The Redwall Series- by Brian Jacques

Brian Jacques is a fairly prolific author and has written over twenty books in his 'Redwall' series. Bug and I have been reading them together and a world that is encompassed by animals and run by them is loads of fun. I can be challenging- this word contains the same problems or human world does and is filled with war, treachery, poverty, etc... On a positive notes, it contains all the positives that we also enjoy: love, family, friendship, bravery and more. This post will start by listing his titles in the Redwall series.

1. Redwall
2. Mossflower
3. Mattimeo
4. Mariel of Redwall
5. Salamandastron
6. Martin the Warrior
7. The Bellmaker
8. Outcast of Redwall
9. Pearls of Lutra
10. The Long Patrol
11. Marlfox
12. The Legend of Luke
13. Lord Brocktree
14. Taggerung
15. Triss

16. Loamhedge
17. Rakkety Tam
18. High Rhulain
19. Eulalia
20. Doomwyte
21. The Sable Queen
22. The Great Redwall Feast
23. A Redwall Winter’s tale
24. The Redwall Cookbook
25. Redwall: The Graphic Novel
26. The Legend of Redwall Abbey
27. Songs of Redwall

He also has a few other books that are members of smaller series or are stand alone novels. Here they are:

1. Castaways of the Flying Dutchman
2. The Angel’s Command
3. Voyage of Slaves

1. The Tale of Urso Brunov
2. Urso Brunov and the White Emperor

Seven Strange and Ghostly Tales
The Ribbajack

What are your thoughts?

pictures from: http://redwall.wikia.com/wiki/Brian_Jacques, https://books.google.com/books?id=x_7D6k-224EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false, https://books.google.com/books/about/Redwall.html?id=vKGPDAAAQBAJ&source=kp_cover&hl=en, http://www.somagames.com/redwall-and-some-ground-rules/

Brief Views on Early New England

If ten people were to focus on the same aspect of time, all ten individuals would have different and unique perspectives on it. One person may see abundance, peace, and joy... while another sees pain, destruction and death. Still another may see parts of both of these views and then add another twist to their vision. I tried to look at some of the history of New England from some of these different perspectives: the people, animals and communities after the the colonies were started in the area of the United States that we still call New England. I also incorporated some commonly known history in the mix...

The most common way to study the history of New England is to study the perspective of the explorers and the reigning government's point of view. Another perspective is to look at the history from the standpoint from a colonial settler. Living in the 'new' world was hard. Most colonial settlers had no commercial talents – the majority of people came to this world to flee religious persecution, to find land and wealth, or to even try and escape punishment or the gallows for misdeeds such as murder; to have a fresh 'start'. A lot of money and wealth could be made by cutting down trees and shipping the created by-products to England as well as the collection and shipment of fish and other natural resources. However, many settlers had to learn that money can not be 'eaten' and couldn't be used to purchase food where none was available/grown. The major commodity for making money was through trees and created wood products- masts, casks, tools, lumber for construction, barrels, etc... This created the incentive for individuals to sell all the resources available...leaving none for yourself, your family or your community. From the settlers point of view, the land was a God given right, a place of hardship and work, but a place of potential- a new world of wonders and great fertility.

Another way to study the history of New England is to study it from the perspective of the beaver. In the world that the beaver inhabited before the arrival of the Europeans, the beaver was a king. It manipulated the physical environment more than any other animal on the continent... besides us. :) Through the efforts of the beaver, many trees were felled or downed, soil erosion was controlled as the water table rose, new homes are created for animals and fish, and new meadows would develop over time. Beavers had been on this continent for millions of years, and lived building dens and traveling over land and water. They were difficult for their predators to catch and the life they set up for themselves and their progeny was quite successful. The arrival of the Europeans found an animal quite spread out over its environment and in control of its land. Unfortunately for the beaver, the fact that their fur

was easily used to imitated a type of hat manufacturing already in existence in Europe created a further incentive to kill the beaver after if was discovered by the new settlers. In humans, the beaver found the ultimate apex predator who would chase them out of the water to kill them, had a significant incentive to do so, and would do so at will. Due to the economic inequality between the Europeans, the trade desires between the Indians and new settlers, and the profit margin of upwards of 2000% on the fur, beavers suffered horribly. It is believed that only the laws created by the early American government to control and limit the use of beaver products saved the animal from extinction. The beavers lost their land, safety and even the possibility to survive without the intervention of the same species who had brought them to near annihilation. The difference between these two histories in some ways is plain. It can certainly be said that the beaver's history in some ways mirrors the history of the Native Americans- both groups had made themselves comfortable and relatively at peace and in harmony with the land... the coming of the European settlers not only spelled the near annihilation of both groups, but also their loss of land, food, harmony and peace.

The relationship between Blacks and Indians in the colonial South is a bit complicated. Both Blacks and Indians could and had been enslaved by the white Europeans, but the rules of bondage that were held in the laws were interpreted more harshly for blacks. Many Indian tribes accepted runaway slaves into their tribes and intermarriage was acceptable in most of these cases. However, many Indian tribes would turn in runaway slaves and would get benefits and rewards for doing so. In some cases such as the Seminole tribe, Indians would also own blacks as slaves and at the end of the civil war, some tribes had to actually be forced to free their slaves. Europeans would in some cases cause problems between both of these groups by suggesting to members that the other group was working against them; i.e. Indians would be told that Blacks were working against them, etc.... Some sources suggest that working to cause and develop racism in Indian tribes against African Americans was part of

the early government's public policy. Europeans tried to stop the flow of runaway slaves to Indian tribes and even signed treaties with some tribes with the agreement that these tribes would return runaway slaves- most who signed did not follow through and did not return the runaway slaves. The reality is that Indian tribes welcomed runaway blacks into their folds for the most part which caused President Andrew Jackson to fight with and push the Indians out of many of their lands. In the area we now call Florida, so many blacks were escaping from Georgia and living with Indians that the local Indian tribes were seen as a threat for that reason alone. Some of the ways that these groups tried to deal with their conditions was to hold tight to their cultures (although some groups allowed forms of assimilation), some grew foods from their native lands and others tried to find other ways to find peace with their situation. Some ran away, assimilated, or found justification in exploiting others like their European counterparts.

