Oaxaca - The Columbian Exchange

Although I learned about the Conquistadors when I was at school, I wanted to get a general overview of the history of the Spanish conquest of the Americas, as I felt that I didn't know the subject well enough and it's important to understand the historical context of Mexico, when blogging about modern-day Oaxaca.

I was lucky enough to find an engaging account of the Spanish conquest called Conquistadors by Michael Wood, written in conjunction with the BBC series of the same name that was broadcast in 2000.  Wood has written several history books as part of the BBC series and I'd recommend this book, as I really enjoyed his easy style of writing and the fact that he quoted from different sources (Aztec and Peruvian), not just telling the story from the Spanish point of view.

Conquistadors (2000) by Michael Wood

16th-century Oaxaca was a little bit off the beaten track, just as it is today, therefore it doesn't feature highly in the story of the Spanish conquest of Mexico.  In those days, 'Mexico' was the Aztec empire, which stretched from the mountains north of the Mexico valley to the southern Pacific coast in modern-day Chiapas.  The Spanish first showed up in the Mayan lands of Yucatan, before moving up the coast to Veracruz and, eventually, making their way to the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan (modern-day Mexico city) high in the Sierra Madre.

The Columbian Exchange

Wood, quite rightly, depicts the meeting of Aztec leader, Motecuhozuma (aka Montezuma) with the conquistador Hernán Cortés as a 'meeting of two worlds'.  Karl Marx described it as 'the greatest event in the history of the world'.  As it turned out, the meeting was more of collision of completely different cultures and the outcomes, in terms of globalisation, were immense - after defeating the Aztecs, the Spanish went on to conquer all of central America, the southern United States and South America.

I found the term 'Columbian exchange' quite interesting - it has nothing to do with cocaine or the Bolsa de Bogota, but refers to the exchange of cultures, goods and materials that happened as a result of Colombus' 'discovery' of the Americas.  It was the cruellest exchange in history; where the Americans gave us new foods, plants, medicines and cultural wealth, Europeans brought disease, destruction and devastation to highly-sophisticated societies that had evolved over many centuries without outside influence.

Guns, Germs and Steel

I read a book a few years ago called, Guns, Germs and Steel (1997) by the US scientist, Jared Diamond. This book, more than any other, helped me understand the geography of the world and how this enabled Europeans to make the technological advancements that enabled them to conquer American societies which were unable to resist European guns, germs and steel.

It's estimated that 90-95% of the native population in the Americas died as a result of European diseases, the chief culprit being smallpox, which native Americans had no resistance to.  These deadly epidemics, more than anything, led to the successful conquest of the Americas by Europeans.

There is an interesting documentary on YouTube (by National Geographic) that outlines Diamond's theories - I'm embedding the video below, so you can watch this, if you're interested.

The Cruelty of the Conquistadors

The Europeans could not have predicted the impact their diseases would have on the native peoples of the Americas.  Even so, European/Spanish behaviour in the Americas was appalling.  The conquest of Mexico and Peru are stories of greed, lust, violence and cultural destruction.  The Spanish trampled on everything they saw and raped and murdered the local people in their pursuit of wealth, particularly gold.  It's pretty shocking to read about, from a 21st-century perspective but, in the context of 16th-century Europe, where violence and war was the order of the day, perhaps not all that surprising.

Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro

I was interested to learn that most of the leading conquistadors came from the Spanish region of Extremadura.  Very much a harsh frontier in 16th-century Spain, Extremadura had, for a long time, been part of an Islamic caliphate and by the early 1500's it was inhabited by Christians who'd moved in and taken over the land, pushing the Muslims and Jews out.  The conquistadors were, therefore, from tough 'frontier' stock and I can't help wondering if their harsh frontier mentality accounted for their greed, violence and hatred of the 'Other' when they set out to conquer the Americas?

Hernán Cortés was related to the Pizarro brothers, a kind of mafia family who murdered the Peruvian Inca and grabbed so much wealth in South America.  Whilst reading the history of the conquests, I sensed that the conquest of the Americas got completely out of control.  Although the conquerors claimed to be acting in the name of the King of Spain and the Catholic church, it's clear that they were in it for personal wealth and unrestrained by loyalty to the Spanish crown or the church.

An America that could have been?

Central American figurehead

It's sad to think of the cultural heritage the world lost because of the European conquest of the Americas. Spanish took over as the main language, Catholicism as the main religion and modern American culture is, essentially, another version of European culture.  I wonder what the world would be like today if geography and greed hadn't conspired to bring down the great civilisations of pre-Hispanic America.

