The Slave Girl Who Became An Author

 

Harriet Jacobs (1813/1815-1897) was born a slave, but luckily enough she was taught to read and write by her female owner when she was a child. However, at 12 years of age she had an abusive male owner who beat and raped her. In 1842 she escaped and hid at her grandmother's. Actually, she stayed in her attic for seven years, until she got the chance to run off to New York. After her escape to New York she lived and worked as a nanny at Idlewild, the home of writer and publisher Nathaniel Parker Willis. In 1861 she published her memoir, "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Written by Herself" in which she exposed the abuse enslaved women had to endure. One of the worst cruelties is that their children might be sold away even thought they themselves did all they could to protect them. This book, which was written under the pseudonym Linda Brent, is recognized as one of the most noticeable voices against slavery. Even so she had difficulties getting it published. 

 

Harriet Jacobs (1894) 

The brother of Harriet, John S. Jacobs, who also had escaped from slavery was involved with the abolitionists and, for instance, went on anti-slavery lecturing tours. Harriet helped him run "The Anti-Slavery Office and Reading Room" in New York. She learnt about feminist and anti-slavery ideologies, and in her book she describes how she came to a new understanding of the situation of black people: "The more my mind had become enlightened, the more difficult it was for me to consider myself an article of property." Well said and totally understandable!

https://hammondharwoodhouse.org/womens-history-month-harriet-jacobs-the-woman-in-the-attic/

 

https://skinnerfamilypapers.com/?p=3731

 

https://web.english.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Jacobs_Incidents_1861.pdf 

 

https://nbhistoricalsociety.org/portfolio-item/harriet-jacobs-writer/ 

 

Wikipedia

 

A Modern Legend of Demons And Possessions

 

Sarah Musben

Nobody really knows what happened to Sarah Musben, who was born in Sweden in 1913 and died 13 years later. Her life must have been agony, and, according to one's beliefs, one will ask how did this happen or why. To ask "how" one must see her case as belonging to medicine, but to ask "why" one obviously sees it as part of something else, but what? She herself said that a demon took possession of her body, but do we believe in what is known as super-natural demonic possessions? Naaahhh, not really, but on the other hand: Maybe .... 

However, neither way of seeing her fate gives a truly useful answer to her strange condition, which is the reason that many people don't believe it's true whereas others are convinced that it's a genuine case of demonic possession. (Also it scares people that much that they simply don't want to admit that it may be true ....).

https://youtu.be/NVuzH3zKe_c?si=xc85HqSgx_C8rfCi 

As far as I can see the only medical condition which might explain something of what happened to her is Epilepsy, but only up to a point. The possibility of a demonic possession is hard to accept because we are conditioned to see hardships of this magnitude as something deserved or undeserved. In this case it goes far back in the life of a child in Sweden who can't have deserved anything like it: Her parents got so afraid of her that they had her hospitalized when she was 7 because every night at midnight her blue eyes turned black, and her body made involuntary movements. 

The most striking physical change was her eyes which attained an extremely hateful expression while black. People - obviously including her parents - got afraid of her and thus shunned her. As to her death at 13 it must have been a relief to her no matter what happened to her in her short life - or didn't her demon possession not stop when she died? People at her death bed reported that after death her eyes suddenly opened, not blue, but black and sinister. What's more, all those present at her death died soon afterwards, and - lo and behold!!!! - their eyes had gone black ....

 

Attempting To Save The Tudor-Name And Dynasty

It's obvious to me that Anne Boleyn didn't believe that her husband, the king, Henry VIII, was going through with his intentions to have her executed for "adultery", "incest", etc. that she most probably didn't commit. When waiting for the executioner she kept looking for "someone" which most likely would be a messenger that Henry VIII wouldn't go through with the executioner. That means that on that fatal day, May 18, 1536, she was still hoping that she might be saved by a pardon which never came. Hoping against hope is a very special kind of torture, and she endured it in a notable fashion, actually laughing when the time schedule of the execution was botched. Of course, that laughter wasn't out of merriment, but shock at the situation where she, the Queen, was to be slaughtered by the man who had been totally besotted with her, but who now wanted to get rid of her so that he could marry his pregnant mistress, Jane Seymour: All for the male, royal heir he was so desperate for!

