Prop 8

For those of you who have not been following my recent Facebook discussions, this post is in response to an ongoing conversation about Prop 8.

Nathan, Joseph, I post this here in that it is too long to post on Facebook.

I am now going to address what I believe the majority of your arguments seem to have been about, and in addition a few that have been brought up tangentially by Joseph's other posted links. The bolded part at the beginning of each entry is the argument that I am addressing.

1. The passage of Prop 8 does not discriminate against the LGBT community. Prop 8 is simple and clear: it eliminates the rights for same sex couples to marry. It would write discrimination against one group of people--lesbian and gay people (incidentally a protected class in California)--into our state constitution.
2. If Prop 8 does not pass, our children will be taught about homosexuality in schools. There is not even ONE word about education in Prop 8, and no child can be forced against the will of their parents to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Frawley has ruled that this claim is "false and misleading". Incidentally, one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, the Orange County Register, has also said that this claim is false. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marriage-sex-protection-2174926-california-state And lawyers for the Department of Education have also stated that this claim is false.
3. A Massachusetts case about parents' objections to school curriculum will happen here. In contrast to Massachusetts, California parents and given the absolute right to remove their children from school and opt out of any curriculum regarding health and family instruction that they do not agree with. Why bring up a case that is irrelevant here due to laws that California has that Massachusetts does not?
4. Four activist judges... "Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens." I quote this directly from www.noonprop8.com as I believe I could not state it better myself.
5. The definition of marriage. This discussion regards political issues, not religious. We are not a country that is centered on religion. While many citizens are religious, our policies are not determined by that. This is law. And by law in California sexuality is a protected class, and they cannot therefore be denied anything based on that difference. Even something so simple as that title of marriage. Because you say nothing is being denied but that title. The title is. By denying that we are writing discrimination into our state constitution.
6. Plessy. Plessy v. Ferguson separated everything. Schools, restaurants, places of worship, marriage. Everything. Everything was kept separate because of an irrational fear and in some cases a religious argument that it was for the better. Brown was the case that overturned it. And yes, Brown did directly have to deal with education, but it overturned Plessy on the whole. I don't remember the last time I wrote down my place of worship or favorite restaurant on my resume.
7. Churches might lose their tax exempt status. This derives from a flase connection to a case in New Jersey regarding a Methodist Church. Considering that is the case that occurred in a state that does not allow the gay right to marry, so it has nothing to do with Prop 8. The New Jersey case "the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization, had taken advantage of a New Jersey law granting a state property tax exemption for a pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove that was dedicated for public use. Note that the case did not involve income tax exemptions and note that the purpose for giving the exemption in the first place was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use. The property in question was a boardwalk pavilion open to the public. 'Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It's even been used for debates and Civil War re-enactments.' it was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. Nevertheless, the OGCMA wanted to prohibit a gay commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony) from being held in the pavilion. The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA intended to claims a property tax exemption for a building open to the public, the could not discriminate. Seen in this light, it was a sensible ruling. Implicit in the ruling is that the group could discriminate if they ceased to claim a property tax exemption for a public facility. It is important to note that this ruling pertained to only the pavilion, which constituted a mere one percent of the property the OGCMA owned. The total amount of additional tax asserted was $200. The OGCMA continues to recieve a property exemption for the remaining 99% of its property. This case had nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church's chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church's income tax exemption. To my knowledge, the Mormon Church has never sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption similar to the New jersey exemption and likely never would. The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self-evident because of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion." (quoted from www.mormonsformarriage.com)
8. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.” Of course, anyone can be 'sued' for anything, but the fact remains that no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same-sex marriages. Remember also that in the US we have far more liberal laws regarding freedom of speech and religion laws than in Canada. The description of a California case that I have heard brought up is again, irrelevant. Good News Employee Association v. Hicks was decided BEFORE the California Supreme Court decision, so it has nothing to do with Prop 8. Nathan, you yourself said that "The real problem occurs when you have a homosexual couple request a marriage ceremony in a church whose doctrine does not allow such a marriage to take place. The church obviously says no, and the couple who already knew what the answer would be, files a discrimination lawsuit." (quoted, Nathan) "If a minister can be sued for discrimination for refusing to marry a gay couple, then his right to worship is forfeit." (quoted, Joseph) California law prohibits this, so what is the problem?
9. The choice to be a homosexual/heterosexual. Homosexuality is not only a choice. Where yes, a person technically has the choice of the person they choose to partner themselves with, they do not choose their basic instincts regarding who they are attracted to. As not all people subscribe to the same religious doctrine, it is not necessary or relevant to use one religious doctrine to define all people's actions or moral compass.
10. Threat to marriage. As I see it, the biggest threat to marriage is divorce. With a 48% divorce rate I think we might have bigger things to worry about.
    