There are a few differences between an organic and an inorganic economy. An organic economy consists of natural resources such as wind, water, animal and human labor. Inorganic economy consists of iron ore, charcoal, etc... In many instances the resources that make up an organic economy as more easily expanded and grown that those that govern the inorganic economy. Human labor is renewable through rest and the importation of servants, slaves and explorers. Wind and water are fairly abundant and while less controllable than human labor, they can be created, collected, and harnessed to squeeze all the available resourcs out of them. Animals can be bred, imported and even trained fairly easily. However, sources such as iron ore are not quickly duplicated. Iron takes a long time for nature to develop and charcoal can be made, but it takes a lot of 'waste' or resource usage to create a small amount of charcoal. So an inorganic economy can be made, but is a riskier

proposition- you risk the loss of the economy when resources run out... if you do not have a strong organic economy you risk starvation, etc... The Europeans focused so much in some cases on the creation for wealth through inorganic economies that they had to buy or steal food from the Indians to survive and some laws had to be passed in some areas that required the growth of grain if you participated in a part of the economy that did not actual create food. Learning about this phenomenon was really interesting because I was a little shocked that people would 'forget' or would be unwilling to waste their 'time' growing food... but would want to eat it later. In many ways we have that same economy today where people have separated themselves from the growing and making of their food... and our farmers can be quite poor even though they work really hard and product an important commodity. In many ways we still 'despise' this labor even as we eat from it.

The importance of Christopher Columbus's report to Queen Isabella cannot be understated. His report of a new land filled with potential converts to the Christian religion, gold and other riches, but most importantly.... land for the taking after conquering was staggering and exciting! While this news was important to the Queen and to Spain, the rest of Europe was also in a situation that caused desperation and it was only a matter of weeks before the letter that Christopher Columbus had written to the Queen had been translated, copied and traveled throughout all of Europe by other travelers and pilgrims, traders,and armies. Soon other countries were arming ships to head to the new land with people who had nothing to lose in the hopes for land, a better life, and riches to gain in the new world. Spain started the lead for colonies first, and when England had fought and beaten the Spanish army, the English came and started their own settlements. Other countries soon followed created French and Dutch colonies and more rivalries for land and resources.

Until the arrival of the Spanish, horses were not an animal known to the Americas since the prehistoric ice age. However, the Spanish brought them in abundance to the Americas to aid in their conquest of the native populations and it is thanks to the horse that Pizarro and his Spanish army conquered the local populations in such a small period of time (the diseases that the Spanish brought with them muct also be given some credit, but I digress :). As some horses escaped and became wild, a new breed of horse was developed that we today call the mustang. This breed became extremely numerous and they populated the land across the continent- the horses didn't stay in the 'conquered' lands. These large groups of wild horses changed the way that the Native Americans lived in a dramatic way. Horses gave the native populations new ways to do almost everything. They could fight, hunt and travel on horses and this 'blessing' transformed their lives. Some tribes become more nomadic as moving farther distances was easier/ possible and horses became a new part of the Indian's culture and lifestyle. It seems almost rare to hear about the culture of Indians and not hear about the horse. The horse becomes a symbol of the Indian's culture and life to the Europeans and their future progeny... even though the history of Native Americans is thousands of years long and their history with the horse is only a few centuries.

Pigs were brought from Europe with the explorers and they were a blessing to these non-native people. Pigs are prolific, small, not too picky about food, easy to care for and are willing to look after themselves. Some pigs were let loose into the 'wilderness' on purpose- with markings on their ears to show ownership- and then were hunted as needed by their European owners. This way their owners didn't have to care for them and just 'collected' their property when needed. As the Americas were conquered by the Spaniards, the pigs helped the conquerors by attacking and eating the local native's crops of corn- they competed with Indians for the Indian's food. Native Americans didn't fence their fields and so wild pigs were able to eat the small shoats and cultivated crops of the natives. (Between pigs and the entitlement felt by the Europeans that they could take the native's seed corn whenever they wanted to, the Native Americans must have felt quite trapped and desperate... which explains some of their aggression towards the incomers. Within a few generations, there would be tens of thousands of wild pigs which became more aggressive over time and developed tusks... becoming a serious and daily problem for the Native Americans.

The Europeans reacted to the seemingly endless supply of trees and fish with joy and greed. Europe was desperate for both wood and fish and the 'new world' seemed to be overabundant and unending in these resources. The land is describes as having rivers with more fish than water and trees that are so numerous that a squirrel can go from the north of the country to the south without ever touching the ground. The newcomers saw it as their 'duty' to tame the forests and civilize the land for God. So the forests are cut down for building and 'needs' for not only this new land, but the lands of Spain and the Old World. Fish were harvested as if there would always be an overabundance so it

took only 200 years to over-fish the Americas. Wood was taken so quickly that some areas in the Americas were literally denuded of trees – and this 'new world' begins to look like the land that they left. For the settlers, someone who owned land would be able to sell the fish for money or other goods creating wealth- and since the land wasn't owned, the land's resources cost nothing. I think it is safe to say that both wood and fish were harvested with only greed and need in mind and not conservation or with the thought that the resources might potentially be limited. Both of these resources with be overused and run low... and were probably a factor in the fight for independence from the European powers... it would allow those that lived in the Americas to keep more of the resources to themselves and not have the largest share (or what was left) travel across the seas.

