The Letter And Reply Slip Can Be Found Here - King'S Oak Academy: Fill & Download for Free

Like most of these that I run across, this article is filled with fallacies, unsupported claims, false assumptions, special pleading, and just plain ignorance. This is not a scholar who knows their topic with depth or accuracy. This is a writer profiting from sensationalist views.Note how the author does not provide evidence or support for his statements or discuss opposing views and why there are differing views.This is not good journalism or scholarship—this is simply mud-slinging for profit. This author has joined the infamous ranks of anti-theists who so strongly believe their personal opinions are automatically right because they hold them, that they think they don’t need to provide any of the evidence demanded of the rest of us peons.Us peons provide evidence.Objection #1The first paragraph contains multiple claims most of which are unsupported by any evidence and are incorrect. It’s primary focus is the gospels themselves and:(1) The lack of early sourcesThere are early sources that date to within one year and up to four years after Jesus’ death—can’t get any earlier than that!These are the creeds. A creed, taken from the Latin ‘credo’ meaning ‘I believe’, was a memorized statement used to teach converts their new faith. A creed might contain doctrine or historical facts or it might be a poetic hymn. Multiple early Christian creeds were recorded in New Testament writings, though they themselves predate the works they were recorded in.Creeds are leftovers from the oral period that preceded the written gospels.They are recognizable by word order, phrasing, sentence structure, cultural references and style of writing.They are sometimes introduced as “here is a faithful saying” or with the phrase: “I pass on as I received”. This phrasing is used to identify a tradition that pre-existed the writer as separate from something they personally wrote.The two most significant creeds are both found in 1 Corinthians: chapters 11 and 15; but creeds can also be found in Acts, Romans, 1st Corinthians, 1st and 2nd Timothy, and in Philippians.These are the oldest Christian testimonies in existence, and even the most skeptical of scholars accepts them as such. Scholars agree as much as scholars ever agree on this point.Atheists generally overlook these because they confuse content and provenance: they disagree with what the content says, and so reject the texts altogether, but belief is beside the point here because the provenance of the texts themselves is not dependent on belief. The gospels are ancient manuscripts that contain sayings (creeds) whose age can be estimated—regardless of whether or not you agree with what they say. Those creeds exist in those ancient texts. They are early sources.Define “early”The claim the “the gospels were compiled decades after the alleged events”—is ‘early’ by ancient standards.Jesus died around 30-33 AD. Scholars agree the Pauline writings were composed between 40 AD and Paul’s death sometime around 63 AD. That is 23 years. Paul makes a couple of allusions indicating the gospel of Luke might have existed during Paul’s lifetime.Papias is the earliest evidence of when the gospels were written and by whom, and he wrote between 60 and 90 AD. Other early church fathers— such as Clement of Alexandria—quote from the gospels in their own work. Clement wrote his letter to the church at Corinth before 100 AD; that means the Gospels had to have been written by then. (There is even reason to believe it’s possible Matthew might have begun a Hebrew gospel in the 40’s. We have references to it but no remnants of it.) But whatever the conclusion about that possibility is, it is true that modern scholarship no longer supports the late dating of the gospels.Even if one does support late dating, the gospels are still early sources by ancient standards.Gautama Buddha lived sometime around 500–400 B.C.E. His teachings were first committed to the written record about 400 years later.Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism first appear sometime around 2000 B.C. but don’t show up in the written record until around 500 B.C.E.—1500 years later.Krishna, in some writings, is said to have spoken the ‘Bhagavad-Gita’ to his student Arjuna as early as 5000 BC, though tradition claims the war it describes took place closer to 3000 BC. Scholars say the Bhagavad-Gita was written sometime between 500 and 200 BC. but these dates are controversial and unresolved. None of the existing copies of any Hindu texts, including the Bhagavad-Gita, can be accurately dated prior to the Twelfth Century AD—between four thousand and 2500 years later.Mohammad is the only religious figure who composed his own treatise within his own lifetime. However, his work the Quran, gives very little historical information and its historicity has been questioned. The sīra literature and the Hadith are the historical writings, and they were written in the second, third, and fourth centuries of the Muslim Era—long after Mohammad’s death—from one hundred to three hundred years later.Moses lived so far back in the mists of time there is controversy over the dates. Some say 1200 BCE, some 1400 BC, and others put him a full thousand years previous, but most scholars believe the writings from Judges foreward were recorded between 800 and 500 BC. A 400–900 year gap.Hannibal lived about 247 BC but it was Livy who wrote about it some 200 years after the events.The time gap between Plato and the earliest date of the 20 copies we have of his manuscript is about 1250 years;500 years for Homer’s Iliad;1350 years for Herodotus’ Histories;1400 years for Aristotle—and it’s similar when dating Thucydides, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Julius Caesar, and all the other ancients.The gospels themselves are ancient manuscripts that qualify as “early sources.” The gospels were written 30–60 years after Jesus.Prove “Early” —using any ancient example—of anything being recorded in a shorter time frame than the gospels.Unless you do ‘special pleading’ where Christianity is concerned—meaning, unless you have a double standard—rejecting Christianity based on a dearth of sources will require rejecting all ancient knowledge and rejecting history altogether.Tim O'Neill's answer to Do credible historians agree that the man named Jesus, who the Christian Bible speaks of, walked the earth and was put to death on a cross by Pilate, Roman governor of Judea?Tim is always worth reading. He is an intelligent, fair, informed atheist who tends to find poor scholarship extremely annoying. His points on this subject are multiple:A historical Jesus is accepted by nearly all actual scholars: “The number of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.”This is not the bias of blind belief. “In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).”Tim addresses the lack of contemporary accounts saying, “our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous - they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact.”“Some "Jesus Mythicists" have tried to argue that certain ancient writers "should" have mentioned Jesus and did not and so tried to make an argument from silence on this basis. … the Antiquities XX.9.1 mention of Jesus is universally considered genuine and that alone sinks the Mythicist case.”The author of the article claims “the gospels all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them.”Is he claiming anyone who believes in anything must be doubted as honest or fair just because they have come to believe that what they say is true?Does that apply to enthusiastic proponents of some view in physics? To the proponents of evolution? To any of a number of conflicting views in psychology? Yes people in these fields have support for their position, but there are conflicting positions. Does the fact people believe their view is superior—that they have the evidence—even when they can’t all be right—automatically discount them? No, all views get a fair examination in physics—at least they’re supposed to!Because the acceptance or rejection of ideas has to be on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of who advocates it. Even if someone is biased, that doesn’t automatically prove that what they are saying is wrong.Data has to be examined on its own merits.An unwillingness to examine information from those who disagree with us is an unsustainable bias that amounts