The 'Wicked Witch' in the Sixteenth Century... and Today

The word ‘witchcraft’ brings to the mind visual images and emotional reactions for many people. So it has from the creation of the idea of magic, witchcraft, etc… but even in our civilized and enlightened society today. The origins of magic and its practitioners or ‘witches’ are unclear; there are various references to both in the King James Version of the Holy Bible, in the Jewish holy scripture book called the Torah, in laws and court hearings in both Ancient Greece and Rome as well as references and myths written by the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Early Egyptians and the Persians. Depending on the time frame and the culture in which you live, the images and emotions provoked are very different. Today as I get ready for the Halloween traditions in my culture, I expect to see costume- clad children knocking on my door and I will ‘ohh and aww’ over their choices while I pass out goodies and smiles. It was not always this way and the ideas of witchcraft and magic, or ‘unnatural acts’, have provoked much less benign and more violent reactions from those who feel threatened.

So what is witchcraft… and who are those who practice it? Again, that definition can change based on time, place and culture, but the generic definition of witchcraft can read as follows: the practice of magic, especially black magic; the use of spells and the invocation of spirits… the art or practices of a witch. Those who practice the craft are thought to be individuals with three specific qualities; use of malevolent power, a depraved heretic towards the majority religion and/or power structure, and also the acts of sexual deviancy. It was thought that both men and women could practice the art of magic and in some cases that magic could be ‘white’ (good) or ‘black’ (bad). During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the idea of witchcraft and its practitioners changed in the minds of many and how it was dealt with became a larger and more significant issue then it had been in other times during human history. Many aspects of culture at this time can be analyzed to understand and recognize how situations like witch-hunts happen, how the targeted individuals are picked and why, and what forces are in play to cause the volatile fearful situations. I wish to look at the political, education, social, and religious constructs of early modern Germany as well as the continent of Europe as a whole to try and understand how all the violence came to be and who it was against. It is hopeful by understanding it, we can work to not perpetuate it in our own lives and cultures.

This time period was a time of great change and many of these transitions help explain some of the fear and escalation in these communities. This was the time in history that we also call the Reformation when the Christian religion was going through a significant change as the Catholic Church no longer had a complete monopoly on Christ and Christian thought. Individuals such as Martin Luther and John Calvin wrote about their ideas/ thoughts on their concerns in the Catholic Church and its teachings following with suggestions for change and needed reform. These men and others created new communities or groups that came to be known as Protestants and which vied with the Catholic Church for converts. Rulers, kings and other political elite found that the doctrinal instability in the religions and communities correlated into political instability. One side benefit - rulers who converted to a Protestant religion could stop paying the Roman church high taxes and could also seize Catholic funds and assets in their own lands providing themselves with a new source of revenue. During this time there were also times of sickness and famine as the ‘Little Ice Age’ passed through which caused a lot of hardship and death for all. Protestant thought at this time also stressed that Satan was a physical being and Luther himself described himself as having many encounters with Satan who attempted to keep him from reforming the church. So it is into this time of insecurity- both of doctrine, politics and the beginnings of the questioning of sexual relationships, power that we start our journey into sixteenth Germany.

Before the sixteenth century, the idea of witches and their ‘craft’ were fading from the public sphere across Europe and magic was thought to be a superstitious practice with very little real power. In the early Catholic church, the ideas of witchcraft were thought to consist more of idolatry and illusion- sins to be sure, but not the cause of direct harm to others and, in an anonymous text titled Canon Episcopi from the ninth century which is part of canon law, it states that ‘there was no such thing as an actual witch’. During the development of early modern Germany and other states, misogynist writings and men in power worked to change the viewpoint of the whole society towards witches, magic and its practitioners. Books such as the “Malleus Maleficarum” helped to define and spread the new image of witches; they were real, they were women, and the source of all societal degradation. Add to those ideas the concerns of Catholics at a rapidly changing religious landscape, the changing power structure, and the tensions between the differing factions began to stretch and break. Some women joined one of the differing groups of Protestants and found they had more opportunities and influence than they had when participating in the Catholic Church. The obvious threats to the power structure of the church caused the religious male hierarchy to go on the offensive. Under the belief that the female sex is more susceptible to evil influences and is the inferior of both genders, any woman who did not strongly conform to the local religious and cultural expectations was easily accused of being a witch. (Some historians show evidence that the witch hunts were strongest and encompassed the most victims in territory that was 'Protestant controlled' but that is not definitive- Sociologist Nachman ben-Yehuda states, “Only the most rapidly developing countries where the Catholic Church was weakest, experienced a virulent witch craze.”) It is quite evident that both religions and their leaders used the supposition of witchcraft as a way to try and regain their lost power and hierarchy in areas where they were at risk. In some cases, there is evidence that men who were not seen as being vigilant enough in finding and persecuting witches were disparaged as men who were weak, womanly, etc... What is clear is that the idea of witches/witchcraft was no longer a subtle idea or existed only in the realm of thought- these ideas were now useful as a confrontational and aggressive way to deal with ‘enemies’ or other undesirables in the community.

In essence, any woman who (or was thought to be) engaged in behavior that felt threatening or was unconventional in behavior or appearance was at serious risk for problems. Many women could be accused and found guilty and executed on little to no evidence of significant wrong doing. The most common way was to accuse a 'witch' and charge her with heresy. As the definition of heresy was defined by the specific religion but usually enforced not only religious orders and leaders but also enforced by the secular legal power structure. In that light, a heresy charge was a pretty significant and threatening event in someone’s life as well as a charge that didn’t depend on physical proof for convictions- circumstantial evidence, hearsay and confessions under torture were sufficient. Due to women’s influence in their homes and as the transmitter of the culture to their young children, they were in the position to spread unconventional information to their children. As this could potential force changes in the hierarchy and its power, men were encouraged to be actively engaged in keeping the women in their family / household under their control. Single women, whether due to a lack of marriage or from being widowed, were also likely to be accused and condemned for a few reasons. Due to their single status, they had no male protectors and were easier to accuse than married females. In that same sense, they had no men to ‘control’ and keep tabs on them and their behavior and if they were self-sufficient or financially independent, any woman who could be seen as too prominent in society for any reason was in a dangerous situation. Also, by being single and taking assents, these women could and did stand in the way of the orderly transmission of property from one generation of males to another.

