Leave Will Smith Alone, gosh!

Look, I think this whole thing around Will is none of my business, so I’m not going to bother talking about what he did and how he did it.

In fact, I don’t want to dedicate a lot of time to this at all. I just have a few things to point out:

However he did it, the fact that a man defended his wife is being made into a public spectacle.

Can you imagine this happening 100 years ago? I can’t. Probably no one would have thought twice about it. And if there was a little hot temper involved, oh well, people knew you didn’t say things about other people’s wives in front of them. In fact, you didn’t make personal remarks at all, you know why? Because even if it seems like a joke, some people are going to use it to mock them, and it’s not funny then. IT was just a rule of polite society not to open people up to public mockery, and I frankly miss that rule. I have never seen it end well when it’s discarded at churches, schools, or anywhere else.

2. Whatever happened, how is it any of our business?

Think about it, are we going to make Will Smith regret his actions? Probably not. Are we making what the guy on stage said okay? No one’s talking about that?

What exactly are we getting so worked up about anyway? That our peer pressure can’t micromanage every actor in the world into the small little bubble of acceptable behavior that one of us can agree on anyway?

Yeah, so much for freedom of expression. I guess not if you’re a celebrity.

I mean, no one’s asking if the dude who said the thing should have the freedom to make such jokes about people just because he’s a comedian. I’ve never found it funny anyway. Maybe because I got made fun of for things I couldn’t help about my appearance when I was younger. Or maybe because…it’s just not funny. What exactly is so funny about people’s looks, unless they are deliberately trying to look silly? Think about it.

3. Are we all qualified to pass judgement?

How many of us are going to be in Will’s position, where our SO is being humiliated in front of other people and we have to make a judgment call about it?

Would we have the guts to defend them in any way, let alone the right way?And how many men would have kept it chill at that point?

Is Will Smith above being human, now? Is he somehow not subject to anger or embarrassment or guilt?

I’m not saying it was good or bad, again, just asking why we all think we should just say this?

Because, slapping someone is not a crime. Sorry. Maybe it’s not good…but there’s not exactly a rule book for it, is there?

4. People think it was unprofessional.

I totally agree, it’s better to be real classy and ignore your wife’s feelings being hurt so that the dude talking about it has the green light to do it again.

Again, maybe there’s another way to handle things, but we can’t always pick and choose our spotlight. Would it be right if it was in private?

And maybe the comedian just shouldn’t be allowed to say things like that, again. Isn’t that inappropriate also?

So yeah, I guess that sums up my thoughts on it.

It’s true, maybe no one cares about my opinion either. But then why should any of us care about theirs? And why should Will Smith?

I’m making a better case for leaving it alone than anyone is making for gossiping about it, which, by the way, if you are a Christian, gossiping is unbibilical. And so is publicly harming people in this manner.

I’m not standing up for Will Smith so much as decrying the whole cultural concept that thinks this is okay, it’s disgusting. And he’s just one instance of it. It bothers me in politics as well as with other public figures. Ew.

Of course I open myself up to the same treatment by putting myself on line, but that’s kind of lie the argument that women open themselves up to being assaulted by stepping outside their doors without a man.

They both have to do this to do their jobs, usually, and, just because we have to take the risk doesn’t make the jerks who take advantage of it not guilty. That sounds like something guilty people would say.

So yeah, anyone who uses the excuse that Will is a celebrity and so has opened himself up to public scrutiny as an excuse to publicly flog him for this…you’re basically using the same loci as those jerks who say women’s clothes make it okay to harass them. Hope you’re proud of yourselves.

And if that offends you…

Uh…why should I care? I’m not a celebrity.

And that’s about all I have to say about it. My biggest hope from this post is just that I got someone to think twice about why we do this, and if it’s really okay, I’m not expecting to get a whole movement going here.

After all, I’m not ABC news.

Signing off, and stay honest– Natasha Queen.

Talking about why young people don’t want to get married

I have to wonder what’s happened to my generation at times…and then I look at our influences, and it all makes sense.

While the Gen Z– Millennial crowd do seem pretty crazy, it adds up when you think what we’ve been taught and exposed to over time.

I was always the partially sheltered, homeschooled, Christian kid, but I still hear myself say things these days that people from 100 years ago wouldn’t have said…or maybe 150 years ago, the 1920s were kind of nuts too.

But one trend in the Millennial world, at least in the West, that is really concerning to me is how most of them no longer like the idea of getting married.

I always thought that the “marriage is a societal convention” line was something only people who were terrified of commitment would use to get their SOs to agree not to marry them.

I think actually that might be true, and people in their 20s-30s are all just terrified of commitment now.

We’re not the first generation of humans to have this problem, but the first in a while, and the older generation can be pretty hard on us.

To be fair, some of the reasons I’v heard do seem convincing, and heartbreaking, in some cases…and others just seem pathetic.

So let’s unpack each one–though this is not an exhasutive list, I’m sure ther’es more, but I’ve heard 3 or 4 consistnently.

1: Marriages often don’t work out and/or divorce is expensive, and usually favors the woman.

Mostly it was men saying this, but their concern is that if the wife does wnat to laev ethem, they will lose their money, their kids, and everything else.

This is by far the most legitimate reason out of the ones I’ve heard, and the only one I would probably take that seriously.

I mean, of course, no one wants that.

It is also true, Divorce tends to favor women. Whatever the Feminists say, the culture we live in paints women as the victims and in the need of the most financial support.

It is also true that many women have become so entitled because of hearing this crap their whole lives that they are not fit for marriage with a man who has any self respect. They are whiny, demanding, and immature about their part in conflict.

But, I think men should just be not marrying those women then. Here’s the thing,

If you’re going to still have sex, and have kids, and live with said woman, even if she’s not marriage material…then she should be partner material either.

If you are going to use a woman like a wife, but not give her the financial or emotional security of one, and basically say “I can walk whenever I want, and leave you, and the kids, or take them with me” then…you’r basically subjecting her to the same fear as divorce.

And someone is going to say “no, because with two mature people, that won’t be a problem.”

Well, if it’s not a problem…then marry her!

If you consider your relationship is the same thing as a marriage, but not on paper, then put it on paper.

Because it sounds to me like you are just trying to remove all risk from it. A marriage will at least make you think more carefully before you split.

Furthermore, while divorce is hard on fathers, if things did go south between you, and you are not married, then how do you decide who gets the kids, and for how much time? Is a court of law going to be kinder to a father who is not even married to the woman who bore his children?

I think adoption agencies also favor legally married couples.

The point still stands, legally, not being married doesn’t guarantee you anything if you split, so marriage, even if you have the mind frame of divorce being an out, at least will get you some rights. Doesn’t that make much more sense?

Maybe I’m missing the logic here…I just don’t know, if fathers really care about their kids, then wouldn’t they want to guarantee them at least some financial support, as the law requires. You can appeal if the woman is not holding up her end of the deal, but if you are not married, then what?

I’m not sure if the law currently allows for illegitimate children and claims on that, but even if it does, the idea seems kind of ridiculous, talking about who legally has the right to kids when they didn’t even commit to each other enough to make it legal….

Think about that.

Furthermore, if you’re not gonna marry their mom, why do you deserve time with the kids? You didn’t put enough effort into getting those kids into a stable, secure home that marriage would provide. Put whatever name on it you want, it still seems selfish to me.

