Divides

I am not here to tell you the Truth. That's not what historians do. At least, according to the basic zeitgeist of modern (or rather post-modern) historians. There are still professors at my school who teach as if This Is How Things Were Period. They are all retiring in the near future. Historians create historical documents ABOUT the past, within the context of their present circumstances. I cannot separate who I am from my perceptions of what has gone on before.
If you've read this blog long, you know I don't like it when people claim to have "the Truth." It delegitimizes the perspectives of others and in general, tends to be incredibly arrogant. "Authenticity" is a very sticky subject in historical circles. People engage in tourism (cultural voyuerism if one wants to be a bit more snarky) and they want the authentic experience. They'd rather get a sombrero from Mexico, because somehow that's more authentic. Of course, it isn't just the outsiders who do this. Going back to this sombrero example, think how much art, posters or other Mexican created cultural symbols use the sombrero, because it represents "who they are." Or think of our conceptions of Native Americans. Beads, feathers, buckskin...as if they weren't allowed to modernize. People rose up in protest to hear the Makah were using guns to hunt whales, because it wasn't "authentic" hunting. It's still Makah hunting in traditional Makah hunting waters, all they did was change tools. Caucasians don't ride around in horse-drawn carriages. Does that make them unauthentic?

Most of the time, authentic can be defined as "that which agrees with what we already think we know." When my Public History professor teaches Pacific Northwest History, he is frequently criticized for not giving the "authentic" story of Lewis and Clark. That is, the story the students are familiar with.

This is where things get messy. It should not be understood that I think there is no correct, or most correct version of history. My professor knows more about the Oregon Trail than his students do. When he says "Lewis and Clark were [pretty much dicks] and their relationship with the Native Americans was not as pleasant as most text books make it out to be," he has good reason. That doesn't make his word the Absolute Truth, but quite simply, his evidence is stronger than theirs. People are frequently bothered by the lack of concreteness in history, much as they are in philosophy. As humans, we want to KNOW.

~~

That was a very long winded way of reaching what I really wanted to talk about. It's been interesting to note how many things discussed in my classes come up in "the real world." In Public History, I just read about Ken Burn's documentary "The Civil War" and last night I was watching Thursday's Daily Show, and Jon talked about how Virginia has named April "Confederate History Appreciation Month." This, along with some conversations with my partners-in-crime (read: housemates) got me thinking.

The Civil War is an incredibly complex, emotional and all around terribly tragic issue of American History. Every level, at every point, there is a multitude of interpretations. The origins of the war, the reasons it continued, the roles of the government and the soldiers on both sides and race and gender...it really can never be over-emphasized just how dense this subject is. And, like virtually all Civil Wars (in fact, I think in some ways it's part of the definition), there was no real "winning" and no clear cut good guys/bad guys. Hence, the tragedy.

So, Confederate History Appreciation Month. Like every other aspect of the War and it's aftermath, this has very mixed thoughts. On the one hand, I freely admit that, in the North (where I am decidedly from), the Confederates have been largely dehumanized. This is truly unfortunate, because certainly there were brave men defending themselves, their homes, their way of life, things they believed to right. It is good to remember that they, too, were Americans and that their loss of life was needless and sad. If this was being used to say, encourage people to read diaries or journals, to do research or to be involved in historical study, I would be all for it.

That's not, however, what it's being used for. At least, as far as I can tell. The main issue comes from the Causes of the Civil War, something that is hotly contested to this day. It's like the Grey Ladies said:
"Can't say I've ever been too fond of beginnings, myself. Messy little things. Give me a good ending any time. You know where you are with an ending."
There is never one reasons wars start. And not everyone fights for the same reasons.
When the Governor of Virginia announced why he was proclaiming this month, he never once mentioned slavery. When asked about it, he said that he wanted to focus on the "war aspect of it." Yet he seems to be ignoring a major reason for the war itself.
Again, messy territory. There is a clear political bent when discussing the causes of the Civil War. Depending on where you are from, it usually boils down to one of two things: Slavery (North) or Federal versus States Rights (South). I maintain that both of these were true, along with the very important role of economics (after all, much of the South was a slave-based economy). And it's easy to overstate any of these causes, but I think some things are worth pointing out.
The Southern slave-owning states WERE the Federal Government when the war was brimming. They controlled all three branches of government. They specifically said that the federal government was more important than state government. When the Northern states said they would not comply with some federally passed mandates (such as: If you find an escaped slave in the North, you must return him/her to the South), the Southern-controlled Federal government through a fit. It wasn't until they lost power with the election of Lincoln that they (the legislators) started spouting off about State rights. So at the governmental level, there was quite a bit of hypocrisy, and I don't think they really cared about State-rights. I'm sure many of the soldiers did, I'm sure that's why they joined the Confederate army. But considering that the war started BEFORE they started utilizing that sort of rhetoric, it can't be said that that was the only or even main reason for the war.