The ways that ‘witches’ were caught and were mostly women make sense in the power structure at that time. Midwives who practiced medicine could be targeted for that by their male rivals. A midwife or healer could be accused if a birth didn’t end perfectly or a child died- even one accusation could easily multiply as other individuals looked back at past experiences and reinterpreted them with the accusation in mind. In some ways, midwives, and medical women were seen to have power over life and death. Over centuries, the Catholic Church taught that the suffering and illness of this world were only temporary and fleeting. It was thought that God was no longer involved in the physical world so anyone who was able to divine or understand natural knowledge was seen as using supernatural power… or power from the devil. As the concept of medicine and medical care developed and gained a following, the church put its backing behind the upper class men who studied and practiced it and supported medical care for the few who could afford it. To control medical knowledge, it was taught in the first universities (in which women were not allowed to study) so any woman who practiced medicine was self or informally taught – a method described as “If a women dares to cure without having studied than she is a witch and must die.” Add to those thoughts that women were thought to be more likely to be able to weld unnatural, malevolent power and even bad weather and environmental conditions were blamed on local women. Whether being accused of calling up a storm to try and drown a King in his ship at sea, a papal bull stating “…have blasted the produce of the earth, the grapes of the vine….” or the entire chapter written on the subject in the Malleus Maleficarum titled “How they Raise and Stir up Hailstorms and Tempests, and Cause Lightening to Blast both Men and Beasts” ending with the sentence “Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points.”

The other thing that made women more likely to be accused and punished of witch craft was if they could be suspected of sexual deviancy. Many women were prosecuted based on charges relating to their own motherhood and role in the home. Sexual orgies, having sexual relations with the devil and the normal sexual misbehavior or fornication and adultery were all reasons that could be used in accusations of witchcraft. Any kind of male sexual dysfunction- from impotence to premature ejaculation to complete disappearance of the penis and other sexual organs was also blamed on the power and perversion of witches. To counter this problem, men used trials to assert their dominance over women and their bodies with public strip searches, torture, etc… giving themselves permission to sexual assault women and remind everyone of their place.

There seems little doubt that religion and gender played a huge role in the witch-hunts in early modern Germany. Whether the ‘witch’ was burned, hanged, strangled, or beheaded, it is clear that most of the accused were female and were chosen because they were perceived to be a threat to the male hierarchy. By criminalizing women’s attempts to share power as well as the anxiety that was felt by the male hierarchy over women’s societal roles and the influence and power in them, a women’s perceived sexual prowess, and the general weakness of women to resist and therefore were more susceptible to witchcraft, those in power had a lot of leverage to control women’s behavior, place in society and to remove them if necessary. We still struggle with these same issues today. While we no longer call women we fear witch (very often) and as a civilized society unnecessary violence is abhorred, the fears, confusion and anger over women and their choices spills out into the communities in more subtle and acceptable forms in our patriarchal society- negative labels, harassment or assault both physical and sexual, as well as cultural expectations that indirectly (and directly) place limits on the behavior of women. Politicians and those individuals on all sides of the political spectrum use their beliefs, desires, value systems and power in society to 'create' and name our new 'witches'- single mothers, poor and elderly women, feminists, working women, women in power, minorities, etc... Some religions also continue to set limits and rules on women's expectations and behavior that are not applicable to men and women who speak out against injustices in their faith communities can be removed or kicked out- many by male only courts. It is important to recognize that, while the concentrated and active witch trials of the sixteenth century are in the past and we no longer 'burn' witches, the feelings, anger, and power struggles of that era have not been resolved and are still alive in us and our society today. That different methods are used to cause fear, oppression, or motivation to keep the status quo of power in the hands of the few, the rich, and the male doesn't suggest anything other than a recognition of the gender power struggle itself will not bring about peace between genders and stability in society. Only time, a willingness to share power and humility will bring the possibility of that….

pictures from: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100252072/the-dark-deep-roots-of-britains-fascination-with-witchcraft/, http://www.damnedct.com/connecticut-witchcraft-trials, http://www.biography.com/people/john-calvin-9235788, http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/shop/the-malleus-maleficarum-in-latin-pdf/, http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/shop/the-malleus-maleficarum-in-latin-pdf/, http://witchnest.blogspot.com/2010/07/killing-witches-as-best-way-to-kill.html, http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0CAMQjxw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.academic.ru%2Fdic.nsf%2Fenwiki%2F11823268&ei=cKPjVPK9L-OxsASR94DIDw&psig=AFQjCNGjAAFlzXs6eji2QEbpsIhDxcZ0Pg&ust=1424291020320634, http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/11823268,

Eugenics in America After 1945: Term Post #2

...Here are some examples:

North Carolina had a sterilization program in place from 1929-1974 in which approximately 7,600 individuals were sterilized with over 70% of those coming after 1945 when the program expanded after World War II. One unique aspect of North Carolina's laws was that they were written allowing people to be recommended for sterilization by doctors, social workers and other government employees they dealt with in their communities and homes. About 85% of those referred for sterilization were women. One guideline for sterilization was if a person had an IQ of less than 70. In July 2013, the state set aside ten million dollars for compensation to the verifiable victims of this program of which approximately 3000 are thought to be still alive.

In the 1950’s, black women in the south became targets of forced sterilization via tubal litigation or hysterectomy, commonly referred to by women as “Mississippi appendectomies,” because women entered hospitals to have abdominal surgery and left unknowingly without their uteri. In 1972, testimony before a US Senate committee brought to light at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations that had been performed on poor black women who were mothers with multiple children. They were usually told that their appendix needed to be removed and were sterilized at that time or at the birth of a child, especially if the women was unmarried. There is evidence that many women may never have known why they couldn't conceive.

Forced sterilization practices changed and were focused on specific populations in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s through newly established federal family planning programs. Mexican and Mexican-American women were coerced or tricked into forced sterilization at the Women’s hospital of the University of Southern California- Los Angeles County Medical Center. Public concerns that the rise in Mexican immigration was overpopulating the state and purposely expanding state welfare needs was high. The idea that women became pregnant and then worked their way across the American – Mexican border to give birth and give themselves and their new family a secure financial benefit through the various welfare programs available is still an active concern in our present political climate. There is no known number of how many involuntary and coerced sterilizations there were before the federal class court case Madrigal v. Quilligan - a lawsuit brought against a hospital and their doctors by some women who discovered their unwanted sterilization. However, statistics show that elective hysterectomies had a 742% increase and tubal ligations a 470% increase within a two year time frame. At least 140 women shared their stories of being forced to agree or not being given any kind of informed consent at all. Some described situations that can only be described as blackmail. i.e.; I will not give you pain medication to finish your labor and delivery unless you comply. The lead defendant in the court case, Dr. Edward Quilligan, was quoted by a medical technician as stating, “poor minority women in L.A. County were having too many babies; that it was a strain on society; and that it was good that they be sterilized.” The plaintiffs lost their case, but the case did change and created stronger informed consent rules through legislation in California including bilingual language on the consent forms.

