Zana - The Exploited Ape-Woman

When one reads or hear of mermaids, trolls or supermen and -women one knows that one has crossed the threshold to the world of myths and fairy tales. As to well-known figures like e.g. Bigfoot then he/she exists for those who believe in the possibility of his/her existence although he/she appears to be more of a mythical than a realistic figure. The same goes for ghosts who, just like e.g. Bigfoot, may or may not exist as realities. One thing is for sure: The BELIEF in them is what keeps them "alive" in our mind.

However, there are individuals/persons/creatures who once were a living part of our world, but who still seem to be someone out of a fairy tale. One of these creatures is The Ape Woman Zana, whose life and very existence is difficult to get hold of. Tarzan was called "The Ape Man", but he was nothing but a literary character, whereas Zana was a living, breathing being in the world of humans. Her descendants have been investigated, e.g. with eleborate DNA-studies, and we still don't know what and who she was. The Russian merchant, Edgi Genaba, who allegedly found and caught her in the 1870s in the frozen wilderness between Georgia and Russia where she seems to have lived all her life up till then, must have seen her as some kind of animal who, not being human, had no rights to preserve her freedom. According to legend she lived by herself, all naked, and although people of the area knew of her they didn't talk with her. Apparently she was covered in thick red hair, and she was very strong and muscular. Besides, at 6 feet 6 inches she towered over the local residents. When they gave her clothes, she would have non of that, but simply shred them. Her captor, Edgi Genaba, let people come and gawk at her for money, and at some point she was raped by locals and got pregnant at least six times when drunk. As two of her six children died when she went to the river to wash them after giving birth none of the surviving four children were allowed to stay with her. At that point she had become an abused alcoholic who may not have been able to fend for herself or her children. However, with time she became an "unpaid servant" - or rather a slave - who was kept drugged by alcohol to do chores and serve as a sexual outlet for men. Thus, with her the word "abuse" attains a special sombre tone ....

 

By now many scientists think that she was either some kind of "yeti" (i.e. a "Bigfoot") or a surviving Neanderthal, but nobody seems to know for sure what she was. However, also her descendants were uncommonly strong and muscular, but apparently not as hairy as she was. The legend has it that one of her sons was so strong that he might lift a chair with someone sitting on it, just using his teeth. Also he - and maybe more of her descendants, seems to have had an extra bone in his neck as well as very large eyes. In my opinion he is quite handsome and not more "ape like" than many modern men of e.g. Eastern Europe.

Zana and her eldest, surviving son, Khwith

 

The children of Zana talked and more or less found their way in society. She, on the other hand, grew more and more alcoholic, and eventually she died after 20 years of captivity and abuse. As was to be expected science has taken her life and case up in many studies, but without any clear conclusion.

One of the granddaughters of Zana

 

https://medium.com/the-mystery-box/zanas-story-78541727cd93 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025466/Was-19th-Century-Siberian-apewoman-yeti-6ft-6in-Russian-serf-outrun-horse-not-human-according-DNA-tests.html 

 

https://dna-explained.com/2021/07/30/the-origins-of-zana-of-abkhazia/

 

https://medium.com/the-mystery-box/zanas-story-78541727cd93 

 

https://soldat.pro/en/2019/03/20/zana-chto-vyiasnili-sovetskie-ychenye-o-jenshine-ieti-iz-abhazii/ 

 

Wikipedia

 

Relating to A Corpse

 

All are alike in death? Naaahhh, some were buried outside of the ordinary churchyard for being "bad", poor or just not part of what was considered socially acceptable. Many, many people lived hard lives, toiling for very little and they were scorned by society as such for being powerless in a world in which money, family and relationships were the general keys to respect. There they are, eternal witnesses to the abuse they not only saw, but endured in what in the most cases were short lived lives. Were they loved? Yes, maybe by relatives who shared their lives, but in the most cases they were just forgotten.

 

Embalming surgeon at work on dead soldier (WWI)

 

That was not an option that was open to poor people, but a wealthy family may pay to have it done, maybe to have their son brought home from where he died. They felt that he still was who he had been when alive ans this was a way to keep him with them. Very understandable, but what if he had looked like this? 

I take it that this is the beheaded murder victim that is under investigation by FBI or the like. It obviously isn't a fresh corpse, so this dead person has lost some of his normal human looks. Actually, that is part of what baffles me when it comes to corpses and the way living persons relate to them. For the police this is somebody who lost his life in a non-natural manner and they are to find out what happened as that's their job. He is a CORPSE and as such he is dissolving, changing and thus losing his personality. However, to the people who loved him when he was alive he may still be that person although he has changed looks, smells, is dissolving for their very eyes, thus becoming more and more an object of disgust to others. After all, corpses both are - and are NOT - whom they were before death ....

