In ons moderne samelewing is die vrou selfstandig, selfversekerd en sy bevorder haar loopbaan. 'n Paar eeue gelede sou 'n vrou ween die vrye denke as hekse vermoor word.
Vroue het 'n spesifieke rol in die wereld gehad. Een van die vrou se rolle was om kuns te inspireer, om 'n muse te wees. Die bekendste is sekerlik Beatrice Portinari, die vrou wat Dante Alighieri se lewenswerke - La Divina Commedia en La Vita Nuova - geinspireer het.
Dante het Beatrice die eerste keer gesien toe hy nege jaar oud was. Hy het haar eenmaal aanskou en was op haar verlief. Dante het sy hele lewe lank vir Beatrice byna aanbid. Volgens La Vita Nuova het Dante Beatrice net drie keer in sy lewe gesien.
La Divina Commedia is begin toe Dante tussen 35 en 40 jaar oud was. Selfs toe het dit vir Dante gevoel asof beatrice hom dophou en geestelik lei. Sy moes dus 'n enorme impak op Dante gehad het, dat hy haar so onthou het.
Die feit maark Beatrice onmiddelik anders as ander muses. Gewoonlik is die muse se enigste invloed 'n Latynse "illa" voor die gedig; of 'n "laat ons begin, volgens u wil" aan die begin van 'n epos. Maar beatrice was meer as slegs inspirasie. Sy word die onderwerp van Dante we werk - veral in La Vita Nuova.
Dante se sogenaamde aanbidding van Beatrice word in Paradisio, die derde deel van La Divina Commedia duidelik. Beatrice lei vir Dante na God. Dit word beskou as 'n metafoor wat daarop dui dat Dante God gevind het deur sy liefde of agting vir Beatrice.
Die kwessie is dan dus: wat was Beatrice se rol as muse en waarom het sy Dante so sterk beinvloed?
Alhoewel Dante voor die Nederlandse digter, Jacques Perk geleef het, beskryf Perk die Muse in sy gedigte baie goed.
Perk roep na Skoonheid en se dat haar naam heilig is. Perk haal dan die Bybel aan en beveel dat Skoonheid se wil geskied en dat haar heerskappy kom. Die opsomming van hoe die kunstenaar die muse beskou, word aan die einde van die derde strofe gestel; hy se dat, in vergelyking met die Skoonheid, aanbid die aarde geen ander god nie!
Dit is presies hoe Dante oor Beatrice gevoel het, maar hy stel nie eksplisiet dat beatrice aantreklik of slim is nie. is dit dan blote toeval dat Perk deur Mathilde Thomas geinspireer is? Perk het tog meer kontag met Mathilde gehad as Dante met Beatrice - dit verduidelik moontlik waarom hy eksplisiet oor haar skoonheid en wysheid skryf.
Dante word beskou as een van die wereld se beste skrywers en die Divina Commedia as sy heel beste werk. Dit is duidelik dat Dante die Commedia nie sonder Beatrice se inspirasie kon skryf nie. Mens kan dan aflei dat die muse se rol in die samelewing een van die heel belangrikstes is. As Dante nie sonder sy muse kon skryf nie (en Perk ook nie), sal daar dus sonder muses absolutt geen goeie en hoe kuns bestaan nie!
Een van die belangrikste elemente van enige kultuur is hul kuns. As 'n kultuur bestudder word, word die kuns ook bespreek. As kuns 'n fundementele deel van kultuur is, en as kuns nie sonder 'n muse kan bestaan nie, is dit dan vanselfsprekend dat 'n kultuur - 'n samelewing - nie sonder 'n muse en dus vroue kan funksioneer nie.
In die bekende Engels- en Nederlandstalige skrywers, Shakespeare en Nijhoff, se werke, word daar nie na 'n muse verwys soos in Dante en perk s'n nie. Maar tog is daar wel 'n vroulike invloed in party van hulle sonnette. Die sonnette handel oor die ordinere, nie-goddelike vrou as muse. Die werke herinder mens aan die feit dat Beatrice en Mathilde ook maar normale vroue was. Dante en Perk het die vroue, hul muses, in hulle literatuur verhef tot goddelikheid.
Die vrou, selfs die ordinere vrou, speel duidelik 'n groot rol in die samelewing. Kuns en literatuur is vandag in ons post-modernistiesie wereld nog steeds relevant en die vrou se invloed dus belangrik. Daar is tog agter elke man...
Showing posts with label SOCIAL COMMENTARY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOCIAL COMMENTARY. Show all posts
Monday, March 7, 2011
Christendom En Islam deur J Lategan
Christendom en Islam is albei gelowe. In ons moderne samelewing is die geloof in God, of 'n god, as argais en irrelevant beskou; en tog is die grootste invloed op ons lewe, die Verenigde State van Amerika, 'n trots Christelike land. Veral na die elfde September 2001 is Islam in Westerse samelewing as 'n "boosheid," 'n "contra-Christelike geloof" of "terroristiese groep" beskou. Moslems is dus, ongelukking, aan stereotipering en diskriminasie blootgestel. In hierdie opstel word die feit dat Christendom en Islam eintlik baie eenders is bespreek.
Die sentrale idee, of "vereiste" vir albei die gelowe is dat mens in God glo. Vele mense is van die mening dat Christene in God glo en Moslems in Allah of 'n "ander god." In alle werklikheid is Alla die Standaard Arabiese woord vir "God", die selfde God waarin Christene glo.
Daar is vele Christelike denominasies en daar is wel verskille in wat hul glo en hoe hulle kerkdienste verloop. maar alle Christendom is in 'n paar konsepte gebaseer. Die konsepte word in the Geloofsbelydenis van Nicea uitgele. Die eerste, en sekerlik die belangrikste reel is: Ons glo in een God, die almagtige Vader, die Skepper van die hemel en aarde, van alle sigbare en onsigbare dinge.
In die Inleiding tot die Koran staa: Alle heerlikehid aan Allah die Allerhoogste, (hy is) vol gendade. Alles is deur hom geskape. Allah word ook in die eerste dele van die Koran nie "Allah" of "God" genoem nie, Hy word na verwys as "Onderhouder van die werelde," "Heer" en "Skepper" -byna die selfdeas in Die Bybel.
Die hoof verskil tussen Christene en ander gelowe, insluitend islam, is Jesus Christus, waarvandan die woord "Christen" kom.
Christene glo dat Jesus "deur die heilige Gees uit die maagd Maria vlees geword [het]: Hy het mens geword." Moslems glo ook dat Maria maagd was toe Jesus deur God se woord aan haar gebore is, maard ie dat Hy die Seun van god is nie. Beide gelowe stel dat Jesus deur God gestuur is om Sy woord aan Israel te verkondig en is die vermoe gegee om wonderwerke uit te voer.
Volgens Christen tekste, is Jesus "vir ons gekruisig; Hy het gely en is begrawe," en die heel belangrikste, "op die derde dag he Hy...opgestaan en na die Hemel opgevaar."
Moslems glo dat Jesus nie gekruisig is nie en dat Hy nie eers dood is nie. islam tekste stel wel dat Jesus hemel toe opgevaar het en dat hy nog steeds lewendig was toe dit gebur het.
Vir Christene is Jesus die Verlosser en God se Seun. Volgens islam was Jesus niks meer as 'n profeet nie. Daar word baie in die Koran na Jesus verwys, en al kon hy wonderwerke uitvoer, glo Moslems dat Hy maar net 'n man was. Mohammad is Islam se hoof profeet.
Mohammed het openbaringe van God ontvang en dit neergeskryf. die skrifte is die Koran en islam is deur Mohammad met die Koran gevesting.
Die Koran is nie, en mag nie, vertaal word die - nie eers in die moderne Arabiese variante nie. wanneer Moslems bid gebruik hulle Klassieke, of "Koraniese", Arabies. Dit is amper presies die teenoorgestelde van die Christen Bybel. Die Bybel is nie deur 'n enkel mens geskryf nie en nie in een enkel taal nie. Die Bybel is 'n versameling tekste wat in Latyn, Grieks, Aramees en Hebreeus geskryf is en is vandag die mees vertaalde boek.
Tenspyte van die ooreenkomste tussen die twee gelowe, tenspyte van die feit dat albei gelowe in die selfde God glo, is daar eindloos konflik tussen Christene en Moslems. En tog staan daar in die Koran dat "almal wat in die Koran glo, en diegene wat Joodse skrifte volg, en Christene en Sabiers - en enige iemand wat in God glo...sal vanaf God hulle belonging kry; en hulle sal geen vrees he nie."
Die sentrale idee, of "vereiste" vir albei die gelowe is dat mens in God glo. Vele mense is van die mening dat Christene in God glo en Moslems in Allah of 'n "ander god." In alle werklikheid is Alla die Standaard Arabiese woord vir "God", die selfde God waarin Christene glo.
Daar is vele Christelike denominasies en daar is wel verskille in wat hul glo en hoe hulle kerkdienste verloop. maar alle Christendom is in 'n paar konsepte gebaseer. Die konsepte word in the Geloofsbelydenis van Nicea uitgele. Die eerste, en sekerlik die belangrikste reel is: Ons glo in een God, die almagtige Vader, die Skepper van die hemel en aarde, van alle sigbare en onsigbare dinge.
In die Inleiding tot die Koran staa: Alle heerlikehid aan Allah die Allerhoogste, (hy is) vol gendade. Alles is deur hom geskape. Allah word ook in die eerste dele van die Koran nie "Allah" of "God" genoem nie, Hy word na verwys as "Onderhouder van die werelde," "Heer" en "Skepper" -byna die selfdeas in Die Bybel.
Die hoof verskil tussen Christene en ander gelowe, insluitend islam, is Jesus Christus, waarvandan die woord "Christen" kom.