I remember, when I was younger, one of my neighbors said Lincoln was the worst president ever, because he allowed us to go to war. I remember being really upset by this, but unable to defend the 16th president. Now, we can tell from looking documents from the time that the war would have started even had Lincoln not been elected. Really, it was his predecessor who allowed us to go to war by not acting when the trouble started brewing. It wasn't like Lincoln was a huge proponent of social justice. He was as racist as many of the Southern Democrats (who were, at the time, the most conservative party), but he wanted to keep the country together. And he did, and for that, he should be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

From what I can tell, and again, I'm not down in Virginia, I can't say with certainty, but it does seem like these "Big Bad Federal Government shoving its will down the throats of the Poor Little States" is the narrative being pushed by those in power. This was the story written in Southern history text-books at the turn of the century, and to this day. If the Texas Education Board has its way, I'm sure that's what most of our textbooks will say. Again, this is an incomplete picture, and one which gives a false impression. This has much more to do with current political climate, considering which states are the ones pushing it (read: conservative/"right wing" states). Some of it is playing on Southern pride, which isn't a bad thing to have as long as you recognize that much of Southern identity was based on the subjugation and inhumane treatment of other people.
And that's not to say that the North is blameless. Hypocrisy is/was rampant there as well. The North didn't take action, was extremely flakey when dealing with the fundamental issues which led up to the war, did not mind benefiting from the South's economy and in fact helped to perpetuate the slavery system. Like I said before, there was good and bad on both sides.

Which leads me to my (hopefully) final point, not totally connected, but worth bringing up. When I lived in the dorms, my friend and I went to a meeting concerning a certain controversy. A young man had moved in and all of his housemates had a flag that represented their heritage. I believe one had a Union Jack, one had an Irish flag, and so on. He hung the Confederate flag, as he was from the deep south (Alabama, I think). This flag was visible through the window and caused a great upset among the other students, particularly of the African American community. The meeting was to discuss symbolism and meaning and responsibility.
In the young man's defense, as soon as he found out he was offending people, he moved the flag so that it was only visible in his room. He never intended to hurt anyone and he was very apologetic without giving up his pride or identity, which I don't believe anyone was asking him to do. Some of the African American students related why it bothered them: they remember, not as long ago as we'd like to think, when seeing that flag meant danger for them, meant that there were people who did not perceive them as human and would likely try to hurt them. It represented pain and humiliation and fear. to the young man who put it up, it was just remembering where he came from and the values he associated with it: strength, bravery, morality, individualism, hard work, etc. It can't be said that either side was "right" because symbols are, by definition, interpretive. I thought the young man displayed great sensitivity.
For my part, I'm wary when I see people displaying the Confederate flag. I was in class with someone who had a patch of it sewn onto his backpack, which meant wherever he went, people could see it. Now, I'm totally open to the idea that it meant something very specific to him, and he is completely entitled to that belief. However, it also seems that he has decided that his interpretation is more important than anyone else's, that he is somehow "more right" than they are. I actually think he was just being a troll and wanted people to fight with him, which is why I never asked him about it (I'd seen him pick fights with people over less). I think it is important to be conscientious of the effect our words, deeds and mannerisms has on others, of how we can give off the wrong impression (intentionally or no) and that they too have the right to their interpretations.

I don't know if you've learned anything here. To be honest, I think I lost my thesis statement somewhere in this mess. But I hope it at least got you thinking.
People are complicated. War is complicated. There are a variety of reasons we do what we do. Rarely, should we say one reason is more important or valid than another. That doesn't mean we get to ignore the ones that don't fit the narrative we want.

Mind Vomit #1

School has started, and this is probably the heaviest workload I've ever had. I need to read three to six books a week, plus around 150 pages of articles or more, plus 30-100 pages in text books, plus write two articles a week, plus keep up with Economics homework. Virtually all free time is spent reading and taking notes. You can probably already tell I both love and hate the situation.

"My head is full of thoughts, my ears are full of stars..."

I'm learning and reading a lot of interesting stuff, and I want to share it, but the act of forcing it into coherent and cogent processes is a bit beyond my capacity while I'm studying and then past my interest when I'm not. The neverending paradox with blogging I've found. So I give you Mind Vomits, hopefully encouraging some discussion, maybe helping me arrive at new thoughts, and maybe just being silly.

First, I give you the idea of "Heritage." The dictionary gives a woefully dull definition involving inheritance that has little to do with the emotional and psychological connotations of the word. Try this one:

"Heritage is that part of the past which we select in the present of contemporary purposes, be they economic, cultural, political or social." (Graham, et al)

See, History does not equal The Past. Historians are not chroniclers in that they objectively write down This Happened, followed by That, ad infinitum.
For one thing, that would be so wretchedly BORING. What historians generate are "historical documents," that is, something about the past. This does not need to be in writing. Museums, artifacts, highway signs, tours, lectures...there really is no difference between academic and public history, whatever the elitists will tell you. And these historical documents much often have more to do with the time period in which they are written than they do with the time period they are written ABOUT.

