Remembering Loss and Combating Violence in Select Communities: The Development and Activism of “Hell You Talmbout”

* a link to the song critiqued can be found here....

The last few years have been punctuated by fearful sounds and guns, the grim pictures of black men and women, and the tiptoeing in the media of the circumstances of their deaths at the hands of either police officers or overly zealous vigilante citizens in their communities. Each of these deaths, especially when the circumstances are examined, has opened up an opportunity for all American communities to analyze and attempt to understand the pain, racism , privilege, and class issues that are slowly breaking our communities and society. While there are many conversations that need to be had on this subject and the various means that can be used to create more opportunities, less fear, and more lasting change for all, this paper will focus on the activism inherent in the song “Hell You Talmbout” released in August 2015 by artist Janelle Monae.

This protest song was born from the pain and injustice witnessed by Ms. Monae. The day before she released the song, the artist recorded her thoughts and described how the song came to be developed and published those words on Instagram. She states, “This song is a vessel. It carries the unbearable anguish of millions. We recorded it to channel the pain, fear, and trauma caused by the ongoing slaughter of our brothers and sisters. We recorded it to challenge the indifference, disregard, and negligence of all who remain quiet about this issue. Silence is our enemy. Sound is our weapon. They say a question lives forever until it gets the answer it deserves... Won't you say their names?” This song is not the first written by this artist to try and illustrate her views on racism and state violence in American society- other songs on similar topics include ‘Cold War’ and ‘Sincerely Jane’.

A few things about this song help make it the powerful commentary that is has become. While some of the lyrics are sung to music, throughout the song a drum roll will start and the artists will shout out the name of one person who was either a victim of police brutality / murder or of violence and/or death primarily due to their race. As the name is shouted out, others join in saying “Say His (Her) Name”, encouraging the individuals surrounding them to join in. It is a moving performance that is intensely powerful whether listened to or visualized and uses catchy music and passion to draw itself into your head. The artists shout out the names of nineteen people through the song. As I listened, I felt drawn into the passion expressed and active interest in the individuals who were named. It was not hard to find information on the unfamiliar names that were mentioned. Another aspect of this song is that it reminds members of the black community that they matter as well as reminding members of the privileged community that their community isn’t whole or realistic without the acknowledgment of its minority members. In a few short minutes, “Hell You Talmbout” forces open a door in each listener’s mind to admit the pain and anger felt by many people and the fear and confusion felt by all. It is a rare work of art that can accomplish this.

There are many ways that individuals can help raise the consciousness of others in their communities to social problems and general need. Whether through campaigning or art, through service or advocacy, like-minded individuals tend to form groups to try and understand the unique problems that they face and how to confront or change them. Communities come in all sizes and many names- family, religious congregations, volunteers at non-profits, workplaces, support groups, social communities, friends, etc… Some of these groups can be voluntarily joined and exited while others may be difficult to fully leave without significant work and possibly a lifetime of difficult consequences. By recognizing not only need but specific desires and motivations in individuals and groups, each individual can carefully recognize the differences both in members and motivations of various groups and also potentially recognize how the actions of one group can affect others. With this song, Janelle Monae is making a few clear statements.

• The Black community at large is scared and angry and tired of being scapegoated and discriminated against.
• As a society, we simply allow too much racial violence to happen unchecked… and complacently accept blaming of the victim to help stabilize the status quo.
• Our society has too many layers of discontent and ignoring them will not make them go away.

I am still unclear – or fairly lazy- about some of the small things that I can do both as an individual and as a part of a group to affect positive social change and justice in the communities I am a member of. I have started by writing a few letters to my congressmen and I am going to attend a local transgender support group next week and see if I can not only learn something, but how I can potential help. I also express that I am an ally on Facebook so that vulnerable individuals will know a person they can talk to or ask for help from. It isn’t enough… but it is a start. As I learn more about how different ideas and social constructs intersect and collide, I learn more about myself and the communities I am a part of. For that I am grateful.


pictures found at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janelle_Mon%C3%A1e,

Little Things

Isn't is interesting that it is the little things in life that really make this journey worthwhile? Each of us has different ideas of what a 'little thing' is in our lives, but each of us can find something we are grateful for. I found myself dwelling on the idea of little things today and how wonderful they make life... and also confound it. How many times have we found our focus moved to a little thing- a small fluid leak from our cars, a short temporary illness, a small want that isn't fulfilled- in such a way that we are unable to fully and clearly focus on the really big things in our life. Sometimes a little thing is vastly important or becomes so... and sometimes we find that it was truly something that we could have ignored and wasted too much of our limited time on. It really is the little things that can bind and bring us joy.

There is so much ugly in the world and my country right now with so much violence and anger... so much I can do so little about. So today my focus is rest, healing, my son and service.... with a small focus on petting cats... boy I love that!

What are some of the little things that you are focused on right now?

The 'Wicked Witch' in the Sixteenth Century... and Today

The word ‘witchcraft’ brings to the mind visual images and emotional reactions for many people. So it has from the creation of the idea of magic, witchcraft, etc… but even in our civilized and enlightened society today. The origins of magic and its practitioners or ‘witches’ are unclear; there are various references to both in the King James Version of the Holy Bible, in the Jewish holy scripture book called the Torah, in laws and court hearings in both Ancient Greece and Rome as well as references and myths written by the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Early Egyptians and the Persians. Depending on the time frame and the culture in which you live, the images and emotions provoked are very different. Today as I get ready for the Halloween traditions in my culture, I expect to see costume- clad children knocking on my door and I will ‘ohh and aww’ over their choices while I pass out goodies and smiles. It was not always this way and the ideas of witchcraft and magic, or ‘unnatural acts’, have provoked much less benign and more violent reactions from those who feel threatened.

So what is witchcraft… and who are those who practice it? Again, that definition can change based on time, place and culture, but the generic definition of witchcraft can read as follows: the practice of magic, especially black magic; the use of spells and the invocation of spirits… the art or practices of a witch. Those who practice the craft are thought to be individuals with three specific qualities; use of malevolent power, a depraved heretic towards the majority religion and/or power structure, and also the acts of sexual deviancy. It was thought that both men and women could practice the art of magic and in some cases that magic could be ‘white’ (good) or ‘black’ (bad). During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the idea of witchcraft and its practitioners changed in the minds of many and how it was dealt with became a larger and more significant issue then it had been in other times during human history. Many aspects of culture at this time can be analyzed to understand and recognize how situations like witch-hunts happen, how the targeted individuals are picked and why, and what forces are in play to cause the volatile fearful situations. I wish to look at the political, education, social, and religious constructs of early modern Germany as well as the continent of Europe as a whole to try and understand how all the violence came to be and who it was against. It is hopeful by understanding it, we can work to not perpetuate it in our own lives and cultures.

