaucratic person (not a person) who tries to help (like all the Janets gathered together, so that the human world won't be reset) imagine what that means: Yes Bureaucrats have a job and rules to follow - but what is more important? To obey the rule (to follow blindly) or to fight for the humans - even though when judge Gen will eliminate them, they will maybe cease to exist forever - to me it is because it is about to value human life and not bureaucratic structure.
So I came to the conclusion, that to be actively a better person today, means to revalue your values and the structure you are born in:
Thank you for reading! And feel free to comment, add, agree or disagree!
And talk about how human he actually is - I would interpret that as a sign of jealousy - seeing the woman whom you love hate embracing another man. And to get rid of that emotion, Naraku tries to distract himself by inflicting pain and / or channel that burning anger.
jacobvanloon
prguitarman
janainaart
annaxmalina
gummygunk
