Aloe's Story about Political Family (2)

"The daughter of a wealthy movie producer was asked at school to write a story about a poor relatives.

Her essay began, 'Once upon a time there was a poor family. The mother was poor. The daddy was poor. The children were poor. The uncle was poor. The aunty was poor. The son-in-law was poor. The butler was poor. The chauffeur was poor. The chef was poor. The maid was poor. The gardener was poor. The body guard was poor. Anyway, everybody was poor!'" Aloe began her story.

Then she said, "Thanks for having me, Wulan! Well, Wulan have told us about the Family of Cactus and Succulents. Now I'm underlining about the word 'family.' In politics, it is usually presumed that the antithesis of democracy is a political family, also referred to as political dynasty or Dynastic Politics. The roots of dynastic politics lie at least in part in modern democratic institutions—the state and political parties—which give political families a leg up in the electoral process.

As an illustration, let me tell you what Daniel M. Smith written. On April 1, 2000, Prime Minister Obuchi Keizō of the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Japan suffered a sudden stroke at the age of sixty-two and later died following a monthlong coma. As prime minister, Obuchi had been described as having 'all the pizazz of a cold pizza' because of his bland personality and style. However, as a candidate for the House of Representatives, the lower and more powerful chamber of Japan’s bicameral parliament, the National Diet, he had been extremely successful. Obuchi’s father had been a member of parliament (MP) in the House of Representatives for Gunma Prefecture’s 3rd District until his death in 1958. In 1963, at the age of twenty-six, Obuchi ran for his father’s old seat and won his first election. He went on to win eleven consecutive reelection victories, and earned more than 70 percent of the vote against two challengers in his final election attempt in 1996.

In the June 25, 2000, general election held shortly after his death, the LDP nominated Obuchi’s twenty-six-year-old daughter, Yūko, as his replacement. Yūko had quit her job at the Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS) television network to become her father’s personal secretary when he became prime minister in 1998. In her first election attempt, she defeated three other candidates with 76 percent of the vote. Since then, she has consistently won between 68 percent and 77 percent of the vote in her district and has faced only weak challengers from minor parties. The LDP’s main opposition from 1998 to 2016, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), fielded a candidate against her only in the 2005 general election: a thirty-six-year-old party employee with no prior electoral experience. He managed to win only a quarter of the vote in the district.

A young and politically inexperienced woman like Obuchi Yūko would normally be considered a weak candidate in Japan, where the average age of first-time candidates is forty-seven, and female candidates are rare (Obuchi was one of just five women nominated in a district race by the LDP in the 2000 election). Yet by virtue of her family background, and no doubt aided by sympathy votes after her father’s death, she enjoyed an incredible electoral advantage in her first election—both in terms of her name recognition with voters and in terms of the lack of high-quality challengers—and this advantage continued in subsequent elections. In 2008, after just three election victories, she became the youngest cabinet minister in postwar Japanese history when she was appointed minister of state in charge of the declining birthrate and gender equality in the cabinet of Prime Minister Asō Tarō. Few other LDP MPs have advanced to positions of power in the cabinet as quickly.

Since the 1996 general election, Smith says, more than a quarter of all MPs in the Japanese House of Representatives have been members of a democratic dynasty, a fact that puts Japan, along with Ireland and Iceland, in the company of economically developing and younger democracies like Taiwan, the Philippines, and Thailand (the most dynastic country for which data are available). Greece, Belgium, and India occupy what might be considered the middle stratum of dynastic politics, with between 10 percent and 15 percent of members in recent years coming from democratic dynasties. In most other democracies, legacy MPs tend to account for between 5 percent and 10 percent of parliament. This level of dynastic politics might thus be considered a “normal” level for healthy democracies. Among the democracies for which comparative data are available, Germany appears to be the least prone to dynastic politics, with less than 2 percent of members of the German Bundestag in recent years counting as legacy MPs.