This time period was a time of great change and many of these transitions help explain some of the fear and escalation in these communities. This was the time in history that we also call the Reformation when the Christian religion was going through a significant change as the Catholic Church no longer had a complete monopoly on Christ and Christian thought. Individuals such as Martin Luther and John Calvin wrote about their ideas/ thoughts on their concerns in the Catholic Church and its teachings following with suggestions for change and needed reform. These men and others created new communities or groups that came to be known as Protestants and which vied with the Catholic Church for converts. Rulers, kings and other political elite found that the doctrinal instability in the religions and communities correlated into political instability. One side benefit - rulers who converted to a Protestant religion could stop paying the Roman church high taxes and could also seize Catholic funds and assets in their own lands providing themselves with a new source of revenue. During this time there were also times of sickness and famine as the ‘Little Ice Age’ passed through which caused a lot of hardship and death for all. Protestant thought at this time also stressed that Satan was a physical being and Luther himself described himself as having many encounters with Satan who attempted to keep him from reforming the church. So it is into this time of insecurity- both of doctrine, politics and the beginnings of the questioning of sexual relationships, power that we start our journey into sixteenth Germany.

Before the sixteenth century, the idea of witches and their ‘craft’ were fading from the public sphere across Europe and magic was thought to be a superstitious practice with very little real power. In the early Catholic church, the ideas of witchcraft were thought to consist more of idolatry and illusion- sins to be sure, but not the cause of direct harm to others and, in an anonymous text titled Canon Episcopi from the ninth century which is part of canon law, it states that ‘there was no such thing as an actual witch’. During the development of early modern Germany and other states, misogynist writings and men in power worked to change the viewpoint of the whole society towards witches, magic and its practitioners. Books such as the “Malleus Maleficarum” helped to define and spread the new image of witches; they were real, they were women, and the source of all societal degradation. Add to those ideas the concerns of Catholics at a rapidly changing religious landscape, the changing power structure, and the tensions between the differing factions began to stretch and break. Some women joined one of the differing groups of Protestants and found they had more opportunities and influence than they had when participating in the Catholic Church. The obvious threats to the power structure of the church caused the religious male hierarchy to go on the offensive. Under the belief that the female sex is more susceptible to evil influences and is the inferior of both genders, any woman who did not strongly conform to the local religious and cultural expectations was easily accused of being a witch. (Some historians show evidence that the witch hunts were strongest and encompassed the most victims in territory that was 'Protestant controlled' but that is not definitive- Sociologist Nachman ben-Yehuda states, “Only the most rapidly developing countries where the Catholic Church was weakest, experienced a virulent witch craze.”) It is quite evident that both religions and their leaders used the supposition of witchcraft as a way to try and regain their lost power and hierarchy in areas where they were at risk. In some cases, there is evidence that men who were not seen as being vigilant enough in finding and persecuting witches were disparaged as men who were weak, womanly, etc... What is clear is that the idea of witches/witchcraft was no longer a subtle idea or existed only in the realm of thought- these ideas were now useful as a confrontational and aggressive way to deal with ‘enemies’ or other undesirables in the community.

In essence, any woman who (or was thought to be) engaged in behavior that felt threatening or was unconventional in behavior or appearance was at serious risk for problems. Many women could be accused and found guilty and executed on little to no evidence of significant wrong doing. The most common way was to accuse a 'witch' and charge her with heresy. As the definition of heresy was defined by the specific religion but usually enforced not only religious orders and leaders but also enforced by the secular legal power structure. In that light, a heresy charge was a pretty significant and threatening event in someone’s life as well as a charge that didn’t depend on physical proof for convictions- circumstantial evidence, hearsay and confessions under torture were sufficient. Due to women’s influence in their homes and as the transmitter of the culture to their young children, they were in the position to spread unconventional information to their children. As this could potential force changes in the hierarchy and its power, men were encouraged to be actively engaged in keeping the women in their family / household under their control. Single women, whether due to a lack of marriage or from being widowed, were also likely to be accused and condemned for a few reasons. Due to their single status, they had no male protectors and were easier to accuse than married females. In that same sense, they had no men to ‘control’ and keep tabs on them and their behavior and if they were self-sufficient or financially independent, any woman who could be seen as too prominent in society for any reason was in a dangerous situation. Also, by being single and taking assents, these women could and did stand in the way of the orderly transmission of property from one generation of males to another.

The ways that ‘witches’ were caught and were mostly women make sense in the power structure at that time. Midwives who practiced medicine could be targeted for that by their male rivals. A midwife or healer could be accused if a birth didn’t end perfectly or a child died- even one accusation could easily multiply as other individuals looked back at past experiences and reinterpreted them with the accusation in mind. In some ways, midwives, and medical women were seen to have power over life and death. Over centuries, the Catholic Church taught that the suffering and illness of this world were only temporary and fleeting. It was thought that God was no longer involved in the physical world so anyone who was able to divine or understand natural knowledge was seen as using supernatural power… or power from the devil. As the concept of medicine and medical care developed and gained a following, the church put its backing behind the upper class men who studied and practiced it and supported medical care for the few who could afford it. To control medical knowledge, it was taught in the first universities (in which women were not allowed to study) so any woman who practiced medicine was self or informally taught – a method described as “If a women dares to cure without having studied than she is a witch and must die.” Add to those thoughts that women were thought to be more likely to be able to weld unnatural, malevolent power and even bad weather and environmental conditions were blamed on local women. Whether being accused of calling up a storm to try and drown a King in his ship at sea, a papal bull stating “…have blasted the produce of the earth, the grapes of the vine….” or the entire chapter written on the subject in the Malleus Maleficarum titled “How they Raise and Stir up Hailstorms and Tempests, and Cause Lightening to Blast both Men and Beasts” ending with the sentence “Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points.”

