Publishing a tract was the major way of presenting one's views in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was often done anonymously to avoid prosecution. John Locke's tract on against the Trinity doctrine was published anonymously. Thomas Pain was brave enough to stick his name on his Appeal to Reason.
Most of the tracts were religious, but there was no way to separate religion and the state in that era. If you held non-conformist views, you were suspect, even traitorous.
There are countless tracts from that time that are mere curiosities now. Others are significant.
Want to read some of them? Try here:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Malcolm0180/17thCTracts/Frame/ToC.html
I'm trying to think of historical precedents for this; the only ones I am aware of were in the Iron Curtain countries and the interwar Soviet propaganda campaigns. Can anyone else think of anything comparable?
There are historic examples. Some are honourable and many are not. This is the modern equivalent of the anonymous tracting of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Political parties, religious and social movements all "posted" anonymously. Replies from official parties were often set in the same anonymous guise. Even John Locke sometimes wrote anonymously. It was dangerous to advocate his religious views publicly.
In the Federalist era there were several organized letter-writing campaigns. Today, they'd be Internet postings, though I can't see a collection of net-posts being published as a classic a hundred years hence. ... Unless, of course, they're mine! (Ok, you're supposed to laugh now.)
In the 19th Century political and religious issues were still beaten out in tracts and books. Some of them were anonymous, and many of them were party-affiliated even when there was an attempt to hide the affiliation. Anti-Catholic and Nativist movements in America were especially addicted to this.
In the 20th Century tracting became the province of small, alternative parties. Many of their booklets were still anonymous or otherwise disassociated from their true affiliations. American Fascists and Nazis of all sorts brought anonymous, seemingly unaffiliated, publishing to its rarified though disreputable height. Today we have Chick tracts. .... And the rest has moved to the Internet and Letters to the Editor columns.
As the writer of Ecclesiasties says, "There is nothing new under the sun." People change their clothes, but they're the same inside, and they do the same things over, and over, and over again.
"LET out the wet dun sail, my lads,
The foam is flying fast;
It whistles on the fav'ring gale,
To-night we'll anchor cast.
What though the storm be loud, my lads,
And danger on the blast;
Though bursting sail swell round and proud,
And groan the straining mast;
The storm has wide, strong wings, my lads,
On them our craft shall ride,
And dear the tempest swift that brings
The sailor to his bride."
--From: The Sailor and His Bride by Isabella Valancy Crawford
My father's mother liked to knit. She did good work. My mother's mother and her sisters crocheted beautifully. I value the pieces of their making that have come my way.
I fancy crochet and tatting myself, but I'm not adept. The gene of thread and steady eye was not passed my way.
This is not my day for spelling well. I meant, "as many hold it ..."
It would have been better writen as "many practice it."
Well, I thought I was done with this, but I see I'm not.
What I actually said was: "As may hold it, feminism fosters enduring conflict." It seems to me that this is a qualified statement. It does not paint feminism or even the majority of feminists as interested in or fostering conflict. And isn't the point of feminism to bring equality? Isn't the point of equality to bring a resolution of conflict? To bring fairness? When we reach the point that only a rare, hard, reactionary spirit sees women as property or less than human we won’t have conflict. The point of human rights is to end conflict on the basis of justice, isn’t it?
If language means anything, then the qualifier is important. If it means nothing, then you may understand what you wish from my statement.
I'm not afraid of criticism. But, let's at least be plain in what I did write. My intention was to praise what I see as a practical application of principles on this blog. That was my only intent. I neither criticized the Patrick nor the person who posted about this blog. I didn’t say feminism was useless or wrong. I said, that those who are only interested in the conflict, but not its resolution are wrong. That’s it.
I may have said it badly. For that I’m sorry. I’m not sorry for my views.
I am sorry I upset you. I can see that I didn't phrase what I meant in an understandable way. What I wrote drew your focus to things unmeant.
Additional explanations would only make it worse, I think.
I offer my profoundest apologies.
Dear Patrick,
I think our difference is only one of emphasis. Choosing to call effective feminism "peopleism" was probably a mistake. It was misleading, apparently.
And my gripe isn't with a strident voice only. It's with those who only have a strident voice but don't practice their principles. I believe in a firmly stated "this is wrong; stop!" It takes more than a "stop." It takes consequences for failing to stop.
I think I'm a conservative revolutionary. Confusing? Maintaining good social values is important to me. Kindness, consideration, respect, even-handed treatment of others are key to how I try to live. I'd like to see the social structures that hurt humans all torn down. So, I'm a conservative revolutionary. I don't know how else to describe it.
Before a social structure is collapsed, there should be something to replace it. Hopefully, it would be something that works.
I really should proof read before I post, shouldn't I?
princpals=principles.
Dear Patrick,
I think you misunderstood me.
Yes, men oppress women. Men hurt women. In most of the world women are chattle, possesions and no more.
The answer rests not in yelping over it, but in taking positive action. The solution is a change of heart and mind. This means changing how we act, not merely politically but in our practice.
The most persuasive argument is one's own behaviour. True, consistently treating others with respect, defference, and honour is a much harder road. But it is what works.
Do I mean to say there is no room for strongly voiced protest? No. Part of 'doing right' is that we open our mouths, drop our fear, and say, "This is wrong. Stop it!"
But, merely protesting or setting up a social voice that reinforces the wall we wish to tear down will not work. The lesson, 'It is wrong to hit,' is far more effective than 'You hit me, and I'm going to hit you back!'
