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.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Thursday, April 4, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
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.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, November 5, 2012
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.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)