Invisible Disabilities

An ‘invisible disability’ is defined as a disability that is not quickly apparent; there are no outward or obvious signs of a disability. Of course, this does not mean that the disability is not there, it just changes others’ perception and treatment of the people with the disability. With disabilities that are clearly visibly, people have a tendency to default to over-bearing pity in an attempt to be helpful, the opposite is true for people with invisible disabilities as there can be a refusal to believe that the disability exists.

How on earth did Augustus become the first emperor of Rome?

(or 'on the establishment of the Principate')

In 44BC, Julius Caesar was murdered on the infamous Ides of March for assuming the position of dictator. The Roman Republic was established in 509BC as the antithesis to the Roman Kingdom; no man could ever hold absolute power and thus become a tyrant - so Caesar claiming power was received with great anger by the senatorial class. In complete contrast, Gaius Octavianus, or Augustus, managed to assume even greater power under the guise of the Principate when, in reality, he had established what we know as the Roman Empire. It is generally agreed that by 23BC that the foundation of the Principate had been laid down and by the time of Augustus' death (AD14), he had instituted a form of government similar to the kingdom that existed more than 700 years prior. The question then becomes how did Augustus become the first emperor of Rome and survive when his adopted father had been assassinated for assuming similar powers. In this post, I will briefly outline the three main methods with which Augustus founded the Principate.

For one thing, the manner in which he assumed power was markedly different to the way in which Julius Caesar assumed power. The latter took the position of dictator for a period of two years; the power was only meant to be used in times of great emergency for 6 months at most. In this way, one could argue he made no attempts to hide his ambition and thus appeared to shun the Republic entirely. Contrastingly, Augustus gained power under a Republican guise, his title of ‘princeps senatus’ (given in 28BC) had been given to the leading men of the state previously. Also, he held powers that were associated with the Republic; tribuncia potestas (the power of the tribunes) was associated with the protection of the people and democratic traditions. His imperium maius was closely associated with political and military strength; thus, the powers he held were not unprecedented nor did they appear to be regal in nature. Of course, this Republican guise was not the strongest considering his multiple consulships and imperium maius but this political power was masqueraded often as personal auctoritas which persuaded others to carry out his legislation and concede to his wishes. Also, the First and Second Settlement was useful to him as he appeared to not want to control the state as he returned all of his powers. Like his political power, this was a mask to make him appear more Republican when in reality he received similar amounts of power back; the only difference is that this was given to him by the Senate – implying that he is not defying the Senate like Caesar previously did. To add to this, he refused to dictatorship when it was offered to him in 22BC, further differentiating him from his adopted father. Therefore, the power Augustus held appeared to be in accordance with Republican traditions and approved by the Senate.

Another element that led to the Principate surviving was the obedience of the senatorial class. In the case of Caesar, he was surprisingly well-liked by the people (due to his sensible reforms) but the senators were displeased by his dominance of power which led to his assassination by the optimates. In contrast, Augustus forced the senators’ hands in that they could choose either obsequiousness or obscurity; if they obeyed Augustus, they were essentially guaranteed political advancement. If they attempted to plot against him or challenge his dominance of power, they were essentially sabotaging their careers or signing their own death warrant. The censorial powers of Augustus meant that the Senate could be purged of dissenters (such as supporters of Mark Antony). Many senators were financially indebted to him as he raised the property qualification in 12BC; however, Augustus supported them if they fell short. Also, the most definitive reason for senatorial indifference was Augustus’ power militarily; his imperium maius meant the army answered to him above all others. Primarily, it is with his financial backing that the army was re-organised and veterans could be settled leading to their complete support; the establishment of the Praetorian Guard ensured his power, as they served as a personal guard for him. In contrast with Caesar’s dictatorship, the Senate did hold administrative and legislative power under Augustus – although it was an unequal power balance, they were still relevant. Thus, the acquiescence of Senate allowed Augustus to keep his power as he dominated them financially and militarily.

Lastly, a major aspect of his power came from his power with the army. Firstly, he had imperium maius which meant he could override anyone else when it came to military matters. Imperium was associated with masculine authority and also meant he could march on Rome if the Senate did not agree. The army were also essential in his initial rise to power and his foreign policy, especially with the imperial provinces. By settling the veterans with his own money, he also guaranteed their support. His re-organisation of the army was also crucial to maintaining his power; he initially scaled the size of the army down to 28 legions which made it more manageable, he then revived old forms of discipline and set up standardised conscription in order to create an army fit for a growing empire. After 17BC, no person outside of the imperial family could celebrate a triumph, implying Augustus was the ultimate imperator and no other Roman could compete. This complete dominance over the military granted him insane amounts of auctoritas and meant that the people or the Senate could not go against him.

In conclusion, Augustus was able to establish the Principate with the Republican guise he used to mask his power, his dominance over the army and the obedience of the Senate. Of course, there are many aspects that allowed him to survive and establish the Principate but those are the primary reasons that he became the first emperor of Rome while Caesar was assassinated in the process.

Spider-man: Homecoming (or 'On the topic of representation')

I recently watched Spider-man: Homecoming and it quickly became my favourite Marvel movie, leaving a strong impression on me. I would argue that the age of the protagonist and the humour means it is targeted towards millennials and the 'younger' generation; thus, the topic of representation becomes infinitely more important and Spider-man definitely impressed me in that regard.

