Time Capsules

This blog has become as much about collective memory as it is about raw history. Part of understanding the collective memory of a society, of a culture, of the world, is being able to look back and -- through different mediums -- learn about the past.

Often we use literature to study history, especially specific time periods. And there is a debate on whether it is ever possible to define a novel (or other piece of writing) as "timeless". Can you take a story out of its time? It's similar to discussions on ignoring the background of the author. Opinions on this issue vary widely. There is a specific school of literary thought, called New Historicism, whose central argument is that all works are essentially tied to their time and place in the world, no matter what. You cannot , by any means, separate a novel from when it was written. As a result, it is very beneficial -- and often quite easy -- to study a time period by reading literature written during it.

But here's something I, myself, am struggling to comprehend about New Historicism: how are we supposed to study works of literature written in one period about another?

For example --

Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote The Scarlet Letter, a story set in the mid-17th century, in 1850, far removed from the setting of his story. I've read The Scarlet Letter and studied both time periods rather closely. There are definitely points in the novel where Hawthorne's very romantic style and theology shines brightly through the tale of a Puritan woman in 1640s Boston. Yet, in my opinion, there is still an argument that the novel is a legitimate medium for educating oneself on Puritan America. The story is realistic; the values are conveyed. On the other hand, if you take a more language and symbol centered approach to analyzing The Scarlet Letter, you can learn about Romanticism and the 1800s --- a time extremely different from the 1600s.

I suppose a New Historicist would stress reading The Scarlet Letter to study Hawthorne's time period over using it to study the 17th century...? But, by doing that, aren't you ignoring Hawthorne's original intent? He chose to make Hester Prynne a Puritan woman for a reason, irregardless of whether he was unconsciously expressing to his readers something about his own time.

But personally, I take a rather New Historical approach to the world of literature. I love reading books set in a different time period because I love history. But reading something written by someone in a different time period has a another kind of splendor. It's almost like a time capsule -- a perfectly preserved gem of the Italian Renaissance or the American Civil War. And, however hard you try Nathaniel Hawthorne, you just can't recreate that true experience. That is the joy of reading something old. It doesn't know what happens next. It is purely then.

< Histrophile >

Four People Who Really Messed Up (in one way or another)

I think I might have a brain tumor. For the past week, I have been thinking non-stop about King John. Normal people don't do things like that. I've been thinking and thinking about why people always talk about how badly he screwed up English history by signing the Magna Carta. Isn't that the first document to guarantee people things like, um... liberty? How is that a screw-up? Finally I came to the realization that he did sort of muddle up the place of the monarchy within the political system of the nation. So if it was the king or someone royal that was the first to place blame on King John, that makes some sense.

But that question has, once again, planted a broader question inside of my brain. How much would it suck to be someone remembered for doing something dumb? So, here are four people (of many) throughout history who just, plain messed up...

1. King John: Although I don't completely understand the modern day criticism of his actions, he, nonetheless must make the list because, at the time, it was by no means a good idea to sign the Magna Carta (ignoring, of course, the fact that he was somewhat forced).

2. Jacob Malik: on January 13, 1950, the Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations (Malik) stormed out of a meeting of the Security Council and never returned. He was angry about the United States blocking the expulsion of the Republic of China (Taiwan) from the Security Council. In June of that same year, the United Nations voted to intervene on the Korean Peninsula. There was no Soviet delegate (one that would have blocked this resolution) present. Three years of war followed --three years of war that the USSR opposed vehemently. Funny thing is that they could have stopped much of it.

3. Herbert Hoover: Three years into the Great Depression, President Hoover vetoed a bill that would have given World War I veterans their federal bonuses early. If that wasn't bad enough to wreck his public opinion ratings, when the veterans decided to organize a makeshift tent village in protest of the veto (and dubbed themselves the "Bonus Army"), Hoover sent in General MacArthur to clear out the poor, unemployed, homeless veterans of the Great War (and their families). Let's just just say it didn't end well for him...

4. Hongle, Ming Emperor of China: In the early 1400s, Emperor Yongle commissioned a series of maritime expeditions, led by General Zheng He, to explore the unknown. For less than twenty years, Zheng He and his crew discovered the previously undiscovered and reaped the benefits of acquiring exotic treasure from far off lands. Years later, the Europeans made exploration and colonization fashionable, but the Chinese did it first. They didn't create colonies, but, in the span of a decade, they literally became the most affluent and powerful nation in the world. The trade routes were theirs, the commodities were theirs, and all the wealth they could dream of was at their finger tips. Then, it all ended. Emperor Yongle died, and Hongle took over. He immediately halted all of the expeditions and imposed a policy of isolation, thrusting China into 500 years that involved little to no contact with the outside world. By the 19th century, they were fresh meat for the new, powerful cannon of European and Western powers.

