May 2026 – Ptara

The strangest details become big facts

Posted on May 31, 2026 by Vasco de Sousa

I knew a few things about the founding fathers. Most of them would have called themselves Christians, although some Christian denominations might deny them that title.

I could write a book on the definition of Christianity, but I don’t know if my interest on the subject is strong enough at the moment to do it justice. I perhaps know enough for a good essay.

But what got me thinking today was the memory of reading Thomas Jefferson talk about “the hindoo” among other religions. The idea of freedom of religion in the United States.

And what sparked that memory? There was an accusation of “anti-semitism” by a group that called the United States a Christian country.

In looking for the original article, I found one by Jewish Dems. It links to an article in The TImes of Israel.

The Times of Israel reports on an incident that others have called anti-semitic. The title of the article is, “US naval academy pulled exhibit for female Jewish graduates ahead of Hegseth visit.” Okay, so Hegseth didn’t want to see this exhibit, perhaps? But, soon we have a clarifying sentence. “Other displays featuring male Jewish graduates had stayed up.” So, the decision might have been anti-DEI, perhaps even sexist of mysogynist, but probably wasn’t antisemitic.

What does this proove? Democrats are so quick to condemn Republicans, they don’t even read the articles that they link to.

Another article, linked to by the Democrats, quotes someone as saying, “He’s always saying the first thing that pops into his head without understanding the weight of those words.” Yeah, perhaps many of us are like that. We say things, we do things, and we don’t realise the butterfly effect hundreds of years later.

So, let’s go back to the words of Thomas Jefferson. Here’s an extract from “The Works of Thomas Jefferson…”

“The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

“The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

Today, we have representatives who have sworn on Hindoo and “Mahometan” texts, including the Koran that was owned by Thomas Jefferson.

But the founders would have considered themselves to be Christian, even if they agreed to tolerate other religions in their midst.

Israel calls itself a Jewish state. Is that anti-Christian or islamophobic? If a country is Christian, does that mean that members of other religions are not patriotic or loyal? What does that say about the way Israelis might see non-Jewish Israelis?

Personally, I saw the United States as secular when I was a child. And Nazi Germany was also secular, as was the Soviet Union. I later learned that France and Turkey were supposedly secular countries, or that’s how their citizens saw them. Being secular and being tolerant are not the same thing, they do not correlate with each other.

To me, religion was never an issue growing up. It was an interesting subject, I was always interested in learning what different people were allowed to eat and not, their origin stories, their myths, their beliefs in the afterlife, their commandments, the way they might dress or celebrate important life events. It is like seeing different flowers in a garden, it is interesting to see the variety, to examine how a tulip differs from a daffodil.

Some people might see the United States as a protestant country. Most of the founders were protestant. Most of the influential Americans in history could be seen as “protestant” if you are a Catholic. But would a Baptist or Lutheran or Anglican today see the founders as protestant?

Jefferson was a Deist, and he was not alone among early American intellectuals. Franklin spent time as a Quaker, and so did many shipbuilders of the young American navy. Adams is said to have been a Unitarian, which is the opposite of Trinitarian. All of these religions have been heavily criticised by members of the religious right, the same people who say that “Mormons aren’t Christian” or call Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult because they deny the trinity. Others have problems with Seventh Day Adventists, alleging it is because they follow a woman who adds more interpretation than necessary to the Bible. In reality, their problems probably stem from insecurity among their own flock. Instead of preaching what they want, they need enemies. Just like ultra-secular Democrats, the Religious Right can’t spend long without attacking others, because they want to demonise the competition in fear that they will lose you to them.

It is like that terrible boss, who when you complain about your salary not being enough to live on, calls you a communist and tells you how bad things are in some drought-ridden war-torn part of Africa.

It is like both parties on their China fears, how they use a boogyman to get you to shut your ears to any idea that disagrees with theirs. They will brand people communist, fascist, anti- or -phobic or other -ist to dismiss something they don’t understand themselves. They will write articles condemnding others based on titles of articles that they haven’t even read.

However, let’s say you had a strongly Christian, protestant, country. That country could have loyal Jewish, Muslim, or Quaker subjects. Christianity itself could be the foundation for that tolerance.

Whether the US is a Christian country or not, what is important is that the founders wanted to protect all religions. There were suggestions that the first ammendment and similar parts in state constitions (like the constitution of Virginia) either not exist, or be modified to specify Christianity. So, yes, there were some who only wanted to protect Christian religions. (But, they had a much broader version of what it means to be “Christian” than the current religious right does.) However, the majority wanted to protect everyone’s rights.