In 1955, the federal government changed the way that health care for Native American populations was provided. Depending on many factors, the quality of care throughout the Indian Health System varied considerably due to individual facilities, staff opinions/prejudices, and changes in 'coverage' due to Congressional appropriation hearings and decisions. These changes had some significant benefits as the new program was much better funded which helped increase services and decrease mortality. Another potential benefit which was added was the provision of family planning services. On reservations, Native American women became targets of physicians employed by the Indian Health Services who believed that restricting these women’s reproduction would reduce their poverty and dependence on the state. Through the

sharing of stories, complaints of coercion or harassment, and from research and interviews preformed through investigations, it is estimated that IHS hospitals and their affiliates sterilized between 25 and 42 percent of all Native American women of childbearing age between 1970 and 1976. Even with mandated changes requiring informed consent, added waiting periods and added safeguards, in 1974 more accusations cropped up that IHS staff in some places were not following the new guidelines and questionable sterilizations were still taking place - almost all subsidized with federal funds. Evidence shows that these types of experiences not only changed the relationships between Native Americans and the government/Indian Health System but also caused significant changes in an individual’s life and their standing in the community, as well causing economic and familial harm- some marital relationship were also severed over the procedure. In 1976, Congress passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act which gave tribes the right to control Indian Health Service programs and there is no evidence that inappropriate sterilizations have happened after that time.

In case we believe that our society’s beliefs and behavior has changed since the late 1970's, we have other more recent examples. In 1909, California was the third state to pass a eugenics sterilization law and over the years had sterilized around 20,000 patients or around 1/3 of all the sterilizations in the country. That law was finally repealed in 1979 after a lawsuit by several women who had been coerced or forced into their own sterilizations. Yet, at least 148 women incarcerated in four California prisons were illegally sterilized in the years 2006-2011 costing the state $147,460 for the procedures. One of the physicians, Dr. James Heinrich, has stated that the practice of sterilizing female prisoners saves the state money because the patients would no longer have “unwanted children as they procreated more.” Auditors found in those cases that sometimes paperwork was altered to look like compliance with current laws was achieved and in many cases, no informed consent was attained. On September 25, 2014 California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill prohibiting forced sterilization in the state.

That the United States has not been able to shake the ideas and prejudices that informed and created the original Eugenics movement. Today eugenical ideas and procedures are still officially permitted. Voluntary sterilization for therapeutic or for reproductive reasons is a great blessing for thousands of people and should be accessible for those who need it. However, its availability gives eugenic proponents the tools they need to pressure individuals to give up their dignity and human right to reproduction. Some women may lose that right without being told of the procedure or are given false information such as it is reversible. There is even incidental evidence that federal money is being spent on experiments and science that are clearly eugenic in nature. In the end, eugenics is still very much successful in America. I am aware that I personally fit several of the ideals for eugenic sterilization –I am so myopic I am considered legally blind, suffer from celiac disease, and have two other severe medical issues as well as PTSD, and severe sensory/ anxiety issues. I have given birth to a child that also has problems with celiac disease, has sensory problems and had seizures for seven years before outgrowing them. And yet, my son is a wonderful human being and he is well liked in his community. He is smart and compassionate in spite of his disabilities and my life wouldn’t really feel worth much without him. I have chosen to not have any more children and being able to make that choice for myself is one of the most wonderful things I appreciate in my life. I am hopeful that as society recognizes the individual worth of all individuals, may the concept of eugenics pass away… and rest in peace.

pictures from: http://www.carolinapublicpress.org/9854/house-passes-eugenics-compensation-bill, http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/the-american-eugenics-movement-after-world-war-ii-part-1-of-3/Content?oid=2468789&storyPage=3, http://gloriamolina.org/2014/01/15/looking-back/, http://www.quora.com/Native-Americans, http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/SD/SD.html, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/12/opinion/la-ed-sterilization-female-prisoners-california-20130712, http://www.examiner.com/article/illegal-sterilizations-forced-on-women-california-prisons, http://rt.com/usa/167660-california-illegal-sterilization-women/

Eugenics in America After 1945: Term Post #1

The study of human history shows the many achievements and journeys of our race. From our humble beginnings, through the development of culture, religion, communities, hierarchy and power structures, to what and who we are today... well, as a less-than-humble commercial suggests- 'You've come a long way, Baby!’ The path to the twenty-first century has not been smooth nor painless and, like our predecessors, we view ourselves, our lives, and our world as an improved and civilized place with the human race as the most intelligent and virtuous beings on it. Looking at the history of the human race, I see many recurring themes that are a part of every society; hope, love, beauty, want, etc. The theme of self-improvement or change that benefits ourselves and, in turn, society has been a reappearing idea that became more pronounced after the Enlightenment and the Renaissance along with the concept of improving groups of people to improve society. However, like all virtues, self-improvement or personal development can come with a dark side that is exposed when the virtue itself is placed on a pedestal or idolized without regard to the thoughts and rights of those we consider 'lesser' than us. When this happens, any noble or virtuous ideas are shown to be the shallow horrors that they can become ... the virtue is pulled and stretched out of its normal view to a pained and stretched mask of what it actually is. During the twentieth century, the themes of human breeding, genetics, prejudice, self-improvement and social progress collided to serve the virtue of better breeding and health of human beings. Eugenics, which means 'well born', was created in

America. This movement was so strong and large that it was able to spread into other cultures and countries before its horrors and Machiavellianism tendencies became apparent enough to create a sizeable opposition that attempted to crush it. In response to the common belief that eugenics was no longer an important movement after World War II, I will discuss briefly the history of eugenics in the United States before WWII and then analyze the way the movement changed after the war. I will show that the ideas behind eugenics are still alive, well and being acted upon in our society today. Recognizing the way the movement itself has adapted to our changing culture and its opposition helps place us in an informed position to focus on the fearful and reactive areas of ourselves and our society so we may work to create a more lasting and peaceful change in our thoughts and fears. Hopefully, that will help us change how we act upon our fears and prejudices and how we justify acting on them in our communities and society.

The idea of eugenics is a simple idea with more complex answers. The word was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton who advocated the scientific regulation of human breeding to ensure that 'better' genes had a larger chance of predominating in the continuation of the human species. Eugenics encompassed the progress of medical practice and scientific thought and recognized the inseparable relationship between medicine and social progress. To be blunt, the idea of the eugenics movement was that better breeding would lead to a healthier population and was an effective way to deal with social problems. It provided a comfortable way to rationalize people's prejudices about race, poverty, etc... and also suggested that 'undesirable traits' could be minimized within a few generations if people were only brave and good enough to work towards it. Undesirable traits that were thought

to be correctable through eugenical reproduction included epilepsy and other physical disabilities, alcoholism, tendencies towards rape (rapists), and other criminal behavior, promiscuity, and more. Races and immigrants that were not of Anglo-Saxon heritage were also of 'suspect' genetic material and poverty was thought to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority. Always a controversial movement, eugenics has had its loyal adherents since its conception and even the tragedy and knowledge of the German Holocaust in World War II didn't change those who believed and followed its tenets. Before the war, it was common to institutionalize the ‘feebleminded’ or those that those in power worried about reproducing. The rationale was that the only way to stop a living being from reproducing was to limit its movements, monitor it in risky situations, or make it biologically impossible for breeding to take place. Institutions for those who were ill, the ‘feebleminded’ or those who had medical difficulties were created to isolate and remove those individuals from active society. Laws were passed that forbade marriages between people who had specific medical or mental health problems. However, locking people up costs a lot of money and the inability to remove everyone from the community that fit the criteria (due to lack of funds or institutional space) made the original eugenics process less effective than its early adherents wished. Sterilization allowed the individuals to be released back into their local communities to support themselves while not crating any more individuals like ‘them’. Because of that, sterilization became the easy, cheap, and irreversible weapon in the eugenics supporter’s arsenal.