The other thing that made women more likely to be accused and punished of witch craft was if they could be suspected of sexual deviancy. Many women were prosecuted based on charges relating to their own motherhood and role in the home. Sexual orgies, having sexual relations with the devil and the normal sexual misbehavior or fornication and adultery were all reasons that could be used in accusations of witchcraft. Any kind of male sexual dysfunction- from impotence to premature ejaculation to complete disappearance of the penis and other sexual organs was also blamed on the power and perversion of witches. To counter this problem, men used trials to assert their dominance over women and their bodies with public strip searches, torture, etc… giving themselves permission to sexual assault women and remind everyone of their place.

There seems little doubt that religion and gender played a huge role in the witch-hunts in early modern Germany. Whether the ‘witch’ was burned, hanged, strangled, or beheaded, it is clear that most of the accused were female and were chosen because they were perceived to be a threat to the male hierarchy. By criminalizing women’s attempts to share power as well as the anxiety that was felt by the male hierarchy over women’s societal roles and the influence and power in them, a women’s perceived sexual prowess, and the general weakness of women to resist and therefore were more susceptible to witchcraft, those in power had a lot of leverage to control women’s behavior, place in society and to remove them if necessary. We still struggle with these same issues today. While we no longer call women we fear witch (very often) and as a civilized society unnecessary violence is abhorred, the fears, confusion and anger over women and their choices spills out into the communities in more subtle and acceptable forms in our patriarchal society- negative labels, harassment or assault both physical and sexual, as well as cultural expectations that indirectly (and directly) place limits on the behavior of women. Politicians and those individuals on all sides of the political spectrum use their beliefs, desires, value systems and power in society to 'create' and name our new 'witches'- single mothers, poor and elderly women, feminists, working women, women in power, minorities, etc... Some religions also continue to set limits and rules on women's expectations and behavior that are not applicable to men and women who speak out against injustices in their faith communities can be removed or kicked out- many by male only courts. It is important to recognize that, while the concentrated and active witch trials of the sixteenth century are in the past and we no longer 'burn' witches, the feelings, anger, and power struggles of that era have not been resolved and are still alive in us and our society today. That different methods are used to cause fear, oppression, or motivation to keep the status quo of power in the hands of the few, the rich, and the male doesn't suggest anything other than a recognition of the gender power struggle itself will not bring about peace between genders and stability in society. Only time, a willingness to share power and humility will bring the possibility of that….

pictures from: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100252072/the-dark-deep-roots-of-britains-fascination-with-witchcraft/, http://www.damnedct.com/connecticut-witchcraft-trials, http://www.biography.com/people/john-calvin-9235788, http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/shop/the-malleus-maleficarum-in-latin-pdf/, http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/shop/the-malleus-maleficarum-in-latin-pdf/, http://witchnest.blogspot.com/2010/07/killing-witches-as-best-way-to-kill.html, http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0CAMQjxw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.academic.ru%2Fdic.nsf%2Fenwiki%2F11823268&ei=cKPjVPK9L-OxsASR94DIDw&psig=AFQjCNGjAAFlzXs6eji2QEbpsIhDxcZ0Pg&ust=1424291020320634, http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/11823268,

Reconciliation after Genocide

I believe that the model of reconciliation that was used in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide could be used in the aftermath for all genocides. Depending of the circumstances within each individual genocide, I think could be easily used with some potential changes if needed. There are a few reasons that come to mind that I would like to share. I think this may be a stream of consciousness post so I apologize in advance.

My first thought is that the idea... the process of reconciliation... is necessary to heal people and communities- period. The idea of 'to reconcile' is not necessarily simply defined. The simple side of the coin is that reconciliation 'restores friendly relations between' or 'cause to coexist in harmony', but we must also acknowledge the other side of the spectrum; 'to cause (a person) to accept or be resigned to something not desired.’ For any process of reconciliation to be successful, both sides of the situation have to be addressed and when we then look at that full spectrum, it becomes clear not only how important it is to accomplish reconciliation, but how difficult it actually will be in practice. One thing that happens with all genocides is that people leave. Victims flee and usually resettle themselves in an area they consider safe whether it's a few towns away or even continents. Physical distance can bring safety and even rebirth... but it also hinders this important process. An important part of reconciliation is communication and being able to try and open things up and create vulnerability for both the victims and perpetrators. The separation of both groups feels to me like a cauterization of a blood vessel; both sides are seared closed and apart which stops bleeding and open difficulty, but leaves the situation on unstable ground... Some may heal, some may become infected and permanently damaged, some will die, but all will have scarring from it. That scaring, permanent damage, or death can affect the families of the individuals as well as their communities in both small and large ways. I feel like many people cannot actually move forward without the communication and natural expression. Reconciliation helps both the survivors and perpetrators to deal with their fear, their mutual guilt (even if the guilt is different), as well as the anger and other emotions that has been closed inside their minds and body systems. From everything I have watched, read, and from the work that I have begun on my project, it seems like this is a crucial step for healing that many people are unable to get or participate in. If that could change for future genocide participants as well as those who are living today, I think that would be a really good step forward for not only those individuals, their families and their communities, but for all of us as a whole. This is not always possible. In the first world, people move more easily to other areas and perpetrators can more easily hide, especially if they have monetary resources. People who have fled tend to put down roots in new areas and do not tend to move back to their original places, especially when their property has been taken. However, I think that open communication with mediation and with the community remaining pretty intact is the best way to facilitate healing between all parties.

I also think that forgiveness is an important aspect of reconciliation that is not often addressed or is misunderstood. Some people believe that if you forgive your perpetrator, you have given them a 'free pass' or that their inappropriate actions no longer matter… i.e., justice is no longer important. Other individuals believe that if they forgive the person that they no longer remember or acknowledge the hurts and so they are stymied. Others are simply too angry and too hurt to be able to see what blessings they still have left; all they can see is their losses and what others (especially the perpetrators) still have. My understanding of forgiveness doesn't relieve the perpetrator or their guilt or crimes nor does it suggest that you totally forget the wrongs done to you. It doesn't require you to put yourself into unsafe situations with a perpetrator nor to focus on the loss and impermanence of the people and positions that we lose. I believe when we work on the process of forgiving, we do not do anything for anyone except for ourselves. We give ourselves permission to let go of the pain, to remember and recognize the past but not let it rule our current life and feelings. In essence, we release ourselves from the burden of the pain, anger, etc... and allows us to be able to feel the positive emotions of love and joy again in our life. Please understand, I recognize that forgiveness is really hard and the longer you wait and the more you feel you need to hold onto the 'bag' of experience, the harder it will be (if not impossible.) The model of reconciliation includes forgiveness in it and I think that is a very important but overlooked aspect that is important for people to be able to be able to really live and not just 'survive'. One last thought on this idea is that many of us find it challenging to forgive ourselves for our mistakes – far more difficult than we find it to forgive others. I think that a perpetrator needs to learn and work to forgive themselves. Denial, repression, shame, anger at oneself or even people who are too narcissistic rarely helps you or anyone around you and I feel like the perpetrator themselves is 'broken' until they are able to complete that process for themselves.

