Hello fellow Wordly Explorers
We've taking a short break from posting to consider the blog, what we might keep doing, what we might change, to talk with some interested writers, and also to have a little refresh.
If you're taking a break now too, we hope it is full of wonderful words.
21 December 2019
14 December 2019
Economist - a word that requires an adjective
The journalist was interviewing the Prime Minister about a government proposal for boosting jobs. The proposal had no modelling, no risk analysis, no costings - no detail in fact.
She asked him how he knew the program would work without any of this basic groundwork being completed.
Would you trust them? Source |
She asked, 'Why should the Australian people trust your word?'
'Well’, he replied, 'because I am an economist, Leigh.'
In the political fog that makes it difficult to find facts and detail, this comment struck me as particularly alarming. I think the prime minister thought he was providing a genuine and satisfactory answer.
'Well’, he replied, 'because I am an economist, Leigh.'
In the political fog that makes it difficult to find facts and detail, this comment struck me as particularly alarming. I think the prime minister thought he was providing a genuine and satisfactory answer.
Why is economics a matter of 'trust'?
It's not any sort of answer actually. It just raises a whole lot of questions.
When a politician justifies their view by saying they are an economist, does that mean their views are correct? What expertise are they claiming? What gives an economist authority to comment on the hugely complex society of a country? Why does the prime minister think that an individual economist can forecast the outcomes of fiscal policy, even without doing any modelling? (And I have to add, can the prime minister even claim to be an economist? Studying a Bachelor of Science (Hons) in geographic economics - a subfield of geography - and then never working in the field hardly makes one an economist. But then, that's probably the least pressing of the questions I have about this field.)
Let's start at the beginning: what is an economist anyway?
Let's start at the beginning: what is an economist anyway?
6 December 2019
TATKOP 117
There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think that gender is socially constructed and those who don't know what social construction is.
See more in the TATKOP series.
29 November 2019
Douchebag - easy sewing project
By guest explorer: Mae Wright
If adding 'bag' makes an unpleasant substance into an insult, it follows that a bigger bag is a bigger insult. Right?
Which brings me to the douche satchel!
From Urban dictionary, the douche satchel is:
♦️ a 'satchel' is a really big bag... of 'douche'. So someone who is a really big douche bag, would be a 'douche satchel'
♦️ an expletive, used in instances of anger/frustration.
![]() |
Artist's impression |
I wonder, is this the beginning of douche insults escalating in baggage sizes? The douche backpack, the douche suitcase, the douche ski-bag? (Come to think of it, I'm sure I've dated a few douche ski-bags.)
22 November 2019
Douches - and other bags
A scumbag, a windbag and a douchebag walk into a bar.
Just a regular Thursday at my local. We regulars glance at the door as each arrives, dismay or resignation crossing many faces. If I notice early enough, I will try to escape. Sometimes, for a while, I can deflect them by looking really busy with my phone, but that is only ever temporary protection.
The scumbag (who sometimes brings his mate, the ratbag) is not so hard to protect against. Just never trust what he says, avoid shouting him drinks (unless you want to donate to his personal finances), and avoid making insults even in jest. He can be funny in a cynical, defeated, nasty sort of way. But he can turn suddenly, so it's best never to let your guard down. Finish the drink and then say, 'Okay, have a good night. Gotta see a friend about my car.'
The windbag is easier still; just try to steer the conversation to something you don't mind hearing about. At length. Escape is usually possible after a 'decency' period of about 10 minutes of listening to what is often little more than a whinge, without you getting a word in. As you slide off the stool, slide in a quick, 'Oh well, shit happens. Gotta run, have to see a mate about my car.' He will wonder: 'You do seem to have a lot of trouble with that car.' But keep moving, 'Yeah, it keeps happening.'
He boxes you in your seat standing too close with his arms akimbo. Even his popped collar is irritating. And he's not so easy to get rid of with reports of car trouble. The douchebag knows exactly what is wrong with my car, and insists on telling me how to repair it with step by step instructions, and also insists that I must be causing this problem by riding the clutch, but then adds that it is a known weakness in that model as the original design for those Japanese cars was never been fully tested in Australian conditions. Et. Bloody. Cetera.
He is so busy demonstrating his seemingly endless knowledge, he totally ignores my body language screaming that I want to be just about anywhere else.
Eventually, one of the bar staff comes over to collect the empties and the douchebag is forced to move slightly when she reaches through, so I slip through the space and start walking, speaking with my head turned back to my old, no longer comfortable seat, 'That might be handy that information. See ya next time. Gotta go...'
Next Thursday, I'll try the other pub.
Just a regular Thursday at my local. We regulars glance at the door as each arrives, dismay or resignation crossing many faces. If I notice early enough, I will try to escape. Sometimes, for a while, I can deflect them by looking really busy with my phone, but that is only ever temporary protection.
The scumbag (who sometimes brings his mate, the ratbag) is not so hard to protect against. Just never trust what he says, avoid shouting him drinks (unless you want to donate to his personal finances), and avoid making insults even in jest. He can be funny in a cynical, defeated, nasty sort of way. But he can turn suddenly, so it's best never to let your guard down. Finish the drink and then say, 'Okay, have a good night. Gotta see a friend about my car.'
The windbag is easier still; just try to steer the conversation to something you don't mind hearing about. At length. Escape is usually possible after a 'decency' period of about 10 minutes of listening to what is often little more than a whinge, without you getting a word in. As you slide off the stool, slide in a quick, 'Oh well, shit happens. Gotta run, have to see a mate about my car.' He will wonder: 'You do seem to have a lot of trouble with that car.' But keep moving, 'Yeah, it keeps happening.'
Artwork: TheBeardedCavalier |
But the douchebag. Ugg. Massively irritating and hard to escape.
He boxes you in your seat standing too close with his arms akimbo. Even his popped collar is irritating. And he's not so easy to get rid of with reports of car trouble. The douchebag knows exactly what is wrong with my car, and insists on telling me how to repair it with step by step instructions, and also insists that I must be causing this problem by riding the clutch, but then adds that it is a known weakness in that model as the original design for those Japanese cars was never been fully tested in Australian conditions. Et. Bloody. Cetera.
He is so busy demonstrating his seemingly endless knowledge, he totally ignores my body language screaming that I want to be just about anywhere else.
Eventually, one of the bar staff comes over to collect the empties and the douchebag is forced to move slightly when she reaches through, so I slip through the space and start walking, speaking with my head turned back to my old, no longer comfortable seat, 'That might be handy that information. See ya next time. Gotta go...'
Next Thursday, I'll try the other pub.
What makes the douchebag so utterly annoying?
And why doesn't the douchebag know he is one?
15 November 2019
Yin-yang 3 - a unified yes
![]() |
Source: Dessy92 |
This is the third part of my article on yin-yang, an elegant, complex and often completely misinterpreted symbol. Yin-yang shouts to the cosmos that we humans tend to see dichotomies where they do not exist.
But many don’t hear this message.
In Part 1: Yin-yang - not what you think, I explored the common misinterpretation of the yin-yang symbol as about 'natural' opposites. Then, in Part 2: Yin-yang seriously not, I explored misusing yin-yang related to the gender stereotypes of feminine or masculine.