11. Marriage as a religious ceremony. As I have stated, marriage was not, historically speaking, originally a religious ceremony. Even among Christian cultures it was not required for a religious official to oversee the union until 1545 and the Council of Trent. Until that point marriage was purely, a personal matter. If we are going to the origins of marriage, should we not go back to that? Also, marriage exists both as a religious ceremony and as a legal document. It is not always both. Where one might be recognized by the church and not by the state, it might also happen in the reverse. What Prop 8 is choosing to redefine is a legal definition of marriage, not a religious one. But it is choosing to use a religious point to view to try and define a legal contract.
12. "When it comes to religious freedom vs anti-discrimination, religious freedom looses. THAT is wrong. That is taking our rights away." (quote, Joseph October 21 @ 9:13pm). You claim the religious freedom is more important, even if it infringes the right of others. I think not. Your right to worship as you please should not interfere with an individual's right to live as they please. It's that simple.
13. "The definition of marriage among judeo-christian religions has existed LONG before that same society to which you referred, so how far afield do you want to go?" (quoted, Nathan October 22, 6:34am). You claimed that the roots of marriage were religious. They are not. If you choose to go onlyu far enough back to prove your point you leave out the real origins of the institution of marriage."The definition of marriage among judeo-christian religions has existed LONG before that same society to which you referred, so how far afield do you want to go?" (quoted, Nathan October 22, 6:34am). You claimed that the roots of marriage were religious. They are not. If you choose to go only far enough back to prove your point you leave out the real origins of the institution of marriage. As Sean has provided for me there is mention of marriage both outside of and predating the Christian institution. "Epic of Gilgamesh: tablet 2: Enkidu and Shamhat leave the wilderness for Uruk to attend a wedding."
    
14. "I do claim inconsitency because there are currently other people in the USA that ask for their "rights" to marriage to be recognized. Why should your redefinition be accepted and theirs rejected?" (quoted, Nathan October 22, 9:46am) I claim that the reasoning of these four California Supreme Court Judges was sound, and not made in haste nor was it a rash decision, take a look at the reasonings they gave.
    

• "The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics." p. 53, from In Re Marriage Cases.
• "Because the right to marry refers to the right of an individual to enter into a consensual relationship with another person, we find it appropriate and useful to refer to the right to marry as a right possessed both by each individual member of the couple and by the couple as a whole." FN34, p. 53
• "In undertaking this inquiry, we put to the side for the moment the question whether the substantive rights embodied within the constitutional right to marry include the right to have the couple’s official relationship designated by the name “marriage” rather than by some other term, such as “domestic partnership.”" (p.54)
• There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ‘[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added [“to marry” italicized by Perez], quoting Meyer, supra, 262 U.S. 390, 399.) The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added.)
• "As plaintiffs maintain, these high court decisions demonstrate that even when the state grants ostensibly equal benefits to a previously excluded class through the creation of a new institution, the intangible symbolic differences that remain often are constitutionally significant."
• "Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term “marriage” is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of secondclass citizenship."
• "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the distinction drawn by the current California statutes between the designation of the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the designation available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples."

• You asked for a outlining of the fallacious arguments you have used, and so I will give them.
• The first is called "An Appeal to Belief": something is not true simply because you believe it to be so. A religious doctrine is one such basis when used as an outline for a legal discussion. And the fact that a majority of people may agree with you does not make that claim necessarily true. Also here I will add "Appeal to Common Practice", the fact that something is done and is commonly done does not make it right on the basis of that. This has also been called "Appeal to Tradition".
• "Begging the Question" you imply that the fact that it has been done this way means that it is inherently right. It's a circular argument, saying that it's wrong because it has been prohibited, and it has been prohibited because it is wrong.
• "Division". The qualities and attributes of the whole should not be be attributed to each part. In this case you say that because civil unions and marriage have the same legal rights that they are the same. While yes, they are both a part of something known as partnership recognized by legal status and they may be in most ways equivalent, that fact does not make them equal.
• "Questionable Cause". However many cases you bring of how you think this will harm our families, children, religious institutions, or rights (though as I have laid out, many of them happen to be not relatable anyway), they are not necessarily logically linked. Simply because these events may be commonly associated with gay marriage and the right to do so does not mean that one caused the other.
• Slippery Slope". You say yourself, if we consider this redefinition why should we not reconsider them all. This "what would be next" line of thinking is a fallacy.