The Holocaust did shift some of the popular views of how eugenics should work, but didn’t change any of the eugenic and popular thoughts of a large part of the populace nor did it change the most popular procedures that were used. In 1927, psychologist George Ordahl explained at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that if it was possible to calculate “the economic burden of the moron” that [was] paid for by taxpayers, “every patriotic citizen would become a eugenicist in search of methods of prevention even more drastic than any now known.” The tone may have softened since WWII, but not by much. Dr. Charles Gamble wrote in 1947, “Tomorrow's population should be produced by today's best human material” and he complain[ed] that only one in forty-one people with severe mental illness had been sterilized, leaving dozens of others to spread defective genes. In 1966, C. Lee Buxton published an article titled

“The Doctor’s Responsibility in Population Control” in which he reminded his colleges that “medical responsibility demands more action than just passing resolutions and making recommendations...” and advocated sterilization as a solution to the ‘problem’ of unwed mothers on welfare. In his view, the problem was multiplying “because the medical profession has controlled the death rate but has done very little about the birth rate.” The exact number of women- for women were by far the more common victims of eugenics- involuntarily sterilized after the end of World War II into the 1980’s remains unknown due to the lack of collected statistics, listings in medical records of coerced sterilizations as ‘voluntary’, the social and reluctance of women to file formal complaints, and the ignorance of individuals who never knew or were never told that they had been sterilized. (The reason I stop at the 1980’s is due to a lack of information on current trends.)

Euthanasia programs never gained popular ground in the Unites States, but did have their supporters before WWII. One egregious example is Dr. Harry Haiselden who advocated and practiced denial of life saving treatment (even of newborns) and thought it was acceptable for an institution to give inmates tuberculosis through infected milk because only those with ‘defective’ genes would get the disease and die. In the end, after the Holocaust, sterilization was the procedure of choice and was perfectly legal through the decision in Buck vs Bell decided by the Supreme Court. This court decision has never been overturned and has been used to support involuntary sterilizations since its publication and over the last sixty years. Here are some examples....

pictures from: https://mediachecker.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/bill-gates-its-gods-work-monsanto-vaccines-eugenics/, http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/whatis1.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton, http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-horrifying-american-roots-of-nazi.html, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/darwin_day_in_may_buck_vs_bell003669.html, http://galleryhip.com/american-eugenics.html, http://365daysofthis.blogspot.com/2013/02/define-eugenics.html
eugen

Eugenics in America after World War II /1945 : An Introduction to the Term Paper

I know a few people have been waiting for this paper so here it is! I will need to break up the paper into a few posts but it will give a very basic outline of eugenics before World War II and our influence on other countries… and then move into how eugenics changed and what groups were affected by these legal policies. I do give current examples when I was able to find some and I am hopeful that after I share this research, maybe we can have a discussion about how to create community awareness and change in our areas…..

Here is my abstract paragraph:

The study of human history shows the many achievements and journeys of our race. From our humble beginnings, through the development of culture, religion, communities, hierarchy and power structures, to what and who we are today... well, as a less-than-humble commercial suggests- 'You've come a long way, Baby!' The path to the twenty-first century has not been smooth nor painless and, like our predecessors, we view ourselves, our lives, and our world as an improved and civilized place with the human race as the most intelligent and virtuous beings on it. Looking at the history of the human race, I see many recurring themes that are a part of every society; hope, love, beauty, want, etc. The theme of self-improvement or change that benefits ourselves and, in turn, society has been a reappearing idea that became more pronounced after the Enlightenment and the Renaissance along with the concept of improving groups of people to improve society. However, like all virtues, self-improvement or personal development can come with a dark side that is exposed when the virtue itself is placed on a pedestal or idolized without regard to the thoughts and rights of those we consider 'lesser' than us. When this happens, any noble or virtuous ideas are shown to be the shallow horrors that they can become ... the virtue is pulled and stretched out of its normal view to a pained and stretched mask of what it actually is. During the twentieth century, the themes of human breeding, genetics, prejudice, self-improvement and social progress collided to serve the virtue of better breeding and health of human beings. Eugenics, which means 'well born', was born and This movement was created in America and was so strong and large that it was able to spawn into other cultures and countries before its horrors and Machiavellianism tendencies became apparent enough to create a sizeable opposition that attempted to crush it. In response to the common belief that eugenics was no longer an important movement after World War II, I will discuss briefly the history of eugenics in the United States before WWII and then analyze the way the movement changed after the war. I will show that the ideas behind eugenics are still alive, well and being acted upon in our recent history. Recognizing the way the movement itself has adapted to our changing culture and its opposition helps place us in an informed position to focus on the fearful and reactive areas of ourselves and our society so we may work to create a more lasting and peaceful change in our thoughts and fears. Hopefully, that will help us change how we act upon our fears and prejudices and how we justify acting on them in our communities and society.

pictures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Eugenics_supporters_hold_signs_on_Wall_Street.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

The International Committee of the Red Cross and Neutrality

One thing that I looked at this semester was the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross)and the idea and guide they follow of neutrality. I found myself thinking about neutrality and truly being impartial and whether it is possible. After researching this for a few days, I have decided that the International Committee of the Red Cross but remain neutral… and can’t actually do so… and are not seen as neutral in areas where it counts… and therefore should either reclaim its neutrality or ‘let it go’. Some people will not agree with the statements that I made previously so I would like to take this opportunity to explain what my thoughts are on this subject.

The ICRC was ‘started’ in 1876 as a loose organization work towards helping people in need- whether from natural disasters, wars, etc…Part of the original creed was to be neutral and to give help that was not dependent on political, religious or ideological acts or purposes. To provide humanitarian help while remaining neutral allows the Red Cross to be able to get into places more safely then they could otherwise and they can help anyone and not have to worry about who is guilty or who is innocent or whether the war is just or not. That is a great and wonderful mission. With that kind of reputation and example and being able to see how the Red Cross can get into prisons that no one else can get into and war fields and towns under assault and create ‘safe areas’ and help anyone. I guess the problem I see is that I do not feel like as an organization it can ever be fully neutral nor be seen as such.