I draw on the ideas in Parts 1 and 2 to develop the argument in this final part of the article, so probably best to read them first.
I want to redirect the messy arguments about gender away from biological and social arguments and onto the human tendency to create false dichotomies.
So now, I’m putting it out there.
8 November 2019
Yin-yang 2 - seriously not
In Part 1 of this article, I explored the well-known, but often misunderstood, Chinese philosophical symbol of yin-yang. The symbol represents the dynamic, ever-changing and complex nature of the cosmos.
To me, yin-yang is a reminder that dichotomies - seeing the world in simple sets of opposites - can be false and misleading. At its core, yin-yang says: you might think that two things are opposites, but they are not in reality. It warns: do not being misled by false dichotomies.
But we often do, and we often are.
Because it is so often misinterpreted, in Yin-yang - not what you think I outlined many things that yin-yang does NOT say or symbolise; specifically, it is:
To me, yin-yang is a reminder that dichotomies - seeing the world in simple sets of opposites - can be false and misleading. At its core, yin-yang says: you might think that two things are opposites, but they are not in reality. It warns: do not being misled by false dichotomies.
But we often do, and we often are.
![]() |
Source: Deviant Art |
Because it is so often misinterpreted, in Yin-yang - not what you think I outlined many things that yin-yang does NOT say or symbolise; specifically, it is:
- not about opposites
- not about achieving balance
- not a feature of things or behaviour
- not an inherent nature of an object or person
- not able to be separated into yin apart from yang; not ‘added’ up to a whole
- not about one ‘half’ being superior to the other.
People often refer to yin-yang to make claims about the world being made up of natural opposites needing to achieving balance for harmony. Perversely, this is the ‘opposite’ of what yin-yang actually means.
One common misinterpretation is when people talk about men as yang and women as yin or hold up the yin-yang symbol as justification for rigid dichotomy of gender roles for men and women as a 'natural' way of the world.
One common misinterpretation is when people talk about men as yang and women as yin or hold up the yin-yang symbol as justification for rigid dichotomy of gender roles for men and women as a 'natural' way of the world.
Two wrong dichotomies do not make a right!
1 November 2019
TATKOP 116
There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think in boxes and those who think about those boxes.
See more in the TATKOP series.
See more in the TATKOP series.
25 October 2019
Yin-yang - not what you think
Every now and then, I like stepping back from WHAT we are talking about and look at HOW we talk about it.
In particular, I find it useful to look at the mental 'boxes' we use when we talk about things; the 'boxes' that we put ourselves and everyone else into, the categories of our daily lives.
The previous article on Gendered adjectives was about the way we tend to see human traits and behaviour as either feminine or masculine. A simplistic dichotomy, given how varied and complex human beings are.
This got me thinking again about the fascinating human tendency to see the world in dichotomies - categories to which we become quite attached (see more on dichotomies in Gruntled).
The strange thing is, many of our dichotomies are false, simplistic and unhelpful.
False dichotomies often lead to false debates about false and sometimes brutal choices in society. We could do a lot better.
18 October 2019
Gendered adjectives 2 - human needs and traits
In Part 1 of this article, I explored why the words we use to refer to our gender - our traits, behaviours and social role - make it such a difficult topic to write about.
I want to find other adjectives to think about and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leaves gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human.
What other adjectives could we use? How else could we talk about humans?
The problem is, we divide most human traits and behaviours according to a dichotomy of masculine or feminine.
The adjectives masculine and feminine are 'normative' - words that carry the concept of 'what is considered normal' and 'how a person should be'. Using them always implies the meaning of 'normal' or 'not normal'.
But, how can we talk productively about gender if we have to use words that always carry a concept of normal or not normal.
Using feminine about a man's behaviour or masculine about a woman's traits implies they are not a 'real' man or a normal woman. The words can be threatening to our sense of being okay as a person.
Many people simply cannot have a discussion about gender without feeling threatened or criticised.
What other adjectives could we use? How else could we talk about humans?
11 October 2019
Gendered adjectives 1 - circular definitions and stereotypes
Gender is a difficult topic to write about, and I've long wondered what makes it so tricky.
Because this is Wordly Explorations, I am going to focus on the words we use; more specifically, the adjectives that cloud the topic of gender.
Because this is Wordly Explorations, I am going to focus on the words we use; more specifically, the adjectives that cloud the topic of gender.
There are very basic definition issues. We get people mixing up the meaning of the words sex (i.e. biology) and gender (i.e. social identity and role). This results in reams of confusion when people discuss (rant about) gender as though it had the same definition as biological sex, e.g.: 'People are born with their gender between their legs and that's it!' Um, what? These are two very different concepts.
But the real drama happens when we try to debate gender. There are (again) very basic conceptual issues when we try to discuss how humans act (human traits and behaviours) which is the key aspect of a person's social identity and role (i.e. gender).
We discuss human traits and behaviours with two gendered adjectives: masculine and feminine. A sign that these words are not up to the job is the proliferation of new words; recent examples are gender fluid, non-binary, toxic masculinity, as descriptions of gender. But I don't think these words have helped make anything clearer.
I wonder if we could find other adjectives to conceptualise and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leave gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human. Words that make it possible to discuss this topic and increase shared understanding.
In Part 1 I will explain the specific problem with these gender adjectives, before I suggest some other words we could use in Part 2.
In Part 1 I will explain the specific problem with these gender adjectives, before I suggest some other words we could use in Part 2.
4 October 2019
TATKOP 115
There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think they really do deserve a little treat and those who don't see advertising.
27 September 2019
The settings - they're all wrong!
Senior research officer Edo checked the dials again. The settings were all wrong.
With mounting panic, he started through the checklist of the Sentient Life Research Protocol for planet Sol972P3 for the third time.
The vast array of dials and flickering lights on the control panel didn't change. All the settings were way out. The planet was in deep trouble. And so was he.
With mounting panic, he started through the checklist of the Sentient Life Research Protocol for planet Sol972P3 for the third time.
Walking along the well-worn corridors of the Academy to see his supervisor, Edo tried to think back to his last review. He couldn't even remember the last time he checked P3. Had he made a mistake with the adjustments back then? Did his hand slip on the dials? Did someone else touch the settings?
Edo scrolled back through the research review screens, looking for the reason for the mess. The pages of data outputs showed P3 gradually had become more and more unstable under the extreme settings. Dangerous settings. Settings that had probably voided the whole research program, more than likely contravening all sorts of research ethics.
But it didn't matter really why. It only mattered that it had happened. It was Edo's responsibility to keep on top of the adjustments. Zolic, the program coordinator, would be furious.
The implications were clear - obvious to any student of Sentient Life Adjustment 101. The settings on P3 had created conditions that were sending the dominant sentient life form to self-destruction.
Edo scrolled back through the research review screens, looking for the reason for the mess. The pages of data outputs showed P3 gradually had become more and more unstable under the extreme settings. Dangerous settings. Settings that had probably voided the whole research program, more than likely contravening all sorts of research ethics.
But it didn't matter really why. It only mattered that it had happened. It was Edo's responsibility to keep on top of the adjustments. Zolic, the program coordinator, would be furious.
The implications were clear - obvious to any student of Sentient Life Adjustment 101. The settings on P3 had created conditions that were sending the dominant sentient life form to self-destruction.
