Poetry Submission

I ended up having a little down time today which was much needed and very unexpected. I discovered in one of my favorite LDS Facebook groups (The Exponent) that there was a request for poetry submissions and so I have happily spent the morning hunting through my miscellaneous scraps and posts of poetry for some submissions. I have submitted my chosen poetry and have posted my choices below. All have been published previously on this blog and I have linked each poem to the original post. This was a bit of fun today and it felt wonderful to share some of my work. I needed this opportunity today.


The Spirit of Peace

Eyes closed, breathe deep

legs crossed, head bowed

Feel the world around you

the breeze that lovingly envelopes you

the warmth that seeps through your skin

the spirit that whispers to your heart

Whisper your needs, hear him answer

Give him your heart, feel his love

Breathe in, clear your mind

the thoughts that bring you down

the worries that fret your soul

the fears that trap your agency

Listen with all your being

Be open, be loving, be joyful

Be you!


The Unexpected Change

Relief, sweeping relief

the surprising news comes

My heart feels lighter, suspended

the fear is dissolving, the air more clear

Tears pour down with gratitude

Nothing has changed... just one small tweak

yet the whole world is righted

moving forward feels possible, even doable

Thank you, Father... thanks for hearing

the prayer I didn't dare dream … or whisper


Night Swimming

A click and the darkness flows

quickly to fill all space

cool sheets press against my cheek

arms flayed, spread out

feet dangling in the air

a slight breeze moves the air

leaving ripples of breath and hair

floating, gliding, sinking in the deep

and even though my physical sense hasn't moved

hasn't budged, hasn't twitched

I sense the waves of exhaustion flow in

the riptide of need to rest, to forget, to lessen

A whirlpool of darkness, soft voices and purring

And you sink down, down into the abyss

the light patterns on your lids begin to fade

from white to green and blue

and suddenly you're gone and only spiritual remains

The tide flows by and pulls you in.....

… the hamster on the wheel

… the fears of your heart

… the images of film explored

… the joy of memories relived

… the revelation of things to come

together they flow, merge and tug your mind

As they merge, your breathing slows

yet your mind is full of visions

sometimes you backstroke and float unaided

and sometimes your fears win

Suddenly, the blue turns light

the darkness quickly fading

the movies gone, the images dissolve

only the emotions remain, dripping off

My eyes crash open, appendages start to twitch

consciousness and self break free

A stretch, a yawn... and the images are gone

A day of possibilities beyond

and yet I smile and think of evening

for the joys of night swimming


To Be

To dream is to stretch your soul

... to reach out of your reality to a new place

... to hope for future peace

To plan is to stretch your mind

... to focus on the changes that must be

... to hold onto a goal with purpose

To try is to acknowledge possibility

... of both failure and success

... to move onward anyway

To grow is to reach forth

... to know that to gain may cause pain

... that through adversity, we gain strength

To love is to believe

... to know that the Father loves us

... to have faith in ourselves

... to be


Journey of Recovery

Why so many challenges

I think as I fall

The fall doesn't hurt

The impact breaks all

I struggle to stand

The earth starts to shift

My heart feels torn

My mind feels adrift

How to recover – I do not know

This massive pain

Will it help me grow?

As I recover and life goes on...

Will I feel safe?

Will I ever feel strong?

I will stand up and try to pray

To think nice thoughts throughout the day

And watch for the light that shows the way

To charity, to life, to love secure

All I need is to but endure.


Please feel free to leave feedback if desired...

The Experiences of Kevin Michaud working for the ICRC

This was one of the most interesting and painful lectures I have ever listened to. I decided to write about the conversation with Kevin Michaud and some of the things he said… because my mind has continued to dwell on it over the weekend no matter how much I try and focus on other thoughts. I will sit down to do or read something and I will find that my mind will be dragged back to the lecture or the responses to questions that Mr. Michaud made. I have found myself bouncing back and forth in my thoughts between phrases I hear echoing from his talk and then an image I get from different readings. I think the fact that my brain does that is a testimony to how some of the experiences in genocide are so universal and so similar and how our perceptions of them in our learnings are also colored by what we see, expect and filter through our own thoughts, biases and experiences. So for those of you who didn’t make it to the seminar, here are a few excepts from it and my thoughts on them….


"Bill Clinton told his staff to not use the word genocide because if they did he would be required to act."

I read something about this in some of the links for the Rwandan genocide as well as the textbook reading. I’m not even sure what to say about this. It feels a little bit like a boy in a sandbox with all the toys and the adults are his and he sees a child sitting by the side of the sandbox… and he tells everyone to ignore that child so he doesn’t have to share his toys, blessings, benefits, etc… Was President Clinton too busy having sex with his interns to pay attention to the fact that people were dying and suffering in large numbers? (That was a low blow, sorry) Clearly not as he realized it and actively worked on making sure he didn’t have to do anything. I don’t understand how someone can become so focused on getting the job of the US presidency and then want to hold onto it so much that many of the reasons that they wanted that position are no longer valid…. and they no longer do what they say they wanted to do. I can recognize that as an outsider who has never had the job that I do not understand the nuances and stressors that the job actually entails. However, as a human being I am still accountable for my decisions by others and if I have picked values and things that I believe are important… I should stick with them. It’s a tiring phrase, but “What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right” is really true. Maybe he wouldn’t have been elected again, but he would have done the right thing and isn’t that what we are all supposed to do. I am once again disappointed in my country and the men and the few women who run it. I am constantly told that I am so blessed to be an American… it appears that I am because I can have a few freedoms women in other countries do not and can over consume and be a little safer. I’m not sure that is a blessing if I look at the fact that I live and consume and pay for leaders who let others die for their own comfort and mine… The sad thing is that President Clinton deeply regrets his decision to not act in this case and around the same time, the American public was angry at him for responding in Somalia (which is the main reason he chose to not send the military into Rwanda. I guess it’s easy for me to suggest the right choices now. It’s just so sad though...


"Investigating mass graves – more than twenty years on I still smell them"

What a painful statement… that he ended up making a few times over the discussions on the different situations and genocides he responded to. One thing that I thought was interesting about this statement was I thought I knew the reasons for examining mass graves- body count discover missing individuals, possible autopsy for causes of death, etc… When Kevin mentioned that he did that with the Red Cross it made me wonder what the full motivations and reasons for doing that really are and if the fact that he can still ‘smell’ it is really worthwhile. I found that the task of figuring out all the reasons was really challenging from an internet perspective and only found variations on the same ideas I had: ‘ finding out what happened’, ‘discover the missing or ‘lost’, quelling speculation and questions as well as to restore the dignity of the victims themselves. One site was specific that opening up and examining mass graves ‘provides vital evidence for war crime prosecutions’ while other sites had the same sentiment that examining these places of death helps bring the perpetrators to justice. My question on that is why is a ‘neutral’ group doing any of that process- I can’t imagine that looks neutral and I wondered if at least that particular trauma could be spared from people in these groups like the Red Cross….? So that is an idea that I need more information on and I am sorry that he had to deal with those images and smells along with the other things he did.


