We're in the middle of preparing our Wigilia feast, which seems to be turning out quite wonderfully. The house smells marvelous, and I can't wait to try that goose!
I'd like to take a moment in the middle of all the preparations to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. May Christmas be a day of joy and contentment, and may 2011 be a year of health, happiness and prosperity for you and yours.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Veiled references
There's a topic I've been wanting to touch on for some time. This post is going to be a little light on references and links, though, as I'm sitting in a coffee shop with bad Christmas remakes in the background, using a PITA laptop. *L* I might be able to update later, but no guarantees at this point!
All joking aside, the topic I want to address is no laughing matter.
Ever since France moved to ban face veils, I've been thinking about how and why veiling the face is such an issue in so many countries, the history of veils specifically, and facial coverings in general.
As someone who leans strongly towards the notion that people should be able to wear whatever they want and the state has no place in telling us how to dress, I do have limits to this. For example, I object to outright nudity, not because I have any problem with seeing the nude human body, but for reasons that range from sanitation and hygiene (would you want to sit in a chair after someone nude sat in it? I sure as heck wouldn't want to sit in someone else's butt sweat) to the fact that it's inflicting one person's preference (to be nude) onto someone else's (to not see some stranger's nude body). It's along the lines of, your right to punch me stops at the tip of my nose.
So generally, I have no problem with people's dress. If some guy wants to wear long flowing skirts and a belly dance shawl, I have no problem with that. In fact, my only regret is that I never got around to finding out where he bought those beautiful skirts! I haven't seen him in ages, and it looks like I've missed my chance. If another guy wants to wear brightly coloured spandex biker shorts with a thong on the outside? Weird, but fine. It's a bit hard on the eyes, but it's none of my business. Likewise, if women want to wear their pants so low they're showing off their thongs and butt cracks... that's their business, though I would make an exception; I would really prefer if they didn't wear them while working in the food industry. Someone's butt crack and underwear out for display does not go well with food hygiene. When I had my first job as a waitress, health regulations stipulated that we had to wear sleeves long enough to cover our armpits. If we couldn't flash our stubbly pits, we sure as heck shouldn't be flashing our cracks.
In other words, I expect reasonable limits to our freedom to dress however we like.
Enter the face veil.
First off, I do not have any problem with "traditional Muslim dress," whatever that may be. Any objections I might have are of a more pragmatic nature than anything else. The long flowing garments women wear can be stunningly beautiful. They can also, however, get caught on things and be a danger. There was a story not too long ago of a woman wearing a burka who was killed when it got caught in the wheels of the go-cart she was driving (note on the link: I believe the file photo identified as a burka is actually a niqab). While it happened to be a burka that got caught, I've seen other traditional garments that don't cover the face that would have been equally risky. I have similar objections in mind when I see people walking around with long chains or belts hanging off their clothes, or women teetering along on high heels. If the people wearing them are willing to risk physical injury for fashion, it's generally none of my business. It might become my business if, say, I were an employer and the dress would hinder their ability to do the work I've hired them to do, or if a particular dress code or image were required. Otherwise, it's no big deal and part of what makes people so interesting.
I do, however, draw the line at covering the face. I agree with France's stand in banning the burka and niqab, and would support such a move here in Canada.
Before I explain my reasoning, let's take a broader look at face veiling. This is not isolated to Islam. Covering the face for one reason or another probably goes back to the beginning of humanity. Islam developed in a geographical region of hot sun and a dry, harsh environment. People covered their faces then, as now, to protect themselves from the elements. At the time of Mohammad, few people actually veiled themselves. They are impractical garments that get in the way while working. The women who did wear veils were of the nobility; they were wealthy enough that the women didn't have to work in the hot sun, getting all dirty and sweaty. Smooth skin, untouched by a harsh sun or sandblasted by winds, showed that a woman was from a family of high status and wealth - their women didn't have to work for a living! When they did leave the confines of their homes and risk exposure to the elements, they could minimize the damage by wearing a veil. When Mohammad said that all women deserved to wear veils because all women were equally noble, this was what he was referring to. While some branches of Islam have taken his meaning to the extreme and turned it into a reflection of modesty, Islam itself does not require women to veil their faces. In reality, the wearing of veils is not rooted in modesty, but vanity. When Mohammad made this statement, most women still didn't wear the veil because it is such an impractical garment; their need to work for a living trumped the vain desire to protect their skin, and this was perfectly acceptable. With this historical perspective, the argument that wearing the burka or the niqab is a religious requirement doesn't wash.
The veiling of women in Islamic countries is very much a cultural tradition, wrapped under the guise of religious requirement. Growing up in a culture that expects women to cover their faces, one might have difficulty understanding why other cultures have a problem with it. So let's take a moment to explore facial coverings in other cultures.
Over the centuries, women in European countries wore veils of various kinds. One significant difference is that these veils, which often covered the entire face, were all open mesh or lace. The face was not completely hidden, and women would still be recognized as individuals. Lets look at other facial coverings which, like the burka and niqab, actually hide a person's identity.
Perhaps the most iconic Western example of face veiling is the cowboy with his ubiquitous bandanna. While driving large herds of cattle, a tremendous amount of dust could be kicked up. Weather also played its part as dust storms arose. Cowboys wore a number of things with very special purposes. Chaps protected their legs. Dusters were specially designed to protect them from the rain, even while riding a horse. Hats had brims that drained rainwater out the back. Bandannas were worn around the neck, where they could be easily pulled over the nose and mouth during dust storms or when thousands of hooves kicked up clouds of grit. No cowboy would be without his bandanna, unless he liked the crunch of grit in his teeth or breathing clouds of particulate matter.
Of course, living in Canada, we have our modern facial coverings to protect from the elements. Balaclavas, scarves and deep hoods all serve to keep our faces warm and protected from our often harsh winters.
There are those who make the argument that the burka and niqab are no different than wearing a balaclava. I always found that a rather silly argument. For starters, no one is forced to wear a balaclava, while in too many Islamic cultures, a woman without a veil can be beaten or killed for her crime. Even for those branches of Islam that view it as a sign of modesty, rather than the vanity its rooted in, there is a significant difference. When people protect their faces with scarves and hoods and balaclavas, they don't leave them on when they go indoors. In fact, in our culture, those who hide their faces are considered suspicious. In the days of the wild west, bank and train robbers would use the ubiquitous bandanna to hide their faces while committing their crimes. In modern days, sunglasses and hoodies are used the same way. Before anyone suggests that it's not illegal to wear sunglasses or hoodies, therefore it shouldn't be illegal to wear a burka, the city of Edmonton recently made the news for banning sunglasses, hats and hoods. It turns out there were so many jewelry store robberies where security cameras were rendered useless by criminals wearing hoods and sunglasses, a law was brought in. If you go into a store or bank with your face hidden, they have the right to tell people to take off their sunglasses and hoods.
But what about outside the store?
Eldest and her friend, Raider King, found out about that. Some time ago they did their "post apocalyptic" walk. They wandered around our city wearing their costumes which, for Eldest, included a "scarfkerchief" worn over the face like a bandanna, with her eyes hidden by home made goggles. Raider King wore a gas mask. When they entered a mall, they were approached by a security guard and told they had to uncover their faces. They understood why and complied, but Eldest did wonder what they did for Muslims or at Halloween. Obviously, they make an exception for Halloween - the one day of year when people are actually encouraged to disguise themselves. Just as obviously, they don't tell Muslim women to remove their veils.
From this Western cultural perspective, face coverings are viewed with significant suspicion. People who hide their faces are doing so specifically to hide their identity while committing a crime. This extends even to protesters who hide their faces, since they are obviously trying to hide their identities from authorities, even if no actual crime is perpetrated. Those wearing facial coverings are far more likely to become violent during demonstrations, since they're more likely to get away with it. For all that I agree and support people's right to protest something, even if I wildly disagree with their cause, I fully believe it should be illegal for protesters to cover their faces in the process. If you believe in something enough to protest about it, you should believe in it enough to be identified, even if there's a risk of being arrested. Once protesters start hiding their faces, it tells me that their motives are less than altruistic.