20 September 2019
Nutrition 2 - the fish tank of neoliberalism
Part 1 of this article explored how food industry bodies influence the advice and information we get about nutrition and healthy eating.
I used the metaphor of a wily octopus for the food industry bodies - bent on its own survival (i.e. profit) and using its many arms infiltrating research, policy, non-government agencies and more to ensure its own interests (again, profit). Misinformation is better for the bottom line of those companies, but an epidemic of diet-related disease is forcing us to sit up and pay attention.
In Part 2, I want to take this metaphor further.
But before I do, here is yet another book debunking yet another nutrition factoid that justifies a multi-million-dollar industry. Yet again.
In a book about omega-3 fish oil supplements, Paul Greenberg describes an industry based on faulty and untested assumptions about human health. No evidence at all actually supports the health claims for omega-3 pills from fish oil. Independent research has found no benefits for heart, brain or mental health. The industry's own research reported 'a non-statistically significant reduction in coronary heart disease risk', which means 'did not find a link.' But nothing has stopped the health claims. Marketing alone fuels the US$15 billion industry, despite no benefit to human health. In fact, the industry is creating vast destruction of the ocean systems from which fish oil, and therefore its ongoing profitability, is extracted.
The octopus will do whatever is necessary to survive, even wreck our health and wreck the natural life systems which sustains it. We need to find another approach besides debunking each dubious claim.
I used the metaphor of a wily octopus for the food industry bodies - bent on its own survival (i.e. profit) and using its many arms infiltrating research, policy, non-government agencies and more to ensure its own interests (again, profit). Misinformation is better for the bottom line of those companies, but an epidemic of diet-related disease is forcing us to sit up and pay attention.
In Part 2, I want to take this metaphor further.
But before I do, here is yet another book debunking yet another nutrition factoid that justifies a multi-million-dollar industry. Yet again.
Source: Suma Aqualife Park |
In a book about omega-3 fish oil supplements, Paul Greenberg describes an industry based on faulty and untested assumptions about human health. No evidence at all actually supports the health claims for omega-3 pills from fish oil. Independent research has found no benefits for heart, brain or mental health. The industry's own research reported 'a non-statistically significant reduction in coronary heart disease risk', which means 'did not find a link.' But nothing has stopped the health claims. Marketing alone fuels the US$15 billion industry, despite no benefit to human health. In fact, the industry is creating vast destruction of the ocean systems from which fish oil, and therefore its ongoing profitability, is extracted.
The octopus will do whatever is necessary to survive, even wreck our health and wreck the natural life systems which sustains it. We need to find another approach besides debunking each dubious claim.
I need some way to understand this behaviour.
To do so, I look at the broader context - what else is in the metaphorical fish tank with the food industry octopuses.
To do so, I look at the broader context - what else is in the metaphorical fish tank with the food industry octopuses.
13 September 2019
Nutrition 1 - getting advice from an octopus?
Where do you get good advice and information about healthy eating, about nutritious food?
Good advice on healthy eating and nutrition?? |
Very few of us are still cooking and eating like our grandparents. Very few of us learn about nutrition within the food culture of our family, the way it used to be.
Nutrition advice is everywhere - media articles, friends, celebrity cooks, advertising, government guidelines, online health gurus and more.
This article explores the food industry's numerous strategies to maximise profit using the metaphor of an octopus that spreads confusion and clouding ink all over advice about nutrition. Nothing against the amazing octopus; it just has conveniently numerous tentacles and is so flexible that it can get into any space.
What if I tell you that you are probably really getting your information about healthy eating and nutrition from the food industry bodies... yes, from those corporations set up specifically to maximise profit.
This article explores the food industry's numerous strategies to maximise profit using the metaphor of an octopus that spreads confusion and clouding ink all over advice about nutrition. Nothing against the amazing octopus; it just has conveniently numerous tentacles and is so flexible that it can get into any space.
As a result, confusion about healthy eating abounds.
And it's having a seriously bad effect on our health.
6 September 2019
TATKOP 114
There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who are pretty damn sure they are right.
See more in the TATKOP series.
See more in the TATKOP series.
23 August 2019
Better - according to my circle
By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin
I pointed out the argument used by those who set out to oppress others that they are somehow ‘better’ than them, and this justifies both their oppressive actions and their continued status as oppressors.
The 'argument' starts with a point (the premise) that the person assumes is true: in this case 'I am better (superior) than you'. It assumes you already agree that this premise is true, and then no new information is provided to support that premise. You can tell it's circular logic because you can start at either word 'I' in the image and read what seems like a justification. But it's just a circle.
Some circular logic can even sound convincing, but it only convinces people who already agree with the assumed premise. For the rest of us who don’t accept the premise to start with, the argument gives us no reason to change our thinking.
Circular logic (or circular reasoning) is used by people in ‘arguments’ to justify something they believe.
The 'argument' starts with a point (the premise) that the person assumes is true: in this case 'I am better (superior) than you'. It assumes you already agree that this premise is true, and then no new information is provided to support that premise. You can tell it's circular logic because you can start at either word 'I' in the image and read what seems like a justification. But it's just a circle.
Some circular logic can even sound convincing, but it only convinces people who already agree with the assumed premise. For the rest of us who don’t accept the premise to start with, the argument gives us no reason to change our thinking.
I don't happen to agree with the premise that any people are 'better' than others, so I don't agree this is the reason that some people dominate others.
It's not logic at all. It’s a self-reinforcing circle of belief.
This is why circular 'logic' features so often in 'arguments' about religion.
Circles of justification are extremely common. Spotting a circular argument gives me a sense of accomplishment. They are also sometimes quite alarming.
16 August 2019
Equal 3 - demand rights or limit power?
In this final part of the Equal series, I ask if demanding equal rights is the best focus for achieving a more egalitarian society and improving the lives of more people.
Part 2 then explored the history of society to see whether inequality is an inherently 'natural' feature of human beings. It found, instead, that inequality was a trade-off for the more efficient resource production of agrarian society. Western* society developed from an egalitarian society through agriculture and an industrialised society that was increasingly hierarchical, with an unfortunate dearth of social controls over the behaviour of leaders, other than outright revolt.
![]() |
Who could have a problem with this? |
However, one group of people find this all very distasteful.
This third and final part of the Equal series explores the growing influence of this group, the alarming future they represent, and discusses what can be done about it.
9 August 2019
Equal 2 - appeals to nature for inequality
Part 1 of this article looked back at some famous historical revolutions staged in the name of equality, and the documents celebrated as icons of humanity's progress toward a more egalitarian society.
Far from striving for equality, history's revolutions consisted of one section of society rising up against an individual (e.g. King) or a group (e.g. the church) that was usurping their assets and food, restricting their activities or options, oppressing them with gruelling work, or generally just being brutal to maintain control and wealth.
Far from striving for equality, history's revolutions consisted of one section of society rising up against an individual (e.g. King) or a group (e.g. the church) that was usurping their assets and food, restricting their activities or options, oppressing them with gruelling work, or generally just being brutal to maintain control and wealth.
As I said in Part 1, the 'newly equal' continued to believe in a hierarchical arrangement of humanity, they just moved up the ranking. They drew the line of people who were 'unequal' below them. This reality was captured succinctly by playwright Henry-François Becque: the defect of equality is that we desire it only with our superiors.