I think that people have an impression that some are "outside" of their environment. What springs to mind is philosophers, historians and religious writers. I think we work under the presupposition that such people are transcendent, that their circumstances do not touch them. This is easy to understand when you think of how many of our underlying beliefs stem from such individuals. People want to believe their religion is The Truth, and that is much more difficult to swallow if one thinks it was influenced by events thousands of years ago. It stops being so universal then.

But everyone has an argument and the way things are interpreted now is not the same as they will be ten years from now, regardless of the event in question.

Public Historians, those that work outside a classroom or lecture hall or research room think that Academic Historians (those that work INSIDE all those places) live in an ivory tower, with little connection to the real world. Academic Historians think Public Historians are a bunch of crazy SCA/Reenactment buffs out there making them look bad.
Okay, so it's really not that hostile (usually), but there is certainly a perceived difference, which is unfortunate because in the end, they are doing much the same thing.

So that's History 493: Public History.




Intellectual History is the one that is going to kill me. Tons of very dense reading and I'm not sure I'm always thinking about the concepts in the "correct" way. In fact, as I type, I should be reading a hundred pages in my text book. >.>

But a certain concept, a certain way of thinking, what we would call "a climate of opinion" or a zeitgeist has got me thinking. This is called the Great Chain of Being. It is the notion that all of creation falls along a continuum from least perfect to most perfect. Not that anything CAN be perfect, simply more perfect than others. Plato wrote of Matter and Form. Matter was what we perceived with our senses, while Form was where Truth resided, where the real essence of creation was. Aristotle claimed this made him an escapist, but the idea of imperceptible essence is a long perpetuated one. Later, this notion would be Christianized into the Great Chain of Being as it was understood during the Renaissance. Now the continuum was from most material to most spiritual, with Hell being the most materialistic thing (it was at the center of the Earth at the time too) and God being the most spiritual.

As you can imagine, artists LOVE this idea.



One draw was that there is an "everything in its place" mentality, which makes the universe nice and orderly. Of course, it also says that humans are teh uber, and reinforces the notion of domination over the rest of the world, but it meant no one had to wonder about their place in the world, at least on a cosmological scale.



This led me to ponder some elementary but fundamental lines of thinking.

Is the concept of a raison d'etre or "reason for being" or purpose of existence, or whatever way you'd like to contrive it...incompatible with free will?

Can we have a purpose but be required to find it for ourselves?

If we did know it, could we choose not to do it or is it tied into who we ARE, and to not fulfill it would be to stop being ourselves?

If we chose not to fulfill it, would that be considered sinfully wrong?



Obviously, on some level, this is a theological question, dependent on your view about a personal Creator. Maybe our function is dictated by our circumstances. I think most people prefer to think they are here for a reason.

So that's Intellectual History. We're going to be reading Nietchze, Darwin and Freud soon. Be afraid.

Finally, there is History of the Religion in Early America, or How the White Man and the Native Went Like Whoa Over Each Other's Faith.
Right now ,we are reading a biography of a Mohawk from Canada who became a Jesuit. She is actually up for sainthood still, which I think is pretty cool (the process of canonization has always fascinated me). She died at 24, it always seems a prerequisite for holiness, dying young. There are some very interesting discussions about the effect of constant, immediate death on the methods of missionaries. Smallpox was still demolishing the native populations, which caused many well-meaning missionaries to despair, not only out of sympathy for the pain and suffering of the those dying and their loved ones but also for all the souls lost to eternal condemnation.
It is also interesting to note that probably the only reason Catherine Tekakwitha is NOT a saint is because at the time the idea that a "savage" could reach such a high degree of holiness was completely anathema to the understanding of the universe of her contemporaries. Savage and Saint just did not go together. There was an exception. At Catherine's side as she died were two French Jesuit missionaries. One worked fervently to get her sainted, believing her worthy even before she died. The other was far more conservative and skeptical, believing it impossible for God to choose such a person. He respected her, certainly, she was very special. But saintly? Both men knew her, both saw the same things, and both wrote biographies of her life. Same event, two different perspectives, and let me tell you, it makes a radical difference.

Well, I don't think I can justify not doing homework anymore. I hope this has raised some questions in your mind. As always, feel free to comment and we can have a conversation.

~Peace Out~

The ups and downs of Change

There is something I've noticed when it comes to explaining to people what I do as a historian. Or rather, what historians do in general, as I can only count myself as one in the loosest of terms.

The issue revolves around the term 'revisionist'.