My last thought is that part of reconciliation in my mind is restitution. As many people mentioned in the documentary “As We Forgive” and in so many other resources and testimonies (and from my own personal experiences), service / restitution towards those we have harmed can help with healing and kind feelings for both the survivors and perpetrators. Survivors get a service that is needed and helps them to feel valued and important to the community they live in. Perpetrators get to serve someone they have harmed. Nothing they can do can replace or 'fix' what they have done, but the act of serving someone you have harmed changes the relationship between the two individuals. Over time as service is performed, a more positive relationship and feelings between the individuals are created and are able to grow. It helps people and communities to become more accepting of each other and their history and differences. Restitution brings us to the other side of the spectrum; the idea that something must be accepted that is not desired. For many people, seeing people, being around individuals who have harmed us is difficult. Why do people move away to other areas when they hurt someone? I suspect that it allows them to 'redefine' themselves and to 'start over'. Why do victims move away from the area of abuse or genocide? Some of the same ideas apply. However, I really feel that the model that Rwanda has given us is so valuable because it encompasses all three vital ideas of communication, restitution, and forgiveness that enables both individuals and groups to work together to recover and rebuild themselves, their families and their communities.

What do you think? Do you have a personal experience that you are willing to share?

pictures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_We_Forgive, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/radical-mercy-in-the-heart-of-rwanda/

Genocide in Our Time – Introduction to February’s Topic

Over the last few years, I have found out so much information on the act of genocide and man’s inhumanity to man that I feel pretty well verses in it. This month I am going to focus on some modern day genocides as well as my thoughts on them, actions and ideals that are more likely to lead to violence, ethnic cleansing and genocide as well as a few books and related topics. There are many more genocides that I studied but I will not include writings about because they are pretty graphic and I am not sure a PG -13 blog is the best place for all of it. I do think it’s important to start the conversation and not hide the reality of humanity and what we are capable of… we have genocides happening in our world right now…. This is not an act we have become to civilized to perform.

So this is your introduction to the topics and ideas that will be discussed throughout February. Welcome! : )

1. picture from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/04/02/11-powerful-photos-from-the-aftermath-of-the-rwandan-genocide/

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?

“La Revolution Devore Ses Enfants” - The Revolution Devours Its Children

Living in the time and space of a revolution is always a dangerous business. There is the difficultly of picking the right side (which tends to be the winning side), surviving through the death, destruction, and mayhem... and of course figuring out all the new rules and changing your lifestyle and mindset to suit. However, some revolutions last over a period of time that allows the combination of anger, fear, desire for change, passion and blame to spiral into a level of violence, death, and fear that is more than the average war, revolt or revolution. I liken it to a small candle, beautiful and glowing in a light wind on a dry night... and then you throw a few gallons of gasoline on it- not a good idea! :) This was the path that the French Revolution took in the desire for 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' The candle was lit and gasoline was poured on slowly until the inferno was difficult to control. I would like to analyze the process by which the French Revolution became so radical that, as the saying goes, it “devoured its own children.”

If the process of radicalization must be described in two words, it would be 'fear' and 'anger.' And this emotion touches over all aspects of the revolution causing more and more extreme reactions. While some historians have blamed Enlightenment writers (or 'radical critics' of society) for some of the more extreme behavior, modern historians see these works as only a small piece of the puzzle. Another piece of the puzzle is governmental censorship. In France, censorship was a bit more lenient than other countries and so many documents could be written that criticizes the government... as long as nothing was named and it was discussed as metaphor. This got the majority of French readers studying and discussing 'forbidden' topics which also helped radicalize the very thoughts in the heads of the populace. Paris and the country of France were really at the heart of Enlightenment thinking due to some basic differences between France and the other states of Europe- some differences include religious differences (France had more control over the Catholic Church in its borders than other countries which interesting enough caused only the most extreme and radical forms of Protestantism to come to France), class differences (France was more stratified in class than other European states and the stratification was beginning to weaken and crack), censorship, etc...


When the nobles pressed the king to call for the Estates General to assemble, about 1200 deputies arrived in Versailles for the event. Some of the deputies were already radical and were articulate on the wish for a huge transformation of public life. Deputies from the Third Estate were fearful that they would have no say due to the tradition rules of voting so all members of that caucus as well as a few members from the other estates joined together to stop any discussion unless the the voting rules were changed. Fear of the Third Estates actions by the monarchy and the nobles caused King Louis XVI to lock out the rebelling deputies. Anger at the king's response caused the outside deputies to get together and swear to not leave or be sent home until they had helped France get a new constitution. The delay in getting a new constitution and agreement at the National Assembly caused unrest and frustration in the rest of the country. This frustration bubbled up and with some unknown event, riots broke out and within a month or two, the famous 'storming of the Bastille' in Paris... and the revolution had begun! Riots and uprising in other cities forced local officials to follow the wishes of the rioters... not the king. Royal authority, once it began to dissolve, diminished quickly and the National Assembly held a special session to abolish feudalism and do away with all privileges from that institution. They also wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and set up a constitutional monarchy. Violence would continue as the 'extremes' in the country continued to mistrust the other extremes- Catholics against Protestants, peasants against nobles, etc.... And as violence was 'accepted', it became acceptable. As with all boundaries in life, we as humans push those borders of acceptable behavior... and when a boundary falls, we are more likely to push against the next boundary if we do not acknowledge that a boundary has disappeared. And so, violence not only happened more often, but became more brutal and almost inhuman (the September massacres entered my mind as I thought about this.)