2: Women are not marriage material.

A lot of men love bashing on women now, on Tiktok and Reddit, and so on. Saying that they don’t want to get married because the woman are entitled, and treat them badly. A lot of them don’t even want to date anymore.

I don’t know how else to say this delicately so….

Ahem

If you are wiling to bang women who you hate, and have zero respect for, just because you somehow think that you are better than them…that makes you just as immature and entitled as those women.

If you want a whore, just say so, don’t try to pin this on women.

Granted, a lot of us are like that…newsflash, a lot of men are like that too.

So you can either take you bad experience in the past, which probably mean you have crap taste and don’t watch for red flags, and broad-brush all women, like a child would, or you can conclude that yes, you dated some bad apples, but you know not all Pope are the same, and you’re going to adjust your methods to find the kind of girl you actually need.

Case in point for me:

I have liked several guys, in recent years, my choices were not so smart. Luckily, I never got as far as dating them when I found this out, I simply was friends with them, and I realized it…

Which, by the way, is always a smart way to start, try getting to know a girl as friend before you date her, and maybe you’ll figure out real quick where she’s a good fit.

What I did learn from being disillusioned was first, that a lot of guys are pathetic, but secondly, that might just be what I was attracted to.

After being abused by my father, my standards for men were knee high, if that much. I expected them to have little to no consideration for my feelings, to blame me if anything went wrong, to ignore me whenever it was not fun fro them, and to make me feel weird of caring that they did.

And that was in a friendship, so trust me, you can spot this early on before you are intimate.

I clued in to it, Thank God (literally), and have pretty much cut that guy out of my life.

But it’s what I was comfortable with, and if I hadn’t heard much better stories form other women, I’d never have known that men are not all like that. Some are actually really good.

I haven’t found one for myself yet, but when I do, I want to be able to accept it, not think it’s just an act. Sound familiar ladies?

(To be fair, if you live in a country where arranged marriage is the norm, I imagine none of this seems relevant…just play along if that’s the case, I have to write from experience.)

I have respect for men, as men, as humans, but I have no respect for men who bash on women for stupid reasons.

Your experiences are not universal, okay?

And again, if you have only dated twits, then check your type. Maybe you are drawn to toxicity, maybe you think they are easy, and then when that’s not true, you feel betrayed.

But no woman is easy, even if she is loose. To really get into a relationship with a woman is never easy, and vice versa.

I want to reiterate that using a woman for sex who you have no respect for and you are wiling to defame publicly on the internet is pretty crappy to do. I suppose you’d say if she did the same, she was just being an entitled b-word.

And if your conclusion is that dating is a waste of time…fine, don’t date.

But it’s no excuse to let your poor judgment sour other young men on the idea of dating and actually trying to approach a relationship maturely.

Of course, women should not be giving sex to men who are not going to marry them, and haven’t married them.

If he says he doesn’t believe in marriage, ladies, run. He doesn’t’ want to risk it on you, why should you risk it on him?

Isn’t this just an excuse to cohabit with people who you are not sure are marriage material, because you can always get out if it goes wrong?

But what is the point at all then? You just want the ease of a two person household, two incomes, and sex…without binding yourself to it and risking it all?

What kind of attitude is that?

And then we wonder why the love dies and they feel like there’s no meaning in it anymore. We treat each other like conveniences, and then we wonder why we feel like we are just a convenience to them.

Moving on…

3: Money

As I said before, divorce can be pricey.

But there are practical solutions to it, if you are really doing to worry that much about it.

You can get legal agreements about who gets the money and how before you get married, you can get contracts about that kind of thing.

Some people suggest that as an alternative to marriage…but it kind of just sounds like marriage with the financial steps, but not the moral and emotional ones.

You can have separate bank accounts, if you insist…might be smartest anyway, couples often fight over how they spend joint checking account money.

But is money really a good reason not to get married?

Making it an issue kind of makes it seem like you are treating your SO like a prostitute.

I do think couples should be clear about their work expectations before they get married. I think people should be clear about all their expectations before marriage.

I personally like having a job, but I don’t like having a full time one, so if my husband does, that would be great.

I mean, I’ve gotta do something with my time, I have nothing against women working if they want to, but I do think it’s kind of missing the point to make marriage about that.

Marriage was not instituted to provide financial stability. It was instituted, firstly, by God, and later by cultures, primarily for companionship and reproduction.

First of all for companionship.

Not all couples who get married need the financial support, and it should not be a factor in divorce or marriage if you ask me. People who divorce just to get money are terrible.

It’s a factor because we have to live, but it’s not the primary concern. You can arrange it all beforehand, but don’t marry someone if they are not okay with you providing for yourself, if that is what you want, and don’t marry someone who is not okay providing for you, if that is what you want (and men do that too, by the way, all the time). Just know what you want.

But if you rush into a relationship not being clear about that, then it was your own fault, and you need to fix it, not just dump that person. Someone will have to compromise, but it’s not enough to slit over, money should not be put above things like love, honor, and a stable family for your kids.

Why do I even need to say that? How far have we fallen?

4: Marriage is oppressive to women because they have to change their name, and it make them men’s property.

….

Right

Well, that has been true in many cultures and eras, but as it is now…that’s stupid.

You don’t have to change your name, but the reason that women did was to signify a new family being started, with the husband. She leaves her father’s house.

In several cultures, married couples keep both family names, to signify this, and in others cultures, people do not eve have last names.

But marraige iexist in every culture.

So, even if you want to say that in the West, and East, even, marriage oppresses men or women because they change their name, it’s not a sold argument against marriage, just against the form of marriage in this country.

You can get marreid many different ways. You cna kep yoru name, you cn atke both names, the husband can take the wife’s aname if he wants, even.

It hsa nothig to do with marraige itself.

But if you are willing to forego the commitment of marriage because you don’t want to be under a man…

Then yeah, you probably shouldn’t be in a relationship, period.

Whether the man dominates or not (and personally is more of a factor then gender there, even in countries that are patriarchal) marriage, and relationships, require some submission to each other, some humility, some willingness to let the other person have their way.

Going into it with the attitude that the idea itself is oppressive to you is the best recipe for disaster I can imagine.

Like when men all women the “Ball and chain” I hate that.

My father used to refer to it as “having the training collar on his neck”

He actually dominated my mom, always unfairly, and didn’t do what she wanted at all. So I found it puzzling he’d compare it to that. More like my mom had on the collar, and he’d throw a fit if she stepped out of line.

I mean, in a way, it’s nice that all these men and women out themselves online.

Yeah, no one should be marrying you. Yikes!

But it annoys me that poeple applaud this.

Thee people are spoiled, selfish, and superficial.

They care more about their own convenience in marriage then they do about growth, or anyone else’s happiness.

Rom coms used to talk about how you want to make someone else happy when you love them, now it’s all about that makes me happy.

I’m convinced most of the people who get divorced and then tell others marriage is a waste of time, didn’t actually try that hard.

If you went into it with a selfish attitude, then yeah, it wasn’t going to work for you.

Some people are smart enough to realize that partway through and change, but most just quit, because we’ve made quitting easy.

And FYI, if divorce is so tough on men, why do so many of them choose it over working out their problems in counseling?

And women too, for that matter.

I am not married, but, I have actual relationships with people, ones I have to work at.

And here’s the kicker: If you don’t work on your family relationships, you will not work on your marriage one either.

