June 2024

Volume 23, Issue 6 

Table of Contents

• This Month's Meeting - June 17:  Time with Angie Nixon!
• A Few Free Thoughts: From Marcus Aurelius 
• Death by Nostalgia
• About Our Newsletter, the First Coast FreeThinker
• Saving Ourselves Rather than Appealing to Heaven
• CHIT and CHAT Talk Back: Bang Zoom to the Moon and, Man Is a PIece of Work
• Music Today Suck - It's Not Genrerational, It Really Was Better!
• Advocacy Corner
• Further Reading for Freethinkers
• About the First Coast Freethought Society
• First Coast Freethought Book & Movie Discussion Group
• Next Month's Meeting - July 15 (Virtual)
• Leave a Lasting Legacy
• 2024 Freethought Events

Death by Nostalgia

Fred W. Hill

 

Sooner or later, anyone capable of paying attention will realize that reality is in a constant state of flux.  Even if we never notice it as it’s happening, our bodies change. As children, we grow taller, or old clothes cease to fit. Things break and can’t be fixed. We or our neighbors move. Pets, friends, relatives, acquaintances, and people we know only from television or recordings die. Favorite old haunts close for good. Natural disasters destroy entire neighborhoods. Wars bring even more damage. New technologies change the way we work and entertain ourselves. Political upheavals may impact our lives for better or for worse. Our cherished beliefs may be seriously challenged by new information. 
     Change has been a constant as long as there have been at least two molecules interacting with one another, billions of years before any human was around to long for the “good old days.”  Hesiod, credited as the author of the didactic poem “Works and Days,” circa 700 BCE, meant to instruct his brother, Perses, on the best methods on farming and living and on why the world is as it is, included a section on the Ages of Man. The first of these was the “Golden Age,” during which Kronos and other Titans (precursors to the Olympian gods) created humans who “lived like gods, never knowing sorrow or toil; when they died, it as if they were falling asleep. No one worked or grew unhappy. Spring never ended. It is even described as a period in which people aged backward. When they died, they became daimones.” (Five Ages of Man in Greek Mythology According to Hesiod (thoughtco.com). Daimones were the souls of the deceased who would become guardian spirits to living humans or of sacred spaces in Greek mythology, later made out to be demons in Christian and Islamic mythology. The Golden Age ended when Zeus overthrew Kronos (aka Jupiter and Saturn, respectively, in Roman mythology). In the Silver Age, as Hesiod relates, Zeus determined humans should be less god-like, should live through all four seasons, and would have to work to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and endure the strife of warfare, disease, and aging. The mythology also blames the first woman, Pandora, for releasing all the ills of the world that had been strangely locked up in a box she was allowed access to. Other theologies would blame Eve for listening to the devil, disguised as a snake, convincing her to bite forbidden fruit and thereby incurring the wrath of her mentally-challenged creator, to whom it apparently didn’t occur to put the tree bearing that fruit at some other, far less accessible locale. The merry mythmakers of old tended to like blaming women for the troubles of the world.
      In more recent times, as humans began stumbling towards less mythical explanations for our troubles and noticing the psychological trauma of those displaced by war and enslavement, the term nostalgia was coined, in 1688, by Johannes Hofer in a dissertation he wrote as a medical student at the University of Basel. He joined the Latin terms nostos (return home) and algos (pain), otherwise translated as homesickness, which Hofer deemed a psychological condition that caused physiological ailments that could be fatal, and for which the only known cure was to return home
