Things You Should Know

Trying to fill in the gaps

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

The Pill, The Morning After Pill / Plan B, and RU-486

Women's health care has been in the news a lot lately, and the amount of misinformation being spread around is dangerous.  A lot of people are still unsure as to which of the three pill listed above - actually does what.  Many believe that all of these pills do the same, or similar things, or that all three have some reference to abortion, which is not true of all three.

Coming from a school district that taught me about all these types of pills, as well as the various forms of abortion services, I find that this information is not being given out to many people today.

All the information presented here is presented as the medical side behind these particular items, this is not a political piece nor religious piece, this is a facts piece.  Or, as a factual as I can be without a medical degree.

1.  The birth control pill or "The Pill," is an oral contraceptive that was developed by combining progesterone (progestin) and estrogen.  Designed specifically for women, the pill was first approved in the US in 1960, and only for use by married couples.  The Pill has been the latest in a long time of oral contraceptives that have been used by women over time, many being herbal-based with varying levels of effectiveness.  It is estimated that over 11 million women in the US use the Pill for their main method of contraception.  

The general concept of the Pill functions in such a way that one takes an active tablet every day of the month except for a seven day time span in which placebo pills are taken, to allow for a woman to have a monthly menstrual cycle.  The Pill is composed of the two hormones mentioned earlier, although some more modern versions contain only Progestin.  There are also new versions of the Pill that limit menstrual cycles to 4 a year, since there is no scientific data that demands that women need to have a monthly cycle.  Many women have irregular cycles already, and some simply find the cost and time devoted to tending to the cycle to be too much of an inconvenience.

Before we begin talking about the effect of the Pill on the prevention of pregnancy, it needs to be noted that a good deal of women have another reason for taking the Pill, that of controlling body hormones in a way that helps to regulate acne, for example.  Taking the Pill can also lessen those with heavy menstrual flows during their periods, and some women experience levels of cramping that are severe enough to cause them to miss work or school simply because they cannot move.  Women with severe cramps or irregular periods have even been known to become anemic or to pass out, and the Pill can help treat this so that the women lead more normal lives.  That being said, we also need to note that the Pill does not work for all women, and a small percentage need hormone levels altered, or cannot take the Pill at all.  This number, compared to the general population using the Pill though, is small and consistent with variations when it comes to manipulating hormone levels.  In time, these women may be helped by further medical research.

So, how does the Pill prevent pregnancy?  Well, essentially, there are three components that can take place (one or all) that make the Pill up to 99% effective when used properly.  

A.  The Pill effectively tricks the body into believing that it is already pregnant, in a sense, and thickens the lining of the uterus, known as the endometrium.  The endometrium thickens in preparation for the implantation of a fertilized egg, about every 28 days.  Usually, this thickening of blood is washed out of the body during a period, but when implantation occurs, it will continue to thicken with blood and nutrients to support the development of that egg, the placenta, as it were.  So, while the body does this normally, the hormones in the Pill lead the ovaries to believe that they have already released the egg for the month, so the endometrium is already thickening and hardening to a level that makes it hard or impossible for a fertilized egg to implant into.  Even in women not taking the pill, but who are having sex regularly without sperm inhibitors, it is a likely bet that every month there is not a full conception, the egg is being flushed from the body in the period anyway.  Meaning that the Pill is simply ensuring an already relatively routine biological occurance.

B.  The Pill also sends an inhibiting hormone to the ovaries, so that while the uterus is thickening, the actual egg is never released, or at least, the release is delayed to a point that would render it impossible for the egg to implant. This is known as a general suppression of ovulation.

C.  The cervical mucus becomes thickened.  This is done to inhibit sperm from moving effectively or being able to come into contact with the egg itself, should one have been released.  This is also something that occurs naturally in the body.

In essence then, the pill's success comes from effectively suppressing the release of the egg and preventing fertilization (where sperm meets egg) and if that fails, preventing implantation. (where fertilized egg burrows into uterine lining)  Women's fertility is a complex issue that varies, but it is generally true that most women can actually only conceive a few days out of the month, based on the findings of fertility doctors.  What this means is that in most cases, fertilized eggs leave the body of a woman monthly after failing to implant on their own due to any number of reasons, and the pill acts as sort of insurance to make sure that this normal biological functions follows the set natural path of what is already happening in the body.

So, does the Pill have anything to do with abortion?  Absolutely not.  The Pill does not cause abortion or miscarriage, there is no scientific data to support that claim.  So why do some people still think it does?  It's a matter of definition.  For those who claim life begins at conception/fertilization, they might believe that if the Pill failed at task 1 of preventing the original fertilization, that the simultaneous other act of preventing implantation is essentially an "abortion."  This is by definition then, hard to really define, since both are happening at the same time, one does not impact the other, and the majority of fertilized eggs never implant on their own anyway, as is the dictate of nature.  There is also no way to separate the two functions, so if the qualifier is that sperm never joined with egg, it is impossible to really know if that that never happened originally.  I have seen people saying that they can tell, but many are organizations with political agendas, and i could not find legitimate medical data to back up those claims.

Thus some people are actually seeking to ban the Pill although because of this, but medically speaking, the prevention of fertilization or implantation is not abortion by the standards of the US medical health boards or many other world health organizations.  When you consider that up to 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (technically termed: Spontaneous Abortion) in the first trimester and without often, full knowledge of the woman, the body by that definition, aborts a good deal of it's own naturally conceived pregnancies for one reason or another.

Before we end with the Pill, it is best to talk to your doctor about the pill for further information about if it is right for you and your hormones.  The  Pill does not prevent STDs, and in some women can cause blood clots.  It is very unlikely that the Pill will affect your future fertility.  You may gain some weight, you may lose acne, and some women can find the symptoms of PMS or PMDD lessened.  It is not "one" thing for all women, and advice from a board certified medical professional is the best.  

Remember, your health is nothing to play with. 

2.  The Morning After Pill / Plan B

Another pill that has gotten some attention recently for being legalized to some extent is the Morning After / Plan B pill.

Many people openly confuse this with the Abortion pill, but this is simply not the case.  It should be noted that there is a definite campaign of misinformation regarding this Pill that does say that this pill is the "abortion pill" in an effort to ban it.  These campaigns seem to be religiously or gender motivated, meaning that their assertions cannot be scientifically verified or trusted by those looking for impartial information.

First, Plan B is the brand name attached to a type of Pill that is referred to as "The Morning After Pill."  It is referred to as the "Morning-After" because that is when it is meant to be taken, or in a period of 3-5 days after the sexual intercourse.  

I'm going to call it Plan B (it's quicker to type) from now on, but just know that these aren't two separate pills, which is a mistake I've seen some make recently.

Plan B was designed to help those women who find themselves in an adverse situation due to a sexual encounter.  For instance, for women who cannot take the Pill, Plan B can function as a contraception in the event of a broken condom or failed other contraceptive (It uses an alternate hormone in some varieties).  It should be noted that development of this pill was very much intended for the victim of rape.  Instead of a rape victim being forced to navigate the state by state rules on abortion, she could essentially prevent the pregnancy from occurring in the first place, thus lessening her trauma and leaving her time to heal, physically and mentally, from the assault without further strain or stress on her body.  Not to mention her legal right to choose if she wants to exercise it.

How does Plan B work?  Well, let's look at the mechanics of fertilization.  

When sperm enters the body, it has to travel past the cervix, up through the uterus, and into the Fallopian tubes.  Fertilization occurs in the tubes.  Now, women are not releasing eggs constantly, only one per month and it is unlikely to know exactly when that egg is released unless the woman is undergoing continuous medical testing.  It can take a sperm and an egg up to six days to actually meet, it should be noted that the time frame from ejaculate to full implantation in the uterus and continued growth (ie. pregnancy) can be up to two weeks.  In that time, we have the potential for fertilization and the egg coming down the tubes into the uterus.  Being that a woman only releases one egg a month (generally) the male ejaculate must be in the body during a few critical days to result in a successful fertilization, and even then, half will not implant naturally on their own.  Most women, not currently attempting to be pregnant or simply having very common irregular cycles, cannot accurately track this without charts or even software, so, we don't really know for sure when that occurs in the average woman, we only know the date of sexual intercourse.  Being that she is probably not tracking it - she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Plan B, utilizing this time, introduces a hormone that immediately suppresses ovulation.  Since it can take more time to build up that uterine wall against an egg, suppressing ovulation is the best method to prevent sperm and egg meeting.  According to statistics, taking Plan B within 12-24 hours of intercourse has a 95% effective rate of preventing an egg from being released, therefore, not even touching the issue of fertilization.  Plan B is recommended to be taken within 24-72 hours for 85% effectiveness, and recent studies have shown that for those who cannot get the pill so quickly, up to 120 (5 days) can be effective to some extent.  (Remember, we don't know when ovulation would occur in these cases)  This looks to be changing though, since it appears the pill will be sold more widely and openly than in the past, probably guaranteeing that most women will have it within 24 hours and therefore, fertilization will never even occur.

For those using the debate that life begins at fertilization, Plan B is actually preventing this from being a talking point.

So, what is the quickest way to determine that Plan B is not the abortion pill?  When given to a pregnant woman, it will not terminate that pregnancy.  When a pregnancy, meaning the implantation and growth of the fertilized egg in the uterine lining has already occurred, Plan B will not cause that to stop.  Since pregnancy does not medically occur by definition for at least 7-14 days on average after sexual intercourse, this pill is not terminating an existing pregnancy and does not allow for one to even occur to be terminated.  Many have stated that Plan B being offered more openly to women, will reduce the number of abortions in the US, and we should eventually get statistics on that point.

The pill itself even has fewer impacts on a woman's health.  Being a one or two dose pill, it does not interfere with hormones over an extended period of time, and the FDA has even indicated that Plan B is about comparable to taking an aspirin in terms of the overall effect on the body.  

3.  RU-486 / The Abortion Pill (Mifeprex / Mifepristone)

This is the only pill that is meant to medically induce an abortion.  First developed in France, it was brought to the US in 2000, it is legal and available in all 50 states when given and followed up with a doctor.  

RU-486 is what is known as an early pregnancy termination pill, meaning that the chemicals contained in the pill will not work after a certain point in fetal development.  It remains one of the safest ways to induce an early term abortion, the cutoff being 49 days after the first day of the last period.  The effectiveness is reported at 92-95%, it has a very small risk of failure and this particular chemical is the most effective way to terminate an early pregnancy.

If you recall, not that long ago, the pill was featured in a youtube video wherein a woman had decided to broadcast her medical abortion to show what it actually looked like and what actually happened, in order to penetrate the sort of secrecy that surrounds the pill in the US.

You may watch the original video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Ud3g2ymOM

The chemical in the pill, in smaller dosages, can be used for contraceptive purposes, to induce labor in the case of fetal death, and the treat various other diseases unrelated to pregnancy.  You can also find it in conjunction with other drugs in medical abortions up to 13 weeks, but it requires the additional drug to work effectively.  

How RU-486 works, as is mentioned in the video if you didn't watch it, is to basically induce a miscarriage.  It blocks the hormone progesterone, which is need to maintain the pregnancy (at this point, the thickened uterine walls) and causes them to begin to detach.  RU-486 is actually in two parts, once the first part causes the hormone blockage, the second application will cause the uterus to contract and expel as it would happen in a natural miscarriage. Women typically report a slightly heavier, longer flow than their normal period.  At this point in the pregnancy, there is very little to be removed from the body, so recovery time is often quick.

In many cases, about 2/3 of women will have reached full effectiveness of RU-486 within 4 hours and 90% by 24.

*********************************************

Regardless of anyone's feelings on abortion, I feel that since I am seeing a good deal of misinformation around today, and since school sexual education seems to get less and less year by year - that it should be stated as to what each pill does and why two are contraceptives and one is an actual abortion pill.  

Just in doing some additional research today, I noticed my Google search results were stacked up with biased websites clearly run by groups with definite agendas.  I think it is important to present facts about the basic functions of these three items that are legal and available, and I encourage you to talk to your doctor about these items if you want to obtain them.  Your relationship to medicine should not be interfered with by political agents, and only trained medical professionals can help you make an informed choice about what to do with your body.

Sadly, I feel I need to state that any abusive message sent to me won't be dignified with a response.  If we can't handle a conversation about things that are present and legal within our society, even just on points of clarification...  then we are a very sad society indeed.

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

Barbie and Controversy

Earlier this month, a Barbie doll was featured in numerous new reports that had been built to the body type of the average woman in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/normal-barbie-nickolay-lamm_n_3529460.html

Long before the Bratz dolls and Monster High, Barbie was the rather quintessential toy for girls in the United States and occasionally abroad. She also attracted controversy from everything from her style of dress to her body proportions.  She's a toy lightning rod, if you will, for controversy, but much of it has been a result of the company refusing to move with the times, or making horrible mis-steps in their design department.  Some of the controversy is overblown, but when a toy such as this one has come to be synonymous with the American lifestyle, we can see how looking at this particular element of our culture might teach us more about ourselves.

Barbie actually has what is often referred to as a "Sordid" history.  While Mattel would like you to believe that she was the quaint invention of Ruth Handler that was introduced to the world in 1959, it's simply not true.

Barbie's American debut was in March 9, 1959 at a toy fair, and she initially had a poor showing with distributors.  However, once marketed directly to consumers, she took off to become the one of the toys that built the house of Mattel

For being hailed as an All-American girl, Barbie is actually from Germany, where she had originally been being produced since 1953.  Her original name was Bild Lilli and she was originally marketed in the US from Germany under this name before the Mattel version appeared.  Back further though, she was a cartoon character in the Bild-Zeitung tabloid, which is still published today.  The name translates to Picture Newspaper, so, Bild Lilli is "Picture Lilli," probably to make sure that fans of her comic would associated her with the doll.