"I saw it… I still live it…. I’m broken"

This really hurt to hear and he repeated parts of it over and over again. It made me wonder if things might have been different for him if he had more breaks and more support between assignments and if they changed the assignments so that certain aspects of the job were held by different individuals allowing a little more sheltering of the one person on top. In some cases, I would see that as a bad thing, but in cases like this, I wonder if it would help protect the resiliency of the volunteers and those who give so much to it. Dealing with hatred and the consequences of it over and over and feeling beaten by it constantly is a process that cannot help by cause people to feel broken, to feel like the pain and trouble is so big that it overflows them and they can no longer be a whole person. Maybe that is one reason that I believe in reconciliation so much… I want people to be able to be whole. And maybe I feel so strongly because I want that for myself. I could never do his work… I wish that I could. A part of me has always wanted to help people, but when I try I feel like I not only haven’t made a difference, I have only hurt myself. When he was talking, I thought of a practice of repairing broken objects by the Japanese called Kintsukuroi. I don’t know much about it, but I have a picture of a vase on my wall that was repaired by it. The vase has several breaks in it- some that are from the top to the bottom- and it has been repaired by using precious metals like gold. It is no longer valuable only as a vase and something to look at but as something that retains both of its original attributes but now has value as something that has survived something bad and is more valuable and beautiful for it. I wonder how Kevin and those around him can help him heal and see the parts of him that haven’t healed in a twisted, ugly scar… but are healing into parts that are beautiful and more valuable than the original. Something that caused pain (and may still) but can also be cherished as a new part of the person. Maybe that is easy for me to say because I haven’t had his experiences and I probably will not, but that was what was in my mind as he spoke and I wished I had even a small way to help him fill the cracks with gold and things that make him feel more cherished and valued for his experiences and less ‘broken’.


"Some people are alive today because of what we did… the difference in the lives of a few people."


I am still torn from my research about whether Aid agencies are really helpful in the long term scheme of things. However, what I am sure of is that human beings have caused war as long as they have existed and some suggest even before we were ‘fully’ Homo sapiens. So even if the criticisms of NGO’s keeping wars going on longer is true, I’m not sure that we can give them full blame for the beginning of conflicts. And I do imagine that in the thick of it, he did help people survive who would have had no chance. Thinking about the man, walking down the beach and throwing starfish back into the seas… ‘What I do matters to this one.’ And that is good and right. In his place, I hope I would do the same thing.

I am so grateful for the experience to listen to him and to hear about his experiences. I hope he continues to find fulfilling things in his life and can feel less 'broken' over time. A good man.


pictures from: http://voiceseducation.org/content/rwanda-poetry-genocide, http://nehandaradio.com/2011/04/06/mass-grave-bodies-must-be-exhumed-by-forensic-experts/, https://www.pinterest.com/valerieglerum/11-scars-cuts-and-bruises/,

Blast From the Past.... 3/21/96 : 'The Bell Jar'

So, I was going through some old scrapbooks that I have and I found a few neat treasures. When I was younger I used to write a lot and English was one of my better subjects. Today I found a few old school reports that I wrote years ago. So I think I might share a few of them. :)

This paper is a book report of the publication “The Bell Jar” which was originally published by Harper and Row in 1971. It is the most well known book authored by Sylvia Plath, but originally published under the name of the pseudonym Victoria Lucas. I wrote this report and turned it in on March 21, 1996 for a Psychology class in my first few semesters of college. Part one is the book report summary that I wrote, part two is my analysis and thoughts on why the book is important to the field of psychology, and part three is my full analysis and conclusions I formed on the book. I haven't changed any of the wording – I entered it exactly as written – so its interesting to see how my writing has changed over time. This report earned me 100% / A . At the time, I was so proud and pleased and while I am not sure I deserved the grade after reading it again now, I hope you enjoy it. :)

Part I - Summary

Ester Greenwood, now 19, grew up in a small town with her brother and her mother. She is now in college, which she is able to afford because of a scholarship. As a hobby, she writes essays and small stories and sends them in to win contests, which she does win quite often. After winning one contest, she was sent to New York for one month, all expenses paid, to work as a junior editor of a fashion magazine. While there, she stayed in an all-women hotel called The Amazon. Her friend, Doreen, comes from a society girls school and carried an air of sophistication. She took Ester out to go to a party and on the way they stop and allow themselves to be picked up by some guys. One of them, Lenny Shepard, took Doreen and Ester to his house and when he Doreen became notably drunk and began to make out, Ester walked home. Later, when Doreen shows up drunk at her door, Ester resolves to become better friends with another girl (Betsy) who shares more of her values. Ester does have what could be loosely termed as a 'boyfriend'. Buddy Wilkins is currently studying to be a doctor, but doesn't see her much because he caught TB and is no residing in a recovery camp. Ester doesn't think of him as her boyfriend; she simply uses him as an excuse to others and to discourage the blind dates that were often heaped upon her.

Ester goes to one of the free luncheons with Betsy and shows her love for food, especially caviar. She eats until she is stuffed and, as bad luck would have it, when it is discovered that some food at the luncheon was poisoned, Ester was the sickest girl among them. In fact, all of the twelve participants in this contest were sick, except for Doreen who had skipped the luncheon to spend time with Lenny. It is at this time that her temporary boss questions her about her plans for the future and she realizes that she doesn't know what she wants to do after college. Right now, she is having a hard time with physics and is worried sick about chemistry next semester. Through a little trickery and persuasion, however, she manages to talk the dean of the college into allowing her to take chemistry, but because she had received an 'A' the semester before in physics (and she would easily get one again in chemistry), she would not have to test for her grade. She would simply be given an 'A' at the end of the semester. It was during this semester that Buddy's mother set her up with a visitor for another country so she would show him the city. She, still being a virgin and taking a liking to the fellow, decided to seduce him. Being a gentleman, he declined her advances.

