925, A Poem

I don't walk across the earth,

the earth moves under me.
And, if you dare to ask,
then I will tell you who I be.
You won't like it,but I'll tell you
that I'm G-O-to the D.
The only thing I understand
is there's no Dina Marie.
So He is all that I see,
or maybe He is a She.
But, then again, possibly,
Al-Ahad, Al-Wahid
is just too much to describe
and would rather be called We.
And if I leave a legacy,
no matter what the story be,
please make sure you erase me.
Concentrate all your belief
on your own divinity
then expand it out of that
and make it everything you see.


-Anonymous

The Medicalization of Childbirth, a Lie among Many

April 22, 2012

Some Aspects of the Medicalization of Childbirth

            Childbirth and a woman’s related natural bodily functions have become increasingly medicalized and, to some degree, viewed as an illness or disease which must be dealt with accordingly.  This opposes the true nature of a woman’s body and its functions.  In this paper, I will discuss the reasons leading up to this type of birthing culture as well as discuss some of the consequences of this birthing model on Western women.   My intention is to highlight evidence suggesting that Western birthing culture tends to disempower women and disconnect them from their own bodies and their children uneccissarily.

            It appears that, during childbirth in a hospital of an industrialized nation such as ours, women are assumed to be incompetent and in need of help.  Often times, a woman is rushed to a hospital, desperate for “help.”  A baby is coming and she can’t possibly do it on her own.  She believes she needs medical intervention.  Of course, this notion opposes the thousands of years prior to hospitals or industrialization or the Scientific Revolution during which a woman’s body was doing its part to keep our species alive with or without the help of modern technology.  How could this fear and expectation of trauma and the absolute need for help come to be?

            Firstly, it is important to understand the concept of authoritative knowledge and to describe where our authoritative knowledge pertaining to childbirth and motherhood is derived from. Davis-Floyd, while introducing the notion, states:

 56 “The central observation is that for any particular domain several knowledge systems exist, some of which, by consensus, come to carry more weight than others, either because they explain the state of the world better for the purposes at hand or because they are associated with a stronger power base, and usually both.  In many situations, equally legitimate parallel knowledge systems exist and people move easily between them, using them sequentially or in parallel fashion for particular purposes.  A consequence of the legitimation of one kind of knowing as authoritative is the devaluation, often the dismissal, of all other kinds of knowing.  Those who espouse alternative knowledge systems then tend to be seen as backward, ignorant, and naïve… Whatever they have to say about the issues up for negotiation is judged irrelevant, unfounded…”

            Helman, while discussing “The Origins of Western Birth Culture,” brings up several points on which I will hinge a major part of the discussion of this paper.  First, in terms of where our authoritative knowledge about childbirth originated, he mentions the Cartesian “body as machine” view which “established the male body as the prototype for this machine.”  Of course, a woman’s body can never be a man’s body and therefore cannot live up to this standard.  We can clearly see that, as Helman mentions, “the female body deviated from the male standard, so it was regarded as inherently abnormal, defective, dangerously unpredictable and under the influence of nature, and in need of constant manipulation by men.”171

            300Cartesian doctrine encourages a conceptual separation of mind and body as well. The body is seen as a machine.  When the machine breaks down, a technician is called in to repair it.  As the standard for this particular machine is based upon the male form, and the female derivation from it considered substandard, inevitably a technician will be needed to fix those derivations.   One could then logically pursue the idea that pregnancy and childbirth, being in extreme opposition to the male form, signify extreme need for the help of a technician. The fact that a woman enters into medical care or supervision upon conception of a child and then that care ends after birth reflects this notion.  Pregnancy is the malfunction; technology and medicine are the solutions.  The child is separated from the mother, leaving them both in a state more closely resembling the male prototype and, thus, repairing the machine to a large degree. 

(303)The birthing process is treated, quite often, as an assembly line with the baby presenting as the end product and, perhaps, the mother as nothing more than a component of the assembly line or a by-product of the process even.   This is evidenced by the following quote from a fourth year resident who states, “We shave ‘em, we prep ’em, we hook ‘em up to the IV and administer sedation.  We deliver the baby, it goes to the nursery and the mother goes to her room.  There’s no room for niceties around here.  We just move ‘em right on through.  It’s hard not to see it like an assembly line.”

The labor, for instance, is expected to conform to hospital standards in order to produce the baby, just as a factory has standards by which it is required to operate in order to produce its end product.  In The Technocratic Model of Birth, Davis-Floyd says that “the less conformity a labor exhibits, the greater the number of procedures that will be applied to bring it into conformity… the natural process of birth is deconstructed into identifiable segments, then reconstructed as a mechanical process.”   (302) One physician stated “There was a set, established routine for doing things, usually for the convenience of the doctors and nurses, and the laboring woman was someone you worked around, rather than with.”  Shedding more light on this mode of thought, Mckay, explains the history behind  our traditional dorsal recumbent position in which a Western woman is expected to be in during the second stage of labor when she writes that it “is not based so much in psychological principles as it is on the needs and convenience of the obstetrician… this posture originated in the 1600s when Mauriceau, a French obstetrician proposed it as an alternative to the commonly used birthing stool… because Mauriceau disliked having to carry the woman to her bed after delivery.”   

Jordan discusses the fact that even a woman’s natural hormones which are used during childbirth have been replaced with synthetic ones.  Jordan notes that pitocin, a synthetic version of oxytocin, is often administered to speed up labor when the medical team prepares for the delivery and the woman’s labor slows down.  Administering pitocin has been shown to decrease the production of oxytocin which plays a major role in mother-child bonding, something pitocin cannot do.  Also, there  is evidence to suggest that during the first hour after delivery there are significant increases in oxytocin levels which begin with the expulsion of the placenta.  It would appear that this is a crucial time for initiating the bond between mother and child and that the four hour post partum observation of the child by hospital staff is depriving them of this natural process.  (nissen)  Therefore, we can also see that the institution, or factory, takes precedence over the individual- either mother or child. 

            303Parelleling the separation of mind and body is the separation of mother and child. The new member of society is first observed by medical staff for four hours while lying in a plastic bassinet before being placed back into the arms of his or her mother.  Tests are done, medicines or vaccines administered.  It seems that Helman summed this up quite accurately when he refered to the process as being baptized into technology. Not only is this completely unnatural in terms of bonding between mother and child, but this act alone displays one way in which “society demonstrates conceptual ownership of its product.”  Thereafter, the baby is seen by a pediatrician while the mother sees her own doctor for follow up and it is quite clear that the two are very separate beings at this point.  Six weeks later, the mother leaves medical supervision, the process of rectifying the problem of her body/machine malfunction is done, and the child goes on to be vaccinated and tested routinely for years to come until finally being “confirmed” into the religion of medical technology once making the move from their pediatrician to their physician as an adult.

            So what does all of this mean for the psyche of the Western mother?  What messages are these practices sending her?  One way to interperet this birthing culture is through the lenses of control and power.  In this model, the technicians, or hospital staff, are in control.  They are the ones aware of what’s going on and administering the help or fix which the mother needs.  The mother is neither perceived to be in control of the situation nor have the power to be.  She is neither the factory nor the product.  She is merely one component of the mass production of social members.  Her rite of passage into motherhood is not acknowledged nor is her personal accomplishment cited as an important function in the process.  Essentially, her power and her worth are stripped from her and she is disconnected from herself, her child and her social identity.