to special pleading.Objection #2The author claims: “The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.”First, human nature hasn’t changed. What is embarrassing now was embarrassing then. It’s not hard to figure out. If it made Jesus look bad, it most likely wasn’t made up by people who worshipped Him. That’s a pretty simple and irrefutable idea actually.Second, we know a lot about first and second century culture. The ‘diversity’ of Christianity did not appear until the second century. A century after Jesus’ death, the legend developed amongst the gnostics that Jesus was only a spiritual and not a physical historical being. The tradition that had been established for a hundred years, passed down from the first Apostles, opposed them. We still have their writings on the subject.Judaism is diverse in that they accept converts from anywhere—as long as those converts accept Judaism as it has been established. Christianity was the same—being Jewish in its beginnings. Membership status was not defined by any criteria other than what a person believes. That’s how it is now and always has been. Anyone can join—so long as they subscribe to the basic beliefs.Therefore, it is an inescapable conclusion that diversity is limited by doctrine. It always has been.Third, even if the criterion for embarrassment were a totally useless question, there are over two dozen criteria used in the study of the historical Jesus and dozens of other approaches and a wide variety of other methods used to study the Bible. That one criteria is not even one of the major ones. There is also:linguistics (language),paleography (ancient handwriting),philology (ancient languages),codicology (codexes),anthropology,sociology,archaeology,literary criticism, historical criticism, tradition criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism and othersHermeneutic phenomenologyand the study of Classic and ancient texts—and more.Fourth, these are the same methods used to study all ancient writings. Once again, discounting the methods used to study Christianity requires special pleading.The standards for studying history are the same whatever the topic.Objection #3The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea.Say what?!?It is the presence of Aramaic forms and styles in Greek that gives evidence an Aramaic speaking follower of Jesus was involved somewhere in the production of the gospels . Matthew begins with a Hebrew gematria (Jesus is described as the son of David, so the geneology in Mat.1 is based on the number of David’s name: 14. There are 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, 14 from the exile to the Christ)—how is that possible without a Hebrew involved? What other Hebrews would be making such claims for Jesus other than his followers? Isn’t that so obvious it’s unarguable?Objection #4The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.Because they have been put into a single compilation by us? But the four sources are the Q document, a separate Matthean source, and a separate Lucan source, and the book of Mark, which no source has been identified for yet. They are at least partly independent of each other.Objection #5Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).Tim O’Neill addresses such claims about Paul.“Since many people who read Mythicist arguments have never actually read the letters of Paul, this one sounds convincing as well.Except it simply isn't true.While Paul was writing letters about matters of doctrine and disputes and so wasn't giving a basic lesson in who Jesus was in any of this letters, he does make references to Jesus' earthly life in many places.”This is not a comprehensive list, but a few examples are:“[Paul] says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3) of of Abraham (Gal 3:16), of Israelites (Romans 9:4-5) and of Jesse (Romans 15:12). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) that he was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4). And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians1:19).So Mythicist theorists then have to tie themselves in knots to "explain" how, in fact, a clear reference to Jesus being "born of a woman" actually means he wasn't born of a woman, and how when Paul says Jesus was "according to the flesh, a descendant of King David" this doesn't mean he was a human and the human descendant of a human king.These contrived arguments are so weak they tend to only convince the already convinced. It's this kind of contrivance that consigns this thesis to the fringe.”Objection #6“Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus.”Scholars of all kinds agree the gospels were originally founded on eye-witness testimony. What happened after that is debated, but not that fact.“Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.The Historical Jesus - Part Three: Section One - Background Evidence by Jenny Hawkins on The Christian Corner-- thoughts, issues, poems, music, etc.There are no early writers who question the existence of Jesus. These people all recognized that he lived. Tacitus, Seutonius, Josephus, Thallus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian, The Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar Serapion, and even those gnostic sources because writing against something also shows that something is around to write about. The Jews never questioned that he was a real man who lived and died, and if they could have, they would have jumped on that.There is almost no contemporary evidence of anyone from ancient times. There were no reporters running around with all the latest gossip and news. If you weren’t the Emperor or close to him, you just didn’t get written about.But Josephus is a good source. He obtained his information from other Jews, and the controversy over whether or not his writings mentioning Jesus is authentic has been reasonably settled.In Alice Whealey’s phenominal work where she concludes: “the only major alteration that has been made to Josephus’ original passage about Jesus is the alteration of the phrase ‘he was thought to be the Messiah’ to the textus receptus phrase ‘he was the Messiah’.” http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/whealey2.pdfThis author claims:The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10).Here is what 1 Corinthians 2:6–10 actually says.“We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:“What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no mind has conceived” —the things God has prepared for those who love him—these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.”Demons are where exactly?But once again, Tim addresses this best:“The atheist Biblical scholar Jeffrey Gibson has concluded:"... the plausibility of [the celestial] hypothesis depends on not having good knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism. Indeed, it becomes less and less plausible the more one knows of ancient philosophy …."Secondly, [the celestial Jesus] thesis requires the earliest Christian writings about Jesus, the letters of Paul, to be about this "celestial/mythic Jesus" and not a historical, earthly one. Except, as has been pointed out above, Paul's letters do contain a great many references to an earthly Jesus that don't fit the hypothesis. Overlooking what doesn’t support one’s hypothesis is an approach doomed to failure.…explanations as to how this "celestial/mythic Jesus" sect gave rise to a "historical/earthly Jesus" sect and then promptly disappeared without leaving any historical trace quite simply strain credulity.This theory expects people to believe that—despite all the apologetic literature [from the early centuries] condemning and refuting a wide range of "heresies"—there is not one that bothers to even mention this ‘original Christianity’ that taught Jesus was never on earth at all.This beggar's belief.”Objection #7In a Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier Bart Ehrman says:“In the course of my discussion of Freke and Gandy’s The Jesus Mysteries, I fault them for thinking that since the Romans kept such detailed records of everything (“birth notices, trial records, death certificates”), it is odd indeed that we have no such records from Roman hands aboutJesus.My response is that it is a complete myth (in the mythicist sense) that Romans kept detailed records of everything. Carrier vehemently objects that this is altogether false, indicating that in fact we have thousands of such records, and that he has “literally held some for these documents in my very hands.” And he points out that some of them are quoted and cited in ancient books, as when Seutonius refers to the birth records for Caligula.What Carrier is referring to is principally the documentary papyri discovered in Egypt, which I am in fact very familiar with and some of which I too have held in my hands. … We do indeed have many thousands of such documents – wills, land deeds, birth records, divorce certificates, and on and on — from Egypt.