Dynasties are, of course, common at the executive level in nondemocratic regimes such as monarchies or personal dictatorships. An autocratic ruler can often successfully anoint a family member as his (it is almost always 'his') successor when the party system or leadership selection mechanisms are weak, and the extant power distributions among the broader elite are sustained. An example is North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, who came into power in 2011 as the 'Great Successor' to his deceased father, Kim Jong-il, who himself became supreme leader following the death of his father, Kim Il-sung, in 1994. Another example is Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, who inherited his position in 2000 from his father, Hafez al-Assad, who had ruled Syria in a personal dictatorship since 1971.

But that similar dynasties should continue to exist in democracies seems to run counter to widely held normative visions of democratic opportunity and fairness—even given the fact that members of dynasties must ultimately be popularly elected. The democratic ideal that 'all men are created equal' should presumably extend to the equality of opportunity to participate in elective office, such that no individual is more privileged simply by birth to enter into politics. We might therefore expect democratization to catalyze an end to dynasties, as all real democracies eventually provide for the legal equality of all citizens to run for public office, barring minor restrictions based on place of birth, residence, age, or law-abiding conduct. Even before full democratic reform, modernization and the rise of capitalism should contribute to the decay of the traditional patrimonial state, such that historically dominant families should begin to 'fade from macropolitics.'

And yet throughout the modern democratized world, it is still possible to find powerful political dynasties—families who have returned multiple individuals to public office, sometimes consecutively, and sometimes spanning several generations. It is not uncommon for parties and voters to turn to 'favored sons,' 'democratic scions,' or the 'People’s Dukes' for political representation, despite the availability of less 'blue-blooded' candidates. Recent prominent examples from outside of Japan include President George W. Bush and Senator Hillary Clinton in the United States, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canada, Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour Party leader Ed Miliband in the United Kingdom, President Park Geun-hye in South Korea, Marine Le Pen and Marion Maréchal-Le Pen in France, Prime Minister Enda Kenny in Ireland, President Benigno Aquino III in the Philippines, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi in India, Alessandra Mussolini in Italy, and Tzipi Livni in Israel, or even 'Bongbong Marcos' in Philipine.

Defining what exactly constitutes a dynasty can be complicated given the variety of family relationships and levels of government in which family members might serve. According to Smith, a legacy candidate is defined as any candidate for national office who is related by blood or marriage to a politician who had previously served in national legislative or executive office (presidency or cabinet). If a legacy candidate is elected, he or she becomes a legacy MP and creates a democratic dynasty, which is defined as any family that has supplied two or more members to national-level political office. This definition of what constitutes a dynasty is more liberal than that used by Stephen Hess, who defines a dynasty in the American context as 'any family that has had at least four members, in the same name, elected to federal office.' The definition used here is not limited to dynasties with continuity in surname. In addition, only two family members are necessary to constitute a dynasty, rather than four members, which would limit the scope of the analysis to countries, such as the United States, with a longer democratic history. The definition also does not require that a legacy candidate be a member of the same party as his or her predecessor, or run in the same electoral district, although both conditions generally tend to be the case. Family members can serve consecutively or simultaneously, with the exception that two family members first elected at the same time would not constitute a democratic dynasty.

In India, as Chandra says, the term 'democratic dynasties' usually brings to mind the NehruGandhi family, whose members have occupied the Prime Ministership and led the Congress party for most of India’s independent history. One such dynasty is the Chavan family. Chandra argues the causes of dynastic politics in the Indian parliament lie in the structure of two of India’s contemporary democratic institutions – the state and political parties. Two features of these institutions encourage the emergence of dynastic politics in India—the large returns associated with state office and the organizational weakness of political parties. The returns associated with state office ensure that the families of politicians will want to enter politics. The organizational weakness of political parties ensures that they are likely to get tickets (party nominations) when they do. Once dynastic candidates obtain a party’s endorsement, voters must determine whether or not to support them. But the choices that voters make, and therefore the role they play in producing electoral dynasticism, are circumscribed by the structures of state and party.