The day before the execution she had been told to "prepare her soul for death". Just like Marie Antoinette of France, who was sent to the guillotine on October 16, 1793, she kept her dignity, didn't fight the executioner or try to escape on the scaffold like e.g. the king's cousin, Margaret Pole. The execution of this elderly relative of the King was totally botched up and must have been a nightmare not only to her, but to the executioner. But then she and her son had resisted his changing the religion of England to be able to marry Anne Boleyn "who was going to save the Tudor-dynasty by giving him that much longed for son" so .... 

Margaret Pole

Henry's desperate wish for that male heir who might save the Tudor-dynasty made him cruel and vicious. His two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, weren't even married off at an early age as was usual with royalty, most probably because they would not save the Tudor-name, only the bloodline. If married they would still belong to the house of Tudor, but they would not keep the name alive, and that meant a lot to a new dynasty which this was. 

Jane Seymour

After the execution of Anne Boleyn the king married Jane Seymour, and - lo and behold - she gave him the son he longed for: Edward who became Edward VI after his death. As to Jane Seymour she died from postnatal complications, a couple of weeks after the birth of her son, but she was the only one of Henry's many wives who received the honor of a queen's funeral, and she was buried alongside him. 

Henry took for granted that he himself would have a splendid burial site, but no, he didn't so there his lies in his badly damaged coffin with a small coffin on top of it which contains one of the many dead princes and princesses of the dynasty to follow his own: The Stuarts. They were of the Tudor bloodline, but didn't represent the dynasty as such, and he would have grieved to see that this was what it all came to in the end. 

 

Wikipedia 

https://www.hrp.org.uk/blog/the-extraordinary-life-and-death-of-lady-margaret-pole-countess-of-salisbury/#:~:text=Margaret%20Pole%27s%20execution%20came%20on,blows%20to%20sever%20her%20head. 

To SPEAK Without Actually Saying Anything

 

I never thought of it, but this abominable character, known as Adolf Hitler, must have used a technique that's called stochastic terrorism when having his presumably very, very boring gatherings at his beloved private retreat, The Berghof in the Bavarian Alps. Here he hosted key Nazi top figures and their wives as well as foreign dignitaries like e.g. Chamberlain and Mussolini. Some of those attending these meetings have told about how he didn't really converse with his guests, but went on long tirades of plans and wishes. His Nazi henchmen were supposed to catch up on what he said and then see to is that his wishes were fulfilled. That means that they were to interpret his often not-altogether formulated ideas. These ideas might be hateful attacks on those he found less worthy of living than himself.

It's a strange fact that what e.g. happened at the camps often were born out of Hitler's rantings at these gatherings, and grew and grew as an idea from them. Seeing and hearing Der Fuhrer at Berghof obviously gave wings to his ideology, even though many - mostly the ladies? - found him extremely boring when he opened up for his endless tirades.

It's obvious that one of the many things the Hitler-fan, aka the American president, Donald Trump, has learnt from the German dictator, is his use of what is known as stochastic terrorism: A repeated use of hate speech and dehumanizing of specific groups of society. With Hitler it was the Jews, with Trump it's immigrant, people of color, women doing what he doesn't like women to do, Democrats or just someone he takes a dislike to because they don't like him.

The scoundrel in charge, so to speak, is inspiring his/her followers to target these hated individuals for violence and hate crimes of various art, but seldom demanding it in plain words. Stochastic terrorists do not supply their followers with any detailed plan of attack, which may keep him/her out of trouble as they may always protest "innocence" of the crimes they instigate. 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/stochastic-terrorism 

 

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/timeline-event/holocaust/before-1933/adolf-hitler-issues-comment-on-the-jewish-question 

 

 

 

Weird Ongoings With The XY-Chromosome

 

God as a woman: The original Mother Goddess of everything. (The Venus of Laussel is an 18.11-inch-high, limestone bas-relief of a nude woman. She is painted with red ochre & carved into the limestone in the Dordogne region of south-western France. She is approximately 25,000 years old)

.................................................. 

My sole consolation for not knowing about the so-called "Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck" is that you simply can't know everything, and I admit this is quite new to me. I'm not even sure, I understand it, but no matter what, it's very, very interesting as it somehow mirrors the sad, but undeniable shift into Patriarchy:  

"The Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck was a period about 7,000 to 5,000 years ago when human male genetic diversity sharply declined across Africa, Europe, and Asia, similar to a 1:17 male-to-female ratio of effective reproduction. While the exact cause is debated, a leading hypothesis suggests that the rise of patrilineal clans and frequent warfare between them led to the dominance of a few males who monopolized reproduction, resulting in other males having reduced reproductive success."