            This message can be contrasted with fieldwork done by Jordan on Maya in rural Mexico.  In these communities, women are accompanied by and assisted by the people present during labor which could include family members, the village midwife and other women with experience in childbirth.  Each birth is individualized through “a shared store of knowledge…demonstrations, and remedies… a joint view of what is going on in this  labor, with this  woman-plus-baby, is constructed in which everybody involved in the birth participates… there is no one in charge here… the store of knowledge required for conducting a birth is created and recreated by all participants.” (Davis-Floyd, 60).

            In this model of birthing, the woman in not disconnected from herself through the notions of assembly line production nor is she separated from her role in society.  The mother is not looking for help or a fix.   There is no technician taking specific control of her problem.  There is no dominant authority. She remains an individual, within an inclusive network of family, and a central aspect of the end product, woman-plus-baby. The individualization of the process avoids the concept of conforming to standard practice and, therefore, the perceived need for interventions to bring the labor and birth up to the desired standards.  Their culture establishes the experienced and/or those vested with personal concern for the mother-plus-baby as the ones possessing the authoritative knowledge necessary for the specific birth- including the mother herself.  Through this, the mother is empowered in her roles as a woman, individual, family member and community member, reinforcing both kinship and social bonds.

            The information covered in this paper could be eye opening to many health care professionals in the West as well as women as individuals.  In understanding the social messages being sent to mothers-to-be, medical staff can shift their expectations of women towards a more natural and empowering method of interaction with them.  One change that can be made, and absoloutly should be made is having patience during the labor.  As mentioned in the introduction, birth is a natural process which has been accomplished more often than not without the intervention of medical technology.  It is an atrocity that womens bodies are being expected to adhere to the schedules or convenience of medical staff who she perceives as there to help her. In America, there has been an obvious breakdown of kinship bonds which I, myself, have witnessed progressing during my own short life.  This progression could be slowed,  perhaps, beginning with the separation of mother and child if we begin looking them as connected both to eachother and their family as well as to the society at large- even during childbirth.  Education about childbirth should come from a multitude of knowledge bases which connect the mother to her natural spheres of influence and not only from a separate and somewhat anonymous medical community who is only present during the onset of mechanical malfunction.    

The Sad Case of the Caveman (ooga booga)

It is well known and, hopefully, understood that movies and other forms of mass media don’t typically portray reality as it is. For the purpose of entertainment often mixed with some ulterior motives, movies tend to be a romanticized version of the facts.
The stereotyped caricature image of prehistoric man, who is sometimes referred to as the “caveman,” can refer to a wide range of time periods which are at times intermingled and disregard technologies and other progressions of the periods. The movie “10,000 B.C.” is a prime example of how the “caveman” image has been misconstrued. Modern archeology can, however, correct the inaccuracies which occur in the said movie as well as other depictions of prehistoric man in mass media.
One of the first questions to arise concerning the movie “10,000 B.C.” deals with dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Where are they? DNA evidence suggests dogs diverged from wolves about 100,000 years ago (Haag, 28). In reference to Bonn-Oberkassel, a German burial site containing intermingled human and dog remains, they were domesticated at least 14,000 years ago which makes them the earliest known example of domestication by humans (www.mnh.si.edu).
Based on the archeological record, horses, however, were not yet domesticated. “10,000 B.C.” portrays invaders on horse back. The earliest unambiguous direct evidence for horse domestication is provided by the Sintashta chariot burials. They date to roughly 2,000 B.C. and were found on the south Ural Steppe. Some archeologists believe that horse domestication could have occurred as far back as 4,000 B.C. but the evidence is unclear. Either way, these dates fall short of the 10,000 B.C. mark.
The movie portrays giant, flightless predatory birds. These birds, Titanis walleri, did really exist, but, again, in a completely different time and place and Titanis walleri never co-existed with humans. During an MSNBC interview, Bruce McFadden, a paleontologist from the Florida Museum of Natural history stated, “We found that the Titanis fossils were 2 million years old and not 10,000 years old as had been suggested. This also shows the last known occurrence of Titanis in the fossil record and reflects its extinction.” The fossils referred to here were from North America and it is unlikely that, if they lived in Europe or Africa, the birds existed any time near 10,000 B.C. There did exist a much smaller carnivorous bird in parts of both North America and Europe named Gastornis. Gastornis was not only smaller than the birds depicted in “10,000 B.C.”, however. The youngest known Gastornis remains date to 45 million years ago and, thus, did not co-exist with humans either (Beauffetaut, 359).
Another prehistoric animal shown in the movie is commonly referred to as a saber-toothed tiger. When reflecting on the size of the animal depicted, it is obviously a reference to some type of Smilodon. Although the most recent known Smilodon fossils found do date to as late as 10,000 B.C., Smilodon remains are only found in the western hemisphere. There did exist in Africa and Eurasia another machairodontine cat, Homotherium, with a smaller body mass than that of the Smilodons. However, the youngest Homotherium fossils suggest the species died out in Africa about 1.5 million years ago and about 30,000 years ago in Eurasia for climatic reasons (Turner, 219-244).
.
Whether the movie takes place in Europe or Africa is debatable but in either case the mammoths depicted are completely unrealistic. If the movie takes place in sub-Saharan North Africa, which is the general assumption, one should be aware of the fact that there is no archaeological record of either Mammuthus primogenus or Mammut americanum populations in that area at any time and were basically extinct at the time in question. Mastodons, mammoth genetic cousins, may have roamed North America at the time, but were likely on the verge of extinction. The land was as dry as it is today which is an improbable landscape for woolly mammoths anyhow (Clark, 60-64).
As mentioned, the film depicts dessert landscape although desertification did not begin to occur in the north of Africa until about 2500 B.C. There are also scenes depicting tundra and steppe, which is unlikely considering the fact that the area endured little glacial impact (Clark, 57-59). At the end of the movie, the lead characters are given seeds to grow by what appears to be Africans. This doesn’t make much sense either because it is common knowledge that those plants would never survive in the icy cold mountains the main characters come from.
The Iron Age in Europe started at about 1,000 B.C. In “10,000 B.C.,” the humans in the movie are readily using iron in the forms of axes and swords, for example. One of the earliest examples of iron workings globally is iron beads worn in ancient Egypt around 4,000 B.C. and they were merely rubbed smooth like stones commonly were. Other than that, the oldest known iron artifact shaped by hammering is a dagger, also from Egypt of Hittite workmanship, circa 1350 B.C. (www.answers.com).
The movie also has some Egyptian/Atlantis stuff going on (for lack of a better term). There are pyramids, huge temples and a Sphinx. Archaeological records indicate that the mega-building period in Egypt occurred around the same time that Stonehenge was built and is estimated to be circa 2,500 B.C., after the unification of the Upper and Lower Kingdoms provided the man power and resources for such a project. Although radiocarbon dating has been problematic in Egypt, 2,500 B.C. is an estimate based on king’s lists and the Egyptian civil calendar. Along with these depictions is a river, assumed to be the Nile. However, there is no sign of vegetation, only sand. The Nile River would be lush and green, probably with palms. Based on soil analysis and knowledge of unusually strong rains in central Sahara contributing to local runoff from Sudanese tributaries, it is assumed that the area actually suffered violent floods from 15,500 B.C. until about 9,000 B.C (Koch, 26-33).
An obvious fault of the movie lies in the English language being spoken. Of course, one might expect that from a movie for practical purposes, but it is an inaccuracy nonetheless. Even Old English, a conglomerate of North Western European Germanic languages, which replaced Celtic, was spoken from about 450 A.D. to 1000 A.D. after Anglo-Saxon migrations to the British Isles (Arnold, 44), proven through Y chromosome haplogroup analysis. Anglo-Saxon migrations are also hinted at in literature such as Beowulf (ca. 1000 A.D.) and the writings of Gildas (ca. 540 A.D.) and Bede (731 A.D.). The language transformed even further after the Norman invasion of 1066, which is documented through written language as well (Arnold, 45). Place names derived from Proto-Germanic languages first appear in England circa 500 A.D. Thus there is ultimately no evidence whatsoever that the English language was spoken whatsoever 12,000 years ago (Arnold, 44-63).
“10,000 B.C.” is far from being the only image of a misconstrued version of prehistoric man, however. The comic strip Alley Oop was created in 1932 by V.T Hamlin. The main character (perhaps Neanderthal?) rides a pet dinosaur. There has never been any archeological or paleontological records dating human remains and dinosaur remains contemporaneously. He lives in a place called Moo and fights with villagers from Lem. These are apparent references to the fabled lost continents of Mu and Lemuria which was a popular theory at the advent of the comic and later discredited with modern knowledge of plate tectonics.
Another comic strip example of prehistoric man is Tor, created by Joe Kubert and debuting in 1953. The story of Tor is said to take place a million years ago. As mentioned earlier, the earliest example of animal domestication known involves dogs about 14,000 years ago, yet Tor has some version of a domesticated monkey on his shoulder. Another interesting topic worth noting, and is by no means exclusive to Tor’s world of a million years ago is that of prehistoric clothing. In the comic strip people wear loin cloths and the garments pertaining to women always cover their breasts which is probably more of a tribute to Western morals than to archaeological data. Genetic analysis of body lice suggest the species probably originated about 107,000 years ago and may have coincided with the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago into cooler areas. Because humans have very little body hair, lice need clothing to survive (Kittler, 1414-1417).
The idea of prehistoric man living in caves is not completely unrealistic, although over exaggerated. Of course, our ancestors did not live in ranch style houses of rock as seen in The Flintstones, however. People have lived in caves throughout most of human history. This was not always the case, however. Aside from the obvious examples of well preserved cave paintings (i.e. the cave of Lascaux in France), this is evidenced in the simple fact that some people still do live in caves. As of 2005, an estimated 40 million people in Yanan, China lived in caves. Keep in mind that the locals both have access to and utilize modern technology such as refrigerators and television. They claim that one benefit of cave dwellings is that the shelters are naturally cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Another major factor in the decision by so many to choose a cave to live in pertains to the difficulty in manipulating the hard mountainous soils of the region (Yu, www.thingsasian.com). For most living creatures, the decision to create some sort of settlement is most often based on convenience whether it is due to the issues of geography, safety or resources.
Thus, it is true that prehistoric man could have, and probably would have, thought a cave to be a legitimate structure for habitation. The oldest known human habitats, however, are not of stone. It is possible that huts of dirt, wood, leaves, grass or a combination of materials could have been built as early as 500,000 years ago. A site in Chichibu, Japan, dates to a time contemporary with Homo erectus who was capable of building a relatively sturdy structure. The site consists of ten post holes believed to be the remains of huts which are accompanied by a variety of stone tools.
The stereotypical prehistoric man tends to be quite ignorant to his surroundings and may repeat the same mistakes over and over again. It is true that cranial sizes slowly increased over the 4 million years of human existence. However, basic observations and analysis of one’s surroundings is a simple concept displayed by lower order animals as well as upper order life forms. Through evolution, humans are designed to abandon any instinctive behavior in favor a more beneficial one. Things like curiosity, cooperation and inventiveness (some of the driving forces behind survival) are instinctual and cannot be changed by education. However, the self-discipline it takes to modify an instinct gives humans the ability to be trained through experience (Calvin).
Mass media is not designed for the dissemination of knowledge. Rather, it is more useful for disseminating novel ideas for the purposes of entertainment. This is the sad case of the “caveman.” He is seen as barbaric, incompetent, dim witted, and fantastical. With science, however, it is possible to honor the true image of our ancestors and respect them for their innovations and adaptability.