(Death by Nostalgia, 1688 | TS Digest | The Scientist (the-scientist.com). Over the next few centuries, the ailment was recognized as an infliction of soldiers and sailors serving far from their homes, as well as of slaves forcibly taken from Africa to the Americas, as well as other widely displaced peoples. The vast majority were without any means or opportunity to “return home,” and were more likely to get a lashing on the back than any tender loving care for their malady.
      Nostalgia has long since fallen out of favor as a potentially deadly medical condition, but has expanded in meaning and very lucrative opportunities in entertainment business and politics. Now nostalgia refers not so much to homesickness as to a pining for things long gone, or that may never have actually been. Margaret Mitchell’s 1936 novel Gone with the Wind was a national bestseller that waxed nostalgic for a highly romanticized way of life in the antebellum South. It earned a Pulitzer Prize in 1937 and was made into a film, released in 1939, that broke attendance records at theaters across the nation and won 8 academy awards, including for best picture, and received much media hoopla when it was shown on TV for the first time in 1976. By that year, no one who had actually lived through the period of the story’s setting, circa 1860 through 1866, was likely to have been alive, but there were still millions of people who appeared to wistfully long for an era in which millions of black people were kept enslaved by their oh-so-just and noble white masters and mistresses. At least until the damned Yankees came through and blew it all away like dust in the wind. That same year, one of the most popular regular TV programs was “Happy Days,” a nostalgic comedy set in the late 1950s and early 1960s, needless to say with no reference to any of the social problems or political issues of the era. Even Norman Lear’s more socially aware comedy, “All in the Family,” opened with a song that ironically looked back to the “good old days” of the Herbert Hoover administration, when “everybody” knew their place and did their share, even as the nation as a whole sank into the Great Depression. My stepfather, Charles, born and raised on Long Island, New York, and about a year younger than actor Carroll O’Connor, as well as a very staunch Republican, likely would have agreed with the sentiments of the song, although I suspect he would have hated the show if he had ever watched it (he and my mother met in 1984, by which time “All in the Family” was long off the air). Charles admired Hoover and loathed President Franklin D. Roosevelt due to his “socialist” programs.
     Nostalgia may not actually kill anyone, but it does cause some people to misremember the past, to paint it in their memories as far rosier than it really was for most people. Which isn’t to say that the past was all bad, or the present all that much more perfect. Technology has improved many aspects of life, but has also contributed to many new problems. Men and women of all races have greater economic opportunities than was the case 60 years ago, but many social inequities and injustices persist. Millions of Americans suffering from nostalgic blind-sightedness appear to share certain beliefs: that limiting immigration to only people who are white, wealthy, and Christian; teaching a white-washed version of history in which black slaves had a good life, Native Americans deserved to be run off their ancestral lands, and the Christian bible is literal truth; and ending all social programs and environmental protection laws, banning all abortions, and making homosexuality illegal again will somehow make America great again. In other words, a “paradise” in which skies are filled with smoke and dangerous toxins; water is unsafe to drink; religious dogmatism, racism, and xenophobia reign supreme; and millions of people are imprisoned and forced to work in chain gangs due to impoverishment, freethinking too openly, or otherwise just not fitting in with “normal” society. Thinking it over, nostalgia for that sort of world sounds very dangerous indeed.