Christene glo dat Jesus "deur die heilige Gees uit die maagd Maria vlees geword [het]: Hy het mens geword." Moslems glo ook dat Maria maagd was toe Jesus deur God se woord aan haar gebore is, maard ie dat Hy die Seun van god is nie. Beide gelowe stel dat Jesus deur God gestuur is om Sy woord aan Israel te verkondig en is die vermoe gegee om wonderwerke uit te voer.
Volgens Christen tekste, is Jesus "vir ons gekruisig; Hy het gely en is begrawe," en die heel belangrikste, "op die derde dag he Hy...opgestaan en na die Hemel opgevaar."
Moslems glo dat Jesus nie gekruisig is nie en dat Hy nie eers dood is nie. islam tekste stel wel dat Jesus hemel toe opgevaar het en dat hy nog steeds lewendig was toe dit gebur het.
Vir Christene is Jesus die Verlosser en God se Seun. Volgens islam was Jesus niks meer as 'n profeet nie. Daar word baie in die Koran na Jesus verwys, en al kon hy wonderwerke uitvoer, glo Moslems dat Hy maar net 'n man was. Mohammad is Islam se hoof profeet.
Mohammed het openbaringe van God ontvang en dit neergeskryf. die skrifte is die Koran en islam is deur Mohammad met die Koran gevesting.
Die Koran is nie, en mag nie, vertaal word die - nie eers in die moderne Arabiese variante nie. wanneer Moslems bid gebruik hulle Klassieke, of "Koraniese", Arabies. Dit is amper presies die teenoorgestelde van die Christen Bybel. Die Bybel is nie deur 'n enkel mens geskryf nie en nie in een enkel taal nie. Die Bybel is 'n versameling tekste wat in Latyn, Grieks, Aramees en Hebreeus geskryf is en is vandag die mees vertaalde boek.
Tenspyte van die ooreenkomste tussen die twee gelowe, tenspyte van die feit dat albei gelowe in die selfde God glo, is daar eindloos konflik tussen Christene en Moslems. En tog staan daar in die Koran dat "almal wat in die Koran glo, en diegene wat Joodse skrifte volg, en Christene en Sabiers - en enige iemand wat in God glo...sal vanaf God hulle belonging kry; en hulle sal geen vrees he nie."
Was Apartheid A Holocaust by N Smith
The word Apartheid is an Afrikaans word directly translated into the concept of 'separateness'. Apartheid can be defined as a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race. This is similar to ehd iscrimination that happened against the Jews, homosexuals and other discriminated parties in the Holocaust.
The National Party in the 1948 election adopted "Apartheid" as a slogan. A slogan is a phrase used in advertising to catch attention, like the Nazi's used propaganda to sell their ideas to the German nation and divert the mindset of the public. Is this not similar to what happened in South Africa?
Human rights commission reported to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission submitted in 1977 that 7 000 people of colour died during Apartheid. From 1990 to 1994 14 000 people of colour died. A fruther 17 4220 died in relation to Apartheid from 1994 to 2000. Even though Apartheid had ended.
Juliette Pieres found similarities between the Holocaust and Apartheid in her new book. A few examples of the Apartheid legislations that are parallel to the Nuremburg laws are as follows:
Marriages between Jews and Germans were forbidden as it was in South Africa with the mixed marraiges act that stated that white people were not allowed to marry people of other races.
Although the NP did not envisage a specific hair and eye colour and physique as the perfect race like Hitler envisaged the Aryans, it is apparent that this law expressed the NP's feelings that they felt that white people were the perfect race and that people of colour were inferiour.
The group areas act brought about physical separation between races by creating the homelands whereas the Nazis placed Jews and other discriminated groups in concentration camps.
People of colour and Jews were both exempt from public beaches, benches and voting. They were not allowed to go to the same schools and unviersities as Aryans or white people. People of colour were only seen as fit for labour that does not require any skill. The same was principle was applied to the Jews, as they were exempt from the workforce.
Juliette Peires states that ther was no attempt "to impose anything like a final soclution" during Apartheid. One can say that less people were killed in the Apartheid than in the Holocaust but is that not all due to the leader? A strong leader like Hitler was able to get the public rearing for action with his strong speeches whereas the NPs leader was not as strong as Hitler and not get as far as quickly. The mere fact that Apartheid took so much longer to bring down that the Holocaust and that Hitler went so much further than the NP shows that Hitler had the support of nations to put his laws into place and murder 6 million Jews.
Although more people were killed in the Holocaust it does not mean that this even in History was more devastating than Apartheid. The principle of both Apartheid and the Holocaust remains the same; two government bodies desperate for power and recognition from the public.
Think of all the people who didn't die in Apartheid. Do you think life was easy for them? And what about the generations to follow? To this day we still suffer from the effects of Apartheid. Mass deaths may sound a lot more threatening but surely living in torture is far worse? Because of one decision gnerations to come will pay for the mistakes that were made.
The National Party in the 1948 election adopted "Apartheid" as a slogan. A slogan is a phrase used in advertising to catch attention, like the Nazi's used propaganda to sell their ideas to the German nation and divert the mindset of the public. Is this not similar to what happened in South Africa?
Human rights commission reported to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission submitted in 1977 that 7 000 people of colour died during Apartheid. From 1990 to 1994 14 000 people of colour died. A fruther 17 4220 died in relation to Apartheid from 1994 to 2000. Even though Apartheid had ended.
Juliette Pieres found similarities between the Holocaust and Apartheid in her new book. A few examples of the Apartheid legislations that are parallel to the Nuremburg laws are as follows:
Marriages between Jews and Germans were forbidden as it was in South Africa with the mixed marraiges act that stated that white people were not allowed to marry people of other races.
Although the NP did not envisage a specific hair and eye colour and physique as the perfect race like Hitler envisaged the Aryans, it is apparent that this law expressed the NP's feelings that they felt that white people were the perfect race and that people of colour were inferiour.
The group areas act brought about physical separation between races by creating the homelands whereas the Nazis placed Jews and other discriminated groups in concentration camps.
People of colour and Jews were both exempt from public beaches, benches and voting. They were not allowed to go to the same schools and unviersities as Aryans or white people. People of colour were only seen as fit for labour that does not require any skill. The same was principle was applied to the Jews, as they were exempt from the workforce.
Juliette Peires states that ther was no attempt "to impose anything like a final soclution" during Apartheid. One can say that less people were killed in the Apartheid than in the Holocaust but is that not all due to the leader? A strong leader like Hitler was able to get the public rearing for action with his strong speeches whereas the NPs leader was not as strong as Hitler and not get as far as quickly. The mere fact that Apartheid took so much longer to bring down that the Holocaust and that Hitler went so much further than the NP shows that Hitler had the support of nations to put his laws into place and murder 6 million Jews.
Although more people were killed in the Holocaust it does not mean that this even in History was more devastating than Apartheid. The principle of both Apartheid and the Holocaust remains the same; two government bodies desperate for power and recognition from the public.
Think of all the people who didn't die in Apartheid. Do you think life was easy for them? And what about the generations to follow? To this day we still suffer from the effects of Apartheid. Mass deaths may sound a lot more threatening but surely living in torture is far worse? Because of one decision gnerations to come will pay for the mistakes that were made.
Boarders Get It Right by P Viljoen
This is indeed a year for breaking the old and moulding the new, here at Somerset College we have a long-standing opinion which never publically voiced: Day scholars are actually amazingly jealous of the Boarders.
Now if you ever say this in front of said "day scholar" you will be given plenty of arguments and reasons as to why this is absolutely not true (denial0, and for most of their reasons I would agree, being a boarder sounds like a hard life, but they never mention the one resounding fact which makes a boarding house that much more appealing.
It is the fact that at the end of your five years at college you leave the school, taking with you whatever you have gained (if anything) from your five years of education. The question never answered by day boys and girls is "What do I leave behind?"
Those privileged enough to say they are from Somerset College boarding houses can tell you the answer. Of course each boarder leaves behind a puzzle piece of this legacy but this year's matric boarders are paving the way for setting new and wholesome traditions and raising the standards to new, even more yellow, heights.
The first weekend of term saw the matrics and grade 8s spending a whole weekend together where mentees were shown the ropes. Much bonding took place (helped along by the duct-tape in the three-legged race). Never before in my five years in these houses have I seen a grade 9 and matric group interact so closely -we warn the school that this is a grade 8 group to keep your eye on for great things.
The boarders are doing things right and as testimony to this Helderberg is already working towards winning their spirit for the grade 8 gala, the interhouse athletics overall as well as the interhouse tennis.
The boarders are not only creating tradition and pride in their own house but challenge the rest of the school to follow their example... if they can.
Now if you ever say this in front of said "day scholar" you will be given plenty of arguments and reasons as to why this is absolutely not true (denial0, and for most of their reasons I would agree, being a boarder sounds like a hard life, but they never mention the one resounding fact which makes a boarding house that much more appealing.
It is the fact that at the end of your five years at college you leave the school, taking with you whatever you have gained (if anything) from your five years of education. The question never answered by day boys and girls is "What do I leave behind?"
Those privileged enough to say they are from Somerset College boarding houses can tell you the answer. Of course each boarder leaves behind a puzzle piece of this legacy but this year's matric boarders are paving the way for setting new and wholesome traditions and raising the standards to new, even more yellow, heights.
The first weekend of term saw the matrics and grade 8s spending a whole weekend together where mentees were shown the ropes. Much bonding took place (helped along by the duct-tape in the three-legged race). Never before in my five years in these houses have I seen a grade 9 and matric group interact so closely -we warn the school that this is a grade 8 group to keep your eye on for great things.
The boarders are doing things right and as testimony to this Helderberg is already working towards winning their spirit for the grade 8 gala, the interhouse athletics overall as well as the interhouse tennis.
The boarders are not only creating tradition and pride in their own house but challenge the rest of the school to follow their example... if they can.