Cited sources include: Responses from California Supreme Court Judges, www.mormonsformarriage.com, and www.noonprop8.com. Also used, as you have noted was the wikipedia article on marriage. This was used as an outline of the historical background of marriage. If you would like me to cite other sources on this matter, I can if you so desire or require. I did not feel it necessary to cite the entire article, just the portions I was using.

Vanity Blog #2

I believe that a life left without scrutiny is a life not worth living at all. Oddly enough, I have also found that my life examined has left me with a big headache and a lot of heartache. I believe that this is a dilemma worth examining, even with the headache that it might cause. I believe that progress for people is gained at times of extraordinary difficulty. I believe that those times when peoples' egos and vanities are completely shattered and torn are when they grow the most. Unfortunately, all of this was wasted on me, because it required me to spend months and years afterward building up a new ego and new façade that was stronger and more resilient than the one that shattered before it. I believe that we so desperately seek connection with other people that we give them the ability to break us. We wait not for them to break us, which I believe many of them will eventually do, but rather we wait for the one who we give that ability to who does not choose to take that opportunity. I believe that this kind of fear of total breakage and pain is what we expose ourselves to when we fall in love. I believe that love is the highest form of torment that we can subject ourselves to. For in what other endeavor do we open ourselves to such opportunity to complete destruction? After each and every knock down that I've gotten has actually been a step up for me, and I believe that every step has been in the effort to create a stronger, better version of myself. I believe that the daughter, friend, sister, girlfriend, writer, artist, nerd, damaged-girl, gamer, coffee-drinker, sarcasm, history-nerd, snob, egoist, brat, success and failures in me have all been steps on the way to the ways in which I am now. While each of these steps have been false versions of myself because they were no more than passing fancies that were little more shadows on the wall or the light creating the shadow itself. None of them were…are the actual Siobhán. So where does this leave me? I believe it might leave me right where I started, without ego? I wish. No, I am as much of an egoist as ever. But it makes me wonder, is that enough?

Vanity Blog #1

This will be the first of a series of blogs that will occur at random, according to my whim. They are modeled after Chuck Lorre's Vanity Cards which would appear at the end of his TV shows for a brief interim and were usually loaded with a copious amount of text. These are based purely on my beliefs and thoughts as they occur to me and will generally cater to my own sense or pride, vanity, and superior self-worth. Sometimes they will stay on one topic, sometimes they will not. Occasionally they will be deep and meaningful, and sometimes they will be shallow. Deal with it, this is my shameless attempt to share my views with people.

------------------------------------

I believe that most people in this world think that they are better than everyone else around them. This is not true. It simply isn't. At the very least, for one simple fact. I AM BETTER THAN EVERYONE. At the very least, I am better than most. It is true, and I know it to be so. But, I believe that I would not be so amazing were others not so un-amazing. It is, after all, a matter of comparison. I believe that most people know this, but simply refuse to admit to it. But, seriously now, I also believe that a person's sense of superiority lies in the fact that they are better than another person. I believe that there is always someone better and some one worse than you out there which gives rise to Buttercup's line, "Only compared to some."

I believe that nobody is that fantastic. If they were, I believe that they might just spontaneously explode. I believe it would be so. I believe that my point of view is generally best. Whether it actually is or not is sort of a moot point right now.

I also believe that the very belief in something both manifests itself in our life and causes us to fear it. We cannot fear something that does not exist, and so as soon as we believe it into existence, we have created something both capable of inspiring awe, respect, or fear. Or, possibly, any other number of feelings in us. I also believe that our feelings are shaped by our experiences and are subject to our whim. This means that we are both capable of and responsible for managing our emotions, feelings, actions, and thoughts. I believe that no one (short of holding a gun to your head, vicious blackmail, brute strength, or a really cute pout) can make you do something against your will. Your will and body is your own to do with what you will and I believe that no one can make you feel guilty about that unless you already feel guilty about it yourself.

I believe that a person has only themselves to answer to at the end of the day, and if they are not happy with that, then they should change something about their life until they are. I believe that change is good and acceptance is even better. I also (for some God-forsaken reason) believe that there is good in this world if people would only care to take the time to look.

You are amazing and compassionate people, even if you do not yet know it.

Thank you.

not like me...