What would the balance of power be like in a world with strong Aztec, Mayan and Inca leadership?  It would be the equivalent of having another world view, like that of the Chinese or Japanese or Indian cultures, that have maintained their independence from European domination.  I can't help thinking that we lost something important with the destruction of the great American cultures.

Luckily, indigenous American cultures aren't completely lost and Oaxaca is a good example of a corner of the Americas where native culture has survived the test of time.  The question is whether or not we value native American cultures enough to fight for their preservation, in an increasingly globalised world?

Image credits:

The image of the conquistadors is a composite that I put together from two copyright-free originals.

The image of the Central American figure is one that I took at the Casa de Colon in Las Palmas (Gran Canaria)

Nordrhein-Westfalen - Nothing new on the Western Front

This year marks the centenary of World War One, perhaps the deadliest conflict mankind has ever experienced.  The impact of 'the Great War' is still felt today and many people in Europe and around the world, still have personal connections to the war through the stories of their grandparents or even their parents, many of whom lost loved ones, during this terrible chapter of human history.

This year will be the start of a four-year period of commemoration, discussion and reflection.  It's generally acceptable, in the early 21st century, to criticise the raison d'etre of World War One and most people will recognise the insanity of the seemingly purposeless devastation wrought on Europe and other parts of the world between 1914 and 1918.  Nevertheless there is a definite consensus, certainly here in England, about the need to respect and commemorate the 'fallen' soldiers of the 'Great War' and of other wars, in general, including more current ones.

I'm anti-war. I just don't believe in wars and see any war anywhere as a tool of the powerful against the powerless and, quite often these days, as a very cynical way of propping up business and the capitalist system.  Wars cause unnecessary loss of life and destruction, in the name of causes which are generally meaningless.  Whilst most people can now see this, in relation to World War One - it's harder to hold this conviction when talking about World War Two and the Nazis, Europe's 'darkest hour', in the words of Winston Churchill.  For me, it's quite straightforward - the two World Wars were really one 'Great war' with a short interval of peace - you can't be against one and for the other.

Richard Thomas in the 1979 movie version

As part of my research on Nordrhein-Westfalen, I decided to read Erich Maria Remarque's influential novel of 1929, Im Westen nichts Neues (In the West, nothing new), better known in English by the title All Quiet on the Western Front.  Like many people of my generation, I grew up with a 'knowledge' of this novel and, more specifically, the title/phrase, although I'd never read the novel or seen either of the movies.  To be honest, I was really surprised to learn that the novel was written by a German ex-soldier.

Remarque was born into a working-class family in Osnabruck, Westphalia and, having been conscripted into the German army, he had first-hand experience of fighting on the Western Front in 1917.  It's become such a part of our culture and language, that I just assumed the story must be told from a British/American viewpoint.

And what a fantastic novel it is!  Wow!  If you read anything this year, it has to be this book.  And such a good time to read it, with all the commemorations and discussions that are going on.  It's an easy read, the language and imagery are powerful, beautiful and resonate long after you finish reading.  I also strongly agree with Remarque's anti-war message, his recognition of the basic humanity that we all share and the absurdity of killing people you've not even met and know very little about.

In an age of modern technology, where warfare happens at the click of a button or on a TV screen far removed from the comfort of your own home, it's hard to understand the reality of war unless you're living in a war zone.  It might sound incredibly cynical, but one thing the 'Great War' taught Europeans is that it's better to conduct wars somewhere else and not destroy your own nation's economy and social infrastructure.  The experience of war for most people in 'the West' in the 21st century is at a distance (both physically and conceptually), abstract, difficult to relate to.

The characters in Remarque's novel don't really know why they are fighting against the French and the British.  The reasons for the war are fairly abstract and the young men in the trenches don't really understand why the war started in the first place or what it is they are supposed to be fighting for.  They are mostly there out of a sense of peer loyalty, because they want to stick by their classmates and do what is expected of them.  Their motivation isn't really to kill other young men or burn down French villages, but to protect their comrades, families and villages.

Lew Ayres playing Baumer in the 1930 movie

Whilst the old men at home pore over maps and get excited about strategies, the young men experience the reality of war - the blood, shit, fear and the screaming of injured horses and dying men.  There is a lot of anger in the book, about the opportunities that the young men have lost, about their interrupted education and the way the war changes them, so they can never regain the comfort of civilian life.

