Agency

With the current crisis in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting death of a young African American teenager by a police officer, I have been thinking from a historical perspective. This conflict which has escalated to riots, destruction of property (at least one building has been burned to the ground as of August 13th), and "crowd control" techniques from police officers, to me, is a marker of our current culture in several ways. 

1)- it shows the prevalence of violence in American culture. From the incident itself, a young man killed by a police officer, to the riots that followed, we can see that violence is the answer in America. Whether the police are trigger happy because of a power trip or because they have dealt with so much violence that they are nervous. In response, protesters looted businesses, burned down buildings, and held riots. Instead of peaceful protesting, their first response was violence. Then the followed response from the police was caution and more violence when it appeared the protesters might get violent again. 

This truly shows the vicious cycle of violence in America. We as a culture tend to answer violence with violence and hope that one act of such violence will cancel out the other, or end the cycle. But it never truly ends. Instead, the violence remains in our mind and years later, we justify our most recent act of violence upon the previous act. This discourse of violence is perpetuated by films, media, video games. 

2) the second issue that is brought into sharp focus with this crisis is that of inequality in America. It is very true that inequality still exists within this country and culture. Minorities including women, Hispanics, and African Americans are the primary victims of this system. For the record, I am writing as a 26 year old white woman. I understand that I do not face the same challenges as people of color, however, I can make observations from a historical perspective and I understand that there is a complex discourse which is ingrained in American culture. 

A discourse in this sense is a set of ideas which is wide spread by media, advertisements, books, films, music, and more. It teaches us all how we should act dependent upon our race, culture, sex, gender, and social status. It teaches us how to treat others and affects how we think about others and ourselves. It teaches women through visual clues, "girl toys," and films, etc that they are subservient to men. That you are required to dress and act a certain way to be a good woman and get a good man. It teaches people of color the ways they should dress, talk, and act. It teaches them what they should expect to do with their lives. It teaches them that it's okay to have a lower status of living. It teaches different values that those of Caucasian descent. At the same time, Caucasians are taught from a young age that they should act a certain way. They should expect certain ways of life. Some call this "White Privilege" and yes, they are privileged. It is a very real thing. 

That being said, all of this is because we are taught from birth that we should expect to do, say, and get certain things out of our lives based upon our bodies. We are all a product of a culture which is very slow to change. 

This brings into question the issue of "agency." We are also a culture in which you are expected to take responsibility for our actions. Many questions come to mind with this situation. I have already established the violence happy aspect of our culture and the discourses which direct how people learn to act and think of the world. How, where, and when do we determine who is responsible to their actions? 

Many argue that we are the master's of our own fate. People argue that people of color shouldn't be held to the stereotypes of their race. However, death threats are being made to the police officer? Is he not as much a product of his culture as the boy who was shot? Do we blame the boy for being where he shouldn't have been? Do we blame the officer who likely faces life and death situations every day? 

I am not condoning the way our American culture is. However, this is not something that can change over night. Its just not possible. However, we can all work to expedite the change by looking at ourselves and starting the change there. How can we expect others to treat us differently if we continue to act like our stereotypes? 

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.

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.

On Constructs and Nations

On Constructs and Nations

                One thing I can definitely say about Graduate level classes is the discussions are very interesting and often heated debates over topics. Particularly, today, after reading Myth of Continents by Martin Lewis and Karen Wigen and Imagined Communities by Benjamin Anderson, a discussion exploded through the classroom.

                These books challenged the constructs that have been so ingrained into our education since elementary school. We are taught that there are a specific number of continents and they are Europe, Asia, North and South America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. But the argument is made revolving around the question of ‘Why?’ Why are these the continents? How do we determine this? What are the distinguishing factors? Are they actually relevant?

                In other countries in other parts of the world, they are taught completely different things. In Russia, there is no distinction between Europe and Asia. They are the same thing. In many views, North and South America are one continent that includes Central America that is often overlooked in the American view. So who decides what continents there are? And does it even matter? Do we need continents? And if we do, then why?

                This argument can even be brought onto a smaller scale. A discussion about borders of countries or states. Essentially they are arbitrary lines drawn around a space and claimed by or given to a specific group of people. Now they are by no means imaginary as that people are often willing to die to defend these borders, but are there really any reasons for where they are?

                Imagined Communities continued this discussion about imagined constructs in society. It is even said that society itself is an imagined construct. That isn’t to say that it isn’t real. But instead that the concept that everyone in the community or society could actually know everyone else in the society is impossible. He goes on to explain that it is perceived connections to other people, things that bind them together, like language, religion, or other similarities, is what creates the sense of community.

