Disney and Rethinking Fat

I found this article (link below) about who decided it was bad to be fat. It had me thinking about the things I've learned, regarding people's weight, throughout history and in various cultures. I understand that many ideas change over time, due to more knowledge, but when I was younger, I remember so many people who were overweight and I never heard any negativity about it... until around my mid-teen years. Then I became more aware of the body shaming, jokes, or cautious health warnings, which became part of our Western culture. Before then, being a Navy brat, traveling to various places and seeing various sizes of people was just part of life.

In fact, I remember a lot of famous overweight people from my youth. For instance, Hoss from Bonanza, Jackie Gleason, Oliver Hardy, Raymond Burr, the opera singer Beverly Sills, or singers like Mama Cass and Kate Smith. Or, even cartoon characters like Fred Flintstone and Pete (Mickey Mouse), as well as historical people of royalty, like King Henry VIII or some of the Hawaiian Queens and Kings. And, of course, there are Peter Paul Ruben's famous paintings, which include his very "full-figured" women. I also had numerous family and friends, of various ages, who were overweight. I even remember talking about "starving actors" putting on some weight after they were on a television series for a few years... they were, obviously, eating better.  

As you can see, being overweight isn't a current culture phenomenon, as some Internet sites are indicating. Throughout history, various sizes of overweight people have existed everywhere and in every culture. Maybe we're noticing things more because there are more people on this planet and the Internet has made our world much smaller. But, even before the Internet, I started hearing about people being overweight, or underweight, as unhealthy. I've since learned that this isn't always the case. That's the thing about science, facts can change. An overweight person doesn't mean an unhealthy person. Besides, that's between them and their physicians.

Of course, I don't agree with certain cultures promoting obesity, but I understand they thought it was important. I read about people, around the world, who considered their women being fat was a sign of wealth. They fattened them up on purpose. There was no stigma either. Even in China, fat signified good fortune and wealth... hence the chubby and happy Buddha. 

Also, there was the Disney movie, Wall-E, that gave us a little warning on how the path of least resistance, and living the good life, can lead to being overweight. But, what was nice, even though it had a subliminal message of unhealthy living, I don't recall fat shaming. Of course, why would Disney do that anyway? They would understand that it's not just culture programing that's involved. Being overweight can also come about for many reasons. And, after all, besides Pete, they have created many, many fat characters. 

Hmmm... maybe all those various Disney characters was another subliminal message. If so, than thank you Disney for reminding us that humanity is not homogenized, regardless of culture, regardless of being rich or poor, and that we each have our attributes no matter what size or shape.

------

"Who Decided It Was Bad to Be Fat?" https://www.sapiens.org/column/curiosities/fat-acceptance/

Avenger Syndrome

I've been around long enough to know that many things can influence and possess our thinking. Most learn not to absorb extreme negative influences, but not everyone. There are some who don't have that mental filtering and those are the ones that can be easily manipulated. They can often be the immature or mentally ill, not just those on mind altering substances.

I started thinking about this after watching a movie that had graphic violence. It was about a man on a mission of revenge for an injustice that occurred to his family. That's when it struck me that there are movies being made that glorify the main movie character who feels he/she has been pushed too far and decides to fight back - even if murder and mayhem is involved. In our minds, these movies make people heroes/heroines. We applaud their decision. We even fight, emotionally, with their cause. We don't care about the other side, because, after all, they're the enemy. 

However, along comes real life people who may see a ton of these movies, may not have any moral beliefs of right and wrong, have no foundation of reality and believe they can live out any fantasy they want. They have no fears, lack empathy, and may feel they too have been pushed to the point where they need to get justice over a perceived wrong. They psych themselves into believing they could be a hero/heroine by fighting for their cause.

In their fight for justice, they may feel they will be vindicated in martyrdom. They decide to fight back. They create mayhem and murder. But, instead of being glorified, they are vilified. They are killed or imprisoned. You see, to an unbalanced mind, these types of movies, etc., may be what indoctrinates and desensitizes them. To them, they see that chaos needs order and they may see themselves as the righteous chosen... the avenger. What I term the Avenger Syndrome.

I feel that this is what we've been seeing, for many years, with some serial killers or mass murderers. Yes, we've had similar things occur throughout history, of people wanting retribution at all cost, without today's influences, but they still had something that influenced them - something that pushed them over the edge - something that made them feel they had to be an avenger. But now, it's as if, in their unbalanced mind, they've been handed a justifiable reason on a silver platter: "well, it was okay to do it in the movies."