Valentine's Day by N Smith
Crowds of anxious girls huddle together in small clusters, united for one sole purpose. Suppressed feelings bubble to the surface and boil over at the anticipation of what is to come; the thought of a gift from that special someone, a friend, a loved one, a secret admirier. For a second the crowd is hushed while they await the first receiver, and then from there on the procedure continues like clockwork.
We've all witnessed it, been subject to its wonders, but has Valentine's Day gotten out of control? No longer is it just a day to celebrate our loved ones, but also our friends and those we desperately wish to impress in the hope of starting new friendships, and that is all okay, but it has gotten out of hand and is now just a day to show off our wealth, whether financial or in the nubmer of friends we have.
People prance around in their pinks, reds and whites, fallen into a love coma where all sensibility is lost to the antics of Valentine's Day. And what about the cost? Is your love or friendship worth more if the price tag is more impressive? What happened to simple cards with words of affection? The truth is that the effort is simply non-existent. Why waste your time spending hours making cards for your friends and lvoed one, when you can flash your cash in their faces?
It's okay to spend money and appreciate your loved ones, but please, get your motives straight! On a whole we have become too wrapped up in materialistic possessions, cold, hard possessions that neither love nor feel emotion. The best path to take to impress someone is not via your wallet. It comes straight from the depths of your heart.
We've all witnessed it, been subject to its wonders, but has Valentine's Day gotten out of control? No longer is it just a day to celebrate our loved ones, but also our friends and those we desperately wish to impress in the hope of starting new friendships, and that is all okay, but it has gotten out of hand and is now just a day to show off our wealth, whether financial or in the nubmer of friends we have.
People prance around in their pinks, reds and whites, fallen into a love coma where all sensibility is lost to the antics of Valentine's Day. And what about the cost? Is your love or friendship worth more if the price tag is more impressive? What happened to simple cards with words of affection? The truth is that the effort is simply non-existent. Why waste your time spending hours making cards for your friends and lvoed one, when you can flash your cash in their faces?
It's okay to spend money and appreciate your loved ones, but please, get your motives straight! On a whole we have become too wrapped up in materialistic possessions, cold, hard possessions that neither love nor feel emotion. The best path to take to impress someone is not via your wallet. It comes straight from the depths of your heart.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Silent Runner by J Chambers
There's a boy I noticed at the beginning of the day running 8km barefoot on sharp stones and later, eating alone at break.
In the beginning, I thought he was, well, peculiar. Coming from the world I've grown up in I'm also sad to admit that the thoughts that ran through my mind when it came to this boy were ones that would have, in the past, have gotten me a severe telling off and threats of 'getting my mouth washed out with soap and water'. As he was different to me, I was, hesitant, about conversing with him or being seen anywhere near him.
At the end of a long school day complete with loads of stressful assignments and a fun break with the grils discussing our weekend plans and make-up ideas for Saturday night's dance (I'm going with Oliver!) I put my feet up and got straight onto mxit.
Within a few short texts I managed to uncover many stories about this boy and his bare feet; people didn't seem to be very positive about him. Nor were they bothered that we had never seen him before as he was not in or around my circle of friends and so I pretended not to be bothered either, for fear of people finding out that I was in fact bothered. Angry at myself for having been so shallow as to not venture out of my circle at all this year.
I was also intrigued by the way I had seen him running that 8km barefoot, being completely himself no matter what all these people had to say about him, the way he has never tried to change himself to fit in. I'm reminded of the fact that the only I time I ever feel completely happy with myself is when I look good on the outside, when someone tells me I look good, because then you are good... right?
Throughout the week I observed from my world and the realisation struck that although we are roughly the same age, problems that seem to me like the biggest issue in the world, don't even cross his mind. This made me wonder exactly how big of a deal my issues really are.
The more I sit and thinka bout all this now, the more I begin to understand that although I will never be the type of independent person who's completely unfazed and not worried by the social demands around me, I may have learned a valuable life lesson: I will never find contentment and pure happiness in running 8km barefoot; I must find what makes me happy and run with it, no matter what everyone else is doing. You should too.
In the beginning, I thought he was, well, peculiar. Coming from the world I've grown up in I'm also sad to admit that the thoughts that ran through my mind when it came to this boy were ones that would have, in the past, have gotten me a severe telling off and threats of 'getting my mouth washed out with soap and water'. As he was different to me, I was, hesitant, about conversing with him or being seen anywhere near him.
At the end of a long school day complete with loads of stressful assignments and a fun break with the grils discussing our weekend plans and make-up ideas for Saturday night's dance (I'm going with Oliver!) I put my feet up and got straight onto mxit.
Within a few short texts I managed to uncover many stories about this boy and his bare feet; people didn't seem to be very positive about him. Nor were they bothered that we had never seen him before as he was not in or around my circle of friends and so I pretended not to be bothered either, for fear of people finding out that I was in fact bothered. Angry at myself for having been so shallow as to not venture out of my circle at all this year.
I was also intrigued by the way I had seen him running that 8km barefoot, being completely himself no matter what all these people had to say about him, the way he has never tried to change himself to fit in. I'm reminded of the fact that the only I time I ever feel completely happy with myself is when I look good on the outside, when someone tells me I look good, because then you are good... right?
Throughout the week I observed from my world and the realisation struck that although we are roughly the same age, problems that seem to me like the biggest issue in the world, don't even cross his mind. This made me wonder exactly how big of a deal my issues really are.
The more I sit and thinka bout all this now, the more I begin to understand that although I will never be the type of independent person who's completely unfazed and not worried by the social demands around me, I may have learned a valuable life lesson: I will never find contentment and pure happiness in running 8km barefoot; I must find what makes me happy and run with it, no matter what everyone else is doing. You should too.
It's the cost that counts by J Chambers
The idea of a gift at Christmas has become a how of much you love or care for somoene through the cost of an item.
Instead of the traditional idea of the giving of a small token to thank someone for being in or contributing to one's life. It is no longer the thought that counts, it's the price tag that comes with it.
A father once saved up a bit of his hard earned money each month to pay for a dress for his daughter at Christmas. The dress cost a thousand rand but he had found a shop in town that sold the exact same dress for half the price which, even though it was a lot cheaper, was still out of this man's budget for Christmas presents. When it came to Christmas time he paid for the dress, really happy that he had in fact managed to save up enough to buy something that meant a lot to his daughter. The idea of making his daughter happy, made him happy.
When his daughter opened the present on Christmas day, she was delighted and immediately ran to put the dress on.
Ten minutes later she arrived back with the dress in her hand and tears streaming down her face.
"Why don't you love me?" she cried.
"Honey, I don't understand, you wanted this dress..." he replied feeling awfully sad to see her upset.
"No. I wanted the real one! This one's cheap. I obviously don't mean very much to you!" She stormed out of the room.
I hope this story got the message out to you. A smaller price tag on a gift doesn't mean that someone loves you less, just as a higher price doesn't mean that someone loves you more.
One must realise that a price doesn't show the extent of a person's love for you, it's the fact that they wanted a gift for you whether it was made, bought or passed down, it's the fact that they thought of you that counts.
Instead of the traditional idea of the giving of a small token to thank someone for being in or contributing to one's life. It is no longer the thought that counts, it's the price tag that comes with it.
A father once saved up a bit of his hard earned money each month to pay for a dress for his daughter at Christmas. The dress cost a thousand rand but he had found a shop in town that sold the exact same dress for half the price which, even though it was a lot cheaper, was still out of this man's budget for Christmas presents. When it came to Christmas time he paid for the dress, really happy that he had in fact managed to save up enough to buy something that meant a lot to his daughter. The idea of making his daughter happy, made him happy.
When his daughter opened the present on Christmas day, she was delighted and immediately ran to put the dress on.
Ten minutes later she arrived back with the dress in her hand and tears streaming down her face.
"Why don't you love me?" she cried.
"Honey, I don't understand, you wanted this dress..." he replied feeling awfully sad to see her upset.
"No. I wanted the real one! This one's cheap. I obviously don't mean very much to you!" She stormed out of the room.
I hope this story got the message out to you. A smaller price tag on a gift doesn't mean that someone loves you less, just as a higher price doesn't mean that someone loves you more.
One must realise that a price doesn't show the extent of a person's love for you, it's the fact that they wanted a gift for you whether it was made, bought or passed down, it's the fact that they thought of you that counts.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
"Gingers do have souls!" by S Tinelli
...shouts the odd ginger behind your computer screen in the YouTube window.
Discrimination against the average person who just happens to have carrot orange hair is something commonly known as Gingerism to the world today. Many very successful people in today's society have a ginger-coloured head of hair yet we discriminate against them because of this. They are not in any way different to us. Why do we do this, you may ask?
Well, to put it simply, as humans we are mean and we enjoy seeing others embarrassed. We do this because life is a cycle: we get picked on for our size, shape, our beauty or ugliness and so we return the favour to others. The only difference between gingers and the rest of us is that their hair colour is different.
We complain about differences every day through racism, sexism and any other discrimination, yet what would we do if there was no difference in this world?
"Variety is the spice of life" is what many say, yet we cannot seem to grasp the differences between people and then just accept them.
We as humans are so fussy that we tend to forget about the small differences between us that go unappreciated. For it is these differences between us that allow us to stay entertained in the rush of life. I mean, really, "discriminating against hair colour," is that what we have deteriorated to?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
"One man's freedom fighter, another man's terrorist" by L Wellner
Murder, madness, horror, cruelty and disrespect. Many words a Sea Shepherd member would use to describe the horror happening out at sea, as the result of another nation's tradition.
Out in the Southern Ocean there is an ongoing war betwen the one-ship strong army of the Sea Shepherds and the entire Japanese whaling fleet. The eco-warriors, the Sea Shepherds, will stop at nothing to try and rob the Japanese of a profitable whaling season. In spite of being few in number, the SS put up a good fight by disabling whaling vessels at harbour, intervening in seal hunts, ramming other vessels, tossing glass bottles (of butyric acid) on the decks of the vessels at sea, using a system called "prop fouling" (tossing rope into the propellers of the whaling ships) and disorientating whalers with laser devices.