When it comes to the burka or the niqab, security concerns are completely valid. There have been several incidents of late that have demonstrated this. One was the now infamous video someone posted on youtube where veiled women bypassed airport security. There's also the incident where some women made a fuss until the security staff let them through, without checking their identities. As they were walking away they were overheard, speaking in their native tongue, mocking Canadians. The man who overheard them did speak up, in their own language, calling them on it. Another recent incident involved a woman who was pulled over by a police officer. She accused him of racism and, when it went to court, tried to claim mistaken identity because he couldn't see her face. Thankfully, his dashboard video camera recorded the entire incident in question and he was exonerated, but it's another example of veiled women trying to take advantage of their cultural tradition to usurp local law. Meanwhile, there have even been incidents of male suicide bombers disguising themselves in burkas. The burka and the niqab is a serious and legitimate security concern, as is any other form of hiding one's identity. The difference is that people like my daughter and her friend couldn't make religious claims when the security guard told them to uncover their faces, as those who wear the burka or the niqab do. As far as I am concerned, religion cannot be allowed to trump safety and security.
Which brings me to another defense of veiling that is sometimes used. People claim it is a symbol of a religion, no different than a Catholic wearing a crucifix, or a Sikh wearing a turban. These religious symbols, required or not, do not hide anyone's identity (and we've already established that veils are do not actually symbolize Islam, nor do they represent the concept of modesty, but vanity). Rather, the Sikh's turban or Catholic's crucifix pendant openly show for all the world to see that this identifiable person holds certain beliefs. The veil, on the other hand, hides the believer away. The irony of such a defense is that, in some Islamic nations, other religions are illegal, as are their symbols and trappings. A quick look at the persecution of Christians in various countries will find many examples. In Western nations that object to veils, it's the veils themselves that are the objection, not necessarily the religion of the person wearing it. Unlike countries like Iran, it's not illegal to hold certain religious beliefs, nor is anyone trying to force someone to turn their backs on their faith, while nations that require all women to cover their faces require this of all women, not just Muslim women, even though doing so is against Islam. To carry over the metaphor, Islamic nations that force all women to wear the burka or niqab would be like us forcing a Muslim woman (or anyone else not a Catholic, for that matter) to wear a crucifix.
Okay, so we've covered face veiling from a couple of perspectives. Veiling fails from a religious perspective, as it is not actually a religious requirement. It fails from a modesty perspective, since veiling is rooted in vanity, and as a symbol of Islam, as it it neither required by Islam, nor is it limited to Islam. It fails from a security perspective for obvious reasons.
There is, however, another objection I have against veils. This one is actually hinted at in the other reasons, and it is purely psychological.
Let's go back to the modesty angle. Wealthy women in the Middle East began wearing veils to protect their delicate skin from a harsh environment. This clearly separated them from other women. It was an exclusive, rather than inclusive, act. Wearing the veil was a way of saying "I'm better than other women; I don't have to slave away in the hot sun. I live a life so luxurious, I can wear this completely impractical garment. I don't have to worry about getting it caught on things or getting in the way, because I don't have to work for a living." In this vein, the veil is a sign of privilege as well as vanity. It was a flagrant way of saying that one's wealth and status (or those of their family) made them superior to everyone else. There's more to say in that direction, but I'll cover that in a moment.
Let's now go back to the veil from a religious perspective, as so many claim it is either a requirement or a symbol of Muslim faith. Religious symbols are typically ways to identify people. Turbans, for example, not only represent Sikhism, but their colours can symbolize different things. If someone wears an empty cross, you can assume a Christian faith, but if they're wearing a crucifix, you can usually assume Catholicism. If you see someone wearing a pentagram, it usually identifies them as pagan. Granted, many of these symbols are now worn by people as pure ornamentation. Sikh men are required to wear a turban, but Christians have no such requirement to wear any symbols. These days, you're not likely to see people wearing turbans just because they like the look (though they were in fashion for a while), but you do see people wearing a cross pendant that isn't Christian, or a Star of David that isn't Jewish.
The point being that these symbols serve a dual purpose: on the one hand, the person wearing the symbol is identifying themselves as being part of a select group. On the other, they are making a blatant statement about their beliefs. Early Christians began tattooing crosses on the inside of their wrists, despite biblical admonitions against body modification. Why? At the time, Christians were considered a dangerous element of society and frequently executed in rather horrible ways. Identifying oneself as Christian was very risky. Indelibly marking one's body with a Christian symbol was a bold statement, and in doing so, these early Christians knew they were putting their lives on the line for their belief. A tattoo on the inner wrist could be easily hidden by a sleeve. It could be used to identify themselves to other Christians, since no one else would risk such a thing. Having such a tattoo discovered by the authorities, on the other hand, was pretty much a death sentence.
The key point, however, is identity. These symbols boldly state to the world, "this is what I believe. This is who I am." What does a veil do? It hides identity. "This is what I believe, but you can't know who I am." The veil hides the believer from the rest of the world, even from other believers, since Muslim women are expected to hide their faces from all men not their father's, brothers or husbands. Some Muslim women have even gone so far as to never show their faces to their own husbands. The veil becomes, not a symbol, but a barrier. A wall of separation quite different from open symbols of faith. With the veil, Islam becomes a hidden, secret thing, separating the wearer from everyone else, even within their own faith.
Which leads me to the final objection I have. The veil is not just a physical barrier, but a psychological one. It dehumanizes the wearer and isolates her. There's two statements made here. For the forced wearing of the veil, the woman behind the veil becomes nothing. She is no one. She is less than chattel; she is not worth even her own identity. She is no longer allowed to be human.
For those who choose to wear the veil, the psychological barrier is different, but no less disturbing. Here, the statement is reversed. It's not that the woman behind the veil is not worth an identity; but that those on the other side of the veil are not worth knowing her identity. In an open faced society, this psychological barrier is perhaps more damaging than forced veiling. At least with forced veiling, those who disapprove of veiling can feel empathy for the woman behind the veil. She is still a person to them; if her own culture does not value her as an individual, ours does. For the woman who deliberately walls herself off from everyone else behind a veil, she is dehumanizing those who do not believe as she does. We are the ones who are unworthy; unworthy to see her face; unworthy to be part of her world; unworthy of knowing who she is.
In the end, my objections to the burka and the niqab comes from two sources. The legal objection is one of security, based on hidden identity and it not limited to just the veil. I believe that, barring the need to protect one's face from the elements or similar reasonable exceptions, facial coverings in public should be illegal. My other objection is psychological. Whether the veil is worn by choice or by force, it is a damaging psychological barrier that seperates and isolates the wearer from everyone else, including those who follow the same faith.
Update: A hearty welcome to my visitors from Blazing Cat Fur. I hope you enjoy your stay. :-)
All joking aside, the topic I want to address is no laughing matter.
Ever since France moved to ban face veils, I've been thinking about how and why veiling the face is such an issue in so many countries, the history of veils specifically, and facial coverings in general.
As someone who leans strongly towards the notion that people should be able to wear whatever they want and the state has no place in telling us how to dress, I do have limits to this. For example, I object to outright nudity, not because I have any problem with seeing the nude human body, but for reasons that range from sanitation and hygiene (would you want to sit in a chair after someone nude sat in it? I sure as heck wouldn't want to sit in someone else's butt sweat) to the fact that it's inflicting one person's preference (to be nude) onto someone else's (to not see some stranger's nude body). It's along the lines of, your right to punch me stops at the tip of my nose.
So generally, I have no problem with people's dress. If some guy wants to wear long flowing skirts and a belly dance shawl, I have no problem with that. In fact, my only regret is that I never got around to finding out where he bought those beautiful skirts! I haven't seen him in ages, and it looks like I've missed my chance. If another guy wants to wear brightly coloured spandex biker shorts with a thong on the outside? Weird, but fine. It's a bit hard on the eyes, but it's none of my business. Likewise, if women want to wear their pants so low they're showing off their thongs and butt cracks... that's their business, though I would make an exception; I would really prefer if they didn't wear them while working in the food industry. Someone's butt crack and underwear out for display does not go well with food hygiene. When I had my first job as a waitress, health regulations stipulated that we had to wear sleeves long enough to cover our armpits. If we couldn't flash our stubbly pits, we sure as heck shouldn't be flashing our cracks.