The Berlin Conference and Rwanda, observations

Late in 1884, several major European powers held a conference to discuss the future of Africa, “the dark continent.” Most of the interior of Africa had not been seen by European explorers yet. Nonetheless, these Western nations, including France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Great Britain and the United States (fourteen nations total), sat down with their host, Chancellor Otto Von Bismark of Germany, to carve Africa into spheres of European influence in response to the “scramble for Africa.” Concerned with European trade and industry interests and attempting to keep good relations between European powers, the Berlin Conference essentially gave parts of Africa to parts of Europe. This decision, which unfortunately did not incorporate Africans in the process, has had far reaching effects on Africa.
Before the Conference, Europe’s involvement within Africa was limited to coastal regions where they established some settlements. Great Britain, Portugal and France had the largest involvement in Africa. Europe was becoming industrialized, with Great Britain possibly being the very first industrialized nation. Thus Europe was in need of resources such as cotton, rubber and tea which were not available domestically and came from Asia or the Americas. Africa, although its resources were barely known to Europe as of yet, seemed to offer an alternate supply.
There were other interests Europe had in Africa as well. Many people in Europe believed that Africans were uncivilized, unintelligent and un-Christian in their ways. Somewhere along the line, the idea was propagated as an obligation. Europeans, including explorers, scientists and missionaries, believed that it was their Christian duty to “civilize” the continent of Africa. This idea is called the “white man’s burden.”
Europeans had begun exploring Africa before the Conference, and some nations had claimed spheres of influence over certain regions. Colonization was not officially initiated, however, until the Conference.
Colonialism was part of the transition from exploitation in Africa based on an agricultural Western economy to exploitation based on an industrial one. When the Berlin Conference took place, Spain was not sufficiently industrialized and, therefore, could not compete in the changing economy. Hence, more industrious nations took the forefront. Germany, Portugal, France and Great Britain were competing for resources and cheap labor to support their ongoing industrialization. The race between these four powers resulted in the Berlin Conference.
During the Conference, certain terms were agreed upon before the division of Africa. These terms were designed to prevent tension between the powers involved in the Conference. The first term was that the colonizing nation must prove that they can effectively control an area. Free European trade and access to the Congo and Niger River basins was agreed upon next. Any nation involved was also required to campaign against the slave trade in their territory and allow Christians of all sects the ability to establish missionaries in the territories.
The Berlin Conference did manage to prevent wars amongst European nations. However, the Conference was designed to benefit Europe in disregard of the African people. The traditional rule of nations changed under European control, as did education and religion. Colonial rule in Africa forced Western culture, priorities, economics, religion, politics and world views on to the indigenous people. African people were segregated, discriminated against and exploited economically. European colonies in Africa were small dictatorships who were at the mercy of their imperialist, oppressive rulers.
The colonial division of Africa did not end with the Conference in 1885. In 1914, Egypt was the last to be annexed when it was taken over by Great Britain. Only Ethiopia and Liberia remained outside of colonial rule. In 1936, however, Ethiopia was finally dominated by Italy who had attempted to establish colonial rule several times before. Liberia eventually became a victim of American economic imperialism but remained outside of official colonial rule.
Until after World War I, Rwanda was under the control of colonial Germany. Before German rule, Hutu and Tutsi people lived amongst one another, intermarrying, speaking the same language, practicing the same religion, using the same land and tracing their ancestors to a common people. Colonialism played a large part in changing this way of life and Rwanda is merely one example of how the Berlin Conference and colonialism still effect Africa today.
According to a European myth, Hutu were decendents of Bantu people and are “black Africans” while the Tutsi were decendents of a variety of Nilotic peoples. In the mind of German explorers Tutsi people appeared taller, lighter and more aristocratic which made them more suitable candidates for “civilization” than the Hutu. Also, Tutsi were mainly herders as opposed to the Hutu who were agriculturalists. Cattle was a valuable asset in the eyes of Europe and seemed to denote wealth which reinforced their ideas about the Tutsi.
After World War I, Germany was forced to resign its colonial territories and Belgium took control of Rwanda. The country was severly polarized by this time due to the unfair priveledge allotted the Tutsi under colonial rule. Tutsi received leadership positions and became the security and beurocratic wings of the colonial government while the Hutu were treated like slaves.
One of the first actions Belgium took after acquiring Rwanda was send armies of missionaries into the area. With the missionaries came scientists who weighed brains and measured noses to further propagate racial myths. The analysis done by the Belgian scientists insisted that the Hutu were coarse and bestial while the Tutsi were nobler by nature. The Catholic Church backed Belgium in reconstructing Rwanda along racial lines. By the 1930s a Belgian census produced identity cards for the people of Rwanda. In turn, the Catholic Church established schools that exclusively taught Tutsis and indoctrinated the students with the notion of racial superiority.
When the idea of Rwandan independence arose, the Belgians switched sides, however. Suddenly there were masses of Belgian priest preaching Hutu “empowerment” and “equality” in preparation for independence. Empowerment and equality basically translated to power and retribution and the European divide and conquer tactics worked again.
Strategies and practices like what happened in Rwanda were common practice under colonial rule in Africa. In the case of Rwanda, the divide created by Europeans between the Tutsi and Hutu eventually resulted in Tutsis being massacred by Hutu in the early 1990s.
It is clear that this was a result of the open wounds left from the division placed between the integrated Tutsi and Hutu societies by Rwanda’s colonial rulers, explorers, and scientists born of the Berlin Conference. The Tutsi/Hutu society of pre-colonial Rwanda had been ripped apart and the thus created factions then set against one another. Had the Berlin Conference not occurred, had Germany never ruled, had the explorers never set foot in Rwanda, if there was no state called Rwanda, what type of relationship could the Tutsi and Hutu have with each other today? Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what could have happened had the state of Rwanda not been carved out during the Berlin Conference of 1884.