Even Remarque's young men mostly see the enemy at a distance - modern warfare means aircraft shelling, poison gas and snipers.  They rarely come face-to-face with the 'enemy'.  Remarque personalises the experience of war in a very powerful scene where the main character, Bäumer, finds himself in a bomb hole with a French soldier.  Bäumer stabs the French soldier out of fear, but later regrets his actions and laments the fact 'that we're all just as scared of death, and that we die the same way and feel the same pain'

Bäumer's experience could be that of any soldier anywhere, but it's significant that this novel was written by the 'enemy', a German soldier, one of those who was surely raping Belgian nuns and eating Belgian children? Looking at anti-German propaganda, one hundred years later, it's easy to see through the hysteria and hyperbole.  Of course, it's much more difficult to see through propaganda when the war is happening during your lifetime, only retrospect can give us a truly sober perspective on the information being fed to us by our media and government.

Poster advertising 1930 movie

I also watched the two movie versions of the novel - the one made in 1930, directed by Lewis Milestone, as well as the made-for-TV film of 1979, starring Richard Thomas (a.k.a. John Boy from The Waltons).  I'm surprised that there is no German movie based on this novel and it makes me wonder how popular or well-known Remarque's work is in Germany?  Not surprisingly, Remarque's anti-war message wasn't very popular in 1930's Germany.  The Nazis stripped him of his German citizenship and he fled to the United States.  Remarque himself had a very interesting life, but that's a whole other blog post!

I loved the original movie of 1930 - it's a work of art in itself and the director captured the most important concepts (such as the scene around the young woman in the poster).  The 1979 movie was just okay - it told the story quite literally, but seemed to miss out on some of the most important concepts of the book.  Interestingly, the 1930 movie was the first film to be banned in Australia!  World War One was a defining moment in Australian nationhood and Milestone's movie wasn't considered 'on message' enough to be shown to the Australian public.

Being a bit of a Romantic (in the capital letter R/early 19th-century sense!), I'm always fascinated by the portrayal of nature in the books, movies and other art forms that I research.  So I'm leaving you with a wonderful quote from Im Westen nichts Neues which shows Bäumer's (read, any soldier's) relationship with the Earth/nature:

The earth is more important to the soldier than to anybody else.  When he presses himself to the earth, long and violently, when he urges himself deep into it with his face and his limbs, under fire and with the fear of death upon him, then the earth is his only friend, his brother, his mother, he groans out in terror and screams into its silence and safety, the earth absorbs it all and gives him another ten seconds of life, ten seconds to run, then takes hold of him again - sometimes forever. Earth - earth - earth!

Image credits:

The images of the stills from the 1930 and 1979 movie versions of All Quiet on the Western Front are from photos taken by me. These images are being used to illustrate this blog post and promote these movies. By publishing these images, I'm not condoning or encouraging reproduction of these images on the Internet or anywhere else. These images are not meant to bring the actors into disrepute or suggest their endorsement of this blog post, but are meant to highlight the performances of these actors in these movies. 

The image of the poster for the 1930 version of the movie is in the public domain - you can see more information on its file page on Wikipedia.

Liberia - The Love of Liberty Brought Us Here

West Africa is a fascinating place.  With a population of around 300 million people - living right next door to Europe, I can't help thinking that West Africa will be a true test of Europe's commitment to the world, if not a major partner in Europe's future prosperity.  We tend to overlook West Africa and think about markets across the Atlantic or in Far East Asia - but our ties to West African countries go back a long way - a chequered history of repression, blame and guilt.

I've blogged about West Africa before - when I researched Togo, exactly three years ago and I'm really looking forward to my next virtual journey to this part of the world, as I blog about Liberia over the coming weeks.  With a population of about 4 million, Liberia is a small fish in a big pond, but it holds an important symbolic place in the hearts and minds of all West Africans, as the first West African 'nation' to rule itself.  Liberia became an independent nation in 1847 - 110 years before Ghana became the second West African nation to gain independence. 

Liberian school girl by Ken Harper

Ten years ago this month, Liberia emerged from years of civil war that bankrupted the economy, killed a quarter of a million people and left the country's infrastructure in ruins.  Whilst a lot has been done to rebuild the country, Liberia still has the second-lowest per capita income in West Africa, being slightly ahead of Niger.  The current government faces a whole host of challenges, as it draws international criticism for its failure to address corruption and restore social services to the Liberian people. 