…most of these are not in fact records of Roman officials, but made by indigenous Egyptian writers / scribes.…I should reiterate that it is a complete “myth” (in the mythicist sense) that Romans kept detailed records of everything and that as a result we are inordinately well informed about the world of Roman Palestine [Note: I’m talking about Palestine] and should expect then to hear about Jesus if he really lived.If Romans kept such records, where are they? We certainly don’t have any.Think of everything we do not know about the reign of Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea…” … from Roman records: “his major accomplishments, his daily itinerary, the decrees he passed, the laws he issued, the prisoners he put on trial, the death warrants he signed, his scandals, his interview, his judicial proceedings.” We have none of this.In talking about Roman records, I am talking about the Roman records we are interested in: the ones related to the time and place where Jesus lived, first-century Palestine. It’s a myth that we have or that we could expect to have detailed records from Roman officials about everything that was happening there, so that if Jesus really lived, we would have some indication of it.Quite the contrary, we precisely don’t have Roman records – of much of anything – from there. We do indeed have lots of records from someplace else that doesn’t matter for the question…”Myth with MathTim O'Neill's answer to What is your opinion on the use of Bayes' theorem as a tool to discover the best historical explanation for the data we have as outlined by Richard Carrier?Interpretations of ProbabilityOne modern addition to the Jesus as myth group is Richard Carrier who uses Baye’s Theorem of probabilities to disprove the historical Jesus. It is a point of interest that William Lane Craig also uses Baye’s to prove the resurrection. All this shows is results are determined based on what one puts into the theorem.Bayes Theorem only works in cases where we can apply known information. Bayes Theorem's application depends entirely on how precisely the parameters and values of our theoretical reconstruction of a real world approximate reality.With a historical question, Carrier is forced to think up probabilities for each parameter he puts into the equation. This is a purely subjective process - he determines how likely or unlikely a parameter in the question is and then decides what value to give that parameter. So the result he gets at the end is purely a function of these subjective choices.So, it's not surprising that Carrier comes up with a result on the question of whether Jesus existed that conforms to his belief that Jesus didn't - he came up with the values that were inevitably going to come up with that result.If someone who believed Jesus did exist did the same thing, the values they inputted would be different and they would come up with the opposite result. This is why historians don't bother using Bayes Theorem.In Probably Not – A Fine-Tuned Critique of Richard Carrier (Part 1)Luke Barnes says:“Carrier’s faults are not slips of notation, minor technicalities or incorrect arithmetic. … Carrier can’t even apply his own half-baked ideas consistently, abandoning them when convenient.Further, when the time comes to demonstrate the use of Bayes’ theorem, Carrier bypasses it. He tries to argue that likelihoods are irrelevant to posteriors. The whole point of Bayes’ theorem is to use likelihoods (and priors) to calculate posteriors. No scientist, no statistician does probability like this, and for good reason.”…I think the book is disingenuous. It doesn’t read as a mathematical treatment of the subject, and I can’t help but think that Carrier is using Bayes’s Theorem in much the same way that apologists such as William Lane Craig use it: to give their arguments a veneer of scientific rigour that they hope cannot be challenged by their generally more math-phobic peers.To enter an argument against the overwhelming scholarly consensus with “but I have math on my side, math that has been proven, proven!” seems transparent to me, more so when the quality of the math provided in no way matches the bombast.A Mathematical Review of “Proving History” by Richard CarrierThe Author’s ConclusionThe author of this article concludes with “Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. (Not true, there’s a whole field of scholars who have produced work on it for 200 years and score of them are recent.) Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.”The sources are not hypothetical. The gospels and the creeds they contain are sources. They exist. In the real world.My ConclusionAs one of those peons who likes evidence over unsupported opinion, false allegations and ignorance, I should probably go into a summation of what has and hasn’t been shown and/or supported by evidence of any kind, but I am feeling the need for a shower after dealing with all this plain and simple mud-slinging.This article is crap. It contains nothing but crap. It is fried crap, frozen crap, crap on a stick, any and every way a reasonable person would look at it, even if you agree with the guy that Jesus is myth, this article is still crap. It’s not journalism. It’s just sensationalism. It’s crap.

No, she wasn’t ugly, but as soon as Henry said she was, everyone hastened to agree with him. It’s worth noting that he never said Hans Holbein had painted her inaccurately.The problem was that Henry made an absolute ass of himself upon their first meeting and was embarrassed by her. As Henry always did, he turned the insult around on the person who had given it. He wasn’t the one who was gross. She was!The search for a new wife for Henry began before Jane Seymour was even in the ground. This isn’t quite as cold-hearted as it sounds. Henry only had one living son, an infant. It was his duty as a king to re-marry and father more. But Henry was never really much about duty, and so the process would drag on for years.Henry’s usual matrimonial hunting grounds, his queen’s ladies in waiting, hadn’t stirred up anyone of interest. This time, after the strenuous efforts and pleadings of Cromwell, Henry would marry a princess for an alliance to benefit England.It wasn’t easy to find a new bride for the scandalous king. Christina of Denmark, the sixteen year old grand-niece of Katharine of Aragon is reported to have said of Henry “If I had two heads, one should be at the King of England’s disposal." It’s probably apocryphal, but it shows the attitude of Europe at the time. Christina reportedly said she feared to marry Henry "for her Council suspecteth that her great aunt was poisoned, that the second was put to death and the third lost for lack of keeping her childbed."In most circumstances, royal parents wouldn’t care if their daughter didn’t want to marry their chosen bridegroom. Anna’s sister-in-law, Jeanne d'Albret, had been whipped by her parents when she refused to marry the Duke of Cleves, and had to be physically carried to the altar by the Constable of France when she refused to go.But in this case, the crowned heads of Europe agreed with their daughters. Catholic monarchs didn’t want to ally with a king who had been excommunicated. Protestant monarchs were offended by Henry’s relentless persecution of Lutherans in his realm, and his insistence on keeping all of the Catholic elements of worship except for the authority of the Pope.Compounding the difficulty was the fact that Henry needed his marriage to bring him a beneficial alliance that would help shift the balance of power in Europe in his favor. There weren’t many princesses that fit the bill.Henry insisted that his wife had to be beautiful. He was troubled by having to rely on ambassadors, deputies, and others to describe the women and their attributes to him. When it came to selecting his bride, Henry said: "I trust to no one but myself. The thing touches me too near. I wish to see them and know them some time before