Some Thoughts on Ghana, (just a few)

Both the history and the current state of African politics and economics are drenched in complexities. Where Africa stands relative to modern capitalist world economic powers leaves the continent in a position of dependency and open to exploitation. After fifty years of political independence, many regions remain unstable, impoverished, and unable to either compete with global powers or become self sustaining.
Although many great thinkers have brought forth various ideas about where African politics and economics should head, there are three perspectives which will be discussed here. These hypotheses were, quite obviously, founded on the events and issues corresponding to Africa during the era in which they were conceived. Although the ideas can conflict, the reader should keep in mind that each theory is backed by passion, logic, and an earnest desire to invest in the resurrection of the Mother Land and her children.
During the first wave of African independence, Ghana was an example of statism being used in an effort to expedite modernization. Kweme Nkrumah may have intended on transforming Ghana into a trend setter in the eyes of the west. His economic plans for the country included varied agriculture and industry working symbiotically. In The Origins of Modern African Thought, Robert William July states “Productivity had to be increased significantly and changed from subsistence farming to a commodity cultivation carefully designed to provide adequate food for a steadily rising population while supplying local industry with raw materials and producing cash crops which could pay for necessary imports”(July 2004, 470). His method for application was to centralize economic power and planning which included establishing one party-rule of the state. It should be noted, however, that a one party state may have been an effort to create a sense of nationalism and unity within Ghana as well.
Under British colonial rule, Ghana exported cocoa to a degree that verged on excluding crop diversification. To combat this problem, Nkrumah directed attention towards other potential exports such as rubber, coffee, palm products and tobacco. Diversifying Ghana’s exports could potentially protect against price fluctuations felt by international markets (July 2004, 470). Nkrumah’s plans seemingly relied on a little of everything, taking a somewhat “post-modern view… that Africa uses whatever works” (Hudson 2009). In this case, at the birth of African independence, Ghana was attempting to diversify its assets and compete in a modern economic paradigm.
The goals appear honest and sincere, but many problems were to arise with the attempt to modernize and the use of statism. The centralization of the government brought about the socialization of the agricultural system and, thus, diminished wages for farmers who began migrating to urban areas. The government took control of the cocoa industry which was sold on the international market at inflated prices while the cocoa farmers saw less and less of their earnings. Also, larger cities contained government run centralized facilities such as universities, hospitals and other such “modern” services. Urban centers had high unemployment rates and the farmers struggled.
Ghana’s attempt at industrialization was somewhat blunderous. A canning plant intended to can about 7,000 tons of mangoes per year was built and the cost was well over budget. Shortly thereafter, it was found that barely any wild mango trees grew in the region and that it would take years for new trees to bear fruit. Another example was the government’s attempt at creating a shoe industry. The shoe plants were located at a great distance from the cattle industry, making the necessary leather and tanning facilities nearly inaccessible (Koney 2006). Simply put, Ghana was experiencing urbanization without industrialization.
The International Monetary Fund invested in Nkrumah’s plans. In 1973, however, the IMF began asking for early reimbursement of the loans made towards the failed projects in Ghana (Hudson 2/10/09). Ghana remained underdeveloped and dependent on the West. As Mazrui said, “100 years of African colonial rule demands structural revolution to make right 500 years of systematic exploitation” (Mazrui 1986). Africa needed to be reinvested in by those that stole from the continent and reaped the benefits of such thievery. Included in this idea is debt relief for cases such as that of Ghana.
Many people believe that the only way for Africa to survive is to compete in a neo-liberal economic paradigm. It seemed as though Ghana made an attempt which only created a sustained dependency on the West and further exploitation from global investors. Africa began to try out new leadership styles. Examples include Rhodesia/Zimbabwe under Mugabe’s rule and Mandela’s South Africa (Hudson 2/12/09). Mugabe is an example of highly corrupted statism, as with Ghana, where the power wielding elite benefit at the expense of the masses. This type of exploitation is usually initiated under the cover of forming a national identity.
Centralized political and economic planning can be cause for hope as well, however. When centralized, an economy could potentially be more closely guided in the desired direction. As mentioned in the case of Ghana, although a failure in practice, statism may help expedite a nation’s leap into the 20th century after hundreds of years of systematic exploitation. Different types of systems, both economic and political, were toyed with to move towards the “structural revolution” Mazrui demands (Hudson 2009).
Surely there are those who are enamored with the idea of Sankofa, returning to an era before Africa was defiled by the West. It is true that before European influence Africa contained many rich kingdoms, economic systems and trade routes that had been well established for hundreds of years in some cases. Perhaps Africans can return to this era in some metaphorical sense, but the sheer fact of the matter is that there has been too much damage done to allow for the necessary unification and direction of the entire continent towards the application of Sankofa. The poverty and conflicts within Africa (which I would term the results of European intrusion) make the return home seem impossible.