Something that is hard to process when pondering the actions of people like Hongle and Jacob Malik, is that at the time it might not have seemed like such a bad idea. I've done many things in my eighteen years that seemed like a good idea at first, but, in retrospect, we're just dumb. All four of these historical characters did what they thought was right. Not one of them was malicious or self-sabotaging in their actions. But the way the story played out just didn't go their way.

How would you feel if the only thing people ever remember about you is the worst decision you ever made?

< Histrophile >

Tookie Thought: Part 1

I was very excited to read a book over break. Since the beginning of high school (aka more than three years ago), I've found it very difficult to find time for any reading other than assigned texts. So, with the prospect of two weeks filled with nothing except practice and naps ahead of me, I was eager to dust off one of those novels sitting at the top of my "To Read" list. Instead -- and I'm not ashamed to admit it (okay, I kind of am...) -- I somehow found myself reading Tyra Bank's fictional, fantasy-esq novel Modelland.

Tookie de la Crème is the protagonist of Modelland. She's an awkward teenage girl, living with cold parents who are obsessed with her gorgeous younger sister, Myrracle. The novel is set in a sort of alternate world, one in which places have names like "Bou-Big-Tique" and "Sans Color" and models are world-wide phenomenons with magic-like powers. The book follows Tookie as she attends the esteemed modeling school, Modelland, on the top of a mountain overlooking the entire world.

Although, at times one finds oneself trudging through messy, outrageous descriptions of oddly contrived situations and settings, and to be honest it can be hard to keep names like "Theopilius" separate from "Zarpessa" and "Shiraz Shiraz," and the parallels to Tyra's life are quite evident to anyone who knows anything about the retired supermodel, Modelland has a clear message.

Beauty doesn't have to be conventional.

People give Tyra a lot of crap for being a model and trying to do a lot of good. She's constantly ridiculed for being fat, or dumb, or too ambitious, or fake. But, as an "America's Next Top Model" aficionado, I am one of those people who truly like Tyra because you can't honestly say that she's a bad person. She's dedicated her life to redefining definitions of female beauty, first within the fashion industry and now outside of it.

And all of this got me thinking about society ideals of female beauty and how they change overtime. Next week, I will post solely on that subject, a the research I've begun to read is quite interesting so far. So, to end this post, I'd like to throw out this thought, a preview of next post: what is the catalyst for ideas of beauty to change?

< Histrophile >

The Presidential Question

Everyone seems to have a favorite president. It's like having a favorite color or food, or a favorite sports team. You feel an inexplicable and rather insipid loyalty to someone you've probably never met -- someone who may have died before your grandparents were even born. It's a personal connection to the past that most people probably never give a second thought. Why should they?

My favorite president was a master of language, a student of philosophy, the architect of the Louisiana Purchase, and a Founding Father. Thomas Jefferson is widely seen as the main author of the Declaration of Independence, which is the draw I think he possesses for me. The words themselves are eloquent yet raw, direct yet inconspicuous; he was clearly brilliant. But, it least for me, the power of the words, not the words themselves, is more incredible:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

He must've had some idea that these words had a certain potential, but did he know that one day everyone in America would be able to recite them? Above all, that is his mystic quality for me. Through his language, he lives on -- somewhat disguised and somewhat ignored, because, for most, his words are more known than his name. In addition, he was just a cool guy. I mean, he had every job under the sun, and he was basically a literary genius. Oh, and he doubled the size of the country literally overnight (no big deal, right?).

Being the history nerd I am, I tend to judge other people on who their favorite president is. It's not so much judging in the pejorative sense, I just think I gain insight about people from their answers. So, don't be shy. Who's your favorite president?

And if you're also interested into the aesthetic nature of presidental favorites, check out this article by Clinton Cargill!

< Histrophile >

The Land Before Time: Iran

What happens when history works in reverse? What happens when history doesn't just repeat itself, and the world doesn't just stay the same -- what happens when time reverses and history comes back from the past to manifest itself in the present? No, I'm not crazy. I'm not talking about a sci-fi movie that involves a very athletic and attractive young actor traveling through the centuries on a time machine. I am talking about real places in the world today -- places like Iran.

In Reading Lolita in Tehran, Nafisi recalls a conversation she had with her daughter at one point in the 1990s. Her daughter was complaining about school and Nafisi told her basically to get over it. But Nafisi's daughter response is curious for many reasons. She told her mother that she could never understand how she, Nafisi's daughter, felt because her mother was never punished for wearing the wrong color shoelaces when she was in school.

First off, it's a rather wise remark for a quite young person to come up with. But, more interestingly, the roles seem to be reversed. The daughter -- the younger person from the newer generation -- is expressing exasperation at the ignorance of the mother -- the older person -- in regards to growing up in an unstable, oppressive society.

Since the start of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the nation has unilaterally become a different place, a place that almost seems to be thrust backwards in time. For example, the portraits of current leaders of Iran more resemble portraits from the Iranian leaders of the 1500s and 1600s than they do the leaders of the 1970s. The nation, in many ways, has become reactionary. New out, old in.