Revolutionary leaders might have lauded the value of equality, but that was not their real driver. The revolutions were actually about securing the material needs of human beings and a sense of dignity by ending these various abuses of power.
![]() |
The driver for history's famous egalitarian revolutions was more like the school yard retort: 'You're not the boss of me' or Monty Python's 'Don't you oppress me'.
That's a long way from a belief in equality with everyone else. Where you sit on this matter hinges on what you think equal means and what you think natural means.
2 August 2019
TATKOP 113
There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who dispute there are really two kinds of people and those who enjoy playing with dichotomies.
See more in the TATKOP series.
See more in the TATKOP series.
26 July 2019
Equal 1 - only looking upward
In the contest of ideas about society, the question whether all people are equal is pretty fundamental. (This is Part 1 of a 3-part article about the history of this question.)
The dictionary gives a range of meanings for equal (showing only those most relevant):
I hold the view that all people are of equal value and status. I recognise that people are different in temperament, ability and life story, but I believe everyone should have the same basic rights and impartial treatment before the law. I realise that many people do not share this view.
From the adjective equal we indirectly get the noun for the principle of human equality: egalitarianism.
I say 'indirectly' because English borrowed the word egalitarian from the French égalitaire, originally from the Latin aequalitas meaning 'equality', and added the English noun-building ism. (And sure, equalism doesn't sound like an inspirational principle, unlike the more mellifluous egalitarianism.)
Like me, you may have been taught that the last 500 years of Western history* has been a dogged struggle to achieve legal and social equality for more and more people. Famous words have been written - 'all men are created equal' - and held up as icons of the moral progress of humanity.
But lately, my world view had a massive shake up. I learned that the majority of people who took to armed conflict in the name of 'equality' in the past did not believe that human beings were equal at all. They were actually fighting for something else.
Much historical writing and numerous national monuments portray these famous social and political revolutions as driven by a belief in egalitarianism. The human drive for equality would eventually overcome!
But a closer read of history reveals this to be far from the truth. For example, the signatories to those famous words 'all men are created equal', knowingly and deliberately excluded many men and all women from this status. The author of those words, Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves all his life - clear evidence he did not believe that all men, or all humans, are 'created equal'.
What I learned when I read more about these famous struggles and statements of 'equality' has completely changed my understanding.
The English Magna Carta (Great Charter) signed in 1215 is often cited by politicians and campaigners as an important symbol of liberty, and a document still held in great respect. The 'people's judge', Lord Denning (1899–1999) described it as 'the greatest constitutional document of all times - the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot'.
However, the original Charter was limited to the relationship between the monarch and a group of 25 rebel barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people. The Charter gave this group of barons alone certain church and legal rights, access to justice, and limits on how much they had to pay the Crown. Over time it was revised multiple times, used by successive monarchs to end rebellions by giving more, but still quite limited, rights to wealthy landowners. Everyone else kept their 'lot in life' including the people who participated in the rebellions with the barons and later landowners.
So, the Magna Carta was nothing to do with the idea that all people were equal, more to do with the extremely wealthy trying to protect their assets from a rapacious king.
The second paragraph of the preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence reads: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Throughout the body of the Constitution itself, the terms 'persons', 'citizens' and 'voters' were used.
The revolution leading up to this famous declaration, the American War of Independence (1775-1783), had rallied the masses with promises of liberty and equality. The revolution defeated British tyranny and oppressive taxation, but the wealthy, white, male government then recreated a social and political structure in which they maintained their own high status above the 'masses' and could do business unfettered by British interference.
Despite the 'self-evidence' of being 'created equal', there was the small fact that the word men meant 'men who were white, educated and owned property'. Women were clearly not men, despite 'man' being used to mean 'person' in legal writing at that time. Poor men or men from Asia were not 'men of substance', and 'too ignorant' anyway. And African slaves were not even in contention for equality as they were legally categorised as 'things', not people. Easy - all out.
The subsequent United States Bill of Rights (1789) consisted of 10 Amendments to the Constitution which asserted the rights of citizens (i.e. wealthy white men) to prevent the new national government making laws which might restrict them (i.e. the wealthy white men). It was not concerned with any concept of equality or human rights.
So, the American revolution was no fight for the equality of all, more a rebellion against excessive taxation regime and control by a distant king.
Those who assumed power continued to assert they were dominant because they were inherently better and that the unequal status of people was 'the natural order'. For example, George Fitzhugh (1806-1881) dismissed the 'self-evident truths' as utter nonsense: 'Equality means calamity. Subordination, difference of caste and classes, differences of sex, age and slavery beget peace and good will.'
Many of these supposedly naturally 'unequal' people had participated in the various conflicts in the name of equality. They wrote about their bitter disappointment and outrage at the failure to extend 'equality before the law' to them. Maria W. Stewart (1803 to 1879) a journalist, lecturer, abolitionist and women's rights activist, is one example.
Over several hundred years, poor white men, black men and women have achieved the right to vote and various other legal rights, often through bloody and protracted fights. However, despite each step toward equality before the law for more and more people, many resisted the changes and maintained the view that a fundamental and 'natural' hierarchy existed, and that all people were not in any way to be considered equal.
For example, after the destructive Civil War, a new 14th Amendment (1868) granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves, and guaranteed all citizens 'equal protection of the law.' In furious reaction, various states introduced state laws to legalise segregation, repression and conditions of terror for black people despite their new 'equality'.
To make sure this new equality only went so far, the authors of the 14th Amendment also re-defined the previously non-gendered words 'citizens' and 'voters' in the original Constitution as 'male'. They did this deliberately to quash a concurrent campaign for equality by women, who had expected these rights extended to all citizens. After being thus effectively written out of the Constitution, women then lobbied for the 19th Amendment which prohibited the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote on the basis of sex. It was introduced in 1878 and finally ratified in 1920. Meanwhile, the Equal Rights Amendment, introduced in 1923 to extinguish all legal distinction between the sexes - in terms of divorce, property, employment and other matters - has never been ratified.
Essentially, the national laws proclaiming equal status did not have any impact on the deeply held belief of many people that the 'natural order' of humanity is unequal. American society remains profoundly riven about the question of equality, despite its citizens professing a deep reverence for its founding documents declaring 'all men are created equal'.
In the years leading up to the French Revolution, the vast majority of people in France lived in extreme poverty, with no chance of escaping their situation. Peasants, artisans and craft workers were entirely at the mercy of the nobility, who had preserved much of the power of old feudal kings. A new class of wealthy businessmen made matters worse with their flagrant displays of wealth and their abuses of power.
After a particularly bad year for crops, the destruction of livelihoods due to British imports, and the growing number of immigrants from countries colonised by France, the impoverished masses were facing famine. Despite this, they were still expected to sacrifice their meagre wheat crops as tribute to king and church. They were enraged at the different conditions for the wealthy and the poor, and they were starving.
France's National Constituent Assembly wrote the Declaration of Rights as a civil rights document at the beginning of the French Revolution. Its first article states: 'Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.'
The dictionary gives a range of meanings for equal (showing only those most relevant):
♦️ equivalent/same in mathematical value or logical denotation; like in quality, nature, or status; like for each member of a group, class, or society
♦️ impartial regarding or affecting all objects in the same way.