Any organization, even a non- profit has goals and needs money and volunteers/ employees to accomplish them. So this organization depends on donations and as it is a large organization…. It requires a lot! The 2010 budget for the ICRC is thought to be around 1156 million Swiss francs which comes from voluntary donations from individuals or organizations during annual appeals or emergency appeals for specific situations. However, most of that money doesn’t come from individual donors- over three fourths of their budget comes from governments or states including the US and Canada. It’s not that far a stretch to recognize that these large donors can restrict some ways that their funds are used according to their own political, religious or ideological visions. There is evidence that this happens as US aid is not able to be used to perform abortions no matter the circumstances the woman is in or her life and other countries have placed those same restrictions as well. (As recently as 2013, the United Kingdom removed this restriction from their funding. It is estimated that around 16% of their donations are tightly limited in how and where the funds can be used. So understanding that aid has ‘strings’ to it is a recognition that the organization can only be as neutral as its donations allow it to be. Also, recognizing that the aid is being paid for with donations from countries that are actively encouraging foreign intervention in your country or even actively engaged in war… well, how can that really be seen as neutral? We also need to recognize that this organization is run by human beings who will come with their own biases, prejudices and may not always recognize them. Lastly, the ICRC is and has always been run by people in Switzerland. I am not saying that is a problem, but it doesn’t suggest true international participation or understanding if the hierarchy is also chosen and kept in one country. In fact, it suggests a bias because the country itself gains from the reputation of the organization and the money that pours in helping its economy, its citizens etc… Another example is that ICRC has created a corporate ‘arm’ (Corporate Support Group) which was developed and consists of businessmen and companies both in Switzerland and foreign states to promote economic well-being around the world and to give the organization private sector support. They do restrict members to individuals or organizations that are of “good ethical standing and membership {and} will therefore be restricted to a limited circle of companies whose activities are compatible with the ICRC’s principles and mandate.” It is not difficult for people to look at this arm of the organization and see that it has a bias. Yes, the ICRC wants members that are ethical and in ‘good standing’… however, the public sector always has a bias and that view will not always be swallowed up into best practices. Profit, the business's needs and mission, all those will potential influence where their donations they give are spent and how. Hence, even in neutrality, it is difficult to find a way to be impartial.

I guess I do not see that the International Committee of the Red Cross is still perceived as ‘neutral’ as it is trying to say it is. There is evidence that other groups do not see them as neutral or impartial that can be seen when we look at physical attacks on their buildings such as the attack on the ICRC headquarters in Bagdad in 2003 and the attack on their headquarters in Panjshir Valley, Afghanistan in 2013. There are complaints by other NGO’s that have most of the same goals and the Red Cross doesn’t actively work well with them. It suggests that all of these groups including the Red Cross are more worried about their group and its wants/ needs than the people they are serving. Some writers suggest that aid groups actually help further war, make it more likely for violence to happen, and keep it going longer than actually countering and stopping it. That seems counter-intuitive at best, and hypocritical and anti-humanitarian at worst.

So I go back to my original thoughts. I think the organization should remain neutral by reclaiming their neutrality or they need to let it go and be like a lot of the NGO’s that they do not believe are neutral. I think that opening up the hierarchy to people from other countries, amputating their corporate arm and making it totally separate and unrelated, being willing and working towards a most positive relationship with other groups and not accepting funds for their ‘neutral’ agency that have restrictions on them. In fact, I bet that funds might be less likely to be restricted by some countries if the information got out that the funds were only offered with strings attached... as people would then know and be more motivated to work on changing that. Those are my thoughts…

pictures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross, http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs013/1102236947549/archive/1102881847169.html, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/29/red-cross-afghanistan-suicide-bombers

Modern European History - Disecting a 'Tale of Two Cities' from 1958

So one of the things that I have been learning this semester is how to do a historical matrix. I have a few under my belt at this point and what they tend to entail is watching a film that has both a plot and the historical situation involved in it. Teasing out both pieces and then discussing them is the assignment and while I am finding it a little difficult, here is an altered version of my first one. I have altered it a little because I have no idea how to create columns and rows on a blog page and I also have removed a few personal comments. This post is based on the film “Tale of Two Cities” released in 1958 If you have a chance, watch the one produced in 1935... it is better. :)


Can I start this matrix/assignment by saying that I find this time frame challenging to study as its such a difficult time period. What a struggle to live during that time... the French Revolution is one of the most challenging times to focus on. It just seems so vicious for all who lived then whether you were in France of not....but France was definitely the worst I think. The older version seemed more true to the book as well... I didn't feel quite the atmosphere in this movie that I felt in the book and the older version.

Summary of the Movie

Broadly, this film is about the struggles of many people during the beginning of the French Revolution. There are several characters of various walks of life whose lives interweave in both painful and distressing ways. We learn about Dr Mannette and visit he makes to the home of a nobleman (we later learn his name is Darnay) where he watches the deaths of two young people and learns of the death of their father. Unwilling to ignore the horrors he has seen, he reports the aristocrat and Dr Manette is not seen again outside the Bastille for eighteen years. When he gets out he is housed by an old servant (Mr Defarge) who keeps him their until the doctor's daughter Lucy and his banker arrive to pick him up and take him to peace and safety in England. On the way down, Lucy Mannette meets both a nobleman named Charles Darnay and a barrister named Sydney Carton. Due to a set up, Mr Darney is tried for treason and manages to be acquitted with the help of Mr Carton. Both men return to England as both men are in love with Lucy; however, Mr Darnay wins Lucy's hand in marriage. Within six months of their marriage Lucy is pregnant and Mr Darnay discovers that some of his servants in France have been locked up and need his help. Knowing it is dangerous, he returned to France and is immediately arrested and thrown into jail.

The Bastille is successfully stormed and its prisoners released as well as its large stockpile of weapons and gunpowder. At the head of the mob is Mr. Defarge along with his wife- she is the only living relative of the three deaths at the beginning of the book whose telling caused Doctor Manette to be sent to the Bastille. Within six months of their marriage Lucy is pregnant and Mr Darnay discovers that some of his servants in France have been locked up and need his help. Knowing it is dangerous, he returned to France and is immediately arrested and thrown into jail. Lucy returned to Paris with her companion Posy and Sydney due to her concern for Charles and soon it is apparent that Mr Darney will be put to death as an aristocrat and for the bad deeds of members of his family. Sydney, in his attempt to save Lucy, the life of her unborn child, and her sorrow over the mental health and life of her husband, blackmails a prison guard that he recognizes from England to help him and with the help of this man and Mr. Lorey, he (Sydney) managed to get Lucy and Charles with their belonging back to England. Sydney Carton takes the place of Charles Darney and pretends to be the defeated aristocrat until this death.

Historical Matrix - The order runs as follows: each number has two sections. The first section shows the part of the film picked for analysis and a brief description of the scene. The second contains the analysis. :)

1. Minute 13; quote by aristocrat Evrémondes ...Dr Mannette is told by an unknown noble (after watching a young girl die)... “Doctor, you are not summoned here to listen to the babbling of this kind... You may forget these serfs. I only wish to impress upon you doctor that the things you have seen and heard in this house are not to be spoken of. You would do well to mark that.” (I do not remember this scene in either the book or the older movie)

I think this scene was included to give us (the modern reader / watcher) members, but understanding of how the majority of people – or serfs- were treated in this society. They were cherished by family members and maybe even by community, but as serfs they owned nothing except their feelings and thoughts. Their lives, energy, possessions, etc... were all owned by the noble who owned them and the land they worked. This scene suggests how the majority of nobles probably felt about their serfs in this time frame; like property without feelings or lives, just to work for them and accomplish what the nobleman wishes. If they die or 'break' more are created through birth to take their place... and as such easily replaced if necessary or if the personality or looks of one were not to the owner's liking.