So how does this new generation, who has grown up with the Islamic Republic of Iran, relate to their parents and grandparents, people who lived through times much more liberal, much more open, more lavish, much more free? Is it possible that they would feel more of a kinship to their ancestors from the pre-modern Iran?

Also, one last thing to think about: are there any other societies that have, in recent times, had this sort of history reversal occur? If so, I'd like to hear, because I was unable to think of any others.

< Histrophile >

British Booty: The Rosetta Stone

In English class, we have been discussing the role of museums in society. One of the things my teacher brought up about a week ago was the British Museum in London and how she really doesn't like it. To her it seems like a huge treasure chest -- Britain's booty from their loot of their their vast number of colonies. This idea intrigued me because I've been to the British Museum, and I can remember hating it for other reasons. Mainly it was huge and my history-buff parents (what a surprise, right?) would not leave. Oh, and I was like nine. So I decided to do some research into the British Museum to see where all of their pieces really come from, and if my teacher was correct in using the treasure chest metaphor.

The simple answer -- they're stolen.

The Rosetta Stone has been biting at my interest for a while, and I knew that the British Museum is its current home, so I dove into the history of it for a bit, a few days ago, and what I found out is fascinating (to me at least), but not all that surprising.

Basically, it was also stolen. But it's somewhat special. The Rosetta Stone had the immeasurable pleasure of being stolen not once, but twice. In 1799, it is widely accepted that Napoleon discovered the stone while digging reinforcements into the French Fort Julien, in Egypt. Although, I hope it to be rather obvious that Napoleon was not in fact the one with his hands in the dirt and the sweat seeping through his shirt. Ergo, it was some unnamed soldat français who actually rediscovered the Rosetta Stone. But I was not able to find the name of any specific soldier, so he shall continue to be unnamed -- a small example of how people only remember the big guys (of course I mean that metaphorically, not literally, because Napoleon was, in stature, quite small) and the winners.

Which bring us to the role of the British. They're the winners. They tend to win. They like to win. And it is the basis of much of their national identity. So, in true British fashion, George III's army defeated the French in Egypt, in 1801, and took what they said was theirs, including the Rosetta Stone. France finally accepted its fate -- essentially the seizure of all its archeological and historical discoveries -- by signing the Capitulation of Alexandria, along with the British and Ottomans, in August of 1801.

Most people would probably agree that the British and French stole the stone from Egypt, and that Egyptians have the right to want it back (although they tend to be rather preoccupied at the moment; the return of the Rosetta Stone is not exactly on their radar). But who, of the two Europeans, is more at fault? The French for taking it in the first place, or the British for not returning it upon seizure and continuing to hold it 200 years later? Do we, as citizens of the world and students of history, have a bias against certain nations, or empires, or peoples because of what they've done in the past? Because the British are often seen as "the conquerors" with "the empire," do they always have to be the most at fault? And how do these biases based on events and patterns affect the way we see, not only history after the fact, but history before the fact, as well as modern issues?

For more on this historical tale, check out this article!

< Histrophile >

A Break from the Usual

June 15, 1215 -- the day King John signed the Magna Carta. October 12, 1492 -- Christopher Columbus and his crew set foot on land in the Americas. June 28, 1914 -- Archduke Ferdinand, heir to The Austro-Hungarian throne, is assassinated, essentially beginning World War I. August 6, 1945 -- the day the United States drops an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. September 11, 2001 -- possibly the worst day in the history of the modern United States.

It may be cliché to say, but everything in history starts on one day. The stories of those days are told over and over again. Over time, it comes to feel likes they're not even real. They never really happened. Even if they're true, they're just stories. It's almost impossible to realize that one day, 600 years ago, Christopher Columbus, the man who we drew pictures of in first grade and whose ships we made models of in fifth grade, actually stepped foot onto land in the Americas for the first time -- radically altering the course of history forever. It may be even harder to realize that for Columbus, that day -- October 12, 1492 -- was just another day. Sure it was special, he thought that he had found a water route to India! But it was just 24 hours of his life. Like I discussed last week, he didn't foresee the pilgrims arrival, or the Triangular Trade, or kids in classrooms signing songs about his three ships.

Usually I profile a person, or group of people, or event in every post. But this week I had to react to another post I've read. So I went on a quest through my Google Reader account. I was going to find a post about something historical, comment historically, and make a very profound historical statement. But, instead, I ended up reading a bunch of posts from a blog that gives you what happened on "this day in history." And obviously that blog filled my mind with these thoughts I've just expressed in a mildly eloquent, but somewhat ranting, fashion.

I don't know exactly why I love history so much. And I get even more lost when I try to visualize ways to transfer my love to others. But I can always say this: today, you could be making history.

< Histrophile >