                This led to a discussion about Nations and how you cannot be a true community because there is no way for everyone to know everyone, but they are bound together in a perceived or constructed community. From this the discussion of patriotism developed. An argument can be presented that in many ways, especially in the United States, that Nationalism and Patriotism has replaced the binding force that had been the Catholic Church in Medieval and Renaissance eras.

                During these time periods and even up until the 1800s, the argument can be made that what held societies and communities together was the connection to the Catholic Church. People were willing to die for their belief in their religion. Thousands of men traveled out of their countries in order to, as they saw it, defend their community, their religious community, from outsiders. Today, soldiers do the same thing, do they not? They travel away from their homes in order to protect their sense of community, their nation, from the ‘other,’ and they do so under the name of Patriotism. (I know that I have blogged about Patriotism before). Just as Catholics of the Medieval period were passionate about their religion being the best religion out there and that all others were wrong and were willing to die or kill to prove it, so are many today inspired by Patriotism.

                Once again, I have probably offended someone, but these are merely my thoughts after reading the books by Lewis & Wigen and Anderson and after the discussion presented in my class.

"Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal" - Pablo Picasso

In response to a recent discussion with a friend, I felt like I needed to write down my thoughts on the matter of 'plagiarism'. Pablo Picasso supposedly said that "Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal". This leads one to think about the concept.

First, I would like to discuss the idea of owning property. This is a HUGE thing in Western Culture and Capitalism. It is a normal concept to us that you own property. Be it that barbie doll or action figure that your sibling just stole and ran off into the other room with, or a house, or the book you just published. This is a seemingly normal way of life. It seems to just make sense and be the 'correct way'. We go so far as to punish those who do not conform to this idea.

From there we have to understand that this is not what the entire world thinks. In many cultures, in Asia and Africa, the concept of knowledge being 'owned' by someone is completely foreign. In Asia, quoting something from an authority on the subject is considered being the greatest respect that can be owed. Knowledge is owned by the society as a whole.

It is an interesting concept. Something to think about. It can be argued that the concept of owning knowledge, art, and such only adds more problems to society then they aid. Of course it is wishful thinking that society would change enough to allow such a thing. But it is something to consider when we start thinking about people who 'steal' copyrighted items, or download music, books, etc, or share a piece of artwork on a different website than the one it was posted on, or want a copy of a picture from a photo studio but don't have the money to pay 250 dollars for the copyrights to their own child's face that's in the picture.

Dissatisfaction in Government

Ok. As the Presidential elections loom on the horizon, I start hitting the mute button on my TV even more. I hate election seasons. Nothing is ever really achieved. But as that i was just invited to an event on Facebook entitled "Obama leaves office!" I felt like I needed to get something off my chest in regards to this. 

Throughout history people have been dissatisfied with the leaders of the world. Athens cycled through every single kind of government, tyranny, democracy (the real kind), republic, oligarchy, aristocracy, and monarchy, and were never happy with it. Emperors of Rome were killed in office, people hated the monarchs of England and France. Tribal leaders were often killed so that someone else could take over leadership. Tsars and Tsarinas of Russia have a bloody history of being murdered by their own people. Even great leaders who wanted to end suffering, like Alexander II of Russia and Abraham Lincoln were killed because some people weren't happy with their policies and changes. 

This is still alive today. People are still unhappy with current leaders. Whether or not they are actually to blame for the faults of the world. Whether or not they are actually trying to influence change. People are still going to be unhappy. No matter what the president or other current leader does, people will still disapprove. People will still complain that the leader is to blame because their lives are difficult and not perfect. It seems utterly impossible for an entire group to be pleased with government and leadership. 

Graduate School Update

I was accepted to a graduate program! YAY! Excitement!
I thought as i was fighting with all the requirements for the application that that was the hard part. I was wrong.

As an undergraduate, financial aid is handed to you. You really don't have to worry in the state of Georgia how you are going to pay for college. There was HOPE, and PELL, and then loans. Graduate School is different. All you have are scholarships that entry level students don't really have access to, and loans. Lots of loans.

but here is the other problem. As an undergrad... its unlikely that you have credit. Not necessarily bad credit... just not enough. Which means that private loaners, banks, etc aren't willing to give you the loans. and if your parents are financially burdened, they can't help you either. You're pretty much screwed.

Also, they don't accept you to these schools early enough that you can get into a decent dorm. So you are scrambling for housing.

My advice... Do everything as early as you can... because then you have more time to scramble...