I hold the view that all people are of equal value and status. I recognise that people are different in temperament, ability and life story, but I believe everyone should have the same basic rights and impartial treatment before the law. I realise that many people do not share this view.
From the adjective equal we indirectly get the noun for the principle of human equality: egalitarianism.
♦️ a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
♦️ a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.
Like me, you may have been taught that the last 500 years of Western history* has been a dogged struggle to achieve legal and social equality for more and more people. Famous words have been written - 'all men are created equal' - and held up as icons of the moral progress of humanity.
But lately, my world view had a massive shake up. I learned that the majority of people who took to armed conflict in the name of 'equality' in the past did not believe that human beings were equal at all. They were actually fighting for something else.
Small steps toward egalitarianism?
Early hunter-gatherer societies are believed to have been egalitarian. However, for most of recorded history, society has been anything but.
With the advent of agriculture then industry, our social groupings changed to become more complex, more organised and more structured. This structure has been hierarchical - a social ranking of power. And those holding the most power, those at the top of the hierarchy, quite liked it there and were regularly pretty brutal to maintain their position.
![]() |
Source: Javier Kohen |
My image of the path 'back' to a more egalitarian society is a series of conflicts involving the powerful few - emperors, kings and queens, the aristocracy, those with inherited wealth, the clergy and slave owners with their armies - against everyone else, the 'masses'. The masses regularly rebelled against often tyrannical social arrangements.
Much historical writing and numerous national monuments portray these famous social and political revolutions as driven by a belief in egalitarianism. The human drive for equality would eventually overcome!
But a closer read of history reveals this to be far from the truth. For example, the signatories to those famous words 'all men are created equal', knowingly and deliberately excluded many men and all women from this status. The author of those words, Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves all his life - clear evidence he did not believe that all men, or all humans, are 'created equal'.
What I learned when I read more about these famous struggles and statements of 'equality' has completely changed my understanding.
Magna Carta, 1215
The English Magna Carta (Great Charter) signed in 1215 is often cited by politicians and campaigners as an important symbol of liberty, and a document still held in great respect. The 'people's judge', Lord Denning (1899–1999) described it as 'the greatest constitutional document of all times - the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot'.
However, the original Charter was limited to the relationship between the monarch and a group of 25 rebel barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people. The Charter gave this group of barons alone certain church and legal rights, access to justice, and limits on how much they had to pay the Crown. Over time it was revised multiple times, used by successive monarchs to end rebellions by giving more, but still quite limited, rights to wealthy landowners. Everyone else kept their 'lot in life' including the people who participated in the rebellions with the barons and later landowners.
So, the Magna Carta was nothing to do with the idea that all people were equal, more to do with the extremely wealthy trying to protect their assets from a rapacious king.
The United States Declaration of Independence, 1776
The second paragraph of the preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence reads: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Throughout the body of the Constitution itself, the terms 'persons', 'citizens' and 'voters' were used.
![]() |
Source: denisben |
Despite the 'self-evidence' of being 'created equal', there was the small fact that the word men meant 'men who were white, educated and owned property'. Women were clearly not men, despite 'man' being used to mean 'person' in legal writing at that time. Poor men or men from Asia were not 'men of substance', and 'too ignorant' anyway. And African slaves were not even in contention for equality as they were legally categorised as 'things', not people. Easy - all out.
The subsequent United States Bill of Rights (1789) consisted of 10 Amendments to the Constitution which asserted the rights of citizens (i.e. wealthy white men) to prevent the new national government making laws which might restrict them (i.e. the wealthy white men). It was not concerned with any concept of equality or human rights.
So, the American revolution was no fight for the equality of all, more a rebellion against excessive taxation regime and control by a distant king.
Those who assumed power continued to assert they were dominant because they were inherently better and that the unequal status of people was 'the natural order'. For example, George Fitzhugh (1806-1881) dismissed the 'self-evident truths' as utter nonsense: 'Equality means calamity. Subordination, difference of caste and classes, differences of sex, age and slavery beget peace and good will.'
![]() |
Source: AZ Quotes |
Over several hundred years, poor white men, black men and women have achieved the right to vote and various other legal rights, often through bloody and protracted fights. However, despite each step toward equality before the law for more and more people, many resisted the changes and maintained the view that a fundamental and 'natural' hierarchy existed, and that all people were not in any way to be considered equal.
For example, after the destructive Civil War, a new 14th Amendment (1868) granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves, and guaranteed all citizens 'equal protection of the law.' In furious reaction, various states introduced state laws to legalise segregation, repression and conditions of terror for black people despite their new 'equality'.
To make sure this new equality only went so far, the authors of the 14th Amendment also re-defined the previously non-gendered words 'citizens' and 'voters' in the original Constitution as 'male'. They did this deliberately to quash a concurrent campaign for equality by women, who had expected these rights extended to all citizens. After being thus effectively written out of the Constitution, women then lobbied for the 19th Amendment which prohibited the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote on the basis of sex. It was introduced in 1878 and finally ratified in 1920. Meanwhile, the Equal Rights Amendment, introduced in 1923 to extinguish all legal distinction between the sexes - in terms of divorce, property, employment and other matters - has never been ratified.
Essentially, the national laws proclaiming equal status did not have any impact on the deeply held belief of many people that the 'natural order' of humanity is unequal. American society remains profoundly riven about the question of equality, despite its citizens professing a deep reverence for its founding documents declaring 'all men are created equal'.
French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789
In the years leading up to the French Revolution, the vast majority of people in France lived in extreme poverty, with no chance of escaping their situation. Peasants, artisans and craft workers were entirely at the mercy of the nobility, who had preserved much of the power of old feudal kings. A new class of wealthy businessmen made matters worse with their flagrant displays of wealth and their abuses of power.
After a particularly bad year for crops, the destruction of livelihoods due to British imports, and the growing number of immigrants from countries colonised by France, the impoverished masses were facing famine. Despite this, they were still expected to sacrifice their meagre wheat crops as tribute to king and church. They were enraged at the different conditions for the wealthy and the poor, and they were starving.
France's National Constituent Assembly wrote the Declaration of Rights as a civil rights document at the beginning of the French Revolution. Its first article states: 'Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.'
![]() |
Source: Pierre-Antoine Demachy |
The rallying cry of the revolution was 'equality and bread'. Equality might be the inspirational concept, but the primary reason for the revolt against the crown and church was lack of food, symbolised by bread. The peasants wanted a system of government which would ensure food security for everyone. They saw their rulers as grossly unjust and as causing their miserable conditions.
At first there were successes - the Revolution toppled the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI, divested the nobility of their hereditary power, and completely undermined the political influence of the Catholic Church. However, this brought an armed bourgeoisie to power, who then instituted similar draconian restrictions over the poor. The peasants still struggled to subsist, and continued to resist. A second wave of revolution attempted to get rid of these new bourgeois oppressors, with ongoing social chaos and the ubiquitous guillotine deaths of The Reign of Terror. The rallying cry for equality came to be regarded by many as the howls of anarchy and terrorism.