deciding.”It makes sense to modern readers, of course, but to people in the sixteenth century, Henry’s behavior was un-kingly and rather childish. Royal marriages were made for alliances between nations, and the attractiveness of the candidates wasn’t really a consideration. Certainly, Henry hadn’t worried whether or not his sister Mary Tudor Brandon would find the elderly French king attractive when Henry forced her to marry him.In ordinary circumstances, portraits would be exchanged, but often that was after the marriage had been agreed upon. The princess would be married by proxy before she left her homeland for her new realm. It was the way things had been done for a thousand years in Europe, but Henry thought he should be an exception.He suggested through his ambassador that the French should send their candidates to England for a visit to see if Henry found any of them suitable.The French reacted to this bizarre suggestion with ridicule. They would not be trotting out princesses for Henry to inspect like hackneys he was considering buying. The ambassador made the sarcastic suggestion that Henry might want to “try” the women and select the one he found the sweetest. It’s recorded that Henry had the grace to blush when the French ambassador said this.Cromwell urged Henry to accept Anna or Amalia, the sisters of a duke who ruled a small, but strategic, German country. Cleves was Reformist in its faith; one of Anna’s brother-in-laws was known as the “Champion of the Reformation.” Anna’s mother, however, had been a strict Catholic, and Anna still adhered to her faith. But she was willing to obey her husband in regards to religion.Henry sent the court painter, Hans Holbein, to paint portraits of the two princesses and men he trusted to report on their beauty and attributes.Holbein’s portrait of Anna shows a moderately attractive young woman with gentle features. He painted her head-on, which somewhat disguised her long nose. Ambassador Wotton, who had gone with Holbein, pronounced the finished portrait “a very lively [life-like] image.”After viewing the two portraits, Henry picked Anna as his bride.The ambassadors who met her said Anna was “… of middling beauty, and of very assured and resolute countenance.” Anna wasn’t beautiful, but she wasn’t ugly, either.Anna was solemn and dutiful, the qualities that had so attracted Henry to Jane Seymour. By English standards, Anna wasn’t sophisticated or accomplished. Because of her sheltered German upbringing, she wasn’t conversant in the intricate poetic and literary metaphors used by the English court. She did not sing or play any musical instruments, which the Germans felt were “unbecoming” for a lady, and in her brother’s sober court, dancing was frowned upon.She could read and write, but only in German. She loved to play cards, and embroidered beautifully. But she was gracious and charming, and as it would later turn out, Anna had such a brilliant mind and understanding of the complexities of European politics, Henry wished he could put her on his council.Anna also came from an extremely fertile family. Her grandfather was nicknamed "der Kindermacher" for the impressive sixty-three illegitimate children he’d fathered along with his wife’s brood. Had Henry’s matrimonial adventures really been about begetting heirs, Anna was the perfect wife.The proxy marriage was performed and Anna was dispatched to England. She made her way across the sea and landed at Deal. From there, she set out on a slow, winding path for London, where she expected to meet her new husband.At every house she stayed in along the way, there were celebrations and feasts to greet the new queen. The courtiers she met were charmed by her. She was likable and gracious. No one made any negative reports about her appearance at this time.Henry had other plans for their first meeting. He was impatient to meet her and wanted to “nurture love” by getting to know her before she reached London. He decided to play one of the pranks of his youth, the games he used to play with Katharine of Aragon. In those long-ago days, he would dress up as a highwayman and invade Katharine’s chamber, demanding to dance with the queen. Katharine always pretended to be surprised when he took off his disguise.Henry dressed himself in a “mottled,” or ragged, cloak and hood, and went to Rochester. He called aside her steward and announced he had come to meet his new wife. Henry may have been remembering the romantic stories of French and early English monarchs who had first checked out their brides while in disguise and then revealed themselves to them. The romantic outcome was that the princess was supposed to fall in love with the “stranger” because their hearts would recognize one another, even if their eyes were fooled.Did anyone tell the king it might not be a good idea to “introduce” himself in such a way to a girl who came from a far away land that didn’t have the same courtly traditions, and hadn’t read the same romances he had? If they did, it didn’t deter him.Anna was in her chamber, gazing out her window, watching a bear-baiting outside staged for her amusement. Henry entered and announced he had a gift for her from the king, words she probably didn’t understand. With that, he grabbed her into his arms and kissed her.Anna was shocked at being manhandled by this obese, uncouth man dressed as a peasant. Royalty was never touched without their permission, and then only by persons of appropriate rank, not the peasant Henry appeared to be. It’s not hard to imagine she had a look of disgust on her face as she recoiled. She turned away from him and stared out the window, likely unsettled and unsure of what to do.It was probably the only time Henry had ever seen a look of repulsion aimed in his direction. He was surrounded at all times by trained courtiers who gazed at him in adoration and assured him he was still the most handsome prince in Christendom. Anna brutally shattered that illusion in a single moment. She did not swoon and fall instantly in love with him. She did not pretend coy delight. She showed him - stripped of courtly pretense or artifice - exactly what she thought of him, and it wasn’t flattering.What must Anna have been thinking? It must have been bewildering and frightening to her. She was a royal princess who had just been assaulted in her new homeland, and no one was doing anything about it. Her servants hadn’t thrown out the stranger. Was this the kind of lack of respect she would have to learn to expect here?Henry left the room and returned dressed in his kingly robes. Anna was deeply embarrassed, as Henry had probably expected (and frankly, intended.) But he extended a measure of graciousness to her."And when the lords and knights saw his grace they did him reverence…. and then her grace humbled herself lowly to the king’s majesty, and his grace saluted [kissed] her again, and they talked together lovingly…"But the reports note that the petulant Henry did not give Anna the jewels and furs he’d brought as a New Year’s gift for his bride.But behind the scenes, Henry was fuming. His pride had suffered a brutal blow, and as Henry usually did when hurt or angry, he deflected it on others. Anna was the one who was repulsive, not him!"I like her not! … She is nothing as well as she was spoken of.“Henry had a litany of complaints about his new bride. She looked old. She smelled bad. Her clothes were terrible. He added darkly, ”I am not well handled.