 

Comments? Contact Fred at frednotfaith2@aol.com

 

Saving Ourselves Rather than Appealing to Heaven

    Setting the scene, in a story that wants to be taken seriously, not literally, Moses (or Charleton Heston, if yo

    But, Justice Sam, your God doesn’t want you to “Appeal to Heaven.” God told you t

CHIT and CHAT Talk Back

I was camping in Farragut State Park in Northern Idaho during the Apollo 11 moon landing on July 20, 1969. We set up a long makeshift aluminum antenna to capture radio reception to hear the live broadcast. It worked, but I had to pee so I left the camp and found a tree. On my walk back, I stumbled over a tree root, fell into our antenna and brought it down at T-30 seconds to lunar touchdown. Everybody in the camp screamed, “Oh, no!! NO!!!” We scurried to reposition the antenna. Radio reception was restored in time to hear Neil Armstrong say, “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." And a bit later, his famous words, “That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.”
     I remain impressed that science and a desire to go where no one has gone before can bring humanity into something extraordinary. 
     Should we pursue extraterrestrial colonization? Yes. Sure. What else are we going to do? Pick up litter? We can do both.
    Humans have believed for centuries that there are gods who live in the heavens. Many humans still believe there is an invisible man who lives in the sky with a supernatural ability to address your needs when asked. 
     The notion of space travel and humans living in space can be dated to when Johannes Kepler invented the telescope in the 17th century. Johannes was thrilled with his invention and immediately dashed off an open letter to his old pal Galileo Galilei, which was published in the Conversation with the Star Messenger (1610) that read in part, “There will certainly be no lack of human pioneers when we have mastered the art of flight. … Let us create vessels and sails adjusted to the heavenly ether, and there will be plenty of people unafraid of the empty wastes. In the meantime, we shall prepare, for the brave sky-travelers, maps of the celestial bodies. …  I shall do it for the moon, you Galileo, for Jupiter.”
      The Other World: Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon by Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac (1657) is credited by Arthur C. Clark as being the first science fiction book in which a rocket to the moon is yearned for by humans. Jules Verne did his part to encourage sci-fi space lore when he published From Earth to the Moon (1865), which inspired Georges Méliès to make the film, A Trip to the Moon (1902). Then in 1903, the Wright Brothers, working in their bicycle shop, made an airplane that actually flew. 
      Dreams of intergalactic space settlements were all the rage in the 1950s after Walt Disney produced Man and the Moon. Let's also remember Ray Bradbury’s, The Martian Chronicles (1950). The song, Fly Me to the Moon was written in 1954 but became associated with NASA and the Apollo missions in 1964 after Frank Sinatra and Count Basie recorded the great Quincy Jones arrangement. Then Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke presented us with apes who marveled at the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), inspired by Clarke’s 1951 short story, The Sentinel.
      In 1962 at Rice University in Houston, Texas, President John Kennedy delivered his famous speech about space exploration, which in part said, "But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” 
      Satellites launched by NASA have provided critical data on climate change, natural disasters, and other environmental phenomena, which help us to better protect and preserve our planet. NASA's Earth science missions have shed light on the interconnectedness of the Earth's systems, demonstrating the fragility of our planet and the need for sustainable practices to ensure its future viability. NASA has also inspired generations of people to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The Space Camp for young students, and the Women@NASA initiative to promote diversity in STEM fields, have encouraged people from all backgrounds to pursue careers in science and engineering. Nurturing the next generation of scientists and engineers is critical to ensure that the legacy of its space program will continue to inspire future generations to push the boundaries of human knowledge and exploration.
     Humans settling other orbs has captured the imagination of scientists, entrepreneurs, writers, and dreamers. With rapid advancements in space exploration technology and growing concerns about the sustainability of life on Earth, the push for interplanetary colonization has regained momentum.
     One of the most compelling arguments for colonizing other planets is the need to ensure the survival of the human race. Why? Fair question. It is human instinct to want to live. 
     Earth is vulnerable to a variety of potential threats, from natural disasters like asteroids and supervolcanoes to human-induced catastrophes such as climate change and nuclear war. By establishing colonies on other planets, we can create a Plan[et] B for humanity, ensuring that our species will continue to survive and thrive even in the face of global calamities on Earth.