We all have problems in our family, but most people ignoring them, they fight, they forget about it, and nothing changes.

That was my dad, he’s comfortable that way. That was what he witnessed growing up. He just thought we’d be the same as his wacked out family.

But my sisters and I actually want to be able to improve, and grow, and we had enough.

We have worked on our relationship with each other, and it’s much better now than it ever was when my dad was around.

I plan to apply that to marriage also.

Look, I have had moments of wondering if I’d ever get on good terms with my mom, or my siblings ever again, but we have moved beyond it.

If you stick with it, and the other person is willing, you can work it out.

Marriage should probably hit a rough patch after 5 years at the maximum, if you both are maturing and changing.

Oh, and that brings me to number 5, I almost forgot this one:

5. The person you marry sign going to change so much in 5 years. So you should not get married, but especially, you should not marry young.

You know…how young you are when you marry has never made any real difference overall, historical speaking. It’s is how mature people were when the got married. Teens have thought like adults in culture where teens have to be adults, and now we have 25 year olds who still think like kids, because they can. It does not matter.

In cultures where marriage is supported, young people can work it out as easily as older people. Younger people are more willing to learn, and more likely to compromise, if they can be made to see something is not working. They are more likely to focus on outside things, and not just their own interests, like older people do. All traits that enable growth. If you’re 35, you’re not likely to be pliable, or willing to learn.

Also, young men are way more likely to grow out of abusive/toxic behaviors, because they often od them out of immaturity, not for the power trip. And young women are more likely to become sympathetic with time, not not as demanding, because you adjust your expectations at that age.

If you get to 30 and you have not committed to anyone, you’ve had not reason to change, or realize your quirks may not be the easiest to live with, you take that into marriage, and sure, you may have less conflict…but that’s not always a sign of the healthiest relationship.

Conflict can be a good thing, if you are growing.

The time I hardly fought with my family was the time we were the most distant. We don’t fight a lot now, because we fought a lot for a while, working stuff out, adjusting, learning.

Even therapists will tell you sometimes that conflict can show you have real feelings, and the lack of it can show you’ve shut down.

Older people have less enthusiasm, but that also means they have less drive to mature. You have learned to overlook, or to just avoid.

If that come after years of growth, that’s a good thing, but if you’ve skipped that part, I have to wonder if you just didn’t want to change.

I won’t say every older couple is that way. Some people just don’t meet the right person till they are older.

My point is more that shaming people who want to get married young is foolish. If they are willing to put in the work, why shod they wait? Chances are they will get less wiling with time, not more willing.

At 23 I already like to have things more my way then I did at 18, but at 18 I lacked confidence in my own worth also.

I think waiting more time for me was better, but I do not want to wait till 30. I had good reason to wait, my dad mess ed me up good.

But if that is not the case, I see no reason by normal, people, with supportive families who are 20 or 21, and willing to treat marriage with the seriousness it deserves, should not get married.

It’s true, kids do rush into it, but that doesn’t mean it the age that’s the problem, it’s more of that lack of preparation beforehand.

Like going to marriage right after college, if you have never been responsible for anyone, never had to cook and clean for yourself or others, and never had to be on a budget and independent of your parents, that is stupid. Sets you up to be dependent on them in your marriage too, and to expect your spouse to take care of you, not for it to be mutual.

But if you have been prepared, and have made your own decisions before with success, then if you want to get after college, you should. It’s worked for many couples.

And I should say also, you can’t put all couples into one box.

Some people are not ready for marriage at 20, but that does not mean everyone isn’t.

I have had my share of snarky comments form older people about my mental readiness for anything. I have proved time and again that I can make better decisions than my grandparents did, and my parents, often enough.

Given how their marriage ended up, I’m inclined to think I could pick a husband better than they did also, but even if I picked a bad guy, now, at 23, is it any worse than my grandmother who picked bad mean 3 times in a row, even older than I am?

If you can learn from your mistakes, that is what matters.

I suggest either being friends or dating for at least 2 years before you marry, just so you really have a chance to see who that person really is.

But what matters is character, the willingness to change.

It is true, we change a lot over time.

And people who are commit to each other adapt to those changes.

It’s like people who cut off their family once they move out, clearly they let change affect their commitment.

But some of us put in the effort to talk and hang out still. Those people are more likely to grow with you.

This is all stuff to watch out for.

But as far as marriage itself being a bad idea, it is not, and it has never been.

That is alie.

And if people are questioning a thing that has worked across every culture, every time, and every moral group, then I question how big their heads are. Flouting thousands of years of experience because you think you’re just too special for marriage, well…yeah, says a lot about you.

Until next time, stya honest–Natasha

[PS: If you think I left anything out, feel free to shoot me a comment, I wouldn’t mind revisiting this subject. It’s one a lot of people are wondering about now.]

Questions for the People changing the world

I took a few weeks off since my last posts did not do so well, so this time I thought I’d talk about a different subject.

I also have a new laptop, so that’s exciting, nice to have keys that don’t stick..

I’ve been watching some tik toks, as I mentioned in my last post, and been frustrated with how people respond to these issues, but let’s talk about that term for a second.

You ever notice how everything is an issue now?

In the past century, we started using language like this, but they called it “problems” “dilemmas” “Crisis” “matters” and so on.

Now we call it “issues,” “injustice” “Inequality” and so on.

Before the modern and post Modern era, people usually just called it “doing good” and “doing evil.”

Being fair, and being unfair.

I mean, the difference matters. We don’t just call things right and wrong anymore, we call them “issues.”

Issues can be problems without being good or bad, really. What’s an issue for one person is a selling point for another.

Abortion is an “issue” but it has two sides. People don’t call it a moral question anymore.

It’s not really a question, anyway.

Language matters.

Back wehn C. S. Lewis was writing, as well as his peers, in the 1900s, they noticed that things were shifting away from the acknowledgment of truth. Things were not “good or bad” “true or false” anymore, they were “honorable” “brave” “intellectual” and all that other crap.

Not that those qualities are not real, but how can a theory be brave or honorable? It’s a theory. A thought process. Either it is true, so it’s useful, or it’s false, so it’s useless.

Now, as I study this stuff, I’ve noticed that Lewis was, as usual, 100% right about that. But what many people do not realize is that Millennials and Gen Z are now living in the aftermath of it.

A lot of people in their 40s or 50s, or older, imagine that the debate we’re having in society is still about right and wrong, but the truth is, it left off being about that a long time ago.

And if those people would ever bother actually talking to a young person seriously about what they believe, they’d see that for themselves.

I realized it when I began trying to teach and discuss things with my younger cousins, (Gen Z) and people at my college (Millennials). I can’t begin from the premise that something is right or wrong, and win the argument.

My cousins will be more concerned with what is socially acceptable, what is tolerant, and what is inclusive. If I say that it’s “wrong” they may admit it, but feel it is still their civilian duty to support people making their own choices, even if they are bad ones.

And you’ll find that thinking all over movies and shows now.

I mean, I’m sure Hollywood would like us to support them making their own choices, even if they are bad ones, so they can keep making porn, exploiting child actors, and doing drugs without suffering the consequences for it the rest of us do… I mean sure, let’s pay them millions of dollars a year to make their own choices.

I wish I got paid to do that.

But I digress.

So yeah, “right or wrong” no longer cuts it.