Graduation/ The Future

As I sit here on the eve of my graduation from college, I can't help but look back on the years I've spent here. I started off at University of West Georgia, then transferred to Kennesaw State University. I've been at KSU since 2007. I've made friends, gotten to know professors and staff. It has been an amazing experience.
 I have learned a lot from my time as an undergrad. How to do research. How to write a paper. How to coherently express my ideas. In the last five years since i graduated high school, I have grown from a shy young girl to a confident, intelligent, young woman. I have learned to stand up for myself and my ideas. I have learned that I can survive on my own. I have a new set of skills and an education that I can be proud of.

As this chapter of my life closes, I look towards the future. It is unknown and veiled in shadows. I await acceptance letters. But I have faith, and hope, that I will receive that desperately awaited letter soon. With that letter, I will be working on graduate work. To gain my Masters and then my Doctorate in World History is my ultimate goal. To spread my knowledge to other people. To open their eyes to new perspectives. To understand that history is still something worth learning. To inspire people to think. To reevaluate what they already know. That is what i aspire to. To through teaching and writing, that people might walk away from me knowing a least a little bit more than they thought they did.

Generalizations

Hello all, this is your friendly neighborhood outspoken historian. I'm here for another blog to put my thoughts out there on a subject that is at least, vaguely related to history. Enjoy.

So I was talking with a friend on Facebook about a group of Christians who are stating that the world will end on May 21st 2011 (which is worthy of a blog all onto its own). She got upset with me and asked me not to generalize all Christians into one group because not all Christians think the same way. So this got me to thinking. Why should i NOT generalize?

As I look around me, I see people generalizing other people into groups all the time. I turn on the TV and I see complaints about Muslims. All Muslims and all countries with high Islamic populations. Even though it is only a small group that is radical. But if you look outside at American Christians, there are radicals who also call for extreme measures.

Also, I see the generalization of all non-organized religions, including Pagans, Druids, and Wiccans, into Cults or Devil Worshipers.

Then all people from China are generalized into a stereotype of 'Chinese.' All Russians are the same. All of the French are rude and unclean. All Canadians are unintelligent. All Hispanics are from Mexico and they are all illegal. All men are loud, dirty, and horny. All women are bitchy, emotional, and nags. All African Americans are lazy, loud, and expect everything handed to them. All whites are racists.

No one likes to be generalized. However, people do it all the time. Sometimes for dramatic effect. Sometimes to prove a point. Sometimes to be mean. and Sometimes because they are ignorant.

I admit to generalizing on occasion. Often to prove a point or a trend over time. Though never, in my experience, have a I heard people complain more about it all then I have heard Christians. It amazes me at how vehemently people will object to the generalization of Christians than any other. Its ok, in so many people's eyes to claim that all Muslims are terrorists, but saying that Christians over time have predicted the end of the world over and over again, that is worthy of objection. That is an interesting fact.

My take on Current Events.

Last night at about 11pm EST I got the news. We came in from our Beltane celebration (a pagan festival of prosperity and fire, details of which are information for a different blog entry) and rushed to turn on the news. Then, honestly, I went to bed without giving it much thought. I awoke this morning to a news station that believes that nothing else important could have happened today or over the weekend, and my Facebook friends posting all about it. I guess you can say that I am jumping on the bandwagon with this blog, but as a historian and a scholar I just felt that I needed to put my thoughts out in the mix with everyone elses.

10 years ago I was 13. It feels like most of my life has been lived under the shadow of 9/11, Bin Laden, and the wars in the Middle East. It seems a little surreal. Like a child learning that the Boogie Man that you have lived in fear of coming out from under your bed for years... is now dead. Over the years, I have come to know people who have fought, people who have waited for those to come home, and I have been lucky enough to not feel the loss that many others have felt.

I admit to being critical over the last few years. I still am very critical. I will be the first to admit that. I will also state that I have studied history. I have studied wars. I am critical of every war, past, current, and future. For example, in many ways, the Revolutionary War can be viewed and treason. It is all in the perspective. But I digress. This blog is about the death of Bin Laden, not about perspectives on war.

Today I wonder what this death will truly bring us. Today I wonder if it is a good thing that the man is dead. Today I ponder the moral issue of murder. Today I wonder if whoever will take over and fill his shoes will be worse or easier to take out or manipulate. Today I wonder what the backlash will be. Today I wonder if it was worth it.

