Politics: Past, Present, and Future
Why is it that we purposefully forget the demons of our past? And only recognize our naivety when it smacks us in the face? My figurative slap came not from an intuitive conversation or careful read, but rather from a movie. Mona Lisa Smile.
I was aware of, just not conscious of the inequalities between men and women. Mona Lisa Smile carefully and eloquently stories the lives of America’s brightest young female minds, pointing out that there ambitions reached no further than the kitchen table (at least on the surface).
Not to discredit the validity of similar inequality arguments in a contemporary setting, but I choose to use this as motivation to discuss a much more pressing and immediate injustice than women’s rights.
By watching, I was reminded of society’s ignorance and its inability to see past its immediate desires. We stair at our past, laugh at ourselves for the baseless nature of our old laws and claims, and yet still use similar logic to justify current contentions?
For example, interracial marriage was against the law in 16 states in 1967. The supporters of such filth not only had tradition on their side, but as they saw it, the bible.
I’m through arguing for gay marriage on political (separation of church and state) or moral (human equality) grounds. I offer you this.
In fifty years your children and grandchildren are going to hear about what we have done to dehumanize these people and their relationships, maybe even through a poignant movie. They will comment just as we do, “I can’t believe people really believed that. They were so ignorant.” They will.
So I ask you this, will you be the one to stand proud and tell stories of your activism and progressiveness, your ability to see beyond the present? Or will you be left to bow your head as so many must do now?
I’ll tell you what, more than anything, I’m afraid of how I’m going to be able to convince my children that people who thought that way weren’t bad people. They were real.
You are real. You are just terribly misguided.
And if not through this, time will prove me right.
posted by Creo @ 3.10.05
4 comments
4 Comments:
...you try too hard and it isnt working for you
Are you kidding me? You respect no one . . . and show the least respect towards woman . . . sexist . . .
Okay, so your post about how college students tend to generalize and the frustration of anonymous blogging was just irritating until I read these posts. Not only do I want to reply, but I would have wanted to read THEIR blogs. Oh, wait, c'est impossible.
Oh, and for the sake of not being general myself:
1) The post about generalization was irritating because your speech took a condescending air. (In my opinion). Although I agree with you, and would prefer comments on MY posts to be lengthy and descriptive, the nature of these blog comments is that of a quick response, in which it is difficult to be appropriately specific. That and I believe people care enough to point out that they disagree, but not enough to spend pages arguing why. Just a thought.
2) As to having the desire to respond to "anonymous," I also feel that there have been times when, perhaps, you were not quite so open-minded as you encourage your readers to be. (I'm not scanning prior posts for proof, that's just silly. I'll point it out next time I've continued to read your blog. Again, I feel like you've been a bit condescending. "You are just terribly misguided." That last jab at the way that I think offends me. I--obviously--DO NOT think that I am terribly misguided. In fact, I might even be less misguided than you. But, as you say, time will prove SOMEBODY right. (Deliberate misquote).
And, as far as having the desire to respond to anonymous and possibly read his/her blog, I say this: anybody who throws names around in order to offend someone/prove a point/build their own point really annoys me. (As anonymous did in this case with the word "sexist.") He could have further illustrated his point using intelligent speech--god forbid--in a manner that did not make him sound like a middle-schooler with ruffled feathers.
And, anonymous, I used the impersonal "he" to refer to you because it was grammatically appropriate. If that makes me sexist too, well, that's just a chance that I'm willing to take.
Post a Comment
<< Home