King Louis XVI tried to run with his family to another country to safety, but was unsuccessful. This action broke apart the constitutional monarchy and was the beginning of the end for the National Assembly. Election brought in more of the bourgeois members and fewer nobles and those new members were more likely to want more radical reforms. As more people started to feel that the revolution hadn't actually worked and started pro-royalists groups as well as counterrevolutionary agitation in public, both sides became more and more polarized. The Revolutionaries became fearful of the future of the revolution itself and moved more to the fringes. Unrest in the country stepped up, the National Assembly voted to declare war on Austria, and so any internal descent was now seen as treasonous. Emergency measures were set up, and a new form of government was born called the National Convention. The King was put on trial and the decision to execute him was made- by executing the king, the convention was making a clear statement to the opposition... there was no possibility of compromise. The Montagnards ruled in the Convention, Maximilian ruled the Montagnards and after the development of the Committee of Public Safety... the Reign of Terror had begun. The fear, passion, and anger that the revolutionaries in the National Convention felt towards anyone who might possibly be against the Revolution was focused and turned against the perceived enemies of the state. Anything, any disagreement or difference of opinion could be seen as treasonous... and it is now that the revolution began to 'devour its own children'

In the country, there were many counterrevolutionaries in different cities.... and many people who were tired of the violence, hungry and wanted things to go back to a better space. But at this point, the revolution had lost control. In the National Convention, the Montagnards led by Robespierre and another highly ranking member Georges-Jacques Danton had a difference of opinion. Danton was one of the original revolutionaries and was considered quite the hero, but he was too moderate in the end. He gave a speech in favor of ending the terror and restoring regular legal and civil procedures in January 1794. This disagreement cost Danton his life one month later and gave us the quote mentioned above: the full quote is “the Revolution may soon, like Saturn, devour its own children.” No one was safe once the revolution was out of control and Danton and many of his followers were only the first of the 'children' to be fed to le guillotine. Ironically, Maximilian Robespierre's death on the guillotine was one of the few things that ended the Terror... and help stabilized the revolution and its violence a little bit.

There are quite a few ironies that can be found in the study of the details of this long event. The largest irony is that this movement which was begun in the name of freedom and individual liberty caused so much death and destruction. Another irony is that Maximilian Robespierre, who was an intelligent, passionate advocate of human rights... could have become the main advocate of the Terror (which caused such a large amount of unnecessary bloodshed.) While some things did change for the better, this period of time was a time of fear, anger, terror, passion and bloodshed. Until the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, it would continue.

2011 Poetry Corner # 2 : Frogs

Every poem I have ever posted on here I have written myself. This is my first departure from that tradition.

The other day I was out and about doing errands and I stopped at a recycle center. While I was doing my recycling I saw one of those school notebooks in the recycling pile and I pulled it out. The notebook was empty and ready to use with the exception of six pages. All six pages had the same poem written on them. I am not sure I like the poem, but it was very interesting and I didn't think it deserved the ignoble death that it was about to suffer so I brought it home and I copied it here – I felt it was at least worthy of discussion. I will take it down at the author's request and have left the poem true to the author's format! :)

Frogs – written by Norman MacCaig

Frogs sit more solid
than anything sits. In mid leap they are
parachutes falling
in a free fall. They die on roads
with arms across their chests and
heads high

I love frogs that sit
like Buddha, that fall without
parachutes, that die
like Italian tenors

Above all I like them because
pursued in water, they never
panic so much that they fail to make
stylish triangles with their ballet dancers
legs

What are your thoughts?

Thoughts on Revolution, Potential Causes, and Revolt

I did quite a bit of reading on the causes or potential factors of building a revolution- I am currently studying the French Revolution that started in 1789. There are many different causes that can be pointed to in hindsight for a revolution and during my studies I have certainly found several potential factors- poverty, lack of prosperity or hope for the majority of French constituents, poor economy and lack of jobs, huge governmental debt, perception (or reality) of the government being weak, unable to lead or create positive change, and ignorance or indifference (or at least perceived ignorance or indifference) by the few who had the most ability to create change.  All of these could be considered primary factors in creating an environment that sparks a revolution- I think that the more of these factors you add, the more you can actually bet on the spark being lit by a 'small' act and the revolution is now fully operating, so to speak. During my studies, I tried to think of factors that would make me as a person be willing to join in an overthrow of my country's government. As I thought I decided that all of the answers that I gave above would (at least in my case) really be secondary factors- all of them are bad, but I do think that to actually join or start a revolution, I would have to have one other defining factor. I think I would need to have pretty much all of the above, but I also would need to feel that the safety of my family and community are not only at risk, but the idea of the status quo being just as dangerous and life threatening as a revolution might be would be the primary factor that would get me to be involved. I think I would have to feel passionately that all of us (friends, family, community) might be dead unless I did something.... and most of the above factors would have to be in effect for most of that to happen I suspect. The thought that frightens me the most about this line of thinking is that I think many countries, including our own are in this sort of 'swimming pool'- the factors above are all in place and the pool is full and glistening in front of us... we are simply waiting for the one thing/person that gets us all going off of the diving board. I really think that most people will not join a revolt or cause one that becomes a revolution unless you have many factors that they feel passionately about, no ability to see that they will be fixed in the future and the very real possibility of the problems getting so much worse. If you have been suffering for awhile, even a small suggestion of more suffering could really be a breaking point.

I think that these factors are the same reasons that will continue to push for revolutions now and in the future on our planet. I think that as long as people feel hope that things can become better, they can feel help and that they have a voice for facilitating change... then we can as a people will continue to suffer with the economy, shrinking public safety nets and community services, and other difficulties and will do so looking for the light at the end of the recession, etc... But suffering for long periods of time, feeling 'dull' and hopeless, and finding no ways to move forward and only despair and suffering can and will eventually cause people to strike out in their frustration, anger and desire for something else.  I think that is why revolutions tend to be so bloody- the negative emotions cause people to do things that they might never do in any other circumstances. And that is one reason that I dislike the idea of revolution so much. People kill children and people who do not agree with them to up hold their virtue - whether it is change, human rights, etc.... and their virtue becomes in some senses a demon; harming and killing everyone in its wake until the fire of their passion and virtue is put out, contained or destroyed. Many die who had no part in making the problem, many die who wanted to fix the problem, and many die who may not have even understood what the problem was. I will admit that I don't feel comfortable with revolution – even non violent revolution- simply because of the ferocious pace. I prefer change that comes gradually but sure and brings people happily or confusedly into the group... not by force, or other negative means.

Do you think that America has many of the factors that I described above? What are your thoughts on this issue? What would you need to have to get involved in a revolt/revolution?

