ሄሎ፡ መን ክብል፧ ᎐᎐᎐ማማ ጸብሒ ትሰርሕ ኣላ᎐᎐᎐

 እቲ ቀደም ግዜ፡ ዘመነ እኒእኒ ሕምባሻ`ከሎ እምኒ፡ ኣብ ሓንቲ ዓዲ ሓደ ንጉስ ነበረ። እዛ ዓዲ`ዚኣ፡ ኣዚያ ሃብታምን ዕድልትን ነበረት፤ መቸም ህዝባ ብሓጎስን ተድላን ይነባበር፡ እንስሳታታ ብሰላምን ምርድዳእን ይብልዑን ይበላልዑን፡ ዝናማታ ብግዚኦም ይምላለሱን ነበሩ። ብኩለንትናኣ ባህ ተብል ዓዲ ነበረት። እንታይ`ሞ፡ ዘራጊት ዘላተን ከብቲ`ዶ ጽሩይ ማይ ይሰትያ፧ 

Alrighty, what's the above you say? How about we start by greeting each other? (Three pecks on alternating chicks - starting from right - while shaking hands simultaneously.) Then, we sit down while repeatedly asking about each other's well-being. ("How's family?", "The young ones, are they OK?", "How's family?", "How's..."). And before I ask you whether you want it or not, I'll make you a cup of spiced tea, or even better, we will drink 4-5 rounds of strong coffee on tiny cups that have no handles!

How your coffee will be served...

Greetings! And welcome to this week's post. The topic? Something to do with identity and "third choice" and honoring parents and heritage. So, I'll be trying to answer the prompt as you hang on to the reading.

Now, to the first part of the prompt - regarding children honoring their heritage while leaving the things they don't approve of - I'd hate to repeat what others have elaborated on here. The general consensus seems to be - yes, I read some of what the others wrote - that each person has to tailor his/her own identity. Subtract the things you don't like or that are unrepresentative of you as an individual; add those that are the opposite. There is no way around. The basic idea here is that it is your responsibility, if not duty, that you live your life to the fullest - seeking the things that make you happy as a person - following your virtues. Seems like an easy thing? Not so much. Not understanding that is the major reason behind people's identity crises.

That said, the second part of the prompt, which is more specific to the person, takes me back to the opening of this post. That is my language - called Tigrinya - written in the beginning of this post. It's not particularly hard for me since I didn't leave my home country, Eritrea, until my pre-teen years. I grew up reading, writing and speaking it and I will continue to do that. It is one of those things you cannot just lose. Its complex form makes it even more interesting to hang-on to. And no, Google Translate won't help you here. :)
           

A typical Eritrean/Ethiopian mother

Having been brought up in a culture that is little known by others, I constantly have to answer questions like, "Where are you from?" here in the US and other places that I have been to. Sometimes my witty side shows up and I give ridiculous answers for my own amusement, as I see the inquirers' faces change from 'inquisitive' to 'I-am-sure-you-are-not-from-that-place-but-I'll-just-give-you-this-nod-of-the-head'. Most times, however, when I answer correctly, the face I get is complicated. It goes something like: Whoa-dude-!-I-have-no-idea-what-you-just-said-and-I-probably-never-will-but-I'm-going-to-keep-asking-you-again-and-again-until-you-yourself-start-doubting-whether-you-are-saying-your-own-county's-name-the-right-way-and-then-finally-after-about-the-fourth-time-that-you'll-have-said-it-you'll-give-me-an-introductory-Geography-lesson-to-help-me-visualize-your-country's-location. Well, enough said.

So, to sum it all up: race, ethnicity, nationality, culture, religion etc are like paint. They are a finish to how you look to others but have no say whatsoever to who you are; at least not to me. As attributes, it is a good practice to select and keep those pieces of your custom, religion etc that will be constructive in the long run. This is especially so here in the United States. Originality does not mean keeping it to the way your ancestors did it; rather, it is customizing a template that's present to help you.

Psss... 

The title translates "Hello, who is it? ... Mom is in the kitchen cooking...". 

The first paragraph translates:
Once upon a time, when bread was like the rocks (a traditional expression symbolizing "good days long past"), there was a king in a certain kingdom. It was a gifted place full of resources; its people living in harmony and peace; its animals hunting and being hunted in peace (?) and a generally beautiful place to live. Alas, a herd with an agitator never drinks clear water.... 

Welcome to TSADAL:FPTP-101!

Hi, and welcome to the first meeting of The Sinister And Dark American Literature: From Poe To Poe-101 course. 

A key figure in American "hauntedness" is Allan Poe; a writer distinguished for his twisted techniques of bringing fictional horror stories to the nightmares - literally - of his devoted fans. So, what makes Poe's stories, like The Fall of the House of Usher, appear in High-Definition in people's dreams?

Personification - This device has been employed to dramatize realities and realize dramas since the inception of logical literature. Poe, in The Fall of the House of Usher TFotHoU, makes emphasized use of personification. Inanimate beings such as the house are given breath and act equally in the story alongside their human counterparts.