To some, revisionism is a bad thing, and usually this stems from Presentism...that is, forcing or overlaying our values on individuals in the past and interpreting their actions through our current system of values and understanding. This is what's known as Bad History. As in, you're doing it wrong. For example, Lincoln wrote in his journals about a close friend of his, recounting tales of falling asleep nearby, and so on. Dumb people wanted to interpret this as Lincoln being a closet homosexual, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (though his wife WAS pretty crazy). That's because in our society, guys don't talk like that, and they certainly don't describe cuddling with their friends.
But one, they also didn't have internal heating like we do. I would not be surprised if people got in close in all sorts of ways we'd raise our eyebrows at just to keep warm. Secondly, their notions of masculinity would be quite different from ours, so this would likely not be seen as any kind of threat to his hetero-ness. Third, he was like 12. I mean, really.

It is understandable why people would be wary of scholars and their historical 'discoveries' given some of this unfortunate mishaps. They did the same thing with Richard I...assuming that because he did not have children, he must have not lain with his wife, Berengaria. This is in direct contradiction to the NUMEROUS accounts of Richard raping and pillaging pretty much everywhere he went. The man liked the wenches.

The downside of having this wholly negative view of alternative interpretations however, is that it blinds us to the true point of revising.

When you write a paper and you find that there is better evidence, or a better way to put forth your argument, you revise your paper. That's just part of good scholarship. History and science and to some extent, philosophy is the same. People sometimes criticize scientists for changing their explanations but I have always viewed this as a strength of those doctrines. After all, if science was always so dogmatic, we would never have an Newton or an Einstein, people who fundamentally challenged our understanding by being wiling to let go of formerly preconceived notions.

From a religious point of view, is it not true that we interpret sacred texts differently now than we did fifty, a hundred, five hundred years ago?

Change can be good when it is an improvement. But of course, change is also frightening, which is where individuals truly become wary of new historical evidence, especially regarding people they admire and respect.

First, one must look at what 'evidence' means. Historians are like detectives, piecing together what was from what remains. This is, by definitions, always an incomplete picture, otherwise we wouldn't still be doing it. As new pieces come in, sometimes in contrast to previous pieces, they are evaluated on their strengths. Primary versus secondary sources. Analyzing why the sources were created (for example, a diary is a great primary source, but one must keep in mind that if the individual knew the diary would be read, how might that affect his or her writing?) and so on.

All nations have heroes. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. And the flaws, the sins, the mistakes that they made does not mean they are bad people.
Humans are multi-layered creatures, we have both good and bad, we make decisions in ignorance and are judged by those with the benefit of hindsight.

George Washington was not, I believe, a bad person. He did, however, own slaves, something I consider morally wrong. You could argue that this was just 'how it was at the time', but that is not a valid argument to me. For as long as there has been slavery, there have been those who stood against it. There is ample evidence of those, even during the times of Washington and Jefferson making arguments and protesting slavery. They would have certainly been exposed to such ideas.
More importantly to me personally, things are morally wrong regardless of time or society. Some things more so than others obviously. I wouldn't call those who choose not to eat certain food silly because it WOULD be wrong for them, according to their beliefs. But there are some things where you would be hard pressed to prove to me it is okay, and almost all of these involve evils against other people. Slavery, rape, murder...it was wrong 200 years earlier, it's wrong in any other culture. At least, in my moral code, and it would take a pretty strong argument to convince me otherwise.

But there are people who believer we shouldn't talk about Washington's slaves, or how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during Civil War (though that made much more sense, given the circumstances) because that would tarnish them somehow.
The problem with this is you have no stripped these individuals of what makes them great. They are not great icons, or great statues. They are great MEN and men are full of errors. It is DESPITE these faults that we consider them great because they are so clearly human like us.