I've already had my first 'myth' about Liberia exploded - ie. the idea that Liberia was established as some kind of benevolent act of charity, funded by the United States.  It's true that many supporters of the American Colonisation society had a genuine desire to do the right thing, by establishing (what was then) a colony for freed slaves back in the 'homeland', on the West African coast. 

The reality is that the freed slaves were born in North America and were ill-prepared to survive in the tropical jungles of West Africa.  Was the establishment of Liberia really an act of kindness in the pursuit of Liberty, or an attempt to 'cleanse' the United States of freed blacks, who could unsettle the slave population of the Southern states?

Local radio station by Ken Harper

The survivors of this attempt at (re)colonisation must have been a tough bunch and, until modern times, Monrovia has remained the centre of Americo-Liberian culture. 

The country's motto is quite revealing - The Love of Liberty Brought Us Here - which means, 'we' are not from 'here', but from 'elsewhere'.  Liberia found itself in the unusual position of an African nation colonised by North American Africans.  Apart from the population that was 'brought here' - like most West African nations, Liberia already had a complex ethnic make-up - the addition of Americo-Liberians was another layer on top of an existing tapestry of cultures, languages and traditions that had been there for centuries.

The Americo-Liberians of Monrovia dominated Liberian history until 1980, when the tribal people of the hinterland rose up in a bloody revolution that saw Samuel Doe, of the Krahn tribe, take control of the country.  Doe unleashed an ethnically motivated campaign against the Mano and Gio tribes of Nimba county and was ousted in an equally bloody take-over by Charles Taylor, who got a lot of his support from the restless north-eastern part of the country.  A civil war ensued, which lasted until the mid-90's before settling into an uneasy 'peace' as Taylor held firm to the reins of control.

Figure in stairwell by Ken Harper

Just last week convicted of war crimes in relation to his meddling with Sierra Leone, Taylor was forced into exile in Nigeria in 2003 and was later extradited to the Hague to await sentencing for the murders, rapes and acts of terrorism that he has been found guilty of aiding and abetting. 

Liberia's current leader, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, is one of only 17 women in the world who currently lead national governments.  She is one of the two female leaders in Africa - the other one being Joyce Banda of Malawi.  President Johnson-Sirleaf very much represents the emergence of civil society in Liberia, especially in relation to the peace movements, mostly led by women, that emerged in the early years of the 21st century.  Tasked with rebuilding a country in ruins, Liberians have managed to sustain the mood for peace and make the first steps in the direction of economic recovery. 

Image credits:

A quick search for Liberia on Flickr currently brings up the photos of Ken Harper, a college professor at Syracuse university - originally from Indiana!  I wanted to highlight some of Ken's photos.  All photos were taken as part of the Together Liberia project.

Thanks to Ken for sharing them with us using the Creative Commons License

Jersey - Don't mention the War!

One of the first things that really jumped out at me about Jersey and the Channel Islands, when I started researching for this blog, is the fact that the Channel Islands were the only part of the British Isles to be occupied by the Nazis during World War Two.  For Jersey and the other islands, the Nazi Occupation was a national trauma which has shaped the history of modern Jersey and left a legacy of museums, books and movies, which document and record the Occupation for future generations. 

What really happened?

Once a war has finished, it's sometimes difficult to know exactly what went on.  History is written by the victors and I'm pretty sure that people change their perception of what happened, how they felt etc. in relation to the ultimate outcome of the war itself.  In his book, Living with the Enemy: What really happened (1995), Roy McLaughlin makes a good attempt at unravelling the realities of the Nazi Occupation of the Channel Islands and looks at the perspective of the war from both the local point of view and that of the German soldiers stationed in the Channel Islands during that period.

Different reactions

It was interesting, for me, to see the different reactions of the four main Channel Islands, to the Nazi Occupation.  The entire population of Alderney was evacuated to England (except for two farmers who returned under Nazi rule) and the island became a de facto prison camp for slave workers from Eastern Europe and Spain.  By contrast, the inhabitants of Sark stayed put, under the formidable leadership of Dame Sibyl Hathaway, who seemed to treat the German occupiers as new house staff!  Guernsey also started down the road of evacuation, sending children back to England and Scotland, whereas most inhabitants of Jersey stayed on the island and tried to 'keep calm and carry on'. 

It's quite shocking to see photos of the Nazi flag flying in 1940's Jersey and I'm sure that the propaganda value of the Occupation was exploited to the full by the Nazi government. 