Santa Claus Can Suck A ****

I am sick of Christmas, and especially Santa Claus. Yes, he was a real person. Yes, he was generous to the less fortunate. Perhaps he deserves recognition for that, but not in this way. If Christmas is supposedly a religious holiday, and Santa Claus is a saint, then shouldn't there be an underlying understanding that we should thank God for what we have and the people He has blessed with generosity? Instead, we surround ourselves with pagan symbolism, ignore our parents in favor of toys, and thank some fat, magical white guy. "Oh thank you, rich white man, for all these gluttonous possessions." Ok, ok, I know it's hard to see it that way. The only difficulty you are having right now in visualizing how useful this type of propaganda can be is that you have been trained from birth to accept these persuasions. So the next time you get ready to write "From Santa"on the tag of a new bicycle, think about how many hours you put in at work to buy it, and how blessed you are to have a job... and stop. Write YOUR name in the "From" spot. And when your children finish opening their presents, have a family prayer time in recognition of who really provided the gifts. This would be a much more appropriate celebration that would be closer to worship than the typical Christmas. Although hard to convince people of, the MOST appropriate version of Christmas would be a Christmas where we tear down the pagan symbols (i.e. Christmas trees and reindeer) and give away things to people who are in NEED of things. As people of the line of Abraham (PBUH) we have an obligation to provide people with basic necessities and, based on the luxurious Christmas's possible in America, we have more than enough to do that. God would be praised in that way.

Obama: Friend or Foe (Maybe Both)

So he won! I voted for him and I am excited about the future. At least, I'm much more excited than I was four years ago. I mean, it appears that he is the lesser of two evils. He's still a politician. He had to reject Jeremiah Wright for the campaign, and I guess we can all understand why. He can't complain about Israel, and I guess we can all understand that as well. I guess. He's just a politician, right? He's gotta play the game to win. What that means is that he's still the elite even if he is half black. Of course, you know, he's ALMOST acceptable to the system as a black man because they always have his white half in the back of their mind yet can still call him black. I'm sure he'll help incite changes in the government, but we must never forget that although individuals are to blame for certain decisions it is the ENTIRE SYSTEM AS IT STANDS TODAY that supports and gives rise to the elitists within it. Will he talk of reparations (whether one agrees with the idea or not, it should be discussed)? Will he help every non-white and/or poor person in prison be retried by a jury of their peers? Will he admit that Jeremiah Wright is more sane than most people? Well I believe the answers to questions like this lie in the simple fact that the system itself will not allow him to- whether he wants to or not. Please, just don't forget that Obama is not some sort of savior, he's a politician.

White Girl Repatriates to Africa

Damn, this is not something I really like to think about, but I know someone has to. I honestly hate the fact that I have to even think about what color my skin is. It wouldn’t be an issue in my mind if people hadn’t told me to look at it. People think I’m crazy, but I really feel like I relate to and feel patriotic about Africa and not western culture. People don’t take me seriously because of that, like I can’t possibly mean the things I say or understand the things I claim to. Racism and what’s called “post-colonialism” are direct causes of what Mandela refers to as “two features of African life in South Africa…. poverty and lack of dignity.” I am sickened by the way Western Europe has destroyed the lives and wills of billions of people and has touched every inch of the earth with a destructive force. It is not to say that every single person in or descended from the region is an asshole. In my experience, however, I think most white people don’t understand the gravity of their “little biases”. At this point, ignorance is not an excuse. I think Africa needs to be repatriated, especially by the good people living in Babylon, regardless of their color, because they understand how Babylon works and, perhaps, how to fight fire with fire. I think everyone came from Africa and Europe has used it as the continent of resources and resorts for too long. I think that every country involved in colonialism and/or the African slave trade should be paying to develop the continent according to what Africans want. We owe it to them. And don’t ask me where the money would come from! We waste so much of the world’s resources that I’m sure we can figure something out… we always find a way to fund a war. I also don’t want to hear the freedom of choice bullshit…. Like Americans should be able to choose whether to give what they “own” because “freedom is the foundation of the United States.” We are so wasteful and sickeningly fat and spoiled that it’s sinful and we can’t blame starving or oppressed people for being angry at us for not only hoarding resources but also wasting them in a profuse manner while others suffer. Impoverished people (I mean physically and spiritually) don’t have freedom of choice. No one would talk about freedom of choice if they were watching their babies die of starvation and there is NOTHING you can do about it short of cutting off your own toe and feeding it to the emaciated, innocent creature looking up at you with forgiveness (pause to wipe eyes, blow nose). This is real, and every day in America we reap the benefits of other’s suffering. And what do we really get? Dependency on the murderers to keep us comfortable and separate from those we rob, because it’s too hard to accept. So we aren't free either. It’s happening right now, as I’m watching my cable television talk at me about Jeremiah Wright being just some “angry black man”…. I wonder why.

A Breif Overview of the Use and Reverance of Cannibis

Throughout history, human beings have attempted to use the plants around them to improve their quality of life. Through trial and error we have learned a great deal about what natural resource best serves what purpose. Certain plants ease certain maladies while others supply nutrition or thread. There is, however, one plant that seems to stand out as an amazingly renewable and versatile resource. The various strains of cannabis available to mankind have contributed to such a degree as to become a component of spirituality to many - revered as a blessing.

The book of Exodus, in the Old Testament, records an ancient recipe for anointing oil. This included about six and a half liters of olive oil along with over nine pounds of flowering cannabis tops, Hebrew “kaneh-bosm.” In the Temple of Solomon, 20,000 incense burners were passed around filled with kaneh-bosm, followed by the biggest meal of the week. The title “Christ” is Greek, means “Anointed One”. The title in itself at least implies that Jesus was anointed in the typical method used for Hebrew kings who were completely soaked in the oil.

After the discovery of the Book of Law (1 Kings 23), the holy anointing oil was associated with pagan worship and banned. Some sects of Judaism still practiced the older religion in secret, waiting for another Messiah-king of the line of David. For these people, amongst others, Jesus was the return of the Jewish Messiah-kings, and the holy anointing oil re-emerged. There are many parallels between the anointing of Saul and David by Samuel in the Old Testament and the anointing of Jesus by John the Baptist including “visions” (Herer, pages 232-235). Today we would call it a “high”. To the ancients, it might have been referred to as “being possessed with the spirit of the Lord”.

Hundreds of years later, another social movement invited cannabis into their traditions. After their discovery of cannabis, certain Sufi Muslims came to believe it held the spirit of the prophet Elijah. The legend of the Sufi master Sheik Haidar of Khorasan’s personal discovery of cannabis is one of the earliest known narratives about the intoxicating effects. For Sufis, eating ma’joun, a chewy cannabis confection was part of worship. According to Sufi al-Is’irdi there was a hidden benefit in cannabis use which allowed the user to experience peaks of disembodied understanding.

Scythians probably spread cannabis use along with goddess worship through the Near East on to Europe. Their version of a goddess mother of life and death was Rhea Krona. In Scythian mythology, she would reap her children after their death with a scythe. This agricultural tool, named after the Scythians, had been designed for reaping cannabis harvests. Popular images today depict The Grim Reaper with a scythe stemming from this mythology. Herodotus told of the Scythians use of cannabis in the fifth century BCE:

“On a framework of tree sticks, meeting at the top, they stretch pieces of woolen cloth. Inside this tent they put a dish with hot stones on it. Then they take some hemp seed, creep into the tent, and throw the seed on the hot stones. At once it begins to smoke, giving off a vapour unsurpassed by any vapour bath one could find in Greece. The Scythians enjoy it so much they howl with pleasure.”