By changing that, we also deprive children of the sense that despite their own faults or errors of the past, they can achieve.

~~~

The second problem, which comes up a lot in the education sphere of history is making it one dimensional. Everyone has an argument. Everyone is pushing something. This doesn't have to have some nefarious agenda, but we all believe or interpret stuff a certain way and of course this will affect how we talk, even subconsciously.

Unfortunately, I just remembered I have Christmas shopping to do so I will go into that on our next episode. :D

The short guy probably had it right...

EDIT: The captive slaves of the Spartans were called 'Helots' not 'huknos', I was thinking one word and typed another. I fixed it now.

Note: This is probably going to be one of those posts where I know more or less what I want to say, but because the topic is so amorphous, it is hard to really communicate well. There is no thesis statement, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm not even sure I have a point. This post will probably be very stream of consciousness, so please bear with me.

As interesting as history is as a story, the very philosophy behind it is just as fascinating to me. Like all stories, there's usually room for interpretation, but rarely do the interpretations have such far reaching consequences (except in the case of religious texts). Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with saying, "History is a set of lies agreed upon by the victors." There is undoubtedly a grain of truth to this, on both the small and large level. Take Women's history. Now I'm sure a lot of people get aggravated that there are entire classes just focused on Women's history but that's because ours is one of the first generations that has even LOOKED at it. Before, it was assumed they either didn't have one or it would totally match up with Men's. If you were to look at a certain period in history solely from the point of view of men, and then do the same with women, no doubt you would get a different story. It's about what's emphasized, prioritized and outright ignored. Both have truths to them, both have gray areas of belief.

John Stuart Mill, great man though he was, was wrong about history. He said (paraphrased): "These nations[referring to India] have no culture, and therefore, no history. This is true of almost all of the East."
Because their culture did not look like his, he didn't recognize it as civilization. How many times may this have happened, and how many stories may have gotten lost because of it? I think this is a serious flaw in our education system, that we get so focused on American History (which is frequently white-washed past recognition), as if all of history was just setting up for the creation of the United States that we forget there's an entire world outside. And when the rest of the planet is talked about, it is usually in reference to us.

This is another inherent problem with history. For as long as the stories have been passed down, they have usually been used to engender nationalism or pride. It is awfully hard to remain objective when you want to make someone (or large groups of people) believe something about themselves.

But then, no history is wholly objective. The writers are human and therefore have flaws, and the readers are likewise without perfection. I think that's one reason it says in 1 Corinthians 13, "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then, face to face."
There's much we don't understand, it is obscured from us, and I personally am looking forward to seeing it all laid out later (much later, please).

Okay, so far we've shown: History changes depending on who is telling it (who may be focused on some things more than others, and who may simply be ignorant of other aspects), and because there is usually an agenda, it is difficult to say any of it can be taken totally on faith. That doesn't meant we should disregard it or consider it unimportant. It is simply something to be aware of.

Phew, glad we got that all set up. Now to what I actually wish to talk about. ^.^

Like I said, the philosophy is almost as interesting as the actual stories, and like philosophy, history is full of contradictions. Things everyone knows but doesn't always think about. Often, it is just the difference in wording. But words have power, and shape our perceptions and therefore our actions.

Why is it that:

You can be a freedom fighter...or an 'anarchist' rebel?
A crusader...or a terrorist?
A strong, effective leader...or a dictator?
A great general and tactition...or a cruel, inhumane bastard?

What's the difference? Sometimes it is easier to say, but often we are on very shaky ground. Most of the time, the only difference is whose side you're on.

Some context: For Christmas, I received a bunch of books written by the same author, historical fiction about ancient Greece and Rome. Currently I'm reading one about Xenophon, which has been really interesting because it's a period that I'm not really familiar with (though I know about what came before and then what came after). But it got me thinking about how we, in the present, think about people in the past.

A Tale of Two Cities in the Ancient World:

Once upon a time, there were two very powerful city states. They were named Athens and Sparta. Athens was the cultural center of the known world, militarily strong because of her navy (being right near the sea), and a huge trading post. Great minds, philosophical and scientific, flocked to her, and at the time we're looking, she had the first fully functional true democracy, under the leadership of Pericles. Well...true democracy in the sense that all free white men could vote and had a say. However, Athens looked around to its neighbors and literally conquered them through democracy. They became more and more powerful by subjecting other free cities, "for their own good." (Sound familiar anyone?)

Meanwhile, there was Sparta. I personally, consider the brilliance of Sparta in their social system. They had few legal punishments (obviously rape and murder, and stealing was punished, normally because you were stupid enough to get caught), instead they relied on social ostracization. Sparta had once conquered their rival and had taken all the people captive as slaves. 'True Spartans' were called Spartiates, and there were relatively few of these compared to people who just lived in Sparta, and then the helots(or the captive slaves). Now, if you know you're outnumbered by people who would kill you if they could, you would make a military society too. That's why the Spartan war-culture continued so long after they had stopped making war, they had to be always on guard against those within their own borders. And once a year, they got to go crazy and kill as many of the helots as they wanted. Fun people huh?