“He began to blame those who had "deceived” him into marrying her, and as his courtiers usually did, they hastened to agree with him that Anna was hideous. However, disinterested parties such as the French diplomat, Charles de Marillac, described Anna as beaulté moyenne, - “medium beauty,“ which is better than he rated Katheryn Howard, whom Henry thought was a knock-out.Henry tried to wriggle out of the marriage, scrambling to find reasons why it might be invalid. But nothing could be uncovered. All of her paperwork was in order. The Cleves ambassadors dramatically offered themselves as hostages for Henry to do with as he would if anything there was any impediments to the marriage. Next, Henry demanded Anna appear and formally swear she was free of impediment, likely hoping she'd be offended and refuse. But Anna was obedient and appeared to swear as asked.Henry whined: "Is there no other remedy, but that I must needs, against my will, put my neck in the yoke?"Henry was deeply resentful when forced to do anything, but in this case, there was no escaping it. To annul the proxy marriage and eject Anna from England would be to alienate his new German allies, whom he needed desperately since the Emperor was now allied with the French. Another way would have to be found to rid himself of her.Oddly, he never blamed Hans Holbein, the artist of the portrait which was the basis of Henry's choice of Anna as his bride, nor said the portrait of Anna was inaccurate. Henry continued to give Holbein commissions. It was Cromwell who would bear the brunt of the king’s displeasure.He muttered to Cromwell,"If it were not that she is come so far into England, and for fear of making a ruffle in the world, and driving her brother into the Emperor and the French King’s hands, I would never have her: but now it is too far gone, wherefore I am sorry."That night, he refused to consummate the union, telling people the next day that Anna smelled and her breasts were droopy, indicating she probably wasn't a virgin. Not that he couldn’t consummate it, he hastened to add when he explained the situation to his doctors. In fact, he’d had not just one, but two nocturnal emissions that night while he lay next to his untouched bride. He was a bit touchy about his virility after the trial of wife #2 in which George Boleyn had read out a note revealing Henry had impotency issues.Anna could not have been unaware her husband disliked her, not with all the court tittering about the non-consummation and Henry’s public complaints about her body. But she was alone, with no one to support her or advise her, aside from the diplomats who had arranged the marriage. Her ladies from Cleves had been replaced by a contingent of English ladies in waiting, including a winsome young girl named Katheryn Howard, and Jane Parker, the former sister-in-law of Anne Boleyn.She wisely decided to play along with Henry, supporting his announcement of the non-consummation. During a conversation, Jane Parker said she believed Anna was still a maiden.Anna replied,"How can I be a maid… and sleep every night with the king? When he comes to bed, he kisses me and takes me by the hand and bids me, 'Goodnight sweetheart,' and in the morning, kisses me and bids me, 'Farewell darling.' Is this not enough?"It is highly unlikely Anna was that ignorant of how babies were made. Unlike the Victorian era, the Tudors did not believe sexual innocence also required sexual ignorance. Though the court of Cleves was more conservative than the court of Henry VIII, women were not kept from the facts of nature. Anna’s reply was likely part of the ruse: “I’m so untouched, I don’t even know what sex is!”But by June, dark clouds were gathering. Anna complained to one of the courtiers about the attention Henry was showing to her maid of honor, Katheryn Howard. A courtier named Richard Hilles wrote about it in a letter:"Before St. John Baptist’s day [24th June] it was whispered the King intended to divorce his queen Anne, sister of the duke of Gelderland, whom he had married publicly at Epiphany after last Christmas. Courtiers first observed that he was much taken with another young lady, very small of stature, whom he now has, and whom he was seen crossing the Thames to visit, often in the day time and sometimes at night. The bp. of Winchester provided feastings for them in his palace, but it was looked upon as a sign of adultery, not of divorce."On that date, Anna was ordered to leave court on the pretext that there was plague in the city. The French ambassador reported on this ruse:"Now they say in this Court that the said lady has left for fear of the plague in this town; which is false, for there is no talk at present of plague, and if there was any suspicion of it, this King would not stay for any affair however great, as [he is] the most timid person that could be in such a case."Anna tried not to panic, but it was difficult. She knew this had been the first step in Henry’s separation from his other wives - to physically isolate them before dropping the bomb of his intentions.At the end of June, a list was drawn up of the steps to be taken by Henry's commissioners to dissolve the marriage. It included investigating Anna's previous marriage contract with the Duke of Lorraine, and to verify that the marriage with Henry hadn't been consummated.Henry now backtracked on his insinuations that Anna wasn't a virgin, because if she wasn't, the man who'd slept in her bed for several nights would be the most likely to have deflowered her.The notes on this subject still exist, somewhat damaged by a fire at the Cotton Library in the 1730s.“If by witness of relation be meant such witness … depose the Quenes affirmation that she is not kn[own] … by inspection of her body affirm themself by the … that she remaineth unknown, these witness be … hearing to make faith in the matter."It appears there was at one time an idea they should perform a gynecological inspection of Anna’s body to affirm that she was a virgin. Thankfully, it seems this was decided to be unnecessary. At some point, Jane Parker offered testimony about Anna not even knowing how babies were made, supporting Henry's assertions about what went on in their marriage bed.While all of this was going on, Anna was kept in the dark. She likely heard rumors and saw her servants whispering, but it was Henry's intention to keep it from her until he could present her with a fait accompli.On the sixth of July, Anna was awakened in the middle of the night and told the king had sent commissioners to speak with her on a question that needed an immediate answer. She had to be utterly terrified, thinking the men had come to arrest her on some trumped-up charge that would allow the king to execute her.Reportedly, she fainted when they came into the room, but when she was revived, she was reassured that the king was so gracious and virtuous a prince that he could abide nothing that wasn't in tune with the law of God, and so he'd had the legality of their marriage investigated. It was the opinion of the bishops and "learned men" of the kingdom that their marriage was invalid.Anna was an extremely intelligent woman. She sighed over how sad it was to lose such a wonderful husband and pretended reluctance, but she sent the king a message that she was content to obey and accept the judgment of the commission.The deal she was offered was a very generous one.Statement of the provision made by Henry VIII for Anne of Cleves:—1. She will be considered as the King’s sister, and have precedence over all ladies in England, after the Queen and the King’s children.2. She shall have an annual income of 8,000 nobles; and 500l. st. have been given to her officers.3. Two manors, Richmond and Blechingley, having splendid houses and parks of 6 leagues and 2 leagues.4. She shall have hangings, plate, and furniture, and5. money for her household till her income is sufficient.6. “Pretiosissimas [precious or costly]” jewels and pearls.7. A good number of officers, the heads being nobles.On the 9th of July, the king’s commissioners met with a large number of the clergy, who solemnly examined the evidence and pronounced that Henry’s marriage to Anna was invalid."After mature deliberation, they have found the marriage null by reason of a precontract between lady Anne and the marquis of Lorraine, that it was unwillingly entered into and never consummated, and that the King is at liberty to marry another woman, and likewise the lady Anne free to marry."Anna wrote a letter to Henry, fully accepting the judgment of the clergy, but bemoaning her loss of such a wonderful husband, and begging only that she be allowed occasionally to be in the fruition of his presence. She signed it, "ANNA the Daughter of Kleefys."Henry was pleased with her answer, but he was worried Anna would change her mind regarding her cooperation because of her capricious nature as a woman. After all, who wouldn't be scheming to get him back?