The operation to remove men’s chests, as Lewis put it, was largely successful. People’s heads are disconnected from the rest of them, and once they were, everything became about what sounds good, and what seems tolerant.

If you ask a kid or young adult now to give you a concrete reoans, outside of social norms, to support any of the SJW causes out there, they will not have one. I’ve tried, believe me, but you see, having a good reason no longer matters.

You are either in this crowd, or you aren’t.

The same with the tribalism that is retaking this culture. Nevermind if the tribes of the ethnic groups we are supporting, even did good things. They could have slaughtered each other, kidnapped children and women and raped them, or eaten people, and we’re still supposed to be proud of it and not call it out.

I thought progress was being able to admit your ancestors made mistakes, and try to correct them, not to say they were right in their own way.

Oh right, if you’re white you have to admit they made mistake, but every other race except Jews and Europeans can take pride in their culture.

I’m not even 100% white, but I don’t really care, I think that my European heritage is still cool. And my non European heritage is also cool. Not all of it, but no one’s history is pure at all times. That’s not really the point.

Man, the next time someone blames white people for slavery, I’d just like to ask what they think the fist modern culture to put laws in place to abolish slavery was…because here’s a hint, it was not a black or Asian or native American culture.

Leaving that where it is, let’s move on.

While I can give an opinion on these issues, it’s not really the point of what I’m saying. The point is, this is what we distract ourselves with these days.

Because we made it impossible for people to believe in absolute truth, they had to find a substitute cause to live for, and Tribalism, of all sorts, is the only one bigger than themselves.

So here we are, America is divided, and other nations are getting more and more divided also. It’s not that this problem is exclusive to America. But I do see it up close and personal here.

I really wonder, at times, how people in my generation, and the ones above and below it, can be so clueless.

No one else seems to realize that all this is by and large, a massive waste of our time.

Let’s assume we achieve Social Equality…whatever that is.

Everyone has the exact same rights. And it’s not the pseudo Equality that really means oppressing White people and men, but actual Equality, which says we’ll all be treated fairly.

Then what?

we’ve made perfect society–allegedly, assuming an Equal Society is perfect, and doesn’t have the same inherent flaws every other man made system will have.

(One obvious one being that no one can be special or unique anymore, so we are all replaceable)

Now we’re can ll live in harmony, right?

How long do you expect that to last?

And when is enough enough for reformers? Progressives? What is the cut off point? When can we stop fighting with each other? When will you be satisfied?

Assuming you ever get there, human reforms last, on average, less than 50 years in their pure state, usually a shorter time than that, before things get twisted by corrupt people who manipulate the system.

I’d give in one decade at most before it all goes to pot, and that’s being generous.

And once that happens, what will you do? Your old methods will not work, they will only strengthen the problem. The corruptors will know how to twist it to their advantage. Will you have any new ideas? Any sources to turn to?

I notice that a lot of people who care about Social Justice now, they want to force all of us to conform to their standards. For now, that’s what they think is best.

But the kicker is, if you force someone else to do what you want, someday, you will be forced to do what you don’t want. You get what you give, karma’s a real B— as they say.

If you lie, you’ll be lied to. If you steal, you’ll be stolen from. If you kill, someone will kill you. And if you enslave someone else to your whims, you will eventually be enslaved to someone else’s.

Or do you really think the people who agree with you will stay in power forever?

What I’m asking any potential progressive reading this is to be honest. Do you think Progressivism is going to last?

If the answer is, realistically, it won’t, because nothing does, then I ask you next:

What will you do when it passes? When the control swings back to people who are not Conservative, but are something else entirely. If you destroy people’s right to choose now, by removing the laws, and protections that allow people you don’t like to defy your ideas–then when they come for you, when you’re the minority again, when you’re the outdated philosophy, and there’re no laws in place to protect you from just being shot for it, is it going to be worth it to you?

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”– Martin Niemöller 

You stuck to your guns at the cost of taking away all of ours, and when we are unable to defend your rights, or our own, because you sacrifice us on your alter of Progress, will you blame us still? Or will you realize it was your choice.

You see, it’s all just a little too unrealistic to me.

Even if the Left gets what they want, and they probably will, for a while. It won’t last.

Tyrants always put on the social justice thing like a hat, and they take it off as soon as it suits them.

Chairman Mao marketed himself as China’s deliverer from oppression of landlords (read: Capitalists), then once everything bought it (or didn’t buy it, as they were broke), he stripped the nation of all it’s wealth, on the grounds that it was wrong to own capital.

Think someone taking away your computer, car, fancy equipment, streaming services, all of it. Leaving you only the devices that will stream propaganda into your home.

And people bought it, but Mao was just another dictator abusing his people, and when it all came out, they were devastated. And morally bankrupt.

What I do not understand about my generation, is that even if you tel them this, they think it doesn’t matter. If you explain to the Liberals what happens if you follow their methods, they do not care. To them, their goals are all important. Even if they burn down society to achieve them. In fact, they applaud that sentiment.

If you destroy the system that gave you a choice, then what will stop someone else from destroying you?

The rioting of this and last year is all great if it’s for a cause you like–what about when it’s for a cause you don’t?

And it weill be, sooner or later.

I know it’s not apruap opion, at least on socoal mediea, to say all this, but it sem to me no one really askes thse wuiet nayore.

I mean, Conservatives aren’t helping ourselves a whole lot with our approach. We just tell them they are wrong, and everything wrong with this country.

Even if that were true, that’s not going to change anything. I’ve gotten farther asking people the real questions. Asking them what’s behind what they think.

People are honestly surprised when I do.

I’m not an expert on every political issue, and I don’t really think I need to be. People my age mostly aren’t, I don’t knew to know the facts about it all to explain the holes in their logic, I just need to know enough to know there are holes.

And in my own, no doubt.

I’m perfectly aware that Capitalism, and Conservatism are not perfect. I know the are not upheld in ideal ways.

But my real problem with the Left is that, they thing they are perfect. They think there are no flaws in their own side.

It’s not just the left, a lot of people on the Right are the same.

And we can just argue and argue until we destroy ourselves, and that will happen, no doubt, sooner or later.

So, in the meantime, what can we do?

The pride and arrogance of the world, is not rally surprising I suppose. It’s always like this.

I think God warned us not to put our stock in worldly ideas because He knows that the world changes every half century or so. New fads come in, new empires rise, and if we build our lives around the one we lived in, we’ll suffer the most when it changes.

The first Christians knew that, and they were too busy being persecuted to really have much room for worldliness in a lot of place,s but they were still warned about it.

So what do we do?

I’ve found it more helpful to my mental state, as well as my life in general, to read theology and Spiritual writings, rather than political ones.

My generation almost doesn’t know the names of the great Moralists and Theologians of the past anymore. We don’t think it matters.

But if you want my two cents, that’s where our Salvation is.

Our Salvation is in God, naturally, but it’s the older writers who had the better understanding of Him, by and large.

There’s a few modern writers who have a clue, mostly because they read the old ones.

I’m not saying we can’t know God, but the trouble is, thanks to our culture, the Desire to know God is much smaller than it used to be.

Even in the Church, we’re drowned out by the buzz of Social Justice.

Thank goodness, not everywhere.

If I were any of you, I’d be paying more attention to the stuff that’s coming out of countries where Christians are persecuted a lot more than here. They”ll be the most clear sighted, because if you might die for it, you’re going to be pretty sure God is real, and Jesus is His Son.