Abandonment v collaboration

British government poster from 1939

Needless to say, the Nazi Occupation of the Channel Islands was a very low point in UK-Jersey relations.  One on hand, the islanders felt 'abandoned' by their fellow Britons - on the other hand, many people in the UK wondered how the islanders could continue living under Nazi rule and questioned whether or not the islanders were 'collaborating' with the enemy.  In a bid to save the islands from destruction, they were demilitarised in June 1940, although the demilitarisation wasn't announced until after the first German bombing raids, which killed a total of 38 people on Jersey and Guernsey. 

It's clear that the British approach to the Channel Islands' Occupation was disorganised and inconsistent.  The War Office didn't consider the islands to be strategic to the defense of Britain and the lack of a coherent approach by the War Office and Home Office led to confusion and disarray.  Acting against official government policy, Churchill tried to rally a response to Occupation by sending spies to Guernsey, but this undermined the islanders position and worsened an already difficult relationship between the states of Guernsey and the occupiers. 

Jersey was eased into the Occupation years by the diplomacy of Alexander Coutanche, who established a fairly workable relationship with the occupiers.  Many British people failed to understand how there could be no resistance movement in Jersey and the other Channel Islands, as there was on mainland France and this was viewed with great suspicion, however, the islanders pointed out that there was nowhere for a resistance movement to hide or retreat to, on an island that is a mere 46 miles squared.

So how bad was the Occupation?

The Nazis had a relatively benevolent approach to the Channel Islands, particularly at the beginning of the Occupation, as they tried to win the hearts and minds of their new British subjects.  The main hardships of Occupation seem to have been more general ones, such as food shortages, which also affected people in mainland Britain and for logistical reasons, the Nazis confiscated the islanders' bicycles!  McLoughlin points to the following three main factors that represented the hardships that Occupation brought to the islands:

Nazi control tower on Jersey by mrwalker

1.  Banning the radio.  At the beginning, islanders were allowed to use their radios and even listen to BBC news but, as the war went on, the Nazis banned the use of radios - a crime punishable by transportation to Germany.  Somehow many islanders managed to hide radios and continue listening to updates from the BBC - it seems most people weren't caught doing this, unless a neighbour informed on them.

2. The arrival of foreign prisoners.  Whilst the islands weren't considered to be strategically important to the British, Hitler was determined to turn them into the most fortified place in the Atlantic!  The Nazis built grand-scale defences on Jersey and the other islands and imported labour, mostly slaves from Eastern Europe and Republican prisoners from Spain, to construct their Atlantic Wall fortifications. 

Whilst the islanders were mostly left in peace, to carry on with their normal lives, the slave-labourers were treated really badly and their treatment was witnessed by the islanders, who were as distressed as any normal human would be at the suffering of others.  Many islanders risked their lives and the lives of their families, by sheltering escaped Russian, Ukrainian and Spanish prisoners who'd fled the horrors of the labour camps.

3. The deportation of non-native inhabitants.  In reprisal for the British internment of German citizens in Iran, the Nazis announced, in 1942, that all non-native (ie. from the British mainland) inhabitants of the Channel Islands would be deported to Germany.  Perhaps more than anything else, this brought home the realities of the war to the islanders who, until that point, had had a fairly peaceful relationship with the Occupiers. 

Liberation and the legacy of the war

Liberation Square, St Helier by amandabhslater

The Channel Islanders felt abandoned again when, in June 1944, during the D-Day landings, the British and other Allied forces liberated Normandy, but didn't arrive in Jersey to liberate the Channel Islands from Nazi rule.  In fact, the Nazis remained in Jersey and the other islands until May 1945, when Germany was finally defeated and the Occupiers agreed to leave.  The winter of 1944/45 was a bitterly cold one and the islanders suffered many deprivations which might have been avoided had they been liberated earlier.  Again, the liberation of the Channel Islands didn't seem to be high on the list of priorities for the British government.

The end of war saw the return of those inhabitants who'd been evacuated in 1940.  McLoughlin describes the uneasy relationship between the returnees and those who had stayed behind.  Another legacy of the war was the number of children of German parentage that had been born to island women and this 'sexual colonisation' of Jersey reminded me of a similar topic I researched for my blog post about the war in Eritrea. 

The number and influence of informers in Jersey during the war is a controversial and divisive topic that hasn't been fully researched or investigated and remains, to a certain extent, an island taboo.