No one can say for sure right now. It is a bit like we are between a Roc and a hard place.Sure he was bad, Public Enemy #1 or something like that, but there is the uncertainty of his successor. It is like a new chapter that is beginning and all we have to go on is the last sentence of the previous chapter. "And Bin Laden is dead." Like reading a suspense thriller that isn't finished. All we have this the chapter heading of the subsequent installment.

I can hope that this means the end. I can hope that with the head cut off that another will not grow back. But I have to admit that am not too optimistic. Wars have been happening in this area for centuries. And the United States' current position in the World's Political Sphere does not easily provide peace. There are many reasons for opposing groups to hate the USA. There are many reasons that are even logical. And unfortunately, while we were retaliating (after 10 years) against a crime against Americans, the horrible cycle of revenge is just as likely to continue as it is to not.

We can praise his death. We can celebrate. But we also have to understand that a whole new can of worms has been opened. And consequences for actions must be accounted for no matter what noble intentions the actions may have been carried out under.

And those are just my thoughts on the matter.

A Controversial Topic

I try to avoid massively controversial topics, but today I cannot hold back. After conversations with friends, people on forums, and things I've seen around my campus, I have to say my piece and this is what this blog is for. For me to state some facts and then my opinion.

What is this controversial topic you wonder? *sighs* I'm talking about the issue of Israel and Palestine.

First, a short history lesson.
Lets go back, and I mean WAY back. Before the Middle East was the middle east, even before it was the Near East, or the Holy Land, before the Roman Empire, or the Greeks or the Persians, it was Mesopotamia. The Cradle of Civilization. People have lived in this area since around 3000BCE. That is over 5,000 years! Great empires grew out of this region. Including the Babylonians and the Assyrians. Later the Israelites would arrive in the area and build up a kingdom after, as the story goes, an exodus from Egypt and wondering around for a while. The Assyrians made a habit of relocating the Israelis to new parts of the Assyrian Empire. But it was the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in 597BCE and took a massive chunk of the population back to Babylon, this would be known later as the Babylonian Captivity. Some 70 years later, the Persian Empire would defeat the Babylonians and send the Jews home. However, when the Israelis arrive at where they used to live, it was inhabited by new people! The Arabs.

Now to back up just a little. I need to take a moment to say something of religion here. At this point, we are talking about almost 500 years before the birth of Christ. These Arabs are not Muslims. Also, after running into several people in a recent class that did not know this. Christianity developed out of Judaism (and for those of you who don't know, this is the religion of the Jews) around 33CE. Then in about 622 CE, Islam was developed out of Christianity. Islam was, in essence, considered to be a continuation of the Abrahamic Tradition. It is one of the beliefs of the Arab Muslims, that the illegitimate son of Abraham and one of his servants, Ishmael, is the forbearer of the Arab race.

So back to the story. The Arabs had moved into what the Jews had considered to be their homeland during the time that the Jews were away. This is the beginnings of the issues that we see today. The Jews thought that land was their homeland and did not like that there were other people there. And on the other hand, when the Arabs moved in, there was no one there to tell them they couldn't. So by the time the Jews returned, the Arabs had made the land their own. This has led to one conflict after another between the two groups. But Jews have consistently been the minority through the centuries.

Now we reach the 19th and 20th centuries. A time of globalization. Of Imperialism. Exploration, and Colonialism. Britain had colonized the area in the late 18th century. Then World War II happened. No one can legitimately denied the atrocities that were inflicted upon the Jews (and many other groups) by the Nazi regime. A certain amount of guilt over a feeling of not doing enough to save those Jews, the World Powers decided to give the Jews their own state.

Now this seems like a great idea! Lets give this minority  group who has traditionally been persecuted, particularly by Christians, and were extremely persecuted during the war, their own space. It would be like a sanctuary. This sounds like a great idea. Except for the fact that there were already people there. There was already a country there. People who did not take lightly to all but being displaced themselves. These people are the same Arabs that were there over 2000 years ago! But now the Jews are excitedly moving into the area. To the land that they feel has been given back to them.

So that is the background of the conflict in Israel. I don't think many people know that. They just fall on one side of the debate or the other. People are either for Israel while others are supporting Palestine. I saw stickers around campus proclaiming the Israelis as invaders and call for the freedom of Palestine. While others claim that the Israelis were there first and deserve the land because of the persecution they have suffered over the centuries.

No matter what side you fall on, it is near impossible to solve this problem. There is no easy solution to fix this situation. No matter what, someone is unhappy. No matter what either the Israelis or the Muslim Arabs are going to feel like they are not receiving the fairest deal. No matter what, the conflict is unresolved.