Of course, this is only possible when they are not being shot at by high pressure water-hoses, powerful enough to wound a brave Sea Shepherd badly enough to be taken back to the main vessel, the MY Steve Irwin. The whalers have another powerful weapon, a Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD) causing the victims disorientation and dizziness to such an extent that one would fall over (doing so on a speed boat in the Arctic ocean could be fatal).
The leader of this powerful organization? Captain Paul Watson, an early member of Greenpeace who was ousted for his direct action activism, which clashed with their pacifist ethos. He started the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, whose aims were to stop commercial fishing, shark poaching and finning, seal hunting and whaling.
The crew of this organization includes eco-warriors from England, Australia, South Africa, Holland and many more. They dedicate their lives to help protect our marine life. Animal Planet has been filming the weekly series Whale Wars, based on the group's encounters with the Japanese. Watching it, you are right in the action with the Sea Shepherds. If just watching the programme isn't enough for you, you can view their website at www.seashepherd.org.
You can donate money or become a member. Who knows? -Maybe they need someone like you on board the Steve Irwin. Maybe you could save some whale's life. Maybe you could chance this world?
Out in the Southern Ocean there is an ongoing war betwen the one-ship strong army of the Sea Shepherds and the entire Japanese whaling fleet. The eco-warriors, the Sea Shepherds, will stop at nothing to try and rob the Japanese of a profitable whaling season. In spite of being few in number, the SS put up a good fight by disabling whaling vessels at harbour, intervening in seal hunts, ramming other vessels, tossing glass bottles (of butyric acid) on the decks of the vessels at sea, using a system called "prop fouling" (tossing rope into the propellers of the whaling ships) and disorientating whalers with laser devices.
Of course, this is only possible when they are not being shot at by high pressure water-hoses, powerful enough to wound a brave Sea Shepherd badly enough to be taken back to the main vessel, the MY Steve Irwin. The whalers have another powerful weapon, a Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD) causing the victims disorientation and dizziness to such an extent that one would fall over (doing so on a speed boat in the Arctic ocean could be fatal).
The leader of this powerful organization? Captain Paul Watson, an early member of Greenpeace who was ousted for his direct action activism, which clashed with their pacifist ethos. He started the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, whose aims were to stop commercial fishing, shark poaching and finning, seal hunting and whaling.
The crew of this organization includes eco-warriors from England, Australia, South Africa, Holland and many more. They dedicate their lives to help protect our marine life. Animal Planet has been filming the weekly series Whale Wars, based on the group's encounters with the Japanese. Watching it, you are right in the action with the Sea Shepherds. If just watching the programme isn't enough for you, you can view their website at www.seashepherd.org.
You can donate money or become a member. Who knows? -Maybe they need someone like you on board the Steve Irwin. Maybe you could save some whale's life. Maybe you could chance this world?
"Afrikaans versus Modern Society" by N Smith
Undoubtedly, one of the thoughts that has at some time crossed our minds as students is about the relevance of learning Afrikaans as a second language.
At school, every day, as a citizen of South Africa, this idea of Afrikaans being a relevant part of educating the younger generations is forced upon our society.
Second to English, Afrikaans always takes highest priority over other subjects. I ask you, is language not an art? Then for what reason does Afrikaans take preference over the cultural arts such as dramatic and visual art? For a student, failing cultural arts is seen as a non-event. The subjects are seen as irrelevant in schooling and supposedly these subjects 'get in the way of more important subjects' when in fact they provide creative stimulus, which inspires us and invigorates us.
When the Afrikaans grades start to drop extra lessons are quickly fitted into every free opening in the child's timetable -third language periods, prep time and even during sport practices, if all else fails, which robs the child of what little freedom they have. I can understand these measures being taken for a first language such as English. After all, it is the universal language. Without English, all other areas, such as history, where good vocabulary is needed for essay writing to sustain good grades, fails. It is even needed in mathematics in order to understand the language of numerals and decimals. How else could a problem sum be completed short of mathematics maturing and solving its own problems?
Overseas, Afrikaans is barefly recognised as a language of importance whatsoever, so why should it be learned here? The Chinese's growing economy will soon be dominating Europe, so should we not be learning Mandarin instead? Already, approximately eighty percent of our goods have "made in China" inscribed on them somewhere in small letters. All students with knowledge of Mandarin would have a higher chance of finding a job overseas in the future, and a fighting chance of being accepted as a successful individual in the work place. Even those who do not immigrate will lose interest in a minority language such as Afrikaans when pursuing a tertiary education in their home langauge, and their knowledge of the language will gradually fade to black, so why waste precious time teaching it to them now?
Out of the eleven official languages in our country, only one of them is instinctively assigned as a compulsory second language in the Western Cape and is seen as more important than all the others, and yet nobody wonders for what reason this is so.
I have nothing against those with an Afrikaans background but merely ask you why the language must be forced on those are not interested in it? To ensure that it does not die out? Is it part of a minority's culture that they feel others would gain value sharing in the experience of? If the public would rather learn Xhosa or Zulu or any of the other official langauges as a secondary langauge should they not be allowed to decide for themselves which they feel is a more advantageous avenue of language study?
I have no problem with Afrikaans speaking schools and universities who give classes solely in this language, specifically for the Afrikaans members of these institutions, but those who do not take naturally to Afrikaans, should be allowed to choose to be educated in one of the official languages that they feel is more representative of their own individual background. Langauge is a part of culture, and if we should be allowed to choose our own religions should the same not be allowed for langauge choice? Choosing a language that does not define us individually is trying to be someone we are not, and if we are allowed to choose our own languages it will impact positively on our ability to express ourselves freely.
Afrikaans is a completely different langauge to English and has its humorous sayings that tickle the nation's pride, but for the youth of South Africa who find Afrikaans does not come easily to them, it is difficult to access these contextual expressions when speakers are accustomed to other langauges that are humorous in completely different ways.
Some public figures really make a language come alive, but I am sorry to say that we are lacking in those figures in society, and the remaining, who do understand its authenticity are reducing the language's reputation in society. What our country needs is someone who excels in Afrikaans who will put this langauge "out there" and rekindle the desire to speak it. The rest of us, if asked to write a creative essay in Afrikaans, I assure you, will struggle to find inspirational ways to express ourselves as the difference between English and Afrikaans is so vast.
Do not get rid of Afrikaans as a secondary language in schools, but offer it alongside the other official languages of South Africa, with the added choice of internationally budding languages such as Mandarin, so that those who want to learn globally accepted languages are given the choice to pave the path to their future.
At school, every day, as a citizen of South Africa, this idea of Afrikaans being a relevant part of educating the younger generations is forced upon our society.
Second to English, Afrikaans always takes highest priority over other subjects. I ask you, is language not an art? Then for what reason does Afrikaans take preference over the cultural arts such as dramatic and visual art? For a student, failing cultural arts is seen as a non-event. The subjects are seen as irrelevant in schooling and supposedly these subjects 'get in the way of more important subjects' when in fact they provide creative stimulus, which inspires us and invigorates us.
When the Afrikaans grades start to drop extra lessons are quickly fitted into every free opening in the child's timetable -third language periods, prep time and even during sport practices, if all else fails, which robs the child of what little freedom they have. I can understand these measures being taken for a first language such as English. After all, it is the universal language. Without English, all other areas, such as history, where good vocabulary is needed for essay writing to sustain good grades, fails. It is even needed in mathematics in order to understand the language of numerals and decimals. How else could a problem sum be completed short of mathematics maturing and solving its own problems?
Overseas, Afrikaans is barefly recognised as a language of importance whatsoever, so why should it be learned here? The Chinese's growing economy will soon be dominating Europe, so should we not be learning Mandarin instead? Already, approximately eighty percent of our goods have "made in China" inscribed on them somewhere in small letters. All students with knowledge of Mandarin would have a higher chance of finding a job overseas in the future, and a fighting chance of being accepted as a successful individual in the work place. Even those who do not immigrate will lose interest in a minority language such as Afrikaans when pursuing a tertiary education in their home langauge, and their knowledge of the language will gradually fade to black, so why waste precious time teaching it to them now?
Out of the eleven official languages in our country, only one of them is instinctively assigned as a compulsory second language in the Western Cape and is seen as more important than all the others, and yet nobody wonders for what reason this is so.
I have nothing against those with an Afrikaans background but merely ask you why the language must be forced on those are not interested in it? To ensure that it does not die out? Is it part of a minority's culture that they feel others would gain value sharing in the experience of? If the public would rather learn Xhosa or Zulu or any of the other official langauges as a secondary langauge should they not be allowed to decide for themselves which they feel is a more advantageous avenue of language study?
I have no problem with Afrikaans speaking schools and universities who give classes solely in this language, specifically for the Afrikaans members of these institutions, but those who do not take naturally to Afrikaans, should be allowed to choose to be educated in one of the official languages that they feel is more representative of their own individual background. Langauge is a part of culture, and if we should be allowed to choose our own religions should the same not be allowed for langauge choice? Choosing a language that does not define us individually is trying to be someone we are not, and if we are allowed to choose our own languages it will impact positively on our ability to express ourselves freely.
Afrikaans is a completely different langauge to English and has its humorous sayings that tickle the nation's pride, but for the youth of South Africa who find Afrikaans does not come easily to them, it is difficult to access these contextual expressions when speakers are accustomed to other langauges that are humorous in completely different ways.
Some public figures really make a language come alive, but I am sorry to say that we are lacking in those figures in society, and the remaining, who do understand its authenticity are reducing the language's reputation in society. What our country needs is someone who excels in Afrikaans who will put this langauge "out there" and rekindle the desire to speak it. The rest of us, if asked to write a creative essay in Afrikaans, I assure you, will struggle to find inspirational ways to express ourselves as the difference between English and Afrikaans is so vast.