But back to their social psychology. Spartiate men all lived and ate together in Barracks. It was like The Big Kids table. If you showed cowardice (the highest crime in Spartan Society), you were stripped of your Spartiate status, and could no longer eat or live there. It was a huge disgrace. In this way, the Spartans ruled themselves through internalized values. No one had to be physically punished because they did it themselves. I think that's pretty innovative.

So both cultures had their good and evil, just like any other. Spartans treated their Spartiates very well, regardless of whether they were male or female. Well, women were more respected and got to have a greater say in politics, though they couldn't formally hold office. They were able to participate in Olympics, but this was mostly because healthy women create healthier children so it wasn't really due to any kind of enlightenment. But Sparta was pretty backward when it came to other things. Because they had slaves to do their work, they didn't advance technologically. Their houses were not particularly comfortable (more like mud huts than anything else), and it was once said 'No wonder Spartans are so willing to die on the spear. Better that than to live on their food'. They were strong people in that they adhered ardently to their beliefs, and with the exception of the one country that they more or less accidentally 'won', they had no interest in conquering anyone else.
At the same time, Athens encouraged new levels of higher thinking and we find the beginnings of deductive reasoning, the scientific method and great leaps in science and art. Plus, the formalization of democracy is an important contribution. But the Athenians were pretty full of themselves and felt the need to spread their greatness to others who didn't ask for it.

And so like what so often happens, the true evils of any people comes forth in war. Sparta didn't participate in the first Pelloponnesian War because they didn't like leaving Sparta for fear the slaves would rise up. But the second, which lasted for 27 years, would have tragedies on both sides.

It is during this time that my books starts. Sparta won the Second Pelloponnesian war, and installed a puppet government, known as the Thirty Tyrants. This was a huge leap from true democracy to a strict oligarchy and the Athenians resented it. Spartan philosophy didn't work on such a large scale. It was fine for their city-state, but they couldn't enforce it well on others. For one thing, they liked winning, but they didn't really like conquering.
(Note: This is all based on my personal understanding. I get my information from classes, books and talking with professors because I assume they know what they are talking about. As I've said, history is usually open to interpretation and has often been embellished if not outrightly made up. So I could be wrong on some of these points, especially motivation. Please don't think that I assume everything I say is gospel truth, I am completely open to the idea I could misunderstand these things.)

Man, that was a lot more background than I meant to give. And all from memory too ^.^ Dr.Nuzum (my Prehistory teacher) would be so proud.

So what this has done is made me think about our double standards. Take the movie 300. Obviously, only loosely based on historical fact, and I don't use it as a real reference point, but it DOES speak to our present perception. And a lot of it is right, at least philosophically. Spartans were the best hoplite warriors of the time (hoplites are foot soldiers). And they really did fight off an overwhelming number of Persians to allow for the rest of the army to escape (yeah, covering for someone else running away isn't quite as romantic, but it does show a level of self-sacrifice).
The Queen, Gorgo, was actually a really fascinating figure, someone who greatly interested Herodotus, the father of history. She is the main reason we know about the battle of Thermopylae, as she wrote extensively. Leonidas was a great king, he introduced many reforms and improved the lives of his people (I personally consider that a plus for a ruler). But we have this over-simplified view of the Spartans I think, just as we do of many other peoples and individuals. We, Americans, and probably humans in general, are drawn to people who are the best at physical prowess. Take team names. My school mascot is a Viking. Vikings were smelly, gross and often terrible human beings. Yet, we glorify them. Look at most teams. Heck, the Forks High School team is called the Spartans. No one wants to be called the Athenians because they were known for their mental abilities and despite our great enlightment (/sarcasm) we don't value that nearly as much as the ability to swing an ax into someone's face. It's just as we like winners, no matter how they achieve that rank.

Something I've always wrestled with is how we judge individuals, and if we even have the right. I've talked to a lot of people about it, especially my dad and Dr.Nuzum (who is a historiographer and so usually understands where I'm coming from).
What do we judge? The action, the consequences, the motivation? If they were a total douchebag, but did good things for their country, are they excused? What if they did good things for their country but at the expense of another country? I suppose that's the philosophy of Political Science.

Take three of my favorite subjects: Richard, Coeur de Leon, Alksandr of Macedon (also known as Alexander the Great) and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Richard was one of the ten greatest generals of all time (as far as I know). He inspired much in his men, and his people loved hearing of his victories.
But he also bankrupted his country to fund the Crusades, and obviously his victories came through killing people closer to their own country than he was to his. I highly doubt he really cared about liberating the Holy City. He loved making war, he was good at it, and any excuse would have worked. He was known for raping women and then passing them around to his men for their depravations. In his defense, that was expected of him, though it hardly excuses him morally.

So which column do we put him in? Should we even try? Perhaps we don't have the right, as we weren't there. But then, we have to live in a world shaped by these actions, which gives us some leeway. If Sparta and Athens hadn't more or less destroyed each other, Phillip of Macedon would have had a much more difficult time defeating them and Alexander the Great would likely never have risen and the world would certainly be different.
Alexander unified formerly disparate nations and paved the way for the Roman Empire who for all of its evil, did much for the world, including setting the stage for the birth of Christ. If Alexander had lived past 33, who knows what he could have accomplished, for good or ill? But in his time, he perfected his father's improvements in hoplite warfare and reshaped the map. People became aware of the world around them better. When Rome came, they also built on this, creating the Latin Rule, which made them come to new nation-states as colonizers, not conquerors and is one of the main reasons they were as powerful as they were for as long as they were (an empire that literally lasts 1000 years is not to be sneered at).