In Indonesia, it's just as bad. Zaldi Rusnaedy writes that even all forms of political dynasty typology exist in the country. Quoting W. R. Jati, Zaldi says that there are at least four typologies of familism preferences in local political dynasties: familism based on populism, tribalism, informal power networks and feudalism.

Populism Dynasties are familial political dynasties based on populism which are highlighted in a succession of governments in an effort to 'secure' the incumbent's program. This is related to the reproduction of discourses of heroism and populism in the previous government's program which were used as campaign material for relatives to replace their other relatives.

Octopussy Dynasties is the second typology of political dynasties, based on networks of power. Political dynasties like this are built on coalitions of political clans, economic monopoly, violence, and much more.

Tribalism Dynasties is the third political dynasty typology where tribalism dynasties are based on ethnicity, clan and kinship. This pattern refers to the rise of local power in the implementation of regional autonomy in Indonesia. Local forces are indeed diverse, such as local strongmen and local bossism which have been widely discussed in the case of local politics in Indonesia. This pattern of dynastic tribalism occurs where political culture is still subjective, charismatic, nepotistic, or oligarchic.

Feudalism Dynasties is a model based on kinship or legacy mandate, formed based on figures and patrimonialism, 'while there is a chance', and elitism.

Consensus Dynasties happened where two family groups take turns controlling an area as a result of a compromise between the two families. The compromise between the two families included determining positions in rotation. So, it is not surprising that this unique political phenomenon is hardly detected by political scholars to give it more analysis and attention.

In a representative regime like that adopted in Indonesia, according to Mosca, there will be tension between 'tendencies democracy’ and ‘aristic tendencies’. This observation reveals concerns about aristocratic tendencies related to the persistence of political elites as a result of various factors, including; personal relationships, fame, and information that helps individuals well connected with power.

The primary objection to dynastic politics in a modern democracy is that it introduces a form of birth based exclusion among elected representatives that is antithetical to democracy. Further, according to Chandra, those who benefit most from this preference among parties for birth-based attributes is associated with a double form of exclusion; first by creating a birth-based ruling class, and second by amplifying the representation of dominant groups within this ruling class. But paradoxically, dynastic politics has also had an inclusive effect. It has provided a channel for representation for members of social categories which do not find, or have not found, a space in politics through normal channels.

There is no basis in democratic theory for understanding the role of dynastic politics, or heredity more generally. The classic notion of democracy is that it is a political system in which both voters and representatives are conceptualized as individuals. A revisionist literature in political philosophy and political science has struggled to replace or at least augment this individualist notion with some role for collectivities, conceptualized as 'groups' or 'associations' or 'factions' or 'parties.' The family, however, is a quintessential descent-based group for which there has so far been no room in democratic theory. Remarkably, this is true even in anthropology, which is the principal discipline to theorize about kinship structures. Although there has been a burgeoning literature in recent years on the 'anthropology of democracy,' hardly any work in this tradition links the family (as distinct from larger collectivities such as clan and tribe) to modern democracy.

In the next session, we're still going to talk about Dynastic Politics, bi 'idznillah."

While taking a break for the next session, Aloe sang a song,

Mari bicara tentang kita yang lupa

[Let's talk about us who forgot]

warna bendera sendiri

[Our own flag's color]

Atau tentang kita yang buta

[Or about us being blind]

Bisul tumbuh subur

[Ulcers grow abundantly]

di ujung hidung yang memang tak mancung *)

[on the tip of our nose which is indeed pug]

[Session 3]
[Session 1]

Bahasa

Aloe's Story about Political Family (1)

"A Fir Tree boasted to the Bramble, 'You have no use, while I am used in construction everywhere.'

The Bramble answered, 'To be used, you have to be cut down. Think on that and have reason to wish you grew up as a Bramble,'” Aloe told a joke when she met with Wulandari, the moon, before the evening podcast begun.