The Russians in Jersey

I like the way McLoughlin devotes a chapter at the end of his book to look at the Occupation from the eyes of the Occupiers and it's interesting to read how ordinary German soldiers were happy to be posted to the Channel Islands, as it was almost like a holiday from the front line and a refuge from British bombardment, common in Germany and elsewhere.   It would be quite interesting to also know what life on Jersey was like for the many Russians, Ukrainians and Poles who spent the war there.  It must have been truly bizarre to find themselves transported to this western outpost of Nazi Europe, many miles from their Eastern European homelands. 

Image credits:

The 1939 British government poster Keep Calm and Carry on is in the public domain. 

The image of the Nazi control tower was taken by flickr member mrwalker - you can see more of his photos on his Flickr account. 

The image of the sculpture on Liberation Square in St Helier is by flickr member amandabhslater - Amanda lives in St Helier and you can see more of her images on her photostream. 

Thanks to Mr Walker and Amanda for sharing these images with us using the Creative Commons License. 

Indiana - Sex in America

Although he was a very well-known figure during the 1950's, I might never have heard about Professor Kinsey's research into sexual behaviour, had it not been for Bill Condon's movie Kinsey (2004) starring Liam Neeson.  As part of my research, I also read Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy's Alfred C.Kinsey - A Biography: Sex, the Measure of all Things (1999), a very sympathetic portrayal of this ground-breaking scientist.

What's so embarrassing about sex?

The study of sexual behaviour is a fascinating subject area, incredibly relevant when trying to understand other people's cultures - yet, it is an area of study that carries a lot of 'baggage'; taboo, ignorance, (a)morality and downright animosity.  I don't consider myself to be a prude, but I did feel a bit self-conscious reading Kinsey's biography on public transport (with the word Sex prominent on the cover).  Strangely enough, the only other time I've felt like this was when I was doing research on alleged cannibalism in the South Pacific.

What is it about sex that shocks people so much?  Surely, it's an incredibly important aspect of human culture that every one of us is involved with?  Well, coming from Ireland, a nation that was incredibly sexually repressed when I was growing up (although I hope things have moved on a bit since then!), I can really relate to the sexual repression that Kinsey fought against for most of his adult life.  People suffer terribly because of the sexual laws of their particular society and not much of it makes sense.  Understanding another culture's attitude towards sex, means understanding the historical/cultural values that have defined 'morality' in that particular society.

Kinsey's crusade

Cerne Abbas giant from Wikicommons

Despite the importance of his work, Kinsey was questioned, undermined and morally castigated in ways that few other scientists have had to endure.  Perhaps if he'd stuck to his first great passion, the study of gall wasps, then he might have had a much quieter life, as just any other professor in Bloomington, Indiana! I'm sure, he wouldn't have achieved as much fame with his study of gall wasps, as he has done through his research into human sexual behavious and perhaps he wouldn't have lost his own sexual inhibitions and explored his own sexuality, as he did? 

From what I've seen and read, it seems as though he was an eccentric character; stubborn, passionate and determined in his pursuit of a greater understanding of this key area of human life.  He may well have been ahead of his time and despite the constant attempts by the religious 'right' to turn back the clock, Western society, in general, seems to be moving forward in terms of understanding human sexuality, although there is still a long way to go.

Misconceptions about sex

One of the most interesting things I learned from reading Kinsey's biography was that the 'missionary position' - woman on her back, man lying on top, facing her - such an accepted 'norm', certainly in Anglo-Saxon culture, is perhaps the most unnatural position for a woman to start with.  Kinsey got interested in sex research because of problems he had with his own wife, when they first got married.  For many women, the first experience of sex was off-putting, painful because of the deeper level of penetration that the missionary position permits.  Kinsey argued that a much more natural position for male-female couples is 'woman on top, man on his back' - this way the woman can control the level of penetration and do what feels most comfortable and enjoyable for her.

I realised that the 'traditional' missionary position is something that has been imposed on male-female couples by a male-dominated, religious society.  As with female castration in parts of Africa, the missionary position was encouraged, to ensure that women didn't enjoy sex too much and also because this position reinforces man's dominating role over his female partner.  Not surprisingly, it worked and many of our mothers and grandmothers led lives that were sexually unfulfilled.

Anyone's crime?