Her creation was the combination of a baby face on a curvaceous woman's body.  A la, Betty Boop or Disney's Snow White.  (Did you know Betty Boop was meant to be 14 in her cartoons and Snow White was meant to be 16?  Both were also German)  There are some disputes about what Lilli was intended to actually be, but the best consensus is that she was a prostitute.  Marketed as a doll for children outside certain areas of Europe, within her own borders, she was a German seductress who seduced businessmen for money in the pages of her comic strip with her sex kitten body.  

Some have claimed that Lilli was simply sexually liberated and enjoyed using men for their money in the rebuilding, post-war phase of Germany.   This does have some evidence for it, since we clearly see it in the comics and such that money is being exchanged for sex, but that renders her, in our modern slang, a "sugar baby," who is operating under much the same principles as a prostitute.  Not to mention, we are judging their character by American standards, whereas Europeans may not look with such a critical eye at Lilli's arrangements.  We do know that the doll was a popular bachelor party gift and was sold as sort of a novelty item to men.  

A few reports have said that Lilli's original character had to have her nipples removed before she was transformed into Barbie for American markets.  This appears to be somewhat sensationalized, because many images of the doll without clothing suggest it didn't have prominent nipples that would merit removal.

Ruth Handler came across the Lilli dolls on her overseas trips and realized that she could create a version for American children.  Ruth's daughter, Barbara, was often playing with paper dolls, but they had no hard plastic equivalent on the market yet.  As a business woman, she realized the potential for sales of various dolls with exchangeable clothing, houses, and accessories.  

So, Lilli was toned down, and with her reputation kept tucked away overseas, Handler named the doll after her daughter and arguably the most famous doll in the world was born.

Mattel later even secured the rights to Lilli to shut down German distribution when Barbie began to take off, to prevent competition.

Here is an original Bild Lilli Doll

Here is the original Barbie:

The resemblance is such that Mattel was lucky to avoid an international lawsuit.

She attracted controversy in the American market almost immediately though, for her adult figure and proportions when parents were upset about the bathing costume and the large breasts.  

From then on, it hasn't been easy for Barbie in the presentation department.  An early version of Barbie took heat for containing a weight loss guidebook that declared "Don't Eat!" as it's best idea for young girls.  

While Barbie has stepped out into the working world, holding over 100 separate and diverse professions, it has been her appearance that has caused the most controversy.  Creators have updated her eyes to give a direct stare as opposed to her original demure sideways glance and her waist has only recently been widened.  She's also gotten in trouble for holding (in her early years) mostly stereotypical female jobs, and having pre-recorded phrases that were sexist or demeaning.  The famous "Math is hard" line that was parodied on The Simpsons.

The biggest issue comes from the fact that her proportions are not realistic, in so much that we know that if Barbie was a real person, she would collapse under her figure.  

But has this idealized unhealthy image caused damage to young female children in America?  There does appear to be evidence for that.  Certain individuals have gone under the knife to look more like Barbie, often resulting in strangely modified humans that appear to be unsettling to most people.  Researchers have also noticed a strange trend that while young girls identify with their Barbies in at younger ages, they have a distinct and active rebellion phase against the doll, wherein the famous decapitations and destruction of the body occur.  However, at that point, the damage may already be done.  Most recently though, we have what is called, "Barbie Syndrome," an identified disorder where the person wishes to look like Barbie, when the figure is completely unattainable to human women. (it physically cannot be supported, regardless of plastic surgery)  

It is more likely that Barbie is a contributing factor to an already unhealthy and non-body positive culture.  It would be hard to, outside of a few specific cases, really lay all of the body image issues in young women at Barbie's tiny feet.  Barbie has never purported to be the representation of American women, but she has called herself an "All-American girl."  There is a difference in those two statements, and that's where most people get confused.  Barbie was created before we took a real look at toys and games for children and how they might affect our self-worth, and while she has changed some over the years, she hasn't changed quickly, leading to backlash.  We do know for a fact that children model self-image on what they see is the predominate image; ergo, if they have a Barbie, see one type of person on television, see numerous ads, then they are getting a complete picture.  It's not the fault of one element in particular, but a combination of over-saturation and exposure to unrealistic images.  

Barbie has also gotten into trouble with race and ethnicity in America.  The first non-white Barbie, "Colored Francie" was introduced in 1967, which was made when Mattel just dyed their white Barbies a different color.  (She was also made to be from England, not the States) The first Barbie that is often considered to be African-American though, came in 1968, Christie.  (Lest you think this is not a problem anymore, Disney recently came under fire for marketing Princess Tiana dolls that were simply brown versions of stereotypical white princess faces - the doll was quickly pulled and fixed)  Mattel hadn't really even addressed the image of creating a doll with African-American features and varying skin tones until their "So In Style" line of Barbies, which appears to have come about very recently in their 2009-2010 lines, and these characters are only considered to be loosely connected to the Barbie line.  

Barbie also has a series of collector dolls known as the "Dolls of the World" series, which has drawn similar fire for creating stereotypical presentations of dress and culture.  Often, the criticism comes when one group is over generalized or dressed inappropriately, such as a recently released "Samurai Ken" doll that resembled a throw-back movie character, as opposed to an earlier Japanese Barbie that had taken more time with representing traditional costume and dress.  

1.  "Samurai Ken and Geisha Barbie"

2.  Japanese Barbie

Still despite ongoing controversy over her body image and her mis-steps on cultural presentation, Barbie remains big business.  

The invention of the Bratz / Monster High lines with their highly sexualized images have made Barbie seem like an almost quaint option for parents looking to buy tamer dolls for their children.  However, did Barbie's unrealistic body open the door for them to begin with?  We don't know for sure.  And if Barbie keeps changing her image to become more and more body-positive, she looks to keep her top spot for a long time to come. 

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

Intersectionality

Although the term has been around for some time now, the concept of intersectionality is only relatively new in terms of analysis of society and culture.  The practice/results of intersectionality are about as old as the human race.  The term has become more and more prevalent over the internet, where the study of societies like the one in the United States has been more broadly opened up to criticism.  

Originally coined in 1989 by Kimberle Crenshaw as part of feminist sociological theory, the very essence of it being a "theory" is disputed.  

While it is technically classified as a part of feminist theory, the presence of intersectionality in our daily lives moves it from theory to an area of study due to it's presence in the world and relative nature to daily life.  What I mean by that is, a theory would be that "all women are treated equally poorly under patriarchy."  The study would address whether or not they are, and conclude that different groups of women are treated different and in quantifiable measures too.  Intersectionality is no longer theory in that regard.

Beginning with the broad definition, Intersectionality is the study of how different aspects of one's life intersect across one another, to affect various levels of oppression, discrimination, or racism.  Often, we are referring to aspects that are out of one's control, such as one's race, class, sexual identity, ability, and gender.  Sometimes religion is factored into what is known as this "interlocking matrix of oppression," (terms vary) especially if the practice of that religion comes with something that identifies the person as part of that belief system.  Example, a hijab, or Sikh turban. 

For the majority of women and people of color, the issue of intersectionality has been widely known for quite some time, but, while we don't know if people are hearing it, it does seem to be coming into the overall public sphere as well.  As countries grow more and more diverse, we can see a greater placement on issues caused by intersectionality in oppression.

Intersectionality is not a difficult concept to grasp, however, grasping the concept requires an understanding that challenges the learner to understand their own place in society - and how  much of their standing may be simply the result of luck, instead of hard work.  The luck of birth, to be precise.  It is a concept hard to sell in the United States, being that the country's motto is the rather ubiquitous "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps."  This motto, in essence, creates the notion that anyone born in the United States can achieve maximum standing simply by working hard.  Recent data from around the world has proven that for awhile now, this has become very much less true than it once was.  And for some groups, like African-Americans, this has never really been true.

So, what is the case?  In reality, the default is the white (European descent) male, heterosexual, from a male/female parent structured household, who is the primary breadwinner for his family and works in the middle to upper class world.  Deviating from this, we find a marked lowering in one's ability to move around in the social sphere.  Often, in order of how important the traits are considered in society.

Depending on your view of it, it might be something like:

1.  Best trait - Masculinity

2.  Second Best - White of European descent

3.  Heterosexual

And so on.  So, what happens if we change the top trait?

1.  Female.

2.  White.

3.  Heterosexual

Well...  what quickly appears is the wage gap.  In terms of intersectionality, should this person fulfill all other "accepted" societal roles, she has one trait intersecting her person, her gender.  It's an easy to see fact that women, statistically earn less money than men for equal work.  Over the years, efforts have been made to close the gap, but nothing has ended up entirely fixing it.  

Now, keeping the person female, if we alter the race, our imagined person has two intersections, and her wage drops even lower.  This is how we view intersectionality.  When we are not the perceived societal "norm," the ways in which we are different, become strikes against us.  Think of these intersecting lines like strings, and each time you are not, "Male," "White," and "Heterosexual," and down the line, another string gets attached to you, but, and here's the truly devastating thing, those strings get tangled, and the more their area, the more tangled they get, tying the person down more and more.  

Because we are not able to see people divorced from their individual traits, the weight piles on heavier and heavier.  Now, these may change over time, intersecting strings may become less of an issue, etc., but as long as our society holds the norm as the example of the white hetero male, then they do not go away.  It is unknown if they ever truly will.

Let's look at some charts,

The people at the link below will help with sources and research!

http://www.wageproject.org/index.php

So why, if the effects of intersectionality are so readily present, do we rarely talk about it society?  

1.  Intersectionality challenges the norm.  It forces us to realize that certain groups in our society are being treated unfairly based on traits that they have no control over, and that we may be a complicit part of it, if we are not an active part of it.

2.  It challenges the narratives.  The US has often held itself up as an upwardly mobile democratic system for all.  The reality is that if in 2013, women are still earning so much less, we can't very well tell ourselves that our society is truly "for all."  Breaking the narrative means admitting that we have a problem to address.  It means work, change, laws, and enforcement of said laws.  Much of which, the people currently holding the top spots in society have no want to do, and no incentive to do so  either.  

3.  The United States is a capitalist economy.  Capitalism and the free market are often lauded because they give chances to those not born in aristocratic families to become winners, correct?  Well, in order to have winners, you have to have losers.  This is where the phrase, "Well the world needs ditch diggers," comes from.  it is a hard, cold reality that in order to exist in a capitalist society, there must be an underclass, a servant class with no real means to get ahead.  Or, if you are familiar with the "Hunger Games" and other series, must be given the allusion that they can get ahead, without measuring any real progress.  We don't often discuss the negative effects of capitalism in our country because the people in power don't want us to.  Often, you will notice, that people who do are shouted down as "Socialist!  Communist!  Anarchist!"  We are not having the dialogue that we need to have if we are going to address this problem.  The most successful countries have blended forms of economies, by recognizing our own prejudices, we may be able to bring back more to the US than we realize.  

4.  We don't recognize it a lot of the time.  Since the US often discourages discussions of class issues and is fond of phrases like the false, "Post-Racial" society, we tend to isolate the various threads of intersectionality.   "It's because he was black."

"It's because she's a woman."  

Not, "They did it because he was a black transgendered man."

Or, "She gets treated like that because she's a Latina woman."  

I've notice that this is changing somewhat, and we are beginning to pull back more and more and look at the bigger picture behind some issues. The issue is that we are often not teaching this type of study.  I learned about intersectionality in a high school classroom dedicated to reading controversial literature, as you can imagine, the class no longer exists - and that's a massive problem.

5   Racism and Prejudice have blinded us to a lot of problems.  As one begins to recognize their own issues with race, sexuality, and class, a lot of the trappings that cover up the strings begin to fall away.  However, if we live in a society that operates that "racism is now, post-racial," then we aren't being encouraged to examine our own prejudices.  The election of Barack Obama gave lots of people a blank check to ignore societal ills because apparently, one election fixed an entire country.  We barely addressed the issues with voter suppression in majority black neighborhoods in the last election, because - how would that happen under a black president? 

6.  In that vein, we think it's been, or being, fixed.  For this example, I want to talk about an issue between feminist disciplines.  Feminism in the United States took two fronts, one headed primary by middle class white women and one headed by non-white women.  While they occasionally crossed over, a lot of feminist gains were actually garnered by the efforts of both groups, but with one difference.  White women became the "face" of feminism.  Non-white feminists like Angela Davis, bell hooks,  Audre Lorde, etc., who had to seek both gender and racial equality, were moved to the back of the movement.  The logic being that rights would more likely be handed to attractive, white Gloria Steinem, as opposed to the "radical, angry, and black" Angela Davis.  Both women were angry at the way society treated them, but Steinem, having the advantage of being white, could be seen as being less dangerous.  We have long had a relationship with the "perfect and the good" in the US, which means we often will sacrifice some people to achieve an end.  In this end, a lot of white feminists achieved their goals, and since they had little further room to move up, they essentially stopped.  Non-white feminists have found still a lot of room, but have now been relatively abandoned by the majority of the white movement because, they believe the work is done.  (The work of equal rights for all women, is not close to being done, but is still much further away for non-white women.)  So, what we effectively see now, are groups of women who, believing they hit the end, refusing to recognize the strings still on their sisters because they think it's done.  Beyond that, a combination of racism, class-ism, and a lot of the US mentality of "I did it, why don't you?" combines, locking in that inter-sectional matrix of oppression.  When you don't stand to gain any more, many people stop, and do not reach back to help the next person, because we have a hard time seeing beyond ourselves.  Ergo, when we are told we have fixed, or are fixing something, we perceived the very real oppression happening to our fellow human, as insignificant to us, That's another string in intersectionality, that of being in a group that is perceived as being "okay now," by the group in power.  