In other words, I expect reasonable limits to our freedom to dress however we like.
Enter the face veil.
First off, I do not have any problem with "traditional Muslim dress," whatever that may be. Any objections I might have are of a more pragmatic nature than anything else. The long flowing garments women wear can be stunningly beautiful. They can also, however, get caught on things and be a danger. There was a story not too long ago of a woman wearing a burka who was killed when it got caught in the wheels of the go-cart she was driving (note on the link: I believe the file photo identified as a burka is actually a niqab). While it happened to be a burka that got caught, I've seen other traditional garments that don't cover the face that would have been equally risky. I have similar objections in mind when I see people walking around with long chains or belts hanging off their clothes, or women teetering along on high heels. If the people wearing them are willing to risk physical injury for fashion, it's generally none of my business. It might become my business if, say, I were an employer and the dress would hinder their ability to do the work I've hired them to do, or if a particular dress code or image were required. Otherwise, it's no big deal and part of what makes people so interesting.
I do, however, draw the line at covering the face. I agree with France's stand in banning the burka and niqab, and would support such a move here in Canada.
Before I explain my reasoning, let's take a broader look at face veiling. This is not isolated to Islam. Covering the face for one reason or another probably goes back to the beginning of humanity. Islam developed in a geographical region of hot sun and a dry, harsh environment. People covered their faces then, as now, to protect themselves from the elements. At the time of Mohammad, few people actually veiled themselves. They are impractical garments that get in the way while working. The women who did wear veils were of the nobility; they were wealthy enough that the women didn't have to work in the hot sun, getting all dirty and sweaty. Smooth skin, untouched by a harsh sun or sandblasted by winds, showed that a woman was from a family of high status and wealth - their women didn't have to work for a living! When they did leave the confines of their homes and risk exposure to the elements, they could minimize the damage by wearing a veil. When Mohammad said that all women deserved to wear veils because all women were equally noble, this was what he was referring to. While some branches of Islam have taken his meaning to the extreme and turned it into a reflection of modesty, Islam itself does not require women to veil their faces. In reality, the wearing of veils is not rooted in modesty, but vanity. When Mohammad made this statement, most women still didn't wear the veil because it is such an impractical garment; their need to work for a living trumped the vain desire to protect their skin, and this was perfectly acceptable. With this historical perspective, the argument that wearing the burka or the niqab is a religious requirement doesn't wash.
The veiling of women in Islamic countries is very much a cultural tradition, wrapped under the guise of religious requirement. Growing up in a culture that expects women to cover their faces, one might have difficulty understanding why other cultures have a problem with it. So let's take a moment to explore facial coverings in other cultures.
Over the centuries, women in European countries wore veils of various kinds. One significant difference is that these veils, which often covered the entire face, were all open mesh or lace. The face was not completely hidden, and women would still be recognized as individuals. Lets look at other facial coverings which, like the burka and niqab, actually hide a person's identity.
Perhaps the most iconic Western example of face veiling is the cowboy with his ubiquitous bandanna. While driving large herds of cattle, a tremendous amount of dust could be kicked up. Weather also played its part as dust storms arose. Cowboys wore a number of things with very special purposes. Chaps protected their legs. Dusters were specially designed to protect them from the rain, even while riding a horse. Hats had brims that drained rainwater out the back. Bandannas were worn around the neck, where they could be easily pulled over the nose and mouth during dust storms or when thousands of hooves kicked up clouds of grit. No cowboy would be without his bandanna, unless he liked the crunch of grit in his teeth or breathing clouds of particulate matter.
Of course, living in Canada, we have our modern facial coverings to protect from the elements. Balaclavas, scarves and deep hoods all serve to keep our faces warm and protected from our often harsh winters.
There are those who make the argument that the burka and niqab are no different than wearing a balaclava. I always found that a rather silly argument. For starters, no one is forced to wear a balaclava, while in too many Islamic cultures, a woman without a veil can be beaten or killed for her crime. Even for those branches of Islam that view it as a sign of modesty, rather than the vanity its rooted in, there is a significant difference. When people protect their faces with scarves and hoods and balaclavas, they don't leave them on when they go indoors. In fact, in our culture, those who hide their faces are considered suspicious. In the days of the wild west, bank and train robbers would use the ubiquitous bandanna to hide their faces while committing their crimes. In modern days, sunglasses and hoodies are used the same way. Before anyone suggests that it's not illegal to wear sunglasses or hoodies, therefore it shouldn't be illegal to wear a burka, the city of Edmonton recently made the news for banning sunglasses, hats and hoods. It turns out there were so many jewelry store robberies where security cameras were rendered useless by criminals wearing hoods and sunglasses, a law was brought in. If you go into a store or bank with your face hidden, they have the right to tell people to take off their sunglasses and hoods.
But what about outside the store?
Eldest and her friend, Raider King, found out about that. Some time ago they did their "post apocalyptic" walk. They wandered around our city wearing their costumes which, for Eldest, included a "scarfkerchief" worn over the face like a bandanna, with her eyes hidden by home made goggles. Raider King wore a gas mask. When they entered a mall, they were approached by a security guard and told they had to uncover their faces. They understood why and complied, but Eldest did wonder what they did for Muslims or at Halloween. Obviously, they make an exception for Halloween - the one day of year when people are actually encouraged to disguise themselves. Just as obviously, they don't tell Muslim women to remove their veils.
From this Western cultural perspective, face coverings are viewed with significant suspicion. People who hide their faces are doing so specifically to hide their identity while committing a crime. This extends even to protesters who hide their faces, since they are obviously trying to hide their identities from authorities, even if no actual crime is perpetrated. Those wearing facial coverings are far more likely to become violent during demonstrations, since they're more likely to get away with it. For all that I agree and support people's right to protest something, even if I wildly disagree with their cause, I fully believe it should be illegal for protesters to cover their faces in the process. If you believe in something enough to protest about it, you should believe in it enough to be identified, even if there's a risk of being arrested. Once protesters start hiding their faces, it tells me that their motives are less than altruistic.
When it comes to the burka or the niqab, security concerns are completely valid. There have been several incidents of late that have demonstrated this. One was the now infamous video someone posted on youtube where veiled women bypassed airport security. There's also the incident where some women made a fuss until the security staff let them through, without checking their identities. As they were walking away they were overheard, speaking in their native tongue, mocking Canadians. The man who overheard them did speak up, in their own language, calling them on it. Another recent incident involved a woman who was pulled over by a police officer. She accused him of racism and, when it went to court, tried to claim mistaken identity because he couldn't see her face. Thankfully, his dashboard video camera recorded the entire incident in question and he was exonerated, but it's another example of veiled women trying to take advantage of their cultural tradition to usurp local law. Meanwhile, there have even been incidents of male suicide bombers disguising themselves in burkas. The burka and the niqab is a serious and legitimate security concern, as is any other form of hiding one's identity. The difference is that people like my daughter and her friend couldn't make religious claims when the security guard told them to uncover their faces, as those who wear the burka or the niqab do. As far as I am concerned, religion cannot be allowed to trump safety and security.
Which brings me to another defense of veiling that is sometimes used. People claim it is a symbol of a religion, no different than a Catholic wearing a crucifix, or a Sikh wearing a turban. These religious symbols, required or not, do not hide anyone's identity (and we've already established that veils are do not actually symbolize Islam, nor do they represent the concept of modesty, but vanity). Rather, the Sikh's turban or Catholic's crucifix pendant openly show for all the world to see that this identifiable person holds certain beliefs. The veil, on the other hand, hides the believer away. The irony of such a defense is that, in some Islamic nations, other religions are illegal, as are their symbols and trappings. A quick look at the persecution of Christians in various countries will find many examples. In Western nations that object to veils, it's the veils themselves that are the objection, not necessarily the religion of the person wearing it. Unlike countries like Iran, it's not illegal to hold certain religious beliefs, nor is anyone trying to force someone to turn their backs on their faith, while nations that require all women to cover their faces require this of all women, not just Muslim women, even though doing so is against Islam. To carry over the metaphor, Islamic nations that force all women to wear the burka or niqab would be like us forcing a Muslim woman (or anyone else not a Catholic, for that matter) to wear a crucifix.