"Hi, hello and welcome back to my channel!" Wulandari then began her poscast, of course after greeting with Basmalah and Salaam. "Actually, I intended to invite Cacti, but he couldn't make it, and qadarullah, I met Aloe, Cacti's relatives, they are of cactus and succulent. So, before having a little chat with Aloe, let's get to know about the Cactus and Succulent families."

While adjusting her headphones—imagine what the Moon look likes when she was wearing headphones—Wulandari moved on, "It is difficult, if not impossible, to think of any group of plants that compares in versatility to cacti and succulents. What other plant group claims so many intriguing shapes and spectacular blooms, yet still has such a carefree, rugged, unthirsty nature? From striking ornamentals and ferociously spined barrels to clustering rosettes, ground covers, and climbing vines, succulents-cacti and certain 'fleshy' families that store water within themselves—can easily fit into almost any garden environment. And many cacti have the added plus of being able to adapt readily to indoor planting situations.

Darwin's 'Survival of the fittest' is no more accurately shown than by the changes within the succulent world. As the earth evolved, rivers and oceans receded, causing most plant life to weaken and finally succumb. But there were a few survivors. By some chance, they managed to exist in the drying wastelands, adapting and protecting themselves in remarkably ingenious ways.

It is fitting that any discussion of succulents begin with the Cactus family, not only because it is one of the largest and best known, but because it illustrates in a very surprising way the evolution of all succulent plants.

Were it not for a strange coincidence, we might never really know how succulents evolved from the Eocene jungles to their present way of life. Deserts, unlike marshes or lakes, are not very favorable to the preservation of fossil plants. So it is not surprising that the ancient forerunners of the succulents disappeared without a trace millions of years ago. But, as if to compensate for this lack of fossil evidence, nature has given us something infinitely more exciting. In the Cactus family today, there is a remarkably complete set of living forms which illustrate step by step how this group of plants evolved from primitive, leafy jungle plants to highly specialized desert dwellers.

The Cactus family is not clearly related to any other, though some have suggested a kinship with the portulacas, mesembryanthemums, myrtles, or even roses. It contains over two thousand species, virtually all of them full stem succulents. Although they differ widely in form, size, and habitat, all its members can be recognized by five common traits. First, all cacti have a unique cushion-like structure on their stems and branches called an areole (a'-ree-ohl). Each areole has two growing points, or buds, the lower one generally producing spines and the upper one producing new branches or flowers.Second, cacti are perennial: that is, they require more than one season to mature, and they do not die after flowering. Third, cacti usually have wheel- or funnel-shaped flowers with an indefinite number of sepals and petals, and the ovary or fruit is always formed below the flower. Fourth, the cactus fruit is a one-celled berry with the seeds simply scattered through it. Fifth, all cacti belong to that class of flowering plants known as dicotyledons (dy-kot'-i-lee'-dun). Their seeds always produce two embryo leaves, or cotyledons, on germination. Any plant having all these traits is a cactus. If it lacks even one it is something else.

So where did Cacti come from? The Cactus family is native only to the American continent, ranging from the Arctic Circle to Patagonia. But its real home lies somewhere in the middle of that vast stretch, in the great American Southwest and northern Mexico. Here cacti are the outstanding feature of the great deserts and wastelands of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Sonora. As one moves south, the number and variety of cacti decrease, until in tropical Central America and the Caribbean the desert species give way to curious tree-dwelling cacti. Below the tropics, in South America, the number of desert species rises again through Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina, but never in such bewildering variety as in Mexico and the Southwest. Across the Andes, the deserts of Chile and Peru offer a large and unusual cactus population.

Cacti were unknown in Europe before the discovery of America. When the early Spanish and Portuguese explorers landed in the New World they were amazed to find these strange plants, for they were not only a remarkable feature of the landscape, but were cultivated by the aborigines for food , timber, drugs, and drink.