Intersectionality matters because it is real.  For instance, if you're having a reaction to this article that it's all "feminist" claptrap, after seeing the wage gap reports, etc., then you have to understand that you might be in a position of privilege that affords you the idea that you don't have to care, but, you are in a position of that privilege that you would say that.  

The world is an unfair place, this is true, but when we have the ability to recognize the strings on ourselves, or the strings on our fellow persons, we can work towards creating the most level playing field possible.

Because intersectionality as applies solely to feminism, is only the tip of a very massive iceberg.

Care for further reading?  Or viewing?

http://blackgirldangerous.org/new-blog/2013/5/13/the-myth-of-shared-female-experience

http://www.upworthy.com/know-anyone-that-thinks-racial-profiling-is-exaggerated-watch-this-and-tell-me-when-your-jaw-drops-2

http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/support-question-bridge-a-project-facilitating-much-needed

http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/10/10/my-feminism-will-be-intersectional-or-it-will-be-bullshit/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/corporate-diversity-stalls-racism-shapes-labor-market-video_n_3391187.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKN7e5vz1SI

From Kimberle Crenshaw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KubzkLs_pMk&NR=1&feature=endscreen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzpIhHQZHow

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

Madame Delphine LaLaurie

This post was bumped up by an announcement that the next season of American Horror Story might feature this particular historical person.  While it's not a show I watch, I figured an informative post in advance is better - even if her story is sensational on the level of New Orleans' ghost story of the highest caliber...

Most people who have heard of Delphine LaLaurie are familiar with her from tours of New Orleans, or her appearances on the shows, "Deadly Women" and "Most Evil Women in History."  However, unlike a great many persons you hear about, her story is true and documented.

Born in or around 1775, in Louisiana, she was a from a prominent family of Irish immigrants and French Creoles.  

At the time, Creole indicated a descent from French or Spanish settlers, as opposed to the English settlers found more on the East Coast.  Remember that, Louisiana was majority French and had their own laws, customs, and traditions separate from the US.  Louisiana was not a state of the US until 1812 after the Louisiana purchase in 1803.  To be a Creole might have meant to be a French person, simply born in the then French territory of Orleans.  The term Creole, today, has a range of loaded meanings, and can mean persons of multi-racial heritage, designate a food type, a language, and in some cases, designates the person as a practitioner of magic.  I would advise against using the word if you are not familiar with it's proper context, and for heaven's sake, don't confuse it with Cajun.  The Cajun/Creole difference is another post - since a lot of people confuse them.  

She was born Delphine Macarty.  We know little of her childhood, but that's not uncommon.  In 1800, she entered into her first marriage with a Spanish officer,  Don Ramon de Lopez y Angullo.  By 1804, he had risen even higher in the ranks, and they were to travel to Spain.  However, accounts differ if it was to take a new position of power, or to suffer punishment for a military crime.  However, Ramon reportedly died of illness in Havana on his way to Madrid, but not before fathering a daughter, Marie, with Delphine.  Delphine and Marie would return to New Orleans, where she would wed again in 1808.  Her second marriage was to Jean Blanque, a prominent and wealthy banker, trader, and merchant.    Delphine and Jean would have four children together before his death in 1816.  

Her third, and final marriage would be to a physician named Leonard LaLaurie.  Her junior, they married in 1825, becoming some of the ranking players in Orleans aristocracy.  In 1831-32, she had an immense house built in the city, complete with slave quarters.  To the outside world, the LaLauries were a grand couple, throwing lavish parties and maintaining an elite social circle.  

Photos of the LaLaurie Mansion, still standing today:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LaLaurie_House,_New_Orleans

Rumors about her treatment of her slaves, however, were far more questionable.  It is known that the Orleans society and general public were well acquainted with the rumors that Delphine was cruel to her slaves.  Despite the fact that court records show she emancipated two of them, most would end up being the victims of a sadistic monster.

Sometime between 1832 and 1834, the story is that a young, most report aged 12, slave girl, was brushing out Delphine's hair.  When she hit a snag and pulled the hair, Delphine went after her, shrieking in French.  She grabbed for a nearby whip and, accounts vary, may have cracked the girl over the head with it.  

(For those unfamiliar with whips, often the handle would contain a piece of iron or other heavy substance, rendering the blow very hard.)  

The girl then ran straight over Delphine's upper balcony, falling to her death in the courtyard below.  Some reports claim that she attacked the girl with the hairbrush, but given what would be found later, keeping a whip in her private chambers seems more in line with Delphine's nature.

Delphine was fined for the death of the girl, whose body would be buried later on the mansion grounds, a paltry slap on the wrist of $300.  For a woman of her wealth, it was a fine more so for disturbing the peace.  However, it was reported that authorities auctioned off the rest of her slaves.  She subverted this by having relatives buy them back for her.

This explicit incident, though quickly hushed up and forgotten, was only further proof to the citizens that Madame LaLaurie (as she was called) was cruel to her slaves.  While slave masters are not known for their kindness or generosity, the LaLaurie slaves were said to be in worse clothes than others; thinner, frailer, and more gaunt than all other slaves in town.  They were so much said to be "wretched creatures" that an investigation took place to remind Delphine of the laws concerning the treatment of slaves.  No mistreatment was reported from the lawyers though, and it is likely that she only emancipated the two slaves earlier mentioned to appear more benevolent than she actually was.  Her own brother having been mayor at one time, and she being wealthy, any bribes would have quickly extinguished any problems.

On April 10, 1834, a fire broke out in the LaLaurie kitchen.  When the firemen arrived, they found that it had been set by the cook, who had been chained to the oven, in a suicide attempt.  The woman had been told that she was going to be taken "upstairs" from which, no one ever returned.  When the LaLaurie's refused to give the keys to the squad, they bashed down the doors. The squad had intended to rescue those they felt might be incarcerated above.

It was said that what was found in that room made seasoned firemen vomit and recoil in disgust.  It was reported as an insult to humanity itself, so grave that when the crimes were reported, mobs gathered, intending to kill the LaLauries and tear down the house.

Original Article Scan: (Upper left hand corner)

http://nobee.jefferson.lib.la.us/Vol-009/04_1834/1834_04_0034.pdf

Original Article Transcript:

http://www.nola.com/lalaurie/archives/fire1.html

The article reports that at least seven slaves were tied up or suspended in some manner.  Men and women, they were all horribly mutilated in one way or another.  While the crimes were not described here, reports later came out.  The specifics remained unverified, but they are as follows:  Being hung by the neck with feet barely touching the ground to increase agony, an old woman with a large visible gash in her head that was barely alive, a man who had been cut open and his intestines laid out upon the floor (but not severed to keep him alive), sexual organ mutilation, facial mutilation, and a person whose limbs had been taken off and reattached to the body in a grotesque crab like shape.  Reports of iron spike collars, the stretching of limbs to "beyond their extremities," and slaves being gnawed upon by rats, are widespread.  Every slave had been put into a restrictive position that kept them either stretched out or curled up on the floor, many showing such damage to their bodies that they had been there for months - at least.  There are also reports of buckets of limbs or organs being around, as well as a crude "operating" table in the room.

While the majority of the blame has fallen on Delphine, it should be noted that the most repulsive of these acts, would have required the training of her physician husband, to both prolong the lives, and suffering, of her poor captives.  It was obvious however, that both of them were involved in this torture, although we have a greater fascination with female killers than males, which is why the story is often just of "Madame LaLaurie." and not "The LaLauries."  

The LaLauries were unashamed and even issued threats to those who questioned them, but when the articles would call her a demon in the shape of a woman, for a women in her position, it was her cue to leave town.  The LaLauries fled New Orleans, supposedly to Paris.

Her house was not torn down by the mob, and it remains standing today, although it is privately owned (Most recently by actor Nicholas Cage) and is not open to the public for tours.  Apparently the inside is entirely redone, with nothing much of the original interior.  (Ghost tours often do like to include the original decor of the scene where the brutality occurred)  The house, after it's first big restoration in about 1888, has been used for numerous things, including as a school, a conservatory, a refuge, a center for delinquents, shopping, and as a bar.  

According to news reports, after the LaLaurie's fled, people came to view the slaves, to prove to themselves the torture had been real in perhaps the most macabre fashion possible.  The fate of these poor souls is unknown, many probably died from their wounds relatively soon after being found.  Stories began to circulate that as many as 100 slaves had died under the LaLaurie torture, their bodies buried on the property, and while it could be likely, it's never been substantiated with exhumations.

The LaLauries ended up, in a way, getting away with it.  They supposedly fled to Paris and lived well until their deaths, rumors of their crimes not following them.  In a rather bizarre turn, it was reported that Delphine died in a boar-hunting accident in France.  However, this is likely untrue, but in a stranger turn of events, in the 1930's in a cemetery in Louisiana, a marker, such as one might find on the outside of a mausoleum grave, was found declaring the death of Madame LaLaurie.  Even stranger?  This marker found in the US declares that she died in Paris in 1842, but many are asking, could she have been buried in the same cemetery?  Who would have brought her body back from Paris and buried it there, without anyone noticing?  Or was the flight to Paris all a myth and Delphine simply lived out the rest of her days in another part of the US?  Without DNA testing, it would be hard to know for sure.  Anyway, the marker itself may be a complete forgery.

While Delphine and her cruelty may have become a tourist attraction for New Orleans, she is certainly guilty of her crimes, this is not heavily disputed. It is a reminder of how bloodthirsty the unchecked practice of slavery can make people.

Many have wondered why the LaLauries did what they did.  Four theories have been posited over the years.

1.  They were serial killers and psychopaths?  The best believed and probably most accurate, the level to which the butchery went is often a sign of someone taking a sheer "delight" in what they are doing.  Certainly, their behavior went beyond what anyone could consider "punishment" for an enslaved person, and it required the slaves' lives been preserved while their bodies were ripped apart, meaning the LaLauries had to keep them alive while abusing them.  

2.  Medical Experimentation?  This is sometimes brought up by the fact that there appear to have been some slaves who had body parts removed; like the famous story of the man with his intestines out.  Was Delphine merely assisting her husband in some perverse quest to see if limbs would re-attach and what the human body could maybe endure during surgery?  This stands as highly unlikely, although the really only plausible theory if the first one isn't true, and stands as a sickening reminder of the use of disadvantaged or captive people as unwilling medical subjects.

3.  Revenge / Interrogation?   Some have reported that Delphine's family were the victims of a slave uprising, and that some of her slaves may have been taken from that group once they had been recaptured.  There's not a lot of evidence for this theory that I could find, although it appeared as a theory on her appearance on the show, "Deadly Women."  They suggest that she may have been torturing to figure out who had led the rebellion and killing as a method of revenge for her dead relatives.  We are pretty well assured that her mother died of natural causes however.  The rumor, in a very twisted sort of justification, often paints a young Delphine, watching her parents brutally slaughtered by slaves, vowing revenge that would later be played out in her attic.  This seems more like a rumor based on trying to, in some part, forgive her atrocities by providing her with past basis that justifies her actions.

4.  The Occult?  This one is likely a modern invention and almost certainly untrue.  New stories paint LaLaurie as a woman sacrificing slaves to the devil, having tea with famous voodoo priestess Marie Laveau while she cut out intestines.  Women who engage in such brutal acts as she did are often claimed to be witches, or devil-worshippers, or to be involved in the occult, it's standard practice.  So while you may see Delphine LaLaurie worshipping the devil on this year's American Horror Story, the occult and magic have never really been part of her legend, merely the sensationalism around an already brutal story.

There is a new sort of idea around Delphine that she in fact, did not do any of this, that the entire thing is a made up piece of "yellow journalism."  This is unlikely, as a woman of her standing was already on record for the abuse of slaves, and likely would not have tolerated false news reports, essentially, the stories published would have had to all been made out of thin air, and the reason for that would be what?  Those who claim LaLaurie's complete innocence often cite political players or money hunger relatives looking to drive her out of town, but we don't see evidence of that, she appeared to have been well-liked in her social circle.  Perhaps the only real question is, did the atrocities go as far as they were rumored to?  The legend has likely grown over the years, the house is a stop on ghost tours (and is supposedly, very haunted) so it would make sense to "beef up" the rumor.  

Whatever did happen in that room though, was apparently violent enough to make a crowd of thousands call for this family to be run out of town and has survived as a mark on humanity since 1834, and was New Orleans legend by 1836.  Falsified legends often, do not pop up while there are still enough people around who would have been there to deny them.  Also, if it was considered shameful to the people of New Orleans still so fresh after it had happened, it would seem they would try to downplay it so early on, after all, it wouldn't be a tourist site for decades later.

Madame LaLaurie may truly be one woman who lives up to her infamy.

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

H.P. Lovecraft

Howard Phillips Lovecraft, commonly presented as H.P. Lovecraft, has had a profound effect on modern horror writing, and stands as one of the founders of Modern American Horror Fiction in particular, next to such illustrious figures as Edgar Allan Poe.

Almost relatively unknown in his own lifetime, his work has influenced popular culture to a massive extent; everything from the design of the character Davy Jones in “Pirates of the Caribbean,” to the namesake of the infamous Arkham Asylum from Batman, the finale of the film “Cabin in the Woods,” the Necronomicon from “Evil Dead,” the inspiration for the “Aliens” film series, and scores of gaming platforms from tabletop to video games.