Okay, so we've covered face veiling from a couple of perspectives. Veiling fails from a religious perspective, as it is not actually a religious requirement. It fails from a modesty perspective, since veiling is rooted in vanity, and as a symbol of Islam, as it it neither required by Islam, nor is it limited to Islam. It fails from a security perspective for obvious reasons.
There is, however, another objection I have against veils. This one is actually hinted at in the other reasons, and it is purely psychological.
Let's go back to the modesty angle. Wealthy women in the Middle East began wearing veils to protect their delicate skin from a harsh environment. This clearly separated them from other women. It was an exclusive, rather than inclusive, act. Wearing the veil was a way of saying "I'm better than other women; I don't have to slave away in the hot sun. I live a life so luxurious, I can wear this completely impractical garment. I don't have to worry about getting it caught on things or getting in the way, because I don't have to work for a living." In this vein, the veil is a sign of privilege as well as vanity. It was a flagrant way of saying that one's wealth and status (or those of their family) made them superior to everyone else. There's more to say in that direction, but I'll cover that in a moment.
Let's now go back to the veil from a religious perspective, as so many claim it is either a requirement or a symbol of Muslim faith. Religious symbols are typically ways to identify people. Turbans, for example, not only represent Sikhism, but their colours can symbolize different things. If someone wears an empty cross, you can assume a Christian faith, but if they're wearing a crucifix, you can usually assume Catholicism. If you see someone wearing a pentagram, it usually identifies them as pagan. Granted, many of these symbols are now worn by people as pure ornamentation. Sikh men are required to wear a turban, but Christians have no such requirement to wear any symbols. These days, you're not likely to see people wearing turbans just because they like the look (though they were in fashion for a while), but you do see people wearing a cross pendant that isn't Christian, or a Star of David that isn't Jewish.
The point being that these symbols serve a dual purpose: on the one hand, the person wearing the symbol is identifying themselves as being part of a select group. On the other, they are making a blatant statement about their beliefs. Early Christians began tattooing crosses on the inside of their wrists, despite biblical admonitions against body modification. Why? At the time, Christians were considered a dangerous element of society and frequently executed in rather horrible ways. Identifying oneself as Christian was very risky. Indelibly marking one's body with a Christian symbol was a bold statement, and in doing so, these early Christians knew they were putting their lives on the line for their belief. A tattoo on the inner wrist could be easily hidden by a sleeve. It could be used to identify themselves to other Christians, since no one else would risk such a thing. Having such a tattoo discovered by the authorities, on the other hand, was pretty much a death sentence.
The key point, however, is identity. These symbols boldly state to the world, "this is what I believe. This is who I am." What does a veil do? It hides identity. "This is what I believe, but you can't know who I am." The veil hides the believer from the rest of the world, even from other believers, since Muslim women are expected to hide their faces from all men not their father's, brothers or husbands. Some Muslim women have even gone so far as to never show their faces to their own husbands. The veil becomes, not a symbol, but a barrier. A wall of separation quite different from open symbols of faith. With the veil, Islam becomes a hidden, secret thing, separating the wearer from everyone else, even within their own faith.
Which leads me to the final objection I have. The veil is not just a physical barrier, but a psychological one. It dehumanizes the wearer and isolates her. There's two statements made here. For the forced wearing of the veil, the woman behind the veil becomes nothing. She is no one. She is less than chattel; she is not worth even her own identity. She is no longer allowed to be human.
For those who choose to wear the veil, the psychological barrier is different, but no less disturbing. Here, the statement is reversed. It's not that the woman behind the veil is not worth an identity; but that those on the other side of the veil are not worth knowing her identity. In an open faced society, this psychological barrier is perhaps more damaging than forced veiling. At least with forced veiling, those who disapprove of veiling can feel empathy for the woman behind the veil. She is still a person to them; if her own culture does not value her as an individual, ours does. For the woman who deliberately walls herself off from everyone else behind a veil, she is dehumanizing those who do not believe as she does. We are the ones who are unworthy; unworthy to see her face; unworthy to be part of her world; unworthy of knowing who she is.
In the end, my objections to the burka and the niqab comes from two sources. The legal objection is one of security, based on hidden identity and it not limited to just the veil. I believe that, barring the need to protect one's face from the elements or similar reasonable exceptions, facial coverings in public should be illegal. My other objection is psychological. Whether the veil is worn by choice or by force, it is a damaging psychological barrier that seperates and isolates the wearer from everyone else, including those who follow the same faith.
Update: A hearty welcome to my visitors from Blazing Cat Fur. I hope you enjoy your stay. :-)
Thursday, December 09, 2010
What's funny, what's not.
The news of late has had a lot of stories about Wikileaks and it's founder, Assange. I won't wade into my thoughts on the whole thing right now, as others have said what I think far better than I would have.
What I'm going to touch on today is humour - or lack of it, as the case may be. A while back, sumdood named Flanagan, identified as senior advisor to PM Harper, made a comment during an interview suggesting that Assange should be assassinated. I found out about this when the anti-right folks I know and follow practically shat their drawers over it, with a flurry of link sharing on their facebook pages, outraged blog posts, editorials and more. When it was pointed out that a) Flanagan is a *former* advisor to the PM, and now is basically just another nobody like the rest of us, and b) the remark was flippant and off the cuff humour, the outrage and disgust merely morphed from "it's disgusting for him to call for an assassination" to "it's disgusting for him to even joke about assassination." It was truly fascinating to watch the anti-right (and for the people I know personally, they are usually intelligent, rational and smart - it's only when politics or religion are brought up that their brains explode into emotional irrationality, fear and hatred) freaking out over a stupid joke. Especially considering how many on the anti-right have called for the arrest, death and occasional dismemberment of prominent people on the right, such as GWB, Palin or PM Harper. The difference being that they quite obviously were serious about their comments and upset that no one was following through with their wishes.
Perhaps most disturbing is that now, Flanagan is actually being investigated for his remark. If every person who made remarks like this, flippant or otherwise, were investigated, charged and jailed, we'd probably end up losing half our population, if not more - and from my personal observations, most of them would be people on the political left, who also seem to eager to censor or call for the arrest of those who disagree with them.
Most of this I generally tried to ignore, but I saw a new one today that had me thinking about that whole humour thing I mentioned earlier. One of my anti-right friends - a talented and otherwise intelligent woman, shared a link with this comment.
Curious, I followed her link to the Globe and Mail (aka the Mop and Pail). The story is of a woman (who voted Liberal in the last election, the article made sure to mention) who was "justifiably outraged" by Flanagan's joke, sent him an email. She wrote:
Not only didn't she get the joke, but she even "immediately called the police," was unable to sleep because she felt threatened by it, then went to the media over it, leading to the G&M headline, Tom Flanagan threatened me over wikileaks comment.
Then I thought of the comment my anti-right friend made when she shared this article. Let's look at this again, now that we've read the story.
Ignoring the rather condescending "accent" she chose to write in - an attempt at being flippant herself, perhaps - let's look at the content. After reading the article, clearly it was Flanagan making the joke and this Ms. Raymond didn't get it. However, the writer of this comment was among those outraged by Flanagan's comments originally. So she's actually saying that Flanagan is the person who can't take a joke and is a creep. What joke does she mean? I know it can't be Flanagan's "we know where you live" line. Does that mean she thinks Raymond's email was a joke? Let's look again at the portion of her email that's quoted.