Do not get rid of Afrikaans as a secondary language in schools, but offer it alongside the other official languages of South Africa, with the added choice of internationally budding languages such as Mandarin, so that those who want to learn globally accepted languages are given the choice to pave the path to their future.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
"Football at College" by A Hendricks
Football; soccer; the beautiful game. It's the world's most popular sport, yet also one the College prides itself in lacking.
The College provides almost every other sport possibly desired by high school students, except the option many want. Granted, girls are given the opportunity, however in all honestly football is a male-dominated sport. The majority of schools across the country offer it, so I propose the question: why not at Somerset College?
I understand there is a petty fear of losing numbers in rugby and hockey as many boys will want to participate in soccer. Nevertheless, I highly doubt the prominent players of those sports will want to leave them to play football. Let the footballers play football and the others continue with their original options. This seems a vague solution but it holds water if we have try-outs. Have try-outs for a first team football team (as was done for rugby) and then let the players who qualify -and only those- be part of the team.
This option is feasible as it requires a maximum of around fifteen players who will represent the College's Football First Team, while the majority of other students continue in their respective sports, as per usual.
Tradition is something valuable, but not when it hinders progress. If we are to advance and diversify as a school the least we can do is let the boys participate in the beautiful game. Needless to say, only those who thoroughly deserve to play will end up playing through the process of proposed try-outs.
People may argue that other schools around us don't offer the sport and therefore, why should we? I'll tell you why, because we are Somerset College: because we pride ourselves on being leaders, not followers.
Feel free to express your comments, ideas on how to deal with this issue and to present further options, respectfully.
The College provides almost every other sport possibly desired by high school students, except the option many want. Granted, girls are given the opportunity, however in all honestly football is a male-dominated sport. The majority of schools across the country offer it, so I propose the question: why not at Somerset College?
I understand there is a petty fear of losing numbers in rugby and hockey as many boys will want to participate in soccer. Nevertheless, I highly doubt the prominent players of those sports will want to leave them to play football. Let the footballers play football and the others continue with their original options. This seems a vague solution but it holds water if we have try-outs. Have try-outs for a first team football team (as was done for rugby) and then let the players who qualify -and only those- be part of the team.
This option is feasible as it requires a maximum of around fifteen players who will represent the College's Football First Team, while the majority of other students continue in their respective sports, as per usual.
Tradition is something valuable, but not when it hinders progress. If we are to advance and diversify as a school the least we can do is let the boys participate in the beautiful game. Needless to say, only those who thoroughly deserve to play will end up playing through the process of proposed try-outs.
People may argue that other schools around us don't offer the sport and therefore, why should we? I'll tell you why, because we are Somerset College: because we pride ourselves on being leaders, not followers.
Feel free to express your comments, ideas on how to deal with this issue and to present further options, respectfully.
"Pop Culture and the Middle Mind" by M Goldsmid
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep. "Doctor, it's too late."
Culture is dead, and pop culture and consumerism have risen from the ashes like the twin, slack-jawed, drooling phoenixes of shallow desires and pretention. Desire? The word itself means nothing anymore, like similar things it is now nothing but hollow fakery, manipulated into a marketable product. So-called "modern culture" is mostly mindless content, and not culture in any real sense of the word. We are fed the monotonous drivel of our own disenchantment and ennui, thus, we no longer think. So, how is it that we were bled of meaning, of emotional substance, and reduced to the gratuitous emptiness of a deflated, wretched middle-mind?
We are beset by images and ideals created out of corporate ambition and representing greed, sexual or otherwise. We are deviously manoeuvred into a sense of incompleteness and lack, when really what we lack is any sense of real meaning or value. This is achieved via the flashing screens of cell phones, televisions and computers that blast mindless, manipulative drivel at us with an incessant fervour. And so, we are unwittingly drawn into it, becoming fools of our own ambition, willing participants in our own slavery. We pathetically attempt to adopt many of the characteristics and expectations that are projected onto us, and we lose our sense of self. All the while, the vapid nattering of cell phone conversation and the mindless chirps of Twitter blur the distinction betweent he real and the virtual, and human communication is degraded into a jumble of weakn contractions and asanine repetition. FYI, like OMG.
We don't know where we are or where we're going, what we should feel or think. This is precisely because all these things have been imposed on us. Far from the blunt authoritariansim of bygone eras, the fascism of the modern age is far subtler, and in a different, insidious way just as damaging. Before we were confined by values and ideals that at least served some purpose, however narrow that might have been. In the modern age the deathly face of apathy and dissolution screams at us behind every beaming, trashy romantic comedy and shallow spoof, behind every slavishly worshipped pop goddess. We are imprisoned by our own lack of originality.
This manifests in how we desperately adopt any semblance of pop culture and ego-material. We are walking advertisements for companies and conglomerates that have nothing to do with us and we perceive ourselves as validated by their labels. What is more, we define our sense of self in relation to the rest of the world by these things. Under the guise of individualism and expressionwe conform to social stereotypes that are ultimately irrelevant, incorrect and often harmful. The same trend can be continued into music and language. The middle-mind has infected almost every area of life, and only a few alert critics are aware of it - or aware at all.
And so, we are stranded in a technocratic cultural wasteland while the ghoulish faces of vacuous and plasticised pop icons and ghastly Hollywood creations stare us into a corner of morbid isolation. We have the illusion of being in control of our lives, but are at a psychic level, lost, aneasthetized and helpless. We are lethargic, dispassionate and willingly so -blinded by our own idiocy and every stereo is blasting the imbecilic, thumping sound of our own damnation.
Culture is dead, and pop culture and consumerism have risen from the ashes like the twin, slack-jawed, drooling phoenixes of shallow desires and pretention. Desire? The word itself means nothing anymore, like similar things it is now nothing but hollow fakery, manipulated into a marketable product. So-called "modern culture" is mostly mindless content, and not culture in any real sense of the word. We are fed the monotonous drivel of our own disenchantment and ennui, thus, we no longer think. So, how is it that we were bled of meaning, of emotional substance, and reduced to the gratuitous emptiness of a deflated, wretched middle-mind?
We are beset by images and ideals created out of corporate ambition and representing greed, sexual or otherwise. We are deviously manoeuvred into a sense of incompleteness and lack, when really what we lack is any sense of real meaning or value. This is achieved via the flashing screens of cell phones, televisions and computers that blast mindless, manipulative drivel at us with an incessant fervour. And so, we are unwittingly drawn into it, becoming fools of our own ambition, willing participants in our own slavery. We pathetically attempt to adopt many of the characteristics and expectations that are projected onto us, and we lose our sense of self. All the while, the vapid nattering of cell phone conversation and the mindless chirps of Twitter blur the distinction betweent he real and the virtual, and human communication is degraded into a jumble of weakn contractions and asanine repetition. FYI, like OMG.
We don't know where we are or where we're going, what we should feel or think. This is precisely because all these things have been imposed on us. Far from the blunt authoritariansim of bygone eras, the fascism of the modern age is far subtler, and in a different, insidious way just as damaging. Before we were confined by values and ideals that at least served some purpose, however narrow that might have been. In the modern age the deathly face of apathy and dissolution screams at us behind every beaming, trashy romantic comedy and shallow spoof, behind every slavishly worshipped pop goddess. We are imprisoned by our own lack of originality.
This manifests in how we desperately adopt any semblance of pop culture and ego-material. We are walking advertisements for companies and conglomerates that have nothing to do with us and we perceive ourselves as validated by their labels. What is more, we define our sense of self in relation to the rest of the world by these things. Under the guise of individualism and expressionwe conform to social stereotypes that are ultimately irrelevant, incorrect and often harmful. The same trend can be continued into music and language. The middle-mind has infected almost every area of life, and only a few alert critics are aware of it - or aware at all.
And so, we are stranded in a technocratic cultural wasteland while the ghoulish faces of vacuous and plasticised pop icons and ghastly Hollywood creations stare us into a corner of morbid isolation. We have the illusion of being in control of our lives, but are at a psychic level, lost, aneasthetized and helpless. We are lethargic, dispassionate and willingly so -blinded by our own idiocy and every stereo is blasting the imbecilic, thumping sound of our own damnation.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
"Are we human?" by N du Santos
There are many conspiracies which make us fearful of what each day will bring. Conspiracies such as "global warming", "the end of the world in 2012" and the search for "new planets". But while more than half the world focuses on these fantastical things, real people are dying, suffering every day in the streets of every country.
Countries spend millions researching our world just to conspire about when it is all going to end. We have been shown things that don't exist as an effort to make us fearful about things we don't know about -and this non-reality has become more of a focus in our lives than Reality. The reality that in many third world countries thousands of people are dying every day due to poverty, hunger and war. But all we care about is our own end in 2012 and about making sure that the planet survives, not its people.
The US government has spent a lot of money during the past few years on building spacecraft to reach the moon, on developing instruments to study stars and other planets but the findings are always either hidden from the public, or the public is fed meaningless information regarding these 'findings'. During the Cold War, Russia and America focused made their priority the construction of spaceships to reach the moon -costing more money ever spent by a government on a single project in history.
But in the real world, like Zimbabwe, people get beaten up and thrown off their land for standing up their government. People die for blood diamonds and oil.
The fact that we do not care as much about the suffering of real people as we do about what we can achieve, where we can go and what can kill us proves that humanity has learned to love material things more than we love Humanity.
We should forget about spending money on these projects and focus on looking after People. Governments should spend more money on helping its people than on trying to outshine other national authorities. We must learn to think about others.
Countries spend millions researching our world just to conspire about when it is all going to end. We have been shown things that don't exist as an effort to make us fearful about things we don't know about -and this non-reality has become more of a focus in our lives than Reality. The reality that in many third world countries thousands of people are dying every day due to poverty, hunger and war. But all we care about is our own end in 2012 and about making sure that the planet survives, not its people.