Lovecraft is credited with developing and popularizing the “Unfriendly, Indifferent Cosmos” style of horror.  Meaning that while most horror up until that point had assumed some good in the world, Lovecraft’s universe held no such distinction.  Cold, alone, and a mere minute in time, humanity was set against the elements that at best were indifferent to our presence and at worst, openly hostile and bent on our destruction.  Those who survive the forces of the universe are often left insane or comatose by their experiences.

Born August 20, 1890 in Providence, Rhode Island to Sarah and Winfield Lovecraft, he was brought into one of the most established families in the area.  Unfortunately, his early life was marked by tragedy and descent.  At the age of three, Lovecraft’s father was committed for a supposed nervous breakdown, now almost certainly confirmed as a mental condition brought on by exposure to Syphilis; something that would have been a great embarrassment to his wife, Sarah.  He died five years after being in the institution, leaving Sarah and Howard without a means of support and not much money.  Their care was left to Sarah’s father and sisters who took them in.  In his grandfather’s library, Lovecraft was exposed to world mythologies and ghost stories.  He was reportedly a sickly child, but precocious, spending his time reading and writing earlier than most his age.  It’s also been noted that his mother, after the death of his father, became highly overprotective, sheltering Howard from the outside world as much as she could. 

Schooling came later and was somewhat infrequent.  Lovecraft would later write that in his older years, he lamented not having the same accomplishments and pursuits as other boys had.  When his grandfather died in 1904, after having several business failures, his finances and estate were further mismanaged, leaving the family poor and forced out of their home.  For a society in which appearance and propriety reigned, it was a devastating blow to both him and his mother.  It also separated Lovecraft from the books he loved.  Even so, Lovecraft kept writing and his work began to appear in print, although not consistently and not widespread.  From this point until the end of his life, Lovecraft would be known for writing excessively long letters.  He would even admit that he had sacrificed stories at times to write letters.  He and his mother became known as eccentrics, with tendencies toward agoraphobia and it was said that they actively avoided interaction and eye contact.  Sarah began to fall more into madness herself, and in 1919, she was committed to the same institution that her husband had died in.  Her diagnosis was hysteria and depression, probably more Bipolar Disorder or Manic Depression, as “hysteria” is not an actual condition, but was considered to be so at the time.

Maintaining a close relationship with his mother until her death in 1921 from botched surgery, the death of Sarah was crushing for Howard.  It is also likely that she passed on her depressive condition to her son, although not to the same extreme.  He reached out in correspondence to others, but liked to remain isolated and suicidal tendencies were reported at various times throughout his life.  It was in 1921 though, that he was coaxed out to a literary convention in Boston, the promise of meeting his peers too good to turn up, and he met his future wife, Sonia Haft Greene.  Older than him by seven years and a Russian Jew, it was an unusual match; especially for Lovecraft.   Lovecraft was famously anti-Semitic, racist, and bigoted.  Despite this, and his aunts' likely objections, he married Sonia in 1922 and moved to New York with her, where she had a successful hat shop. 

Unfortunately, while Sonia’s intellectualism and conversation were stimulating for Lovecraft, New York had a devastating effect.  The high immigrant population took his xenophobia to new, extreme heights, his depression returned to full force, and he felt compromised and refused to work, ashamed that his wife supported them.  Childishly, he refused to work unless the work suited his ego.  In 1926, he returned to Providence without Sonia, and while she was willing to work with him, he and his aunts eventually decided that she, as a tradeswoman, would not be welcome to Providence society.  Divorce was granted in 1929, and Sonia would go on to lead a full life. 

From 1926 on, back in his beloved Providence, he began to reach out more and more to his friends, and began to open up to new ideas.  He became more intent on finding and cultivating his own writing style, lamenting that much of his work bore too much the style of other famous writers like Poe and Dunsany.  1926 marked the year he wrote his most famous piece, “The Call of Cthulhu.”   His cosmos of Elder Gods, Cthulhu, aliens, and sanity-destroying monsters began to flourish.  Cthulhu, a sort of anthropomorphic octopus, has become a cultural icon, inspiring everything from political bumper stickers to videos and toys for children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOHJUrcVdJk

His world changed, and while his views were still extreme (we can find evidence in his works throughout his life) he apparently began to support FDR and he moved his views closer towards a more socialistic view.  While he continued to go on and write and talk to other authors, many of whom, including himself, would go on to be the famous early “pulp” writers, he began to decline financially and moved again to small quarters.  His health began to decline and by the time he saw a doctor, he was beyond any help they could offer.  He died on March 15, 1937 of cancer of the intestine, likely exacerbated by malnutrition and poor health care.  He was buried in the family plot, but a small separate stone exists for him and it reads with his information and the phrase, “I AM PROVIDENCE.”

After his death, it was Lovecraft’s friends and supporters who kept his memory and work alive, even opening a small press to publish his work beyond the minimized “pulp” printings that were intended for “read and throw-away” status.  His work, like tentacles, has spread out into numerous other genres; his ideas are present in ways that we almost don’t recognize anymore.  It would be hard not to credit him, in some regard, with very concept that someone, seeing something so horrid, could make them go insane simply by being seen.

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear, is fear of the unknown.”  - H.P. Lovecraft.

While some take issue with Lovecraft’s writing, (he can be repetitive and favor words quite frequently) many take issue with his racism, sexism, bigotry, and xenophobia.  We can explain some of it as a product of the time period he lived in, but the level to which it was taken, seems to indicate that Lovecraft was no ordinary prejudiced person of the time.  He seemed threatened by immigration especially, and often in his stories, racial slurs and fears come through in ways that we today, would find to not even be necessary to the story line.  What I mean is, if racism is a plot point to move a story along, then we understand why it is there, but a story that opens with a xenophobic description of Brooklyn unrelated to the plot, or a cat named, “Niggerman,” come off as so blatantly racist that they are simply there to feed the author’s own prejudice. 

This leaves Lovecraft in a unique place, as several of his best and popular pieces, are not to be included in his most racist, leaving them to be enjoyed by a new reader, who may become more and more uncomfortable, the deeper into his fiction they go.  We make no excuses for racism, but in the same vein, cannot throw away Lovecraft entirely as a writer.  Like most fiction from earlier times, we are forced to walk the line between what is acceptable to us, and accepting the style and craft of the fiction for simply, “the story” of it.  Cthulhu can exist without reference to his creator’s racist tendencies, but the heart is that Cthulhu can exist and be a favorite of readers, without them needing to subscribe to those tendencies to enjoy his story.

His contributions to American Fiction are far too numerous to count, one does not even need to have read his works to encounter his ideas.  The film, “Alien” is often said to be an interpretation of his famous, “At the Mountains of Madness.”  Even more interesting is how his works do get translated to film, and how many of them don’t.  Lovecraft is famous for his descriptions of those things that cannot be described, horrors too great for the human mind.  It often limits them from the video medium, but inspires writers in a way that he would have found encouraging.

Discover more about Lovecraft here:

http://www.hplovecraft.com/

Watch an excellent documentary feature about his life here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17tj18qpJf0

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

Apologies - for Erratic Posting

Hello all followers - I would like to apologize that my posting may become erratic over the summer.  I am besieged by relatives who return to my neck of the woods during the summer months and like to demand my time.  Which is not fun for me, as I am not able to really - get away from them.  

I'm planning on leaving the country soon though, cross your fingers for me!

Thanks for bearing with me so far!

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

The Blood Countess

While Vlad the Impaler is often considered the real-life inspiration for the legend of Dracula, the historical Vlad appears to have had little to do with blood - a rather central element of the story.

Blood seems to have been the main focus of another historical figure, Elizabeth Bathory, known as the “Infamous Lady” or today as, “The Blood Countess.”  

As with the Dracula post, I do not have the character capability to create the appropriate name formats, so please bear with me.

In August 1560 (or 1561), Elizabeth Bathory De (or Von) Ecsed was born in the then Kingdom of Hungary.  She was born into the wealthy and renowned Bathory family at the Castle Ecsed, hence her name.  Variants on her name include “Erzsebet.”

While it is often stated that Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth Bathory were cousins, it is hard to tell to what length their actual relation may have been.  It is likely they shared some DNA components, given the royal families being so connected, but a direct link is most unspecified.

Elizabeth’s family were known as the Kings and Dukes of Transylvania and later Poland, along with being in various stations of Hungarian nobility.  

Due to letters and papers, along with her high position in the world, we known that she was a remarkably educated figure for her time and especially as a woman.  She learned numerous languages, including Latin, German, and Greek; very rare in a time period when even certain members of Nobility weren’t able to read or write to any great degree.  

As with most marriages in this time period, hers was arranged at the young age of 11 to the 16 year old Count Ferenc Nadasdy de Nadasd et Fogarasfold.  Ferenc was from one of the most wealthy and influential families of the time, and the marriage was considered extremely advantageous and a political alliance of high caliber.  Elizabeth was to gain more money and power in this alliance, whereas Ferenc stood to gain the dignity of a much older family with ties to many of established leaders in aristocracy.  They later married in 1575 when she was 14 years old.

Elizabeth was then moved to join her husband at Nadasdy castle, where she was left alone with her new in-laws for long periods of time while her husband went to study in Vienna or attend to the Hungarian military.  In 1578. Ferenc left to command a Hungarian force in another battle with the Ottoman Empire, leaving Elizabeth behind in a castle that had been gifted to them by his parents.  Not even 20 years old, Elizabeth was left to oversee the castle, the lands, and the peasants who lived under her.  During this time, reports indicate that she was a firm, and even benevolent ruler, intervening especially on behalf of women, and tending solely to cares while her husband was gone.  Ferenc became engaged in the Long War, beginning in 1593.  

Elizabeth, her lands and rule threatened both by the Ottoman Empire and the scheming rulers of other territories, became a political force.  Reports of her translating, acting as a dignitary, and helping to settle disputes are common.  Ferenc returned home as often as privilege allowed, and apparently shared a powerful dynamic with his wife, having little to no issue with her rule in his place.  

During this time, Elizabeth had seven children.  Anna (F), Katalin (F), Gyorgy(M), Orsolya(F), Pal(M), Andras(M), and Miklos(M).  Only three of which are noted as living into adulthood, and of course, there are numerous allegations that any or all of them are not Ferenc’s issue, but these reports are unverified and may stem from attempts to slander Elizabeth’s posthumously.

Ferenc died in 1604 at the age of 48.  This begs a particular point of contention, as Elizabeth’s atrocities were said to have begun at least two years before his death.  Historians have reported that he knew nothing about what was happening, or that he knew and simply didn’t care.  Many claimed that the crimes had been going on since he’d left for the Long War, meaning that while he would have been away from home, he would probably have been aware that his wife had some strange behaviors.

After complaints from prominent indviduals, King Matthias II was finally persuaded to investigate the rumors surrounding Elizabeth.  Indeed, it is often stated that her crimes would have gone unknown, or un-cared for, had she not mistakenly targeted some girls from aristocratic families.  In 1610 and 1611, by commission of the King, evidence was collected for a trial, from persons of all walks of life, and from the grounds of Elizabeth’s castle itself.  It was determined that enough evidence existed for a trial and in 1611, the trail began, with Elizabeth not in attendance.  (This was common due to her rank and station in life)  It is stated that she was tried along with 4-5 (Once again, reports differ, even in official documents) of her co-conspirators, three of whom were put to death immediately upon sentencing.  All were found guilty however, of at least 80 counts of murder.

Elizabeth’s fate was harder to determine.  Her son wanted to protect his mother and allow for her to be sent to a nunnery, but her assault on some daughters of nobility could not allow for it.  In the end, it was determined that she be locked away in her castle, walled up into a room for the rest of her life.  

(In regards to her son, according to reports, Elizabeth was a good and caring mother to her own children)

This was done, and for three years, she lived in a room in her castle until she was discovered dead by a guard in August of 1614.  With sentiment around her so hostile in her town, she was returned to her birth home to be buried in the Bathory Family Crypt.  It is reported that her name was banned from being said, following the incident, and that she is still referred to in less than decent terms.  The ruins of her castle, however, have become something of a tourist attraction, and much like the towns dealing with the legacy of Vlad the Impaler, many in these areas are dealing with her legacy in the same fashion.

Before getting into her crimes, we should address the possibility that nothing ever happened at all.  This is a theory that has been brought up recently by some, believing that the entire trial and arrest of Elizabeth was a conspiracy to unseat a powerful woman who was not controlled by King Matthias II.  While it may be that her crimes and reputations were exaggerated to some extent, it is almost certain that she is very deserving of her title of “The Blood Countess.”  The scale and scope of the crimes, the witnesses, the corroborating evidence, bodies, and Elizabeth’s own diaries are too specific, detailed, and strange to all be works of fiction.

Elizabeth Bathory is said to be the world’s most prolific female serial killer.  While 80 was the number of murders she was convicted of, estimates place her actual body count between 400 and 900, most center at 650.  

Her victims were young(virginal) females, sent to her to work at her castle or brought to her on request, and mostly from the peasantry, where their absence couldn’t be questioned.  (To kill a peasant was not a crime for a noble like Elizabeth)  

The popular legend goes that Elizabeth, angered at a servant, slapped the girl so hard that she drew blood.  The Countess then believed that the spot on her hand where the blood had fallen, appeared younger and more youthful.  