At Christmas, Mrs. Wilkins picks her up and takes her to see Buddy at TB camp. There, he asks her to marry him, but refuses him saying that she doesn't want to marry anyone. She does stay for an extra day to spend time with him and allows him to attempt to teach her to ski. She has an accident, unfortunately, and breaks her leg. She then returns to New York and packs to go home, allowing Doreen to take her out for one last party. There she meets Marco, her first 'woman hater.' He is bitter because he is in love with his first cousin who is going to become a nun. He later tries to force himself on her and when she struggles and begins to cry, leaves very disgusted with her. She then goes and gets on a train for home.

After returning home, her mother informs her that she was not accepted into the writing class that she has depended on. She becomes depressed and when Buddy pushes her to come see him again, she terminates the relationship. She then goes through a period of indecisiveness where she starts and quits a novel, her thesis and other ideas. When she goes to see the family doctor about a stronger dose of sleeping medication, she is referred to Dr. Gordon, a psychiatrist.

After displaying no thought about personal hygiene or safety, Dr. Gordon starts her on Daily therapy sessions. Later, he tries shock therapy. After one dose, she tells her mother that she will not go again, which makes her mother very happy. During this time, an old friend sets her up with a young man named Cal with whom she discreetly brings up the subject of suicide and discusses with him the best ways to carry it out. After experimenting a few times and realizing that her body's defense mechanisms would always try and stop her, she stole her sleeping pills from her mothers lockbox and hid herself in the basement. She then took as many as she could before passing out. She is later found alive and taken to the hospital.

P. Ginea, a famous novelist, discovers what happened to her young fan and has her moved to a private psychiatric hospital. Here, she is given medication and ends up gaining a lot of weight. She also gets a new doctor named Dr. Nolan. In this place, she finds Joan, an old acquaintance that she had met in school and finds some common ground and insight into herself. She received a few more sessions of shock therapy and is then moved to Belside, the house for those who were almost 'cured' and would b sent back out into the outside world. Here, she is allowed to go to town where she meets Irwin. They date a few times and she decides to seduce him, which she later does. A complication from this painful act sends her to the emergency room. Later on, she is given the news that Joan has killed herself. A few weeks later she is taken to her interview that will release that will release her again to the outside world.

Part II – Importance to the Field of Psychology

I chose this book for many reasons. Most of the books on the provided list I had already read in my high school classes. I wanted a book that I hadn't read before, but also a book that might give me some insight into myself. I had no idea what topics this book discussed when I picked it up. I figured that if I didn't like it or it was too boring I could always get a different book.

Even though I really didn't enjoy the book, this book did appeal to me because of the wide range of topics it touched on. From motivation, behavior, social skills, to its main theme of depression, this book made me stop and wonder how I would deal with the same situations. The thing I liked best about the book was that it was written as if we were sitting in Ester's head and just listening to her thoughts and looking through her eyes. This made it almost impossible to tell when she first became depressed and how her disease progressed until you realize that she is extremely depressed and is thinking of killing herself.

The chapter that I thought best represents the whole book was chapter thirteen: Psychopathology. This chapter discusses many different kinds of mental illness or disorders and includes depression in this category. On page 512 of the required text, the entire page is dedicated to showing research that has been done on depression and what causes suicide. The book states that “while most depressed people do not commit suicide, most suicides are attempted by depressed people.” This suggests that if depression is found early enough in individuals and alleviated, we will have found a solution to our problem of the rise of suicide. Depression is most commonly brought about by failures, trauma or stress. The chapter also discusses signs and symptoms so you can recognize what depression is and what o do if you or anyone you know needs help. Reading this book also helped give me a perspective I have never had (and hopefully never will) and I hope it will make me more understanding to others in my environment when they just need a little boost.

Part III - Analysis and Conclusions

In all fairness, I would not have chosen this book as one of the books I have read for fun. Most books I chose to read allow me to escape from my life and find some comfort in a 'fantasy world' for a short period of time. I can't honestly say I enjoyed this book, but I can say that this book gave me some insight into a topic that I really hadn't thought of. I was able to follow Ester into her 'world' and feel with her, but I was detached enough so that I can see where rational thought ended and she gave herself up to depression.

The subject of depression will be pondered and studied for many years to come. Even in our advanced society, depression is hard to diagnose and very high percentages are never treated. Even though Ester was a fictional character, she was easy to identify with. To me, she represented the average person; just an individual trying to stay afloat in all the stress and worry of everyday life. I feel that this is a very important subject for many reasons. As technology becomes more advanced and human beings are competing for jobs with computers, problems with self esteem and uniqueness will occur. People will not feel able to compete with a machine that will never be sick, always be smarter, never too tired to work, and whose only weakness is that it must be attached an energy source. Problems at home will never cause it to low down and it will take little notice of small aggravations that you will find in the average workplace (mis-communication, personality conflicts, etc...) I believe that this will cause a rise in depression and other mental disorders.

In conclusion, I have to wonder about the author. After reading a little on her life from an autobiography, I admire her for trying to create a work like this. Any attempt to share feelings to try and enrich other generations is a noble cause. But one thought came to my mind and is nagging me for an answer which I can supply; was this book a cry for help from the author? Did she feel trapped and felt no hope? The autobiography says that she ended her own life. I just wonder why no one close to her, when reading her book, didn't notice similarities or suspect anything. Maybe she too, like so many others would still be alive today if someone had heard her cry for help.

Sideswipes of Ideals and the Clash of Life, Experience and Hope: Malcolm X

With the exception of knowing the name- having heard the title many times in my life, I knew almost nothing about Malcolm X. So as I sat in class and the lights were dimmed I was prepared (I thought) for learning and to discover more about the man that I knew so little about- a shame as a historian, but I will admit I am woefully inadequate on almost any topic on American history; that is semi intentional and a long story. I have seen a documentary by Spike Lee before and found it phenomenal. And each film that I have seen in class has provoked so much thought that I wondered what I would gain from this one besides a better understanding of the man's life. Here are my thoughts...