We in the West should remember that we don’t own Christianity. And that it is the obligation of the Church globally to support each other. What our brothers and sisters in the East and Middle East and South understand about God would change us. While we are supposed to offer them our help and protection as much as we can. God set it up that way, but we mostly forget about it.

I’m not against chilling with the internet when you need a break, but we need to find other ways to relax too.

Get our minds off the immediate flow of ideas that is this culture, and on to idea that took years to develop by a lot wiser people than us.

It’s biblical you know, to pay attention to the wisdom of the past.

We’re taught to despise the past now, but they had their good ideas. And remember, some day someone will mock you the same way you mock them. It’s the change of times. Always.

Personally, I just hope I live to see it, myself. It seems cathartic to me. But then again, there’s no guarantee the future will be less frustrating. Which is why focus on God is the most sensible thing to do.

A lot of people are depressed because they focus on how evil other people are.

Newflash: Mankind has been evil since the Fall. It’s not new. You think it’s bad now, read the story of Lot sometime.

Or any of the Prophetic books of he bible.

Or a history of the Roman Empire…

The old sages told us to focus on Heaven, on God, on the hereafter, because they knew the world changed too fast, and yet, it never changes at all. Idealists and Reformers always end up disappointed in the end if they don’t learn to accept that truth.

And we never accomplish our full goals as humans, we really don’t know what we want. We can do our best.

It seems I always end with the same thought.

But there is really no other answer. If I didn’t have God, I really thing I’d be crazy by now. I’m one of those people who’s prone to take all this stuff really seriously, and only my Faith gave me a sense of humor about it enough to put down the weight of the world, and accept that I can’t singlehandedly control things.

I suggest the attitude to anyone getting overwhelmed by all this.

Until next time, stay honest–Natasha

And if you all would consider supporting me with a small gift so I can keep paying for this blog domain, I’d be grateful:

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

A Christian’s Opinion on “The Lady of Heaven.”

Recently someone told me I should watch the trailer for the new “Muslim” Movie, The Lady of Heaven.

A few minutes of trailer, and a Google search or two later, I came to the conclusion this movie is a bad idea, and I wanted to talk about why.

At first I wasn’t opposed to a movie about Islam. I might be Christian, but I think learning about what other people believe is important. Muslims are very, very hard to convert, and that is partly because their faith is so strong in Islam, it’s also partly because Christians are more afraid of them than we are willing to learn about them.

Of course, someone might say “Why should I care what Terrorists believe?”

Well not all Muslims are terrorists, just like not all Christians are fanatics. And we can’t broad brush them if we want to be taken seriously.

Actually Islam as it’s seen by many more peaceful Muslims has a lot in common with some of the less fundamental aspects of Christianity, and there’s more to it than just defending the faith from infidels.

I learned a lot about it from this great book “Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus.” Which detailed what Muslims believe in a way that Westerners can understand.

I believe firmly that the case for Christianity is irrefutable. I would not be a Christian if I didn’t not think it was the perfect religion…and I’d say any religion that is not perfect is not real, and if someone says that about their faith, they do not truly have any.

That out of the way what’s my interest in this movie?

Well, I am not trying to be condescending, but, I feel a sort of kinship with Muslims in this one respect: Both Christian and Muslims do not feel like the world understands them, nor treats then well.

Christians are taught to expect this because we are righteous. Muslim are, as far as I can tell, taught to expect it because they are fundamental. It boils down to very similar things.

People fear Muslims more than Christians, but that has not always been the case. Christianity has its dark place in history. Where people went off what the Bible actually teaches and came up with their own version.

Some people think all religion is bad because it can be corrupted and twisted into a tyranny.

But I see that as equivalent to saying all medical professionals are bad because quack doctors exist and some doctors do procedures wrong.

You see, Doctors are fallible and corruptible, but the practice of Medicine itself, the Ideal of health, is not really something that can be bad. Only misapplied.

Religion is no different. It has always been the medicine of the soul.

I don’t agree with Islam, but I take it seriously.

And this begins my main problem with this movie.

I don’t know how the film will turn out, but the trailer is already painting a rather romanticized version of whatever it’s going to talk about.

Islam is not, in any sense, a romantic religion.

There is beauty in it, but Muslims do not worship artistically, they find that irreverent. They respect art and scientist, but is it not a real part of their religion to incorporate that into their worship.

So, making a film about Islam that is not a documentary already has many issues even in the mechanics of it.

Muslims for the most part don’t believe in women showing their face in public. There is variation in that. But, there is some form of head-covering involved everywhere.

The most obvious issue in making a movie about a Woman in Islam is that it involves showing her face. So she is not really representing their belief.

I am not of the school that thinks that doing something in a movie is okay if it is not in real life.

Of course stealing, and lying in a movie is different. You can’t literally steal a prop. It belongs to the studio anyway.

But sex? If it’s really happening, it’s still wrong. And it seems the high divorce rate of actors is more than enough evidence that it’s not the best foundation for a relationship to participate in those films.

I think not following the teachings of your religion would fall under the category of what is wrong to depict. It would be like filming an Amish person…oh, yeah they do that too.

I suppose if the actress is not actually Muslim, that’s a different matter, but I suspect that would not make everyone involved feel better. And, shouldn’t they be using people who actually believe this? Christians use other Christians in their movies…which is partly why they are not very good acting wise a lot of the time.

But then, the actual Christians who make it big time in Hollywood are usually above our budget.

This is the least of my concerns, but it is one worth mentioning.

But even if we leave at aside and assume it’s acceptable to have this. Is this movie a good idea?

Like I said, it’s romanticizing it.

One Muslim gave me imput online about it, and this is what he said.

The movie tells the story of Fatima from the Shia point of view. Sunni Muslims will be upset about it especially because it paints the early companions in a very bad light and points a spotlight at a very dark moment in Islamic History… Some are afraid the controversy around this film will cause the radicals to target and kill Shias for disrespecting the companions.

it’s a dark period in Islamic history because the companions of Muhammad attacked and killed his daughter and for 1400 years they covered up the event and anyone who talked about it was labeled a heretic and put to death. She is one of the most magnificent figures in Islamic History and yet nobody knows anything about her. We owe it to her and what she went through to tell her story. Out of love for Fatima the sacrifice is worth it.”

” Here is a a quote from the director: “It is a wonderful epic story full of Shakespearean intrigue, ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ meets ‘Game of Thrones’, an innovative way of seeing the origins of Islam and the Holy Figures from the point of view of our young modern-day hero Laith. We will be drawn into a world that sees the history of the religion’s birth as a wonderful action-packed story full of color. Juxtaposed against the stark colorless reality of the present-day war-torn Middle East it will be an innovative cinematic experience full of revelations, magic and incredible performances all set in and against the beautiful and dramatic landscape of eastern Georgia.”

For the record. Any time a director uses the phrase in bold up above you can be certain they are not going to be realistic. And Islam has ever and always been a stark, war torn religion, as even the story of Fatima proves. For better or worse. Trying to make it seem like The Arabian Nights is simply disingenuous.

According to this Muslim, it is worth the risk to talk about Fatima (The Lady of Heaven.)

But there are many Muslims, he admits, that are going to be angry about this.

I also found out that the director of this film got kicked out of either his sect or some other organization centered around Islam…which seems like a red flag.