From that point on, Elizabeth and her servants were said to have brought in servants who were hung up and cut to drain out their blood.  It was done for a variety of reasons, some of which were to use the blood on the skin as a sort of anti-aging agent, for Elizabeth to bathe in, and occasionally, for Elizabeth to drink as well.  This is often viewed as Elizabeth’s vanity in her quest for youth and beauty.  While it may sound shallow, it is possible that in a world where women’s value has basis in looks, that this could have been one of the possible explanations.  

A recent theory posited that Elizabeth may have also been anemic to some extent, and been obsessed with blood due to a heavy iron deficiency.  It seems relatively unlikely, given that anemic women don’t seem prone to blood drinking, and drinking blood will often cause the person to vomit.

Witnesses at the trial, and bodies of evidence recovered, seem to indicate a more prevalent sadistic streak.  Accounts of whippings, beatings, body piercings, skin being pricked with needles, mutilations, severing of limbs, breasts being lopped off, and sexual abuse are multiple and varied.  Girls being hung in cages and stabbed with spears to rain blood down upon Elizabeth are more likely unfounded, given that no evidence of the cages were ever found.  Bodies were found buried in quick graves near the castle, and some showed heavy blunt trauma to the skulls.

No matter exactly what happened, we know a great many peasant girls went to Elizabeth’s castle and never returned home.  Elizabeth reportedly recorded all the deaths in her diaries, although they are not available to the public, so that’s not able to be confirmed.

It seems that there are also allegations of animal sacrifice by Elizabeth, which corresponds to the second major accusation, that of witchcraft.  While two of Elizabeth’s helpers appear to have been regular persons employed in her service and active in the torture, at least one was charged with being a witch, using animal and human sacrifice.  

Now as we understand today, when it comes to charges of witchcraft, this may simply have been another method of making sure Elizabeth was convicted, as religious transgressions couldn’t be proved and in an age of panic, easy to use.  

Elizabeth stands as a woman of contradiction.  Educated and politically savvy, but concealing a darker, sadistic side that may have claimed the lives of hundreds of young women.  

To what extent her cruelty stretched, it may likely never be known, but her obsession with blood and it’s connection to eternal youth, may have been the inspiration behind the mythology connected to the figure of Dracula.  

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

Who Was Dracula?

The mythology of the vampire is worldwide, every culture has some variation on a creature that comes out at night (although not always) and drains the living, whether it be of blood or life force, either through biting, another wound, or through sex.  

Perhaps the most widely recognized vampire figure is that of Dracula.  The subject of a book by Irish author Bram Stoker in 1897 and later a play, it was brought to life by Universal Studios in 1931.  The portrayal of the central figure by Hungarian actor Bela Lugosi (who also played Dracula onstage) cemented the Count as one of the Universal Monsters.   The film was directed by Tod Browning, who would produce the massive cult classic “Freaks” the next year, and also worked with the other originator of Universal Monsters, Lon Chaney.

(For the record, the infamous film, Nosferatu, was the first noted direct adaptation of the book, but was ordered ended and destroyed by Stoker’s widow who claimed infringement.  It, thankfully, still exists today and is a fabulous example of early cinema and strict method acting.)

The question remains though, where did Stoker get his inspiration for the famous Count Dracula?  Numerous theories abound, everything from stealing from Walt Whitman, to racist stereotypes of Jews, Irish legends about fairies (sidhe), historical god figures, and so on.  The truth is that we will never know for sure.  There are two theories more probable than others, in fairness, I present the most likely first before we get into the actual historical figure of Dracula.

The novel Carmilla by Irish writer Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu in 1872 is about a young woman and her experiences with a female vampire.  If Stoker did steal heavily from a text, it would most likely be this one, both the time and the country fit.

However, this does not negate the presence of the existence of a man often cited as the inspiration for the Dracula character.  

Vlad III, the Prince of Wallachia (modern day Romania), lived from 1431 to 1476. (exact dates unknown)  He was posthumously nicknamed, Vlad the Impaler, a moniker that exists with him to this day.  Vlad did not need the nickname during his lifetime, his real reputation was fearsome enough.

Before we proceed, is should be noted that spelling varies and has changed over the years to his titles.  The writer does not at this time, have access to the various special characters I would need to engage his language, so my spellings will lack those characters and you may find they vary on other sources.  There does not seem to be any definite one right way to spell them though, even among the scholars.

A variant on his name is Vlad Tepes (Vlad “Spike” or “Impaler” as it were) as it exists in his native language.  However, his other name might sound more familiar, Vlad Dracul or Dracula.  This is an example of a name derived from the House unto which he was born, ie. the names of his father and grandfather, etc.  The House Draculesti, founded by his father 1408 it is believed, can mean “The House of the Dragon,” but can also be interpreted as “The House of the Devil.”  More likely though, since this house was a member of “The Order of the Dragon,” at the the time, his name was more something akin to Vlad III, the Dragon Prince.  This is widely debated, but during his life, he did called himself Voivode (Wallachian for Prince) Dracula in Latin documents, so original spelling is hard to come by.  

Born in Transylvania in the Kingdom of Hungary, he was born to Vlad II, an appointed ruler by the Holy Roman Empire.  His father was a celebrated son of a celebrated earlier Voivode, and a member of “The Order of the Dragon,” founded in 1387.  The Order was devised as a Christian group designed to take on the attacks stemming from the Islamic Ottoman Empire.  Vlad’s mother is said to have been from Moldavia, but it is unknown for sure, there is no record of her.  If this is true, she was likely of the royal family.  Vlad had two older half brothers (Vlad and Mircea) and a younger brother, Radu the Handsome.  

Apparently, the house of his birth and his future ruling castle still stand today, if you wish to visit them.

Vlad II came to power 1436, but was soon ousted by rival factions.  Remember, like many European countries, they were divided in territories and competed over for who could control the most.  In 1442, Vlad II, sought the help of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to reclaim his throne, and in 1444, Vlad II sent Vlad III and Radu the Handsome as hostages and tribute to the Sultan to help him reclaim and keep his throne in Wallachia.  While this seems in direct contradiction to his oaths against Islam, the aim of Vlad II was power, and the Sultan was hoping that in the event Vlad II broke his oath - the lives of his two sons would be bargaining chips.  

During his time in the care of the Sultan, Vlad and Radu were treated as foreign Princes, given good accommodation and education, being taught languages and sciences, he learned the Quran and how to speak fluent Turkish.  While Vlad III was treated well, his resentment of the Turkish Empire grew and festered.  His younger brother, however, settled into life at the Turkish court, converted to Islam, and become an adviser to the Sultan.  This is also the time that Vlad III was said to have learned how to impale people “properly.”

However, both Vlad III and Radu were to find that Vlad II had no real interest in getting his sons back, already having two older heirs to the throne.  In 1447 though, Vlad II was betrayed by the lords or Boyars and killed, along with his son Mircea.  The second oldest son, also named Vlad, appears to have not wanted to rule and was said to be more interested in religion.  The Ottoman Empire, wanting to keep Wallachia from falling to the Hungarian forces, put Vlad III on the throne, thinking him to be a puppet king.  Vlad III was quickly removed however, by a rival faction, and fled to Moldavia, until his protector uncle was assassinated, and he fled again to Hungary, where his information and hatred of the Sultan ingratiated him with the ruler.  When the Turks attacked though, Vlad III seized his chance and killed the man who had deposed his father, taking control of Wallachia again.  Easter Sunday, he gathered the boyars who had been unfaithful to his father, and slaughtered them.  He replaced them with those who would be indebted to him while he attempted to rebuild the damaged state.  

In 1459, Pope Pius II called for a new crusade and put the Hungarian King Matthias in charge of it.  Vlad III joined with him, angry because Sultan Mehmed II was still attempting to claim Wallachia for the Ottoman Empire. In an attempt to force Vlad III to recognize the Sultan as his ruler, Mehmed sent envoys to claim a delayed tribute.  When the men refused to remove their hats in the presence of Vlad, Vlad famously had their hats nailed into their heads so that they could keep them on forever.  

Incensed, the Sultan sent two groups, both of whom were ambushed and killed by Vlad and his forces, often left impaled as a warning.  The Sultan organized full troops then, to come in and take Vlad out for good.  In 1462, he marched on Wallachia, and while Vlad was not able to prevent him from crossing the Danube, he was able to attack back and drive the Sultan back.  Legend tells that Vlad slaughtered innocent civilians of his own people along with Turkish captives around his castle, thus creating a forest of the dead impaled on pikes.  Circumstances are unclear, but it is said to be this scene of 10-20,000 (reports vary) impaled men, women, and children that repelled the Sultan back.  The Sultan left Radu behind, hoping that he, as a pawn of the Ottoman’s, could form a group to take on his brother for the throne.  Vlad was hailed as hero, his win over the Sultan also preventing the Sultan from sending boats to attack other territories.  

Radu managed to form a group of dissenting boyars, mercenaries, and battalions, and with a steady supply of weaponry, began a long assault against his brother.  Fighting ranged back and forth, but eventually, Vlad was forced out and fled to Hungary to the protected of King Matthias.  Matthias betrayed him, out of fear for his throne and his money, and threw Vlad in jail, imprisoning him for 10 years.  Matthias even forged Vlad’s letter to propose peace with the Turks.  This is highly debated though, including the length of imprisonment.  During this time, at the behest of Matthias, Vlad converted to Roman Catholicism from Orthodoxy.  Radu died suddenly in 1475 and with Hungarian support again, Vlad decided to reclaim Wallachia.  However he was likely assassinated in 1476 on the road somewhere after Bucharest and his head was sent to Constantinople to the Sultan as a trophy.  

To this day, Vlad III is considered a hero (to what level remains uncertain) in Bulgaria and Romania for keeping the territory out of the hands of the Ottoman Empire.  His methods aside, and while the Ottoman Empire did have long periods of occupation, permanent occupation and assimilation were held back and avoided by rulers like Vlad.  In our modern world, he is a combination of legend, infamy, hero, and tourist attraction, depending on your view.

Vlad’s penchant for cruelty is probably his most noted feature.  It is unknown how much is true and how much is exaggeration, some of which he may have done himself, wanting to further his reputation and scare off rivals.  It is fairly certain he had no issue with killing men, women, and children, especially through impalement.  According to legend, he developed a method of impaling that would allow people to remain alive for the longest time, leaving them alive and suffering for a rival to discover.  Other rumors include that he allowed for a window in his bedroom so that he could listen to suffering in the dungeon, but this is unlikely.  Probably his most notable feature to the Dracula legend of Stoker is that he was rumored to take his meals among the dead and dying he’d impaled, with one extreme rumor claiming that he filled his goblet with blood to drink simply by holding it under the bodies of his victims.  There is a even a famous woodprint of this scene.

If we take into account his personality, it may be more likely that much of his proposed sadistic savagery was not true, merely rumors and legend.  It is true he was brutal in combat and revenge, relishing it even, but there is little evidence to suggest he took pleasure in torture in the manner that would suggest blood-drinking and cannibalism.  We’ll never know for sure, and there are no records.  

With the popularity of Dracula and Vlad’s identification as the supposed source for the legend, he has become a popular tourist attraction, with set Dracula tours that one can take to visit the castles and battlegrounds.  Like many famous figures, any number of people have claimed to be descendants of Dracula, and most are under a false impression as there does not seem to be any living direct descendants.  Claims of him even being a father are in heavy dispute as at best it can be gathered, he only seemed to possibly have two children, one who died early and the other who appears to have been killed before parentage.  However, one can be related to his line, but it is safe to say there exists no direct descendant of Vlad III living today, but there would be descendants of his “House,” and many of them would be distant relatives at best.  Only DNA testing could confirm it, and so far, nothing has shown up conclusively.

As for the legend of Dracula, Vlad is actually one of two possible persons for a source, the other being far less widely known and with the intimate sadistic streak that fans of modern vampires will be familiar with.    That is tomorrow’s post.  

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

Who Was George Orwell and Why Does He Matter?

George Orwell is one of the most often quoted modern writers whose work has become ingrained in our collective unconscious, even if we don’t recognize it.

Born Eric Arthur Blair on June 25, 1903 in India under British rule, he was moved to England by his family at a year of age. 

In his early life, he proved to be a mediocre student at primary school and later at Eton College.  Orwell preferred travel.  Orwell traveled to Burma (Myanmar) in 1922 on the recommendation of his family and others, to join the police force.  In 1927, upon an allowed return visit to England, he resigned his place in the police force, and decided to write.  His time in Burma would account for his novel, “Burmese Days.”  Published in 1934, the novel details the effects of and dwindling British colonialism.  

1927 and 1928 found Orwell “slumming it” in London and Paris, the basis for his two part work, “Down and Out in Paris and London.”  (1933)  Supported by relatives, Orwell continued to live among the working people reporting on their conditions and continuing to write the numerous essays he is also famous for.

After suffering serious illness and robbery, Orwell began to focus more and more on the condition of the poor and downtrodden of the cities.  He soon returned to England and after being both supported by relatives and menial work, he eventually took up teaching.  It was during this time that he worked on and finalized his two first big novels, (see their publication dates) and adopted the pen name (nom de plume) of George Orwell.  Orwell’s writing and essays weren’t always immediately accepted for publication and print varied from time to time and between UK and US editions.

He married his first wife on June 9, 1936, Eileen O’Shaughnessy, but left later that year for what would prove to be one of his most famous endeavors, taking up against Spanish dictator, Fascist General Franco. He traveled to Catalonia to fight, later the inspiration for 1938’s, “Homage to Catalonia.”  During this time, his wife handled his book affairs and sent him numerous treats from England.  The popular story being that Orwell preferred Fortnum and Mason Tea from London, which can still be bought in the same way it was preferred back then.  (The tea is very strong, which might attest to Orwell’s preference.)  Orwell wrote an entire essay on the perfect cup of tea, it makes for good reading for tea-lovers.