The US government has spent a lot of money during the past few years on building spacecraft to reach the moon, on developing instruments to study stars and other planets but the findings are always either hidden from the public, or the public is fed meaningless information regarding these 'findings'. During the Cold War, Russia and America focused made their priority the construction of spaceships to reach the moon -costing more money ever spent by a government on a single project in history.
But in the real world, like Zimbabwe, people get beaten up and thrown off their land for standing up their government. People die for blood diamonds and oil.
The fact that we do not care as much about the suffering of real people as we do about what we can achieve, where we can go and what can kill us proves that humanity has learned to love material things more than we love Humanity.
We should forget about spending money on these projects and focus on looking after People. Governments should spend more money on helping its people than on trying to outshine other national authorities. We must learn to think about others.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
"Education vs Uniform" by Sasha Tinelli
Does it really matter what colour socks you are wearing when learning the chemical properties of phosphorus?
Many believe that it makes no difference what you are wearing when you learn something.
In many schools today it is compulsory to wear a certain uniform or if the uniform is not worn correctly the student is in some way prosecuted. But school uniforms also create the very opportunity for such prosecution: a tie and button shirt -students aren't very comfortable and decide to make themselves comfortable, but this is when the trouble starts.
Teachers believe that it is disrespectful for students to dress in their own style. Students, although, feel more comfortable learning in their own clothing. Is a uniform not then a way to make money and simply publicise the "neat" student who represents the school?
Others, however, argue that without a uniform learners are uncontrollable and too relaxed -which is not what school is about. School is about learning and unformity and responsibility.
Whether students are dressed the same, or in their own version of what is fashionable, teachers will still teach the same lessons with the same curriculum; so why does the information not sink in? Because, some say, a student dressed in a way that expresses their individuality will, as a result, act out disrespectfully. If this is true then wearing a uniform is a better policy for a school.
But surely a line should be drawn at the details: handing out detention to students for not wearing a belt or the right socks when the rest of their uniform is correct may be taking it too far. Does a different belt or a more comfortable pair of socks spell loss of control? And of whose?
Many believe that it makes no difference what you are wearing when you learn something.
In many schools today it is compulsory to wear a certain uniform or if the uniform is not worn correctly the student is in some way prosecuted. But school uniforms also create the very opportunity for such prosecution: a tie and button shirt -students aren't very comfortable and decide to make themselves comfortable, but this is when the trouble starts.
Teachers believe that it is disrespectful for students to dress in their own style. Students, although, feel more comfortable learning in their own clothing. Is a uniform not then a way to make money and simply publicise the "neat" student who represents the school?
Others, however, argue that without a uniform learners are uncontrollable and too relaxed -which is not what school is about. School is about learning and unformity and responsibility.
Whether students are dressed the same, or in their own version of what is fashionable, teachers will still teach the same lessons with the same curriculum; so why does the information not sink in? Because, some say, a student dressed in a way that expresses their individuality will, as a result, act out disrespectfully. If this is true then wearing a uniform is a better policy for a school.
But surely a line should be drawn at the details: handing out detention to students for not wearing a belt or the right socks when the rest of their uniform is correct may be taking it too far. Does a different belt or a more comfortable pair of socks spell loss of control? And of whose?
"Vegetarians vs Meat-etarians" by Lara Schulte
Are you vegetarian or are you a meat eater? Are you one of these for a reason, or just because it's part of your everyday life to either eat a scrumptious, juicy piece of meat or to eat a veggie burger? Are you wondering what the right choice is?
Personally, I strongly feel that being a vegetarian is a good thing. I am sure you didn't know that for every kilogram of meat, 4 000 litres of water was used? -Another thing we should consider to save more of -water. But that is slightly off topic.
Being a vegetarian is difficult though, especially in a country like South Africa. People here eat meat for breakfast, lunch, dinner and even in between as a snack. South Africans eat biltong like it's part of their recommended daily protein allowance. Eating meat is like brushing your teeth; something you do without even thinking about it. But do they think about that cow that has been killed just to be put into one of those little Woolworths packets and consumed at break time by some child in some school in some place in South Africa?
But I'm not saying it's a bad thing to eat meat. On the contrary, actually.
Personally, I strongly feel that being a vegetarian is a good thing. I am sure you didn't know that for every kilogram of meat, 4 000 litres of water was used? -Another thing we should consider to save more of -water. But that is slightly off topic.
Being a vegetarian is difficult though, especially in a country like South Africa. People here eat meat for breakfast, lunch, dinner and even in between as a snack. South Africans eat biltong like it's part of their recommended daily protein allowance. Eating meat is like brushing your teeth; something you do without even thinking about it. But do they think about that cow that has been killed just to be put into one of those little Woolworths packets and consumed at break time by some child in some school in some place in South Africa?
But I'm not saying it's a bad thing to eat meat. On the contrary, actually.
Meat is the main source of protein for the human body. It is healthy and is needed in the daily diet of the average person. But, is it needed in such high quantities? Is it possible to eat meat but to eat only the necessary amount?
Of course it is. And so our simple conclusion is: eat less meat.
"Rhinos endangered because of Chinese medicine" by Lara Schulte
There are only eight specimens of the Northern White Rhino left on the earth. The rest have died out, they will never be seen again by man. But maybe that is for the best...
Human = Greed. An equation that has been proven correct by humanity itself. Men kill these poor creatures with nothing else in mind but money. Rhinos get killed for their horns, whereas other animals get killed for their skin. The population of big animals in South Africa has dropped by 59 % since 1970. You know who's responsible for that.
Poachers kill for the meat as well. So basically, animals' lives are being taken and some
animal species are almost extinct because we like the taste of their flesh? I know I may be simplifying the equation here but it is, after all, the truth.
The value of rhino horns lies in China. The rhino horn is ground to make medicine to cure fevers and pain. Surely a different type of medicine can be used, with scientific research advancing by the second in the world we live in today?
Once again mankind is proving itself greedy. The poor creatures are dying out and still man is killing to make some kind of "medicine" to "cure" an ailment that is not even fatal.
Human = Greed. An equation that has been proven correct by humanity itself. Men kill these poor creatures with nothing else in mind but money. Rhinos get killed for their horns, whereas other animals get killed for their skin. The population of big animals in South Africa has dropped by 59 % since 1970. You know who's responsible for that.
Poachers kill for the meat as well. So basically, animals' lives are being taken and some
animal species are almost extinct because we like the taste of their flesh? I know I may be simplifying the equation here but it is, after all, the truth.
The value of rhino horns lies in China. The rhino horn is ground to make medicine to cure fevers and pain. Surely a different type of medicine can be used, with scientific research advancing by the second in the world we live in today?
Once again mankind is proving itself greedy. The poor creatures are dying out and still man is killing to make some kind of "medicine" to "cure" an ailment that is not even fatal.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
"Media at War" by Nicolai Haussamer
When nations are at war, we turn to the media to give us, what we believe, is a truthful and unbiased account of the events taking place in the world. Without the internet, television, newspapers, magazines, radios and countless other forms of media, we would be somewhat lost in confusion and ignorance of that which happens around us. However, sometimes what we are told to accept as the truth or adopt as the right perspective is cleverly manipulated to indoctrinate certain beliefs, not shared by the general public and potentially detrimental to a nation at war, and so the clash between the freedom of expression and various other rights and freedoms enter the fray.
When we talk about war, we are discussing conflict. Not an argument or a debate; war means bloodshed. It determines who lives and who dies. During war a constant threat exists towards the common man on the street and the welfare of a country as a whole on a much larger scale. One issue which has become prevalent in the world is the censorship of the media during times of war, id est a government's restriction of certain articles, photographs or broadcasts which may be made public. The word "restriction" immediately aggravates human rights activists and other liberals who believe that, given any set of circumstances, freedoms should not and can never be forfeited. While their argument may remain valid this is, however, only one side of the argument.
In the context of South Africa, which is not presently at war (on any international level anyway - fueds between political parties are a different matter), it is relatively easy to conclude which arguments would arise, should the media be censored by government during a war. As previously mentioned, there is the view of the rights activist, or more realistically, the freedom activist. After all, the only problem which these members of the public can advocate against is the restriction of the freedom of expression, nothing else. Section 16 in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa states that, "everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research." From this is seems only logical that the media should have the freedom to do as they wish and publish whatever they see fit.
Yet the fact that this is only a freedom is pivotal in the argument for media censorship. Before this argument can be fully understood, a clear distinction has to be made between rights and freedoms. While there is a rather fine line between the two, there is a fundamental difference. Rights are something which all people in South Africa have, irrespective of nationality, race, gender or even legal status. A freedom, on the other hand, is the power to act without imposed restraints as one wants, but, importantly, is subject to limitations or complete removal. To clarify: everyone has the right not to be subjected to slavery or forced labour, meaning that, given any condition, nobody in our country may be forced into labour intensive tasks if it is not their will. Everybody also has the freedom of trade, occupation and profession, however, one cannot trade vast quantities of abalone acquired and possessed illegally. So it should be clear that rights have to remain in place, no matter what, while a freedom is subject to being limited, changed or removed.
What remains is the analysis of the argument from the side of the government, which is also valid given the above clarification of rights and freedoms. As explained in the introductory paragraph, war means conflict; conflict means life and death. Everyone has the right to life, and as a right, this supersedes the freedom of expression. In all likelihood, the question on the reader's mind is something along the lines of, "How do the two correlate?" It seems outlandish to make such a strong statement without sufficient evidence as to why it is important, so it needs to be expanded and explained by reference to:
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
It is necessary to adopt the perspective of the common man while his country is at war. Suddenly, life has changed. Everything has become more difficult. Inflation and taxation has increased to accommodate for the excessive use of resources and an increased national defence budget, and this means a lower quality of life for the common man earning (hopefully) the same salary as before the conflict. This, naturally, causes the man to be upset or angry, but there is nothing he can really do about it. At the end of the day, when he reclines in front of the television, the anchorman with the optimistic smile reassures him that his country is one step closer to ending the conflict and making life better for all, and so the man can feel better with the reassurance that things will improve; life will get better, eventually.