Have been feeling somewhat...under the weather lately. I am not sure if something is in the air or if there is something more philosophical at work. Either way I have been unable to feel like myself in the hectic pace of my life lately. I am having issues finding my grounding, and very few things feel like home anymore. It's like I explained to somebody today. Sacramento has never been home. This is not where I belong. Not really. The place and people are not one that I wish to continue with as the years go along.

But if the place I live is not home...then what is? I'm not at home in the home of my parents, that much has been glaringly obvious, for that has become more symbolic to me over the years than anything else. And if my apartment here isn't...Well, where am I to go?

This is not all there is
What we see and what we know is nothing
Experiences are limited to the size of our perceptions
We see nothing
We are blind and must make judgments in the dark
I can't do that
That's just not like me
I could ask for more, but what would I get?
To answer to a vengeful God who wishes to strike guilt and terror in my heart is just not like me
Are you happy with that?
Or do you also say you cannot, like me?
I do not need that justification to stand on
I am good and kind of my own accord
I have beauty and compassion in a world that has shown me none
So, why do they not like me?
There is no promised land
Too many people are hurting to call it that
With nothing to call my own I walk on in a world that lost sight of me years ago
I am not lost, even though I do not know where I am going
To lose my way is not like me
Even the sky is too terrified to show itself to the world these days
Another hour is spent raining the tears I cannot cry for the crimes of men who have no one to answer to but their own conscience
Who polices that?
It is not in me to cry for those men, even those who have broken and killed me
That's not like me
Are you saddened by the state of the world?
Do you walk on doing nothing about its wrongs?
Or do you endeavor, in your own small way, to make it a better place?
Maybe, instead, you paint on a smile and go on whether you like it or not, like me
Why does the world take the beauty of innocence and ruin it?
What was there to be gained?
All it gave me was a quest
A jaded thirst for answers with no questions
Even when there is no method to madness, the chaos makes sense
That could be my answer
I could accept its simplicity, but that's just not like me
The tears of my eyes are not my own
The salty tracks they use as roads numb my sight
The day is so still that it feels like death
I keep waiting for even an ounce of kindness to be shown to me
Why do they not like me?
This is my kingdom and in it, I am perfect
The fire is dying and I light a cigarette with its last breath
All my answers are smoke
I am too good for the lives I have lived
I never asked for any of this
My broken lungs breathe air that hates them
My perfect beauty was crafted by hands that never knew what creature would be born from their wreckage
Flowers bloom from the tears of this world
Absolute beauty comes from perfect pain
So too am I
A perfect girl with a hole in my heart and I wonder, can it too be watered by tears?
I know I've cried enough
Will flowers grow in to fill the space?
I only want to know one thing
With my beauty and my perfection
Why do I not like me?

-S.Granvold

Of Clouds and Crows

So many things to do but none of them seem to matter
I look out and hope to meet your gaze but you're no longer here
So I choose, instead, to lie out on the grass in the hopes that it's embrace could rival yours
You and I both know that nothing does
Instead of your eyes I see the sky
A blue that resonates a total of zero times
That nothing seems to take over
Clouds scattered randomly in a pattern that suddenly makes perfect sense
They float on by with a carelessness I can no longer reach
A night crow flies by with purpose
A purpose that has left me in days gone by and has not been missed since its absence
So I watch, instead, the crow and his intent as it passes me by
I wonder what goes through his mind
Might he be tired?
Would he like to sit for a while next me on the grass which must look greener from his vantage?
Would he like to rest his wings and exchange a few words?
Reflections on what he might have to say pass my eyes
Maybe he would just listen to my stories
The epic tales of my own continued correspondence with terrestrials
It just might be that he would caw on and on
Sounds that I could never understand
Trying to tell me of the creatures who own the sky
A place I have always longed to inhabit
I have long had to content my desires with those of the ground
My land-locked feet forbidding the adventures I would take with wings I will never have
We could sit for hours I reckon
It might be, when it was all over, that we would make a date for the same time the next day
I might ask him to take me for a ride
For my hands long to skim over the clouds of my dreaming
Could he take me with him?
I could ask him to show me a world that was never my own
Maybe, instead, I could clip his wings and take him with me
I could
I would never inhibit such beauty in that way
So, I will instead keep him in my mind and remember the conversation we never had
For I never asked him to linger
A lost opportunity at a friend that will never be
Advice I will never hear
Tales from eyes that I never looked into
Maybe I'll choose to forget him
But I can't do that now
For I never got the chance
I'll go on with my day
The clock ticks by with its steady pace
Seconds and minutes telling me of the places I should be
In the distance a bell rings
I'm running out of time
No time left to linger in the grass of another's yard where everything is green
For my own world is dreary without the colors of this world
Back to time
Time for reality
Reality of what I see with my eyes
What I see of a world I was never at home in
I can return again
It won't be the same
Even at this time tomorrow
The chance is gone and I must take what I can
Even if it is just the possibility of a conversation I never had
Perhaps, tomorrow, he will stop by
I won't be there
I could say, "Next time."
There is only this time
So maybe tomorrow I will avoid a conversation with the clouds
But with a thirty percent chance of rain
I think they will only cry on me

-S.Granvold

life will be all that you make it...