The weakened fledgling French democracy could not deliver on the promises: it could not feed the people. Egalitarianism struggled as well because the remaining wealthy and powerful (in France but also across Europe) worked to undo all the radical changes and restore the old social hierarchies. (Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.) The wealthy maintained it was a restoration of the 'natural' order. From the chaos, France emerged as an imperial state under Napoleon Bonaparte - the revolutionary agenda of equality mutated into a period of French global domination.
So, the French revolution was fought by desperate and starving people to get food and to get rid of the obscenely wealthy who were keeping the food to themselves.
But did the revolutionaries consider they were equal to each other? It's not really clear, but what is clear is that not nearly enough people in France did, even those who went to war under the slogan 'equality and bread'. Deep disagreement about the makeup of an 'equal' society in the new government plus the ongoing efforts of the wealthy to retake their place at the top of the pile meant that the Revolution failed.
Each of the documents above, though not their apparent failure to deliver human equality, were part of the inspiration for the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights developed at the end of World War II. The Declaration includes specific recognition of the equality of all humans, in Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Of the then 58 members of the United Nations, 48 voted in favour, two did not vote and eight officially abstained. Not really universal agreement. Not even planetary.
The 30 articles affirm human 'rights', but they hold no legal status. In fact, courts of various signatory countries have since concluded that The Declaration is not part of their domestic law and does not impose obligations under the law.
The fundamental dispute about whether human beings are equal continues.
The fact is that the authors and signatories to these famous historical 'human equality' documents did not really believe that people are equal at all.
What they believed is that no monarch or other person should preside over them. They considered they were being oppressed. They still believed a whole mess of humanity was not equal to them. They still believed in a hierarchical arrangement of humanity, they just moved up the ranking. They drew the line of 'people who were unequal' below them - because they had the power to do so.
This is summarised in an astute observation by playwright Henry-François Becque (1837-1899).
At first there were successes - the Revolution toppled the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI, divested the nobility of their hereditary power, and completely undermined the political influence of the Catholic Church. However, this brought an armed bourgeoisie to power, who then instituted similar draconian restrictions over the poor. The peasants still struggled to subsist, and continued to resist. A second wave of revolution attempted to get rid of these new bourgeois oppressors, with ongoing social chaos and the ubiquitous guillotine deaths of The Reign of Terror. The rallying cry for equality came to be regarded by many as the howls of anarchy and terrorism.
The weakened fledgling French democracy could not deliver on the promises: it could not feed the people. Egalitarianism struggled as well because the remaining wealthy and powerful (in France but also across Europe) worked to undo all the radical changes and restore the old social hierarchies. (Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.) The wealthy maintained it was a restoration of the 'natural' order. From the chaos, France emerged as an imperial state under Napoleon Bonaparte - the revolutionary agenda of equality mutated into a period of French global domination.
So, the French revolution was fought by desperate and starving people to get food and to get rid of the obscenely wealthy who were keeping the food to themselves.
But did the revolutionaries consider they were equal to each other? It's not really clear, but what is clear is that not nearly enough people in France did, even those who went to war under the slogan 'equality and bread'. Deep disagreement about the makeup of an 'equal' society in the new government plus the ongoing efforts of the wealthy to retake their place at the top of the pile meant that the Revolution failed.
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Each of the documents above, though not their apparent failure to deliver human equality, were part of the inspiration for the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights developed at the end of World War II. The Declaration includes specific recognition of the equality of all humans, in Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Of the then 58 members of the United Nations, 48 voted in favour, two did not vote and eight officially abstained. Not really universal agreement. Not even planetary.
The 30 articles affirm human 'rights', but they hold no legal status. In fact, courts of various signatory countries have since concluded that The Declaration is not part of their domestic law and does not impose obligations under the law.
The fundamental dispute about whether human beings are equal continues.
Egalitarian or 'equal' just for me?
The fact is that the authors and signatories to these famous historical 'human equality' documents did not really believe that people are equal at all.
What they believed is that no monarch or other person should preside over them. They considered they were being oppressed. They still believed a whole mess of humanity was not equal to them. They still believed in a hierarchical arrangement of humanity, they just moved up the ranking. They drew the line of 'people who were unequal' below them - because they had the power to do so.
This is summarised in an astute observation by playwright Henry-François Becque (1837-1899).
As Becque put so succinctly, those engaging in the conflicts against 'oppression' might have used the rhetoric of egalitarianism, but their concept of equality was restricted to being equal with those 'above' them.
It is indeed a defect.
Part 2 explores another way to understand our recent history that doesn't rely on blinded egalitarian moralising. Part 3 then looks at what we can do with an updated view of history.
*There is way too much I don't know about the history of non-Western countries to comment.
Images, used under Creative Commons Licences
It is indeed a defect.
Part 2 explores another way to understand our recent history that doesn't rely on blinded egalitarian moralising. Part 3 then looks at what we can do with an updated view of history.
*There is way too much I don't know about the history of non-Western countries to comment.
Images, used under Creative Commons Licences
- Oppression: Javier Kohen/Flickr (CC BY-SA)
- American War of Independence: denisbin/Flickr (CC BY-ND)
- Marie Stewart quote: AZ quotes
- Guillotine: Pierre-Antoine Demarchy (Public Domain)
- Henry Becque quote: AZ quotes
This article was sparked by reading These truths: a history of the United States by Jill Lepore (NY: WW Norton & Co) 2018. It's a long but incredible read if you get the opportunity. Here's the detail at World Catalogue.
So many other sources informed also this content, I cannot list them all. My reading was not purposeful when I started, but after some things became obvious and what I wanted to write had become clearer, I had lost track of all the sources. Not good, but all I can say.
19 July 2019
TATKOP 112
There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who say 'someone has to do it' and those who say 'someone else has to do it'.
See more in the TATKOP series.
See more in the TATKOP series.
12 July 2019
Alternate - a small grief
![]() |
Source: Know your meme |
By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin
Have you ever corrected someone's dreadful grammar, fixed their awful punctuation, or pointed out that they used the wrong word?
I get it - those errors can be very irritating. They distract from the meaning. And certain errors are particularly 'triggering' for some of us. A whole online army seem fully occupied waging war against you're errors.
But have you ever considered that in your battle against errors, you might be fighting against the natural process of language change?
I'm starting to think I might be doing just that when I react to one of my 'trigger' words errors - alternate, the adjective form. I consider it an error to use alternate when the meaning is alternative.
I frequently notice alternate used wrongly in both formal and informal contexts, and I always correct it (at least to myself!) However, deep in my word nerd heart, I am starting to feel I might have to accept the word alternate is just changing its meaning, like so many have before.
But I'm not ready to accept it just yet.
5 July 2019
TATKOP 111
There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who bandage over their emotional wounds and those they hurt to avoid taking the bandage off.
28 June 2019
Spurious - graphic propaganda
My love for graphs has a most unfortunate side-effect. I end up shouting and swearing at most news reports with line graphs, bar graphs or pie charts. Regularly. In fact, most days.
What I see are spurious graphs, and they make me angry.
What I see are spurious graphs, and they make me angry.
Spurious means:
♦️ of illegitimate birth; bastard
♦️ outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities; false♦️ of falsified or erroneously attributed origin; forged; of a deceitful nature or quality.
Bastard, false, deceitful! Yep, they are some of the words I shout at the TV.
The figures are from real data, right? The plots and lines are mathematics, so how can you argue with them? They have a seductive power; their apparent objectivity gives us a sense of trust.