If the media has full freedom during times of war, a potentially cataclysmic problem could arise. With the freedom of expression in full swing, those whose beliefs stand against the war and the government would have their views broadcasted, their horrific photographs displayed and attempts to turn the general public against the government printed. In turn, this lack of faith in the government's course of action would result in division within a nation. Gradually people would begin to listen to these arguments and reason that the government is acting, as they see it, incorrectly. During a conflict, there is only one way for the public to effectively convey such a belief to the powers that be: protest. Whether in the form of strike action or destructive marches through the streets, people would gather in mass and abandon their jobs, and thus their necessary contribution to society. From this, the government would be fighting on two fronts, making it a lot more difficult to sustain the welfare of their country. In fact, the potential exists for a nation to collapse from the inside, as various sectors shut down as a result of infuriated, dissatisfied protest. In its weakness, the country remains unable to defend itself and so it is attacked or invaded and countless civilian lives are lost.
Everybody has the right to life, and as such, it is the government's mandate to ensure, by any means necessary, that this right is upheld. From the previous analysis it is evident that in such a scenario, the government will have to protect the citizens of its nation from themselves. This may sound ludicrous, but the majority of people do not have the higher order understanding required to see that is of utmost importance not to have a massive movement against the government while their country is actively at war. Even if the reasons for the war are illegitimate, it is better for the nation to remain undivided.
The right to life supersedes the freedom of expression. Expression is a dangerous thing which threatens the lives of a nation's citizens when the nation is at war. While governments should always do their best to allow freedoms to be exercised, there are more important rights which have to be upheld and so perhaps it is, in fact, better to allow media censorship during war. Ideas which promot division, when set free in the public domain, lead to division. A country cannot uphold itself when divided. After all, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
When we talk about war, we are discussing conflict. Not an argument or a debate; war means bloodshed. It determines who lives and who dies. During war a constant threat exists towards the common man on the street and the welfare of a country as a whole on a much larger scale. One issue which has become prevalent in the world is the censorship of the media during times of war, id est a government's restriction of certain articles, photographs or broadcasts which may be made public. The word "restriction" immediately aggravates human rights activists and other liberals who believe that, given any set of circumstances, freedoms should not and can never be forfeited. While their argument may remain valid this is, however, only one side of the argument.
In the context of South Africa, which is not presently at war (on any international level anyway - fueds between political parties are a different matter), it is relatively easy to conclude which arguments would arise, should the media be censored by government during a war. As previously mentioned, there is the view of the rights activist, or more realistically, the freedom activist. After all, the only problem which these members of the public can advocate against is the restriction of the freedom of expression, nothing else. Section 16 in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa states that, "everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research." From this is seems only logical that the media should have the freedom to do as they wish and publish whatever they see fit.
Yet the fact that this is only a freedom is pivotal in the argument for media censorship. Before this argument can be fully understood, a clear distinction has to be made between rights and freedoms. While there is a rather fine line between the two, there is a fundamental difference. Rights are something which all people in South Africa have, irrespective of nationality, race, gender or even legal status. A freedom, on the other hand, is the power to act without imposed restraints as one wants, but, importantly, is subject to limitations or complete removal. To clarify: everyone has the right not to be subjected to slavery or forced labour, meaning that, given any condition, nobody in our country may be forced into labour intensive tasks if it is not their will. Everybody also has the freedom of trade, occupation and profession, however, one cannot trade vast quantities of abalone acquired and possessed illegally. So it should be clear that rights have to remain in place, no matter what, while a freedom is subject to being limited, changed or removed.
What remains is the analysis of the argument from the side of the government, which is also valid given the above clarification of rights and freedoms. As explained in the introductory paragraph, war means conflict; conflict means life and death. Everyone has the right to life, and as a right, this supersedes the freedom of expression. In all likelihood, the question on the reader's mind is something along the lines of, "How do the two correlate?" It seems outlandish to make such a strong statement without sufficient evidence as to why it is important, so it needs to be expanded and explained by reference to:
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
It is necessary to adopt the perspective of the common man while his country is at war. Suddenly, life has changed. Everything has become more difficult. Inflation and taxation has increased to accommodate for the excessive use of resources and an increased national defence budget, and this means a lower quality of life for the common man earning (hopefully) the same salary as before the conflict. This, naturally, causes the man to be upset or angry, but there is nothing he can really do about it. At the end of the day, when he reclines in front of the television, the anchorman with the optimistic smile reassures him that his country is one step closer to ending the conflict and making life better for all, and so the man can feel better with the reassurance that things will improve; life will get better, eventually.
If the media has full freedom during times of war, a potentially cataclysmic problem could arise. With the freedom of expression in full swing, those whose beliefs stand against the war and the government would have their views broadcasted, their horrific photographs displayed and attempts to turn the general public against the government printed. In turn, this lack of faith in the government's course of action would result in division within a nation. Gradually people would begin to listen to these arguments and reason that the government is acting, as they see it, incorrectly. During a conflict, there is only one way for the public to effectively convey such a belief to the powers that be: protest. Whether in the form of strike action or destructive marches through the streets, people would gather in mass and abandon their jobs, and thus their necessary contribution to society. From this, the government would be fighting on two fronts, making it a lot more difficult to sustain the welfare of their country. In fact, the potential exists for a nation to collapse from the inside, as various sectors shut down as a result of infuriated, dissatisfied protest. In its weakness, the country remains unable to defend itself and so it is attacked or invaded and countless civilian lives are lost.
Everybody has the right to life, and as such, it is the government's mandate to ensure, by any means necessary, that this right is upheld. From the previous analysis it is evident that in such a scenario, the government will have to protect the citizens of its nation from themselves. This may sound ludicrous, but the majority of people do not have the higher order understanding required to see that is of utmost importance not to have a massive movement against the government while their country is actively at war. Even if the reasons for the war are illegitimate, it is better for the nation to remain undivided.
The right to life supersedes the freedom of expression. Expression is a dangerous thing which threatens the lives of a nation's citizens when the nation is at war. While governments should always do their best to allow freedoms to be exercised, there are more important rights which have to be upheld and so perhaps it is, in fact, better to allow media censorship during war. Ideas which promot division, when set free in the public domain, lead to division. A country cannot uphold itself when divided. After all, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
"We cannot afford to lose" by Hayden Searle
No one saw it coming. It came out of the unknown and killed millions. We were not prepared. We were not warned. We didn't stand a chance. Years later some stood up, took a stand, fought for survival. But it seemed to be too little too late. With millions already dead and dying, could it be stopped?
Does this sound like a preview to a new Terminator movie? Maybe another apocalyptic prediction?
Well it has happened. And it is here.
After many years of fighting in every way we know how, without a cure and thousands more dying, we have found other methods to eradicate the Red Plague. And it seems as if we may survive, even win. Drugs can only prolong the sufferer's life, but they cannot stand against death indefinitely. Prevention has become the best way to survive the onslaught, and it is working.
But we need to remember that we are fighting the disease, not the people who are suffering from it. In these times of crisis, compassion, love and honesty are just as necessary in fighting the disease head on, as the pursuit of a cure. There are few ways that one can contract the virus, and things such as hugs or sharing a cup or fork with HIV positive people will not get you infected. Treat sufferers of the disease with love and compassion - they are not the disease.
We will defeat HIV and AIDS, we can win this war.
Does this sound like a preview to a new Terminator movie? Maybe another apocalyptic prediction?
Well it has happened. And it is here.
After many years of fighting in every way we know how, without a cure and thousands more dying, we have found other methods to eradicate the Red Plague. And it seems as if we may survive, even win. Drugs can only prolong the sufferer's life, but they cannot stand against death indefinitely. Prevention has become the best way to survive the onslaught, and it is working.
But we need to remember that we are fighting the disease, not the people who are suffering from it. In these times of crisis, compassion, love and honesty are just as necessary in fighting the disease head on, as the pursuit of a cure. There are few ways that one can contract the virus, and things such as hugs or sharing a cup or fork with HIV positive people will not get you infected. Treat sufferers of the disease with love and compassion - they are not the disease.
We will defeat HIV and AIDS, we can win this war.
"The Idea that Killed" by Michael Goldsmid
The Nature of Apocalyptic Religion and Modern Political Ideology
The religion and dominant philosophies that shaped the past predict the end of the world. Big statement. But, it essentially confirms a belief, or rather, an assumption that the overwhelming majority of Westerners still have. Nevertheless, one has to wonder what the end of the world means, and what parts of those philosophies predict it. Essentially, the end of the world means the end of the world as we know it, and the creation of utopia.
Think Christianity - The Book of Revelations predicts a new age, a time where Christ would rule utopia for a thousand years, and this would be attained by a purification, whereby all non-believers and wrong-doers (essentially all those who do not confirm to the ideals and values as set out by Christianity) would be left behind in the Rapture. All true believers are allowed to enjoy the kingdom of heaven, but being part of "the chosen few" seems to depend on whether you are the right denomination of Christian, (although no one really knows what that is yet). In essence the idea that we are interested in here is that, as it is implied, the modern world is plagued by evils and these things need to be destroyed, after which a new, better age will begin.
Modern 'political religions', whether extinct or not, share this view. Communism, Nazism and Jacobinism - these have all had a huge effect on the modern world. They had the notion that the world needed to be cleansed. But, what is the difference here? In Christianity, it was God who would bring about the end of the world, not man. This distinction, ironically, was brought about by something quite un-Christian - the enlightenment. As culture was detaching itself from the tenets and praxis of religion, and attempting to find itself in rational analysis and fact, it could not rid itself of this idea that had imprinted itself onto the collective consciousness of Europeans. And so - because, as Nietzsche famously stated, "God is Dead" - who would bring about the apocalypse, but man?