The animals that were brought over from Europe such as the horse and pig changed the landscape of the American continent in many ways and the arrival of women and their animals also create great change. Women brought the way of life that they were used to in Europe which included plants such as wheat, barley, fig trees, olives, bananas, other fruit trees, etc … and animals such as goats, chickens, sheep, cows, etc…. Through these passengers that traveled to the America's, other 'tagalongs' such as weeds like dandelions and European insects (including bees) arrive and start to populate the environment. With all of these changes, the Americas and it's land literally fall under an environmental revolution as the land becomes a mirror image of the European lands that these people have left behind. The land was invaded by all of these animals and the new plants and the land is forever changed through the trampling and domination of the new animal population. In the end, the settlers do not have to tame the land... they practice environmental imperialism and conquer the land itself, bending it to their will and leaving death, destruction and sometimes extinction to the native flora and fauna that were once strong. One quote I found stated- “livestock and grains changed this world into a true New England.” The land was permanently changed and today looks nothing like it did before the Europeans arrived.

The new discoveries of resources in the Americas created a demand for luxury goods that were purely American products. Fur and other 'hide' products became in high demand and some animals (such as beavers) were hunted almost to extinction... (But I bet everyone in England and some of the other European countries look very fashionable in their fur coats and beaver hats. :) The land was quickly cleared for gardens and orchards/plantations and the demand for fruit from the 'New World' is high in Europe. Sugar and tobacco (the luxury goods with highest demand) were also desired luxury items which were packed and shipped in large amounts to Europe. To satisfy the large demand of these products in the Old World, huge plantations or large mono-cultures were developed that stretched over enormous swaths of land and Africans are captured, forcibly immigrated, and then compelled to work these huge areas/ plantations for the profit of the white Europeans. These African slaves were needed as the Native American population could not really be enslaved – too many of them had been killed or died out from the new diseases brought by the European immigrations. The downside of growing sugar and tobacco is that they really can not be eaten(for nourishment and health)and these plants tend to rape the soil of all it nutrients. So growing these products in many ways required the development of slavery and the loss of forests as more land had to be cleared to grow these crops when current fields were no longer fertile. The upside is that sugar tastes really good... sorry, couldn't help that comment. :)

The discovery of the potato took a few centuries to really take hold in Europe, but when it does it becomes a necessary and needful food item for the poor as a healthful and nutritious product. Potatoes are introduced to Spain and from there to Europe and it is embraced in Ireland. Ireland is constantly short of food for its population due to bad land, wars, exc... The potato is easy to grow and has less chances in war time of being burned and destroyed. The population in Ireland will more than double due to the potato and other towns in Europe with explode in population due to the impact of this easy to grow tuber. The fact that potatoes also have a goodly amount of nutrients including vitamin C (which helps prevent scurvy) made them an indispensable food for a moving and financially strapped population.

The impact that the new diseases brought from Europe had on the native populations was nothing short of devastating. Conservative death estimates suggest that around 50% of these native populations died, but it appears that the estimates that suggest death numbers might be over 90% mortality may be a lot more accurate. Historians are still trying to discover all the diseases that were spread and to grasp a clear and accurate mortality number, but we are sure that one of the diseases that caused such devastation was smallpox and, because the virus was so strong and traveled so easily, many populations of native tribes fell to the disease and death without ever meeting any of the Europeans who originally brought the disease to their lands. Another disease that is know to have causes large scale death and destruction to the Native Americans was influenza. Neither of these diseases was known in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans so no native animal or person was immune from these diseases and had little to no defense. As the Native Americans fell sick and perished (and their civilizations failed), the Europeans would give thanks to God and see the death/destruction of the natives as a blessing and a mandate from God; that the land was theirs to tame and occupy, that the natives were sinners, etc... and not worthy of the land, and that the land was a gift from God for them. These thoughts and prejudices allow the settlers to see themselves as the true owners of the land and to see themselves as better and more worthy than the native populations. These viewpoints would justify the exploitation of the land and the European settlers would feel justified in their minds that their actions were right and appropriate... and not greedy and unrighteous. It allowed them to look at the natives and label them 'savages' and other forms of animals - not actually human beings like unto themselves (and God's image).

Some of these views we as a human race are still struggling with. Racism, exploitation, belief in Godly entitlement... these are all viewpoints that can easily be found on a daily basis in our communities. I wish I had easy answers to solve the problem but I really don't. What I know I can do is work to change myself and work to create change in my community. What do you think? What are you doing?


pictures from: http://www.instantshift.com/2010/08/24/88-brilliant-examples-of-forced-perspective-photography/, http://www.albinocrowgallery.com/murals.html, http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/animals-ecology/beaver-damn-climate-change-17122014/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States, https://www.pinterest.com/russellgavin/black-native-americansmixed-race/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade, http://www.billsbearrugs.com/clearance/, http://natureworksct.blogspot.com/2012/03/grow-food.html, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/21/american-history-myths-debunked-columbus-might-have-been-jewish-and-other-unknown-facts, http://myhorse.com/blogs/horse-breeds-information/wild-or-rescued-horses/colorado-state-university-researchers-try-birth-control-vaccine-on-wild-horse-herd/, http://research.cnr.ncsu.edu/blogs/news/2011/05/04/wild-hogs-researchers-examine-impact-of-feral-pigs-in-eastern-n-c/, http://inhabitat.com/epa-declares-more-than-half-of-us-rivers-unfit-for-aquatic-life/, http://miriadna.com/wallpapers/forest, http://www.wildmanstevebrill.com/Plants.Folder/Dandelion.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_hat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato, http://espressostalinist.com/genocide/native-american-genocide/

The International Committee of the Red Cross and Neutrality

One thing that I looked at this semester was the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross)and the idea and guide they follow of neutrality. I found myself thinking about neutrality and truly being impartial and whether it is possible. After researching this for a few days, I have decided that the International Committee of the Red Cross but remain neutral… and can’t actually do so… and are not seen as neutral in areas where it counts… and therefore should either reclaim its neutrality or ‘let it go’. Some people will not agree with the statements that I made previously so I would like to take this opportunity to explain what my thoughts are on this subject.