The start of the film with the burning flag was a really potent image. The flag- whether it is a stamp, a name, a picture, iron on art, etc... makes a very specific statement. It is a loaded image that creates a picture no matter who looks at it and in many cases makes a political statement as well. For some, the flag is a symbol of pure nationalism- some love America to the point of blindness and the flag symbolizes this feeling... the feeling of power and strength, the assumption of God's blessing on this, the best country. Even that God fits a profile- white, Christian, silent and unchanging through the years. For others the flag is a symbol of a country that they love and feel loyalty for, but they are also able to recognize that America and its flag can also be seen in very negative ways not only by some of those who are protected by its laws, but by many around the world. The image of the flag is seen for what many see as its true colors... the symbol of oppression towards many in the world... it's citizens, other states...anyone that isn't useful or in line with what 'America' wants. It's hard to attack these ideals and governmental policies, so people attack it's image... and that is the flag. There are many ways to insult or desecrate the flag, but burning appears to be one of the most popular. By total destruction as flames quickly like over the sewn threads and they vanish into smoke that is pulled up towards the sun. So, as I watched this image, I felt the pull of both sides of the argument.... those that I know who cannot see anything but their idealized vision of the world and those who have felt the pain and oppression that is the flip side of nationalism. And there is no middle ground- because individuals will force you be be part of one side or the other. I do not allow myself to use the flag or its images on anything. I do not use it on stamps, hang it on the wall, or even use decorations that use the colors or patterns that suggest or remind. I have been told by people that my dedication to that 'idea' is treasonous and that I am ashamed of my country, but I see a very fine distinction between love of my country and it's ideals... and the reality of what it truly is. What is truly does... and what it has done in the past. So I felt that pain and that anger as I watched the flag... and as it slowly began to burn, I didn't need to hear the world to feel the suffering, the pain and the anger. I could see it grow and build as the flag burned... a flame of heat that might never be extinguished...even though its object has vanished into smoke and ash.

So many times I heard the word 'boy'... and finally I got it. When I was in high school I used to call male classmates 'boys' if I thought they were immature or acting that way. One of them was black and the few times I called him a boy, my kind teacher would pull me aside and tell me I couldn't do that because it was racist. And I would walk away really confused and frustrated. I have never considered myself a racist and I couldn't see how the word boy could be racist... The N word, yes... but boy no. I see it now. More than twenty years later I understand and I am really horrified by my lack of understanding. As a silly white girl, I didn't get it and as an older but still silly white women I know see a glimmer of understanding and I am filled with the shame and remorse. Tyler, I never meant to really hurt you. I never saw myself as being racist or making any comment about your skin at all. I saw myself standing up for myself and calling out immaturity when I saw it. I am truly sorry. I wish I could take those words back and I will admit I do not use them anymore. Since I couldn't understand why they were racially offensive, I just didn't use them anymore. I learned new words that were probably more effective and I still use those. I know of no way to make amends for my ignorance and foolishness; in fact, I suspect that my new understanding shows how immature I was and what a small child mentally. I ask for your forgiveness and hope that whatever pain I caused was small and hopefully gone.

Elijah Mohammed : The question is -who are you?

All of us ask this question to ourselves at some point in our lives... and how we answer it determines our whole lives. His choices changed his life and the lives of many. Just as our choices change our lives. I know a few people who seem lost and I am unclear if they can answer the question that Elijah Mohammed asked. Sometimes I am not sure that I can honesty answer that question. There are times when I feel very confident of the answer, but the jargon that spews forth from my mind is a list of labels and if you think about it.... no person can be summed up in labels nor should they. Aren't labels really a way of wording or acknowledging a trait; a piece of the whole, but how can a label or lots of labels encompass the whole? I am a woman, used to be a wife, a religious observer, a writer, a mother, a celiac... and yet, none of those labels tell you much or give you a clear image of who I am, what is important to me.... anything. What a powerful individual Malcolm X was... to question and question and to work to really understand himself and develop his ideas. The self awareness and control that requires is something that many people never develop- it is certainly not one of my strong suits.

"Whites can help us, but they can't join us. There can be no black/white unity until there's first some black unity. We can not think of uniting with others until we have first learned to unite with ourselves. We can think of being acceptable to others until we have first proven acceptable to ourselves..."

This is a really strong statement and a hard reality. Back at the beginnings of the women's movement, many of the leaders that we are able to look back to realized that women would never be able to get any rights as long as any men were also denied rights. That is one reason that many feminists worked and fought for civil rights for African Americans. Malcolm X understood something very essential. Until we can look and work together in our smaller groups, we can easily be divided. Look at any group of people – your church congregations, family, school mates, etc... How easily they are challenged and develop divisions, cliques, and outcasts. Look how easily the American government talked the country into going to war with Iraq – You're with us or against us, patriot or traitor, etc... no middle ground. When those that are in power want something, it is easier to distract and the less powerful majority with other things and such definitive statements. It crushes dissent, freedom of expression and gets many of us to focus on things that are not really important. It's how many of us use our votes to help people enter government who will actually make choices that hurt us and our families... we are distracted by other things and issues that keep us chasing our own tails. We can see this disunity now between not only the races and genders, but between those with economic disparity, health issues, religion, etc...

"I told you to look behind the words and dig out the truth...locked us in chains, 100 million of us, broke up our families, cut us off from our language, our religion, our history.... "

My last thought is not a comfortable one. As I sat and watched the life of Malcolm Little unfold to the adult Malcolm X to the close of his mortality, I found the same question running through my mind. Martin Luther King Jr. was a wonderful man and did some great things. I mean no disrespect to him by my next question. I wonder why we as a nation celebrate Martin Luther King and his achievement... and gloss over Malcolm X. My thoughts as to why we as a nation do that are not very polite or politically correct. I wonder if we celebrate King because we feel more 'comfortable' with him. He is easy to like and his message while hard came through a man who in many ways was nice and easy.... Malcolm X can not be seen in rose colored glasses very well. If you put both the men side by side, Martin Luther King is much more palatable for a white audience- he was Christian to boot. And so we celebrate him and what he stood for and forget some of the things that he did that we wouldn't find acceptable such as his womanizing. (Malcolm X was clearly a more responsible and focused family man.) I guess I wonder if we accept him more because we are trying to turn MLK into a 'good black person' or make him more 'white'. That is not possible to do with Malcolm X... and so as a culture we push him aside. I wish I knew more people of color so that I could ask them: What are their feelings on both men and which one do they feel more comfortable with? Which one matters more when they look at history? And which man do they think was right? A long time ago, I heard the story of the first black mayor of some city whose surname if I recall was Ford. He said that in his job, he had to be 'fairer than fair' and couldn't just try to balance things. He had to always make sure that the balance card leaned more towards his 'white' voters so that they didn't feel he wasn't caring for them and choosing the 'black' population only. How many of our politicians (mostly white) worry about that? Malcolm X was accused of being a black supremacist and a racist and I cannot agree with those labels- He didn't want to destroy or damage the white race... he only wants the black race to have the same choices as the white race.... and the same consequences. It seems that even in our modern, tolerant world.... we haven't changed as much as we would like to think. I feel a bit like a small child again and the world looks different and stark and harsh. I wonder if we will ever be able to get past race in America.... I wonder...

Term Post #1 : Freedom of Speech, Censorship and the Role they play in Genocide

“Language is not only a means for exposing and discerning truth, but also for stifling and misrepresenting it.”

