A Historian's Perspective on Current Events

I have seen many posts and reports concerning the shooting in Connecticut and I feel that I must contribute my voice to the conversation. However, I must start by saying that my heart is saddened for the lives lost and my deepest condolences go out to the families that thought their day would be just as normal as the day before. As a historian I do my best to look at things from a historical perspective. How this fits into the bigger picture. What will historians look at when they look back on this event? Will they focus on this event?

That being said, my heart is even more saddened by the focus on the children. Yes, it is horribly that their lives were cut so very short in such a needless act of violence. However, adults lost their lives too. Very likely trying to protect the children in their care. Those adults had dedicated their lives to teaching those children. They probably had children, or wanted to some day. Those teachers had their whole lives ahead of them, as well. It just hurts me that as a community, this country has been so focused on a certain aspect of this tragedy.

At the same time, this tragedy is horrible. But what about the hundreds of thousands of people who die across the country from a drive-by in gang areas, armed robberies, illness in hospitals and those who die because they don't have health care, the children across the country and world who die of hunger and illness.

Furthermore, I have seen both sides of the argument concerning gun control. Do I believe that a complete ban on guns is needed? NO. If someone wants a gun, they will get their hands on one. However, the same people who are huge advocates for everyone owning a gun, are also against 'socialized' healthcare. Shouldn't access to health care for mental problems be as easy to gain access to as a gun? A sane person with a gun is not going to commit this same tragedy.

I saw a post by one of my Facebook friends that declared that this shooting was only one in a long list that have been set up by the government in order to get everyone to give up their guns. When you look at the shooting in Arizona, the one in the Aurora Theater's showing of Batman, the Mall shooting, and now the Elementary school, do you only see a government conspiracy? Or should you instead be focusing on a need for the priorities of this country to change? We currently live in a country where it is easier to get a gun than it is to get health care. We live in a country where we sensationalize the shooter, making them almost a celebrity in the media.

So where is the historical perspective? It lies in the understanding of the larger context. The call for change. Throughout history, horrible events happen. However, if change doesn't come, they will simply repeat each other. We live within a discourse of violence, through media, entertainment, etc that tells us that violence is an acceptable outlet for anger. I enjoy an action flick as much as the next person, but by promoting the behavior it lets those who feel that they have nothing to loose, to take extreme measures.

Perhaps this blog feels a little disjointed, but I think my point is clear. Something has to change, or nothing will change and events like this tragedy will occur again.

Book and papers

Working on a research paper while starting my first chapter of my MA thesis. Just a few books checked out from libraries all over the country. I think there is room on my desk for a few dozen more.

Discourse and gender in today's society

In light of various discussions with several people, I have put a lot of thought into the subject of discourse. That is, the way of thinking that has permeated society, in music, literature, tv, etc to the point that the society believe it to be the norm. For example, (and the example that many have argued with me recently) we can look at the status of women in today's society. The discourse is one that is complex, with many overlapping layers that many of us have been exposed to, despite different upbringings and life situations, that lead us to believe that even in 2012, women are viewed as second class to men in society. Women are portrayed in commercials, music, television shows, literature, and blockbuster movies, as being domestic, taking care of the kids, cleaning, cooking, etc. For example, how many commercials do you see that portray women as the primary buyers of cleaning products? Case in point, the swiffer commercials that imply that without that product, a woman has no time to do anything else, and when her time is freed up by the product, she reads, drinks coffee, or pampers herself with spa products. Never do we see men cleaning. More than often, it is the woman who is taking kids to soccer practice, or picking kids up from school in these commercials. Reinforcing the idea that this is the place for women.
Even when women are portrayed as strong and in the workplace in television or movies, she is still faced with opposition from men. Jokes run rampant over the internet that imply that a woman's place is in the kitchen. At the same time, women are taught not to go out alone at night because men will assault, kidnap, and rape them. Instead of teaching men not to do such things, we are teaching women to be afraid. And the discourse is so ingrained in our society that this seems normal to us. So much so that men often blame women for their own behavior. It is the 'feminists' fault that 'chivalry' is dead. Instead of taking responsibility for not treating women with respect, they blame women for wanting equality and respect. We live in an interesting world where men and women continue to participate in a discourse which maintains a patriarchal hierarchy and most don't even acknowledge it.

All of this came from a question about discourse. Our society is permeated with it. From gender, to race, to ageism, from politics to social media. I can't help but wonder what the future generations will look back on this time and say. What will the historians say about the early 21st century?

You have to stand for something

Today I was faced with an interesting question. What is and is not okay to discuss on your own Facebook, Blog, etc? It is your outlet for freedom of speech. It is your page. People can either read it. Agree. Comment. Or Disagree. Comment. Or ignore it completely. You as the writer do not force them to read. You do not make them sit down and read every word you write. Ultimately, it is their decision to read your posts or blogs. Therefore, they are actively choosing to participate in your exercising of your right to free speech. Now, if they disagree, that is also their right. We are lucky enough to live in a county that allows these rights. There are some that do not. We are not the only ones that allow this, but that is for a different blog.

That being said, should I decide to respond to the actions that I have witnessed, both on the internet, as well as out in the world. That is also my right. I chose to participate in the freedom of speech that others have used and decided to respond to that with my own. However, I am always amazed at how so many infringe on the rights of others under the guise of exercising their own.

Using your freedom of religion to infringe on the freedoms of others is not the way it works. Using that same freedom to deny women birthcontrol, or benefit hate groups, or deny marriage to people who are unlike you. To stand on a street corner with a megaphone, screaming at the people going by that they are going to hell unless they believe in Jesus and repent to god. Countless times they invade college campuses under the guise of free speech to preach and yell and insult the students who mostly just want to get to their next math class. However, when that free speech is used in return, when someone starts to insult them back, when someone points out the flaws in their religious belief system, when someone stands up for what they belief in contrast to those crusading Christians... they claim that their freedoms are being taken away. That its their freedom of religion that we are now infringing on.

I stand against the double standard that this country has developed. Where it is ok for Christians to do whatever they want in the name of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion but that the rest of us cannot! I stand against the 78 billion dollars in tax revenue that could be collected from Christian Churches but aren't. We could reduce the national debt substantially if we collected that money. I stand against the hundreds of billboards and signs and offensive messages on Church signs that I pass daily. I stand against homophobia that is being propagated through the media and internet.

I leave with a question- How is it ok, for Christian hate groups to exist to the extreme they do, but its not ok for us to criticize them openly for it?

Todays debates

Its difficult as a historian to have an opinion about today's political debates. We have a certain amount of knowledge about the past where we can tell you how similar situations have resulted. We can show you how radical laws and ideas were originally opposed by the masses but how it all turned out well. How many laws that we have today, that seem so normal that we couldnt imagine our lives without them, were considered abonimations to generations passed.

However, at the same time, a historian also knows that you cannot predict the future. No two situations come out the same. We can only hope to learn from the past and not make the same mistakes twice.

This is how i feel about the health care debate. This is why its so hard for me to talk about. We cannot know if it is a good idea or a bad idea because its never been put into practice. We cannot predict its effects. But the system we have isnt working, that much can be generaly agreed upon. So what are our other options? That is what i want to ask those who are opposed. What do you suggest we do with the people who have health problems but cant currently get insurance? Those with untreated lupus or diabetes or back and knee problems? Give me another option that is better than this one.

Until then, i will continue to point out that radical laws have turbed out for the best in the past and at the same time we cannot predict the future. So in understanding these two things maybe we can stol arguing so much.

Thoughts

Its been almost a year since i last posted. But look for a new post about advances in my thought processes from the last year in graduate school.