The ICRC was ‘started’ in 1876 as a loose organization work towards helping people in need- whether from natural disasters, wars, etc…Part of the original creed was to be neutral and to give help that was not dependent on political, religious or ideological acts or purposes. To provide humanitarian help while remaining neutral allows the Red Cross to be able to get into places more safely then they could otherwise and they can help anyone and not have to worry about who is guilty or who is innocent or whether the war is just or not. That is a great and wonderful mission. With that kind of reputation and example and being able to see how the Red Cross can get into prisons that no one else can get into and war fields and towns under assault and create ‘safe areas’ and help anyone. I guess the problem I see is that I do not feel like as an organization it can ever be fully neutral nor be seen as such.

Any organization, even a non- profit has goals and needs money and volunteers/ employees to accomplish them. So this organization depends on donations and as it is a large organization…. It requires a lot! The 2010 budget for the ICRC is thought to be around 1156 million Swiss francs which comes from voluntary donations from individuals or organizations during annual appeals or emergency appeals for specific situations. However, most of that money doesn’t come from individual donors- over three fourths of their budget comes from governments or states including the US and Canada. It’s not that far a stretch to recognize that these large donors can restrict some ways that their funds are used according to their own political, religious or ideological visions. There is evidence that this happens as US aid is not able to be used to perform abortions no matter the circumstances the woman is in or her life and other countries have placed those same restrictions as well. (As recently as 2013, the United Kingdom removed this restriction from their funding. It is estimated that around 16% of their donations are tightly limited in how and where the funds can be used. So understanding that aid has ‘strings’ to it is a recognition that the organization can only be as neutral as its donations allow it to be. Also, recognizing that the aid is being paid for with donations from countries that are actively encouraging foreign intervention in your country or even actively engaged in war… well, how can that really be seen as neutral? We also need to recognize that this organization is run by human beings who will come with their own biases, prejudices and may not always recognize them. Lastly, the ICRC is and has always been run by people in Switzerland. I am not saying that is a problem, but it doesn’t suggest true international participation or understanding if the hierarchy is also chosen and kept in one country. In fact, it suggests a bias because the country itself gains from the reputation of the organization and the money that pours in helping its economy, its citizens etc… Another example is that ICRC has created a corporate ‘arm’ (Corporate Support Group) which was developed and consists of businessmen and companies both in Switzerland and foreign states to promote economic well-being around the world and to give the organization private sector support. They do restrict members to individuals or organizations that are of “good ethical standing and membership {and} will therefore be restricted to a limited circle of companies whose activities are compatible with the ICRC’s principles and mandate.” It is not difficult for people to look at this arm of the organization and see that it has a bias. Yes, the ICRC wants members that are ethical and in ‘good standing’… however, the public sector always has a bias and that view will not always be swallowed up into best practices. Profit, the business's needs and mission, all those will potential influence where their donations they give are spent and how. Hence, even in neutrality, it is difficult to find a way to be impartial.

I guess I do not see that the International Committee of the Red Cross is still perceived as ‘neutral’ as it is trying to say it is. There is evidence that other groups do not see them as neutral or impartial that can be seen when we look at physical attacks on their buildings such as the attack on the ICRC headquarters in Bagdad in 2003 and the attack on their headquarters in Panjshir Valley, Afghanistan in 2013. There are complaints by other NGO’s that have most of the same goals and the Red Cross doesn’t actively work well with them. It suggests that all of these groups including the Red Cross are more worried about their group and its wants/ needs than the people they are serving. Some writers suggest that aid groups actually help further war, make it more likely for violence to happen, and keep it going longer than actually countering and stopping it. That seems counter-intuitive at best, and hypocritical and anti-humanitarian at worst.

So I go back to my original thoughts. I think the organization should remain neutral by reclaiming their neutrality or they need to let it go and be like a lot of the NGO’s that they do not believe are neutral. I think that opening up the hierarchy to people from other countries, amputating their corporate arm and making it totally separate and unrelated, being willing and working towards a most positive relationship with other groups and not accepting funds for their ‘neutral’ agency that have restrictions on them. In fact, I bet that funds might be less likely to be restricted by some countries if the information got out that the funds were only offered with strings attached... as people would then know and be more motivated to work on changing that. Those are my thoughts…

pictures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross, http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs013/1102236947549/archive/1102881847169.html, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/29/red-cross-afghanistan-suicide-bombers

Did The Russian State Form in a Different Manner than Its Occidental Neighbours? - Part I by Nils Johann

Can Russia be seen as following the same formative patterns as the new bureaucratic (proto-) states rising in Western Europe? A discussion in historiography, world history and the problems of long chains of causality, exemplified by a comparison of Russian and English political history during the reigns of Ivan IV and Henry VIII. (Late medieval/Northern Renaissance period, 16th century.)

While studying medieval Russia two questions kept popping up in the Literature: Does Russia have its background in “Eastern” (Asiatic) or “Western” (European) culture? Does a possible Asiatic background account for the perceived “backwardness” of the land? During the reading, a suspicion of double-standards for the 'scales' we use to measure the 'East' and the 'West' arose. Marginal cosmetic differences seemed to be exploited to exasperate a narrative, of a distant, strange, and mythical Russia. The historiographical discussion will start with the more specific grand works and perspectives concerning Russia, opened up by Ostrowski's essay on "The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political institutions", which served as a inspiration for this work. What then also needs to be addressed is the claim of Russian backwardness which is the main narrative thread in Alexander Yanov's work, and in large parts in other writings, like the work of Wittfogel. Is the way Russia is portrayed up to this day, intentionally overemphasising minor differences, as a result of the political tension that ensued between its rulers and the neighbors in 'The West', rather than a matter of fact? Could the portrayal also be the result of sloppy methodology... even if some Russian scholars themselves adopt this view during the zenith of British hegemony, in the middle of the 19th century? It became my desire to look at the subject with a 'Homeric blindness' and a 'Ranke'an' moral disassociation.

While dealing with this question the main challenge gave itself by the seemingly ethereal qualities of terms like 'Europe' utilized in the discussion. An approach was finally opened up by 'zooming out' and taking a look at Frank's work in "ReOrient- Global Economy in the Asian Age" (1998) and by the discussion that ensued between him and Landes, Goldstone, Vries, Pomeranz and others. I still remember discussing the 'hot topic' of the 'special' European development with Vries back in 2004, and also that it ended with Vries passionately leaving.