The Death of Hyacinth by Alexander Kiselev

One of the things that shocked people so much, when Kinsey's studies were published, was the high percentage of people, particularly men, who had engaged in sexual activity with the same sex.  This was during a time when sodomy, which included all homosexual acts and many heterosexual ones (eg. oral sex) was a felony or serious crime, in every American state.  Kinsey was distressed when he visited 'sex offenders' in prison, many of whom had been convicted for performing oral sex or engaging in homosexual acts - his study showed that 'everyone's crime is no one's crime', ie. it was hypocritical for society to imprison people for sexual acts that were so widespread in the general population. 

Gay or Straight?

Kinsey didn't believe, as many people still do, in a simple 'gay/straight' dichotomy - instead he pioneered a 'spectrum' of sexuality, a six-point scale to indicate whether someone was more attracted to their own or the opposite sex.  Given the harshness of sodomy laws at that time, I personally feel that it was important for society to first embrace a 'dichotomy' and recognise same-sex relationships - although our choice of a life-long partner hardly seems relevant to our choice of sexual partners and I tend to agree with Kinsey that we are all born bisexual and learn our sexual behaviour as we mature. 

Punishing people for their sexual choices is, quite simply, barbaric and I'm really happy to live in a world where same-sex relationships are sanctioned by many (mostly Western) societies.  However, I've never really believed in the 'genetic' argument, as to why someone is gay and I also find it hard to believe that someone's sexuality will remain the same throughout their entire life. 

When Kinsey studied gall wasps, he discovered that no two specimens were exactly the same - he also caused a lot of controversy by his 'expansive' approach to taxonomy.  Like Kinsey, I also believe that each person's sexuality is unique - although the straight/gay dichotomy helped late-20th century society find a place for same-sex relationships, I still think we have a long way to go, in terms of really understanding human sexual behaviour.

Sex and War

Detail, Bathers at San Niccolo

My theory on society's sexual phobia is that the society/community leaders fear the powerful energy of sexual release.  People have risked life, limb and career to find sexual satisfaction and it's an impulse that every culture/society struggles to control.  Sex is used as a weapon in times of war, as a motivating factor in terms of achieving fame and success (how many musicians started writing music because they wanted to attract sexual partners?)  Sex is even promised as a reward in the after-life for people who can remain 'pure' in this life. 

Truth be told, most societies are scared of releasing people's sexual energy - sexual liberation is all-too-often linked to a fear of breakdown in law and order.  However, studies of cultures outside the West have shown that sex can, in fact, be a great peace-maker in society - I personally believe that, when people are sexually content, they are less likely to feel frustrated, aggressive, abusive or violent towards society/other people.  Perhaps sexual freedom is the worst thing for a country intent on making war - could this be another factor in a society's instinct towards sexual repression?

Americans and Europeans

Towards the end of his life, Kinsey travelled to Europe - it surprised me to hear that he found Europe incredibly 'liberated' compared to the United States.  I think we Europeans usually assume that Americans are much more liberated in sexual matters than we are - our perception of American sexuality is, all too often, a result of our experience of American movies and TV shows.  The reality, I imagine, is that the US is still a fairly conservative place, on the whole, when it comes to sexual attitudes.  The US seems to contain many of the extremes of human experience - at once, the most liberated/wealthiest/modern country on Earth, at the same time repressed/poor and backward looking?

I've leaving with a trailer for Kinsey - if you haven't seen this movie already, I'd highly recommend it!


Image credits:

All images are taken from Wikicommons, you can find the copyright conditions on the following pages:

The Cerne Abbas Giant

Kiselev - the Death of Hyacinth

Detail of the Bathers at San Niccolo by Domenico Passignano

Fiji - Gods of War

In his book, On Fiji Islands, Ronald Wright describes a trip he took to Bau, a small island off the coast of Viti Levu.  It seems to hard to believe it now, but Bau (pronounced Mbau) was once the centre of political power in Fiji and home to the 19th-century Fijian warlord, Cakobau, who proclaimed himself King of Fiji, before gifting the islands to Britain.  Cakobau was responsible for the conversion of Bau to Christianity and the end of warfare and cannibalism, which the islanders had a reputation for. 

Cagawalu - supreme deity of Bau

Cakobau's conversion to Christianity was partly a result of feeling 'let down' by the island's supreme deity, Cagawalu, the god of war.  Wright associates the rise in Cagawalu's popularity, with the rise in the power of the Bau kingdom - therefore, it makes sense that the loss of political influence in Bau, would also mean the triumph of the Christian god of peace over the Fijian god of war!