Human beings have been around on this planet for thousands of years and from what we know of the history of the human race, murder and genocide has accompanied our existence from the very beginning. Depending on your particular viewpoint of our beginnings (whether we have been 'created' or purely evolved from one celled organisms in a primordial ooze), the first murder was either committed within the second generation of God's chosen people or the first genocide is theorized by some paleontologists/ archeologists to have occurred between early humans (Homo sapiens) and Neanderthals back near the very beginnings of our race. The pages of written history are spattered with the blood and deaths of the innocent and those who were in the way of those in power due to race, culture, gender, religion or even misperception... and even in our modern, civilized world, we still perform crimes and acts against humanity as a whole destroying the peace and prosperity that we all long for. Over the last two hundred years as ways of communication have increased and information and news has become available to a larger percentage of the global population, historians and journalists have tried to appropriately document and report on the transgressions of government leaders and dictators. As such,these individuals are most likely to find themselves on the wrong side of governments and those in power. They are more likely to be bullied or tortured into silence, forced to help with propaganda campaigns to ensure their survival, and many are killed or imprisoned every year. In our current world, we can more easily discover these horrors and fight them, but it would be remiss of me to not acknowledge that people have risked their lives throughout the human time line to try and stop human rights violations. While most we will never know due to the lack of documentation and the time that has passed, we can acknowledge and be grateful for their sacrifices and existence. For many human rights advocates, language is one of their most commonly used weapon to share information, to bring violations to light, and to strengthen others in the fight and their cause. I wish to acknowledge some of the people who have given of their time, safety and freedom to future their ideals of freedom and safety for all.

It is my intention to take this opportunity to look at how leaders and dictators use government and armies to achieve their own ends while using the law and other forms of coercion to stifle and limit dissent or challenges to their ambition. One tool that governments and those in power use to restrain communication between individuals and the population at large is censorship. This a great tool which is used to limit language and ideas that the powers that be disagree with and restrict the ability for people to speak freely about their thoughts, lives and opinions. It is through the use of censorship and the limiting of freedom of speech that dictators and leaders control large population of people who feel oppressed and dissatisfied with life... and in some cases can eventually lead to genocide.

Freedom of speech and the ability to safely express opinions and views are widely considered to be a fundamental attribute of individual freedom. In the United States, James Madison argued at the very beginning of the colonies' development that government acts restricting speech and open debate were fundamentally wrong- yet it hasn't stopped other government officials or people in authority from attempting to control or limit speech that they find difficult or unacceptable and this pattern of repression continues into our current culture. While some laws restricting speech can be seen as reasonable- laws banning hate speech or allowing criminal responsibility for some forms of speech are an example, others can be seen as restricting and limiting of speech that should be protected and allowed. Examples from 1965 and today show how some patterns of repression continue even as leaders and times change. In 1965, John and Mary Beth Tinker were told that they were not allowed to wear black armbands in school as a statement against the American interference in Vietnam; their rights to do so were affirmed by the Supreme Court later on in Tinker vs Des Moines. In 2012, a school banned their cheerleaders from using positive, religious messages on their banners.... and a court again upheld the student's rights to free speech and expression. Determining the boundaries of where free speech should be curtailed have been debated since the idea came to fruition and even laws banning certain forms of hate speech can be seen as stifling legitimate views and expressions. As Charles Levendosky once opined, “One man's hate speech is another man's political statement. And political commentary has – and should have- the highest First Amendment Protection.” John Stuart Mill, who wrote a publication titled Essay on Liberty, stated “Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being “pushed to an extreme”; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.” Another related tool that those in authority use to control speech and ideas that they find distasteful is censorship; the control of verbal or pictorial speech by individuals or groups or manipulating what information people can receive and share as well as keeping information secret. To have a truly open and prosperous society, individuals need to have the ability to seek, receive and give out information to others. Censorship can be in seen in small ways such as when libraries remove or ban a book so that it cannot be used by patrons due to content.... to something as big and convoluted as the internet filtering that some states impose on its citizens such as Iran and China. Used together, governments or leaders can severely restrict and limit how people interact with their community, families and other groups.... even how they feel about life and where they live and the level of fear and anxiety they feel in their daily lives. There is some evidence that over time people begin to self censor themselves which potentially suppresses not only the ideas and expressions of the individual, but also those that surround that person- family, community, etc...

Unearthing and examining the history of different countries with a focus on how limited speech and effective censorship can not only cause a 'chilling' effect on people, but also potentially lead to human rights abuses and genocide is difficult the further back in time we travel. Many written records from our past were created by the victors of wars and conquests and so all documents that were written and survive to this day (with few exceptions) were written and distributed by those in power and therefore, not necessarily truthful or accurate. Perception is everything and we gain our views, ideas, and biases from our experiences, the people around us, and our environment... which is why censorship and limiting speech works so well, as the less input we have, the less information we have to develop our views in a well rounded way. It is easier for dictators to steer our thoughts/ actions and easier to convince people of the lack of humanity in others without the full ability to question the information coming at you if what input you get in controlled and focused on the message you want people to agree with. It is this process which eventually leads to propaganda, the process of combining different forms of communication to try and influence people and groups towards one viewpoint. It usually only shares one view of the position and along with censorship, suppresses alternative views and discourages inquiries challenging the stated position. And so, many of the documents that are available to historians can be seen as propaganda or, at the minimum, a limited view of the discussed topic.... one of the reasons that history can 'change' over time as more facts or perspectives are discovered. As M.C. Beaton once wrote, “The way propaganda works as any schoolboy knows is that if you say the same thing over and over again, lie or not, people begin to believe it.” And historians can be caught up in the same web as they try to separate fact from fiction and other altering viewpoints while governments and those in power try and restrict what information is available and how it is viewed. There is some evidence that governments have in some cases destroyed or culled materials from their records and archives to keep it from potentially being viewed and dissected even in our more modern and 'enlightened' times. When confronted with censorship, historians and the everyday individual must decide whether to collaborate with the government, impose censorship onto themselves, or resist and leave themselves open to persecution. These are important viewpoints to keep in mind when studying history, large groups, governments, leaders, etc...

So, how do the combination of limiting speech and the freedom of expression lead to crimes against humanity or genocide...? There are so many examples in the course of human events to chose from (unfortunately). The examples I have chosen vary due to location, culture, and the facts. However, they also have a few things in common; those in power either didn't share important information or made specific decisions knowing the harm they would cause, people allowed themselves to become focused on the differences that they disliked in other groups, censorship and limited speech as well as the use of propaganda were used to further their desires and to attempt to limit the knowledge and discussion of the consequences of their decisions. I also specifically choose examples that I had heard briefly mentioned during my studies or my fun readings over the courses of my lifetime so that I could take the opportunity to not only learn more about the transgressions and the aftermath, but also to try and understand how they came to be. I also recognize that some of my choices are not free of controversy, that full documentation does not exist and that even the term genocide may be questioned by both scholars and the lay historian today. Therefore, the examples I have chosen are the Irish Genocide also known as the Irish Potato Famine and the Holodomar in the Ukraine.