I will make an account of this larger discussion further on because it will provide the proper context for discussing what 'Western Traits' actually are, and how far back we actually are honestly able to superimpose this term back in time. Goldstone's suggestion: To see Europe as the (*'barbaric') rim-lands of “Civilization”. Civilization at first spreading from Mesopotamia, in the direction of Europe, is a good perspective for helping us understand this.

With the narrative, that: Every time non-European state-formations have stability, their government can inherently, within this discussion, be described as despotic or tyrannical, we might be led astray: As long as there was order in China, and India, up until about 1800, these areas also maintained a technical lead on poor, war-torn Western-Europe: Stability equals innovation, because relative risk is reduced, and more persons are allowed to specialize. Risk becomes acceptable when it is affordable to take a loss.

In order to answer the question of the paper, what follows is an introduction to the greater European realm during the lives of Henry VIII (*1491-†1547) of England and Ivan IV (*1530-†1584) of Russia. This context is important, because looking at Russia isolated, can sometimes make us forget the realities of late-medieval/Renaissance life, in its westward neighbors. We could go into the trap of unintentionally only comparing it to our life experiences today, leading us to handle the subject-matter unhistorical. The demonstration will then continue by looking at, and comparing their reigns, which are more alike, than proponents of British exceptionalism, or of the Asiatic culture of Russia, would care for. We start out by comparing their families rise to power and their relation to the other noble families. There follows a comparison of their household management, the legal status of the Emperors, and their warfare.

In several works by, amongst others, Crummy and Yanov, the reign of Ivan IV is held up as an example of 'non-European' political behavior. When we with that approach compare Ivan's reign to that of Henry VIII, interesting choices for conclusion open up. Neither Henry, nor Ivan, are behaving like the Europeans of Ferguson or Wittfogel. The alleged “democratic”, free Occident, stands like an elegant myth, with its cradle in a later age. In short, the privilege of a few noblemen in Britain after 1688, does not make out as credible freedom, and in the 1540's, English political conditions do not stray remarkably from conditions in Russia. In the comparison of chapter 4, a pattern will emerge, that highlights the similarities in behavior of the two Monarchs and their Crown. Both castigate and subjugate the other competing nobles. In order to accumulate capital they reform their management and communication systems, laying the groundwork for a bureaucratic state. They do this in order to exploit the realm, and to aggregate power in their own hands. This enables their wars of conquest. Standing gunpowder-armies enable them to project their power further than their predecessors. It should be acknowledged that differences between England and Russia, but when looking at the grand motions, an impression of similar development for the period forms.


Comments.... Questions? :)

Hunkering Down

This winter has already been a bit of a challenge to everyone in this area- more snow in three weeks than usual for December with some days reaching -15 degrees of chill... not counting the wind. The ice storm a few weeks back was stunningly pretty, but horrendously destructive as the weight of its icy beauty pulled trees into trees into deep waist-ed bows until they collapsed under their weight , acknowledging their submission to the elements and powers around them. I watched bushes literally collapse in upon themselves- imploding into their cores like a black hole had developed at their roots and was pulling them quickly and inexorably into the nothingness. I lay awake one night gazing blankly at the ceiling and just listening to the creaks, groans, whistling and popping of the many pieces of topiary and the woods in general as they fought and struggled not only for their limbs, but for their very lives. It felt a little bit like the end of the world... the sensation of the earth and all life starting to collapse and die into extinction. It was hard not to feel sad at the death and destruction that I can see from every window of my house and on my walks into the woods. It looked like a war had been fought... and that mother nature had lost, brought figuratively to her knees in surrender. Only one thing spoke of positive things: the small inlet in the woods under some trees with the clear prints and indents of at least five deer who have rested out the storm and then left, alive and ready to look for food.

The one drawback to moving into my awesome cabin at the very beginning of winter is that I had no time to locate and fix any areas or fissures in the walls, windows or doors that might need to be repaired. Most of the time I haven't really noticed – the stove keeps the place warm and cozy and I find myself quite comfortable. I have found that while the insulation is good, the windows are very thin and two of them have broken frames and so in small places, a steady stream of air flows in from the exterior. The wind and snow come in on three sides and I can't feel the cool draft in through the plugs in the wall as well. So when the weather is in negative numbers, it has actually been more of a struggle to keep the place well heated. I will say that even with this difficulty I smile – I just love living here and I feel like I have finally found my refuge... a place to regain my health and to allow the wounds of the last few years to heal. I have slowly been filling in some of the cracks and covering the openings in the windows with tape and down blankets to hold it all tightly together until better weather. That has helped a lot and has even provided more evening entertainment as some of the cats find it less challenging to run up the walls now. :)

So, we are all hunkered down and ready for three more months of snow and ice and wind. And as I drive slowly to work three days a week I look at the houses and neighborhoods as I slide past. The buildings seemed closed off too... covered with snow and ice... hunched or and oppressed, waiting for the warmth to return. How are things in your neck of the woods? Are you and your neighbors warm and comfortable? How is the winter affecting you and your plans? If you survived the ice storm, who did it affect the trees and wildlife around your home? I am very curious!

Sexual Assault and Rape : The Differences Between Perception and Culture

I was challenged to look at both the ideas of rape and sexual assault and what the differences between these two horrible acts might be. At the time, I felt like there can be many differences that would also depend on the environment and mentality of the perpetrator. So here are my thoughts on the issue after my research this week.