Is it worth it to tell this story?

Well, that depends.

The Shia point of view is one of the two big branches of Islam. I believe it is the more peaceful branch, but don’t quote me on that.

If we could trust this movie to be objective, then perhaps it would be worth while to make it.

Fatima certainly sounds like an interesting woman…but what I am not convinced of is that the movie will show her how she really was.

The overdramatic speech in the trailer is already a huge neon warning sign to me.

I didn’t used to think so, but, in the last decade, every trailer for a “inspirational film” has one of those speeches in it.

Then you watch the movie, and it rarely delivers the impact that it was hinting at in the trailer.

Usually, there are contrived conflicts in the movie.

Which seems stupid, because in a real story like this, you ought to find enough actual conflict, without adding more.

I was less skeptical when I was younger, but I’ve now read too many things that say “well, no, that scene never actually happened, actually it went like this….”

Like in Hidden Figures. I am almost 100% sure she never yelled at her boss and fellow employees over the bathroom situation.

I know for a fact that in the Harriet movie that came out, her telling her white master off at the end of the move never happened.

And even in slightly older movies like Hildago, that lacked controversy. There was no love story, and no final stretch where the hose and rider both nearly collapsed. The horse actually finished a whole week ahead of the others in the race.

Either you can be annoyed by these changes or accept them as just part of what makes the movie “based off” real life, and not actually real.

But it gets a little touchy when we are focusing on a religion, and not just a person in history.

I have the same problem with The Lady of Heaven that I do with The Chosen.

While the Lady of Heaven may be about a regular girl, it is doubtful most of the story will be focused on that aspect of it. Islam is going to have to come into it.

And Islam is divisive. You have schools of Islam that think very, very different things.

The difference between Islamic sects is actually a lot more of a problem than the different denominations in Christian. [I speak on an actual doctrinal level, not people’s personal ways of handling it]

It is more like the difference between Catholicism, Mormonism, and Christianity.

The things that divide those three things are huge. Praying to Mary and other saints is not in the Protestant Bible, Seeing Jesus as equally powerful to the devil is only Mormon (as well as many other belief that I doubt the average practicing Mormon even really knows, as none of the ones I used to know ever mentioned them, but they are in there), and then Protestant Christianity, which claims to follow the Bible and only the Bible for how we base our worship and practice.

Interestingly enough, most of the violence the church has done over the centuries has been in the Catholic church, the branch that differs from the Bible in many ways. Protestants have made their mistakes, but usually we are not organized enough to take over countries like Catholicism did.

In fact, you will not find Protestant Christianity ever mentioned in many accounts of the church.

Corruption in fiction at least. Victor Hugo’s writing comes to mind.

And this is the different between Shia and Sunni Muslims as well as the smaller sects.

They are not simply difference of practice.

Maybe I should explain, because I know a lot of non Christians, or new Christians, will not know this alrady.

Doctrinal vs Practical Differences

Okay, a doctrinal difference and a difference in practice are very different problems.

A difference in practice would be this: The Evangelical movement focused on The Holy Spirit aspect of Christian more. The more Intellectual branch (usually Messianic Jews are this way interestingly enough) of the church focused on science and apologetics, very few churches fall into that category, but I’ve been to a couple. Then we have the traditional Bible believing denominations.

And Foursquare Church basically tried to combine the best of both worlds, and have evangelical, charismatic element mixed in with sound theology based on the bible.

There’s room for overlap in all of this, it really depends on where you go, but all these difference are stylistic differences. None of these churches (unless they are false) are going to claim any of the following:

Jesus is the devil’s twin.

Jesus is not the Son of God.

Our sins can be forgiven by church leaders.

It is acceptable to pray to Mary or a saint

Sins can be forgive through paying money

Purgatory is real

You can change the fate of someone even after death

Celibacy is necessary for the church leaders.

(Celibacy is encouraged in the Bible, but not mandatory, and many passages make it clear most of the leaders in the church were married with children.)

All the differences above are part of either Mormonism, Catholicism, or Judaism.

Orthodox Christian is another issue all on it’s own.

Now for the difference in Islam:

In these ways are Muslims similar (and I speak as a person with a very basic knowledge of it, but this is simplified.)

All Muslims have to believe Muhammad is God’s prophet.

There is no God but Allah

Within that there are a lot of different view on which teachings about Muhammad are accurate. And those are much like the difference I listed above, because there are actually things that could cost you your life.

Christians argue over denominations, more than we should, but we rarely kill each other over it, and we also are not known for persecuting each other (we do, but it is on a smaller scale and does not draw the attention of the outside world as often, there are exceptions to this).

But for the most part, we give to the same charities, uphold the same principles, and lead similar lives. Whether I am Baptist or Foursquare, I am likely to have the same verse highlighted in my bible, the same favorite Worship songs or style and the same basic beliefs about Jesus.

But the different sects of Islam are the ones that determine some major key things that we non Muslims are concerned about:

Is it all right tot kill Infidels?

Is marrying an underage girl acceptable?

Should people be forced to convert to Islam?

Most of the Western Muslims do not believe any of the above are acceptable, but as we all know, many, many Eastern Muslims do.

The precise problem with the movie is that by telling one side of it, it is going to alienate all the other sides.

And I do not think it is on the same level as just telling the Christianity story with a few errors. Christians complain, but we aren’t known for targeting people on the opposing side and killing or maiming them.

When you poke a bear, you should ask first if the bear has claws and fangs and is behind bars. It’s not wise to poke a bear anyway, but it’s even stupider to poke him in his own cave.

That is what I think this film is going to do.

And the people who make it will be partially responsible for any violence that follow, because they already know it will.

A movie about Jesus would not be guaranteed to cause that kind of reaction, but a movie about Islam is almost certain to do so.

That is the difference to me. You have to know who you’re dealing with.

Many, many Muslims are upset with the film, and I think justifiably skeptical about it. Hollywood is like Nazareth these days “Can any good come out of it?”

I am of the attitude that we do not need Hollywood to represent our religion anymore, if we ever did. I don’t trust those money grubbing jerks to portray anything fairly anymore.

I am worried some Muslims may accept the is film as necessary because they get so little representation but that is a very unwise outlook to have, because it leads people to accept even poor representation as better than nothing.

There is no power in Christianity if it is misconstrued, and I would think there is no power in Islam either.

I also do not think this movie is likely to make converts. And what other purpose is there in making it?

Fatima’s story is tragic, but it is also stirring up old grudges that didn’t need more fuel on the fire. It’s like making a movie about Jim Crowe, or Malcom X, or Adolf Hitler and tossing it into today’s political climate….oh, yeah, basically what they already are dong.

Yep, Hitler the story behind the mustache, coming soon to a theater near you, I can see it now. We can always count on Hollywood to see the flame war that is our society right now, and throw a big heaping ton of gasoline on it.

Am I the only who thinks they are deliberately doing this to stay in power over our minds and attention? I mean goodness knows, saying we could be less judgmental and more respectful is out of the questions.

Well the day I let Hollywood tell me how to think is the day you all can unfollow this blog, because it won’t be worth reading anymore.

In short, this movie is, I think, irresponsible. It is being made by a man who’s already caused a lot of controversy in Islam, and seems to see no issue with creating more, even if it could get people killed.