“[C]oncerning these letters to her brother, how well soever she speaketh now, with promises to abandon the condition [caprices] of a woman, and evermore to remain constant in her proceedings, we think good, nevertheless, rather by good ways and means to prevent that she should not play the woman (though she would), than to depend upon her promise. [...] Unless these letters be obtained, all shall [will] remain uncertain upon a woman’s promise; viz., that she will be no woman—the accomplishment whereof, on her behalf, is as difficult in the refraining of a woman’s will, upon occasion, as in changing her womanish nature, which is impossible.”Under the guidance of his commissioners, Anna wrote a letter to her brother, explaining what had happened, an announcing her intention to live in England.Anna may have been worried how her brother would react if she returned home. One of her interviews with the king’s men contains this troubling line:"... for and [I did so] … would slay me."But in England, she would be safe. Her submission to the king’s will had pleased him, and her pretended sorrow to let him go had stroked his ego. Anna was firmly in the king’s favor. She was wealthy and independent.The French ambassador reported in September:"Madame of Cleves has a more joyous countenance than ever. She wears a great variety of dresses, and passes all her time in sports and recreations."After Katheryn Howard's execution, she sent her ambassadors to ask Henry to remarry her. Historians have often accepted this at face value, but I think Anna was showing her sharp intelligence once more. She knew Henry would never remarry her now that he had declared her his sister. (It wasn't just a casual use of the word; it was more like an adoption.) But he was seeking another wife, and that queen might not be as friendly to her as Katheryn Howard had been. She needed to make sure she was secure in Henry's favor.Anna made such a fuss about wanting to be Henry's wife again that a pamphlet was printed on the Continent entitled "The Remonstrance of Anne of Cleves," in which Anna bewails her sad fate to have lost such an awesome husband."For since the first entering upon the treaty of marriage, as well as since the time when he first received her kindly at his court, she is not conscious of having committed any offence for which he could justly say that she deserves that this question should be brought forward, as it is now, without any other reason except that he has the power to leave her and take a new wife.... It will be much harder for her now to give him up, after having had the privilege of knowing him in some small degree, than if that privilege had never been hers. For she has seen that in him there are such perfections that were she to reckon them up, she would think that she knew every good thing and every virtue that there is in the world; and did she but know them perfectly she would need no other medicine to remedy all her ills and to minister entire comfort.... And she, on her part, would render to him all such obedience as it might please him to enjoin. Let him then take pity of her scalding tears and show compassion for her sorrow. Let him give place to her great and perfect love, and grant that by his kindness she may live content. Let him retain this his most humble servant, this his creature, who was only born for him; and let him not use such cruelty as that she, without having done him any ill or offence, should be repudiated and divorced, and so rendered the most miserable and unfortunate wife in the whole world."As expected, Henry rejected her for the second time, but he was so flattered that Anna could be certain that she was secure. She left court after that and settled on her own estates, traveling and visiting friends, playing cards, bedecking herself in fabulous gowns and jewels, and generally having a grand time of it. The French ambassador wrote that the joy seemed to make her prettier:“She is well and said to be half as beautiful again since she left court”She bickered with the man who had been put in charge of her funds, Thomas Cawarden. He once wrote a letter to the council complaining that Anna had ignored his advice and built two new buildings on her estate - one of them a brewery, the other an inn.She also indulged her curiosity. Orders survive in her records for a kitchen to be set up for her and furnished with a variety of meats and spices so that Anna could make a “tryall of cookery.”She was free, and she had more wealth and independence than any woman in Henry's domain. She would never marry again, but reportedly, she lived the rest of her life quite happily.Her last public appearance was at Queen Mary’s coronation, where she rode in a position of high honor in a litter right behind the queen’s.We don’t know what led to her death, but she seems to have been aware that her life was slipping away, because she made out her will a few days before she died.Anna took great care to mention every one of the dozens of servants in her household, giving them money, clothing, jewelry, gold plate, or funds toward their dowries.Anna also left jewelry to both of the girls who had once been her step-daughters, Elizabeth and Queen Mary. Anna asked that Mary use the rents from one of her estates to settle her debts, and that Elizabeth take one of her maids into her service.Queen Mary saw to it that Anna was given the royal funeral she deserved in Westminster Abbey, with a full Catholic requiem mass given by Bishop Bonner. (While Anna’s faith had been reformist, she had been raised Catholic by her mother and she seems to have been content to return to Catholic forms of worship during Mary’s reign.) Jane Seymour’s sister, the Marchioness of Winchester, served as chief mourner.Contemporary witnesses described it:"The next day requiem was sung for my lady Anne daughter of Cleves, and then my lord of Westminster (abbot Feckenham) preached as goodly a sermon as ever was made, and the bishop of London sang mass in his mitre. And after mass, the lord bishop and the lord abbot did cense the corpse, and afterwards she was carried to her tomb, where she lies with a hearse and cloth of gold over her."It was customary to park the hearse over the grave for a while after the entombment. Sometimes, indefinitely. Katharine of Argaon's hearse remained in place over her tomb for over 110 years after her death. It was destroyed in the 1640s because it had an altar in it.But in Anna's case, something unfortunate happened. The hearse, covered in seven palls of costly fabrics, was looted by the monks of Westminster about a month after her funeral."The hearse was left, according to custom, some weeks in the church, and Machyn chronicles that when it was taken down it was discovered that the monks had despoiled it in the night of all the velvet cloth, coats of arms, banners, and even the gold fringe of the valance [...] which was never seen afore so done.”As a matter of fact, the trappings of the hearse were taken by order of the abbot, lest the heralds should claim them. The heralds complained of the loss of their perquisites, but the abbot and sexton appeared before the council and showed grants proving the right of their body to the hearses. Sentence was ultimately given against the heralds.Queen Mary commissioned a grand tomb for Anna, designed by her countryman Theodore Haveus, but it was never completed.Agnes Strickland wrote:"Anne of Cleves is buried near the high altar of Westminster Abbey, in a place of great honour, at the feet of king Sebert the original founder.‘ Her tomb is seldom recognized. In fact it looks like a long bench placed against the wall on the right hand, as the examiner stands facing the altar, near the oil portraits of Henry III and king Sebert. On closer inspection, her initials A. and C., interwoven in a monogram, will be observed on parts of the structure, which is rather a memorial than a monument, for it was never finished. “ Not one of Henry’s wives, excepting Anne of Cleves, had a monument,” observes Fuller, “and hers was but half a one.”Apparently, some work was still ongoing during the reign of James I, but it was probably lack of royal funding which left the tomb unfinished. In the 19th century, a marble panel from it was removed and used in the communion table.The tomb was marked only with her initials “AC” until a small plaque was installed during the 1970s. Today, Anna’s tomb is difficult to find, often obscured by rows of chairs.