We should remember that although the founders wanted to protect the rights of non-believers, the Declaration of Independence spoke of Deity, of “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Was it just being poetic when it spoke of a “Creator?” I don’t think so.

The religions of the Quakers, the Unitarians, and even the Deists, along with perhaps the Puritans, the Anglicans and others, all influenced the thoughts of the signers of the Declaration and drafters of the Constition of the USA. Some of these churches may have changed their beliefs, or even names, over time.

But, as much as I don’t think they would have objected, I think Adams, Jefferson and others would be surprised to see so many Hindoos and Mahometans serving in the cabinet and in the congress of the United States of America. When they mentioned the rights of these groups, they probably imagined these to be fringe elements of society, a student here, an ambassador there, a travelling businessman or a small community. The rights of all individuals were important to them.

I think Jefferson would have been surprised that his Koran was used for an oath. He might have been happy that it was his own copy of that book. If he objected to it in any way, he might have objected to the principle of having to take an oath on a holy book at all. What about those who didn’t believe in sacred texts? Where does that leave them? Or those who didn’t believe in oaths?

How many Hindus were in America in Jefferson’s time? Not many. Why does he mention Hindoos and not Budhists? Was he predicting that one group would enter significant roles before another? I don’t think so. I think it had more to do with the books that were available to him, or with those that were in recent conversation. India was under British domination, and there were probably a lot of texts in English on it. Also, the Tea thrown into the sea from the Tea Party was most likely influenced by India. The “Mahomatans” were bordering Europe, and had occupied many European countries for a time, and so there was a lot of interest in them. (And there were the Barbary wars as well.)

It would be interesting to see what off-handed comments we made today, how they might be seen in the future. Some details we give, that we might not see as important. The fact that I mention tulips and daffodils, and not other flowers, will that have a bearing in the future? Maybe not, after all, I’m not planning on running for president.

Times change, so do nations

Posted on May 12, 2026 by Vasco de Sousa

I heard that people don’t read academic journals. When I was doing an undergraduate degree in film and French, I read different journals. Security, history, literary, and of course, film. I continued to read these after I graduated.

(I didn’t always find the works on the reading list as interesting as those that I found on my own. I am curious, and also an autonomous learner.)

I don’t know if what I read is true, there were mistakes. One PhD paper claimed that the United States, unlike Britain, had no Public Broadcasting. I found that funny, because PBS literally stands for Public Broadcasting Station. Now that PBS has received cuts, and a lot of good programs are in jeopardy, perhaps the writer of that paper is blushing.

Another thing that I found intersting, going through academic papers and books, is the claim how different countries had media literacy.

Perhaps if I read fewer books and journals, then I’d remember where I got all my information from. But, I remember seeing that Chinese audiences, allegedly, had less media literacy than American and British audiences. In China, I read, if someone entered a room, you’d have to show that person holding the door knob on the way in.

Well, I’d seen a lot of Chinese television shows recently, and I do not see that at all. What I do see is a lot of visual shows where you can often tell through the acting and cinematography roughly what is going on. That doesn’t mean subtitles (or better yet, learning the language) wouldn’t help, there are definitely additional subtle pieces of information in the dialogue. But, Chinese shows are great for learning Chinese, as the actors clearly enuciate their words, the sound people clearly record them.

American television, on the other hand, has been in a downward spiral since the 1990s. The quality of acting, cinematography, directing, and writing has all fallen. Only special effects have gone up. Now films look slicker, but they are not as fun to watch. They are like caviar, we can tell they are expensive, but most of us would prefer something less expensive and of better quality.

That’s not to say that all films of this century have been bad. Nor are all old films good. (Anyone remember the Masters of the Universe film from the 80s? I’d rather forget it.) But, generally, films made before 1992 are better than those after.

Of course, there are people who would rather stare at a lump of gold on a royal’s head for two hours than watch real actors act. To some people, just knowing how expensive a film is, how much the “stars” got paid, makes it worth watching. They like staring at famous people and at luxury.

We see Chinese films these days really care about the audience. They don’t waste time with tiny details, like showing every detail of someone opening a door. I wonder if they ever did. (Of course, if it is comprehensible input meant to teach us language, then go ahead and open the door. Explain every element to me so I learn the words.)

If we look at the media stereotypes of different countries from the 1990s, we see that the world has changed. Shows have gotten better in some countries, and worse in others.

Those countries that consider getting on Netflix to be “making it” tend to make the worst media. They lack the ambition to make films for the cinema, or to go viral on YouTube, and so they set a very low standard for their work.

