That is a nice painting, ‘specially with the circle effect and the vegetal motif that is blocked by her flowy hair. (For a second I thought the vegetal motif was some clever Calligraphy, but ‘twas thankfully vegetals. Can’t imagine the pain it would take to do calligraphy in a painting.) Must say that’s some appropriate monochromaticism of brown all throughout, making things stand out perfectly and not cluttering the painting. Also the subject, as displayed, is beautiful without it being sexualized and stays culturually appropriate; good job on that.
Anyways, I’ve heard about Pocahontas a while back. Interesting those earlier years of Anglo Colonialism, before the Colonial Lieutenants and Governors invented and enforced the “White” myth that “whites” are superior to the “savages.” Probably the worst thing to happen as soon it would inspire Anglo racism and well, we knew it would get worse from there. (I mean, not like the Irish were already pecked up from Anglos; heh, it get only worse in the Era of when the Magna Carta being law in England.) Regardless, I do wonder her death and how it may have been, despite no documented history on this, due to the developing Anglo racism. We may never know since we don’t have an autopsy nor even the skeletons to prove anything. Shame.
Yes, the real life Pocahontas is really quite different than her fairy tale story in Disney cartoon that I am accustomed with. I guess Disney really has a talent to make things much prettier and more digestible for the mass market, because even Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty folklore are dark and disturbing. However since Pocahontas is based on a real person, it actually troubles me more than the others. Not really sure what to think about it, even now ^^.
It is indeed a shame that people are racists. Even now, humans have the habit of exclusivity and rejecting other people who are different than us. I think it is our innate nature, because I have to consciously demand myself to become a better person in various aspects (especially combating laziness lol).
Thank you.
I’m making this aside to talking about innateness. There’s barely anything that is innate within humanity, especially exclusion. In fact, most of human culture has be drilled into a child before even the ripe age of a teen, or the teen is-as clueless to social cues and the proper usage of language at any given scenario. Also, this “exclusivity/tribalism” mentality actually betrays actual tribalism as-was, as long as we keep finding these documents, documented from gens (families in the most broadest sense and can be in multiple tribes) and tribes, who before their classical age (first heroic age), actually depended on mutual aide and incoporated conquered gens into other gens. Exclusivity, as a general trend, would only get powerful when their economies where trying to go beyond Feudalism. With the rise of Mercantilism, colonies in the new World were discouraged from trading with anybody except the Indigenuous peoples and the Mother Country. Then with Capitalism either coming earlier with the Dutch VoC, British Agricultural Revolution or the Industrious-Industrial Age, exclusivity as a trend would be reconfigured from denying trade (and diplomacy) to now solely economically hurting (and later Socially ridiculing) those that threaten the national Bourgeoisie/Capitalists of their nations. But this Heroic Age of the Bourgeoisie would be ended at the last ember of the French Revolution being crushed by the Directorate/Reactionaries in France that later be crushed by Napoleon Bonaparte. Now Capital began seeing how exclusivity stunted its growth amongst the World and would fight to end Economic exclusivity, yet it saw no real reason to end Social exclusivity (of which was trying to be triumphed and destroyed by French Revolution).
In fact, well, after the 1848 Rev, Social exclusivity would be promoted hard amongst the populaces that it would drown out, or attempt to, Trade Unionism, Labour Unions, Feminist Movements and other general Socialist movements (nota bene: Marxism isn’t a movement, but it does lend itself to and is a tool for radical Socialist Ideologies). This would mainly take the form of Reactionary Nationalism that would have its heights in the Scramble for Africa, The Great War and WWII. Yet after every event, Social exclusivity would weaken, and weaken and weaken, giving more creedence to Socialist movements and their widespread popularity around the globe after these three major events. So much so, that Capitalism, seeing Socialism as one that’ll kill it mercilessly, actively promoted every force it could to be the last bulwark and to buy itself time. And it won in that department as now we are conditioned into thinking Capitalism was always there (just not in a “pure” form), that history ends in Liberal democracy (was refuted by the times of War on Global Terror and denounced by Fukyama, the author that proclaimed the notion), that anything other than Capitalism will crash and burn always (by that notion Capitalism had failed many a times) and even Capitalism regrets winning the award as Reactionary forces are now hungering for more after being deprived of their main food sources. And so, we are now seeing the hotbed of new conflicts and a rise in a new generation of anticapitalism that wants to tear down the last barrier of exclusivity (Social exclusivity) when all others have been torn down viciously beforehand. We’re already are at the lowest point, any lower is to just crack the ground harder than we have already. The only way, up; and seeing the human Spirit from the eyes of (Reflexive) History and how it is now, we truly are more courageously mutual in hopeless times than the Media lets us on to be.
This is the only World we got, exclusivity is a dysfunction to maintain the Social Order of Capitalism. Will it be overcome, who knows, but did the French Revolutionaries really think they could overcome la Acien Regime? or even the bourgeoisie in England think they can manifest itself in every market place possible? or even the Romans when they could torn culturally barriers? The World maybe full of grief, but that view is blindlingly optimistic that the World will only be grief. From the Indigenuous peoples across the World, to the ex-Soviet peoples that yearn for another USSR (of which covers more than 50% of the entire USSR population including the Warsaw Pact nations) and to the Revolutionaries in the cities and jungles are pessimistic that (Social) exclusivity and this way of Life will last forever and fight for a Life that’s worth living for instead of suffering in a Life that’s not worth living for.
I believe it's innate that we have both good and bad sides. And we're not so much different than other animals, for example, dolphins. They are very intelligent creatures and also known to be giant pricks because they exclude and bully other dolphins, rape their women, and eat their own babies. Pretty sure humanity is guilty of similar crimes since time immemorial, except maybe most of our ancestors didn't eat their own babies... maybe.
The only really innate things are hunger, breathing, pain and thirst. Yet even these are just the body parts functioning as-is. The rest, the good and the ugly, are all choices presented by conditions that we can either enact, drag on or deny. The educator always presents to themself the choice to teach on for another day or to simply roll out of it and get penalized by those that choose to penalize the educator for not following their roles. Animals too: for cultures that reproduce a strength heirachy, every member of the pack can be submissive or be dominant, yet even the Alpha once was submissive before over-powering their Alpha. And for the whole of biological organisms, we are forced to interact with a very blinding World around us and forced to learn in it. We don’t start off knowing anything or have anything “of the mind” (the original innate as from the Greek) - we are all farces of our parent’s tragedies and have the choice to either live the legacy on, drag it out before forced into choosing or walk a new path which will produce our own tragedies which will infect the minds of our offspring over time. The serial killer isn’t born one, but they are presented conditions and can become one over time if they so choose to. The World isn’t full of sparkles and rainbows, nor doom and gloom; it just is a tragicomedy of actors who can either live up to their roles or deny it - such is the obscenity of luck and an amoral World.
What I'm trying to say is that it is our innate nature to have both good and bad feelings, emotions, and thoughts. If you disagree with that, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Well, if that's all you mean to say, I can just simply say that's equivalent to being presented with good and bad choices. And as such, there's nothing to really argue here other than the reasons people do good and bad. Even so, we'll probably end with the same sentence together: "just because we can." As the admission of doing evil because one can or one is innately evil still generates the same conclusion: because we can. There's nothing really to discuss here as we both are just brick walls spitting bricks at each other.
I'm a spider. Hello.
I am made out of innate awesomeness and also sometimes inane awesomeness \o/
WAHEEEEEEEEY~
You are definitely an innately awesome creature :).