Sexual assault can be generally defined as unwanted or inappropriate contact towards anther person that is seen or regarded as sexual in nature. Rape is a form of sexual assault in which a person forcibly or without permission penetrates the victim's body with anything; whether its parts of their body, other objects whether small or large, etc.... and it is still considered rape if the penetration is without consent to any opening of the body...even those that are not necessarily considered sexual orifices. So a person can be sexually assaulted, but not raped in some cases (physically, that is)... but a person who has been raped has also been sexually assaulted. With few exceptions, sexual assault and rape are usually crimes against women and tend to be based on power and dominance instead of love or perceived sexual needs. These behaviors are acts of violence, not acts of equality or caring. While these definitions are easy to understand, they do not also tend to convey the emotional or mental violence that is also inflicted when the physical crime is perpetrated. For many, just the act of reporting the crime or talking about it causes them to feel the 'act' again even though they are safe in the present time. Other challenges that come with the sexual assault/ rape for the victim is dealing with the emotions from the perpetrator that are expressed.

When thought about in these terms and also understanding the general patriarchy of most societies in the world, we can easily see how sexual assault and rape can be used not only to hurt one person but as weapon to cause harm to many people and even a community or society at large. In war, the raping of women is an act that not only causes harm to the victim, but is also an act of revenge and defiance against her husband, her 'protector, her community... and even of her culture and race. While there is much disagreement and debate about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, his black slave / mistress and whether she could or could not consent in their sexual relationship, few will argue that Mr. Jefferson was in a position of power over her and her family which could limit how much she really was able to consent to their relationship. And few would be willing to disagree with the idea that Mrs. Hemings was picked because she was black and the relationship most likely wouldn't have happened at all if she had been a purely white female. Other ways that rape is used against a culture/race is to attempt to change it genetically- if many of the men are killed and the women are raped or forced into longer term relationships with their assailants, the children born of such unions are usually

considered members of the dominant group and not part of the culture of the child's mother. It is easy to see looking at the past history of many groups of people how this tactic has been successfully used to not only change, but also decimate communities and cultures. (And on an amusing and side note.... isn't it interesting about the use of pure-blood and mud-blood in the Harry Potter books to denote positive or negative connotations... and these were on consensual births! Something to think about in relation to how each of us looks at those of mixed race heritage or bi-racial couples. :) Finally, one of the best ways to defeat your enemy isn't just to kill them, but to truly win you must also demoralize them and mentally defeat them.... to convince them that they are worthless or have lost something that can not be reattained. And that is what makes rape so effective a weapon in so many instances.

There is another way to look at sexual assault and rape and that is through the lens of the culture, society and the people living in it. The definitions I have given for the most part belong to the culture I live in: a first world country. There are some ways these definitions change when we look at the way other societies perceive women as well as girls and even marriage. In some cultures, girls are married at very young ages and that is not only culturally acceptable but encouraged and facilitated by the child's parents. In this country, we have made it very challenging for any female under eighteen to get married – even if they want to! In some areas of the world, girls are married between the ages of 10-12 on average... and sometimes as young as eight! These girls have not chosen this marriage and it is usually facilitated by the girls parents to a man at usually at least a decade older than the young girl. (In September, an article came out about the death of an eight year old girl named Rawan who had died due to internal bleeding caused by the consummation of her marriage to her much older husband. This marriage took place in Yemen). To myself and I suspect for many people I know, this act would be considered rape- whether the young lady had died or not. In this culture, the relationship was acceptable and not considered rape... or could be described as 'tolerable rape' (a rape that is culturally acceptable and sanctioned.) In my culture sitting alone with a man on a park bench is acceptable and even encouraged to get to know each other... in others, that can be considered sexual compromising and the young lady is 'ruined'. It really does have a lot to do with the society in which you live.

What are your thoughts on any of the issues that I brought up in this post? Do you have differing views on how culture defines sexual assault?

Brief Thoughts on the Industrial Revolution

Almost all of us who have studied a little history have heard the term “Industrial Revolution” and have the basic concept of what that term means. What I find most interesting is what that term tends to leave out without deeper study and what it shows about us and the ways we as human beings and historians think. Because the term tends to suggest only huge alterations in 'industry' or business... and not in much else. However, during this time of changes many ways of human's lives in Europe changed in drastic ways and for the majority of people, not just a small group of few. These occurrences started to happen in society around 1750 may have started small but quickly made huge changes that could be seen in a short period of time. These changes can be easily seen and divided and described in four categories: industry, commerce, communications and agriculture. The first country in which these changes started to roll forth was Great Britain. If you look at some of the reasons that this country was able to step to the forefront, we can surmise some of the things that we need today to help other countries be able to expand – will talk about these advantages down below. :) One of the first things that seemed to start the 'revolution' was that large landowners in England started closing off their lands and as this practice became legal with the passage of Enclosure Acts, this process left hundreds of poor peasants without land to farm or work.

It was the process of removing the serfs and peasants from the lands that brought people to the cities and helped create a large, available and cheap work force. This created more demand for goods in the cities as well as work. So wealthy merchants or others could try and increase production to meet this demand which would in turn create more jobs. This also created the challenge of how to feed a large population with fewer people actually farming which had been the norm in times past. Agriculture changed a great deal with the Enclosure Acts as the large landowners could now farm very differently than has been accomplished in the past. Instead of several small plots of land farmed by families, a landowner could now farm hundreds of acres and instead of a variety of crops, the farmer could choose to focus on two or three popular and ready to sell crops. These crops could then be sold to feed people in other areas, to create other goods to sell such as cloth and also purchase a variety of foods to feed themselves and their families. As machines were invented to also make harvesting some crops easier with fewer people, many farmers began to grow cotton and other products as their major crops which were needed for making cloth, garments, etc... in the cities and could gain a good cash price. So industry was able to grow as businesses were able to increase production which also developed more work and increased profits for the investors or well off owners.

Commerce also began to increase as people started ignoring the guild policies and just began creating and selling goods for themselves to sell. In the past, guilds had helped limit how many goods could be made because there was a limit of how many people could make the goods. This had now changed and as people invented machines and found new ways – with water and coal- to move the machines to create products such as cloth, this also increased the quantity of good available, the variety of goods and brought prices down... which made purchasing goods possible for people who it would not have been financially feasible for before. As more people could buy goods, more goods needed to be made to keep up with the need which in turn would create more jobs, etc... The flood of agricultural products into cities helped entrepreneurs and other leaders of commerce to build larger businesses so that they could increase their supplies and sale-able goods... and brought the prices of food down as well. With all this growth and the need by the cities... and soon countries to move these goods to their place of sale quicker, travel and communication became significant challenges that people worked to overcome. It was during this time that trains were developed and the telegraph was invented- both of which helped move messages and goods quickly and efficiently to other areas. Soon people of moderate means could afford to use these forms of communication as well as the possibility to purchase newspapers or trips on trains that encouraged more openness and trade between the cities and countries they connected.