It is not surprising that they took these plants, particularly the edible Prickly Pears, back with them first to the Canaries, Azores, and Madeira Islands; then Portugal, Spain, and the whole Mediterranean. From there the Prickly Pears spread to Egypt, India, and other parts of southern Asia, becoming an important food in many areas, a serious pest in some, and a remarkable curiosity in others.

The first cacti that reached Europe must indeed have seemed plants from another world.The date of their introduction is not known, though the explorer Coronado mentions them in his account of the New World in 1540. Linnaeus in 1753 then listed twelve of these plants in his Species Plantarum he grouped them all under the name Cactus, derived from the Greek kaktos, which is the ancient name for a prickly Lhistle or cardoon. Thereafter this family of plants has been called the Cactaceae (kak-tay'-see-ee), single plants cactus (kak'-tus), more than one plant cacti (kak'-tie), rather than cactuses.

And what about Succulents? The succulents do not belong to any one family of plants. They get their name from the Latin succulentus, which means juicy or fleshy, because they are all drought-resistant plants especially adapted to taking up and storing great quantities of water in their thick leaves, stems, or branches.

There are one or more succulent species in nearly thirty plant families. Although the cacti are perhaps the best-known family of succulents, it is important to remember that all succulents are not cacti. There are succulent plants in the Lily and Amaryllis families, the Daisy and Milkweed clan Geranium family. Scores of common plants in our—even homes the and gardens have curious succulent relatives the world over. But the story of succulents is not told with a simple definition.

The story of succulents begins nearly fifty million years ago in a time called the Eocene epoch. A great waterway stretched from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic then. The Mediterranean lay deep in Asia. A hundred nameless seas covered our great deserts and mountains. Along their shores vast forests teemed with the beginnings of modern plants and animals. Everywhere the climate was subtropical, moist, abundant. Life was easy.

Then gradually the earth began to change. The ancient seas slowly retreated, revealing great new masses ofland. Deep tremors shook the fields and forests, thrusting up great mountain barriers: the Rockies, the Sierra Nevadas, the Cascades—the Alps, Carpathians, and Pyrenees. A hundred volcanos formed the Andes. A new world began to take shape, a different world, the modem world we know today.

As the face of the earth changed, so did its climate. The year-round warmth and rains of the Eocene jungle gradually disappeared. In their place, clearly marked seasons and climatic belts developed. There was a spring and summer now, a fall and winter. There were the Arctic and Antarctic, the tropics and Temperate Zone. Where there had been nothing but endless steaming jungle over much of the world, there were now high mountains, fertile plains, and endless deserts.

As the mountains rose in many pans of the world, they gradually cut off the moisture-laden air blowing in from the seacoasts. And where the rain clouds could no longer cross the mountain barriers, the lands beyond the ranges burned by day and froze by night. What little rain they got reached them by winds coming from other routes, or in brief summer thundershowers formed out of the hot air rising from the desert floor.

At this time, too, a permanent belt of high atmospheric pressure developed extending some thirty or thirty-five degrees on each side of the equator, in this belt erratic winds and frequent calms prevented much rain from forming or falling. And from this lack of rain the world of the desert evolved—a very special world, with its own geography and climate, its own plants and animals, its own rhythm and way of life. In this way the Great Basin of North America formed; the deserts of Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Argentina; the vast hinterlands of Asia and Africa. Gradually, very gradually, much of the Eocene world became a wasteland.

As wind and water eroded the rising mountains, the valleys below filled deep with earth and rock. The deserts stretched from mountainous plateaus to fiat sandy plains.

Where the wind was strong, the moving sand carved fantastic shapes in the rocks or piled high in rolling dunes. Where it sometimes rained, the water dissolved the mineral-rich earth, leaving behind great salt lakes.

Then new rivers rising beyond the desert entered the drying land just as it was lifting from its ancient bed. Filled with sand and rock, the grinding torrents cut through the earth, forming deep canyons, for there was no rain here to wash over the cuts—to widen them gently into broad river valleys. The sheer canyon cliffs, the great salt lakes, the dunes, the cactus—drought made them all.