Thoughts so far...?

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.

Sexual Assault and Rape : The Differences Between Perception and Culture

I was challenged to look at both the ideas of rape and sexual assault and what the differences between these two horrible acts might be. At the time, I felt like there can be many differences that would also depend on the environment and mentality of the perpetrator. So here are my thoughts on the issue after my research this week.

Sexual assault can be generally defined as unwanted or inappropriate contact towards anther person that is seen or regarded as sexual in nature. Rape is a form of sexual assault in which a person forcibly or without permission penetrates the victim's body with anything; whether its parts of their body, other objects whether small or large, etc.... and it is still considered rape if the penetration is without consent to any opening of the body...even those that are not necessarily considered sexual orifices. So a person can be sexually assaulted, but not raped in some cases (physically, that is)... but a person who has been raped has also been sexually assaulted. With few exceptions, sexual assault and rape are usually crimes against women and tend to be based on power and dominance instead of love or perceived sexual needs. These behaviors are acts of violence, not acts of equality or caring. While these definitions are easy to understand, they do not also tend to convey the emotional or mental violence that is also inflicted when the physical crime is perpetrated. For many, just the act of reporting the crime or talking about it causes them to feel the 'act' again even though they are safe in the present time. Other challenges that come with the sexual assault/ rape for the victim is dealing with the emotions from the perpetrator that are expressed.

When thought about in these terms and also understanding the general patriarchy of most societies in the world, we can easily see how sexual assault and rape can be used not only to hurt one person but as weapon to cause harm to many people and even a community or society at large. In war, the raping of women is an act that not only causes harm to the victim, but is also an act of revenge and defiance against her husband, her 'protector, her community... and even of her culture and race. While there is much disagreement and debate about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, his black slave / mistress and whether she could or could not consent in their sexual relationship, few will argue that Mr. Jefferson was in a position of power over her and her family which could limit how much she really was able to consent to their relationship. And few would be willing to disagree with the idea that Mrs. Hemings was picked because she was black and the relationship most likely wouldn't have happened at all if she had been a purely white female. Other ways that rape is used against a culture/race is to attempt to change it genetically- if many of the men are killed and the women are raped or forced into longer term relationships with their assailants, the children born of such unions are usually

considered members of the dominant group and not part of the culture of the child's mother. It is easy to see looking at the past history of many groups of people how this tactic has been successfully used to not only change, but also decimate communities and cultures. (And on an amusing and side note.... isn't it interesting about the use of pure-blood and mud-blood in the Harry Potter books to denote positive or negative connotations... and these were on consensual births! Something to think about in relation to how each of us looks at those of mixed race heritage or bi-racial couples. :) Finally, one of the best ways to defeat your enemy isn't just to kill them, but to truly win you must also demoralize them and mentally defeat them.... to convince them that they are worthless or have lost something that can not be reattained. And that is what makes rape so effective a weapon in so many instances.

There is another way to look at sexual assault and rape and that is through the lens of the culture, society and the people living in it. The definitions I have given for the most part belong to the culture I live in: a first world country. There are some ways these definitions change when we look at the way other societies perceive women as well as girls and even marriage. In some cultures, girls are married at very young ages and that is not only culturally acceptable but encouraged and facilitated by the child's parents. In this country, we have made it very challenging for any female under eighteen to get married – even if they want to! In some areas of the world, girls are married between the ages of 10-12 on average... and sometimes as young as eight! These girls have not chosen this marriage and it is usually facilitated by the girls parents to a man at usually at least a decade older than the young girl. (In September, an article came out about the death of an eight year old girl named Rawan who had died due to internal bleeding caused by the consummation of her marriage to her much older husband. This marriage took place in Yemen). To myself and I suspect for many people I know, this act would be considered rape- whether the young lady had died or not. In this culture, the relationship was acceptable and not considered rape... or could be described as 'tolerable rape' (a rape that is culturally acceptable and sanctioned.) In my culture sitting alone with a man on a park bench is acceptable and even encouraged to get to know each other... in others, that can be considered sexual compromising and the young lady is 'ruined'. It really does have a lot to do with the society in which you live.

What are your thoughts on any of the issues that I brought up in this post? Do you have differing views on how culture defines sexual assault?

Sometimes I wonder... 1 Nephi chapter 2

I have been thinking a bit about Nephi lately... or I guess a specific chapter actually. I have been stuck on it so much that I am getting behind in my reading for Sunday School. For some reason, 1 Nephi chapter 2 has been something that my brain seems to focus on these days and I find myself being pulled back from the next chapters to stare at pages 4-5. A few verses have really been on my mind and I thought I would share them and my thoughts about them.

1 Nephi 2:11-12

11 Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart.
 12 And thus Laman and Lemuel, being the eldest, did murmur against their father. And they did murmur because they knew not the dealings of that God who had created them.

To me, these verses make quite a few statements that are really worth pondering. I don't know if it has anything to do with my current place in life. But I feel like many people have more of a clue about what is happening in my life than I do. And some of these people are protecting and caring for me... and some of them are not. And I am finding myself falling into murmuring- I do not feel like I am murmuring against my father... rather that I am plagued with self pity, loathing and ingratitude towards my situation. But the verse ends, “because they knew not the dealings of that God who had created them.” I will admit that the more I think about it, I don't know my future and I feel like things would be easier if I knew how they ended. I wonder if I feel sad/angry and I feel like complaining because I 'know not' the dealings of my God. But I also look at this verse and think... “well, why didn't they ask?” And I keep thinking about it... Why didn't they ask? I can't imagine that Heavenly Father wouldn't have answered a sincere prayer. And Lehi and Sarah and even some of their siblings were praying for Laman and Lemuel. It seems clear that something was holding them back. Was it their perceptions of their situation? Was it their lack of trust and conviction in their father? Was it there trust in friends and other people? A biological problem/mental illness that made it more difficult for these two to feel trust and security in their world... many anxiety disorders, narcissism, etc... Where they really closer to the stereotype that we see at church- angry, mean, selfish, and grasping...? A combination of many things? I will never know the answer – I can only answer these questions for myself and my life. Which brings me to this verse...

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.