2. Minute 1:03; quote by Mrs. Defarge ... “You're the one who shot the people down. Genocide!”

I think this scene is trying to express and show us a few things. First, the peasants no longer worry about being killed as they are dying of starvation and other problems. In this sense, the number of dissatisfied and frantic people creates a form of 'mob' mentality. Death is no longer the peasant's primary concern. As the mob realizes that they are winning the mood of the group not only continues to focus on its anger and for some revenge, the peasants feel no pause at harming anyone they see as an enemy- even people who are only following the orders given to them... people who may not be that far removed from the peasants themselves in money or station. Those who have felt oppressed or overpowered rarely deal with great power in the most rational and truly 'right' and fair ways. The deaths of the king's men at the Bastille and even some of the aristocrats show that. You can hear in the laughter and the yelling the total out-of control nature of the peasants in the mob. When I was watching some of the footage of the Egyptian protests during the 'Arab Spring', I could see some of the same play of emotions of the people's faces as they fought.

3. Minute 1:08; quote by unknown servant of Mr Darnay - “What have any of these others done?” Mrs Defarge - “You ate, while we starve!”

These thoughts express both the bewilderment of those who have been removed from power or those who had some more control over their lives.... and the anger and need to 'scapegoat' that many of the peasants felt. When people make others into a scapegoat, it also absolves the 'scapegoat-er' of any wrongdoing and gives them justification for their poor behavior. We still do this today to so many people and groups over perceived grievances. I think that sometimes we as humans are so anxious for change that we do not realize that things can't be instantaneous... it causes chaos as the differing sides fight and struggle. Bloodless revolutions or large change usually take 'time'... very rarely does history give us King William and Mary. :)

4. Minute 1:10-12; Quotes - Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton talk of responsibility. Carton – “How simple it all sounds. Far simpler than I'd imagined. Goodbye to France. Farewell to all responsibilities.” Darney - “I have been selfish. I should have gone back to France when my cousin died... worked out and supervised all I meant to do.” Carton - “I see. In view of that I hope you won't contemplate doing anything foolish.” Darney - “You must leave me to make my own decision.”

This scene helps to show the hierarchy of the society and the challenges and responsibility that came with each 'station' of life. Even though aristocrats and the nobles had different problems than the other classes they too had responsibilities and things that they were required to do as well. For those who had some thoughts that were influenced by the Enlightenment, they were in a double bind... being pushed in two directions as all sides fought farther apart to hold onto what they had and to attempt to gain more. Today, we can see the same problems... the gaps between the 'haves' and 'have nots' are growing in all countries and so all people feel the tension and the struggle that is starting to build between us.

5. Minute 1:41-44; Sydney Carton sits alone in the cell.

At all times in every person's life we have times where we have done something challenging, or must or feel we must make choices that break us. How we make those choices shows our character and what truly does matter to us. Whether rich or poor, male or female, no matter our station in life, all of us must make these choices or they may be made for us. Some must reflect longer on their choices, but all will feel them and the pain they cause No character in my life from a book with one exception has ever made more of an impression on me. I have named a beloved pet after him, writing many stories and thoughts about him. This character always reminds me that in all of us is the ability to care and do amazing things... we need only have the strength and motivation to do so. I hope that I do in the mountains and pits of my life.

6.

Minute 150-151; Sidney Carton - “Suddenly I want to weep, but I must hold my tears in check less they think it is myself I weep for.... and who would weep for Sydney Carton? A little time ago none in all the world... but someone will weep for me now. And that knowledge redeems a worthless life. Worthless but for this final moment which makes it all worthwhile. It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done. It is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known.”

We all weep for the Sydney Cartons of the world. “There must be some appeal - some chance of a reprieve” And at some point most of us give – maybe not our lives, but a part of us to take away the pain or a punishment of another. All we do to help our fellow human beings find joy and relief throughout all the ages of history matters … even when most do not remember or know of their existence.


Have a great day, my friends... and hope you enjoyed :)

Angry Fruit : Before the Birds (Commentary on the “Grapes of Wrath”)

When I was in high school, I was introduced to the novel “The Grapes of Wrath” written by John Steinbeck. A masterpiece of depth and feeling wrapped around the story of a small family in the environment of the Great Depression. There are so many aspects to the story that are worthy of note, conversation and introspection, for even today the lessons that the author intends us to learn are still questions and attitudes that we struggle with today in our society. As a high school student, I was intrigued and saddened by the story of a young man fresh out of jail who goes home to his family to watch and help as they are forced off their land, struggle on to California and then to find himself an outlaw for his actions as much as for his place in society and the powerlessness of the many underneath the crushing heel and whim of the few. It is a symbiotic relationship that humanity aspires to- one of equality and opportunity for everyone- that we as humanity may never reach. So I thought that I would focus my thoughts not on the story or the lessons themselves that were brought to my mind again in this class, but to peer into the thoughts and images of my mind that come with the quotes that stuck in my mind long after the initial hearing of them.

Tom - (shakes head) “Anybody ever told me I'd be hiding out at my own place...”

Grandpa - “My dirt – it's no good, but it's mine”

While growing up, I would hear the words of the people around me talk about how hard work can get you anything in life you want. How being good and motivated and virtuous can make you rich, get you the things that you want in life and make life generally pleasant and easy. A part of those ideas have never made sense to me as I struggled to find a way to understand life, people and relationships in the dysfunctional household that I was to reach adulthood in. And as I have studied and watched many different kinds of people that have flitted in and out of my life, I have realized that those words only had a brief kernel of truth in them. With few exceptions, the only way to reach the ideal of wealth and a life of your choosing the individual must also be lucky enough to have a good background, a family with enough resources to get them the education, health and the resources that allow the 'hard work' of the individual to get them their desires. For the majority of humanity, especially women and those of a minority class... those are blessings or luck that no matter how hard they work, the individual will not get. The majority of people wish to own land, to own things... in fact, many of us derive our base worth to ourselves based on these things – what we own, what we do for a living, etc... Owning things gives us a feeling of security, safety and a sense of worth, but for most of us everything we 'own' is actually owned by a bank and we will spend our lives paying for those things. A wrong move- a recession, a lay off, a disabled child, etc... and we fall and break. No amount of hard work can save everyone in these situations no matter how good they are. A sad, but true fact.

Ma Joad - “There was a boundary to us then... there ain't nothing that keeps us clear.... There ain't no family now.”

“How big the country is … How small we are.”