Worse still are those who aim only to get followers on Instagram, and end up flogging all kinds of products rather than making films that are worth making it. Remember, true artists don’t want their art interrupted by advertisements. It’s one thing if your distributors put those in, but when you put them in yourself, it makes your art look like a “product.”

We now live in an age when Chinese audiences have more media literacy than American or British audiences. Perhaps that won’t last forever, but that’s the point we are at. And so, Chinese programs are more interesting to watch, for those of us who are media literate, even if we don’t understand the language. Because Chinese filmmakers, unlike those of some other countries, understand the language of film.

Rediscovering female artists

Posted on May 8, 2026May 8, 2026 by Vasco de Sousa

There are things I sometimes dislike about the BBC. They pretend to be neutral, but often their journalists and producers have an agenda. However, sometimes it is this agenda which helps them uncover interesting stories.

Deborah Nicholls-Lee had an article titled “‘Unsigned and Neglected:’ These artworks are by women – but men got the credit.”

Before I go further, of course we all know that women have painted, written songs, and all the rest of it since the dawn of time. Boys and girls have a tendency to create art from a young age, and continue until they get too busy or are teased out of it. But back to the article, “men got the credit.”

At first, the title itself looks probablematic. We wonder, are these anonymous paintings being reattributed to women just to create interest? Ten minutes on YouTube is long enough to find revisionists who will create any version of history you want to believe. (And long enough to find people who believe any old made up version of history, too.)

Well, it starts getting worse before it gets better. One of the sources for the article is a book called, “Art without men.”

Some of the storytelling is missing. We want to believe that Michaelina Wautier painted The Triumph of Bacchus, and we do, but the evidence they probably used has not been presented. So, she appears in the painting. Yeah, so do a lot of men appear in that same painting. She is looking at the canvas. Does that mean everyone looking at the canvas is a painter? Maybe that was the style back then, if so, tell us.

What we want to know is how the work was reattributed to her. You show me the painting, I agree it was a talented artist. You tell me that others doubted her, fine, I believe you. But let me know what happened, how they decided that Michaelina painted it. What journal did they find?

But if we sit through the bla bla, we finally get some evidence. Or at least a story. We have to sit through a lot of amnesia before we get to the story. (Coco Channel, maybe was in a different field, but was celebrated. There were female artists celebrated along the way, it wasn’t an entire history of women being hidden as the article seems to imply.) But where is the story, where is the evidence, when does the essay become a story?

For that, we have to wait for the final painting, Tomorrow Forever, a 1963 work by Margaret Keane.

Here, unfortunately, the story comes from a fictionalised biopic. (I love biopics, but they are notorious for being inaccurate.) But the setup comes from an analysis of paintings in a book ironically titled, “Why Women can’t paint.” The book claims that “when work by men is signed it goes up in value” and the article continues, “while for women the opposite is true.”

I think back to Victor Van Gogh. After he died, his sister-in-law was able to market his work to support her child. A signature by Van Gogh would raise the value of most work, after his sister in law created the “Van Gogh” brand.

Not all men’s signature will bring up the value of a work, of course. You need a story of the life of a person.

Now, I hope to find some book with good sources and references, so I don’t have to rely on a BBC article based on a biopic, but the story presented of Keane’s authorship is interesting.

Allegedly, her husband was the business saavy type, while Keane was shy. So, he convinced (or “coerced”) her to let him sign. Or to sign simply as “KEANE.” People thought it was the husband, Walter Keane and not Maggy Keane.

When they got divorced, allegedly, they couple went before the judge. The judge asked them to recreate the painting. The man, Walter, claimed to have a bad shoulder. The woman repainted it perfectly, on the spot.

We say “allegedly,” but we believe the story. We just don’t think the sources used are very good. I loved Julius Caesar for its entertainment value, but do I really think the Caesar’s ghost visited Brutus? Macbeth was a historical person, but were the witches who “visited” him? Did Richard III really say, “My Kingdom for a horse?” or that monologue about being “unshapen?”

I would like the real story about how these artists were rediscovered. Perhaps they studied the styles under a microscope, or found documents from their relatives. If nothing else, knowing how its done could help other curators attribute future paintings.

The stories themselves might be interesting. That said, my favorite artists were never the big names. They were the ones who had interesting paintings. Perhaps the artist had a relatively uneventful life, didn’t create a lot of quotes, but was able to tell a story in the painting.

A great painting, after all, is great no matter who painted it. A poor painting is poor, no matter who painted it.