Of course, this may be only one issue with those we deem mentally ill - perceived avengers who commit horrendous crimes - but how do we ever move beyond it? I know that finger pointing doesn't help, especially when we're all to blame to some degree. After all, what can we expect when a society constantly promotes us to be or do whatever we want, with some stretching that idea to infinity and beyond? Yes, some think that means anything - without repercussions.

I've also learned that denying other's rights, catering to a small few, isn't a positive path to take either. Which is why I believe this will continue unless we really start listening to their grievances and working with them, taking their fears seriously, and removing any harmful programming. For instance, "no you cannot be an avenger and murder people, there are serious consequences!"

Of course, extreme steps to take would be locking them away so they cannot harm themselves or others. History shows that didn't always bode well either, but desperate times may call for desperate measures.

What Ifs: Genealogy, History, Genetics, Inbreeding and Sexual Anomalies?

I've been reading a lot of various topics about genetic anomalies and decided to put some things together that I've been mulling over. However, I want to emphasize that the things I mention below are not limited to any particular class or race, it's just a few examples I'm using, based on research, that had me scratching my head and wondering what if. 

First, through my genealogy research, I started, inadvertently, learning about history and genetics. I discovered that past royalty inbreeding or limited spouse availability, in earlier times, caused various genetic anomalies... some were often fatal... and these genes can show up down the line. 

Then, after reading about Queen Christina of Sweden being considered an intersex (formerly known as hermaphrodite) person, along with some thinking that the first Queen Elizabeth may have had male pseudohermaphroditism, I started wondering, what if inbreeding may have contributed to intersex people? Why not? Anything's possible. Right? 

I first heard about inbreeding through a 1966 movie called Hawaii. It had early 1800 missionaries explaining that siblings marrying, having sex, and murdering their deformed babies was a sin. To the Hawaiians, it was all normal. But afterwards, I began to learn that, since ancient times and with many civilizations, it was considered quite normal for royal siblings to marry and have children, including disposing of any which may have been seriously deformed. 

I guess they didn't know how to put two and two together, back then. However, time has shown us that there is definitely good science behind the laws that prohibit siblings from having children. The risk for passing down a genetic disease is much higher than with first cousins. 

As I continued researching, I read something about a Native American acceptance of a certain anomaly and wondered why. Was it done for a deeper meaning? For instance, what if newly instilled religious morals protected deformed babies from being murdered and then special names were created, for the afflicted, as compensation... to justify their deformities... a gift from God, so to speak. 

For example, the East India girl with four arms and legs being called a goddess instead of a conjoined twin. Or, in the case of Diodorus Siculus (1st Century BCE) who described Hermaphroditus as having a physical body of a man and woman and who was able to foretell future events. Again, special names and talents... as a gift from God... or stories created due to genetic anomalies? 

The reason I started wondering about this was because I discovered, while researching transgenders, that there are various culture names, which are used for people having confused genders (like "two spirit"), that have been around for eons. I wondered if it was possible that they may have had some form of deformed genitals or genetic anomaly, in the past, but murder wasn't an option and corrective surgery wasn't either. So, names were created to make them feel special... instead of an outcast in their small villages, tribes or communities. 

Also, I read that some of these past royal's "noticeable deformities" may have been overemphasized. It seemed plausible to me. Isn't that how some myths begin? A little bit of fact mixed with a lot of creative writing. But, what if some anomalies weren't physically noticeable? With all that inbreeding, could some have had sexual abnormalities, like an intersex person? Possibly kept a secret for any number of reasons. It may explain why some couldn't have children, which may be a blessing in disguise... removing bad blood. 

Yet, what if some royal children weren't from inbreeding and were actually produced via secret affairs and surrogates, in order for someone who was intersex to appear normal to the public or to produce normal children? After all, we know eons of deceit and hanky-panky ran rampant with some royalty, too. Maybe this too could have been a blessing in disguise... new blood. 

Anyway, this is only some of my what ifs. Hopefully, you can see why I was having them. I felt it was interesting enough to share, because I'm one who seeks answers in order to remove fears and prejudices. I just think it's amazing the things one discovers, and the questions that are provoked, because of genealogy questions, which often lead to various paths of research, like history and genetics.