Floundering in the Historical Ocean of Thought

Today is one of those days when I look at the road ahead of me and wonder if I can actually make it through it all. I know what I want to do. I know the direction I need to go in. I'm just not sure my strategy for the obstacle course. Right now, I'm working on doing research for my Thesis and I find myself floundering. What direction to take this Thesis is proving to be very difficult.
I know that Witchcraft in Early Modern England is my basic realm of topic. But the more I read from other historians, the more I fluctuate within that topic sphere. I just keep coming up with more and more interesting directions and questions.

What is reality for these people of Early Modern England? How did they view their own world? How did that factor into the question of Witchcraft? Everything from gender questions? Power? Religion? Identity- both of the country and the individual? Crisis on the Domestic and Foreign levels? Monarchical power? Henry, Mary, Edward, and Elizabeth?

On the very basic level I can see a swirling, mingled whirlpool of how all this interacts and intersects into the question of Witchcraft, but how do I nail it down? How do I take all of this and find evidence in primary sources to back some sort of argument? This is where I am struggling.

I thought I had this idea about how Witchcraft was determined by the the dominant religious force's decisions based upon what was 'good' and what was 'evil'. This was usually based upon saying that magic that was associated with the religion itself, ie miracles, was good and all other forms of 'magic' where 'otherized' and therefor bad. This further was influenced by other religious ideas based on power structures within the society. Therefore, women in the society who stood out and didn't follow the social norms where lumped into the same 'otherized' category as the 'magic.'

This still feels like a very valid point in my mind, but there are so many other ideas rolling in my head concerning so many other questions. Is it possible to take all these ideas and mold them into some sort of Frankenstein historical argument that works?   

History of the Futurr

Sometimes I like to think about the history of the future. That is, what will they be teaching in 10, 20, or 50 years from now about today. For instance, the events of the 90s, 80s, going back to the 50s and before, they couldn't have known what current events would resonate through the following decades and which would fade from all memory. Sure we all knew that Pearl Habor, Hiroshima, the Fall of the Berlin wall, and September 11th would be major parts of upcoming history books. But what will the books say about the Aurora cinema, New Town, Boston Bombongs, and explosions in Texas. Will the history books remember that in 30, 50, 90 years? Will the stories that fill our news programs for hours today even make it into the historical record? Or will it all fade into the memory of those who lived it? Will it become the obscure focus of history students, desperate for a PhD dissertation topic? Its just something I think about.

Misquoting History

It seems to be the trend lately to quote historical figures in order to make an argument or a statement regarding current political issues. They quote Thomas Jefferson, historians like Edward Gibbson, and more in order to express sentiments about tyranny, freedom, and rights. However, most of these quotes are taken out of context. It is often forgotten that these statements are made in response to different circumstances in an era with different concerns, beliefs, and moral and ethical standards.

Edward Gibbson, a historian from the 1700s, wrote about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. In which he argued that the Roman Empire fell because Christianity made it weak. In the last two hundred years, historian after historian has discredited his work. Proving him wrong time and time again. However, people are still taking quotes, out of context in order to make their arguments about the state of freedom and rights in the world today.

Less than a hundred years ago, historians made claims about how the only viable history was that which focused on the actions of 'great white men.' They focused on a very euro-centric view of history and ignored most of the contributions of the rest of the world. These historians are not viewed with the same credibility as more recent historical work and scholars. How can we take the words of a man from the 1700s with such seriousness.

Thomas Jefferson wrote during a period of post-war nation building. His words were the result of a chaotic period in which the future of the small nation was very uncertain. They were designed in a fashion to maintain order in a world where the threat of invasion and being conquered was a very real threat. Taking his words and using them to support recent and current political agendas assumes that the state of the world is the same as it was then. However, this is not the case.

No two periods in history are ever the same. Circumstances are always different. Events never play out the same way twice. The famous phrase 'history repeats itself' is a lie. History does not repeat itself. Things are always different and contingent upon many varying factors. Therefore, using quotes from previous historical figures instead of current facts, is a bit like saying that a horse and buggy is just as effective as the newest car off the sales lot.

Changes

Up until this point in my graduate career I have pursued what has been one of my great loves in history: The Ancient World. Specifically, the period of shifting from traditional Greco-Roman religions (paganism) to Christianity. I was researching and fully intending on writing about the discourses of magic and how it all fit together in a complicated and tangled web if power structures.
Then the struggles occured and a crisis of faith hit me. This wasn't where my heart was. My heart lay in the field of Early Modern Britain, with its witchcraft trials, its gender conflicts, religious turmoil, and poltical revolutions that were tied up in theses issues. With the country's struggle to establish an identity that seperated it from the continent. This is where my heart had been the whole time.
Yes I loved and still love the ancient world, but England/Britain has always held a fascination for me. That is what I have to follow. Will it add a year onto my Masters? yes. Will it mean more work? yes. But in the ed i think i will he happier for it.

In response to the flood of Facebook posts.

I do not blame the car that a drunk driver drove when he or she killed someone. I blame the person. However more times than not, they probably didn't buy the car thinking they were going to run someone over, or plan for months to commit the act, or wake up in a jealous rage.
I do not think that it is right to compare gun laws to laws for drunk driving.
Again, i do not believe in a full ban on guns. And yes, i know they will still be obtained by criminals who want them illegally. However, how many crimes with guns involve the mentally ill getting ahold of a family member's gun. How many look like a well functioning human being and turn out to not be? How many are jealous wives and husbands? How many are kids that don't know anything more than tv and video games? Gun laws should come with restrictions and education, just like drugs, cars, and more. Hell we teach our kids more about sex than we do about violence.

Very specially, it should not be easier to get a gun than get a marriage license.