Explicit detailing - The habit of laying out all adjectives one could think of to describe a "day" contributes to the readers' possession of a vivid recreation of that particular "day". A mathematical model that is supplied with as much variables as the simulation requires gives better results: A subject described in detail has higher chances of rooting its being in its visualizers' minds. It is this fact that other writers should take note of, as did Allan Poe.

Deliberate ambiguity - In TFotHoU, and his other stories, Poe ensures that certain matter-of-fact actualities are not plainly said by the narrator. This acts like a double ended sword; for one, it means that some of those situations will be left open to the interpretation of the readers - and in that sense the ability of the mind to reach its own "pinnacle of twisted mentality" being released - and secondly, make a literary work timeless. It is safe to assume that we all agree on Poe's achievement of the latter.

thefollowing.wikia.com

Diction, let's say that again, Diction - Wrong choice of words, even in the most obviously unintentional scenarios, has been noted to have caused disaster. Conversely, correct choice of vocabulary can soften the hardest of hearts and persuade the stubbornest of minds. Allan Poe's clear mastery of this knowledge is admirable at the least, seeing that he can, at will, create any sort of environment, mood or character in his prose.

Gothic Mysticism - This particular characteristic of TFotHoU sets it apart from many other American pieces of the same genre. The description of the setting - especially the house -, the manner of interaction between the narrator and Usher - that Victorian twist where each one of them is aware of the other's aura but neither admit it for "gentlemanliness'" sake - and the particular weather unfolding during the climax of the story all the more make the piece more British than American. That, added to the general mystic coloring of doom-and-gloom lend The Fall of the House of Usher distinctive attributes  that another writer would want to borrow.

End of lecture!

"If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep It. Period."

Greetings!

In what ways has the USA's obsession with finding faults in leaders hurt our nation?  Identify a leader in US History who has been wrongfully (or too severely) vilified and theorize as to what might have been had that particular person been able to perform their duties without unreasonable scrutiny.  Feel free to use both current and historic examples, but they must be from the USA.

The above is the prompt that this week's blog post is an answer to. There is a reason I reproduced it here. Hopefully, the reason becomes obvious as one reaches towards the end of the reading. Happy reading! 

As the wise people say, let's dismantle the prompt to bits so that we (I) can answer it better.

The first part is actually a question! That should make it easy to answer straightforward, right? Not! How can one possibly think that the "USA's obsession with finding faults in leaders" has hurt the country? Is obsession the proper word for the need to scrutinize individuals that will hold significant power over the lives of the populace? Therefore, to answer the question, there are no ways whatsoever in which the US has been hurt in its "obsession" - though need is the correct term - to "find faults" - though scrutinize is the correct term - with its leaders. To the contrary, it is this very characteristic that has kept this nation at the position that it is for this long.

When people decide that certain individuals should, not forced but by their own choice, take care of affairs that are impossible to be done collectively, they gain an automatic right to scrutinize to the level necessary to their well being and to the assurance that those individuals are holding true to the desired ideals. And for that matter there has never been a leader in US history who has been wrongfully vilified by the people.



  That standing, through the expanse of American history, there have been several presidents who have faced it rough, not from the people - as the implicit interpretation of the word - but rather from competitors, political opponents and those that just feel contempt at first sight without reason.( Several newspapers fall in the latter category). It is surprising in a way that those that have been called unrepeatable names are usually the more competent of their counterparts. The list follows:

• A New York newspaper referred to Abraham Lincoln as "the baboon on the other side of the avenue" and went ahead to suggest that he be bought and "displayed as a zoological curiosity." The attacks on Lincoln's character, looks and policies were - to quote the prompt - "wrongfully vilifying".
• The National Gazette and Aurora, two newspapers, represented George Washington as "treacherous, arrogant and crooked". They were unhappy with his policies. In fact, the vilification became so intense that he contemplated retiring after the first-term. He was re-elected, however, and gave the shortest inaugural speech in American history with two main points; gratitude for re-election and "if you don't like me, you can impeach me...".
• Despite his popularity among Americans, FDR was the target of insensitive remarks and editorials throughout his tenure at the White House. In fact, Marquis Child, a columnist in 1938, reported, "No phenomenon of the times is more disturbing than the persistent hatred of President Roosevelt which finds a more and more poisonous expression among a considerable section of the American people...No slander is too vile, no canard too preposterous, to find voice among those who regard the President as their mortal enemy." He was also called a communist and a thief; his flagship New Deal programs called "Red Deal".

All leaders, not only presidents, come with their controversies; be it drugs, extramarital affairs, policies etc. If a person, especially here in the US, decides to become a leader and actually does become a leader, it would do them good to have a thick skin. Leaders will be scrutinized, most times to the good of the nation, and sometimes painted a wrong color, to the disruption of order and wasting of time. A good leader should, therefore, be able to distinguish the expected scrutiny, questioning, inquiry and general pull and push of the public from the negative vile of personal enemies, political opponents and the like.