Simply put, the cast of Spider-man was undeniably more diverse and a more accurate portrayal of New York by far compared to movies set in similar locations. We have Zendaya playing Michelle Jones (or MJ), Jacob Batalon portraying the character of Ned Leeds and Laura Harrier playing Liz; these characters are all significant to Peter in the film. In all honestly, it was refreshing not to have a cast full of white actors and to have some diversity with PoC playing important roles in the movie. Moreover, it was accurate when looking at the demographics of New York; in the 2000 census, Queens' population was 44.1% white which means that PoC make up 55.9% of the population.[1]

Despite this, Hollywood and the media insists of erasing the existence of PoC and casting white actors primarily, completely ignoring the reality of the situation. Therefore, the clearly diverse cast and representation of different ethnicities within Spider-man is more progressive than expected, especially of Marvel - however, the topic of Marvel and white-washing is not what I am focusing on in this particular post.

Earlier, I mentioned that representation is especially important considering the target demographic of the film. This is because a lack of representation is undeniably harmful to children and teenagers; it leads to the false impression that white skin is the ideal and PoC are not as important or attractive. Additionally, if a child only sees their ethnicity represented in a stereotypical fashion, it can quite damaging as it teaches them that those stereotypes are all they will ever be viewed as - they are nothing more. Furthermore, this lack of  representation is, in of itself, racist and colourist and only creates more racism and colourism. Representation matters; it is about teaching that no skin colour is of more worth than another and that PoC do not need to lighten their skin in order to fit in with what is portrayed in the media. Representation is about not alienating PoC and erasing their existence; it is letting children see positive portrayals of their ethnicity. We are bombarded constantly by images in the media, these images set a standard that people feel they have to reach. A lack of representation sends negative messages to those watching as it disregards their existence and furthers the cycle of erasure.

Thus, the representation in Spider-man matters. It matters that the love interest was mixed race and not white; it is unfortunately common that the love interest in media is white and sends the message that it is because white people are more attractive and that PoC must accept that they will never reach that standard of beauty. It furthermore implies that WoC are not the type of people that are love interests, they will never fit into that sphere that has been created by Hollywood. So when I saw Liz, and saw that she wasn't white, I smiled because it was refreshing to see a WoC in that position. The inclusion of PoC in the film did not come off as mere tokenism - it felt like true diversity.

[1] https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

Body shape and idealisation

The image I hold of myself is not purely dictated by the image in the mirror. It is influenced by Instagram, by magazines, by TV, by music, by those around me and by societal conditioning that has brainwashed me since the day I was born. I condemn society and media for manipulating me, telling me I'm not fair enough, slim enough, that I will never be enough. I was not born hating myself. I was not born with the desire to starve myself. I was not born hating my skin colour. I was born innocent. 

I have been taught that fat is disgusting, bones are desirable. I have been taught that pain is beauty, vanity is ugly. I have been taught that my body is does not belong to me. For, if it did belong to me, I would not have starved myself, I would not have spent hours staring at my flaws, I would never have thought about how I am disgusting and DESERVE to suffer for how awful I am. If my body belonged to me, my self-worth wouldn't be tied up in my weight and in food and everyone else's opinions. If my body belonged to me, I may have loved myself. 

But I don't. Society has laid claim to my self worth and my image of myself; it refuses to let me forget that. It refuses to let me forget that a girl is a prude if she doesn't want sex but a whore if she enjoys it. It refuses to let me forget that boys will be boys but girls must be poised. Girls must not do this, must not do that, girls will be horrifically violated and abused if they do not follow society's rules - it is the natural way of life, a society built on hypocrisy and lies. 

The perception I hold of my body is warped, it is filtered through society's lenses first, I can never reach the unaltered picture. The language that is used to describe ourselves is ablest, sexist and racist as evidenced by the fact that looking 'healthy' is a compliment and the term fair is equivalent to beautiful. We are a society that thrives on encouraging eating disorders in children, yet we refuse to take responsibility for it and offer help to those suffering. 

Recovery is difficult. It feels like a battle while survival feels like an endless war. The concept of fighting yourself in order to love yourself seems ridiculous. But, the thoughts that tell me that I am not good enough are not my own. They are borne of something that I cannot control, the media around me and the society that has raised me - I am a product of this undeniably. I cannot forget what society has taught me. But I will try to learn from it. I will try to remember that my body deserves love, that my appearance does not define me, that weight does not control your self worth. My happiness is worth more than pleasing a society which does not accept me as I am. 

Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh - Review

{SPOILERS!!}

Without a doubt, Kahaani 2 is one of the best films I have ever watched due to the atmosphere of suspense and mystery throughout as well as the important topics discussed in the film. It is intense and difficult to watch at points due to the difficult themes portrayed but that makes the film even better - the emotion that is created as well as the atmosphere makes this film an incredible thriller and mystery.

Cleopatra: Part 2

"the contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of her person, joining with the charm of her conversation, and the character that attended all she said or did, was something bewitching. It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them".

Beauty is Pain?

This is possibly one of the most stupid sayings that we tell people, specifically women. It is said that certain elements of beauty, grooming and ‘self-care’ cause pain and that is something women (and men) will inevitably have to face. Yet, this statement is problematic in many ways and is an extremely harmful ideology to propagate.