🇨🇦🇩🇪🇨🇳张殿李🇨🇳🇩🇪🇨🇦 @ ZDL @ttrpg.network Posts 49Comments 1,048Joined 1 yr. ago
I know that "let me Google that for you" is usually used as an insulting way of dealing with questions, but trust me, in this case, linking you to a search is just the easier way of doing things because there is so many pieces of cool Haida art it's just easier for me to let you see it all in a gallery.
Yeah, both of them are simultaneously incredible (in the literal sense) and yet well-documented and studied, so real people. There are very few people like that in history of either gender.
I'll be documenting a few more. 😉
I'm fascinated by the northern west coast tribes myself: Haida, and the like. And it's almost all because the artwork just grabs me.
N.B. I used the word "coagulated" above for a reason. Consider the myriad of cultural beliefs that became the Yijing as the milk. Consider the forces of history as the rennet. The Yijing is the collection of curds that coagulated from the milk, in different uneven, and slightly messy lumps. The various philosophies that came out of it (Confucianism, Daoism, et al) are the cheese that comes from pressing and aging the curds.
I explicitly avoided "crystalized" because that's too orderly and beautiful a process for what happened.
Ooh, there are oh so many choices! In the past ten to fifteen years, however, the main focus of my incomprehension has been a single one:
I love studying very ancient China, the time frame at about the point where ancient Chinese animistic and shamanistic beliefs coagulated into that central philosophical powerhouse that shaped the rest of Chinese history: 易经 (Yìjīng or "Book of Changes"). From the Yijing we have Confucianism (indeed Confucianism numbers the Yijing among its foundational works), Daoism, and Naturalism all directly copying Yin/Yang, correlative cosmology, and the flow of change into their own philosophical frameworks. Even Mohism and Legalism incorporates elements of the Yijing into their own thought frameworks, albeit sometimes as a critical reaction to or just an indirect cultural influence. It is very difficult to overstate the importance of the Yijing to Chinese thought. (It even influences how music is played!)
But here's the thing.
Most of the lore that coagulated into the Yijing is lost. It was the oral tradition of literally dozens to hundreds of cultures that became the Yijing, and much of that is lost. (Even the original way of consulting with the Yijing as an oracle is lost: the "ancient yarrow stalk" technique used by Yijing practitioners who want to go aulde skoole is newer than the coin method: it's an attempted recreation of the old method without any actual substantiation of it.) And yet you can see ghostly hints of the schools of thought that became the Yijing in the text, in its commentaries, and, here and there, in the discovered remnants of ancient cultures that occasionally pop up in archaeological digs or literary findings.
This is intellectual catnip for me.
Why anybody even uses these lazy-press labels in the first place?
There is no nation-wide "generation" suite. Boomers, GenX, Millenials, whatever – it's all bullshit.
Your "generation" (as a still very simplified and grossly inaccurate model) is everybody born within 12 years of you either direction. Which, as you can guess, means there's a whole lot of overlap.
This "boomer"/"GenZ"/Millenials/whatever crap is the product of a lazy press and marketing.
I'm glad people are enjoying this one. Lozen and Zheng Yi Sao are two of my favourite kick-ass women from history because they entered a "male" field and absolutely dominated it. They're both people that should be inspiring women around the world.
Ayup. Anybody who uses this "you talk like a man/woman" thing today is ignorant and likely using it to put you down.
There is a pseudo-scientific bullshit theory (that even has software tools available for it!) that purports that women and men communicate differently and thus can be identified by their writing style.
Masculine: Common stereotypes suggest that "masculine" writing is direct, assertive, action-focused, and uses more articles and concrete nouns.
Feminine: "Feminine" writing is said to be more personal, relational, emotional, and uses more pronouns and social words.
These ideas have deep roots in Western linguistic and literary criticism. Early 20th-century linguists like Otto Jespersen claimed women’s writing was less logical or innovative. Later studies found some statistical differences (sentence length, pronoun use), but these are small and often over-interpreted.
Basically it's sexist, non-scientific bullshit based on the typical problems of social "science" studies: too-small sample sets, often within a single culture and, indeed, a very specific small sub-culture (to wit: middle-class white American university students). Real studies by competent practitioners note that people can write in different voices depending on context, and that most "gendered" writing is cultural performance and conformance to norms around them. The notion of writing "like a woman" or "like a man" is mostly just a product of cultural stereotypes (and I'd go so far as to say white supremacist stereotypes) and, historically, pseudo-scientific thinking, all rooted in Western (or more specifically American) norms. While some statistical linguistic differences do actually exist, they are minor, context-dependent, and not inherently tied to gender.
The proper conclusion the data supports is that writing style is flexible, shaped by audience, purpose, and social context-not by biology or any essential "masculine" or "feminine" essence.
I'll be adding western women here and there too. There's a particular Celtic warrior queen that's on the queue for some coverage...
Yeah, there's a lot of misogyny buried in Buddhism. It's very much a product of its times and modern westerners who venerate Buddhism as any kind of model piss me off as a result. It's pretty clear these faux-Buddhists have never read anything past maybe the Heart Sutra.
I've selected my next one. We're going to the Americas for this one. You'll have no idea who she is until I'm finished with the story. Then you'll wonder WHY you had no idea because she's AWESOME!
I will eventually get around to Cleopatra and hoo boy howdy are there myths to bust there. Like:
- She wasn't particularly beautiful (physically).
- She wasn't a femme fatale as her typical portrayal shows her.
And so on. She's a good example of a strong woman (just not as strong as Hapshetsup was) whose history was rewritten.
Ooh. If we're going with extinct, I'd love a pet trilobyte myself.
That was not a very nice crash, IIRC.
That bear sure has a lot to answer for! 🙃
Weirdly, the thing that scared me most that day was the enormous cicada that was in the car my dad was driving like a maniac in to get us to Nicosia in the first place. The gunfire and shells barely registered until weeks later. All I knew was my dad looked stressed, my mom looked close to tears, and there were a lot of people constantly staring in the direction of the "fireworks".
Would being in a Canadian Armed Forces 707 as it's taking off from Nicosia while the airport is being shelled by the Turks count as disastrous? Or very lucky?
The "ones not many people have heard of" thing is very deliberate. Everybody knows Cleopatra (even if only by that horrifically ahistorical film). Many have heard of Nefertiti (even if only because of that famous bust that shows her gorgeous face).
Yet probably the most influential woman in Egyptian history, Hapshetsup, is a name most people haven't even heard, not to mention know anything of. She's way more interesting (to me at any rate) than Cleopatra or Nefertiti (though both may show up in later entries because both of them have some intriguing bits to their stories) and more of an inspiration as well. Nefertiti, though influential, got all of her influence from her husband. Cleopatra is more defined by the men in her life than by her own agency. But Hapshetsup? She ruled. Both literally and figuratively.
Testing the Strength of a Tesla Cybertruck Tow Hitch Using Construction Site Machinery