Revolutionary culture all began with the French Revolution. Here the evils in question were the very real ones created by a classist system and an ineffectual monarchy. The Reign of Terror, led by Robespierre and the Jacobins, led to the deaths of from 18 000 to 40 000 people. Violent repression was used to crush resistance to the government - after all, who was to stand in the way of utopia? Things needed to change, and if a perfect world was to be created, the exercise of violence was considered acceptable to ensure this. Thus, democracy was born.
Violent change has been inextricably associated with revolution. Another example is communism, where the perceived ills were inequality and modern culture. Twenty million died. Nazism held that the major cause of the problem was cultural inferiority - Jews chiefly. Eleven million died, six million of which were Jews. The Third Reich was to be ruled by a chosen few, and was meant to last for a thousand years - sound familiar?
As for perfect people, the story is similar. The Ubermensch (the super man) was a part of Nietzsche's philosophy - a goal towards which humanity should work. In National Socialism, it led to the idea of the Aryan Race, and attempts to create this super-race were made, attempts such as the SS (the idea was to build a force of physically and mentally superior Aryans representative of the Nazi ideology) and Nazi breeding programmes. Scientific racism and eugenics, although also spurred on by the European assumption of superiority upon finding supposedly inferior native inhabitants during the age of discovery, fit into the idea of the Ubermensch.
Even though they may have tried to escape the influence of religion, the idea that killed remained. All of these ideologies have several things in common. They all essentially believed that they could create utopia. A chosen few would be allowed to exist in this world. And most importantly, they held that the world needed to be rid of the "evils" that beset it. The problem, in Christianity, Communism and Nazism, is that they assume that these evils can be destroyed. It is always evil that stands in the way of transformation, and never the flaws inherent in human nature. It is this fact, that human nature doesn't change, that is the reason that all those ideologies in their purist form, failed. The exception being Christianity, because, in this case the instigator of change was God, not man.
However, the idea that killed, might also be called the idea that birthed. From both the wonderful and terrible results of its existence, we have important and workable concepts such as democracy, inalienable human rights and most importantly -freedom.
The religion and dominant philosophies that shaped the past predict the end of the world. Big statement. But, it essentially confirms a belief, or rather, an assumption that the overwhelming majority of Westerners still have. Nevertheless, one has to wonder what the end of the world means, and what parts of those philosophies predict it. Essentially, the end of the world means the end of the world as we know it, and the creation of utopia.
Think Christianity - The Book of Revelations predicts a new age, a time where Christ would rule utopia for a thousand years, and this would be attained by a purification, whereby all non-believers and wrong-doers (essentially all those who do not confirm to the ideals and values as set out by Christianity) would be left behind in the Rapture. All true believers are allowed to enjoy the kingdom of heaven, but being part of "the chosen few" seems to depend on whether you are the right denomination of Christian, (although no one really knows what that is yet). In essence the idea that we are interested in here is that, as it is implied, the modern world is plagued by evils and these things need to be destroyed, after which a new, better age will begin.
Modern 'political religions', whether extinct or not, share this view. Communism, Nazism and Jacobinism - these have all had a huge effect on the modern world. They had the notion that the world needed to be cleansed. But, what is the difference here? In Christianity, it was God who would bring about the end of the world, not man. This distinction, ironically, was brought about by something quite un-Christian - the enlightenment. As culture was detaching itself from the tenets and praxis of religion, and attempting to find itself in rational analysis and fact, it could not rid itself of this idea that had imprinted itself onto the collective consciousness of Europeans. And so - because, as Nietzsche famously stated, "God is Dead" - who would bring about the apocalypse, but man?
Revolutionary culture all began with the French Revolution. Here the evils in question were the very real ones created by a classist system and an ineffectual monarchy. The Reign of Terror, led by Robespierre and the Jacobins, led to the deaths of from 18 000 to 40 000 people. Violent repression was used to crush resistance to the government - after all, who was to stand in the way of utopia? Things needed to change, and if a perfect world was to be created, the exercise of violence was considered acceptable to ensure this. Thus, democracy was born.
Violent change has been inextricably associated with revolution. Another example is communism, where the perceived ills were inequality and modern culture. Twenty million died. Nazism held that the major cause of the problem was cultural inferiority - Jews chiefly. Eleven million died, six million of which were Jews. The Third Reich was to be ruled by a chosen few, and was meant to last for a thousand years - sound familiar?
As for perfect people, the story is similar. The Ubermensch (the super man) was a part of Nietzsche's philosophy - a goal towards which humanity should work. In National Socialism, it led to the idea of the Aryan Race, and attempts to create this super-race were made, attempts such as the SS (the idea was to build a force of physically and mentally superior Aryans representative of the Nazi ideology) and Nazi breeding programmes. Scientific racism and eugenics, although also spurred on by the European assumption of superiority upon finding supposedly inferior native inhabitants during the age of discovery, fit into the idea of the Ubermensch.
Even though they may have tried to escape the influence of religion, the idea that killed remained. All of these ideologies have several things in common. They all essentially believed that they could create utopia. A chosen few would be allowed to exist in this world. And most importantly, they held that the world needed to be rid of the "evils" that beset it. The problem, in Christianity, Communism and Nazism, is that they assume that these evils can be destroyed. It is always evil that stands in the way of transformation, and never the flaws inherent in human nature. It is this fact, that human nature doesn't change, that is the reason that all those ideologies in their purist form, failed. The exception being Christianity, because, in this case the instigator of change was God, not man.
However, the idea that killed, might also be called the idea that birthed. From both the wonderful and terrible results of its existence, we have important and workable concepts such as democracy, inalienable human rights and most importantly -freedom.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
"About: love, I guess" by James Silvester Davies
Hello dear reader, and if you don't mind here is a question: have you ever heard of a philosopher by the name of Virgil?
If you have, well done! I assume you are one of those clever people who like to pester teachers and annoy classmates by asking questions like you are auditioning for Who wants to be a millionaire? (which you may well do, annoying classmates even more by winning tons of cash for what is essentially a load of trivial piffle). If you have not, join the club. In all honesty, I thought virgil was a sort of verb (virgil: v. constant vigilance of thought and deed. Hmmm :-O) until a couple of weeks ago when I found out that he was the author of the oft quoted phrase "love conquers all". And then I read the thoughts of a man trying to interpret this.
I am of course referring to the little known author Leontyne Bennett in his book The Commonwealth of Lost Vanities. Obviously.
(It's very difficult to write sarcastically. So just use your imagination, think sarcasm sundae with quirk and humour sauce with maybe a dollop of irony).
Anyway, time to cut the cake :-D. Leontyne's book manages to masterfully dissect a phrase that is prized by many aficianados and romanticised by teenage girls (read twilight-enthusiasts) the world over. It's actually quite sinister, Leontyne points out that virgil never said love frees all, or love accommodates all. No it's love conquers all: "conquer-vb 1 To overcome. 2 To defeat. 3 To gain possession or control of by means of force or war. 4 To enslave." (Collins english Dictionary; 2000). Love conquers all, the bad and the good. Love will take you over completeley and enslave your life, is the gist of Leontyne's words and that Virgil's words were not a cute announcement but a warning to evade this feeling at all costs!
Leontyne died alone in 1984 from cirrhosis of the liver, no-one attended his funeral but his housekeeper and his Editor from Tyrolian press, so we can safely assume that he followed his own miserable advice. But it is worth heed. Sometimes love hits us like a bolt from the blue, it's beautiful and we cannot but live with it, it would be a crime not to. But if the rose tint on your glasses is turned up too high one can miss nasty character traits and mistake someone for being perfect; true love is still loving someone once your realise that they are not.
So that's my message; it probably doesn't help your teenage angst at all, but please don't forget to tip when you win a Million dollars.
If you have, well done! I assume you are one of those clever people who like to pester teachers and annoy classmates by asking questions like you are auditioning for Who wants to be a millionaire? (which you may well do, annoying classmates even more by winning tons of cash for what is essentially a load of trivial piffle). If you have not, join the club. In all honesty, I thought virgil was a sort of verb (virgil: v. constant vigilance of thought and deed. Hmmm :-O) until a couple of weeks ago when I found out that he was the author of the oft quoted phrase "love conquers all". And then I read the thoughts of a man trying to interpret this.
I am of course referring to the little known author Leontyne Bennett in his book The Commonwealth of Lost Vanities. Obviously.
(It's very difficult to write sarcastically. So just use your imagination, think sarcasm sundae with quirk and humour sauce with maybe a dollop of irony).
Anyway, time to cut the cake :-D. Leontyne's book manages to masterfully dissect a phrase that is prized by many aficianados and romanticised by teenage girls (read twilight-enthusiasts) the world over. It's actually quite sinister, Leontyne points out that virgil never said love frees all, or love accommodates all. No it's love conquers all: "conquer-vb 1 To overcome. 2 To defeat. 3 To gain possession or control of by means of force or war. 4 To enslave." (Collins english Dictionary; 2000). Love conquers all, the bad and the good. Love will take you over completeley and enslave your life, is the gist of Leontyne's words and that Virgil's words were not a cute announcement but a warning to evade this feeling at all costs!
Leontyne died alone in 1984 from cirrhosis of the liver, no-one attended his funeral but his housekeeper and his Editor from Tyrolian press, so we can safely assume that he followed his own miserable advice. But it is worth heed. Sometimes love hits us like a bolt from the blue, it's beautiful and we cannot but live with it, it would be a crime not to. But if the rose tint on your glasses is turned up too high one can miss nasty character traits and mistake someone for being perfect; true love is still loving someone once your realise that they are not.
So that's my message; it probably doesn't help your teenage angst at all, but please don't forget to tip when you win a Million dollars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)