Background: This a story of a young man who was born in a small town in the Punjab region of India, in a few years after India got Independence in 1947. His forefathers had to leave their ancestral lands where they lived for thousands of year in the Punjab region of Pakistan. Most of their families were slaughtered in front of their eyes. Most of them arrived in three clothes on their bodies if they were lucky.Now the story begins with this child, in the Punjab region of India. The country was almost bankrupt; foreigners looted this country for about 1000 years to their heart's content.There was no hope, day to day survival was a battle in itself. However, this young man completed an excellent education with an M.Sc. degree. There were no hopes around, after working on survival jobs for a few years, he decided he has to do something to break the chains of poverty/helplessness/shattering of the dreams. At an early age, one incident broke his heart; he vowed that he would not let this happen to his next generation if he had kids.A start of a tough and long journey to Canada.I came to Canada in the early 70 s along with my new bride in tow. As said several times in my previous posts that we had eight dollars and my wife had five hundred dollars in traveler cheques. Her parents had arranged through a private source. Our country did not have much foreign exchange, therefore, getting it through proper channels was out of the question. Her parents were worried sick, about their daughter, without much resources in a new unknown land.My parents came to see us off at the airport in New Delhi, my mother pulled me aside and gave me all crumpled up eight dollars in my hand. She burst into a fit of crying and said: That is all I could arrange, these eight dollars would not buy you and your bride a meal in Canada. But that is all I have, I am not worried about you, but I am worried about my daughter(in law), she has not seen a tough life. I told my mother: Ma your son is not dead yet, and I give you my word, I will take care of your daughter(in law) first, feed her, even if I will stay hungry.Flight from New Delhi to London:My wife and I were extremely tired, we did not eat much or sleep by the time we traveled from our home town to New Delhi.We boarded the flight from New Delhi to London, leaving our whole life behind, relatives, friends, teachers, our whole ties to the known world.My whole life of 20 odd years run like a flashback, my father hugged me before departure, and the only time he cried like a baby. He only said: Son, I never imagined this, you and our daughter(in law) will depart like this, we have not seen her with our heart's content.Well there was a few hours of layover, and the airport is/was breathtakingly beautiful, we had no interest in anything. We just sit there stunned solid. Our minds and worries were about our parents, that is all.London to Toronto via Montreal:Finally, we landed in Toronto, it was the last week of April, and it was burning hot in India, and Canadian weather was extremely pleasant. Canadian officials were extremely polite, helpful, and very compassionate. Our paperwork was complete to the last dot, and the officer stamped our passport and said: Welcome to Canada.The first flight to Canada was a very long journey, due to the intense pressure of unknowns, practically with no money and extreme fear of failure. The biggest concern was: What if I failed, what will my in-laws be thinking about me? What will my new bride think of me? How would I pay back the debt I am incurring due to all this? What will happen to my dreams? Will I end up like a bum? Now, what will happen to my parents?No answers just non stop, question after question in my mind.Now the most important thing:The answer to the following question:What is the hardest thing you faced in Canada as a new immigrant?The hardest thing we, my wife and I faced in Canada as a new immigrant,We had no choice but to be house guest to a distant relative for 30 days.Our host:Our host said earlier is/was a distant relative, he was waiting for us at the arrival gate.As soon as we shook hands I had a sinking feeling, that we are not made for each other. The guy was extremely cold, and expressed no welcome feeling, start from the beginning it appeared that he was doing it due to pressure and treating us as a burden.He lived in Hamilton and to be precise in Stoney Creek, the journey was about one and half hour at the most but soon in few years, we are here for fifty years was one of worst one and half hours of my life.Our host was a blue color worker, and his whole lecture was to ridicule my education, of M.Sc. that too from a very prestigious university in India with excellent grades. According to him, it sounds like I am totally unfit for Canada. And I have no hope in hell to find some work and make a livelihood.I could see helplessness and extreme disappointment on the face of my wife. It appeared to me, she was thinking, she had married a loser. I vowed there and then (in my heart, and said to myself): Honey, you did not marry a loser, I will prove it to you. Just stick with me, I will prove this guy totally wrong.According to our host, Canada was in a deep depression, and finding work to survive, was almost impossible.Finally, we reached our destination, it was a low-end apartment building, even though I was totally new, I made a good judgment that this guy is all fluff.We carried our half-dead body, due to the extremely long journey, hauled our luggage to his apartment.It was a two-bedroom apartment, with meager stuff, one room was full of some Indian clothing which was his part-time gig. On one side there was a small twin bed for his 4 years old “Princess.” The other bedroom was for the “King and Queen.”I could measure from their stuff and overall situation that this family is hand to mouth, practically no juice but he was putting a big show to us.I took the plunge and said we could put our belongings in one corner of their living room, and spread our blanket on the carpet, sleep on the floor of the living room.We both requested the couple not to disturb their lives for us. We both would be okay, keeping our belongings and keep it ourselves. We did not mind to make a bed on the floor and hoped after about four days leaving our home town, maybe we get some sleep.Our sleep was short-lived, because, by the time we got to get a wink, lady of the house woke up, and started banging the things in the kitchen.As Canadians know, these tiny apartments have kitchen next to the living room without much walls or any separation with the living room.The lady had to prepare the meal, get ready and leave for work, early in the morning because her travel to work was about an hour.Finally, she left and it was about six in the morning we thought we might catch up to some sleep.We were hardly dozing off, now the little princess woke up. She kicked me in my rear end and said: It is her living room, and switched on the TV to watch cartoons or some children show.The guy stayed home, he was off from work, but his rants were the same as the last night.Never mind the man of the house, the lady was not far behind, in showing her anger, resentment and basically her insulting demeanor towards us.We both will try to slip off the house, very early so that we do not have any interactions with them at all, try to come very late. During the day we hunt for the work, and in the evenings sit around in the parks and shopping malls.Fast Forward and Summary:My wife has excellent credentials also, however, we both tried to get out of the apartment as early as we could. Tried our best to survive on meager food, sometimes we shared one meal, sometimes pretended: I am not hungry, and offer the food to her, and vice versa. Sometimes we get a soda, in those days it used to be 25 cents at fountain machine in convenience stores, and split she took a sip and I took a sip in turns. Then keep the empty cup, with us to fill it with water. Finding work in our fields mine in Chemistry/Food Science and she’s in bookkeeping and accounting was not our mind. We wanted to find something asap, and get out of that hell hole. It is a very long story, how did I start my life here in Canada? It was a very tough to go, because, without a car, it was very difficult to move around, hunt for work and survival.On 21 the day after our arrival, we packed our stuff, and moved on with our lives, with a very meager start.The lady of the house arrived from work, she started with her routine of sarcastic talk, ridicule and glorifying herself.I gently put the keys of the apartment in her hand and said: Thank you very much for your hospitality, help, assistance and welcome.You will not see us, tonight, as we found some work, and our friend would be here to give us a ride and help move our meager stuff.She was stunned: What friend? I told her my father gave me a phone number of a young man who happens to be the son of his close friend. He helped us to drive around and show us the ropes, and