Now, having been at the receiving end of some rather nasty comments from both the left and the right, I'm no stranger to attempts at intimidation, threats, insults and so on. There is a distinct difference between those from the right and the left. Folks on the right will simply tell me I'm insane or whatever for holding a position they disagree with. Those on the left try to intimidate me (drives them bonkers when it doesn't work) and hold moral sway over me (which also doesn't work). When it comes to threats, there's another significant difference. A person on the right might threaten to punch me or something, we post back and forth for a while, then in the end we either part ways on the subject or I get invited over for a beer; even if we never come to agree. Those on the left, however, become increasingly vicious in their personal insults, increasingly outraged and emotional, then simply break contact; they have no interest in seeing/reading a differing point of view, and certainly not from someone who can challenge their own views on a point by point basis, with references. *L*
Which is a long way to say I've been at the receiving end of some pretty nasty stuff that clearly was no intended as a joke. Most of the time I read them out to the rest of the family and we all get a good laugh out of the people who think so highly of themselves that they feel I should be intimidated by them.
In the case of the email exchange as quoted in the article, as well as other related stories I've read, I'm increasingly finding Flanagan hilarious. My anti-right friend clearly does not.
I still don't get her comment, though.
update: Dec. 14
After I wrote this, I was able to get Eldest to go over it with an editorial eye. As we talked about it later, she suggested a possible explanation for my anti-conservative friend's comment. Eldest suggested that she actually *did* get that Flanagan's one line response to the email was intended to be a joke. Her comment, then, was in the first part (the "wassamatta" part) supposed to be in Flanagan's voice, and the second part (calling him a creep) was her feelings about it. I think my daughter might be right, however if she is, this is how I would now interpret the comment. First, based on the "accent" the comment was written in, this person was projecting onto Flanagan a sort of ignorance or mentally inept thought process. Considering I don't think anyone has ever heard Flanagan speak like that, it would be pure projection on her part (and, one could argue, a projection of racial/cultural stereotypes based on the "accent" which, in turn, shows a level of prejudice I would not have expected of her). Then, in the second part, she finds him a creep... based on her interpretation and projections of his thoughts that are impossible for her to know, but which she seems to be quite comfortable assuming.
Which makes me wonder more about the person who wrote this comment, than the article she was responding to.
What I'm going to touch on today is humour - or lack of it, as the case may be. A while back, sumdood named Flanagan, identified as senior advisor to PM Harper, made a comment during an interview suggesting that Assange should be assassinated. I found out about this when the anti-right folks I know and follow practically shat their drawers over it, with a flurry of link sharing on their facebook pages, outraged blog posts, editorials and more. When it was pointed out that a) Flanagan is a *former* advisor to the PM, and now is basically just another nobody like the rest of us, and b) the remark was flippant and off the cuff humour, the outrage and disgust merely morphed from "it's disgusting for him to call for an assassination" to "it's disgusting for him to even joke about assassination." It was truly fascinating to watch the anti-right (and for the people I know personally, they are usually intelligent, rational and smart - it's only when politics or religion are brought up that their brains explode into emotional irrationality, fear and hatred) freaking out over a stupid joke. Especially considering how many on the anti-right have called for the arrest, death and occasional dismemberment of prominent people on the right, such as GWB, Palin or PM Harper. The difference being that they quite obviously were serious about their comments and upset that no one was following through with their wishes.
Perhaps most disturbing is that now, Flanagan is actually being investigated for his remark. If every person who made remarks like this, flippant or otherwise, were investigated, charged and jailed, we'd probably end up losing half our population, if not more - and from my personal observations, most of them would be people on the political left, who also seem to eager to censor or call for the arrest of those who disagree with them.
Most of this I generally tried to ignore, but I saw a new one today that had me thinking about that whole humour thing I mentioned earlier. One of my anti-right friends - a talented and otherwise intelligent woman, shared a link with this comment.
"Wassamatta? Cantcha take a joke? What a creep."
Curious, I followed her link to the Globe and Mail (aka the Mop and Pail). The story is of a woman (who voted Liberal in the last election, the article made sure to mention) who was "justifiably outraged" by Flanagan's joke, sent him an email. She wrote:
The e-mail that Ms. Reymond sent to Mr. Flanagan was blunt: “So you are in favour of assassinating people that you disagree with. Does the Reform Party have no ethical basis? Agree with us or get assassinated?”To which he replied with just one line.
“Better be careful, we know where you live.”I admit, I just about laughed out loud when I read that. Flanagan clearly has a very twisted sense of humour. It was a stupid joke to make - obviously someone who wrote the email she did wouldn't get it.
Not only didn't she get the joke, but she even "immediately called the police," was unable to sleep because she felt threatened by it, then went to the media over it, leading to the G&M headline, Tom Flanagan threatened me over wikileaks comment.
She said she is not asking that criminal charges be laid against Mr. Flanagan.Good Lord. She actually believes Flanagan would hunt her down and harm her? All this tells me is that she's a rather special little snowflake who needs to go back to that special little bubble so many anti-rightists seem to live in. On the other hand, maybe she needs to stay away from them. After all, she had to get the idea that he might actually mean to harm her from somewhere and, as I mentioned before, when the anti-rightists make these sorts of comments, they clearly aren't joking. Likewise, observing them at various protests and demonstrations, I would have to say that comments like this from one of them would actually warrant concern.
“I just want an apology from him and assurance that he won't harm me.”
Then I thought of the comment my anti-right friend made when she shared this article. Let's look at this again, now that we've read the story.
"Wassamatta? Cantcha take a joke? What a creep."
Ignoring the rather condescending "accent" she chose to write in - an attempt at being flippant herself, perhaps - let's look at the content. After reading the article, clearly it was Flanagan making the joke and this Ms. Raymond didn't get it. However, the writer of this comment was among those outraged by Flanagan's comments originally. So she's actually saying that Flanagan is the person who can't take a joke and is a creep. What joke does she mean? I know it can't be Flanagan's "we know where you live" line. Does that mean she thinks Raymond's email was a joke? Let's look again at the portion of her email that's quoted.
“So you are in favour of assassinating people that you disagree with. Does the Reform Party have no ethical basis? Agree with us or get assassinated?”Does that look like any kind of joke? Maybe I don't get leftist humour, but I'm not seeing it.
Now, having been at the receiving end of some rather nasty comments from both the left and the right, I'm no stranger to attempts at intimidation, threats, insults and so on. There is a distinct difference between those from the right and the left. Folks on the right will simply tell me I'm insane or whatever for holding a position they disagree with. Those on the left try to intimidate me (drives them bonkers when it doesn't work) and hold moral sway over me (which also doesn't work). When it comes to threats, there's another significant difference. A person on the right might threaten to punch me or something, we post back and forth for a while, then in the end we either part ways on the subject or I get invited over for a beer; even if we never come to agree. Those on the left, however, become increasingly vicious in their personal insults, increasingly outraged and emotional, then simply break contact; they have no interest in seeing/reading a differing point of view, and certainly not from someone who can challenge their own views on a point by point basis, with references. *L*
Which is a long way to say I've been at the receiving end of some pretty nasty stuff that clearly was no intended as a joke. Most of the time I read them out to the rest of the family and we all get a good laugh out of the people who think so highly of themselves that they feel I should be intimidated by them.
In the case of the email exchange as quoted in the article, as well as other related stories I've read, I'm increasingly finding Flanagan hilarious. My anti-right friend clearly does not.
I still don't get her comment, though.
update: Dec. 14
After I wrote this, I was able to get Eldest to go over it with an editorial eye. As we talked about it later, she suggested a possible explanation for my anti-conservative friend's comment. Eldest suggested that she actually *did* get that Flanagan's one line response to the email was intended to be a joke. Her comment, then, was in the first part (the "wassamatta" part) supposed to be in Flanagan's voice, and the second part (calling him a creep) was her feelings about it. I think my daughter might be right, however if she is, this is how I would now interpret the comment. First, based on the "accent" the comment was written in, this person was projecting onto Flanagan a sort of ignorance or mentally inept thought process. Considering I don't think anyone has ever heard Flanagan speak like that, it would be pure projection on her part (and, one could argue, a projection of racial/cultural stereotypes based on the "accent" which, in turn, shows a level of prejudice I would not have expected of her). Then, in the second part, she finds him a creep... based on her interpretation and projections of his thoughts that are impossible for her to know, but which she seems to be quite comfortable assuming.
Which makes me wonder more about the person who wrote this comment, than the article she was responding to.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
My confusion about "don't ask, don't tell."