More directly than either of these perhaps is Napoleon. Much that is in the world today can be traced to him, including the rise of Nationalism (and come of its consequences, such as Abolitionism and Feminism). The Napoleonic Wars greatly altered Europe and many of the colonies (such as Haiti). Napoleon was definitely egotistical, but he was also a great general and understood psychology to the extent that he perfected nationalism to help keep the French people in line and to this day they have few figures they love as much as him.

I know I'm talking in circles, but that's how I think about these things, there is always a thought and then a counterthought.

Were these great men? Were they good as human beings or are those in authority answerable to a different set of rules? Jimmy Carter was probably one of our most moral presidents but he failed as a ruler pretty hard. Herbert Hoover was one of the most hated, but he didn't really do things wrong, he just didn't do much of anything. Johnson WANTED to do a lot of great things, he had a lot of good intentions, but he's mostly remembered for getting us stuck in Vietnam.

Or look at it another way:
During World War I, we saw the formalized conceptualizing of Total War. One of the components of Total War is the Homefront. Every individual is involved, man, woman, child, with the war machine. And therefore, there are no civilians. It because acceptable to bomb cities, towns...If you destroy their suppliers, if you demoralize their soldiers...you win. The Blitzkrieg, Nagasaki...Terrible atrocities done in the name of victory.

But if it WORKS...it's considered good strategy. The Assyrians ruled through fear because they did terrible things to those who rebelled against them, including babies on spikes. But it worked right? Does that justify it? That's a dramatic example but we can see it other places. It's war right? The rules change. But when the OTHER side does it...it's barbaric, it's evil, and that's why we have to stop them. The double standard continues.

If we do it, we're Liberators. If They do it, they're terrorists. How dare Russia invade democratic Georgia? Oh, we invaded democratic Iraq? Well...that's hardly the same thing.

I'm not ragging on the US, but pointing out a problem with humanity in general. As a species, we tend to suck hardcore when it comes to fighting with each other.

There was a line, at some point, someone must have said 'We should never go past this point. This is the worst we should do, because after this, it becomes morally unnacceptable'.

I think that point was passed a long time ago. Now we can destroy the world 80 times over with nuclear weapons, and even better we have MACHINES to do it. The only benefit is that war is no so horrid, we are discouraged from doing it because of how awful the cost would be. But there's always a button pusher, always someone who considers the ends justifying the means, and our children will have to live with the consequences of those decisions.
Because someone decided that killing each other more efficiently was a good idea. And then someone else, and then someone else...and no one stopped them. And they thought they were doing the right thing.

So how do we judge THEM? If their intentions were, if not pure, at least in the best interest of those they considered important, could we say they were evil? Or just misguided? Einstein said one of his greatest regrets was helping with the Atom bomb. But he had been told that the Germans already had one and the only way to preserve peace was for America to have one too. He was lied to, plain and simple. Does that excuse him?

A lot of good things have happened in our world. So have a lot of evil things. And so many many things we don't know about anymore.

So what's the point? I told you, way at the beginning that I didn't have one. Remember that far back? ;)

We are all actors in history. What we do changes the world, whether we see it not. So take care and consider your decisions because someone else will likely have to live with the consequences.

For those of you just tuning in...

I love to write. And I don't suck at it, in that "can-form-coherent-sentences-utilizing-more-or-less-proper-grammar' sort of way. But I have never blogged before, for a variety of reasons, the foremost being that blogs are by necessity pretentious, as all blogging is done with the assumption that anyone gives a flying frak what you think. As I don't think that 99% of the time, I never saw the point. This is salted with the fact that I don't care what most other people think, and the entire blogging community is based on a system of reciprocal attention, ie, "I'll read your stuff if you read mine." Considering that I think almost all (again with the 99%) of blogs fall into two categories: Self-absorbed rants against things the individual obviously doesn't care enough about to change and...randomness.

But recently, a few of my favorite people have taken up the web-pen, and I feel the urge to add my voice to their symphony of musings. I will not apologize for posting too much, posting too little or for being incredibly hypocritical and posting the exact sort of thing that I detest in the stereotype that is blogging.

Moving on...

Why I consider myself a historiographer-
Historiography refers to the Philosophy of History, that is, how we do it, how we think about it. Meta-history, if you will. It is seeing history not just as a series of occurences or recording of events but asking the bigger question, 'Why?'. Why did they report it this way, what were the circumstances, why is this considered important, how has that changed, etc. I always thought everyone thought this way, but apparently it is a not a common trait. I love the concept because Philosophy and History are two of my greatest loves (up there with jewelry, leather, motorcycles, books and Final Fantasy). Essentially, it means that I consider myself a philosopher with an emphasis on thinking about the past, bolstered by a strong interest in Epistomology (the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of Knowledge and Truth; What do we know and how do we know it and how do we KNOW we know it?).
Again, this is extremely pretentious this is my little corner of the Inter-Webs, so I suppose I'm allowed.

Now on to the topics at hand.

As many of you reading this know, my dream is to become a teacher. I've been progressing towards this goal since about second grade. My preferred specialty is Special Education, though recently, History has vied for top position. At the moment, the plan is to be certified as a Secondary (that's Middle to High School for the uninitiated) History teacher with a Special Education Endorsement.