I see these four processes are spokes on the same wheel. Apart, none of the groups would have grown very quickly and change would have been small. Industry would have had very slow growth if any because there was not a large, legal work force without other jobs nor was there a large population who had money to buy the goods if the quantity of produced goods had increased. Large landowners couldn't have created the wealth that they did by their mono-culture crops if the majority of their lands were still leased by peasants. Commerce couldn't have grown at all without more goods at cheaper prices and people who felt like they could afford to purchase them. It was also able to grow because people could 'pool' their wealth to help develop a business and so individuals who didn't have enough assets and cash to start a business could still invest in a business which could make them more money. And the advances in communication made the growth of the later three quicker and more efficient as well as allowing most people to have more information of what was going on in the world around then.... making the world much larger and smaller indeed. :)

The European standard of living was significantly improved in many way by the Industrial revolution. Over time more people were able to live more comfortably, to own more clothing and goods and to have more options for work than people had in past generations. Heck, the ideas of the Enlightenment suggested that enjoying this life we have now was possible and acceptable and so the focus of living 'to get to eternity' that had been the past comfort to suffering masses was no longer the main belief of most people. The idea that everyone could improve themselves and their lives through education and hard work opened up people (all right... mostly men) to try and invent, learn and strive to rise through the ranks of society... something that had been impossible for most everyone for centuries. You no longer 'had' to go to church or belong to a specific church- don't get me wrong, it still helped make your life easier to be active in the 'right' church. The most significant improvements during this time came from some improvements in medicine, more work opportunities, opportunities to own more and for more people to participate in both commerce and consumption, as well as opportunities to travel and learn more about the world through newspapers, trains, and other forms of communication. For the first time in history news and knowledge could travel faster than people and ordinary people could participate if they could find the means to do so. Fewer people were always on the border of starvation – that was a great improvement indeed! Over time, sanitation was also improved and so disease would not be so rampant in so much of the city. Education was also more available and was available for more people.

Cities and towns had been fairly small and slow growing before the Industrial revolution. With the huge influx of workers from the rural areas and the growth of new businesses, buildings, etc... towns became cities and large cities grew to phenomenal sizes. Pollution from coal burning gave many cities entirely new 'atmospheres' as the air was heavier, had more fog and was darker as well. Cities also tended to have a great many more families living in them (so more children) than in the past. People in cities tended over time become more segregated into groups by ethnicity, income and community connections (such as family) and as such, city growth was not carefully planned. Buildings sprung up with in a few days and with very little planning... and were sometimes very close together and 'squished'. Lots of people coupled with the inability to be as sanitary as the country (due to proximity vs. amount of land) caused an increase of disease as well as disability and death. Cities were filled with very large businesses (such as factories) instead of the majority of small and so even children would work in the large factories... sometimes for as long as sixteen hours a day. As the population increased, it also help create a feeling of anonymity and fewer feelings of community which also caused other challenges such as upticks in certain amounts of crime, etc... Over time, smaller businesses became more permanent (the traveling salesman wasn't as popular) and smaller businesses developed ways to make shopping more attractive such as indoor light and windows.

Great Britain was uniquely situated to take full advantage of the growth during this time for a few reasons. One is that as the country had not fought a war of in soil for many decades. So the land and cities had not been as damaged and war-torn as most of Europe. Britain’s government was stable and had been so awhile so other institutions like banking and the law were pretty stable which gave investors and entrepreneurs less nervousness and more incentive to invest and create new businesses without the fear that the government might change and shut down their business... or war might destroy the buildings and worth forth. (As it was also one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, that also allowed for more investment.) As a smaller country covered in rivers and waterways, transporting goods was a lot faster than over land which also gave Great Britain an edge over some of the countries in Europe. With the Enclosure Acts, large landowners were able to force huge numbers of peasants off the lands they had been living on for generations and created a large workforce that needed jobs. As business taxes were generally lower in England and merchants and entrepreneurs were more socially acceptable in society, it is no surprise that Great Britain really surged forward in growth and development during the Industrial revolution.

What are your thoughts? Did you learn anything new? :)

PTSD / Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome - The Basics and the Personal

This week I took an in-depth look at post-traumatic stress syndrome... otherwise known as PTSD. My experience with PTSD is both personal and community orientated. Some of my family knows that I have this diagnosis, but for those that do not... I am coming out of the closet ;) I was diagnosed with PTSD three years ago stemming from experiences that occurred before I was eighteen in my parent's household. (I am not trying to be mean about my parents … I frankly think at this point that they did the best they knew how and complaining or blaming doesn't change anything.) I have some friends who also suffer from this disorder and some acquaintances who struggle with it so badly that they really find it difficult to get through the day... every day. One challenge that people with this disorder face every day is that this problem isn't normally visible to the world around them. Unlike someone who is in a wheelchair or has a different physical problem, the world around you doesn't know for the most part that you need certain care, what that care is, etc... So when a situation changes and puts the individual into instinctual action, everyone surrounding you for the most part is unprepared to deal with it and the individual themselves just struggles to hold themselves together and pull their mind and feelings back to the present.