This opened a few interesting thoughts to me. One thought is that Nephi originally felt like his brothers- that his father was a little 'strange', etc... so to speak. Another thought is that he did have a sincere desire so he took the time and effort to ask and was given an answer which helped him to understand God better... as well as his earthly father. So I wonder... is Nephi different from Laman and Lemuel only due to his “great desire” for knowledge? Did he ask because he trusted his father in all things and so he felt he needed to ask God to understand a situation that he didn't comprehend? Did he trust God enough that he was willing to ask? I guess I wonder the true circumstances whereas Nephi made a different choice from two of his brothers and why they made the choice that they did. I wonder how many times he had to pray... as I do not always feel like I got an answer I could understand without lots of pondering and a few prayers. Enos certainly had a great desire and his prayer was long and pleading and sincere- longer than I imagine most prayers ever are. The verse suggests that Nephi got his answer, but doesn't tell us how long it took until he got it.

Maybe I find these verses so interesting because I feel like I see an view of Nephi and his brothers that I have never really seen before. I have read the Book of Mormon so many times and I have certainly listened to the stereotyping of scriptural people that many members practice in church. (Which I will admit I try to ignore the comments because I just can't see everything in black and white. Like many people I know and myself, I do not find my testimony threatened if my heroes are not perfect and I find many prophets more interesting and worthy of study when I do feel they are human and not just 'good' two dimensional characters.) I will admit that until I read these verses over and over during the last few weeks, I found that I had never considered Nephi at all like his brothers Laman and Lemuel. But this reading seems to suggest to me that the only real differences between them are really the choices that they made. All three men appear to have questioned their father.... but for whatever reason, only Nephi searched the depths of his mind and heart to ask God about his father and what his father was seeing/saying.... An interesting lesson to say the least!

What are your thoughts?

Thoughts on Revolution, Potential Causes, and Revolt

I did quite a bit of reading on the causes or potential factors of building a revolution- I am currently studying the French Revolution that started in 1789. There are many different causes that can be pointed to in hindsight for a revolution and during my studies I have certainly found several potential factors- poverty, lack of prosperity or hope for the majority of French constituents, poor economy and lack of jobs, huge governmental debt, perception (or reality) of the government being weak, unable to lead or create positive change, and ignorance or indifference (or at least perceived ignorance or indifference) by the few who had the most ability to create change.  All of these could be considered primary factors in creating an environment that sparks a revolution- I think that the more of these factors you add, the more you can actually bet on the spark being lit by a 'small' act and the revolution is now fully operating, so to speak. During my studies, I tried to think of factors that would make me as a person be willing to join in an overthrow of my country's government. As I thought I decided that all of the answers that I gave above would (at least in my case) really be secondary factors- all of them are bad, but I do think that to actually join or start a revolution, I would have to have one other defining factor. I think I would need to have pretty much all of the above, but I also would need to feel that the safety of my family and community are not only at risk, but the idea of the status quo being just as dangerous and life threatening as a revolution might be would be the primary factor that would get me to be involved. I think I would have to feel passionately that all of us (friends, family, community) might be dead unless I did something.... and most of the above factors would have to be in effect for most of that to happen I suspect. The thought that frightens me the most about this line of thinking is that I think many countries, including our own are in this sort of 'swimming pool'- the factors above are all in place and the pool is full and glistening in front of us... we are simply waiting for the one thing/person that gets us all going off of the diving board. I really think that most people will not join a revolt or cause one that becomes a revolution unless you have many factors that they feel passionately about, no ability to see that they will be fixed in the future and the very real possibility of the problems getting so much worse. If you have been suffering for awhile, even a small suggestion of more suffering could really be a breaking point.

I think that these factors are the same reasons that will continue to push for revolutions now and in the future on our planet. I think that as long as people feel hope that things can become better, they can feel help and that they have a voice for facilitating change... then we can as a people will continue to suffer with the economy, shrinking public safety nets and community services, and other difficulties and will do so looking for the light at the end of the recession, etc... But suffering for long periods of time, feeling 'dull' and hopeless, and finding no ways to move forward and only despair and suffering can and will eventually cause people to strike out in their frustration, anger and desire for something else.  I think that is why revolutions tend to be so bloody- the negative emotions cause people to do things that they might never do in any other circumstances. And that is one reason that I dislike the idea of revolution so much. People kill children and people who do not agree with them to up hold their virtue - whether it is change, human rights, etc.... and their virtue becomes in some senses a demon; harming and killing everyone in its wake until the fire of their passion and virtue is put out, contained or destroyed. Many die who had no part in making the problem, many die who wanted to fix the problem, and many die who may not have even understood what the problem was. I will admit that I don't feel comfortable with revolution – even non violent revolution- simply because of the ferocious pace. I prefer change that comes gradually but sure and brings people happily or confusedly into the group... not by force, or other negative means.

Do you think that America has many of the factors that I described above? What are your thoughts on this issue? What would you need to have to get involved in a revolt/revolution?

Enviromental History - What it is and the Differing Approaches to Study

There are several different ways in which environmental historians approach the field of environmental history. These can be easily seen when an individual looks at the definition of what 'environmental' history is and its focus – the role and place of nature in human life. In this field's infancy, this term might have been easily assumed to only cover political pro or con environmental activity, however this particular field has no simple agenda or focus. This definition is certainly an 'open' one that allows many different ways of looking at the history and interactions of humans and the world around them. However, it appears that the majority of historians use five different approaches when working and studying history in this category. One way is to study the biological interactions between human beings and the natural world around them; this can include disease, unintentional disruptions to native and introductions of non native species, and the over-utilization of natural resources causing extinction. Another approach is to divide the world into a series of categories or 'levels' to categorize human interactions with nature; this can include animal husbandry, farming/agriculture, and other forms of production and how the interactions change the balance of human life and the rest of creation. There is an approach that looks at environmental history through the lens of political and economic transformations of power and the struggle of people to understand and balance their needs vs. the needs of nature (consumption vs conservation.) One approach tends to focus of the 'ideas' that human beings have about nature and how we perceive it in relation to ourselves; these can include art work, accounts of explorers, writers, etc... Lastly, the history of human beings and their environment can also be studied through narrative works- stories and the people who tell them. This approach can focus on man's positive or negative transformations or interactions with the earth and what information and facts can be gleaned from these experiences for more positive future interactions.