This past week has seen a good number of "firsts" for me. Some of them bad, but the overwhelming number of them exceedingly good. You see to the left here the first picture I've taken with two people I had never before taken a picture with. Side note: thank you Katia, this picture would not have been complete without your hand and the back of your head. At the end of everything, I am alive, in one piece, and exceedingly happy. All things considered, I count myself as having come out far ahead of par. Life treks on in such a way as to allow me to remain more than content with my place and circumstance. Even the worst of these recent days has left me more certain of the things and the people I have chosen to give places in my life to. Whatever might have happened does not matter, because what did happen was far more critical.

It has been said of me before that I am something of a klutz. People all around me are dancing intricate steps while I continue to trip over my own feet. However many times I may stumble over that doorstep, I will always get back up again. While some might say that makes me a fool, it seems to have done nothing but good for me. I refuse to fix a system that is not broken. So, having fallen off the metaphorical horse once again, I did the only thing that occurred to me. I stood, checked myself and others for injury, and jumped right back on. There was nothing else for it. The trust to which that speaks not only gives me infinite knowledge about myself, but also about that metaphorical horse and that journey I have chosen.

I took off this weekend for an escape into rain, trees, and dirt. It has been a long time since I have gone camping and it was certainly long overdue. So, thus packed and ready to go we (Steve, Katia, Sean, and myself) set off onto the road. I learned, quickly at that, that I should never discredit that 30% chance of rain, especially when the rain would be inconvenient. I learned several things that weekend. Thankfully, one was a lesson I had learned before, and served me well in two regards over the course of the weekend. I learned how to fall a long time ago, and thank goodness too, otherwise both of those things could have been...well, bad. In a way I am learning to fall all over again. Only this time tucking my chin and pulling my arms in won't do me any good. I must trust myself to fall without knowledge of what the repercussions might be. At least (both literally and metaphorically) I am not falling alone. I now have things in my life that I didn't even know I wanted...maybe I'll finally get my wings too...

And so fool that I now am, I wish for wings,

As one foot steps off the edge of the cliff that I've been teetering on for my entire life

So, we set our tents up, boiled our water, and pulled out the boxed Cabernet Sauvingon and prepared for the night. A meal of freeze dried Beef Stroganoff and two cups of cheap wine later and the conversation quickly began to degrade. It should be mentioned here, that this is not a good mix in my stomach. Included in this "conversation" was a horribly bad (yes, redundancy can be fun) rendition of Friends in Low Places by Garth Brooks, to which we could not even remember all of the words. Seems to be a common problem with this group, as previously we had trouble with the words of American Pie even with the lyrics printed out in front of us. Now, keep in mind here that Siobhán is a cheap date when it comes to wine, and this night was no exception to the rule. I was afraid, at one point, that we had scared away our camping neighbors.

So, my camping urges thus satisfied, I made my way back into the real world. If I had thought it would be boring in comparison, oh how wrong I was. From plans far that I am far to young to consider to backwards marriage proposals of convenience from men I don't even know I have had myself an interesting week.

Despite annoyances at certain people who seem unable to do the simplest of things, I go on with my life the best way I know how.

Oh, and as a note, Siobhán has the most bizzarely awesome afterglows ever! And she is glad someone finally understands them.

So, suffice to say, Siobhán is looking forward to the near future and is trying not to think too hard about the upcoming Batizado. I am building a life for myself that could possibly end up to be better than anything I could have ever planned in my youth.

Slainte!

Ciao!

Tchau!

Arrivederci!

Meow!

axé!

Capoeira is a Brazilian "martial art", as many of you have probably heard me say in the past. But the term "martial art" goes a long way to NOT describing Capoeira at all. While there is, certainly a fighting element involved in Capoeira, it is also so much more. Mestre Acordeon has said that it is "A dance like a fight, a fight like a dance, a song…a way of life." It is, at once, a martial art, but it is much more ritualistic and fluid than more traditional Asian Martial Arts. But I will explain that later.