      Colonization of other planets could open up new opportunities for scientific discovery and exploration. In addition to advancing our knowledge of the cosmos, interplanetary colonization could also lead to the development of new technologies and industries that could benefit both space exploration and life on Earth. 
      The challenges of living in the harsh environments of other planets would require us to innovate and adapt, leading to breakthroughs in areas such as sustainable energy production, advanced robotics, resource management, architectural design, alternative fuel production, 3D printing, and low-gravity manufacturing, to name several. These technologies could then be applied on Earth, helping us address pressing issues like climate change and resource depletion. 
      Suppose we could find a planet that has gravity, water, and an atmosphere similar to Earth? Certainly not Mars. Mars is totally inhospitable to life as we know it. 
     Take a peek at Planet K2-18b, first discovered in 2015. Suppose K2-18b had the right stuff that could alleviate the harsh difficulties we find on other planets? The difficulty with planet K2-18b is getting there. It's 124 light years away. 
      As we establish colonies on other worlds, we would create new markets and industries, driving innovation, creating jobs, stimulating a burgeoning space economy. This could help to offset the economic challenges facing our planet and create a more resilient and interconnected global society fostering international cooperation and collaboration. The challenges of sending humans to live on other planets would require the combined efforts of nations around the world, bringing together people from diverse cultures and backgrounds to work towards a common goal. By working together on such a monumental task, we could bridge political divides, promote cultural exchange, and build bonds of friendship that transcend national boundaries.
      The exploration and colonization of other planets could also inspire future generations and ignite a sense of wonder and curiosity about the universe. Perhaps similar to the early exploration of the “New World,” which sparked a spirit of adventure, desperation, and discovery. 
      Despite the many potential benefits of colonizing other planets, there are also enormous challenges and ethical concerns, which include exploitation, sovereignty, environmental considerations, resource depletion, ecosystem disruption, and cost. The cost of sending humans to colonize other planets is astronomical. Not as simple as Ralph Kramden's often repeated line, “Bang, zoom, you're going to the moon, Alice!” Space colonization requires substantial investments in technology, infrastructure, research, and political will. Additionally, the long distances involved in interplanetary travel would pose serious health risks to astronauts, including exposure to cosmic radiation and the physiological effects of extended spaceflight. A bit different from life on Earth, space is always trying to kill you. But, what about propagation in space? That's an experiment waiting to happen. Any volunteers?
      The idea of colonizing other planets raises other important questions about our responsibility first on Earth and second to the space environment. We do not want to trash space as we've done to our streets and oceans. However, we should not lump all humans as if they are all careless, selfish litterbugs. Many work to pick up the trash others leave behind. So, we need to develop a Space Waste Truck to reclaim all the mess we've left in orbit.
      We do have international Treaties already in place that are intended to safeguard human efforts in space. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) has several main tenets which over 100 nations have signed onto. Known as The Outer Space Treaty, or, more specifically, “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” The treaty is the foundation of international space law for signatory nations. The treaty presents principles for space exploration and operation including:  1) Space activities are for the benefit of all nations, and any country is free to explore orbit and beyond.  2) There is no claim for sovereignty in space; no nation can “own” space, the Moon, or any other body.  3) Weapons of mass destruction are forbidden in orbit and beyond, and the Moon, the planets, and other celestial bodies can only be used for peaceful purposes.  4) Any astronaut from any nation is an “envoy of mankind,” and signatory states must provide all possible help to astronauts when needed, including emergency landing in a foreign country or at sea.  5) Signatory states are each responsible for their space activities, including private commercial endeavors, and must provide authorization and continuing supervision.  6) Nations are responsible for damage caused by their space objects and must avoid contaminating space and celestial bodies.
      The treaties also have authority over the billionaire “billionauts” private corporations – Elon, Richard, and Jeff. Are there others?
      Despite the many formidable and daunting challenges, the potential benefits of pursuing interplanetary colonization  outweigh the risks and difficulties.  
      By expanding our presence beyond Earth, or as Stephen Hawking said, “spreading out,” we can help ensure the survival of our species, advance our knowledge of the universe, stimulate technological innovation, foster international cooperation, and maybe even inspire future generations to go where no one has gone before.
      Space sex, anyone?