My First Two Earliest Memories - Description and Analysis

This post is quite bold and doesn't paint me in a very good light. I decided to post it here for the few people that read my blog by simply coming to it. I think that the thoughts and analysis are painful but important and I think that hiding them is not useful to my growth as a person. So, here it is and I hope that you will not think too poorly of me from the knowledge....

I do not have a lot of early memories and the few that I have are really not positive ones- I wonder how many other people feel that way? I think that the few that I have do mark key turning points because they are the few that I remember and I seem to remember them and the emotions surrounding them so clearly even today. The very first memory that I have was playing on a beach with a new beach set – a pail, rake, etc… I remember feeling free and busy and finding my first hermit crab. I remember the smell and the delight of this really neat animal and my glee and almost greed to collect as many as my pail could fill to give to my mother. I remember the excitement and the intense focus I gave to my work- to find as many as I could to give to her and they needed to be big and have neat shells and I might have even felt a little bit of greed- I am not sure on that. But I remember filling the pail- it was brimming with this crabs that of course all wanted to get out and I had caught them all without being pinched or harmed and I brought them to my mother… who was revolted and angry and yelled about my foolishness and ordered me to go put them back one by one. I remember the shame and my hurt and when I tried to dump the pail, my mother again emphasized that I needed to individually pick each one up and put it back nicely. And I remember crying and putting my hand into the bucket and finding it impossible either through my tears or impossible in general to pick up a crab without getting pinched. I remember completing the job in silence by simply lowering a finger into the bucket and simply allowing a crab to latch onto my finger and I would bring it up and pry it off onto the sand. I would change fingers as they really started to hurt and even bleed, but I remember my sorrow, my fear, and my rejection… and a little bit of anger and a feeling I recognize now as a feeling of being alone and having no one who actually cared – not sure what word describes that. I can look back on that experience and see that experience as one that I would only repeat again when I was thirteen years old. (I saved my allowance for six months and purchased a ton of different gifts for my parents for their wedding anniversary- My mother hated every single one and pointed out why it was worthless, useless or simple stupid/bizarre. At least with my parents I have not repeated this experience.)

My next earliest memory is slightly fuzzy at the beginning as I think the beginning of the situation must have really been experiences over a longer period of time. I remember standing next to the blue car that my parents drove for years (a blue Chevy Malibu I think) and looking at my cousin in front of me and feeling angry and jealousy so strongly towards her and her smile which wasn’t very nice. I remember her opening the car door and getting a book out of the back that was mine and having her look at me and say that if she wanted it, all she would have to do was ask my mother for it and it would be given to her and I just felt so much anger and hatred and jealousy I think– I don’t know really what I was thinking, but I pushed the car door with all the force that I could muster and slammed the door on her hand. I remember standing there feeling a slight bit of satisfaction as all the adults cooed over her and my mother told me how awful I was and she gave away my book. I look back at that memory over the years and I do feel a little bit ashamed, but I recognize that I think I also knew that I was going to lose a prized possession, so I think I thought I might as well get something for it. Unfortunately that is a lesson that I am trying to unlearn even today. :(

These are my two earliest memories and I am able to see a few turning points in them when I look. The first memory was from when I was around three years old and I think I learned to ‘grasp.’ (When that word came to mind I had an image of Gollum from Lord of the Rings in my head, but as much as that image is horrible, I think in some ways it is an accurate one.) Instead of learning impermanence and that things in life are not guaranteed, I learned that maybe I could hold onto things I cherished harder and to hold anger and frustration when they were unfairly taken away. I learned to only hold a few things cherished, but those things are sacred and the angry and frustrated that I would feel up to a few years ago at their loss was pretty terrible to behold I think. (I have really been trying over the last decade to deal with an anger problem that while not violent didn’t seem to be entirely under my control. I think I have gotten a lot better, but I am not sure if I really have or if I simply believe myself to be better.) The other experience was when I was around five years old or maybe six and I think what I learned was that I couldn’t control anything so I tried to find ways to create control out of fear and also create good reasons for my loss – if I was going to lose something, then I wanted something in return. The idea of striking back is still one that I am struggling with. I think that I have beaten it, but some people who are close to me say that I have not and my husband has told me that he would never have married me if he had known how vindictive I was and still am. The thought that I harm other people still causes me a lot of pain and has caused me to withdraw from almost everyone in my life and I don’t see that changing any time soon – I feel too much fear.

I think that is the story of my life... I feel too much fear. And I think this may have been too honest. I feel like I have picked up a big rock to see the disgusting slime and life underneath and it isn't very nice.

Ivan the Terrible: The First Czar of Russia

In 1533, the year of the ascension of the infant of Ivan IV Vasilyevich to power, Moscow had been ruled by a grand prince and controlled 2.8 million square kilometers- to put this into perspective, that is about five times the size of modern France. Moscow now symbolized a new political center and time showed a new Russian civilization that was more rural, more centralized and authoritarian, and more hierarchical than Kievan Rus had ever been. The infighting between the princes of different principalities had finally (for the most part) calmed down and most had been able to agree on a system of vertical succession for its rulers- only the son of a grand prince was eligible for the throne and the heir to the throne should be the eldest living son of the last ruler. (One source suggests that the succession was actually decided by the blinded ruler Vasily II and his triumph over his uncles and cousins after 1430.) The culture of the orthodox church had also become more enmeshed into the society and many members of the church hierarchy helped perpetuate the idea of Moscow/Russia being the 'third Rome' that the first two 'Romes' had fallen as God's punishment and Russia was now the third and final 'Rome'. This idea was clearly expressed by abbot Joseph of Volokolasmk Monastery who also expressed four ideas that when used helped build the foundation for a more authoritarian government- the ruler is God's representative, ruler's main concern should be for the spiritual welfare of his subjects, all his subjects should obey him unless the ruler is acting in a non-Christian manner, and then the subject's disobedience should be passive and they should be willing to suffer at the hands of an unjust ruler. The combination of the acquisition of more territory, the fall of the Roman Empire and the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, the rise in power and prestige of the princes of Moscow, and the deep and pervasive influences of the church allowed for the eventual rule by the dominant princes of Moscow... and also the development of an autocratic, hereditary ruler who was able to gather enough power to become 'terrible' or a tyrant. This paper will explore the life of Russia's first Tsar, his policies, and the negative influence that Ivan IV was able to hold over his subjects. This paper will also explore the major changes that occurred during this time frame that affected the 'lifestyle' of his subjects and became so ingrained in the population that many of these changes continued into the twentieth century.