Reserve that trust: graphs are all too often a tool of propaganda.
Spurious graphs are aimed at deliberately fooling you.
21 June 2019
TATKOP 110
There Are Two Kinds Of People - those who think everything is a miracle and those who think nothing is (Albert Einstein).
See more in the TATKOP series.
See more in the TATKOP series.
14 June 2019
Green - another way to over-consume?
It's my second favourite colour (after purple); it symbolises nature and the natural world. Green also represents tranquillity, good luck, health, and jealousy. It's an easy colour to live with.
Green is also a versatile adjective. Merriam-Webster provides ten different definitions just for the adjective form of green alone. It can mean the colour between yellow and blue on the light spectrum, covered in foliage, pleasant, youthful, unripe, envious, sickly, naive, unprocessed, and related to environmentalism.
I want to talk about that tenth definition of green:
♦️ often capitalized: relating to or being an environmentalist political movement ♦️ concerned with or supporting environmentalism ♦️ tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or non-polluting) |
Being green and supporting green ideas is becoming more mainstream. It used to be a fringe ideology, adopted by hippies and drop-outs.
As green ideas have entered the mainstream, a new phenomenon known as greenwash has emerged.
Greenwash involves pretending to be green in order to sell more.
But how can we detect this thin wash of 'green' over otherwise unchanged ideas and products?
7 June 2019
TATKOP 109
There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who see growing up as learning about the world and those who see it as learning about ourselves.
See more in the TATKOP series.
See more in the TATKOP series.
24 May 2019
Well-being - losing the unhealthy metaphors
By guest explorer: Mae Wright
A while back, I took six months out of paid work to focus on my well-being. Or, as I saw it then, to stop feeling rotten all the time.
Life had been overwhelming, family needs had been complex, work had been deflating, my house was cluttered and unclean, projects sat neglected. I had been unrelentingly busy and was exhausted. And my health, left on the back burner, gradually but inexorably boiled over. A not uncommon story.
I hoped my well-being might return with a complete rest. For some weeks, I did nothing but sitting around; I sat and I read. Just read. Luxurious. Then, for something completely different, I went on a snorkelling holiday. Amazing.
When I returned, I started on the mess of overdue tasks and chores and neglected projects nagging at me from every surface in my house. I wrote a long list and slowly started to tick things off. My house became more pleasant as the layers of clutter and dirt disappeared. Satisfying.
But nearly three months into my break, I felt edgy, maybe less exhausted, but definitely nothing I like my idea of 'well-being'. And I felt like a failure: I had the luxury of not having to work for a period without worrying about money, something that many could not, but I still just felt rotten.
It seemed I was just no good at 'balance'. Being 'in the now' had never happened. When I thought about my lack of zest, I felt anxious. And not once had I wanted to spring into the air on a beach with the sun as back-lighting.
My being was far from well. I needed something else.
17 May 2019
TATKOP 108
There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who rank people from 'superior' to 'inferior' and those not near the top ranks.
See more in the TATKOP series.
See more in the TATKOP series.
10 May 2019
Next - what is it to be?
![]() |
Source: Toothpaste For Dinner |
The books are all locked in a fierce debate. Those sitting on Reader’s bedside table, on the floor, those in the bookshelves, and the ones on the tablet all bicker and snark at each other as the self-entitled things that books tend to be.
'I should be the next (adjective) book: I am by far the most important and relevant to Reader's current project,' asserts Seven Cheap Things, sitting in the promising prime position on the bedside table. 'There is a deadline to consider.'
'No, I should be the next (pronoun) in line, 'says White Teeth. 'One should always read a novel between non-fiction books. That way, Reader can consolidate all that heavy, ridiculously self-important, so called ‘factual’ information before moving on. Plus, I'm due back at the library in four days; Reader better get started soon.'
'Well, I have been waiting a very, very long time and I just know Reader will love what I have to reveal,' counters Action in Perception.
'Quite clearly, Action, you - of all books - should not be read next (adverb),' the unopened Keynes for beginners and Growth fetish splutter over the top of each other. Growth continues, ‘Reader has moved on to other interests since buying you; see this pile of lovely economics titles next to (preposition) us that look so lovingly dog-eared. No offence, but you are rather esoteric. Reader is interested in economics now, and one of us will more than likely be the next (pronoun).’
'Oh, such dry flat topics, I really cannot understand how some can go through life without dying of their own essentially dullness,' retorts My other life. ‘I am fully expecting to be taken away on holidays next (determiner) week.’
Against Interpretation, never one to hold back, chimes in, 'Well, I think Reader does need to change topics, yes, and no, not to consciousness, sorry Action, because it is definitely time for the challenging concepts that I have.' The chorus is loud and united, 'Nooooo, leave Derrida alone!! We ARE the text.' Against Interpretation doesn't know what to make of that and says nothing further.
A small lull follows while all the texts try to think of something irrefutable to say next (adverb).
Year of Wonders speaks up first, motivated by the indignity of being under so many other books. 'I agree with White Teeth about it being time for a novel for Reader, but I am surely the next (adjective) choice: I have been borrowed from a friend and need to be returned. Otherwise the trust between book owners will be damaged, as Reader is surely aware. It's all well and good Reader exploring economic ideas of trade as trust between humans, while violating a book trade arrangement! And Reader will surely pick a non-fiction to read at the same time; that’s the usual pattern. Your time will come; no need to be so win-lose everyone.'
'I should be the next (adjective) book: I am by far the most important and relevant to Reader's current project,' asserts Seven Cheap Things, sitting in the promising prime position on the bedside table. 'There is a deadline to consider.'
'No, I should be the next (pronoun) in line, 'says White Teeth. 'One should always read a novel between non-fiction books. That way, Reader can consolidate all that heavy, ridiculously self-important, so called ‘factual’ information before moving on. Plus, I'm due back at the library in four days; Reader better get started soon.'
'Well, I have been waiting a very, very long time and I just know Reader will love what I have to reveal,' counters Action in Perception.
'Quite clearly, Action, you - of all books - should not be read next (adverb),' the unopened Keynes for beginners and Growth fetish splutter over the top of each other. Growth continues, ‘Reader has moved on to other interests since buying you; see this pile of lovely economics titles next to (preposition) us that look so lovingly dog-eared. No offence, but you are rather esoteric. Reader is interested in economics now, and one of us will more than likely be the next (pronoun).’
'Oh, such dry flat topics, I really cannot understand how some can go through life without dying of their own essentially dullness,' retorts My other life. ‘I am fully expecting to be taken away on holidays next (determiner) week.’
Against Interpretation, never one to hold back, chimes in, 'Well, I think Reader does need to change topics, yes, and no, not to consciousness, sorry Action, because it is definitely time for the challenging concepts that I have.' The chorus is loud and united, 'Nooooo, leave Derrida alone!! We ARE the text.' Against Interpretation doesn't know what to make of that and says nothing further.
A small lull follows while all the texts try to think of something irrefutable to say next (adverb).