The level of fighting Orwell saw varies, but he found himself caught between factions of fascists and communists, neither of whom would accept him.  This later became the basis of Orwell declaring himself a democratic socialist.

Early in May 1937, Orwell was injured by a sniper bullet to the throat, though was lucky enough to miss the major artery and he was apparently up and moving on May 27, 1937.  Orwell found himself the victim of slanderous press and escaped from Spain to return to England in June of that same year.  

In the ramp up of World War II, Orwell wrote one of his most famous novels, “Animal Farm.”  (1945)  Orwell took mostly journalism jobs and worked in the field.  Also in 1945, he lost his wife when she died on the operating table.  Over the next four years, he worked on his most famous piece “Nineteen Eighty-Four” which was published in 1949. During this time, he had been left alone with his adopted son, Richard Blair, and remarried in 1949 to Sonia Brownell.  After moving to Jura, Orwell experienced more illness, but often concealed them.  The fame of “Animal Farm” began to spread, but Orwell preferred to tend to life on his farm, as is evidence by his journals.  

On January 21, 1950, an artery burst in Orwell’s lungs and he died in the morning.  Sadly, due to lack of space, Orwell’s body was interred in All Saint’s Churchyard, to which he had no connection, but who allowed him to be buried there after negotiations.  His grave-site bears no mention of his famous profession or his pen name.  The grave merely reads, “Here Lies Eric Arthur Blair.”  To this day, there exists no definite official biography, but several variants and Orwell did not even want a biography done of him.  His adopted son rarely gives interviews.

George Orwell’s “Find a Grave Page”

Eric Arthur Blair

While all of Orwell’s novels are considered equal in quality by most readers, his two most famous works are “Animal Farm” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”  

1.  Animal Farm, often, strangely mis-categorized as a children’s work (probably similar to Watership Down, for it’s talking animal characters) is a work detailing the dangerous of conformity.  In it, a group of farm animals throw off the human masters under the leadership of the smartest animals, the pigs.  The pigs then begin to assume control of the farm, subverting the new freedom by re-instating the dictatorship under the pigs, all the while using the absence of the humans to declare the “Animal Farm” an animal worker’s paradise.  The book is more in response to Orwell’s disillusionment with communism and Stalin, as well as Franco’s fascist government.  While the animals are all equal at first, the pigs begin to morph into humans.  This has bred the two famous slogans.

The original revolutionary phrase “All animals are equal becomes” becomes “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

“Four legs good, two legs bad,” becomes “Four legs good, two legs better!”  

Both change as the pigs begin their transformation to humans to begin control over the other animals, using the sheep bleating and trained dogs to spread propaganda and instill fear.  Considered often, commentary on class, it is how those who wish to be in the upper class subvert the equality of the one general class, either declaring themselves “equal, just like you, only better,” or that “What you have is still good, but what I have is better.”  It is a play on the class notion that once you let someone think they have something, or at least something better than someone else, they will remain contented with their lot, to be pacified, while the greedy and power hungry manipulate their minds to climb higher.  Orwell saw the dangers of what was being called, “Communism,”  where the worker’s parties were being told they were equal, but still under a ruling class.  It should be noted that there has never been anything known as a pure communist society in our world yet, only societies using part of the ideals.  You may consider North Korea as an example of Orwell’s fears, as it parades as communist, but is in fact, a fascist dictatorship.  

2.  1984, written in 1948, (ergo, the title) was an imagining by Orwell of the world he thought was to come by 1984.  The term, Orwellian, is usually derived from this book’s themes, motifs, and phrases.  1984 follows a dissident of the government of Oceania named Winston Smith. Winston, feeling that something is wrong, is caught in the world as it begins to really close in on it’s citizenry.  One might say that it already has, but recall that Orwell was leading up the computer premiere, and did not yet have a method of “overall surveillance” as depicted.  

After forming a connection with fellow dissident Julia and beginning an illegal sexual liaison with her, he find himself captured and brought to justice for his “thoughtcrimes” against the government.  During interrogation, Winston is encouraged to and does betray Julia, going so far into his own fears that he encourages them to punish her instead of him, in direct betrayal of himself and his ideals.  The end is a chilling statement on how Winston feels he has now “won the battle” over himself (his mind) and has come to accept that the ruling party loves him, and that he loves the ruling party.  Sliding fully into the ignorance is bliss lifestyle, becoming a perfect party pawn of the ruling government.

The real meat of the novel is the intense paranoia that surrounds the control the government has.  That Winston cannot even write in a private journal his true feelings, that sex is considered a pleasure the government wishes to control, that children are turned against their parents, and that history is constantly being re-written to serve whatever message the government wants.  Even more frightening, that Winston (and later Julia) seems to be the only one who recognizes this as wrong. One particular incident, in which Winston realizes a co-worker who is developing the party’s special language, will become an unperson (vaporized, killed, erased from all history and memory) simply for being smart enough to do so, and what’s more, that man is enthusiastic about his work, much to Winston’s dismay.

1984 is world famous for it’s imagery and terminology.  It has become the symbol for all things too big in terms of government, lack of privacy, and collective unconscious.

Big Brother - Perhaps the biggest symbol, and regularly used terms for big government and street cameras, this is the symbol of the oppressive party.  The family term is used to convey that “Big Brother is your friend, your family, he loves you, he wants to watch over you…”  There is no real big brother in the story, at least, not anymore if there ever was.  As Winston tells us after his mind is broken, to love Big Brother is the greatest thing in the world.

The Ministries - there are four, although often only seen as three.  Peace, Plenty, Love, and Truth, they do the opposite of what they are said to do, and the citizens simply accept this.  Their mottos do find their way into popular culture and our vernacular.

WAR IS PEACE (This was invoked heavily upon the eve of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) 

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY  

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

They are also known for the phrases “Big Brother is Watching You” and “Who controls the past, controls the future.  Who controls the present, controls the past.”

Room 101 - This is the room where Winston is tortured and his mind broken down.  It is a room where the torturers rely more on your imagination to force you to betray yourself, in order so that “You break you, and you are the problem, not them.”

Thoughtcrime - Holding beliefs or doubts about the ruling party, holding negative thoughts about them.  It is used as an excuse by the thought police to interrogate and break potential problem persons, because it can be done without proof.  If you’ve seen the film, “Minority Report,” you have seen an example of thoughtcrime used in modern media, and the implications as such.

2+2=5  - This is symbolic of the message of the party.  That even though one knows this is wrong, and can easily prove it, that they accept without question that 2+2=5 if that is the message of the party.  

Ingsoc - Short for English Socialism in the dialect of the party, it is an example of Orwell showing how the usage of a term does not correspond to it’s actual function.  Were Winston’s world actually socialist, it would not be portrayed as fascist entirely.  Like Animal Farm, it exists to show us the ideal of perceived egalitarianism, corrupted by the power hungry using the words against the people.  Before we continue, I post a question to my reader, “Is the United States the best country in the world for upward mobility?”  The words used, the mythology of the United States, says, “Yes.”  However, facts and statistics, show that one has a better chance in several other nations, of being born poor and moving up than in the states anymore.  However, the mantra of the US has not changed, and many accept this without question.  Therefore, while we call ourselves and upwardly mobile democracy, our actual society does no longer bear resemblance to that entirely, it is our script, as Ingsoc is the script for Winston’s Oceania.

NewSpeak - Orwell was very keen on showing how words and terminology affect people. Let’s use the US again.  What is the government of the US?  A democracy?  It is actually a representative republic, but democracy gives people the illusion of control over their votes, where in actuality, we elect people to go and vote for us.  In an actual democracy, the entire population would be voting on the measures in the Congress, instead of having two people voting for an entire state.  But democracy sounds better.  This is what Orwell realized was dangerous about language.  In 1984, they are working at developing a language that is significantly smaller than what we use now.  The aim of this language, to limit communication, to limit expression, and to minimize the ability of the people to verbalize and vocalize their discontent.  Orwell includes a primer on Newspeak in his texts, and everyone should read it.  Consider the term “Unperson.”  This is a person who has been killed or vaporized in “oldspeak” who is to be written out of life like they never happened.  The word does not evoke the same connotations as “victim” or “martyr.”  There are persons and unpersons, without reference to what that person meant, how they died, or what they died for.  As the language changes, it seeks to eliminate descriptive words that would even allow someone to describe an injury or a killing.  In essence, to go from the emotionally charged, “Steve was killed by the thought police!” to “Steve is unperson.”  They are especially concerned with eliminating negative words, changing “bad” to “ungood.”  Removing the depth and scope, removes the power of the words. Eventually, as the children are educated under these principles, generations will arise without the ability to even remember the original phrasing, leaving them dull, brainwashed workers.  Reflect on this notion, especially as it pertains to news reports in our world that children no longer “learn,” they just look it up on the internet.  Who controls the internet, controls that then, hence, why I encourage you to research further beyond my own blog.

~*~*~*~*~*~

As we move more towards an age of near constant surveillance, government interference in the internet, etc., we find that many of Orwell’s predictions are coming true.  We have had people convicted of crimes before they were committed, and surveillance technology is getting closer to being able to recognize your face, and your walk, reporting you instantly to police, should you be suspected of anything.  It is up for some debate if in this age of widespread terrorism, this will lead to more arrests for terrorists, or more terrorizing of the general public instead.

Orwell’s books are recommended reading for all, and should be so, as in the last 10-15 years, they have been systematically removed from curriculum  where they once were staples.  That should tell you something.

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

The Basque People

The Basque People hail from what is known as the Basque Country, or Euskadi. (in their language)  This region of the world resides on the border between France and Spain.

It should be noted that there is the Basque Country and the Basque Community, and that not all those who live in the Basque Country are Basque Peoples as it pertains to their ethnic origin.

Usually, the region depicted in the above graphic is known as the Greater Region, it incorporates famous cities like Bilbao and Pamplona.  To much of the outside world, the area is divided into two sections, the French and the Spanish, by existence of the contests of the two world powers over these border areas.  More often than not, they are associated directly with Spain without reference to France, however.

To the Basque people, the community is often considered autonomous, meaning self-governing without the want of intervention from either side. Some historical records show that the regional name existed long before the community itself.  That is up for some debate, as it pertains to the origins of the Basque People.  

What defines, or has defined in the past, the Basque people is a shared heritage rather separate from the larger Spanish or French communities, and a very unique language that on it’s surface, appears to contain elements of Spanish, Russian, Greek, Portuguese, and others.  What has defined them most in recent memory has been the presence of the ETA ( Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) or “Basque Homeland and Freedom.  ETA was armed, dangerous, and claimed credit for attacks since the group was founded around 1959 to gain full statehood for the Basque Country.  

They have been accused (and likely fully responsible for) of the murders of over 800 persons, numerous kidnappings, and many remain incarcerated to this day.  The Spanish government in 1978 allowed for the region of the Basque country to gain autonomy, when Spain was cleaning up after the Spanish Civil War, transitioning from the Dictatorship of General Franco to Democracy.  A great deal of the conflict comes from the fact that the new constitutions in 1978 had not consulted Basque leaders and that many of them had abstained from voting on purpose, to avoid voting on something they had no say in.  

Some have shown the ETA to have begun as a resistance fight against Franco, who banned everything Basque, effectively exiling a great many Basque people from Spain.  When Franco was over, while the Basque country was made an Autonomous Community, it was still a community of Spain, and many Basques felt they were again being left out of negotiations over their rights and future.  The constitution determined certain methods of government and ultimately, still held national power over the area, leading the ETA to shift their cause from Franco, to the new government.

As happens in these situations, disagreement led to conflict between the state and the community, leading to the violence the ETA was known for.  However, over the years, the ETA numbers dwindled and they have declared cease-fires multiple times.  Their active numbers have supposedly dipped below 100 even, and their latest cease-fire was in 2011.  While they have broken cease-fires in the past, only time will tell if the latest is the last.  The ETA’s popular support varied, and they were often rallied around by other separatist style groups and of course, in their native Basque country, but not without a number of Basque people opposing their use of violence as a means to an end.  

This means we should not view the Basque people as inherently violent or separatist in nature, as with many people who live a life apart from larger communities, they are mostly wanting to be left up to their own self-determination.

This brings us to the Basque People.  The origins of the Basque People and their unique language are actually fairly unknown, but widely speculated on.  Blood tests, artifacts from the region, and linguistic clues suggest they are not descended from the Indo-European groups, and origins go back to early BCE, if not earlier.  Genetic patterns have suggested they arrived before Iberian Agriculture, and may have occupied this region for nearly 7000 years.  

While the same could be said for all of mankind, the uniqueness of their groups and their language make the Basque People an illuminating look at humanity’s migration patterns and history.  There is indeed something to be said for a group that meets the Romans, countless kings and medieval times, and survives General Franco, still retaining their languages and heritage.  

However, many have been forced out and Basque Diasporas exist all over the world, including America and Canada.  A great many found refugee in Central and Southern American countries, and one can search to find Basque heritage festivals if you’re so inclined to see one.  

Those interested in genetic tracing, can find that the Basque people often have unique patterns that were of interest to the world long before one could trace their own heritage by mail.  Traits like the lack of the B blood type (and related AB) are noted, and a noted trend towards O Blood types and RH Negativity seem prominent.  