In the study of history, we can look at the hierarchy of the medieval world with an understanding of place and power. To whom you were born set up the course of your life and no amount of motivation or work could change that. If you were a prince, your future was fairly set... you became a king, died as a prince or lived a life at court with its specific sets of rules and responsibilities. If you were born to a serf, then you were a serf for life... almost no exceptions. There was no intermarriage between the different groups of classes of which there were usually considered three – the nobles and monarchy, the clergy and church, and the 'rest' of us. With the French Revolution, and the other revolutions and uprisings that happened in the western world in the late 1770s and later years. For the lower classes wanted to have more opportunities open to them. So we come to ourselves and today. The struggle for equality has given so many more people opportunities to rise and the lines of hierarchy have become blurred. However, the lines of power and wealth have not blurred much allowing only a few more in and keeping the rest of us in control by the ideals mentioned above. If we all think that we can also be successful by working hard, then we are less likely to band together and recognize the true reality. And the reality is that as we have gained more rights for women and minorities we have also lost some as well. However, what we have lost is mostly something that we 'think' we had yet maybe never did. We have lost the concept of family and what are duties are in it. So we argue about what constitutes a family today but only when it comes to a few things. Other things break the family apart- economics, society, but we argue about 'what' constitutes the family itself. Our generation looks back and sees a 'rosy' past... that never existed. We as individuals struggle to understand our place in the world, our collapsing communities and our responsibilities as members of the human race. Our perspectives of the world and ourselves are what we use to wade our way into the waters of our futures... to keep our place and an understanding. Otherwise, we worry about being swept away in the crowd and that vastness of the world around us. We try to control and create order in the things that we can... to feel the security and serenity we crave.

Tom - “I just don't know who to blame.”

Preacher - “There ain't no sin and there ain’t no virtue. It's just what folks does....”

When things go wrong in our lives and the world, we tend to look around for the scapegoat. Humans have done that for so long that many people do not even understand today what the origin of the term actually means or how it came about. (It is from an ancient Jewish tradition in which the sins of the people are figuratively cast onto a goat and it is driven away into the desert to die as a part of the rituals alined with the Day of Atonement). If we look at psychology, we see how easily we find reasonable excuses for our own poor behavior/mistakes and yet we do not tend to allow others the same leeway for the same behavior. So we throw the evil and guilt we feel in ourselves out and project it towards others hoping to alleviate our suffering and to feel 'pure' again. So all of us continue to do so... and so we distract from real issues by pointing our fingers at others. Republicans point at the debt ceiling and big government and keep us from looking at the facts that the middle class is declining, the poorer classes are swelling and almost all economic gains are going straight to the top one percent. Democrats complain about the republicans but do not do anything but complain. Independents have no chance because of low numbers.

Conservatives blame homosexuals and their behavior for breaking up the family and proclaim abortion as murder, but they do not tend to adopt, to help children in foster care... to create a supportive society that would make abortion unnecessary nor to they acknowledge the good and the benefit of homosexual marriage. Liberals fight for the right to marry for all and for available abortion, but do not seem to acknowledge the fears and concerns of the other side and dismiss them... which tends to bring both sides even farther apart and to continue to demonize each other. Marriages break up and both sides point to the other party – friends and family split off into sides like there is something to win. Our perceptions and views on life and people color how we view the world, how we blame others and how we see our future possibilities.

Gas Station Attendant – 'A human couldn't stand to be so miserable.'

The Great Depression was a horrible time; a time of hunger, homelessness, and despair for most. People would do almost anything for any security or food. Those with money had the power over the lives of thousands. Severe conditions tend to make most of us fall into the physical and emotional traps that stress caused. We are less rational, less able to think, more desperate. Good works, intelligence, decision making and emotional control are the losers when our body is under stress for long periods of time. In desperate times, we can hurt each other- even those we dearly love- to gain a few morsels of food if we are so very hungered. We can break every virtue we believe in if we are desperate enough. We are currently living through the storm of recession and social change... a time where moderation doesn't seem to exist and being kind can be challenging. Daily, people are dying from torture, bombs, etc.. based on blame- the blame of religion, politics, or simply being in the way of other's viewpoints and motives. The Great Depression was in many ways so similar to what we face today...yes, we have more food (in theory) but the storm of culture, wealth and power, and change continues today. How will it end... I wonder.

An Open Letter to Tsar Peter I from King Louis XIV of France

This was one of the most challenging assignments I ever have had. Pretend, etc... is not a strong suit for me and when we were asked to 'write' a letter as one particular monarch to another... well, I will admit that I avoided the assignment until I couldn't any longer! So I have finished it and I don't think its too bad considering I feel like it's waffle. :) So here is a letter from King Louis XIV of France to his Russian Counterpart, Peter I (the Great). What do you think? Is it a lot of waffle or maybe a bit interesting... I would have happily written a ten page paper on the both of these men to get out of this letter....


To my esteemed colleague Tsar Peter Alexeyevich, Emperor of all the Russias

It was with genuine pleasure that I dictate these words in response to your communication dated August last, 1714.

I was much pleased to watch over the last few years of the many reforms and cultural improvements that you have commenced to put into place with great enthusiasm and vigor. I know from personal experience the challenges and deft hand it takes to create great changes in social culture as well as the difficulties of controlling the wayward and selfish of those in our realms who would rebel against us and our divine responsibilities as rulers over those the Lord has put into our dominion. Controlling and appealing to the natures of the aristocracy- many of whom consistently seem to forget their place in society and endeavor to pull themselves up to heights that their God did not deem proper has been a challenge for both of us from our tender years to now. I wish to congratulate you on your tax reforms as well as your ingenuity in using the ideals of loyalty and meritocracy to control and distract those in noble stations who might distract you from continuing to improve the lives of those under your care. Your efforts towards a strong military have also been noticed and I compliment you highly on the strength and organization of it. It is quite a formidable force at this point and I would be quite shocked if it disappointed you in your quest for more liberal trading routes and partners.

One thing that I find myself quite puzzled and repelled by is your consistent desire to ignore or demolish ritual anywhere you can find it. Ritual is an important part of monarchical and universal law; important and clear to show and maintain the appropriate order as well as an example to those in society of the proper and necessary conduct to the monarch as God's 'lieutenant'. I know you have mentioned that I should address you as simply 'Peter'... as if I could possibly consent to such disrepute and impropriety. I, myself, have recently begun to wear a new ornamental clothing around my neck which is an accessory that I am using to show my high rank as well as wealth and importance.  Already, many of the noble classes here have begun to wear these 'neckties' and I am confident that this new addition to my wardrobe and to social ritual will continue to become a symbol of importance and honor over time.  My dear friend, please consider these things when continuing to confuse God's order between yourself and your subjects by such frivolity and informality.


I was distressed to hear through the courier channels and from your own pen of your challenges of health in the last winter and relived to know of your continued improvement and robust health. I have heard many tales of your legal reforms and the beauty of your new city of Saint Petersburg. I hope your inspiration for a grand residence in the style of my 'Versailles' is able to come to fruition in your lifetime. As to mine, I have little left and I am reluctant but ready to face my God when that time comes as it must soon. Please do not follow my example and leave the future of the state and your subjects as uncertain as I have. I think it may have been the mistake that may undo all I have managed to accomplish in my life. By outliving my heirs of legal succession, I have left a power vacuum that surrounds my grandson and I fear it could swallow him. Pray mind my advice in this matter.