Year of Wonders speaks up first, motivated by the indignity of being under so many other books. 'I agree with White Teeth about it being time for a novel for Reader, but I am surely the next (adjective) choice: I have been borrowed from a friend and need to be returned. Otherwise the trust between book owners will be damaged, as Reader is surely aware. It's all well and good Reader exploring economic ideas of trade as trust between humans, while violating a book trade arrangement! And Reader will surely pick a non-fiction to read at the same time; that’s the usual pattern. Your time will come; no need to be so win-lose everyone.'
Source: English Your Way |
Dark Emu murmurs sympathetically at Atonement lying at the back of a pile, almost hidden. ‘I agree a novel probably should be the next (pronoun) in the reading queue. There is an injustice in all this lying around neglected. And the dust is awful. But you would all have to agree, given my ground-breaking, history-challenging information, I really must be read next (adverb).’
Weighty old 12 Rules for Life rumbles self-importantly at everyone, 'Oh fools, Reader might have come to the end of my pages, but there is much yet to be done. See all these notes and annotations. Reader will now go back through these and make sure all the key points are captured; I feel confident that will happen. You are arguing about who is to be the next (pronoun) before Reader has even finished. Not that I am ever really finished,' Rules sighs smugly.
All the other books sit without commenting, dismayed that Rules is probably right. They do know, though, that most of Reader’s notes about Rules are angry scribbles about its errors and disputable logic; as books are not inherently spiteful, they say nothing while looking around uncomfortably.
Except Death of a River Guide, who stares vacantly around, somewhat sated and gloating, having recently taken Reader through a wild emotional journey on the days that Reader didn’t feel up to Rules. Death really doesn't care about which might be the next (adjective) book at all.
In the silence, Silicone shouts boldly from the chores box, 'Reading-shmeading! Boss should quit this endless reading and get on with some household chores next (adverb). I mean, have you seen the state of the sealant in the bathroom - all broken and mouldy; it's disgusting.' (Only one book has been in the bathroom lately, but Death is not really listening.)
The others in the chores box perk up, startled. They've never taken on the books before, assuming there was no point in trying to debate with words. They realise that Silicone must be really disgusted to overcome the usual reluctance, but then, they haven't seen the bathroom lately.
The Fly-screen patch feels emboldened. 'Yes, it’s always reading, reading, reading. Boss sits down every night beside the lamp with a book. Next (adjective) minute, Boss is slapping at the insects and scratching at the bites. So frustrating to watch; I could end all this with half an hour’s work.'
'Insects! Bah!!' retorts Kill Rust. Boss will be dealing with more than insects if I'm not the next (pronoun) in priority. Otherwise the window surrounds will be beyond repair. I feel like I'm rusting myself sitting here so long.'
The router speaks with its usual superior tone, somewhat muffled but undaunted by still being in its packaging, 'Well I can see why Boss can't be bothered to get around to all of you chores; you are just so, so tedious really. And essentially invisible once you are done. But me, I make a difference. I am the future. The old model is giving the whole family grief, but Boss just swears at it. If I’m not installed by next (determiner) week, I predict the old model will just fail entirely!’
More silence greets this rant. The things in the chores box stare out at the books, wondering who might next (adverb) dare to speak.
The books all gape at the upstarts in the chores box. Motivations previously unknown to them have been expressed, and the world looks a little different now.
But the quiet doesn't last long.
Self-absorbed as ever, Naked Lunch shouts, 'No, I am the next (pronoun) in line, I have to be the next (adjective) book! Next to (preposition) my revelations, you are just all so pedestrian. It's got to be me, me, me! I am so sure, when Reader next (adverb) picks up a book, it will be me!! You’ll see, by next (determiner) weekend at the latest!'
‘Oh, Naked Lunch, no! So many words, so little to say!’ moan all the other books.
Atonement whispers urgently, 'Sorry everyone, we need to be quiet; here comes Reader. Now we will finally see who is next (adverb).'
Reader walks into the room and lies on the bed. And the next (adjective) thing they hear is the sound of gentle snoring.
Images used with best available acknowledgments
All the other books sit without commenting, dismayed that Rules is probably right. They do know, though, that most of Reader’s notes about Rules are angry scribbles about its errors and disputable logic; as books are not inherently spiteful, they say nothing while looking around uncomfortably.
Except Death of a River Guide, who stares vacantly around, somewhat sated and gloating, having recently taken Reader through a wild emotional journey on the days that Reader didn’t feel up to Rules. Death really doesn't care about which might be the next (adjective) book at all.
In the silence, Silicone shouts boldly from the chores box, 'Reading-shmeading! Boss should quit this endless reading and get on with some household chores next (adverb). I mean, have you seen the state of the sealant in the bathroom - all broken and mouldy; it's disgusting.' (Only one book has been in the bathroom lately, but Death is not really listening.)
The others in the chores box perk up, startled. They've never taken on the books before, assuming there was no point in trying to debate with words. They realise that Silicone must be really disgusted to overcome the usual reluctance, but then, they haven't seen the bathroom lately.
The Fly-screen patch feels emboldened. 'Yes, it’s always reading, reading, reading. Boss sits down every night beside the lamp with a book. Next (adjective) minute, Boss is slapping at the insects and scratching at the bites. So frustrating to watch; I could end all this with half an hour’s work.'
'Insects! Bah!!' retorts Kill Rust. Boss will be dealing with more than insects if I'm not the next (pronoun) in priority. Otherwise the window surrounds will be beyond repair. I feel like I'm rusting myself sitting here so long.'
The router speaks with its usual superior tone, somewhat muffled but undaunted by still being in its packaging, 'Well I can see why Boss can't be bothered to get around to all of you chores; you are just so, so tedious really. And essentially invisible once you are done. But me, I make a difference. I am the future. The old model is giving the whole family grief, but Boss just swears at it. If I’m not installed by next (determiner) week, I predict the old model will just fail entirely!’
More silence greets this rant. The things in the chores box stare out at the books, wondering who might next (adverb) dare to speak.
The books all gape at the upstarts in the chores box. Motivations previously unknown to them have been expressed, and the world looks a little different now.
But the quiet doesn't last long.
Self-absorbed as ever, Naked Lunch shouts, 'No, I am the next (pronoun) in line, I have to be the next (adjective) book! Next to (preposition) my revelations, you are just all so pedestrian. It's got to be me, me, me! I am so sure, when Reader next (adverb) picks up a book, it will be me!! You’ll see, by next (determiner) weekend at the latest!'
‘Oh, Naked Lunch, no! So many words, so little to say!’ moan all the other books.
Atonement whispers urgently, 'Sorry everyone, we need to be quiet; here comes Reader. Now we will finally see who is next (adverb).'
Reader walks into the room and lies on the bed. And the next (adjective) thing they hear is the sound of gentle snoring.
Images used with best available acknowledgments
- I'm so adjective, I verb nouns cartoon from Toothpaste for Breakfast. Only the original version from 2006 is still on the TFB site at http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/index.php?date=091706 The version used in this post, originally by TFB, now only found on Pinterest.
- 10 Parts of speech table taken from English Your Way https://englishyourway.com.br/parts-of-speech/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The problem with taking so long to write this Smart series about Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the 34,372 extra articles published on the ...
-
This is the sixth and final post in the Smart series where I have been exploring why so much of the writing about ‘artificial intelligence’ ...
-
In part 1 , I started exploring why the myriad articles on Artificial Intelligence (AI) leave me feeling so frustrated. To start, I explore...