Remember too, this movie is likely to be seen all over the world. So even if violence is not the result in the USA, or Canada or Europe, it could easily be in the East. And we will probably never hear about it on the news which is always faithfully keeping our attention off what it really going on anywhere but here.

I mean, why talk about Islam when you can talk about the umpteenth strain of COVID that we can do nothing about…?

Well, that was my take on it. I’m not telling anyone not to see the movie if they feel it’s a good idea, but I would urge them to be watchful about what happens following it or around it. Maybe I am wrong…I am not usually wrong about things like this, because there are patterns, but who knows?

Until next time, stay honest–Natasha

The Shocking Truth! (most controversial post about history)

Hmm, I just found out something pretty shocking…

You know how I’m taking a history class right now?

Well, this anti-European history class covered slavery in America last month, and no mention was made of this very strange fact:

(I mentioned it to my professor who denied any knowledge of it. But I remembered it being in a movie that came out 5 or 6 years ago I think, about America.)

Did you know that there were black slave owners in the U. S.?

It’s true. It’s documented on census’es taken from the 1800s, in fact, a black man was one of the first people to legally win ownership of another black man in court

“It depends on how you parse the timeline. Anthony Johnson, the black ex–indentured servant whose bio opened the first episode of our podcast, did sue to hold John Casor for life in 1653, and the resulting civil court decision remanding Casor to Johnson’s ownership was (as historian R. Halliburton Jr. writes) “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery” in the colonies.” (Slavery Myths, click link for full article https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/09/slavery-myths-seven-lies-half-truths-and-irrelevancies-people-trot-out-about-slavery-debunked.html)

There’s a book about it actually, called “Black Slaveowners Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860” See link below:

(https://www.worldcat.org/title/black-slaveowners-free-black-slave-masters-in-south-carolina-1790-1860/oclc/1124410642)

So, now you know I’m not making this up, but why am I bringing it up?

Because in a college history class, this is not mentioned. I have never seen it mentioned in any history book I’ve ever read, especially not ones about slavery. They grudgingly mention that slavery existed in Africa, taking great pains to tell us that it was “different from Western Slavery” and “Europeans made it worse” and oh, we had slaves at a time when slavery was a social norm and no one would have thought much of it.

It wasn’t, from the accounts we have of the slaves who came from Africa, the idea of slavery that they objected to, it was the nature of slavery of Europe was different, and they didn’t like it. That’s fair, but is it fair to make it seem like it was mostly the Europeans fault?

Usually, in politics, we blame the preexisting system for the fact that outside forces can take advantage of it. Like, do we blame China for the fact that we outsource our businesses to them because its cheaper that way for us, even though it’s an inefficient system that hurts the people actually making the products?

Is it China’s fault? Or ours, for building our economy on that?

No one is going to say China, here, guys.

Yet, it was somehow Europe’s fault for doing the same thing, when slavery preexisted in Africa and we could only take advantage of it because of that, in Europe, after the Empires died away, slavery was not a thing.

But, they will say, Slavery is a clear evil, and Europeans should have known better.

Well, firstly, slavery is not denounced as evil in almost every major world religion, though it is given parameters, at least in the Bible, for fair treatment, and the ability of slaves to be freed after a certain length of time.

Slavery is a historically acceptable thing, up until the last 200 years, in fact.

So, why should the Europeans have known better? Do human beings innately question things like that? We’re told it’s wrong now from preschool to adulthood, to the point where no one can have an intelligent conversation about why it happened at all, just that it was wrong.

I am no fan of it myself, I live in free country, I like freedom. I am not interested in enslaving anyone.

But I am also not interested in presenting a view of history that is completely skewed one direction, not by logic, not by virtue, but by the wish to inflate the crimes of 1/3 of the world, and ignore the crimes of the other 2/3.

I call it facing facts. The fact is, everyone sucks. No matter what country you’re from, unless its Greenland, because they never do anything that I’ve heard of (but if you go back far enough, who knows? Vikings right?)

Does it not strike anyone else as irresponsible to leave out of history books about the Slavery movement, that black people owned slaves?

I mean, doesn’t it suggest a certain… bias?

Even that one of them maybe was part of normalizing it to begin with?

That’s not something anyone wants to hear, is it?

There’s a lot of white people who get a kick out of shaming their ancestors over slavery, and it’s fair enough to say it was evil… but it’s not fair to say white people are to blame.

The terms “White Supremacist” “White Misogynist” get thrown around a lot.

And if a white person has the audacity to stand up for this country, or any aspect of European history, well, prepare for battle (I should know, I get this in my history class if I ever try to bring up counterpoints.)

Now, I am not blaming black people. (Which is a blanket term anyway, because if I said African, I’d actually exclude a lot of the countries slaves were taken from.) I think all of use are responsible. There were other races involved too. Eastern peoples.

Slavery was a Global problem, it looked different in different nations, but it was Global.

History books now slide a certain way, against White people.

Never mind that Irish, Scottish, and any number of other ethnicity in Europe could be almost as oppressed as slaves, and rarely if ever owned enough property to own slaves. And I am more those ethnicities than I am any that would have had slaves. So, as someone with a very small claim to fame in that part of history, I feel even more annoyed at the marginalization.

Profiling is only profiling if you’re not white.

I wish I was kidding, but I just watched a movie last week, a good movie, that has a couple of lines in it that are just… so, so hypocritical.

The worst is a black woman in the movie makes this joking comment “I never get tired of watching white people fight.”

It’s laughed off, and truthfully, I am not really offended by the idea of it being funny to see white people fight. I think it’s funny too. BUT

Can you imagine the same line, spoken by white person, of a black couple?

Picture it “I never get tired of watching (insert any other race) people fight”

I am pretty sure the Racist Comment Police would be all over this in two minutes.

And this movie is not supposed to be social commentary, it didn’t see any problem with saying that.

Because no one would have a problem with it, on any given TV show, because it’s okay for black people to make fun of white people because we can’t dance, can’t rap, and fight differently  (supposedly) but it’s not okay for white people to say even a good thing about black people, if we say it’s because they are black. At least not without feeling like we’re taking our interracial social life into our hands.

I know some people at my church who don’t care if I say “black” because they know I am not trying to be disrespectful, it’s just easier than trying to remember where they are from. Cause guess what? My church has had black people from the UK there, so I can’t very well just assume everyone is African American, can I? (See why that term is so stupid as a blanket term? It’s more exclusive than black is because it makes it sound like there are only African Americans, and my French Professor was black too, she was form France.)

To be fair, usually it’s other white or Hispanic people who make the jokes that we can’t say “black” no black person has ever told me they don’t like it. (If you don’t, sorry, no offense intended).

Anyway, Political Correctness is dependent upon being technically incorrect, a lot of the time, as I think the above examples illustrate.

If I suggested that black people were partially responsible for slavery on any social media platform, I would get flame warred to death.

Even if, I could historically prove I was right. It wouldn’t matter.

The reason I think I have to talk about this is because my blog is literally about finding truth, protecting the truth, and understanding the value of it.

If the truth doesn’t fit any political agenda, that’s a shame, but it doesn’t make it not true.

Well, I think this is the most controversial post I’ve written all year, I wonder if it’ll get comments.

Though, why it is so bad to just give historical facts and suggest that they should be in history books, I’ll never know. 😐😤

Until next time, stay honest and stay healthy–Natasha

Cutting off the Hand

I’ve been going through my history book’s Imperialism section. Otherwise known as the make-white-people-look-bad section.

