Xenophobic, homophobic, racist, sexist, conservative, and rigid. Traditional values treated humans as sheep to a Shepard, and although modern values hold parallels and comparatives, it seems, at least the illusion of freedom prevails.
In the 1860’s, you would be shot for murder in the sense that the ‘punishment fits the crime.’ Life was expendable to the greater good, or, as the Wild West confirmed, for nothing greater at all. In addition, people of separate race, nationality, or sexuality were treated as inferior, and attempts at extermination would also be made from time to time as these feelings of ‘superiority’ came to a boiling point. Moreover, death became the norm; something everyone was required to deal with due to its almost daily inevitability due to a serious maintained decline in the health of the masses. Isn’t death commonplace in today’s world as well? Yes, but it seemed tradition almost endorsed it when it came to certain ‘undesirable’ members of society.
Now that’s not to say that this sort of thing doesn’t occur from time to time in our contemporary world, but it seems that it is a suppressed flipside of the projected reality we live in. Racism is kept to individuals or groups, masked as a joke, making it hard to really interpret when it’s meant playfully or seriously; yet it remains a very real part of modern society. As for xenophobia, homophobia, and sexism, they are just as real, but not quite as intertwined and widespread as racism seems to be. On the other hand, all of this seems to be pointing to the negativities of today, when in fact the positives outweigh them by ten to one. We have running water, both hot and cold; access to upwards of 1000 channels on television, which can either help or hinder our open-mindedness; and unconditional access to information on absolutely anything known to man via the internet, which can only help ones open-mindedness, as the internet is selective as opposed to subjective in what you will absorb.
There are many points of congruent similarity between the modern and traditional worlds; some of the more arbitrary points being the most outspoken in continuity, such as fathers still being abit more overprotective of their daughters than they are of their sons, in a hopeless attempt at the preservation of childhood innocence. This is not to say that it is as outspoken as it once was in the 1860’s, but it is to say that it is a very real remainder of the social programming we, as humans, underwent during the days of the Wild West and the Industrial Revolution. The very real existence of homophobia that still exists in today’s society is another point of congruent similarity one could draw on, yet it is a similarity with difference. In the 1860’s, homosexuality was effectively suppressed throughout every enclave of society as a whole, yet still stood defiant in its existence; but in the contemporary world, it would seem that the tables have turned, and it is now homophobia’s turn to be widely suppressed. Now, that is not to say that homosexuality is the preference of the majority, but it is to say that the acceptance of homosexuality is the preference of the majority. Sadly, just as homosexuality in the 1860’s, homophobia still stands stubbornly defiant in its tensely-guarded existence.
Nationality, and in a pseudo-realistic sense, nationalism, still remain as significant knots to our past, both recent and ancient, in the sense that they take from the past to build the identity of an arbitrarily marked geographic location in the present. I mean, honestly; what would Greece be like without Hercules? The United States without Abraham Lincoln or George W. Bush? Canada without John A. MacDonald? They’d be much different in the patriotic sense, that’s for sure. On the other hand, the difference is quite major once you really get down to it, requiring we’re not referring to Neoconservatives, whose nationalist rants tend to give government a bad face, time and time again. The difference is the idea that nationality can be exchanged, especially in North America, where a place like Canada acts more as the world’s Petri dish when it comes to diversity in every field, in which every country is represented as if each immigrant citizen were part of a foreign delegation directly representing the original; and places like the United States act as the world’s melting pot, as to create some sort of hybrid nationality in which every country is represented in a form autonomous to its origins. This isn’t to say that xenophobia no longer exists, as the Muslim scare among sects of the population throughout the western world following 9/11 clearly show, but it is to say that xenophobia has significantly eased its cruel restrictions since the days of Prime Minister Robert Borden, and President Taft.
Sexism, as is still obvious among the more ‘redneck’ members of society, holds similarities to the problems of modern racism in the sense that it is constantly masked as a joke, and as such is hard to interpret as a complete social reality. It is obviously still there, as there are still cases of men finding it hard to work under a female boss due to sexist reasoning in the sense that they seem to believe it is breaching their ‘code of masculinity,’ but as opposed to the dictated lower-wages for women prior to the Second World War, it is certainly a significant and positive difference. That is not to say that modern sexism only applies in the sense of men to women, as it very much applies in the sense of women to men. In the ‘less progressive’ sects of society, there are women who still believe in maintaining the masculine image upon men as the ones who go to work as the breadwinners, and leave the women at home to care for the house and the kids. These are usually the same women who jump to creating blanket-generalizations of men the world-over, especially when they have fallen victim to masculine arrogance from such men who truly believe in the stereotypes themselves. Now, on the other hand, modern society holds very large differences in contrast to the world of the 1860’s, one of which includes the acceptance, and occasionally endorsing of homosexuality, as was examined 2 paragraphs prior. It also holds a major difference in the sense that even a majority of mainstream society seems to look down in confusion on those who stick to the stereotypical traditions.
So, in all honesty, it seems that 1862 and 2010 have more in common than may have been previously thought in the field of human societal norms, yet progressive pins-and-needles seem to be pushing themselves through the fabric of tradition to weave a new reality. Even if we are still restricted within the walls of society, the illusion of freedom prevails as it never possibly could have in the old world.
Please Note: This was originally written as an essay for my Grade 12 English class.
No comments:
Post a Comment