A woman moving to another village takes with her the bones of her dead son. (Balkan Front, June 1916) 

To me this is a touching as well as very, very strange photo. OK, the bones she is carrying are of her dead son, but it takes some imagination to see the face of the living in the skull of a dead man. He sure isn't what he used to be so what makes her recognize him in these dried and fragile bones? Is it some kind of wishful thinking that some day they shall be together, both of them "arisen from the dead"? I shouldn't be surprised if that's how she feels, but still it takes some imagination to see the person she obviously loved in his remains. Actually, I don't think many of us would feel that way: We may love someone who died and worship them by visiting their graves, but I think that's the limit for most of us ....

http://crossbones.org.uk/history/

 

Wikipedia

 

 

 

Writers And Money

Being an author leads to many weird situations that involves the critical or just curious eye of people who might consider buying your work. Some of it we, the writers, do a lot to direct as we want it to be seen: Entertaining, ingenious or "something new to this planet". We go from our solitary workplace by the computer, struggling to give life to fictional characters and plots of our own making to go craving for some kind of publicity. Without publicity the book will still be there, but only for our own personal enjoyment and without the stamp of success: Sales that prove that we were right in calling this, our work, our bosom baby.  

A lot of people know that this makes us vulnerable to scams that tear into our finances, robbing us without giving us what we were told that we were buying: Publicity, contracts with good and legitimate publishers or, for instance, screen writers, etc., etc.. A lot of disappointments may be waiting for the hopeful writer and it's not fair to us or the trade as such.

However, the publicity part of the game may be less burdensome moneywise if we involve ourselves in certain measures that we perform ourselves: 

1. I don't believe in listing people who might review our books for free, using emails to incite them to buy the book. To me that's looking unfair to those we approach as writers. However, honest reviews on platforms like e.g. Amazon and Goodreads are a wonderful boost to the sale process. Some writers may build a business partnership with other authors for cross-promotions or guest posts on each other's blogs.

2. Attend book conventions: OK, but that's not cheap. I's been invited to two conventions in Europe, but did not feel tempted to attend ....

3. a) Be a blogger or b) get someone who has a blog to read and review your book.

4. One may utilize platforms like e.g. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to engage with readers. Maybe that strategy may even lead to the building of a community of followers, but that may be pushing one's luck too far ....

5. Some writers participate in book club discussions of various art. 

And what have I done up till now? Not much, even though I, who have a long list of self published works, ought to do something about the actual promotion of my works. Well, sometimes I do sell something, but I wouldn't be able to make a living by writing books which also goes for many other authors: This is not an industry for most of the people who are out to get riches. Some do, but not most of us ....

"Crooked Joe" or "Crooked And Culpable" Donald?

Is President Biden a disaster in his job, is he "Crooked" as Eks-president Trump calls him? No, neither the one nor the other, he is toiling along as best he can, but he is not showy: No extreme utterings, no blatant threats or insane plans for the future like his adversary.

To be "showy" like Trump doesn't turn anybody into "Hitlers", but words count, and he has said a lot of things that's beneath the allowable in normal conversations of normal people and it should be remembered. However, somehow it seems that he is mimicking Hitler by uttering plans and ideologies that means abuse of power, cruelty to innocent people, etc., etc. and his followers don't hear what he is saying just like many Germans in the 1930s-1940s. To talk about "freeing Germany of Jews" was said over and over, but seemingly these utterances weren't taken at face value. The speeches were just words to many and they might not have been able to envisage the possibility of coming to see them being turned into realities.

Who would have thought that USA would have had a president that might get accused of any of these felonies or childish (???) traits? America had dignity, but sadly enough it seems gone with this blatant blemish on the list of presidents. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-used-to-keep-a-book-of-hitler-s-speeches-by-his-bed-according-to-his-exwife-a6765391.html?utm_source=reddit.com 

The Political (Ab-)Use of Religion

 

Well put - and that was even before Christianity won the game of becoming the very best and extremely useful tool for those in power. 

As we know it also works very well for those who are seeking power, like e.g. Donald Trump who all of a sudden is flaunting Christian beliefs he has never before exhibited any trust in. Smart? Yes, up to a point, but that trick only works in certain contexts and societies ....

I didn't know that about Thomas Paine, but I fully agree, especially in one aspect of the quote: Those who preach religious doctrines may not have chosen to do so in order to suppress others, but those doctrines - which they may or may not have believed in themselves - always have served that purpose. It's smart to team up with the ultimate authority which many see as the deity we in The West inherited from The Middle East: Yahwe. Up till now this planet has seen c. 4000-6000 "gods" (that we know of as there may be many more!!!), but somehow we, who are not desert people like the Jews, decided that the legend of the former war god, Yahwe, was the one we would adhere to. Former times worshipped other gods:

I find that extremely interesting historically and philosophically, but very, very Christian people hate to see this. For instance, many/most don't seem to understand that the so-called "Mother Goddess" was GOD and not only the consort of some male god.  