One group of ancient worshipers worth mentioning is those of the goddess Ashera. Ashera seemed to be revered even by the Hebrews. Supposedly, King Solomon burned incense to Ashera, Queen of Heaven. Images of Ashera often depict her holding snakes, and her worshipers believed the serpent in the Garden of Eden was sent by her. The Tree of Knowledge was cannabis and brought enlightenment to the earth when the serpent advised Eve to ignore the male god’s command not to partake of it. Worshipers praised her for the knowledge she brought through the Tree of Life.

Although some argue that there may be negative consequences to cannabis use, it has been noted as one of the least harmful medicines available, even today. Ancient Egyptians knew well the ability of cannabis to heal. They were some of the first people outside of Asia to discover the antiseptic and analgesic properties of the plant. However, neither Egypt nor Europe knew of the psychoactive properties of the plant until the middle ages when crusaders and Arabs spread Cannabis Sativa. Both the Egyptian and European climates had yielded mostly Cannabis Indica which contains much lower levels of THC.

The first documentation of cannabis in ancient Egypt was around 2,000 BCE. It was apparently used to treat eyesores and perhaps cataracts. Eber’s Papyrus (circa 1600 BCE) offers a treatment for gonorrhea where cannabis is ground in honey and administered to the vagina. It was also used in simpler maladies such as preparing a compound for in grown toe nails or enema preparations. According to Deodorus Siculus, a Sicilian Greek historian who lived from 90 BCE to 21 BCE, it was used to cure sorrow by Egyptian women as well.

During the Dark Ages, the Roman Catholic Church dispersed a number of edicts against scientific research, medical research in particular. Arabic medicine, however, was way ahead of it’s time. Their medical practices were delicate enough to perform cesarean sections as well as complicated eye surgery. Cannabis was used for numerous treatments ranging from swelling and post-partum depression to seizures and mania and was administered in various ways.

As mentioned, for some Sufi Muslims, cannabis holds the spirit of the prophet Elijah. Medieval alchemists such as Paracelsus also refer to Elias, which is equal to Elijah, when discussing Cannabis. A major contributor towards the practical use of cannabis during medieval times was a Benedictine monk and qualified Bachelor of Medicine named Francois Rabelais (1494-1553). He was familiar with the alchemical writings of the Sufis. One of Rabelais’s books, “Pentagruel”, being a metaphor for the good works of cannabis, was greeted with outrage by the Roman Catholic Church who considered it heretical. He was known to have taught common people Greek so that they could translate scriptures directly and prescribed cannabis to those who yearned for enlightenment, noting ignorance as a malady. One can assume this angered the Papacy further, eventually forcing Rabelais into exile and it is mainly unknown what happened to him thereafter. Rabelais even went on to consider cannabis the greatest of plants and spoke in great length about the transcendental properties available. He was completely enamored with the plant, always emphasizing the infinite beauty of it.

One of the most common medical uses of cannabis across the board has always been for labor pains during childbirth. This may be due to the fact that most deities associated with cannabis were female. The goddess Ashera in the Near East was closely associated with the Egyptian goddess Seshat, “Queen of the Seven Points.” However, there may be a more intricate aspect. Some active compounds in cannabis have a molecular resemblance to the female hormone estrogen. Although ancient peoples had no way of knowing this, many did know that menstrual fluid and cannabis were equally good fertilizers. Also cannabis seeds contain gamma linoleic acid which is only found in three other seed oils and human mother’s milk (notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/cult-fem.htm). Perhaps the connection between the fairer of the sexes and cannabis is instinctual. One very obvious reason for cannabis use during childbirth was that the only other option at any given point was opium which caused drowsiness among mother and child.

Hemp for textile use comes from the stalk of the cannabis plant. During the Middle Ages, flax was most widely used, but hemp held second place and was less costly. Even with church mandates against it, cannabis grew naturally from the northern Baltic region to southern Italy. It was easily accessible because of this. It was used in Europe for fuel in the form of oil and it was used for underclothing because it could me made to have a silky texture. It could also be used as a coarse fiber. The word “canvas” originates from cannabis and it was common for things such as dish towels to be made of it. Another common use was for cordage, particularly used for long bows since it was both strong and pliable (de Bonnevile, pages 67-78, 117, 312).

There are mass amounts of necessary nutrition in cannabis. Scythians ate it regularly. Throughout Europe it was used for gruel, and most ancients ate the seeds during travel at some point, especially nomads. Aside from the confections of the Near East, Polish, German and Russian natives made it into pies.

There are too many references and too much information about the uses and reverence of cannabis to be mentioned here. It appears that the only opponents of cannabis throughout known history have been those in a position of authority. Proponents of cannabis use in any form have felt oppressed and the common thread between them has been a desire for enlightenment, merriment, and good health. According to many, the oppression of cannabis use is a fight between good and evil. To this day, the fight continues.

To Compete or Not to Compete

Competition has a time and place in which it is appropriate. The one and only circumstance under which a person should compete is when the opponent is themselves. When one competes with their present self in order to see a better self in the future, great things can happen. We should all strive to win in the race for self improvement.

What does it mean if you win a competition at which you are more skilled or experienced? It simply means you are more skilled or experienced. What if the victor is left with the impression that they are the “best”? Where does he or she go next? Perhaps motivation is lost when one competes with others and wins. When competing with ones self, however, there is no limit to “best” because you are in a never ending rivalry with your present “best.”

It seems to me that even competition for food and other resources is a negative concept. It is true that other animals need to compete for necessities even to the point of what some would call violence. Be that as it may, human beings are very different in the sense that we can choose how we obtain resources, how we manage resources, and what resources we use. In this day and age, I feel that the human competition for resources is invalid. Human beings can manipulate the world around them in amazing ways. At this point in globalization, we should be united enough as a species to collectively compete with our present “best” using a conglomerate of our resources.

The idea of solely competing against yourself can be difficult, but it’s something I try to apply to my own life. In college, I have learned to compete academically with myself much more than against others. If my grades are improving, it doesn’t matter to me what grades my peers have. In the long run, I will have to deal with the grade listed under my name, not theirs.

It is true that competing against others can motivate a person to improve on a skill or ability. However, it is more productive to combine skills, abilities and talents for a common goal. At some point in evolution (both physical and mental), competition amongst humans was necessary not only for daily survival, but also as a platform on which to learn about the essence of competition. Today, I find it inefficient and immature in an evolutionary sense.

Love and the Plane of oneness

What is love? Where does it come from? Who and what are worthy of love? Is love positive, negative, neutral or a combination of the three? Is it even possible to explain love in earthly terms? I will attempt to answer some of these questions, but I make no promises.

Love, as far as I can tell, is the ability to project yourself and your connection with Allah into wanting the best for someone. Allah exists on a plane of oneness. It goes beyond mere connection. Everything (which also equals nothing, by the way) exists as one. Energy is still energy in any form. Love is what leads you to understand this oneness. Love taps into the connections that we all have to each other and the rest of existence (and non-existence, by the way).