Before the drought came, the Eocene fields and forests abounded with plants—remarkably modern plants, complete with roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and seeds. They were of many different families, forerunners of our lilies and oaks, gourds and palms. In the warm, moist climate they grew rampant.

Then came the change. It did not happen in a day or a year: It happened gradually. Some say it took twenty million years. At first the year-round warmth and rains were interrupted for only a little while. The plants in the fields and forests took it in their stride, just as they would in our gardens today. They slowed their growth, branches shriveled a little a few leaves wilted and fell. Soon the “bad spell" was over and they flourished again as strong as ever. But when the waters began receding in the ancient lakes and seas, when the rising hill became great ranges shutting off moisture from the coast—the dwindling plants struggled desperately for life, tried to live out a few more weeks of drought, then a few months, then a year. Before the rains came again, most of them died. Only a few survived. By some miracle they kept pace with the drying land, changed themselves endlessly, wailed patiently, and in the end inherited the wastelands of the world.

As a group these plants are called xerophytes (ze'-ro-fites), from the Greek words meaning 'dry plants.' They include not only such curiously adapted desert dwellers as the yucca, ocotillo, palo verde, mesquite, and sagebrush; but that remarkable group of plants we call succulents.

Succulents are found almost anywhere in the world today, where plants have difficulty getting and keeping water. Specifically there are four geographical areas that are the natural habitat of succulents. They might be termed the desert, alpine, jungle, and shore line.

The Liliaceae—the vast Lily family, which has given us so many valuable plants, from onions and asparagus to tulips and lilies, should also provide us with a remarkable group of succulents. These are contained in three popular genera, all of them leaf succulents and all natives of Africa: Aloe, Gasteria and Haworthia. Next time, I'll invite one of genus Howarthia in my podcast, Howarthia Retusa, Insha Allah.

Now let's talk about the Genus Aloe. Certainly the most important succulents in the Lily family are found in the genus Aloe (al'-oh ), which is native principally to South Africa. The aloes are all leaf succulents: that is their thick, fleshy, pointed leaves are arranged spirally to form short rosettes—either with or without a stem. This has caused some people to confuse them with the American agaves, or Century Plants. But while there is a superficial resemblance, the agaves belong to the Amaryllis family, and have tough, fibrous leaves quite distinct from the soft, pulpy leaves of the aloes. It is simply another case of parallel development, for the aloes are to the Eastern Hemisphere what the agaves are to the West.

The most widely known species is Aloe vera, or 'true aloe'. It is called this because it is cultivated as the standard source for assorted pharmaceutical purposes. It ws sais that the genus name Aloe is derived from the Arabic word alloeh, meaning 'bitter and shiny substance.' Over the years, this plant has been known by a number of names such as ‘the wand of heaven’, ‘heaven’s blessing’ and ‘the silent healer’. IIn Japan, it is known as 'all-day service' and 'doctor away' plant. It has a vast traditional role in indigenous system of medicine like in India: Ayurveda, siddha, Unani and homoeopathy.

Various regional names for Aloe vera are: Sibr (Arabic and Persian), Ailwa (Urdu), Ghritra Kumari (Sanskrit), Lu Hui (Chinese), Rokai (Japanese), and etc.

Every Aloe vera has a story. In Indonesia, Aloe vera is called 'Lidah Buaya (Crocodile's Tongue).' I don't know why it's called like that, isn't a true crocodile barely able to stick out its tongue because of the membrane in its mouth that holds it in? The crocodile's tongue lies neatly in the jaw muscles, which can barely move, right? Or probably, Aloe vera has thorns leaves that look like crocodiles' tail, who knows?

Aloe has many tales about it suggesting that the Egyptian Queen Nefertiti (1353 BC) advertised as 'the most beautiful woman who ever lived' and Queen Cleopatra VII (69-30 BC) used it as part of their regular beauty regimes and medicines.