 

Man Is a Piece of Work  

David Schwam-Baird

has not gone out on a clear night and looked up at the stars, with wonder and amazement in our minds. Just trying to imagine what it means for the North Star, or Polaris, to be over 320 light-ears away from Earth! (That’s like almost two quadrillion miles. Quadrillion! That’s a real number!) We’ve all seen the silver moon, “like a flower in heaven’s high bower,” looking back at us, sphinxlike, and still, compared to the stars, tantalizingly close and familiar. And we can occasionally see the planets – Venus, quite often, as either the Morning Star or the Evening Star; but on rarer occasions, Mars or Saturn, or Jupiter, if we know when to look, and what we are looking for. If the stars are properly aligned…  as it were….

      As we are making the most minimal efforts possible to slow down (not even to undo) the ecological degradation that we have wrought upon our own home, certain self-appointed elites from our species are getting all hot and bothered about colonizing the Moon, or Mars, or the moons of Jupiter. Some of these folks, like Elon Musk, think that humans would be able to set up a self-sustaining settlement on Mars by 2050, envisioning an eventual human population on Mars in the millions. Some of these folks think that we needn’t worry about things like 6 months of travel time; the effects of lower gravity on human reproduction and health; or increased radiation on the Moon and Mars, which are not protected by magnetic fields or dense atmospheres. There are all sorts of predictions of economic treasures to be mined from these bodies, even though cited metals and gases seem to be found there in much lower quantities than on Earth. These folks tout the use of solar power on Mars, which is 49 million miles farther away from the Sun than the Earth is, and which is known to have what NASA describes as ‘global dust storms.’ Reliance on solar power is not a quick-fix deal. There might also be a few, er, um, political tensions which could crop up as the United States, Russia, France, China, Britain, India, and perhaps other Earth powers scramble for the small patches of questionably productive territory.

      Because we, as a species, are profoundly irresponsible. Horribly irresponsible. Consistently irresponsible. 

      The common thread of this is that there is something so wonderfully special about us humans that we have to preserve ourselves at all costs. This allows ourselves to plunk down the “Get-Out-Of-Responsibility” card and jump right into moving off our own planet before we do any sort of reckoning about what we have done to it. The fact that we will not, as a species, knuckle-down and clean up our own mess already casts doubt on the idea of our fabulousness. It should also bring back to mind the stories behind our species’ previous experiences with colonization. What actually happened in the past when one hunk of humanity moved into new territory and claimed it as its own? The slaughter? The oppression? The plundering? Oh, some say, but after that came the art and culture and beautiful buildings and all roads leading to Rome or New York or Beijing. Yes, that ultimately justifies the suffering that went before, or that had to continue to be maintained in order to support the new and fabulous civilizations built on all those bones. Right?

      If we got our act together and cooled it with wars of competition and conquest, then we might have some reason to think that colonizing the Moon or Mars or Europa will not merely export that violence to other parts of the solar system. If we got it together to seriously slow global warming, and pollution in general, then just maybe we could envision colonies on Mars that would not just leave piles of garbage and miles of abandoned mineshafts all around the monstrous plexiglass domes of the new Gardens of Eden. If we made even the slightest effort to clean up the 9000 metric tons of human-made space debris circling the Earth in low space orbit, then we might have reason to think that we won’t be leaving a trail of broken metal, shards of plastic and glass, Space Cola Light cans and Moonshine Gummie wrappers between here and the Red Planet. (Those pieces of metal, glass and plastic will be traveling at enormously high speeds and will be a life-threatening danger to all spacecraft. So my tongue-in-cheek formulation here is only kind of a joke.) 

      My point is not that colonization isn’t possible, so we ought to forget about it for that reason. If we don’t destroy ourselves in the near term, it is very likely that we will eventually solve many of the critical technical problems. My point is that we have not earned the right to colonize space, and to bring our proven slovenliness and irresponsibility as a species to regions beyond ou

Now, Our Correspondent in Thailand ...

Music Today Sucks - It’s Not Generational, It Really Was Better!