As to whether love is positive or negative depends on one’s definition of positive and negative. If positive is all that’s “good” and negative is all that’s “bad” then love is positive. However, if your definition of positive and negative include the concept of balance then love plays a role on both ends. Without negative, there is no positive. Movement in either direction is positive in terms of the first definition because it equals balance which is a “good” thing. Love is balance- the way Allah holds the oneness together.

People often question, ‘who is worthy of love?” Well, since positive and negative are actually “positive” and we all exist on an infinite plane of oneness which is Allah, we are all equal and important and we each have a specific role in the balance that holds it together. Therefore, all forms of energy deserve love, the pathway to understanding the oneness and accepting it.

Seperation of Earth and State

There are not many Americans left who can live on the land. At some point, someone figured out that regulating, processing, and packaging our food would be an efficient way of controlling the human race. If we couldn't DEPEND on the supermarkets, the FDA, the government, the trucks, planes, freezers, plastic packaging, and slave labor, how would we know what to eat or how to get it? Do you smell the sickness yet? What if we only ate the foods that grew naturally on the land we claimed? For one thing, maybe we could slow the deforestation of places life west Africa for peanut farming and South America for coffee and cocoa. We could also recognize all of the ingredients in our food for a change since we could potentially see it growing. If we knew the land that the Lord has provided us, we wouldn't have to rely on the FDA to alert us about harmful foods across the country. If you ate something bad, it couldn't have spread far, right? If we only ate local foods, we wouldn't have to rely on plastic packaging that just ends up in a landfill and crazy artificial preservatives. Admit it, you don't know where your food or "food product" has been, or even what it is sometimes. You wonder why you don't feel well? We were made to eat real food within a reasonable amount of time after death. This whole thing is sick. A lot of people make a lot of money and earn a lot of power through this exploitation. Since we don't know how to grow or even forage for our food, there is no way for us to be independent of the industries and politicians taking advantage of our ignorance. They think they are God. We must arm ourselves against this regime with knowledge and a sincere desire to connect with the Lord and the blessings He bestowed upon us through the earth.

Evolution vs. Creationism

Did we evolve? Were we created? The answer to both questions may be yes. The arguments against both ideas are not worth debate. Neither disproves or negates the other. The Lord created us and that cannot be disputed. The theory of evolution seems to make a lot of sense. The Lord never said we weren't made in that way. The only thing to remember is that evolution is just a theory at this point whereas the Lord has made it clear to us that He is the creator. The Lord said we came from the dust, from clay. Perhaps this is a reference to the minute organisms He spawned us from. In that case, He made the minute organisms and the circumstances in which they would grow. Still, He is the creator. The seven days refered to as the time it took to create the earth is debatable in interpretation. However, the point of the story of creation isn't how long it took for Him to create us. Time is irrelevant since the Lord is infinite. How He created us and how long it took should be on the back burner as questions we would like to understand in an effort to further prove His glory. The main point to remember is that He made us in whatever miraculous way He chose. Being that He works in ways we can't always understand, one cannot rule out evolution altogether.

Medicine and such...

Here in America, we supposedly have one of, if not the, best health care systems in the world. This would make sense since a large part of our society is based on making us sick in one way or another. We act as though alcohol, sex, and other harmful diversions are natural ways of dealing with stress. We are thoroughly convinced that "quick-fixes" are the answer to all our problems. When you get sick, you take medicine so you can go to work. Your immune system is low, fighting off the sickness, you add drugs to your body, and you don't get rest. You never truly recover. Your body doesn't get what it really needs, which is rest. The drug companies get what they want when you feel you need the medicine to survive. The big ugly corporations we work for get what they want when they can squeeze every last penny out of your time and body. We are encouraged to use up all of our strength so that we are in a state of weakness. Weak people can't rise to their full potential. When you don't have a lot of money, a dollar loaf of "white bread" and a ninety-nine cent package of bologna go a lot further than grilled chicken breast on whole wheat bread. In this way, the poor are kept even weaker. So far, we have no recovery time and no nutrition. In this state of weakness, we cannot rise up against the oppressors. The FDA is only good for making sure we have access to non-food products so that the real food can cost more in comparison. Last year, they approved teflon as a food additive. Artificial colorings and preservatives and "meat products" are the "soilent" of our time. First rule of thumb; if you can't identify something, you shouldn't eat it.
Have you noticed that there are always drug commercials on? We are always being told we are sick. There's always a new pill for a new problem. Depression, although a real problem, is given an identity when you give it the name "depression." Everyone is told they need some kind of drug to care for them. At the same time, marijuana, which serves an immense amount of purposes both medical and non-medical, is oppressed as though it were satan himself. The drug industry knows that if marijuana were allowed to rise to it's full potential there would be almost no need for them. The tobacco industry realizes the competition as well. The two are joined again when you take a look at the fact that without the health problems associated with cigarettes the medical industry would lose out financially as well. The medical industry wants you to be sick so they can pretend to fix it, meanwhile making you sicker in another way so you will always be dependent on them. THEY ARE NOT THERE TO MAKE YOU WELL! If they were, medical professionals world wide would work against the oppression of marijuana and work towards preventative methods such as access to nutritious food. Even in a hospital, you may see people sipping "nutritional supplements." Perhaps people who are in recovery should have ACTUAL NUTRITION as opposed to something artificial. Then, maybe, they can experience actual recovery as opposed to artificial recovery.
Maybe teenage girls shouldn't be handed out hormones (i.e. birth control pills) like they are candy. Most people don't realize the way they are playing with their bodies when they take these kinds of drugs. Unfortunately, there are almost no parents left in this country so the kids are left to fend for themselves. However, there are other non-hormonal birth control methods that seem at least less risky. Health professionals with morals should at least encourage those methods instead. By the way, children should NEVER be on anti-depressants and I'm pretty sure adults shouldn't either. We need to stop drugging our children.
In summary, we need to learn how to grow our own food and heal our own bodies. Drug companies, hospitals, pychologists, the oppressive government regimes, the tobacco industry, the alcohol companies, etc, etc, want us to believe that they are the only ones with the power to cure us of our ailments weather they are physical, mental, emotional, or social. They've tricked us into dependency by keeping us ignorant to reality. They are pretty good at telling us we are stupid and they can perform miracles. This sounds a lot like the so called "anti-chirst," don't you think?

Evolution and Homosexuality

Darwins theory of evolution makes it very clear that evolution does not select FOR a trait, but rather against a trait. Evolution supposedly selects against any trait that hinders procreation. If procreation is hindered, the passing of the gene causing the problem is either limited or dies out altogether with the inability to breed.
Some genetic engineers suggest that homosexuality may be caused by a gene. I have no clue as to whether or not this is true and I wouldn't be surprised either way. However, let's deal with the assumption that homosexuality is caused by a certain chromosome on a strand of DNA. If this is true, then Darwin's theory would demand that the gene be selected against since it most certainly hinders ones ability to breed. I know it's not what people want to hear, but this line of thinking also suggests that homosexual DNA is less evolved since natural selection has not selected against it yet.
The question arises as to why this supposed homosexual gene has not been selected against as of yet. The fact is that, until our modern era, homosexual lifestyles have not been accepted by most societies. There isn't a physical problem with copulation just because one is homosexual, and some people "swing both ways." Also, because of the lack of acceptance of homosexuality, many people have gotten married and had children in an effort to either cover up their sexuality or deny their feelings. Of course, in this case the offspring necessary to pass on the gene are available.
Perhaps the homosexual gene is a product of natural variation. It would make sense that this would occur and be USEFUL in an overpopulated world BECAUSE it hinders procreation and provides more foster parents for the children not cared for.
There is only one judge, and it's not me (remember it's not you either). The only thing I know for sure is that, good or bad, every occurance is part of His plan and not ours. Everything serves a purpose, even "evil" and we, as humans, are not capable of understanding it all and maybe we shouldn't. We should remember that there is a general respect that everyone and everything deserves simply because He made it or them

Why is Everyone Naked?