Ivan was the son of Vasili III from his second wife Elena Glinskaya. He was born on August 25, 1530 in the city of Kolomenskoye, Russia. Details on his first few years of life are not well known as we are lacking documentation. What is known is that his life probably took a drastic change when he was three years old. In 1533, Vasily III became ill and died of blood poisoning from an infection from a boil on his leg. Even though the succession of princes had been 'decided', Vasily III's two remaining brothers were quickly arrested after his death to keep the throne preserved for the elder son, the now three year old Ivan IV. By this time, the government could be visualized as a pyramid- the grand prince at the top, surrounded by members of other elite families, with administrative officials conducting the business of state and then provincial servicemen provided the personnel for other civil and military posts -it must be stated that the top of the pyramid didn't have absolute power at this time. The next several years would see Russia ruled by regents and rival family factions who would rule in his name. His first regent was his mother Elena and she was his regent until she died in 1538. (It was fairly risky to be a relative of Ivan at this time -both of his uncles died in prison, his half sister Agrafena was sent to a convent and a half brother assassinated, and it is believed that his mother might have been poisoned.) After his father's death, the next decade was a time of political turbulence in Russia... and a time of neglect and domestic conflict. Three families used this period of time to try and gain political superiority over each other- the Shuiskiis, Bel'skiis, and Glinskiis. During this time, Ivan and his younger brother Yuri appear to be secondary concerns to the power struggle taking place and in letters Ivan was quotes as suggesting that he and his brother went hungry, had poor clothing, and even had to beg for their needs. This rivalry between the warring families turned violent and bloody and Ivan appears to have been in the middle- a difficult way to grow up. This violence and turmoil has been suggested to have caused a permanent scarring and hardness in his character that came out later during his reign. While there appears to be some question as to the why's, Ivan IV assumed control of the kingdom at 14 years old. One suggestion is that at the age of 14, Ivan ordered one of the ruling princes of the family of Shuiskii thrown to the dogs and executed.

A few years later and after some sort of settlement with the important ruling families, Ivan was crowned tzar in a four hour ceremony on January 16, 1547 in the Assumption Cathedral/Dormition Cathedral., An important feature of this coronation was that he wore the Monomakhn Cap as his new crown- this cap once signified the subordination of the Moscow princes to the Mongol-Tartars. Fairly quickly after this event on February 3, 1547, Ivan married Anastasia Romanova from a powerful boyar family - this family would later be known as Romanov which was the family of the last of the Russian Tzars in the early 1900's. Anastasia was married to Ivan for 13 years- years which appear to have had a good and calming effect on him (Ivan's nickname for her was his 'little heifer'.) She was to bear him six children and died in the summer of 1560 after a lingering illness- assassination is also a suspect as well. Whether illness or murder was the culprit, Ivan IV was devastated by his wife's illness/ death and the many years of his reign after her death were not the peaceful and moderate ones that it had been while she was living.

The early years of his reign with a few exceptions appear to be relatively peaceful and prosperous. Ivan was a smart man who appears to have been an avid reader, a writer and art lover... and a good politician. A riot broke out soon after his marriage during the summer due to a huge fire in Moscow and it had to be dealt with. The tzar then set up an advisory council in 1549 of 'common men' to help guide him- Alexis Adashev and the monk Sylvester were the cream of this advisory body. After that, Ivan passed a new law code and various decrees aimed at increasing government efficiency and also church efficiency (1550). The 'Stoglav' church council of 1551 was an attempt by the tzar to bring better order and discipline to the administration and morals to the clergy of the Eastern Orthodox church and to set limits on the ways the church could obtain land. He worked on defining the relationships of elite families with the grand prince (himself) and that helped to relax the intensity and the violence of the past political competition. Ivan increased the size/membership of the Boyar Duma as he filled that government body with selected church leaders and nobles who supported his initiatives. Also during the 1550's, the Tsar improved the organization of his central government and set up 'offices' that dealt with a single area of government. (Military, Foreign Relations, etc...) He also changed/tweaked the military and created a permanent force named the Streltsy. Using the Streltsy, Ivan concentrated on the conquest of non Russian areas including Kazan (1552), Astrakhan (1556) and Siberia which paved the way for eastward expansion. On an unfortunate note, the Tsar did find that his previous mistrust of the boyar classes was reinforced in 1553 when an illness caused him to ask for their support for his son Dmitri... which he wasn't able to easily get (possibly because his son was young and the ruling classes could still 'feel' or remember the chaos surrounding the childhood reign of Ivan.) It appears that he never forgot the hesitation- and certainly his childhood experiences might have never been far from his mind throughout his life... although we will never know that for certain. He recovered and that particular crisis ended.


After his first wife's death (Anastasia), Ivan's policies became more paranoid and stern. From 1560-1580, Ivan married six times and had a few more children. He appears to have never really gotten over the death of his first wife and it certainly seems that these last wives- while providing him with his eventual heir for the throne... never had the sway or hold over him as Anastasia did. He began to distrust his advisory council (they were a few of the 'hesitators' over the succession of his son in 1553) and both the formerly mentioned members left around 1559. The personal loses, which include the death of his wife and the defection of a trusted friend in 1564, seems to have cause an deep anger and despair that Ivan IV never recovered from. The next decade saw a Tsar who suspected conspiracies against him from all sides and engaged in a two decade long 'Livonian' War which was not successful and resulted in a loss of land. In January 1565, he moved his family from Moscow and abdicated his throne... only agreeing to return if his right to deal with traitors as he saw fit was accepted- which it was. He developed a new organization called the Oprinchina which Ivan used in some areas exclusively to carry out the tzar’s wishes and as a form of secret police/court – to weed out and execute traitors. He separated himself entirely from the Duma and other offices of government and only interacted with them on 'extraordinary and exceptional' occasions. The Oprichniki ended up ruling about half the country as a separate royal court and administration for about eight years, killing thousands of innocent people- many from the noble classes and confiscated hundreds of estates of the condemned. As the years went on Ivan's fear worsened and his reign of terror continued. He denied the Boyar Duma the right to judge cases of capital punishment. He forced the suicides/death of suspected plotters or potential heirs... clearing the way so that only his sons could inherit the crown. He had the city of Novgorod burned, devastated and destroyed in the year 1569. No one class was immune from his paranoia or his wrath- not even men from the Church His behavior became sometimes more difficult to understand and he even abdicated his throne again in 1575 and served 'as a lesser prince' to the new grand prince for about a year before the charade ended. He also tried to open more relations with other countries including Queen Elizabeth I of England and when he didn't get the response he wanted, he wrote the Queen several rather bitter letters. His rages continued and in a moment of extreme anger in 1581, he beat his pregnant daughter in law on the excuse that her clothing was immodest. His son Ivan (and his heir apparent) engaged in an argument with his father which ended in his (the heir's) death. Ivan was devastated by this death and the political consequences were that he only had two sons left- the eldest was Feodor. Ivan is thought to have died of a stoke while playing chess on March 28, 1584. This left the throne to Feodor- described by sources as unfit, weak-witted, etc...