Supposedly, Alexander the Great in 333 BC was persuaded by his mentor Aristotle to capture the Island of Socotra in the Indian Ocean for its famed Aloe supplies, needed to treat his wounded soldiers. The ancient Nile Valley civilization of Kemet ('Land of the blacks' now referred to as ancient Egypt) used Aloe for medical treatments, beauty care and embalming.

King Solomon (971-931 B.C.) highly valued the medicinal properties of this plant, he even grew his own Aloe Vera. Aloe Vera had travelled to Persia and India by 600 BC by Arab traders. The Arabs called Aloe the 'Desert Lily' for its internal and external uses. They discovered a way to separate the inner gel and the sap from the outer rind. With their bare feet they crushed the leaves then they put the pulp into the goatskin bags. The bags were then set in the sun to dry and the Aloe would become a powder.

The medicinal use of aloe was already mentioned more than 4000 years ago in a col ection of Sumerian clay tablets dated 2100 BC. Aloe was also mentioned as a laxative in the Egyptian Papyrus Ebers from 1552 BC. Aloe has had a very long historical use as a strong laxative treatment for chronic constipation, and it is stil listed as a laxative in many pharmacopoeias.

Aloe is said to have alliterative, tonic, rejuvenating, purgative and vulnerary actions in Ayurveda. Aloe is also believed to tone all three of the Ayurveda constitutions, Vatta, Pitta, and Kapha. It is used in traditional Indian medicine for constipation, colic, skin diseases, worm infestation and infections. Aloe is used internally as a laxative, antihelminthic, haemorrhoid treatment, and uterine stimulant (menstrual regulator). It is used topically, often in combination with liquorice root, to treat eczema or psoriasis.

The Chinese use of Aloe’s skin and the inner lining of its leaves as a cold and bitter remedy is used to clear constipation due to accumulation of heat (fire). Chinese herbalists recognized aloe's potential as a purgative; they used aloe to expel worms, alleviate constipation and normalize bowel movements Egyptian Medicine System - Ancient Egyptian Papyrus and Mesopotamian described Aloe as being useful in curing infections, treating skin problems and as a laxative. In Arabian medicine, the fresh gel is rubbed on the forehead as a headache remedy or rubbed on the body to cool it in case of fever, as well as being used for healing wound, curing conjunctivitis, and as a disinfectant and laxative.

The Aloe vera plant is described in detail in the Greek Herbal of Dioscorides, and its use is promoted for the treatment of wounds, hair loss, genital ulcers and haemorrhoids. A. vera gel has been used for many purposes since the Roman era or even long before. Aloe was used by Hippocrates and Arab physicians, and was carried to the Western Hemisphere by Spanish explorers to treat the wounded soldiers.

Aloe plants survives for more than 7 years without water. It takes the water it needs for survival and growth from dew collected on the surface of its leaves. Aloe vera probably originated in Northern Africa and believed to be from Sudan. Subsequently it was introduced in the Mediterranean region and other warm areas of the world. The species was introduced to China and various parts of southern Europe in the 17th century. It is widely found in temperate and tropical regions of Australia, Barbados, Belize, Nigeria, Paraguay and the United States.

The plants is also found in India, Mexico, Pacific Rim countries, South America, Central America, the Caribbean, Australia and Africa. It has been widely cultivated throughout the world.

Alas, I've talked at length and wide about Cacti and Succulents, that I almost forgot about Aloe as my guest. OK, as I mentioned, 'every aloe vera has a story,' so, in the following session, let's listen to what Aloe will tell us, bi 'idhnillah."

While waiting for the next session, Wulandari sang a short song,

Mari bicara tentang

[Let's talk about]

harga diri yang tak ada arti

[meaningless self-esteem]

Atau tentang

[Or about]

tanggungjawab yang kini dianggap sepi *)

[a responsibility that is now considered nothing]

[Session 2]

Bahasa