Capoeira begins in Brazil during the period of the slave trade with the slaves taken from West Africa to work on the Brazilian sugar plantations. Capoeira takes its roots in the Diaspora of West African traditions, which explains a lot of traditions that I will enumerate at a later point. Capoeira, as compared to other martial arts, is very young, having only been in practice for around 300 years, and only established itself in the last century. Up until that point Capoeira had a history of violence, danger, and unlawfulness.

The slaves practiced Capoeira in secret, as they had to hide it from their masters. As such Capoeira was turned into something that resembled a dance in many ways more than a fight. Once slavery was abolished in Brazil these ex-slaves made up the lower rungs of society, and many of them took up crime and gangs as a way to survive. Because of this Capoeira became associated with poverty, crime, and gangs. Capoeira, up through the early 20th century was heavily punishable by law. It was even, at a point, punishable by death. Capoeiristas found ways around these laws and rules. There are rhythms on the main instrument, the Berimbau, that indicate certain things to Capoeiristas. One, in particular, tells some of the ways in which Capoeiristas had to hide their activities. Cavalaria is a rhythm on the berimbau that tells Capoeiristas that the police are coming, and to get out. In this way they are able to, covertly, help each other out and get out. Hopefully, by the time that the police got there, the only person left would be the one holding the berimbau and there would be no roda to break up. Other rhythms dictate the type of game that will be played, or to form the roda.

The roda is the circle around which Capoeiristas sit and within which the game of Capoeira is played. Music is played, songs are sung, and the game is played. The roda is a somewhat sacred place in Capoeira culture. There are many rituals and traditions that revolve (pardon the pun for those of you who get it) around the roda.

At this point, I find it pertinent to get into a discussion of Capoeira rituals, of which there are many. The first, and possibly most important of which is the Batizado celebration. Batizado translates to mean baptism. It is the celebration at which new students receive their first belts and actually become Capoeiristas. The celebration generally spans a weekend and involves workshops for students, visiting mestres, food, music, dance, and a lot of merry-making, as they would say. It is an opportunity for students and mestres alike to come together in celebration. Students, as I did just a few weeks ago, make their own cordao (belt), and eventually must enter the roda with a Mestre to receive it. Students are often presented with apellidos (nicknames) at Batizados as well that do something to explain something about them and that will follow them through their Capoeira lives.

Capoeira is not a fighting style so much as a way of moving and defending that can be applied to fight. It is, traditionally, fought barefoot. One explanation that I have heard to explain this has been to harken back to Capoeira's West African origins. In many West African religions there is a belief that ancestors do not go up (say, to heaven) when they die, but rather underneath us in the ground. Therefore, our connection with them is through the ground and the feet are more sacred than the hands; the hands being made for work. This would also explain why a lot of Capoeira fighting is done with the feet. This is why you will also see many Capoeiristas 'connecting' with the ground at various moments. The most obvious and continuous example of this is the fact that we are often barefoot, especially during the roda. Also, you will see many Capoeiristas touch the ground with their hand just before, and especially after the game has been played. This moment of connection is singular and specific to each and every Capoeirista. Some sign the cross before they touch the ground, others hold their hands over their hearts during certain songs, and others still create their own ritual.

The idea of community is very important in Capoeira, and is made evident in everything. The roda is the most important example of this. Even if one is sitting on the outside of the roda and is not playing a game, they are responsible for clapping and singing to keep the Axé (energy) going for the players.

There is so much more to Capoeira, and many things I do not yet know. Not all of this is any kind of definitive description of Capoeira, but it does well to explain some of the basics to those of you who do not know much about this art that I have come to love.

If you have any questions, please ask, I love talking about this, and I enjoy helping people to understand this art that is growing in American culture.

Agua de Beber, the studio at which I train, is having its Batizado on Saturday, September 27 at 4pm. If you are interested in seeing a good show and want to come out, I suggest it. It starts promptly at 4pm and is $10 for the public to come and watch.

Blessings to all of you, and especially to everyone out there that is preparing for their own Batizados for in that way you are my brothers and sisters and I love you all. Immense gratitude goes out to all of those who have taught me, and especially to Contra-Mestre Galego for all of his help.

Axé!

Ie viva meu mestre!
Ie viva meu mestre camara!

Ie que me ensino!
Ie que me ensino camara!

Ie a Capoeira!
Ie a Capoeira camara!