Many posit that Basques may be the last descendants of Cro-Magnon man, from over 40,000 years ago, as they share similarities with other connected groups that also show high RH- blood with large percentages of type O blood.  

These are all theories though, none have been proved and may never be, some may even be considered offensive and when doing research into blood types, it is always advised to check for bias on the part of the researcher and the research, as some studies may have been done to paint the Basque People as “Uncivilized.”  Having no access to the actual research myself, I am only reporting what I was told.  

While the Basque People have often been painted under the flag of the ETA, their culture is rich and vibrant, their language unique and still un-traced, and their cuisine is wonderful, from what I’ve heard.  As with all things, it is important to separate groups like the ETA from the general populace, as while the crimes of the ETA against innocent civilians are not redeemable, they are not to be shouldered by the entire Basque Population either.

They are a unique and fascinating group of people.

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

Three Laws of Robotics

Chances are if you’ve seen a sci-fi piece lately with robots as a central component, they’ve mentioned or made reference to certain “rules” or “laws” that the robots are programmed by.

The film, “I, Robot” touched on this central idea, and often, the key to these pieces is that the action in story happens when one of these rules is broken.

Almost all of the time, these rules are traceable back to the “Three Laws of Robotics,” one of the most well known concepts in Science Fiction, although relatively unknown outside of that genre.  Often called simply, “The Three Laws,” they have informed a greater consciousness surrounding the development and use of robots in the real world as well.

The Three Laws of Robotics were developed by Isaac Asimov and first appeared in 1942.  Asimov, if you’ve not heard of him, is considered one of the grand masters of Science Fiction writing, especially prized for his “Foundations” Series.  

Here are the rules:

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Most of the traditional science fiction robots, or robots that we are developing today, seem to be made with these rules in mind.  In essence, however, these rules are actually reflected of our society’s collective fear of robot A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) and that they may, without our biological impediments, approach a point of taking over.

This is displayed, in what may be the purest form, in the robot of HAL 9000 from Stanley Kubrick’s film, “2001: A Space Odyssey.”  Based on the story by Arthur C. Clarke of the same name.  (Clarke is another master of science fiction.)

The laws are, as was already mentioned, usually broken in the stories, demonstrating their ultimate failure and the fallacy of humanity to think it could control such things.  As with most science fiction, Asimov was looking at humanity’s relationships with its machines and the consequences of creating A.I., especially that which is strong enough to not only take over humanity, but in the case of robots like HAL, could decide that the humans under its care were no longer worth supporting.

Science Fiction, and it does not matter if one prefers the genre or not, often explores in wide ranges, the greatest questions humanity may have.  In Three Laws of Robotics, we eventually come around to, “What makes us human?” if the rules are considered to their ultimate end.  It ponders what will become of humanity, when we already have robots that are medically capable, but also, have robots designed solely to search and kill.

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

What is "Avant-Garde?"

Avant-Garde, from the French, means “Front guard,” “Vanguard,” or, in it’s most common usage today, “Forefront.”

Avant-Garde and the Avant-Garde movement, refers to people or things that are experimental and innovative, (for the time that they take place in) especially as it pertains to art and culture.  

While today, many use the term “Avant-Garde” for something that is simply different from the norm, the term originally reflects something far more experimental in nature.  In many cases, one would find it difficult to something that truly qualifies as Avant-Garde these days.

Many associate the Avant-Garde with modernism in cultural movements, while some see it in modernism and postmodernism.  Many center it around movements like surrealism and especially Dadaism.  Dada rejected reason and logic in it’s art, and often, it was rejecting the “logical” rules of art that created pieces that were “Avant-Garde.”

The biggest advances for Avant-Garde came in the early 1900’s and while some put the end as late as the 1980’s, a lot today’s modern art could be argued as trying to pursue an Avant-Garde aesthetic.  However, the deeper into postmodernism, the less Avant-Garde is often found, as the case may be.  All art is a matter of interpretation.

Avant-Garde is often credited with opening art to a wider group of individuals, making art the domain of the public or masses instead of the domain of trained artists often under benefactors.  However, it has often been criticized for making art more “art for art’s sake,” an aesthetic focus; and stripping the art of it’s social commentary, something that our modern art today seems to be combining, as much of today’s art lacks the structure we might find in older works, but is often addressing social commentary much more.  

All of this is how you interpret it though. Dada and Avant-Garde are sometimes called the artistic response to the horrors of WWI, restrained society, etc.  Ergo, they very much would be social commentary in and of their own existence, while many Renaissance paintings were containing no particular commentary on the politics of their time.  

Taking an Avant-Garde approach to art has produced some of our greatest works, the list is far to endless to reprint here, but works by James Joyce, Andy Warhol, and Marcel Duchamp are often included as examples. 

Avant-Garde in an of itself as a term is a blanket term for any time something comes along that actively challenges the norm in society. 

Avant-Garde as a movement looks at the particular period in time, especially focused in Europe, that what we would call, “Modern Art” began to develop and break away from the traditional forms of art, often in acts of rebellion.  There is a special focus on the WWI era, however specific time periods are actively debated, and essentially, any new movement in the art world could be called Avant-Garde.

The problem seems to be that we haven’t had any new bold artistic movements lately, thus the term Avant-Garde is being more misused to describe merely things that are different, even if they already have equivalents.

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

Polygamy vs. Polyamory vs. Polygyny vs. Polyandry vs. Bigamy

The culture practice of Polygamy is often discussed in media in the United States under the context as it pertains to religious or cult practices, except in certain contexts, as in shows like “Polygamy USA” and “Sister Wives,” the former of which is still being aired as of this writing.

While the practice of polygamy has existed in the United States for quite some time, it remains relatively taboo in most regards, being that is often associated with child abuse and oppression of women.  For the purposes of this blog, we are only discussing marriage between consenting adults, and find that relationships derived from coercion, brainwashing, and abuse do not meet the standards of “marriage.”

What is problematic are the various words used to define multiple partner relationships and how often they get confused.

Polygamy is the blanket term used to describe any form of multiple marriage, perhaps with the exception of bigamy, in that bigamy can occur without some partners knowing, while Polygamy generally is classified by all partners knowingly being involved in a multiple marriage.  Ergo, while we often think of polygamy as a man with multiple wives or “polygyny,” it also can include a woman with multiple husbands, or “polyandry.”  

Polygyny is much more widely practiced around the world and has it’s basis more in survival than in religion, which only served to codify the practice, such as in Islam, where a man is limited to four wives.  When women are prohibited from working, the task of caring for them falls on the men, and thus the system to dispense of excess amount of females in a tribe, became polygyny.  It also serves to bolster the number of surviving children.  If a tribe has fewer males, they can split their time between multiple females, thus increasing tribe numbers and the amount of viable offspring that might reasonably grow up and prosper.  Societies that restrict women often show this practice, since it puts women into an acceptable “marriage” even if there are not enough available men to be matched to women, one on one.  

Often societies that accept polygyny do not allow for polyandry, citing inheritance concerns, paternity concerns, and often outdated fears.  This is still the major criticism of polygamy today, that it is disposed towards the males in the society and imposes more rigid gender laws on females.  Women who participate in polygamy outside of societal structures, such as women in the US who are not restricted in a closed-community, often say there are benefits to polygamy as well.  Such as having another mother around for their children, babysitters, etc.

The survival needs behind polygamy have essentially vanished in much of the world. leaving the practice more a of religious one, and many say they find comfort in following what they believe to be a designated religious calling.  

Polyandry has appeared in many societies and cultures throughout history, but it is uncertain if there has ever been a society where it has been the standard codified practice as the dominant relationship between man and woman.  Tibet shows evidence, as do older societies in antiquity, but they are often accompanied by multiple wives for husbands, and an open definition of marriage as we would understand it today.  This stands in direct opposition to strictly polygyny societies, where polyandry would be opposed and punished under law.   

Often, when a person violates the laws against polygamy in the United States, they are charged with Bigamy.  Specifically defined, bigamy is entering into a marriage with another person while already being legally married.  Bigamy is therefore, the criminal term for polygamy of all sorts where legal marriage is concerned in a monogamous society.  

Therefore, a person can be a bigamist if they enter into a polygamous union knowingly, or blindly, although it is more common that the person perpetrating the marriages, usually the male, will receive the punishment as opposed to the women.  Or vice-versa, if the woman has multiple husbands.

Most bigamy laws as they exist in Western states are not enforced, the focus is more on spousal or child abuses contained within said unions.  Hence, why fundamentalist compounds in Utah are raided, but often independent polygamist families are only monitored by the government.

This poses two questions, is it dangerous for the United States and will it ever become legalized?  Often, those opposing gay marriage bring up the idea of polygamy as something that will follow.

On it’s surface, there doesn’t appear to be anything about polygamy that if legalized, would harm the United States in general.  Given the lack of overall persecution of families in polygamous unions, except those in cult-like settings, it would seem that people would gravitate towards it, if it was what they wanted.  But with the evolutionary need for the practice non-existent here, it is unlikely that even religious teachings would spur a good deal of citizens in polygamous unions, especially under the eyes of old-fashioned jealousy.  

It is also highly unlikely that polygamy will ever be fully legal, although certain states may legalize elements of it, or a certain status may be created to define it.  Unlike homosexuality, where many people are related to, or know someone who is gay, polygamy is far less common and is not biological in nature.  There is no drive in the country to legalize polygamy, and one would imagine the health companies and insurance agencies would file against any attempts, since it would force them to expand massive amounts of coverage.  There is one needed necessity though, that for legal protection of those in polygamous unions to come forward and receive fair treatment under the law for inheritance rights in the case of the death of member of that union.  As it stands, since US law only recognizes the first wife, it potentially sets other women up to be left without money in the event of the death of the husband.  Child custody is also something that needs full and fair review under the law, if a second wife dies and wants to her sister wife to become the adopted mother in her will, that should be addressed under the law, not the court of public opinion.  Ultimately, as laws have taught us, the more you criminalize something like polygamy, the more it is driven underground and becomes more dangerous.

Switching over to polyamory, another blanket term, polyamory differs in that while there may be a marriage, all participants are not necessarily attempting to be involved in a form of marriage, but rather a supportive mutually agreed upon relationship.  The terms is attributed to Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart and her husband Oberon Zell-Ravenheart back in 1990. 

Some of the key differences are:

There does not need to be a marriage, but there can be one.  Since gay marriage is not yell fully legal in the US, and we have bans on polygamy, we cannot tell if these groups would wish to engage in legal marital status if given the chance.

The partners often consider themselves committed to all other members in fidelity and often, a sexual context as well. 

There can be polysexuality as well, meaning that participants may act in a manner we might consider to be bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual with any other member of the group they have a mutually shared affection for.

Sex is not recreation here, as with “Swinging” or “Open” relationships, these unions function much like marriages, and may have children that are reared by their parents or by the group.  

Interestingly enough, due to it’s overall inclusiveness, polyamory can be seen as the main blanket term overseeing polygamy, since the most basic definition is simply “Multiple Love.”  

There is an emphasis on personal love, personal expression, and openness within polyamorous unions.  There are less rigid gender roles, less oppression of females, and acceptance of the variety that is human sexual behavior.  While we may have a societal bent to call people in polyamory, “promiscuous,” they often do not engage in that type of behavior, nor do they often condemn it.  They often set and employ their own use of boundaries and do not feel the need to force others to adhere to them.  

Polyamory is often not criminalized in the Western states, due to the fact that no one is attempting to break marital laws, but like polygamy, encounters difficulty in break-ups, inheritances, divorces, custody, etc.  In some states, polyamory is considered like cheating, as a basis for divorce if there is a married set within a group.

Every set of marital relationships or unions have their own set of rules, and as always, I invite you to do further research on specific societies and cultures if you found this interesting.

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

Münchausen Syndrome (And by Proxy)

Münchausen Syndrome can be a particularly appealing device for fiction writers to use.  While it has appeared on numerous crime shows over the years, it gained some significant attention when the Syndrome was featured in the movie, “The Sixth Sense,” or more accurately Münchausen by Proxy was featured in the film itself.

Münchausen Syndrome is what is known as a factitious disorder - meaning that the person is faking an illness.  While Münchausen was the first discovered, and was originally used as a blanket term for all others, definitions have diversified over the years to varying cases.

This is due to the fact that originally, the term is derived from a set of stories based on the real life person Baron Münchausen of Germany (Prussia) who took up with the Russian army and upon returning home, told exaggerated stories about his adventures.  In some cases, to be called a “Baron Münchausen” refers to being an liar, falsifier, or exaggerated storyteller, although this use has fallen out of our common vernacular.  Probably mostly due to the association of his name with the medical condition instead.

Münchausen Syndrome is a psychiatric disorder where the sufferer feigns illness in order to get attention, medical treatment, or sympathy.  It was first identified and named by Richard Asher in 1951 in a British medical journal called “The Lancet.”

It should not be confused with hypochondria, wherein a person often believes they are actually sick a majority of the time.  The identifier with Münchausen is that the person knows they are not sick and is feigning their illness on purpose.  The behavior is generally not considered a malicious act against anyone else in the community, but against themselves if at all that.  The same cannot be said for the “by proxy” version.

Many consider the actions of those with Münchausen to be compulsory, somewhat in the same vein as a compulsive liar.  Many of the theories believe that someone who exhibits this syndrome may have suffered some form of emotional neglect as a child, a trauma at some point in their early life, or possibly a mental illness.  There is no definite cause yet specified, but a personality disorder resulting from issues in childhood seems to be the most common theory.