Steven Lance Stoll

     It seems that every generation looks at the music of older generations as traditional and boring, and at their own music as better, creative, and important, and the music of the next generation as total “crap.” The Baby Boomer generation is certainly a perfect example of this thinking. We saw Sinatra and the Big Bands as old fashioned, as our parents liked the swing era. We see the music of the late 50s, 60s, and 70s as a “golden age” for music, filled with instrumental technicality, musical creativity, and lyrical superiority. By the time the 1980s occurred and Boomers were adults, the next generation was making music that most of us called bubble gum or simply “crap.” We were beginning to solidify what was the music of our generation and what was coming next. Eventually Boomers recognized that symphonic music and much of our parents’ generational music was of value and quality, and in fact the resurgence and popularity of Tony Bennett at the end of his life attests to the appreciation that Boomers and their offspring have gained from their parents’ and grandparents’ generational music.

     The music of the Boomer generation defined our politics, sociology, and the values of our times unlike any prior generation of music. The Boomer generation was instilled with the hopes of our parents, who never wanted to see another great depression or world war, and filled us with hope and values that were expressed in the lyrics and sounds of our musical expression. Prior generations had poets, we had song writers like Dylan, Lightfoot, Mitchell, and so many others. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of our music, separating it from that of prior generations, or that of today, is the singer / songwriter / performer. Sinatra didn't write any of his music, but Dylan, Lightfoot, Mitchell, John, The Beatles, King, Taylor, Simon, Wonder, CSN&Y, and so many others in our generation wrote virtually all the music and lyrics they performed. While I eventually became a big-time rock fan, I began as a die-hard Motown lover. On the walls of my childhood bedroom were posters of the Four Tops, The Supremes, The Temptations, and my favorite, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles. The first concert I ever attended was headlined by Marvin Gaye and Tammy Terrell. In those days concerts featured other acts, and this one had Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs on the bill! The Motown songs were filled with love, hope, pride and positivity. They were upbeat and heartfelt. 

Marvin Gaye’s "What’s Going On?" (Gaye, Benson & Cleveland), a song about the civil rights movement and other social change in American society.

    It seems that some of the changes in the themes and temperaments expressed in modern music reflects the dark changes in American politics. From the “when they go low, we go high” mentality of the Obama years, America has shifted to “the politics of retribution” of the Trump years. The lyrical changes from “hope and change” to “I am your retribution” are reflected in the shift from the  hopeful and kind lyrics of the past to the hate-filled, selfish, and curse-filled lyrics of today. 
     It seems that my point needs to be clarified a bit. Are we discussing purely American music, or is my point really about the enormous change in the musical form that has driven American music for 400 years, African-American music?  While white American music seems to have stayed with the rock traditions of the Baby boom generation except for some of the electronic elements, black American music has made a deeply perverse change. Even Rhianna and Beyonce, very talented performers, have injected elements of the Hip Hop rage and dirty language into their songs. Many times, sampling of music from the 60’s and 70’s seems to be the only “good” parts in modern songs! 
 