Our whole society here in America is based on consumerism plus debauchery. You are bred here to believe that getting drunk, taking off your clothes, and casual sex are not only the right of an adult, but also a rite of passage. Some may say this is the consequence of freedom. I don't see these actions as being free. These are the actions of an oppressed people, people who are not lead in the right direction. Sex is so rampant at this point that there is an entire industry based on pornography. It's easy to say that these are consenting adults doing what they please, but it does effect people who do not want to be associated with these things. If a man tries to make a pass at me, it's not "How are you today ma'am? Can I hold the door for you?" Now, it's "Damn, that's a nice ass." That is acceptable for too many people. There is a double standard when it comes to homosexuality. Apparently, it' s alright for a woman to have a sexual account with another woman. If you bring up the double standard to a man, the typical response is "that's different." It's all based on machismo. It's alright these days to use the word "bitch" as a familiar term, no questions asked. Little girls are half dressed at 11 or 12, wearing too much make up and unsupervised. There are children dancing to songs that tell you to act like a hooker on the dance floor. It's our fault! We adults support an industry that tells us WE should act this way as well. Of course our children will find this to be the appropriate action. Take a look at the Saturday morning cartoons geared towards girls. Women put on make up to impress men often and of course our daughters want to imitate us. From the moment we are born, we are taught that our worth is dependent on a man. Be good so you can find a good man. Look nice so you can attract a good man. We have to compete with women on TV and men's expectations derived from it. It's acceptable to "go wild" once in a while. We hang out in dirty dark clubs and bars where we pay to get drunk and put ourselves on display like it' s a meat market. This is what adults do for fun these days. At the beach it's like a competition of who can get away with showing the most skin. If we want to tease men with our bodies, the sin is on us as well as the man who is looking. When there is a girl walking down the street showing her whole butt to the world, I feel like I should be able to sue her for sexual harrassment because I shouldn't have to see that, and neither should my children. In today's day and age, it's perfectly acceptable to say you like sex with no strings attached. In fact, the notion is looked upon as being a sign of a strong, mature, independent person. A truly strong person can keep their legs closed in the face of temptation. There are serious consequences to our sexual free for all and perhaps these are some of the reasons that the Lord speaks against it in all of the scriptures quite clearly. The risks of casual sex are not worth it. STD's are rampant because of these notions. Teenage pregnancy keeps rising not because of a lack of knowledge, but because of a lack of guidance. We constantly sell sex to our children. Prom dresses aren't classy anymore. In college, spring break is talked about as a time to let go of inhibitions. We put little girls in beauty pagants. We, as parents, don't make good role models. Our generation looks at marriage as too much of a commitment, but casual sex is reccomended as a stress release and a regular scenario for young people. The oppresors know that if we are busy having fruitless fun and worrying about the consequences, we won't be worrying about what they are doing. It's another policy of distraction. In many cases, casual sex yeilds "illigitimate" children. If families are broken, it creates more than one household which means more than one rent payment, utility payment, etc. This is great for our country's model of consumerism and it keeps people from being united in the family unit. This, in turn, makes it less likely that communities will unite against the oppressors. In summary, the carelessness with which we treat the sacred act of sex divides us from the Lord, ourselves, and eachother.

Why He knows All and We Do Not

No matter how hard we try, humans cannot get high enough to know everything. One reason may be that we have a hard time admitting that we know nothing, which is the first step in learning anything. We don't always like to give the credit to the Lord. If we truly did, then we could at least know more because we could let Him guide us fully. But even then, He would still know all and we would understand very little in comparison. This is His mercy on us! Every day it feels as though there is constant worry here on earth which can make it difficult to truly trust Him. It can be hard to relax and completely realize that He is in control and you shouldn't fight against His will out of fear, even when we don't know why His plans for us are what they are. With knowledge comes responsibility. Since He is the only one who knows the picture of infinity, He is the only one ALLOWED to be concerned with it. If we knew everything there is to know we would worry our puny little human minds to shreds. We have a hard enough time coping with life here and now. This is why we should not question the Lord when He shows us our next step. We should praise Him more for not concerning us with more than we can handle and trust in Him fully. He is the Almighty and the only one worthy of trust and praise!

Satan and Agriculture in the Garden of Eden

My thoughts on the story of the fall of man.....
The Lord created man, and called us his children. Made in His likeness, He commanded the angels to serve us. Satan, although He loved the Lord, thought humans to be lowly creatures and wanted nothing to do with serving us. That being so, the Lord banished satan from heaven for not heeding his command. Satan wanted to take revenge on the Lord as well as show Him how worthless humans were. He told people not to trust in the Lord, using his banishment from heaven as an example of the Lord's betrayal. Satan showed people how to sow and reap and STORE food for the future, since, according to him, the Lord cannot be trusted to care for you. So, perhaps the "Tree of Life" was actually the road to "self sufficiency"- the ability to be independent from the Lord, playing God in a sense. This may not sound so bad at first, but, as any believer knows, it is impossible to be independent from the Lord. With this false belief, mankind could deny the Lord, attributing his ability to survive to himself and forming a chasm between us and Him. This is where greed comes into play. If a man can only depend on himself, how can he care about others? According to this concept, every man should store up as much as possible to guarantee survival in the future. Every time we have even one dollar in the bank instead of using it on someone who needs to eat NOW, we are denying the Lord's ability and want to sustain us-and that is a sin. In giving up that very last dollar, we put our lives in His hands, which is where it was to begin with! If you can sacrafice your very last possesion for someone who needs it now, you are guaranteeing that the Lord will provide for you because the more you give of yourself, the more the Lord will give of His blessings... remember, we were made in His image and the there are some of His attributes in us all. The ability to give to or trust in Him is a uniquely human charecteristic. A cat cannot choose to trust the Lord. A cat lives on instincts and, by doing so, does only what it was made to do. We, however, can choose to give or not, care or not, or love or not. After Satan steered us astray, he tried to tell the Lord of our misconduct and doubt to have us condemned and him redeemed. At this point, I imagine Him saying, "Go ahead, I dare you to win over my children. I am the Alpha and Omega and long after you are gone and one with me again, I Am. You may reign on earth for a while, only to be an example of my greatness when you are gone and I Am still." The ancient Egyptian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, and the Ottoman Empire were massive enough to build collosal monuments to themselves. This is a pagan trait in any people. Even an atheist knows it is unattractive to worship yourself in any sense. These peoples rose to great heights in terms of "civilization." However, the time it took to for the Lord to crumble their oppressive rule was miniscule again proving that He is the creater, renewer, and sustainer. He will always let you rise in knowledge enough to show you that you cannot be Him. He makes it clear that He is the only one worthy of praise. So, like the afore mentioned empires, satan rules here now only to be the greatest of testament to the Lords greatness in the future. Suffering people, we should be proud to be the center of this. We serve a special role in the infinite. He runs this.