For many years, I've had confusion about why people were so upset about the US military's "Don't ask, don't tell," policy. This confusion grew in the last few years as more people fought to repeal the policy, which seems to be reaching a fever pitch these days.
Let me explain.
As I understood it, "don't ask, don't tell," simply meant "we don't care what your sexuality is, as long as you can do the job." It seemed to mean that a person's sexuality was irrelevant - no one wanted to know, no one cared to know, it's your own business. Isn't this a good thing? Isn't this ensuring equality?
So when people argued to repeal the policy, it seemed to me that what they were saying is that a person's sexuality did matter, and that everyone should know or care what each individual's sexuality was. Considering the sort of homophobia my husband witnessed in the military, this just didn't seem like a good idea.
I finally mentioned my confusion to my husband who explained to me that, in the US, it's actually illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" was implemented as a way for gays to serve in the military, so long as no one knew they were gay. Once it became known, because it was illegal, the military would then be forced to boot them out. What a bizarre concept!
So this leads me to a new confusion. People are calling for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Don't they really mean that they want it to no longer be illegal for gays to serve in the military? Shouldn't they be protesting the law, not the policy that allowed for a loophole around the law?
I think in the end, it's a matter or semantics. The protesters really are wanting to repeal the law, but the policy is so connected to the law, they're viewed by pretty much everyone as one and the same.
Personally, while I think it's ridiculous to bar people from serving in the military simply for being gay, I still think my original interpretation of "don't ask, don't tell" is a good thing; unless that person's sexuality is somehow causing them to not be able to do their job (and I really can't think of how that would be), who cares? Sure, it might come up socially, but that's a different issue.
In the end, as long as the person can perform their military duties, who gives a rip what their sexuality is?
Let me explain.
As I understood it, "don't ask, don't tell," simply meant "we don't care what your sexuality is, as long as you can do the job." It seemed to mean that a person's sexuality was irrelevant - no one wanted to know, no one cared to know, it's your own business. Isn't this a good thing? Isn't this ensuring equality?
So when people argued to repeal the policy, it seemed to me that what they were saying is that a person's sexuality did matter, and that everyone should know or care what each individual's sexuality was. Considering the sort of homophobia my husband witnessed in the military, this just didn't seem like a good idea.
I finally mentioned my confusion to my husband who explained to me that, in the US, it's actually illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" was implemented as a way for gays to serve in the military, so long as no one knew they were gay. Once it became known, because it was illegal, the military would then be forced to boot them out. What a bizarre concept!
So this leads me to a new confusion. People are calling for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Don't they really mean that they want it to no longer be illegal for gays to serve in the military? Shouldn't they be protesting the law, not the policy that allowed for a loophole around the law?
I think in the end, it's a matter or semantics. The protesters really are wanting to repeal the law, but the policy is so connected to the law, they're viewed by pretty much everyone as one and the same.
Personally, while I think it's ridiculous to bar people from serving in the military simply for being gay, I still think my original interpretation of "don't ask, don't tell" is a good thing; unless that person's sexuality is somehow causing them to not be able to do their job (and I really can't think of how that would be), who cares? Sure, it might come up socially, but that's a different issue.
In the end, as long as the person can perform their military duties, who gives a rip what their sexuality is?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
I want my country back
(This one's been sitting in my drafts since October 19 - that's what I get for not finishing a post right away. I forget to get back to it!)
There's a Huffington Post opinion piece that's being passed around a lot by my friends on the far left. I'm going to have to stop calling them liberals, or even lefties. I don't want to imply that all my friends on the political left are like this. I think it would be more accurate to call them anti-Conservative, since they leap on anything that paints conservatism in a negative light while ignoring the positives (and if I sound like I'm picking in my anti-conservative friends, it's because my right leaning friends don't pass around this kind of stuff, so there's been nothing to pick on). In fact, anything positive gets twisted around to become a negative.
Take this piece they're passing around, mocking the "I want my country back" mantra. You can save yourself some time if you want. They're using the term to attack Republicans and TEA partiers (TEA is capitalized because it actually stands for Taxed Enough Already, but it took me a while to find that out, since it doesn't get much mention) by twisting the meaning of the phrase and saying these right-wing nutjobs (of course, everyone on the right is a nut job. They're also all white, old, male, Christian... you get the picture) want to turn back time to some blissful Luddite utopia, with no technology, no equality, or no medical advances, and where coloured folks knew their place, and there was no religious diversity. Lefties, of course, want to move forward, not back, with good sanitation, medical care, etc. Because folks on the right don't want any of these things. They want to take their country "back."
Which is typical bovine feces coming from the anti-conservative crowd. First, they tell us what those on the right supposedly are, (ignorant, bigoted, whatever), then tell us why they are wrong, then tell us how oh-so-superior folks on the left are.
Of course, they're missing the point entirely. It's not "I want my country back to..." something. It's "I want my country back from..." something.
While there certainly are elements on the right that have some strange Utopian image of a blissful past, typically coloured by the lens of childhood memory rather than reality, it is a mistake to paint all folks on the right like that, just as it would be to paint everyone on the left the same way, even though many of them are just as guilty of putting forward an image of that past that has more to do with childhood memories or ideology than reality.
People who say they want their country back aren't saying they want to go back to the time of June Cleaver and Father Knows Best. What they want is to reclaim their country from... oh, a whole bunch of things, such as:
- exorbitant taxes that penalize those who work for it (that would be the middle class, mostly), and punish the wealthy for being wealthy, only to see those tax dollars disappear into billion (or trillion, in the US) dollar debts, endless layers of bureaucracy and boondoggles, and to fund special interest groups or pay people who don't work (no one is begrudging a helping hand to those in need, but those who play the system)
- special interest groups that are convinced they know what's good for us better then we do, so they work to change laws and regulations to control everything from what kind of fuel we put in our cars (except, of course, those that would take our cars away from us entirely), where we should live and in what kind of dwelling, what we should watch or read, what we should be allowed to eat or drink, how much of either, and even what our body size and shape should be.
- revisionism of religious reality, both current and historical, by the powers that be and vocal minorities that try to tell us that our countries' founders weren't actually Christians (this applies to both Canada and the US), unless it's to claim those Christians were actually evil, or that our laws aren't actually based on Christianity, or that the majority of our current populations aren't actually still Christian (in both Canada and the US, the majority of the population is some Christian affiliation, with the majority of those being Catholic, with the next category being "no religious affiliation" followed by Muslim and Jewish, with some regional variations). Yes, we have a diversity of ethnicity's, cultures and religion, but we shouldn't have to pander to any special interest group just because they're not white or not Christian.
- extreme political correctness, where instead of just trying to be polite and caring of other's differences, the majority is now expected to cowtow to vocal minorities to the point that people are afraid to say "merry Christmas" or compliment someone on their ethnic garb without fear of offense.
- a nation where, instead of a meritocracy, where the best people for a particular job are hired, companies are required to meet ethnic or gender based quotas (white males need not apply).
- a bizarre, twisted notion of cultural relativism, where all cultures are supposedly equally good, but the US, the West, and those of European background are actually evil or wrong for their very successes, while others are considered better for being less exploitative, or more "natural" even though women have no or few rights, gays are jailed, beaten and/or executed and where a 17 year old woman who dared go out in public (or was just rumored to have) with a man not her husband, father or brother, was beaten, stomped and stoned to death on the street by a mob, while the crowd took photos and videos on their cell phones and posted them on the internet. (No, I'm not going to link to that one. I watched it, not realized what I was about to see, and it still haunts me).
- a society that thinks we should apologize for being successful, relatively wealthy, and enjoying material comforts, and would have us forced to give those up and would take that wealth and turn it over to corrupt organizations, such as the UN, or dictator governments in some sort of bizarre attempt to make everyone equal, not realizing that taking from the rich and giving to the poor just leaves everyone poor (why would anyone strive to get ahead if the fruits of their efforts will just be taken away and given to others).
There are more examples than I can think of right now. These are just a few of the things TEA Party folks (who aren't a cohesive group to begin with) are trying to take their country back from.