"Starting about 7,000 years ago, something weird seems to have happened to men: Over the next two millennia, recent studies suggest, their genetic diversity –specifically, the diversity of their Y chromosomes – collapsed. So extreme was that collapse that it was as if only one man was left to mate for every 17 women." Tian Chen Zeng thinks he has found the answer to the origins of this “Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck”. It has something to do with the clan-system as suggested here: "After the onset of farming and herding around 12,000 years ago, societies grew increasingly organized around extended kinship groups, many of them patrilineal clans – a cultural fact with potentially significant biological consequences. The key is how clan members are related to each other. While women may have married into a clan, men in such clans are all related through male ancestors and therefore tend to have the same Y chromosomes. From the point of view of those chromosomes at least, it’s almost as if everyone in a clan has the same father."

To me that looks very logical, but one thing is for sure: We are still in the early learning-process when it comes to ancient history, and there are many questions out there which haven't been answered .... 

I always suggest that people who are interested in how the social structures changed with the uprise of Patriarchy read this book, but there are many ways to achieve more knowledge, and there is much more than what one single book may bring .... 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tian-Chen-Zeng

 

https://www.ancientpages.com/2018/06/01/puzzling-biological-event-7000-years-ago-something-weird-happened-to-men/?fbclid=IwAR1sPebC2ted3GLPC_aJRFqkWZ5OXiy0T432WJ5K4hcMBGWmgo6vZWzf8Lw

 

https://www.populationmedia.org/the-latest/unmasking-the-patriarchy-its-origins-impact-and-the-path-to-equality 

 

Wikipedia

 

 

 

Rethinking Some Common Human Concerns

One of the most interesting aspects of conversations is that beneath the words that are being uttered there are even more that are not being put into words. Still they are being understood as part of the dialogue. The same goes for silence which may even form part of an ongoing dialogue. However, it takes some empathy to hear what's not being said out loud. Also, it may not have a chance of working with people of a very different cultural background, unless the conversation is about common, basic feelings of e.g. maternal love, fear of death, hunger, a wish for success in life, etc.. When it comes to philosophy it's different, but I, for one, don't doubt that a Church-freak from the Middle Ages would understand a teleevangelist of today even though they wouldn't agree on every detail.

Religion is business, now as then, and it's weird how what Jesus fought in real life somehow has gained access as religious practices into the lives of people of today. But what may be called "The American Christianity" takes the cake when it comes to weirdness. 

 

It's not only weird, it's totally uncanny, but I suppose this transformation comes from the American craving for token of what they call "success", but which only is that up to a certain point. 

The Helping Hand That May Not Belong To A True Helper

 

Yes, all of us may be in need of a helping hand, but the owner of that hand may not act out of the noble feelings, he/she proposes to have. It's a very interesting fact that the "helper" may at the same time be a sort of "oppressor". Sometimes it's necessary to discern between these two - namely in the same individual! - unless the one in need of help wants to allow the "helper" to run his/her own show as an oppressor. 

A beautiful, altruistic situation, but on the other hand, she may have designs upon the cat, whom she intends to grab and keep as a pet or as an object for sale. Not that this looks like a sneaky plan by a child to subdue the animal, but ....

And what about this situation? The man may not have any designs upon the poor puppy, but, on the other hand, he may: Don't Indians eat pets, e.g. cats and dogs like this one? (Actually, I don't know if that's the case, but the suspicion is there).

 

Yes, that's a beautiful moment of true altruism as the child is too young to have designs upon the camera person whom he is offering the sucker. For a hand to be genuinely helpful it must be connected to an innocence like the one we see here. There is nothing "double-faced" in a child like this one which is a guarantee that he is not suffering from something I myself have found in some kinds of helpers: Those who are bordering on something one might see as the "Munchhausen By Proxy"-concept. They are very eager to take over situations that don't need being taken over in a strong wish to appear in a certain manner as "The Good Samaritan". In their own opinion they are conducting not only good, but also necessary acts of kindness, and it may be very difficult to make it clear to them that, yes, some individuals are in need of a helping hand, but what they chose to offer is nothing, but an annoying interference. To help without any ulterior motives is a beautiful act of true kindness, but very often it's mixed up with something not all that beautiful ....