With much thought and salutations,

King Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre

Stories from the Bible: Tamar

One of my favorite people to think about in the Old Testament is Tamar. Many people haven't actually heard of her and I suspect that's for a few reasons. With very few exceptions we do not hear much about women in the scriptures anyway and those exceptions tend to be women who are being held up as bad examples. A wonderful LDS feminist named Laurel Thatcher Ulrich wrote a book whose title has become quite a popular catch phrase that pretty succinctly makes that point: “Well -Behaved Women Seldom Make History.” Another reason is that in many ways, Tamar's story is very peripheral to even the group of stories that she is in. One of the things that I find interesting is that her story was even included at all... and I think of the thousands of women whose stories weren't included at all. I wonder what makes her story so special in the fact that it was considered important enough to include it or if her story was only included because of the men in it.

Tamar's story is short and actually begins when she is old enough to marry. In Genesis, Tamar is first mentioned when she married Judah's oldest son named Er. That marriage was short lived as her husband dies due to his wickedness and Tamar was left widowed and childless. According to tradition, Tamar would then be married to the next oldest son to create children/heirs for her deceased husband. So she was married to Onan, who had no interest in creating any children as they wouldn't be 'his' to claim and so he would pull out before of Tamar while having sex with her so that she couldn't get pregnant. Onan also died prematurely and soon Tamar was widowed and still childless... again. Tradition would have her married to the next brother (whose name is Shelah), however, Judah is portrayed as being pretty wary at this point. Wondering if Tamar is cursed, he feels reluctant to promise his youngest son and so he tells Tamar that she must wait until Shelah reaches manhood. Tamar, having little choice in the matter, waits and even after Shalah is grown and Judah himself becomes a widower, she is still waiting. It becomes clear that Judah wasn't willing to risk his last heir but marrying him to her.

The writer doesn't mention how long it takes Tamar to realize that Judah never intends to follow through on his word and that she is trapped in a perpetual circle. She is back with her family waiting to return to her new family... yet she has little to no status in her new family heirarchy as she is widowed, alone and childless. Unable to marry anyone else to change her situation and yet betrothed but alone, she makes a really interesting and brave gamble. When her father in law, Judah, is headed to a different town for business, she dresses up and sits by the city gates, suggesting by this positioning and environment that she is a prostitute. It is thought that she had knowledge that he had sometimes used prostitutes at that area and as the women would wear veils to disguise their identity, that could help her do so as well. Things apparently went according to her plan and her offer was accepted. Judah didn't have any money so after the services were rendered he offered to send her a goat from his flock. As a pledge, she accepted his staff and his personal seal which were items that were of great worth to him. Later, when a friend of Judah's comes with the goat to make payment and exchange, no one could find the prostitute. Tamar had gone home to her family and had no told anyone around the area who she was and didn't tell her family what she had done. So Judah kept the goat and didn't say anything about it so that he could hide his embarrassment as well as the sin.

Some months later it became apparent that Tamar was pregnant... an unacceptable condition for an unmarried woman during that time. When the news of her pregnancy makes its way to Judah, in his anger and his position as the tribal leader, accuses her of 'playing the whore' and sentences her to death for her adultery (Even though she is currently unmarried, she is still betrothed to Shelah so her actions would be considered adultery... as well as the actions of her partner.) When Tamar learns of her sentence, she appeals to Judah giving him his staff and seal and letting him know that the 'owner' of them is her 'partner'. In his words, “She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah, my son” - Genesis 38:24 Realizing his culpability as well as his potential difficulties, Judah admits his guilt and he acknowledges the appropriateness of Tamar's behavior. She later gives birth to twin boy who are named Perez and Zerah.

I find many things about this story interesting to think about. One thing is something I mentioned before. Why is this particular story including in the book and was considered important enough to write down in the first place. The only characters that are consistent in the story (or at least survive through it) are Tamar, Judah and Shelah. Judah is one of Joseph's brothers (the Joseph who was sold by his brothers and send to Egypt) and the leader of his own tribe. He was married and he had children with her. Judah chose Tamar to be the wife of his oldest son Er so he, in theory, knew a bit about her and her family. What we know about her family is that she was probably not Jewish as she in not listed or named as a descendant of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Tamar can be seen as a women of integrity doing all she can to follow the cultural rules of her tribe and and Levirite law. She could have either married into a different family or simply stayed a widow. However, she could also have been seen as a co-conspirator with both of her dead husbands and therefore, immoral. Her choice to follow the 'higher' law as set by God and to try and create an heir for Er was risky and dangerous to her reputation as well as her life, but did end up working out for her. In fact, her son Perez gives her not only blessings (and is mentioned in the story of Ruth later in the book), but Perez makes her a direct descendant of King David and part of the Messianic line to Jesus Christ himself. Some people have suggested that the story of Judah and Tamar is put in the scriptures to emphasize how good Joseph was in comparison to his siblings. This story even seems to suggest that Tamar herself was more loyal to the tribe of Judah than he was himself.

Another thought is I really wonder how Tamar was able to pull off the trick. Judah helped pick her for his first son as a wife, married her to his second son who then dies, and was concerned enough about her potential to cause harm to his last son that he risked the wrath of God, etc to not keep his word on the betrothal. His quick temper and enthusiasm to accuse her of adultery and sentence her to death without really talking or doing any research on it suggests to me fear of her as well as anger. So it begs the question: how did he not recognize her... even dressed as a prostitute and not a widow? Can any of you when thinking of the people in your family contemplate the mistake he made? How could he possible not recognize something- voice, movement... anything? I guess I find that stunning and semi- unbelievable.

I also wonder how Tamar felt through all of this. Did she love Er...? Since her marriage was arranged, were they friends, tentatively polite...? How did she feel about marrying her brother in law... and his treatment of her? Heck, what if she loved her first husband and afterward had to deal with her grief and changed circumstances while marrying a man she did have feelings for.... or worse, didn't like at all. Certainly his treatment of her if she did want a child must have been hurtful and frustrating. Then Onan died and here she was alone again... back with her family and childless.

Then the waiting, watching Shelah grow up and imaging her potential life with him... and then realizing it wasn't going to happen. I wonder how long it took her to come to that conclusion and the mixed emotions that came with that.... When she made her plan to prostitute herself to Judah, was it a happy plan.? She didn't really have any way of knowing for sure that it would be successful and end in pregnancy? Would she have been willing to do that more than once...? Did she do that more than once? If nothing else, she must have had some decent acting skills. :) What a painful and challenging set of circumstances for anyone. Some versions of the story suggest she was celibate for the rest of her life while other versions suggest she lived with Judah as his wife and together they raised the twins... how did that work for her in either situation? Were her children worth it for her? Does she have regret for any of this?

So, why do you think this story is in the scriptures? What do you feel or like about this story? Do you feel like you learn anything when reading it? What do you think of Tamar? What might you have done in her place?