When politicians nowadays claim being "God's people" who "speak for God" I find that both preposterous, hypocritical and sacrilegious. To be a proclaimed Christian isn't the same as being the authorized mouthpiece of the god they say they are serving. I've always felt - and said - that Americans have a way of confusing their god with Santa and that goes for most of these so-called American, Christian politicians. 

 

Should Teachings About Paradise Be Changed?

Relatives of dead people often talk of their sorrow as something that their own death will remedy: They are looking forward to meeting the deceased in an afterlife in "Paradise"/"Eden". When I see interviews with these people I feel sorry for their loss, but also for their - in my opinion - false hope of being reunified with the lost ones. To believe something like that one must have a faith in eternal life that makes it plausible. The same people who believes this also are dreaming of a resurrection like the one they think Jesus had. All of it dreams and hopes of millions of people that keep them in place, so to speak: Flimsy hopes turn into the glue that keep the structures of society together and makes genuine social changes difficult or even impossible.

As to the Paradise that is supposed to give the souls of the dead a new habitat then it's nothing less than "the garden of God (or Eden)", and, what's more, it didn't start out as something up in the sky, but was "down to earth", so to speak: "The location of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries. Various suggestions have been made for its location: at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea; and in Armenia." (Wikipedia) I've never heard of anybody finding the geographical area of Paradise, but I'm sure many have been looking for it, both as an area on this planet and as a metaphysical picture of eternal bliss. However, when the war god, Yahwe, became the main - and solar - deity he and his godly garden were set in the sky. To me that signals a mind-over-matter fight of some kind which may have its roots in the ideological battle of female and male deities. The idea of the omnipotent "Sky Daddy" was born and has been with us ever since, just like the belief in a heavenly "garden of god". 

To hear bereaved relatives talk about their belief in future meetings with those they lost to Death is difficult when you are not a believer. You don't believe in the Biblical Paradise, the afterlife nor in the chance of these people ever coming to see their lost ones again. Actually this should be what was taught in school - or taught in another manner. The teachers should go from telling tales of never proven, and extremely unsubstantial Biblical myths to telling the truth about their historical changes through the ages of human life. Or they should never tell these tales of Biblical events and characters without adding the word "myth" - and that goes for ALL tales of a Biblical nature ....

 

Wikipedia

 

Body Bizarre

 

I take for granted that this man is very proud of his "adornments" which I find hideous. Maybe this is a "Each to one's own taste"-case as there aren't any fixed rules when it comes to looks? Well, I think there are natural, i.e. in-born expectations to the looks of humans and these expectations constitute our concept of "beauty".

The body of this young lady will be considered "perfect" in Western countries of 2023, but some will mourn her tatooes and see them as disfiguring. Well, I for one don't like tats which in my opinion all too often turn into something that look like patches of dirt. They may be political or maybe even religious statements and I suppose that they as such should be respected, but I shall never see them as adornments.

The tatooes and needles of the persons above were chosen by the users, but what about those weird body deformities that were not chosen, but which in many ways come to represent the personality of the individual? A human, born as e.g. a midget, is something more than an uncommonly small person, but still that's what he/she is seen as: A midget is a midget. But what if one looks at a well-known midget like e.g. Henri Toulouse Lautrec? What describes the best the best? Is he first and foremost an artist or a midget to most people? Or put it in another way: Is he more of a midget than of an artist?

Small he was, but as an artist he was large and no one can deny it although they may not like his harsh paintings of "The Merry Life" of Paris, the prostitutes, alcoholics, etc..

He didn't live by his disabilities, but some did, like e.g. the twin girls that were born by the unmarried and poor, English woman, Kate Skinner in 1908. Maybe she never intended to keep them even if they had been perfect as she, being unmarried, might have known that she couldn't take the financial responsibility of their upkeep. Well, actually she ended up earning money by selling the twins to a woman who exhibited them as what they were considered at that time: Monsters or Freaks. These children were innocent victims of the early 1900-ideas about valid human looks. Being conjoined they were not accepted as anything but "bizarre" or "inhuman".

The woman who bought them was Mary Hilton whom they were to call "auntie" and they are known by her surname of Hilton: Daisy and Violet Hilton. As such they were taken on tours, just exhibiting their "weirdness" or performing in some way. It's a sad fact that they referred to this "auntie" and her daughter as their Owners. Something like that didn't interest the audience because the only thing they saw was their looks. However, in their life time they went from "sideshow performers" and "vaudevillians" to "film actresses" as they came to appear in some movies, "Freaks" and "Chained for Life". Something which just were another way of keeping them in their assigned rôle of side show freaks.

Both of them married, but whereas the marriage of Violet lasted for 10 years, the one of Daisy lasted 10 days.

Defined by their looks ever since their birth they never really left the "freak"-life that was assigned to them by those who paid to look at them. To me that's the real freakishness of the matter ....

  

https://www.healthline.com/health/pycnodysostosis

 

https://wellcomecollection.org/works/sctkmtb4 

 

Wikipedia