Our companion book right now is called “King Leopold’s Ghost” it’s got its own movie, King Leopold is quite famous as it turns out, though I never remember hearing of him before now. People say this part of our history has been hushed up. Now that I’ve read of it, I think maybe it was better that way.

I’m not about suppressing the truth, but for as much good as rehashing it has done us, we might as well not.

Think about it, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But do we learn from history?

Or does dwelling on the past lead us to repeat its mistakes?

It’s a sad fact of humanity that we tend to repeat our errors whenever we are most desperate not too.

In our age’s rush to eradicate racism and inequality, we’ve gone to the other end, making more racism and inequality.

Case in point:

In my history class we’ve had two separate discussions of European conquest over black people, some Aborigines and some African.

One week, my classmate and the textbooks ripped one British missionary to shreds for presuming to eradicate the culture of the Aborigines by teaching them European ways, and how to read, and plough, and raise crops.

My reaction?

“Oh he taught them how to grow their own food, and how to read, so shoot him! That’s just so despicable.”

download (4)

For real, Education, the thing people now say changes the most for oppressed people, and brings about the most Social Equality, is decried in this case because it destroyed their culture.

I’m sure it wasn’t the fact that the army was slaughtering them like sheep, this Missionary was trying to preserve them, in the end he failed to save most of them, and felt it badly, crying at their deaths, as his own account goes. But he felt they were better off dying there than in the bush.

My classmates and the textbooks called this an attitude of “Moral Superiority.”

I called it common decency, thinking someone is better off dying with some dignity, around people who care for them, then shot in the bush like a wild animal. Morally speaking, that sounds like the superior option, doesn’t it?

I wish I was exaggerating how unfair this was. But because he was a Christian, he must be wrong for assuming he was morally superior to these people. He must be justifying his part in this.

Robinson, was his name, if you want to look it up. Robinson seems to me to be more against his own people’s ruthless treatment, then to feel he is better than the Aborigines, but I suppose I’m just too white to understand.

The following week, we discussed the Congo, the subject of the book I mentioned above.

My teacher made the ironic statement, backed up by our textbooks, that the reason things finally changed in Africa after many decades, was because some of them were educated like Europeans, and learned to speak their language and reason with them in ways they could understand.

You catch that? One week, it’s bad to educate them and override their culture, the next week it’s the only path to their freedom. (My professor said it was complicated, which is another way of saying we don’t have an answer for if it was right or not.)

I would add that is why The Civil Rights movement succeeded here in America, slaves who got educated, freed people got educated. One can quibble all day about equal opportunity, but education was the only doorway to it for them.

And it was often White Masters who educated some of their slaves, though later it was made illegal, and white people started schools for them.

It was unfair still in many ways, prejudice is ugly, but it’s kind of funny that the very people (by race) who enacted it, also gave the oppressed the tools to break free.

If you think my Secular history class at my liberal college is going to acknowledge that with any sense of injustice toward the White people for ignoring it, then…you didn’t read the above carefully.

While my class begrudgingly admits there was good Europeans, they pass over the glaringly obvious truth, that Europeans were always part of toppling the Imperialism that they enacted. No nation is entirely unified in how it perceives what its leaders are doing.

They are even more anxious to ignore the other obvious truth: Christianity, which is blamed for aiding in the oppression, was the only reason it ever ended.

It’s like an inoculation. Christianity came into the other countries with the Oppressors, like a mild form of the disease, carrying some incorrect ideas of the times, but also the worldview that does the most universally for the dignity of human life, and the value of charity. Like a vaccination, Christianity helped the native peoples build up an understanding of European ways and religion that they later used to protest their rights to freedom and fair treatment. The Missionaries were also the only ones who usually educated the natives, which is what enabled them to integrate and rise above the culture.

In effect, Christianity was warped into something that would justify White Oppression, but it also preserved the idea of all human beings having value, which later was what put a stop to at least some of the oppression.

People fault Christianity for being used the wrong way,, but will barely give a mention to how it was used the right way, to help people.

And I have yet to hear anyone talk about how Christian based systems basically give power to anyone they oppress to eventually overthrow them, based on moral reasons. It’s like they give the knife to cut off their own arm, if they start to sin.

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30)

The only thing that would satisfy these people is the notion that Europeans should have just stayed home to begin with, never changed anything, and contented ourselves with our eager resources…how unrealistic that option is is negligible, because it’s clearly morally wrong to take over another country…

Says who?

I mean, are we going to start saying it’s morally wrong to take over another business? Where does it end?

Despite what they try to paint it as, the Europeans were not solely violent. A lot happened with trade deals, also. Sometimes unfair ones, sometimes they started out as mutually beneficial and then devolved. Sometimes, it didn’t happen that way at all.

You won’t find it in too many religions that Conquest is actually Wrong, in the sight of God, or the gods. Some cultures glorify it to a divine calling.

Where does the notion that is is wrong even come from?

No country can really back this up. Even if it’s wrong, no one can hope to prevent it from happening in one way or another.

So, I fail to see the point of teaching us that it was wrong, and then leaving it there… well, what now? What’s the big conclusion, History?

The claim can be made that History class should not be giving us new ideas, but telling it like how it happened.

That’s ludicrous. Any narrative of history is going to present new ideas to a student who has not studied it before, and a clearly slanted narrative is going to lead them to blame one party more than another.

It used to be slanted in Europeans favor, it is not slanted against us, we must look bad at all costs.

Maybe it was bad, I think in the context of the time, it’s harder to tell.

But even so, it’s over now. We have real world problems. Oppression continues in new forms, and old forms, but not the forms of the Modern Era, as it’s called.

I don’t think we are being taught to recognize the signs of this any more in our everyday lives, or we’d realize how the modern devices every single student has in their pocket are products of a system very similar to the ones we read about.

And do we care? Can we give them up?

Maybe, it’s harder to judge, hmm?

There will always be oppression as long as people are sinful, and people are in charge, or their creations are in charge. Running things by computers has not improved them.

The question for us, is what can we do to make it better or worse? 

We are dependent on these businesses for our way of life, undoing that is not the work of  a day. It was the same in the Congo, the same everywhere. By the time people realize it’s a problem they’re stuck, just like with an addiction.

I choose to keep applying my faith to every situation, because I think G. K. Chesterton was right when he wrote that the charge that Christianity obscures progress and keeps us in the Dark Ages is ridiculous when “Christianity is the only thing that has ever gotten us out of it.” (Orthodoxy)

Which is not to say Religion has never been an obstacle to advancements, but it has also been the main drive behind them. It comes down to the individuals every time.

The Bible is also concerned more with men’s souls then their station, and Christians have often taken that attitude also, but in the process, have done more to elevate men’s station in their concern for his soul.

For Missionaries have worried that mistreatment will make men bitter against God.

This is how things come right in the end, that and the Grace of God. There’s ups and downs in history, I for one think we should be looking to see what they did right, and not forever listing what they did wrong, as if we are free from error and know so much better than our forebears.

That’s what they thought too.

Mistakes have to be remembered if anyone is tempted to think their nation is perfect (that has led to a lot of evil) but it’s better to feel there is nobility left to preserve than to feel your people have always been irredeemably bad.

That’s where I leave it, I’d rather be proud of my heritage than ashamed of it, until next time– Natasha.

images