There's a Huffington Post opinion piece that's being passed around a lot by my friends on the far left. I'm going to have to stop calling them liberals, or even lefties. I don't want to imply that all my friends on the political left are like this. I think it would be more accurate to call them anti-Conservative, since they leap on anything that paints conservatism in a negative light while ignoring the positives (and if I sound like I'm picking in my anti-conservative friends, it's because my right leaning friends don't pass around this kind of stuff, so there's been nothing to pick on). In fact, anything positive gets twisted around to become a negative.
Take this piece they're passing around, mocking the "I want my country back" mantra. You can save yourself some time if you want. They're using the term to attack Republicans and TEA partiers (TEA is capitalized because it actually stands for Taxed Enough Already, but it took me a while to find that out, since it doesn't get much mention) by twisting the meaning of the phrase and saying these right-wing nutjobs (of course, everyone on the right is a nut job. They're also all white, old, male, Christian... you get the picture) want to turn back time to some blissful Luddite utopia, with no technology, no equality, or no medical advances, and where coloured folks knew their place, and there was no religious diversity. Lefties, of course, want to move forward, not back, with good sanitation, medical care, etc. Because folks on the right don't want any of these things. They want to take their country "back."
Which is typical bovine feces coming from the anti-conservative crowd. First, they tell us what those on the right supposedly are, (ignorant, bigoted, whatever), then tell us why they are wrong, then tell us how oh-so-superior folks on the left are.
Of course, they're missing the point entirely. It's not "I want my country back to..." something. It's "I want my country back from..." something.
While there certainly are elements on the right that have some strange Utopian image of a blissful past, typically coloured by the lens of childhood memory rather than reality, it is a mistake to paint all folks on the right like that, just as it would be to paint everyone on the left the same way, even though many of them are just as guilty of putting forward an image of that past that has more to do with childhood memories or ideology than reality.
People who say they want their country back aren't saying they want to go back to the time of June Cleaver and Father Knows Best. What they want is to reclaim their country from... oh, a whole bunch of things, such as:
- exorbitant taxes that penalize those who work for it (that would be the middle class, mostly), and punish the wealthy for being wealthy, only to see those tax dollars disappear into billion (or trillion, in the US) dollar debts, endless layers of bureaucracy and boondoggles, and to fund special interest groups or pay people who don't work (no one is begrudging a helping hand to those in need, but those who play the system)
- special interest groups that are convinced they know what's good for us better then we do, so they work to change laws and regulations to control everything from what kind of fuel we put in our cars (except, of course, those that would take our cars away from us entirely), where we should live and in what kind of dwelling, what we should watch or read, what we should be allowed to eat or drink, how much of either, and even what our body size and shape should be.
- revisionism of religious reality, both current and historical, by the powers that be and vocal minorities that try to tell us that our countries' founders weren't actually Christians (this applies to both Canada and the US), unless it's to claim those Christians were actually evil, or that our laws aren't actually based on Christianity, or that the majority of our current populations aren't actually still Christian (in both Canada and the US, the majority of the population is some Christian affiliation, with the majority of those being Catholic, with the next category being "no religious affiliation" followed by Muslim and Jewish, with some regional variations). Yes, we have a diversity of ethnicity's, cultures and religion, but we shouldn't have to pander to any special interest group just because they're not white or not Christian.
- extreme political correctness, where instead of just trying to be polite and caring of other's differences, the majority is now expected to cowtow to vocal minorities to the point that people are afraid to say "merry Christmas" or compliment someone on their ethnic garb without fear of offense.
- a nation where, instead of a meritocracy, where the best people for a particular job are hired, companies are required to meet ethnic or gender based quotas (white males need not apply).
- a bizarre, twisted notion of cultural relativism, where all cultures are supposedly equally good, but the US, the West, and those of European background are actually evil or wrong for their very successes, while others are considered better for being less exploitative, or more "natural" even though women have no or few rights, gays are jailed, beaten and/or executed and where a 17 year old woman who dared go out in public (or was just rumored to have) with a man not her husband, father or brother, was beaten, stomped and stoned to death on the street by a mob, while the crowd took photos and videos on their cell phones and posted them on the internet. (No, I'm not going to link to that one. I watched it, not realized what I was about to see, and it still haunts me).
- a society that thinks we should apologize for being successful, relatively wealthy, and enjoying material comforts, and would have us forced to give those up and would take that wealth and turn it over to corrupt organizations, such as the UN, or dictator governments in some sort of bizarre attempt to make everyone equal, not realizing that taking from the rich and giving to the poor just leaves everyone poor (why would anyone strive to get ahead if the fruits of their efforts will just be taken away and given to others).
There are more examples than I can think of right now. These are just a few of the things TEA Party folks (who aren't a cohesive group to begin with) are trying to take their country back from.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Readers: What did you do?
While visiting Free Range Kids today, I found out about this virtual funeral for the swing set. It seems a young boy jumped off a swing and broke his arm. His parents sued, and the county responded by getting rid of swing sets in playgrounds (though that's apparently changed back).
I well remember jumping off swing sets when I was a kid. Heck, I'd still do it if my knees weren't shot. *L* My kids have jumped off many a swing, too, and had a blast doing it.
It got me to thinking of the many things I and others did when we were young that were potentially dangerous, but we did them anyway. Sometimes we got hurt. Most of the time, we didn't. Once in an extremely rare while, someone got killed, but no one I've ever known.
In telling my kids stories of the things I did as a kid, I've often found myself wondering how we survived! But survive we did, and had a blast at the same time. When my own kids would do something that got my Mommy fears going, I would remind myself of the things I'd done that were far more dangerous and made myself back off. I'm glad I did.
Being on the farm opened up all sorts of opportunities for potential disaster. Here are just a few things I remember doing.
Our barn was a typical 2 level building with the upper level being the hay loft. My dad had built a single level lean-to on one side that was slightly shorter than the eaves of the barn roof. My youngest brother and I would climb onto the lower roof of the lean-to, then climb up the roof of the barn to its peak. I always envied that my brother could just run straight up the side. I had to climb up using the cable from the lightning rods.
There were 4 lightning rods on our barn roof. One of the things we discovered, as we balanced our way back and forth on the peak of the roof, was that the tips came off. These tips also fit onto our fingers. We took turns putting them onto our fingers and pretending they were long fingernails or dangerous claws. Then we put them back, clambered back down the roof of the lean to, and went on our merry way.
In the winter, when clearing the snow away from the entrances to the barn and lean-to, my dad built up a pile of snow a few feet away from the barn - far enough away that we could open the doors wide and the cows could mill about somewhat. My brothers, some of the boys from neighbours farms and I would climb onto the roof of the lean-to and jump into the snow, trying to get as much distance out as possible to avoid the cleared space under us. It wasn't soft snow, by any means, but a rather hard packed pile. It was soft enough, I guess, as we never got hurt.
Another childhood favorite goes back to before we got a hay baler. We had the old fashion haystacks, which my father would pay a neighbour with a house moving trailer to move from our fields to the hay yard beside the barn. They were placed next to each other in two groups, with a narrow path in between, leading to a side entrance to the barn. Though the stacks were placed next to each other, there was usually enough space that we could squeeze between them, as if they were tunnels. I remember winter nights when my brothers, the neighbourhood boys and I would play hide and seek around the haystacks, climbing on top of them, jumping from stack to stack, jumping from stacks to the lean-to roof and back again, and generally having a blast. Other nights, on my own, I would climb to the top of one of the stacks and lie on my back, watching the northern lights or finding patterns in the stars while listening to the sounds of owls, coyotes and other creatures I never identified.
Of course, there were always trees to climb. As usual, it was my youngest brother and I that climbed them together. I could never make it as high as he could, though! We even had our favorite trees with branches splayed out in just the right way to lean back and get comfortable. I spent many happy hours in trees. Years later, when my kids would come home from climbing nearby spruce trees and I'd find their clothes ruined by resin and tears, I found myself trying to remember if I'd ever caused my mother the same dismay over destroyed clothing. I couldn't remember, but I must have at some point.