help us and we both landed jobs.Our new found friend was on the door, we three did not waste a minute, to take our stuff out, and never looked back. The little Princess was standing at the door, waved at us, I said: May God bless you. And jokingly said: Your kick in my rear end on my first day in Canada, awakened my soul forever. Thank you and said: “Heartfelt” goodbye forever. Her mother (the Queen), seemed to be very proud of her Princess.Once I turned my back with my suitcase in hand, I heaved a sigh of relief.And vowed to me never raise a kid like this without any manners and undisciplined.But I also made a promise to myself, this should be goodbye forever, and it was. I also promised to myself; I will raise my kids if I ever have some, to be the very best I can. Therefore, my children and grandkids are number one priority in the world, who so ever they touch, leave a permanent mark for the very best behavior on the guests/teachers/strangers/ and above all people who are in of urgent help.I vowed to put a hand on my scripture, never stay as a house guest in any one house, vowed to move the earth and the mountain, never to put any one of my family members in such a situation.Never to get cozy, lazy, and miss a beat. I have learned the most precious thing in life, once you are down you are fair game for kicking, even by clowns. When you are down, most of the people such as relatives/friends/ and acquaintances are spectators.Anyone can be down, but the real fighter is one who bounces back on his/her feet asap.People from the North Indian origin may remember this song from a very famous movie. Please keep these lines in your mind, it was valid then and it is and will be valid forever.Western friends our some Indian brothers from south India may not understand the intense fire in the bellies of young Indians who were just born in free India. ( I apologize, you may skip next two videos), basically, these were extremely inspirational for us at that time frame)One movie maker Manoj Kumar set us on fire: Hook or crook, we must do something, without losing our culture going to the west and make up the loss of science/technology and math. Most of the young people who came at my time, they did not disappoint him.Source: YOUTUBEInspiration to be something in my life and a person who put a fire in my belly, Manoj Kumar and this movie had changed my life forever.One dialogue changed my life: I paraphrase: Manoj Kumar tells Ashok Kumar: I am going to England for Viagian (Science and Technology) and not Gian(not for my culture).I kept that promise for three generations, my wife and I, our two boys, now two grandsons. They know our scripture by heart.Almost every young man/woman of my time knew this movie inside outside.Please watch: 32.20 to 33.70(We engraved this advice on our foreheads)I had come here for science and technology, and not for anything else. I never forgot, and I kept hammering to my boys and now grandkids.Source: YOUTUBEThree generations: Our culture is intact, our scripture is safe, and we did not leave any stone unturned in the field of science technology and math.Here is the total of close to fifty years of hard labor, ups, and downs, success and failures, real and fake friends.Two are Harvard graduates MBA, one with dean’s honor’s list, one with an Engineering degree from a prestigious university followed by law, B.E.(EE), LLB. One with B.A., R.N. CDE, one with two M.Sc. one from India second from Canada. Two sit on big chairs in the corporate USA, one is a corporate lawyer in Canada and one has a very respectable career in the Canadian health industry. For the last 45 years, one never went on unemployment. My wife and I( first generation) did everything kind of work. Starting with a minimum wage of 1.25 dollars/hour. One of did extremely hard work in foundries/ minus 30/ and you name it he has done it. He never gave up a dream to get Canadian education he did with all odds another M.Sc.Harvard convocation HBS, MBA, class of 2008, Deans honor list in the back.Finally getting to the Canadian boardroom on an executive job, starting with little jobs even after getting Canadian M.Sc. after working 30 years. Then going into own business, now 15 years and countingWe are here soon in a few years it will be 50 years and counting.Some people ask: Why did you choose to stay and struggle rather than coming back.You incur a fair bit of expense, in coming here, it may not sound much in today’s dollar value, but in those days it was a huge amount. Without much hopes of good paying employment, that debt could have been a burden for a long time.There was not much to go back; our country was not even 25 years old after independence from Britain.There was an extremely high rate of unemployment, almost no hope of the future.Fear of relatives/friends/ acquaintances to be labeled for life: A loser.In those days it was not a joke to get immigration to Canada, once you get it, you want to try your best to survive. And hope that one day you may make it.I was trained and educated by extremely hardcore teachers in the Punjab region of India, that school was one of the most revered schools of the time. DAV H/S, School, Chandigarh. Most of us were trained to go to battles real or of life, either victory or dead body back home. We were formed with strong fighter instincts, these teachers either themselves were freedom fighters/or lost someone close to them. Ethics were number one, taking care of the older parents was the top priority, taking care of your siblings was second most and total respect for the teachers was prime importance.Every morning our real Karam yogi teachers hammered us, that “ Be something” our country had lost a lot of years in Science and Technology, you guys must shine like stars. The future of this country in the hands of a new generation like you.There was no turning back when a fighter ties a saffron bandanna on his/her head. He/she does not come back without victory or a dead body. That is how I and most of the young people who came to the west were wired, that was our circuit board.Some simply wanted to send some foreign exchange for seeds/tractor/ and other stuff, they had land but no money to buy the other stuff.Others a few were hardcore paratrooper, they were simply daredevil (in a good way, they were from very wealthy families, for them to seek thrill was the objective)Most of us wanted to get rid of poverty of the families, some due to suffered big losses due to the partition of India.Some were just determined to get higher education.All in all, looking back they were in fact were warriors one way or the other. They all had invisible saffron, Bandanna tied on their heads. We all had either Wahe Guru or Allah or Jai Sri Ram, or Lord Christ or Lord Buddha on our tongues, and blessings of our mothers from back home.Most of the young men were single, and some of us were married. The only entertainment used to be an old movie that too on Sunday midnight, keep in mind we all day full day ahead on Monday morning.Life was a very big day to day struggle, and we all had one thing commonly worried sick for our loved ones back home.Under the very best conditions, the letter takes to India took 10 days, even if someone replies right away, another ten days for the one letter exchange.The telephone was out of the question, it used to $3/minutes, connections used to very poor, and some times it took forever to connect.We simply cherished the memory of our festivals, Diwali or for that matter any festivals from India/or any other country are not a national public holiday. In the beginning years, there were not very many Indians here, even in Toronto. These days would come and go, and we simply retired to our fates.Very slowly, with time, first parents passed away one by one, then you started to get bad news about your cousins, friends and other dear ones started to pass on. Links started to get weaker and weaker and when we visited back home. It did not look and felt the same, house without parents, friends moved on, neighbors did not know you. And you shake your head in disbelief that I was born and brought on this street, now I was a total stranger. No one knows me here, and you get the strange urge to come back to Canada in a more familiar place.When our kids came along, life had different meanings, we along with our kids grew and started to correlate Canadian festivals with ours. In our household, we celebrated Xmas thinking it is our Diwali.