Donald Worster, one of the pioneers of the development of this particular historical field, believes that environmental history needs to proceed on three levels. These levels are the study of nature itself, the study of the human modes of production, and the study of patterns of human perception, ideology and values. Each of these levels of study require different skills and appropriate usage of other fields of study to develop a truly precise and accurate end product. The first level asks that the researcher understand how nature has functioned in the past and therefore how it functions without 'us'... or at least how it functions without our current participation. This information can be found through the work of geologists, archeologists, anthropologists, biologists, etc... and allows us a glimpse and insight into the natural world that we can attempt to study, reconstruct, and then try to understand and build a knowledge base. The second level focuses on the human modes of production and as such, focuses not only on how human beings have used forms of production to change their lives, labor practices and economics.... but also how each of these practices has changed the natural world and in turn changed the culture of human beings as well. The last level/idea is to study the ways that humans use and see nature based on human bias, perception, morals/ethics and the stories/myths that become part of how we deal with nature. How we as human perceive nature and ourselves as well as our needs and wants can have quite a drastic change in ourselves and the nature that surrounds us. An example that springs to mind is how the recent hurricane and its future arrival changed the way (at least temporarily) many humans saw the power and function of nature and it became more dangerous and a force to be feared in our minds. Those perceptions and biases will change the way we see nature and interact with it and other human beings even if the change is only temporary. Another example is how we perceive our needs based on what we perceive as natural resources- if we see our needs as high and a part of nature as resources, we can truly make the resource endangered or extinct without careful understanding, limitations/balance, and respect.


Jared Diamond distinguishes between 'proximate' and 'ultimate' factors when predicting the outcome of environmental history. Proximate factors tend to be 'factors' that are the most easily discovered and most recent to the situation of time frame being explored. In my own words, I would use the words cause and effect with the word proximate describing the causes of a situation. Ultimate factors tend to be the situations, etc... that bring us to the current or proximate factors. In my experience, most general history that is taught would be considered to be mostly consisting of proximate factors – ex: American colonists didn't like high British taxes or King George, fought war, won, and created new country. While the factor of taxes and government interference was a issue to be reckoned with and certainly did contribute to the eventual war, the ultimate causes of the war began much earlier and are less securely rooted in easy phrases. Both of the answers that can be sought through these divisional groups are technically correct and will give us a large clear portrait of the subject that were are studying. However, if we only use proximate facts we will lose much of the richness of the history itself. By continuing to ask even more questions and to delve deeper 'into the causes of the causes' as it were, we can truly develop a rich tapestry that can be utilized by all interested parties for full consensus and understanding.

William Cronon, a noted environmental historian, believes that his field is useful for so many reasons. Understanding the 'birth' of this field of history helps us understand how it began and in many ways helps us to understand many practicing historians and their work today. The list of books published over the last few decades that discuss environmental history do appear to lean towards not only understanding the past, but trying to change the future. (Isn't that really what the study of history is really about anyway.... the study of the past so that true understanding can potentially change our actions and our future...? That's one of the things I have always thought anyway.) Mr Cronon believes that all human history has a natural context and that no history can exist by itself- all aspects are interdependent on other groups, factors and influences. Taking the time to look at the human actions that have shaped our times gives up the opportunity to look at how nature and the very earth itself have influenced these us and human interaction. (The Spanish Armada and Queen Elizabeth of England come to mind) Another important reason for these studies is that neither nature nor the cultures that exist in it and mold it are benign or unchanging. Culture itself is really a very simple word that describes a very complex and may I say 'shape shifting' idea. Everyone in a culture in not the same, does not respond the same way to similar situations and has its own bias, beliefs, perceptions and reactions. Nature is not necessary unchanging and stable either -witness the earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters over the last few years for big starters - and neither are we as the human race. (The idea of making an outline and typing it on a machine that would not only help me fix my errors but save the information for a few days was barely thinkable forty years ago.) Another really good reason for the study of environmental history is to understand that as a 'significant' contributor to the history itself, we (humans/historians) develop and write knowledge about our environment and world based on our cultural perceptions and biases about our world and environment. Throughout history we can see where generations of people had different environmental 'absolutes'.... that we no longer see as ever being correct or useful. A historian must be careful to recognize that the historian himself/ herself is biased and study, research, and interpret accordingly. We can never be fully objective about our environment – we are always in it. Lastly, Mr Cronon makes the fairly obvious point that the historian or student of history is not an individual who can predict the future with any certainty or be quite sure as to what policies and decisions would be most useful in public or governmental policy, groups and communities, etc... All the knowledgeable historian can do is to make predictions about what could or may happen and try to affect change for the future based on those predictions. Much as every human being, including myself, finds ourselves making changes in our life and cultural based on who and what we are, what we do... and how the humans and the world and nature around us respond in their own dynamic dance.

There are a few things that I think are very important in the study of history and the environment. I really think that we cannot truly understand ourselves- really understand who we are, what we need, and the way we interact with others and the world without pretty good knowledge of the world around us. Understanding that all human beings do essential see the world differently based on their experiences and environment helps us to understand the large role that nature itself has in shaping us into the beautiful being that each of us is. Understanding how both nature and humanity are really interdependent groups- not entirely separate- helps us to understand how we affect the world we are in, how the world itself changes our behavior, thoughts and culture, which in turn, changes the world.

Another aspect that can be explored is the idea that breaking this particular field of study into more subgroups can potentially give us even more information and help us to remove or at least recognize some of our biases when doing the research. And most historians of all areas of study have found it important to interpret history not just through the general lens (rich, white, male), but to also look acknowledge the differences in historical interpretation when viewed by race, gender and class. Carolyn Merchant- feminist and environmental historian- believes that the interpretation of environmental history when using factors such as race, class and gender cause the historian to ask different questions and to see how environmental factors can be used to justify exploitation, injustice, and even disease and impoverishment. How the individuals in different economics circumstances deal with and change their environment can be quite different from each other and the differing cultures that have been created through environment and circumstances to different racial groups create a different portrait of the historical facts. Gender has also a large piece of the puzzle as woman’s roles and environments have and can vary widely from those of the differing gender. An example is that farming and animal husbandry used to remain mostly in the hands of women (or the poor) until the last century when large scale agribusiness came out on top and these tasks became the work or ownership statistically of the white male. Women tend to also be responsible (and held responsible) by their cultures and society for reproduction and to be responsible for the majority of 'world production' or work, while males tend to be more dominant in history as well as today for relationships of power, structural and cultural systems of governance, and other factors. (I feel I need to stress that I am not suggesting that the majority of men do not work!) By looking at history through the eyes, experiences and environment of race, class, and gender, we are able to see the same environment differently, the differing effects it has on various groups and the perceptions and biases of the historian and the studied groups themselves. The use of extra lenses to view the past only gives us more information about ourselves as individuals, communities, nature and humanity itself.


Thoughts, impressions, comments....? :)