Another adventure involved a large tarp and bale twine. My brothers and I tied lengths of twine to the grommet holes around the edges. Two of us would then hold it up to the wind, while a third would be holding the lengths of twine, in hopes a strong enough gust would give us a parachute ride. It never quite worked well, but we did get some air time once in a while. The tarp was just too big and heavy to work well. It was fun to try, though!
Someone got an idea, though. The bale twine came out again (there was always lots of it around) and we tied together enough to reach from one end of the barn to the other. The ends were tied to the first and last of the bottom cords, but not before a large pulley with a hook on it was placed on the twine for a makeshift zip line. Loose hay was piled up in the middle of the hayloft, and we all took turns climbing onto the door frame, grabbing the hook and taking a ride down the line until we dropped into the pile of hay.
I was on my second turn when the rope broke. I landed on my butt in the hay, and the hook on the pulley hit me on the head. I remember sitting in the hay, gleefully rubbing the spot on my head and saying "that hurt!" Then I looked at my hand and saw the blood.
Lots of blood.
Well, I started screaming and crying and flipping out. My youngest brother spirited me away to the house and got me cleaned up while begging me not to tell our parents. I seem to remember a lot of that. Both the cleaning up of blood and injuries, and the keeping it from my parents!
Years later, I shaved my head and discovered I still have a scar from this incident.
There were a great many things like this that we did as kids. As I got older and got to know more kids that lived in town, I got to really appreciate just how good we had it on the farm. The townies didn't have haystacks to play hide and seek in, ponds to slog around in, bushes to explore and puffballs to stomp on. Sure, they had fancy things we didn't, but I had no envy for any of it. As time went on, I especially came to appreciate the time I had as a child to just wander around in the bush by myself (well, the dogs where with me), lost in my own thoughts and imagination. I didn't realize it for many years, but those were times of significant emotional and intellectual growth and development that serves me well even now. I think the greatest unexpected benefit has been that I am quite content to be alone in the quiet. It seems to me that many people seem unable to handle being on their own. They have to have TV or music, video games or be on the phone, or somehow fill the silence with noise and activity. It seems they literally don't know how to be alone in their own thoughts. When I had kids of my own, I tried to give them that freedom to be alone. I don't know that I accomplished it very well, but I'm hoping I did at least a little.
So now I'm turning it over to you, dear reader. What do you remember doing as a kid that, looking back today, would now be considered too dangerous, too messy, or just not allowed anymore for one reason or another? How free range was your own childhood? Was there something in your youth that you now really appreciate, that our modern culture no longer allows for children?
Let me know.
I well remember jumping off swing sets when I was a kid. Heck, I'd still do it if my knees weren't shot. *L* My kids have jumped off many a swing, too, and had a blast doing it.
It got me to thinking of the many things I and others did when we were young that were potentially dangerous, but we did them anyway. Sometimes we got hurt. Most of the time, we didn't. Once in an extremely rare while, someone got killed, but no one I've ever known.
In telling my kids stories of the things I did as a kid, I've often found myself wondering how we survived! But survive we did, and had a blast at the same time. When my own kids would do something that got my Mommy fears going, I would remind myself of the things I'd done that were far more dangerous and made myself back off. I'm glad I did.
Being on the farm opened up all sorts of opportunities for potential disaster. Here are just a few things I remember doing.
Our barn was a typical 2 level building with the upper level being the hay loft. My dad had built a single level lean-to on one side that was slightly shorter than the eaves of the barn roof. My youngest brother and I would climb onto the lower roof of the lean-to, then climb up the roof of the barn to its peak. I always envied that my brother could just run straight up the side. I had to climb up using the cable from the lightning rods.
There were 4 lightning rods on our barn roof. One of the things we discovered, as we balanced our way back and forth on the peak of the roof, was that the tips came off. These tips also fit onto our fingers. We took turns putting them onto our fingers and pretending they were long fingernails or dangerous claws. Then we put them back, clambered back down the roof of the lean to, and went on our merry way.
In the winter, when clearing the snow away from the entrances to the barn and lean-to, my dad built up a pile of snow a few feet away from the barn - far enough away that we could open the doors wide and the cows could mill about somewhat. My brothers, some of the boys from neighbours farms and I would climb onto the roof of the lean-to and jump into the snow, trying to get as much distance out as possible to avoid the cleared space under us. It wasn't soft snow, by any means, but a rather hard packed pile. It was soft enough, I guess, as we never got hurt.
Another childhood favorite goes back to before we got a hay baler. We had the old fashion haystacks, which my father would pay a neighbour with a house moving trailer to move from our fields to the hay yard beside the barn. They were placed next to each other in two groups, with a narrow path in between, leading to a side entrance to the barn. Though the stacks were placed next to each other, there was usually enough space that we could squeeze between them, as if they were tunnels. I remember winter nights when my brothers, the neighbourhood boys and I would play hide and seek around the haystacks, climbing on top of them, jumping from stack to stack, jumping from stacks to the lean-to roof and back again, and generally having a blast. Other nights, on my own, I would climb to the top of one of the stacks and lie on my back, watching the northern lights or finding patterns in the stars while listening to the sounds of owls, coyotes and other creatures I never identified.
Of course, there were always trees to climb. As usual, it was my youngest brother and I that climbed them together. I could never make it as high as he could, though! We even had our favorite trees with branches splayed out in just the right way to lean back and get comfortable. I spent many happy hours in trees. Years later, when my kids would come home from climbing nearby spruce trees and I'd find their clothes ruined by resin and tears, I found myself trying to remember if I'd ever caused my mother the same dismay over destroyed clothing. I couldn't remember, but I must have at some point.
Another adventure involved a large tarp and bale twine. My brothers and I tied lengths of twine to the grommet holes around the edges. Two of us would then hold it up to the wind, while a third would be holding the lengths of twine, in hopes a strong enough gust would give us a parachute ride. It never quite worked well, but we did get some air time once in a while. The tarp was just too big and heavy to work well. It was fun to try, though!
Someone got an idea, though. The bale twine came out again (there was always lots of it around) and we tied together enough to reach from one end of the barn to the other. The ends were tied to the first and last of the bottom cords, but not before a large pulley with a hook on it was placed on the twine for a makeshift zip line. Loose hay was piled up in the middle of the hayloft, and we all took turns climbing onto the door frame, grabbing the hook and taking a ride down the line until we dropped into the pile of hay.
I was on my second turn when the rope broke. I landed on my butt in the hay, and the hook on the pulley hit me on the head. I remember sitting in the hay, gleefully rubbing the spot on my head and saying "that hurt!" Then I looked at my hand and saw the blood.
Lots of blood.
Well, I started screaming and crying and flipping out. My youngest brother spirited me away to the house and got me cleaned up while begging me not to tell our parents. I seem to remember a lot of that. Both the cleaning up of blood and injuries, and the keeping it from my parents!
Years later, I shaved my head and discovered I still have a scar from this incident.
There were a great many things like this that we did as kids. As I got older and got to know more kids that lived in town, I got to really appreciate just how good we had it on the farm. The townies didn't have haystacks to play hide and seek in, ponds to slog around in, bushes to explore and puffballs to stomp on. Sure, they had fancy things we didn't, but I had no envy for any of it. As time went on, I especially came to appreciate the time I had as a child to just wander around in the bush by myself (well, the dogs where with me), lost in my own thoughts and imagination. I didn't realize it for many years, but those were times of significant emotional and intellectual growth and development that serves me well even now. I think the greatest unexpected benefit has been that I am quite content to be alone in the quiet. It seems to me that many people seem unable to handle being on their own. They have to have TV or music, video games or be on the phone, or somehow fill the silence with noise and activity. It seems they literally don't know how to be alone in their own thoughts. When I had kids of my own, I tried to give them that freedom to be alone. I don't know that I accomplished it very well, but I'm hoping I did at least a little.
So now I'm turning it over to you, dear reader. What do you remember doing as a kid that, looking back today, would now be considered too dangerous, too messy, or just not allowed anymore for one reason or another? How free range was your own childhood? Was there something in your youth that you now really appreciate, that our modern culture no longer allows for children?
Let me know.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Redirect...
I was going to post a movie review here, but felt it was more appropriate for my other blog. Feel free to head over and give it a read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)