The not-so-Pacific islands

Despite the name, many of the Pacific islands were quite warlike, especially in Polynesian islands like New Zealand, where the Maoris had a fierce reputation as warriors and war-makers.  The people of Hawaii worshipped a war god called Kū, who ressembles the Maori war god Tū, also known as Tū-mata-uenga (Tu of the angry face), Tū-kai-taua (Tu the destroyer of armies) or Tū-ka-riri (Tu the angry).  Interestingly, Tū was known as the 'old god of war' in Tahiti - perhaps because he was imported at an earlier date and later replaced by the Tahitian god of war, 'Oro.

Featured gods of Hawaii and the Aztecs



Huitzilopochtli, Aztec god of war

I also find it really interesting that the Hawaiian god of war, Kū is depicted as being covered in feathers.  There has been even more evidence in recent months (since I wrote my blog post on Dinosaurs) that dinosaurs may have been feathered and may have evolved into modern-day birds.  I realise that dinosaurs and humans missed each other by millions of years, but I can't help but wonder at terrifying war gods, like Hawaii's Kū, but also Huitzilopochtli of the Aztecs - who has a very bird-like appearance.  Perhaps, there was some ancestral memory or inherited knowledge of larger, bird-like creatures that were predators of pre-historic man?

Human sacrifice and the forces of darkness

Huitzilopochtli is most associated with the human sacrifics that were made in his honour.  Actually, Huitzilopochtli was a solar god, who fought the forces of darkness and demanded human sacrifice to appease the violent nature of the struggle between the dark and the light.  I guess, war is ultimately about sacrifice - we might turn up our noses nowadays at savage practices such as human sacrifice, but if you think of how many young men were 'sacrificed' to appease the gods of World War 1, or the 'war on/of terror' in Afghanistan.  Is it really that different? 

Kali trampling Shiva by Raja Ravi Varma

Even today, war is perceived as a struggle between 'good and evil' or 'dark and light'.  Kali, the Hindu goddess of darkness was seen as the great destroyer, an antithesis of Shiva, the creator - but also his consort.  It seems that the human need to destroy and create goes hand-in-hand.  I'm pretty sre that lucrative contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq were being drawn up, even as Western armies were preparing for invasion.

The 'intelligent' war gods of Europe

Many war gods are also gods of fertility, during times of peace.  A good example is Anann, the Irish goddess of war, who was also a fertility goddess and managed Ancient Ireland's livestock!  Ancient Europeans also made human sacrifices to appease the gods of war - sacrifices were made to the Celtic war god, Lugus and the Nordic Odin.  By all accounts, Odin was the 'thinking man's god of war'.  As well as being God of war, he was famous for his creativity and was considered to be an intelligent god, developing war strategies - he was also revered for his magical powers. 

War Gods of Ancient Greece and Rome

The Ancient Greeks captured the essence of the war god by having two war gods - the male, Ares symbolised the violence of war and the unfettered masculine thirst for blood.  The female goddess, Athena had a more strategic approach to war and transcended the more primal instincts of blood-letting and needless sacrifice.  Ares always went into battle with his two closest companions, Phobos (fear) and Deimos (terror). 

Mars and the Vestal Virgin by Jacques Blanchard

The Roman god of war, Mars, was symbolised by the wolf and the woodpecker.  The wolf because of its brutality and power and the woodpecker because of its persistance in bringing down the Oak tree, which is much bigger than itself.  The 'red planet' is named after Mars which, I guess, is symbolic of his blood-thirsty role. 

War and Peace

Cakobau converted to Christianity because he believed that the old gods had deserted Fiji and that his people should submit to the new god of Christianity.  It got me thinking about the influence of monotheism and religions like Christianity and Islam.  Islam is the religion of 'submission' and peace - although there were war gods in Ancient Babylon, Sumeria and other parts of the (what we call) the Middle East, the adoption of Islam, saw the end of pagan beliefs and a new belief-system that promoted peace, tolerance and trade.  Likewise, the central messages of Christianity, particularly in the New Testament are all about 'Love Thy Neighbour' and 'Turn the other Cheek'. 

If the spread of Christianity and Islam helped pacify previously warring tribes and nations (as it did in Fiji), then why is the world still at war?  Which 'god' is still demanding the sacrifice of human lives?  Perhaps the new gods of war are oil, money and greed!

Image credits:

All images are taken from Wikimedia commons and are considered to be in the public domain and, therefore, copyright free.