So for those individuals that do not know much about post traumatic stress disorder, let me share some of the basics. PTSD is usually caused by events that happen to a person (or persons) that are out of the ordinary and which someone's 'life or integrity' is at risk, affected, etc... The action can happen to the person or someone can develop this disorder from witnessing something severely challenging. When described in those words it seems (at least to me) like something simple and most simple things are easy to fix. From my own personal experience as well as the experiences that have been shared with me by friends or family, it is not simple at all. Another thing that I have noticed in my experiences is that PTSD is different and is responded to differently by anyone who has it and when I asked about that idea at a conference last year I was told that happens because people's personalities and how they handle and react to things initially are different and also their experiences and how they feel about them are different. Some healthcare professionals also believe that PTSD is more likely to affect 'vulnerable people' such as those with fewer defense mechanisms, fewer safe resources in family and friends, people with low self esteem, etc.... and others believe that getting the disorder could cause the self esteem, defense problems, etc... (Reminds me a little bit of the age old question of which came first... the chicken or the egg.) While most people have heard of PTSD being a consequence for soldiers who have experienced military combat, it is also common for victims of abuse, rape, torture and more. If there is one part of the definition that seems a bit challenging to define, it's 'out of the ordinary world experience'...? Wouldn't that also depend on the individual involved and what was normal for them? A good reason that even defining what causes the disorder can be difficult!

Even though the exact description of the problem isn't precise, the symptoms of PTSD are very easily defined. There are three categories that symptoms can easily be placed in; re-experience, avoidance, and arousal. Here is a basic breakdown of what those categories cover.

1. Re-experience - These symptoms include flashbacks and /or reliving the traumatic event for minutes or much longer. Some people get difficult dreams about the traumatic event(s)

2. Avoidance - Some symptoms include the attempt to try to avoid thinking or talking about the traumatic event, avoiding activities or people that you used to enjoy, feeling hopeless and anxiety about the future, difficulty with memory as well as emotional challenges (such as feeling numb or unable to feel much), and difficulty concentrating as well as maintain close, personal relationships.

3. Arousal - Some symptoms people may feel are increased anxiety, irritability / anger, trouble sleeping, being easily startled, frightened (jumpy), large quantities of guilt or shame, self destructive behavior in an attempt at self medicating or suppressing the problem, and even other mental disorders that can be caused by the heightened emotional and mental challenges

One thing that I spent a lot of time thinking about was the difference between remembering the experience and reliving it. At first, I didn't see much of a difference, but the more I thought about it ... I realized there is a very big difference! One thing that came to mind, I thought about a few people I know and how this disorder affects the way they do things. I thought of a friend who tends to make chaos in every situation she is in and it gives her something to feel good about and also sets her up as a victim if people get angry at her. She also misinterprets facial expressions and if some one gives her a quizzical look, she is enraged and will shun or try to hurt that person for weeks in her anger... yet also separates herself from anyone but family as well at that time. She never sleeps well and has migraines approximately twelve days of the month. One reason I was interested in this subject was that I want to understand how to help people dealing with trauma better than I do so that maybe I can be of help to others as they struggle. Maybe I can learn how to understand myself better and not have so much fear behind the 'smile'. My friend also fears the future and her children are their mother's PTSD? Not sure and that is just speculation on my part. I really wish there was something I could do for her, but I really can't figure anything out.

There are many treatments out there for this condition, but as people are different they are not always as successful as they could be. Doctors used medications as well as counseling and other therapies to try and help patients. I use medication and prayer as well as an anti-depressant and try to avoid situations which can cause me more challenges and panic. For the most part, that really helps me to do the things I need to and want to do comfortably and not have problems... which is a wonderful thing! I know that some brain problems an be helped by therapy to 'change' the wiring of the brain such as in sensory integration disorder (SID), sensory processing disorder (SPD), etc... I wonder if PTSD is more challenging than some disorders such as the ones I just mentioned because PTSD is something that was forced 'onto' the body and not an original part of it......

I would love to hear some of your thoughts... Do any of you have experience in helping people (or yourself) with this problem? What has been successful and helpful for you? If any of my readers feel comfortable sharing, please feel free to continue the conversation and we can learn together. :)

My Thoughts on our Military Entering Syria....

One of the classes that I am currently taking is called Human Rights Violation: Torture, Trauma and its Effects on Society. I took this class because I thought it might be really interesting to really learn about how challenging and how people are affected by this treatment or affected by and/or deal with witnessing it, etc... In my first reading this week, I found that two sentences really stuck out and I found myself reading the paragraph that they were 'embedded' in and ask your thoughts on them.

The first sentence is: “The US Declaration of Independence state that “all men are created with certain inalienable rights” and makes the case that a people can reject the authority of a government that violates those rights....”

The second phrase is: “Thus, a major focus of human rights law is not only to describe rights that are legally protected but also to prohibit actions by governments that violate such rights...”

So I was hoping for your thoughts on them. When I read these two sentences, the thoughts that came to mind were actually on Syria. I was against the Iraq War and going into Afghanistan, but I have shocked a few of my friends when my pacifist non-violent self admits that I feel we should go into Syria and help. I know that my opinion on both equations is the opposite of what statistics showed of public opinion in 2011 and today. Yet when I was reading these two lines, I realized that these are my thoughts on the issue stated more clearly than I knew how to express. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for military intervention was not clear and diplomacy and sanctions and other methods probably would

have brought these countries more in line with human rights and would have improved the lives of those living there. As those governments were only breaking these rights mainly legally (according to their laws), I don't feel like we were likely to change them... and it doesn't really appear that we have made any changes except for who is running the country. In many ways I believe we have left these countries worse off and more likely to have severe human rights abuses without recourse. The people of Syria have been trying to get more rights for over two years now and have been fighting their government with everything as they have 'rejected the authority of a government that violates' their rights. We have 'in theory' been trying diplomacy for two years as well without success. The Syrian government has now used a weapon that single-handed killed over a thousand people- many of whom couldn't have really been fighters or a threat to the government – I'm thinking of the children. So if we as a nation believe in the later quote above, should we not attempt more wholeheartedly to stop these prohibited actions...?

I guess I wonder what is our place in human rights and our responsibility.... my responsibility, my community's responsibility, my federal government's... and the world's. Some of these questions seem so easy to answer unless I think about them long enough. So what do you think your responsibility is towards Syria... or even in your own communities?