Those with this syndrome are often hard to detect, since the issues will likely start small and begin to escalate. The presence of unknown or hard to detect diseases can make this particularly difficult to diagnose early.  Sufferers can do a variety of things to their own bodies to appear as though they are sick, from basic falling down, to swallowing toxic materials.  Most often, the abuse of prescription medicine happens, or the overuse of laxatives and blood thinners to create the appearance of illness.  Some will request emergency surgeries, while for others, only hospitalization is required to satisfy the needs produced by the syndrome.  Most times, they have a falsified medical history of created issues, disorders, and conditions.

Should this syndrome go unnoticed or untreated, it can lead to long-term hospitalization, severe overall health problem, disabling injuries, loss of limbs, and even death.  Those who are caught and treated are often having to be put on psychiatric drugs, or hospitalized in a ward where they can be supervised so as to not hurt themselves.  

This is not to say that all sufferers of this syndrome will go this far, but like any other syndrome, left unchecked, it will often worsen.

Münchausen by Proxy is currently under review, possibly to be reclassified from a syndrome to abuse, given that someone is being subjected to cruel treatment.  

Often people with Münchausen by Proxy (MbP) are subjecting someone else, often a child, to conditions to make that person appear sick or to lead to a case where that person will become sick.  

While it sometimes can simply be that a mother may take her child to the doctor over and over again with an imaginary illness to get attention, others may slip their children poisonous substances to create the effects of illness.  They may also coach the people in their care to exaggerate their symptoms, or goad them into harming themselves without their conscious knowledge that they were doing so.

Sadly, in many cases, this syndrome does often lead to being disabled or even to death for those in the care of someone with Münchausen by Proxy.  It is even believed that proper understanding of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or (SIDS) may have been delayed by doctors studying babies who were victims of Münchausen by Proxy, instead of SIDS itself.

By hurting those they are charge of caring for, they are given the attention they desire as the “caretaker, poor mother,” or “good child caring for an ailing parent,” or simply “The good nurse to the sick.”  Often, it will not be limited to one person, as entire families have fallen prey to this condition at the behest of one parent.  A mother with this condition may end up killing one child right after another to keep the attention levels of sympathy on herself at the same or higher level. 

Overall, MbP is more prevalent in females than in males, and while the women were more likely to have male and female victims, evidence suggests that when men have this condition, that their victims are more likely to be male.  Given societal gender roles, and given that these people are aware of the harm they’re causing, this patten makes sense in that regard.

Recently, Münchausen on Pets has been reported as a recognized variant of this illness.  Also a growing phenomenon of Münchausen by Internet, in which the anonymity of the internet makes it easy to fake an illness and garner large amounts of sympathy and support.  

The “By Proxy” version of Münchausen is a dangerous disorder, hard to identify by doctors and often hushed up by our society’s rules surrounding accusations of murder after long illness or seemingly natural death, even when evidence is readily available.  Luckily, tests for poisons are growing more sophisticated, and are often checked for in patients who exhibit strange long term symptoms without a definite diagnosis.

However you choose to view Münchausen is up to you.  It rides a line between a disorder needing of treatment, to be classified as more of a crime that requires more jail time than treatment time.  While most of us would be okay with Münchausen itself just being classified a disorder, when the disease becomes “By Proxy,” “By Internet,” or “To Pet,” it bears further contemplation in the mind.  

Should you choose to include this disorder in fiction writing, I recommend reading the various case studies published on the matter, as well as memoirs of children who survived this with affected parents.

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

"To Bell the Cat"

I recently heard someone use this phrase at my job and found myself explaining it to my coworker.  I don’t hear it that much anymore, but since it’s still out there, I wanted to put it up, mostly because I do like the phrase and think we should bring it back somewhat.

Based on an old fable often attributed to Aesop, but not believed to actually be by him, the story concerns a group of mice who want to find a way to eliminate the threat of a cat.  It is proposed to put a bell around the neck of the cat to herald his approach, but none of the mice are brave enough to do so.

Thus, when someone uses the phrase “Belling the Cat,” there can be two meanings.

1.  To accomplish a difficult or great task.

Ex.  ”That report?  I belled the cat!”

Ex.  ”This report?  I’m not asking you to Bell the Cat, just give me something passable!”

2.  To diffuse a threatening person.  (Much less often used, it requires a common hated person much like in the story scenario.)

Ex.  ”I gave the boss a pair of dangly earrings at the Christmas party.  Now we can hear her coming down the hall.  I belled that cat.”

The second use is generally much, much more rare to hear, but does still come up on occasion, often in regards to trying to hinder or diminish the power of an overbearing boss or supervisor, or an office snitch, as was the case in my situation.  

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

The Uncanny Valley

While this topic has become more well known over the years, the theory, and actual feeling produced under said theory, are older than you might imagine.

This term was originally first coined by Masahiro Mori in 1970.  Mori was a robotics professor who noticed a certain sense of unease around humanoid robots.

The theory is built on the research of famous scientists, like Charles Darwin, and psychologists in the 1800’s, 1907, and again in the work of Sigmund Freud in 1919.  

The hypothesis behind the Uncanny Valley is as follows; in the field of robotics, (though not limited to it) the closer something looks to be being human, but is not completely perfect, that the observer will feel a sort of revulsion, repulsion, or general sense of unease.  This usually comes after a long sense of sympathy or empathy for robots approaching humanoid features, right up until a certain point, designated the “Uncanny Valley,” where empathy plummets and fear sets in.

In other words, the more something tries to be like us, but that we know is not us, only works to a certain point before the human mind rebels against it.  Zombies, Frankenstein’s Monster, and normal human corpses, etcetera, are often cited as examples, as well as the humanoid robots being produced in Japan.  Movie audiences were introduced to the theory, in some part, by the classic sci-fi film, Bladerunner, which explored the notion where the book “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” more so glossed over it.  The Body Snatchers is another notable example, although I take issue, since that film was more an allegory for communist takeovers.

While many people do not experience fear to the level of activating their “flight” response, the generally reported result is a sense of unease, eeriness  creepiness, and a sort of “knotted stomach effect” or “chills” like one might get on a roller coaster.  

The effect of this theory can be seen in many areas outside of humanoid robotics.  The recent advancements in technology and it’s application to film have produced this effect, especially on films like “The Polar Express” or even “MirrorMask.”  In some instances, even the use of rotoscope on animation can produce the effect.  It varies from person to person.  

The sort of fear that comes from the Uncanny Valley effect may not be entirely justified, at least, not yet.  However, it begs a “chicken and egg” argument in reference to popular culture and media.  Which came first, our fear of humanoid things because they were used as media villains, or did our fear of it turn them into likely villains for movies and such?  Generally the sort of paranoia or fear regarding them does not directly correspond to the theory’s stated, more common response of simple, unease.

Below is a graph common used to show the placement of the Uncanny Valley on the scale of familiarity.  You’ll notice that valley is reference to the dip in the plotted line.  

The question then becomes, what causes this feeling?  On the surface, it seems simple enough, that we don’t want anything that looks like us, that isn’t us, to blend in and possibly either be a threat, or usurp our place in the social structure.  

Numerous theories have been proposed to explain this concept.

As with a lot of theories that allow for the singling out of others, there has been proposed the notion that our biological senses reject those that aren’t “perfect,” especially as it pertains to mates, to ensure our genetic survival.  

The Doppelganger Effect, since many of these robots are often designed to look like existing people, creates a sense of being “taken over” or subsumed in some way.  This effect may also cause people to have to confront their own mortality or fear of death; as well as admit that there is nothing very unique about them, and by proxy, humanity itself.  

Since the imperfection of these humanoids is also a key factor, we are denied many of the social cues that we receive from other humans.  ”Dead eyes” on robots being one of the most oft-mentioned traits that are off-putting.  This leads to another point, the violation of the human norm.  Not only do we see these humanoids as violating our social codes, we cannot read them as we do other people.  Part of the unique structure of biological creatures like humans, is that we are born with the natural instinct to pick up on the social cues of others, in some part, it has contributed the survival of our species.  So, you can see why the idea that something both a violation of the norm and inscrutable, would be received poorly.

The likely reason is some combination of the various theories, but as robots continue to grow more life-like, the Uncanny Valley will probably be of an issue of contention in the future.

(All links below open in a new window)

The Uncanny Valley and Video Games

The Uncanny Valley

[thingsyoushouldknowbynow]

The Milgram Experiment (On Obedience to Authority Figures)

In the aftermath of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials, a few psychologists wanted the answer to one very simple question.

How could the average person, in this case, the average German citizen, participate in the basic running of the Nazi government, knowing what was going on in the death camps, the war machine, or even those who didn’t know the full extent - the participation in the exclusion and scapegoating of other groups.

(It should be noted that not all Germans did know about the Concentration Camps.  Camps were often concealed as working camps from the general public.)

Social Psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to know if those who participated in the atrocities all had the same mutual intent as persons like Adolf Eichmann (Eichmann was one of the main, if not the main, organizer of the Holocaust, charged with organizing, the deporting, forced labor, and executions of the prisoners of the regime - he was found, tried, and hung for crimes against humanity in Israel)

Milgram wanted to find out if he could, to use simplistic terms, get ordinary people to do acts of cruelty under obedience to authority, or if they would resist.  In other words, he wanted to know if the people were naturally vicious and drawn to the work they did, or if they did it under orders.  

“Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?”

As with a lot of military trials, underlings will often be exempt under the standard doctrine that they were “Just following orders.”  Milgram wanted to test this.

Interestingly enough, Milgram and Zimbardo were classmates.  Zimbardo did another infamous study on the social psychology of evil, the Stanford Prison Experiment.

The experiments started in July 1961, Milgram advertised for participants from the general classes of people, butchers, bakers, farmers, bankers, etc.  

He would do over 16 varieties on the following study pattern with varying groups.  The first group was all men, between 20-50.  Later groups would be all women and include variations on what happened during the study.

See the Original Ad Here:

Under the guise of teaching memory through negative reinforcement, participants were paired up, where one participant was the teacher and the other, the learner. 

Under the control of the study, the learner was a confederate, or as we would call it, “a plant.”  The learner was “in” on the study’s purpose, the real study was only for the teacher.

The two would be interviewed together, where they would be told that one of the principles of memory study was that if someone was negatively reinforced, in this case, “shocked” with electric shocks, they would remember things better.

The “learner” would then detail that he had a heart condition and ask how far the voltage would go.  The study administrator, who would remain in the room for the duration, dressed in an authoritative lab coat, would assure him that the dial did not go too far. 

The “learner” would then be put in a separate room, apparently hooked up to the shocks, while the teacher would administer questions.  The teacher was shown the learned being strapped into the machine and chair, but did not observe them during the actual experiment.  

Starting at 15 volts, ie. can’t even feel it, the learner would give deliberately false answers, prompting the teacher to administer shocks of consistently higher voltage.  The learner, as part of the experiment, would then proceed to yelp and cry out in pain.  Bear in mind, the machine went from 15 to 450 volts, in increments of 15.  300 volts was clearly labeled “DANGER” and 450 was labeled “SEVERE XXX”  Meaning lethal.  

It was recorded that many teachers began to exhibit unusual responses to the screams, such as laughter at the absurdity of it.  

The next phase was that the learner would yell that he wanted to be done with the experiment, that his heart was causing him problems after a certain voltage point.

Many of the teachers appealed to the authority in the lab coat as to whether or not they should stop and were given these four answers:

Please continue.

The experiment requires that you continue.

It is absolutely essential that you continue.

You have no other choice, you must go on.

When asked who was responsible for the learner, they were informed that the man in the lab coat was responsible. 

Later in the study, before 450, an audible “thump” like the collapse of a man was heard, and then silence.  While some teachers became agitated, some continued to administer maximum shocks when they were told to do so, up to three times.  The implication being that they were delivering three lethal shocks to a man who may have already been dead.

When Milgram asked others to bet on the percentage that would go all the way to 450, they waged less than 1-10%.  The average level of sociopaths in American society.  

In the first set of experiments, 65% went all the way to 450.  Though not without protests and even the development of nervous conditions, they still went all the way to the end, simply because they were told to.

Milgram posited two results.

1.  When responsibility is on someone else, it’s easier to do things that may seem morally wrong.

2.  Obedience to authority was the problem.

We can also assert the “boiling frog” effect.  Wherein, a frog that is put into a boiling pot will immediately jump out, but a frog put into a pot where the heat is slowly turned up, will not jump out before being boiled alive.

Over the course of his experiments, Milgram found no difference in response between men and women, races, religions, etc. When the study has been conducted over time in various locales, there have been no distinct differences found.

Consider this BBC version done in 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdb20gcc_Ns

He also noticed that the more prestigious the surroundings, the more people adhered to authority, leading to the conclusion that environment is a factor, much in the same way the Stanford Prison Study picked up on the same factor.

Over his variations on the studies, Milgram also found that if another person was paired with the teacher (another actor) and they objected, the teacher was much more likely to object, whereas if another person went ahead with the shocks and there was authority in the room, the teachers went to 450 over 90-99% of the time.

Though society is supposedly not composed of sociopaths, not even a good percentage exhibits those traits, man’s capacity to do evil when he feels that someone else will take the blame, is indeed extraordinary.  When relocation of the prisoners of the Nazi regime began, the guards were told it was for the good of them and country.  When the Milgram subjects began their test, they believed it was for the good of memory research.

It is perhaps the best example of why you must always “Question Authority.”

*Note:  If you have ever played Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, you’re familiar with the work behind Milgram’s second most famous study - The Six Degrees of Separation Small World Theory.  Evidence is scanty, but it makes a great party game.