Ivan IV Vasilyevich was certainly a colorful figure in whom historians still have many debates about today. While in the English language we call him Ivan the Terrible, this is not quite the best translation of the Russian name 'Ivan Groznyi' and suggests to English speakers a more negative connotation than the thoughts and ideas of his native land. Other translations that could be more apt are: awe-inspiring, formidable, menacing, 'the great', or 'the dread'. These translations suggest that Ivan IV was not thought of as only a 'terrible' or a tyrant. If we add into our mix parts of Russian folklore as well as chronicles, it can be seen that this nickname was meant as a compliment by some... and rulers who came after him such as Peter the Great and Stalin regarded Ivan IV quite favorably. There is also some discussion about the few sources that we have that have been used to 'develop' our understanding of the tzar's character, motivations, and behavior- some historians believe that one major source (Kurbskii-Groznyi apocrypha) is a forgery from a later century. It is certainly true that in some ways Ivan IV defies accurate description. He has been described by historians in many ways- and some descriptions conflict with each other and seem to be almost opposites. Some descriptions include: a ruthless political leader, madman, murderer, a paranoid, a sufferer of disease and mercury poisoning, torturer, insanity sufferer, animal abuser, etc... There are tales of supernatural happenings at the time of his birth, of warnings by church leaders, etc... which also add to the mystique of his legacy.

One a last biographical note, Ivan was considered a fairly pious man for most of his life. He had been well grounded in the Bible while he was a child and when he toured Russia throughout his lifetime, he was known to stop at every monastery on the way. He also built a cathedral- St Basil's Cathedral in 1560 in celebration of his achievements over Kazan and sent a embassy group to Constantinople at one point when asked. In 1550, the tzar summoned a national assembly (the first ruler to do so) to make a public confession of his sins and promised that he would govern Russia justly and mercifully. Ivan IV was also known to travel annually on pilgrimages so as to be seen as a humble and penitent ruler. One source can be quoted as writing- 'Despite Ivan's repeatedly unrestrained actions, he always remained constant in his belief that God was with him and every action he committed.' The tzar believed in following 'signs' from God and might have made some decisions based on his interpretation of signs. (An example is a legend that states that Ivan had been contemplating moving his capital city from Moscow to the city of Vologda. While attending the ceremony of consecration for the St Sophia church in that city, a piece of stone came off of the foot of an angel and fell on the Tzar's toe... he decided not to move the capital to Vologda.) Right before Ivan's death, he worked with the orthodox church and became a monk- dying under the name of Jonah. (This was apparently very common for rulers to become monks right before they died in order to improve their chances for heaven.) There is some debate about Ivan IV's position in the orthodox church with those for and against his 'sainthood'- his fans appear to be winning the debate however, as he is known as a 'Saint' under Article 64.6 of the Covenant of One-Heaven and his date of formal beautification has been set for 12/21/2012.


There were several major changes that were brought about during the reign of Ivan IV. One change is that under his tutelage and his son Fedor, one focus of foreign policy was the control of others lands such as Kavan in 1552 and Astrakhan in 1556 which helped assure Russian control of the Volga River. Along with his expansion of the Russian empire, he also centralized the government. One aspect of his reign was that while the beginning of his reign came after years of instability and no stable hierarchy, his reign was marked by the continuing efforts to restore and maintain and appropriate balance. One part of the political legacy he left was a completely different governmental structure-the title of Tsar symbolized a new acquisition of supreme power with religious overtones. The creation of the Oprichnina marked a new process that worked along with other changes to firmly centralize the government and to reduce the political power of the wealthy or elite. The idea of local governments that Ivan created are still very much in force today. Many of these political changes have stayed with Russia until almost a century ago. The fact that Stalin himself could exist as a ruler for so long in a modern century with his behavior was based just as much on the political structure left by Ivan IV than Marxist ideas. Ivan's sheer genius for propaganda is also a legacy that Russia continued to use for several hundred years to help keep tight control over its population and image. But on a positive note, many of these changes strengthened the Russian state and helped keep it stronger and more secure from it's foreign enemies. Ivan's systematic or accidental removal of heirs to the throne also left the throne vulnerable and after his son Fedor died in 1598, there was a succession crisis. (Ivan's only other son Dmitry died under mysterious circumstances during Fedor's reign.) Lastly, Ivan began the Russian quest of 'expansionism' and he made Russia an empire whose desire for growth and power continued even up to our present time. His expansionism also brought Russia into a relationship with other countries in Europe through trade and politics and this legacy would continue on into the 20th century.

The economic legacy that Ivan left behind was a devastated country. He had inherited debt from before he was in power and his wars brought the debt higher... even with raising taxes. He gave land to the Oprichniki but he had no way to confiscate their lands or hold these members accountable for their actions. So the Oprichniki could overcharge the peasants causing the peasants to flee in some cases... leaving whole villages empty and overall economic production took a tumble- in some years Ivan reacted to the fleeing constituents by declaring certain years 'forbidden' to leave your masters or their land- I do wonder how effective that was. The wars also paid a heavy cost in human life. And none of the above discusses the places that were destroyed- in Novgorod for example, about 90% of the farm land at one point had been abandoned.

In conclusion, Ivan IV is not an easy character to define. His legacy in Russian policy and culture is quite long lasting. His gift for propaganda has helped to control in some ways how he was viewed... and is viewed today. His life and his story are legend and the tale of many books, biographies, movies and opera... and his writings and/or hymns have been honored, published and even recorded as recently as 1988 into the first Soviet produced CD. Very few rulers have caused the plethora of different emotions and argument as this particular one. If having a legacy of being avidly discussed centuries after your death could be considered success... then Ivan IV was one of the most successful people in Russian history.