There is "feminism" and there is "peopleism." I always thought this a peopleist blog. You treat humans with respect. Gender seems not to matter here. That's peopleist. (I'd say humanist, but the word’s been glued to other ideas.)
A mature philosophy recognizes the worth of humans. An ethically mature person practices that belief. Feminism isn't an overt issue to the morally mature. Doing right is the issue. If one “does right,” they will put into practice the ideals of equality, respect, and, as our ancestors of the mid-nineteenth century would say it, “doing good.”
As may hold it, feminism fosters enduring conflict. “Peopleism,” puts the ideas of feminism and personal liberty and responsibility into practice is a quiet and consistent way. Who are the real feminists here?
Well, in my heart I know that Cougars rule and Huskies drool, but
Fight, fight, fight for Washington State! Win the victory!
Win the day for Crimson and Gray!
Best in the West, we know you'll all do your best,
So on, on, on, on!
Fight to the end! Honor and Glory you must win! So fight, fight, fight for Washington State and victory!
Never thrilled me. It's insipid. We need something better!
Two excellent though now wildly politically incorrect fight songs are
1. Marching Through Georgia
Yes and there were Union men who wept with joyful tears,
When they saw the honored flag they had not seen for years;
Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers,
While we were marching through Georgia.
"Sherman's dashing Yankee boys will never make the coast!"
So the saucy rebels said and 'twas a handsome boast
Had they not forgot, alas! to reckon with the Host
While we were marching through Georgia.
So we made a thoroughfare for freedom and her train,
Sixty miles of latitude, three hundred to the main;
Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain
While we were marching through Georgia.
and 2. Bonnie Blue Flag:
We are a band of brothers,
Native to the soil
Fighting for the property
We gained by honest toil.
And when our rights were threatened,
The cry rose near and far;
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag
That bears a single star!
chorus:
Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, Hurrah!
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag
That bears a single star!
As long as the Union
Was faithful to her trust,
Like friends and brethren,
kind were we, and just;
But now, when Northern treachery
Attempts our rights to mar,
We hoist on high the Bonnie Blue flag
That bears a single star.
As much fun as singing Vindaloo is, it can't match the more serious yet jaunty spirit of these Civil War songs.
Dear Xopher,
The Star Spangled Banner is under-appreciated. Only the first verse is sung. This is a mistake.
There are feelings in the full song that some would reject. Yet, it is a war song, written in the heat of battle. The song gives fair warning about the multifaceted American spirit. Those who hate America and those who admire her should think through the words.
Here it is, in all its glory:
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep, as it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov'd homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us as a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Dear Peter Erwin:
The Star Spangled Banner is set to the tune of To Anacreon in Heaven.
Try singing this to your national anthem:
To Anacreon in heaven where he sat in full glee,
A few sons of harmony sent a petition,
That he their inspirer and patron would be,
When this answer arrived from the jolly old Grecian:
Voice, fiddle aud flute, no longer be mute,
I'll lend you my name and inspire you to boot!
And besides I'll instruct you like me to entwine
The myrtle of Venus and Bacchus's vine.
The news through Olympus immediately flew,
When old Thunder pretended to give himself airs,
If these mortals are suffered their scheme to pursue,
The devil a goddess will stay above stairs,
Hark! already they cry, in transports of joy,
A fig for Parnassus, to Rowley's we'll fly,
And there my good fellows, we'll learn to entwine
The myrtle of Venus and Bacchus's vine.
The yellow-haired god, and his nine fusty maids,
To the hill of old Lud will incontinent flee,
Idalia will boast but of tenantless shades,
And the biforked hill a mere desert will be,
My thunder, no fear on't, will soon do its errand,
And, damn me I'll swinge the ringleaders, I warrant
I'll trim the young dogs, for thus daring to twine
The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine.
Apollo rose up and said, "Prythee ne'er quarrel,
Good king of the gods, with my votaries below
Your thunder is useless - then showing his laurel,
Cried, Sic evitabile fulmen, you know!
Then over each head my laurels I'll spread,
So my sons from your crackers no mischief shall dread
Whilst snug in their club-room, they jovially twine
The myrtle of Venus and Bacchus's vine.
It's a tad frightening, but the song makes perfect sense to me.
Rachael de Vienne,
Princess of Pixies
Queen of Goats
But I wasn't picking on your name. It's a very nice name. Just notably medieval.
I'm only vaguely medieval. We pixie princesses transcend time, and aren't associated with just one era.
Sha'el, princess of pixies, queen of goats
AKA/Rachael de Vienne
WarDancingPixie.blogspot.com
I've read The Two Babylons. It represents some of the very worst scholarship produced by an Anglican. It's a fun read though, and very interesting.
Characterizing the Pope as the antichrist did not originate with Protestants, though it was a common theme among them until the early 20th Century. The earliest identification of the Pope as Antichrist of which I am aware was by Arnulf, Bishop of Orléans in 991.
Arnulf summarized recent Papal history (Concupiscence, murder, assassination, nepotism, conspiracy) and concluded with this comment: “The observance of His holy religion is despised by the sovereign pontiffs themselves.”—Francois Villemain Life of Gregory the Seventh, volume 1, page 176.
Arnulf was probably not the first Catholic to identify the Pope as the Antichrist. He was certainly not the last to do so.
Didn't know we Pixie Princesses knew this stuff, did you?
Pixie
Many booksellers use a program called HomeBase. It’s a listing program for Internet sales. However, it works well as a personal library catalogue. You can download it for free from abe.com. Try it.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 26 |
Total: 26 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Rachael de Vienne:
Show all comments by Rachael de Vienne.