    One can certainly acknowledge the huge contribution of African-American music and sensitivities demonstrated in the Civil Rights movement as an incredible influence on modern popular music. Certainly, there is also a premise that one generation feels the music of the next is not good. Our parents said Dylan and the Beatles were crap and they were demonstrably wrong. I think the music of today is crap and I want to demonstrate why that is true!
    First, let's define musicality. This is the quality of having a pleasant sound; melodiousness. While other animals, particularly birds, utilize and demonstrate musicality, no other animal uses the wide variety of sounds, instruments, melodies, rhythms, harmonies, and words to express an unlimited variety of moods, ideas, and sensitivities. Musicality is emotion. It is expression. However, a more accurate and specific definition is the ability to take one's technical knowledge of an instrument and create sounds which reflect the musician's and composer's internal emotional, imaginative, and musical intent. From the biological perspective, human musicality is the term referred to as a set of abilities which enable the recognition and production of music.
    The wide variety of musical styles from cultures around the world stand on their own or combine (through fusion) in a wide variation of styles to express human emotions at various times in human history. New concepts are weaved into a solid rhythm base, good intonation, and understanding the theory behind music. The human story has been told with music since the beginning of humanity. Some sounds, like more primitive percussion, have been among our musical expressions from the beginning and still dominate our music. So, musicality is connected to technique. A person who neglects scales can't control or produce pleasing sounds from their instrument and will produce sounds lacking in musical quality (listen to Yoko Ono!).
    The rhythm of the human heartbeat is perhaps the baseline for human music. Music has always been utilized to express emotions, to create mood, and to break boredom during work and drudgery. In fact, the roots of what we have called Rock and Roll are the rhythms and songs of African American slaves working in the fields, and the ballads of sadness and inspiration they sang around campfires in the evenings expressed in The Blues and Gospel music.
    The changes to modern music, and the lack of musicality that I see in a great amount of modern popular music, begin with the use of electronic rhythms and sounds and the lack of musicians and musical instruments. The trend toward electronic rhythms originally came from Germany in the early 1970’s, (The German band Kraftwerk are widely considered to be pioneers of electronic music. They were among the first to popularize the genre, developing a distinctive "robot pop" style.) Spoken-word poetry, which gave us rap and later Hip Hop music, is another trend in this development replacing real musical instruments and musicians with talking and pre-programmed electronic sounds and rhythms. Spoken word is an oral poetic performance art that is based mainly on the poem, as well as the performer's aesthetic qualities. Spoken word is a bit different from poetry as it was traditionally, in fact it is a combination of poetry reading and acting and can be quite powerful to experience.
    Rap, a musical style in which rhythmic and/or rhyming speech is chanted (“rapped”) to musical accompaniment, was an expression of spoken word and urban street music. The term “rap” appears to be developed from rhythm and poetry. “Rapping is an artistic form of vocal delivery and emotive expression that incorporates "rhyme, rhythmic speech, and [commonly] street vernacular." The terms Rap and Hip-Hop are sometimes used interchangeably, but the distinction is often made that hip-hop “is a broader culture and phenomenon, and rap is just one (important) part of it. In other words: all rap is hip-hop, but hip-hop is not only rap.” Hip-hop music can be instrumental as well. Hip-hop, in other words, is a way of living—a culture. The elements of hip-hop came together in the Bronx borough of New York City. It was the early 1970s and times were tougher than usual for the poorer parts of urban America. From a whole lot of nothing—and a whole lot of imagination—hiphop took form. Most Hip-Hop beats are made of loops repeating the background, so compared to other genres with complex, changing melodies, people would think that it is simple. You can of course argue that rap is about the lyrics- and it is. The problem is that people don't usually listen to lyrics these days. Hip-hop is composed of four main elements: MCing, DJing, graffiti, and breakdancing. The term “hip-hop” also includes other lifestyle trends such as clothing, slang, and mindset. Rap is the combination of rhyme and poetry to a musical beat. It has a background in improvisational poetry. Both rap and hip-hop have fostered distinctive dance styles based on the repetitive rhythms.    
    White music has gone electronic and mass-produced, and black music has gone dark, angry, braggadocious, greedy, and sexually explicit.

    I now realize that my original premise that the music of today isn’t as good as the music of the Baby boom generation is mostly correct but incomplete. While pop music for the most part is consistent with the musicality and lyricism of the Boomers, African-American music has taken a very dark turn. From the upbeat inspirational positivity of Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, and Motown music in general, we now hear the self-centered, material-focused, hate-and-profanity-filled Hip Hop of today. I’m an old white guy from the 1960’s, so I cannot explain why these things have happened. I hope that my friend and Jacksonville civil rights legend, Rodney Hurst, Sr., could pick up on my points in this essay and explain what has happened to African American music in the age of MAGA. Perhaps Rodney can make sense of what has happened to the inspirational source of uniquely American music today. I ask him to educate me, and I’ll write his response or invite him to fill this column for me in a subsequent month. As music lovers and proud Americans, I’m sure that all of us are interested in what has happened with the very heart of American music, that created by African Americans.

Advocacy Corner

Further Reading for Freethinkers

First Coast Freethought Book & Movie Discussion Group

Meeting - July 15, 2024