This will probably take a few years, which kind of sucks considering my lack of funds and our shaky economy. But that isn't actually the most discouraging thing I faced the first year of my University Experience.

THAT came in the form of the 2001 Reauthorization of Public Law 107-110...also known as the No Child Left Behind Act. The intent was good: Get more children literate and passing high school, get rid of bad teaching practices, encourage schools to set higher standards. No one would argue with these ideals, especially in a rapidly changing world where having the brightest young people really decides your future. It would have been a good investment if it hadn't failed so very very miserably.

Here are the problems:
It was poorly funded. The government only gave half the money it promised, leaving the burden of cost on the already underfunded education system. This meant that they were expecting schools to make Grade A lesson plans with Grade D equipment. It may be hard to realize, but not having a computer in your school is a huge disadvantage.
This is especially a problem here in Washington where our education funds come from income taxes. This means that cities like Bellevue have fantastic, modern schools complete with technology and sports equipment, while West Seattle High School is falling apart...literally. It is a self-perpetuating class distinction...poor kids have to go to poor schools where they will not be as well educated and therefore continue to be poor. This is the sort of misdistribution of resources that make young revolutionaries embrace socialism...or at least reject capitalism.

NCLB (also called Nickelbee) puts the responsibility onto the teachers and the students, while offering little help to either.

Every (or at least most) educational psychologist will tell you that High Stakes Testing (like the kind we have with the WASL) is a BAD IDEA. It creates undue stress on the student, frequently making them perform lower than they would normally, and it does not properly reflect their growth as a student or individual. Standardized tests are also...well, standardized. This means that if you have a learning, mental or physical disability, there are few options to accomodate your needs...leaving you Behind. Go figure.

A POSITIVE effect of NCLB is that teachers were no longer able to 'teach however they felt like it'...folk-practices and 'traditional methods' were not just allowed (like locking students in closets...disgusting but also common in some places). All routines, less plans, and practices had to be backed up by researched and approved methods, making sure that students were getting the best education. Teachers also had to be constantly updating their curriculum so that the latest information could help them serve the students better. It put the emphasis back on the student and serving his/her needs, as opposed to having the emphasis on the teacher.
Some red tape to push through for someone like me is the need for Specialization. This is a good idea that unfortunately has some practical problems. Specialization refers to the need for teachers to be Highly Qualified in whatever area they are teaching. On paper, that's awesome, it means that we have specialists teaching areas they are the most the knoweldgeable in. But if you're a poor school in Ohio with only a handful of teachers, you can't afford to have one for each subject, your English Teacher is also your PE teacher, your Math Teacher is your Chem teacher, and so on. But the government says you are required to hire more, yet doesn't provide the funds to pay them.

Another problem is the responsibility and punishment scheme, which is another self-defeating cycle. If a school district fails to meet the requirments, they get one or two years to pull up their grade. If this fails, they have to redo their entire curriculum, often firing their entire staff and getting new people. If this fails, they have to offer to pay to send the students to specialists (such as the Sylvan Learning Center) or to a school with a higher grade. If this fails, the government comes in, throws everyone out and essentially 'occupies' the school.

Now, again, the problem comes from poor funding. The school doesn't make the grade because they don't have money for decent text books or computers or chalk. So the government tells them they have to spend MORE money to get new curriculum. They already can't afford that, so now they are even farther behind, which means the students do even worse. Then they have to pay to send students to other places (and sometimes there are no better schools, leaving the parents with no options). 'Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny' is not a bad allegory here. There's really no way for the school to pull up so they try to find ways around it. One school expelled half their students the day before they took the state test. Teachers have rigged the tests, altered scores, 'lost' a few students. Schools are now actually encouraged to LOWER standards instead of raise them. Why? Because the schools can't afford to not pass. This is perhaps the greatest failing on the part of NCLB to take care of the students.

Teachers have to spend hours doing paperwork, documenting everything they ever do ever, adding to their already stress-filled, busy lives. This can adversely affect their class, though to their credit, most teachers make the best of it and do an incredible job. Still, it gives them less time to spend with the students, to write better lesson plans, to think of innovative ways to reach students.

NCLB also represents an unprecedented amount of federal involvement in what should be a private, state-run responsibility. The federal government isn't suppose to meddle with education, it says so in the Constitution. NCLB is just another form of control, meant for the best most likely, but a dangerously slippery slope.

Now, next year, we will have a new administration. And as always, education was one of the issues the candidates debated on. As most of you know, I didn't vote for a variety of reasons, number one being I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils (Vote Cthulu), however in the realm of education, I firmly believe that Obama IS the lesser of evil here. McCain wanted to keep NCLB and just 'take it back to basics', rework it. I'm fairly certain that by this point, it's clear that there is no 'reworking', it simply DOESN'T WORK. A totally new system of accountability has to be put into place, one that either doesn't have federal involvement (or at least limits it) or one that puts MORE responsibility on the government to pay for it. I, for one, hope that it is worked out before I get my certification because otherwise I may have to relearn everything.

Here's hoping for a brighter tomorrow.

So there's my intro and first set of musings. Feel free to let me know what you think.