Melissa,
The very danger of being under such a public microscope is that anything you say, do, or buy is fodder for public opinion. And that is the situation in which our First Lady, Michelle Obama, finds herself. And yes, the scrutiny of that public lens is necessarily tainted by issues of race, class, and gender, but it also allows people to project their own sensibilities onto her.
When I saw Michelle Obama enter the chambers for the State of the Union address, wearing a fabulous sleeveless dress, my first thought was: "she must be cold." Because you see, everywhere I go, I'm cold; perhaps my core temperature is set differently. I am rarely without a scarf or shawl. I regularly keep an extra sweater or jacket in my office. I have been in that very room in Washington and the entire building is cold. So my reaction to Michelle Obama comes from my sensibility of being someone who thinks most public buildings are kept way too cold. I don't covet Obama's sexy arms; I want the kind of metabolism that will keep me warm when I am wearing a sleeveless dress.
So while a conversation about Michelle Obama can lead us to useful discussions about public images of black women's bodies, there are also some other public issues that also bear the imprint of race and the public imagination - even on some very subtle levels. Just yesterday, an Alabama gunman killed 10 people and himself in a senseless rampage. Last week, an Ohio man killed five of his family members and later killed himself. And just this past Sunday, an Illinois pastor was shot and killed during a church service. These three incidents are just a small example of the gun violence that plagues our country. What of these arms?
I am interested in a discussion about gun violence, the right to bear arms, and the race, gender, and class dynamics of gun violence in this country. I was a part of the protests in the early 1990's in New York City schools, disgusted with how public schools were being locked down like a police state with metal detectors at the door. It was a wake-up call for the nation when in 1999, a school massacre occurred in idyllic Colorado. We were forced to have conversations about gun violence not as an "inner city" phenomenon (or in other words, the weapon of choice for young, black "thugs"), but we were forced to talk more honestly about larger American culture's obsession with guns.
As we continue to watch this economic crisis unfold, we are seeing unprecedented acts of gun violence in domestic situations: men killing their families and then committing suicide. We are seeing gun violence in rural towns, like Samson, Alabama; a small, rural, largely white community where support for the right to bear arms is very strong. What happens when the picture of the perpetrators and victims of gun violence shift from North Philly to East Texas? Now that legally acquired firearms are being used in these acts of domestic violence, can we still make the argument that gun violence is only related to "criminal" culture?
I hope all those people obsessing about Michelle Obama's arms can direct their attention to engaging the second amendment of the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Who constitutes a militia? Who are the "people"? And what would be a "free state" in this context? Our country is in dire need of reform around gun control and availability. Too many lives are hanging in the balance in this discussion of "bearing arms."
Yolanda
Posts
7 comments:
Here, here! This brings the discussion full circle, right around to where it needs to be.
I just read of another horror that happened yesterday in Germany: a young man killed many in a school. When these kinds of incidents happen in other countries I cringe thinking that the U.S.A. led the way. It makes me very ashamed.
I'm all for gun reform. However, let's also get to the crux of the problem, which I believe is the emotional and mental health of our society. Depression has become something of a mainstay in our society (or maybe it's always been there) and we need to find ways to deal with it.
Kudos, Yolanda, for this great insight!
As a resident of the District of Columbia, who has been increasingly hopeful about achieving voting representation in the House and Senate, I have seen my hopes doused a bit under the weight of current members of Congress who want to tie DC's representation to a reversal of our gun laws.
I am quite perplexed why many who oppose voting representation for DC because we are not a state, but who want us to relax our stance on guns, which are considered rights inviolate.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that access to guns fuels too many situations similar to the ones you've cited, but also, guns figure prominently in incidences of domestic abuse and felonious crimes.
My interpretation of the second amendment (as one who is not a constitutional scholar) understands the provisions to say that in order to provide for the safety and security of the state (here I believe the framers of the Constitution were referencing both individual states as well as our nation as a whole), we need to have those whose purpose is to make that happen...and THOSE people should have a right to bear arms for this purpose.
Because these types of militias generally comprised people who lived in various vicinities, many, if not most, landowners would have been part of those militia groups. However, as our nation has grown and the spaces in which we live are more proximate, not everyone who owns land would need to own guns as well.
Because of these changes over time, we established the National Guard, which operates on both a state and national level with the express purpose of securing our freedom (from each other, from others, from natural disasters, etc.).
So, that's my contribution. I cannot wait to hear what others might have to say about this issue. You've made my day!
Yolanda,
Good thoughts. I believe Broadbandette hit the nail on the head when she said, "let's also get to the crux of the problem, which I believe is the emotional and mental health of our society." A gun is a tool, nothing more. In England, where guns have been banned completely, stabbing deaths are way up, and England's parliament is now considering some kind of ban on knives.
The problem is not gun ownership; it's the mental, emotional, and I would add spiritual condition of our society. Even just 50 years ago, there wasn't too much debate over our moral foundations. Today, everything is up for grabs: what's right for you may not be what's right for me and vice versa. If there is no right or wrong, then how do we tell someone that murder is wrong, or that stealing is wrong, or that pre-marital sex is wrong?
Oops? Did I just cross some people's moral boundary? Fifty years ago, it was commonly accepted that pre-marital sex was wrong, even though some did it. Today, it's pretty much expected that adolescents be promiscuous.
These unconscionable murders are one symptom of a larger problem. Let me stand on my soapbox and preach for just a moment, and then I'll stop. We put "God bless America" bumper stickers on our cars because we've been attacked, but we as a nation have completely turned our backs on God. How about a bumper sticker that reads, "America bless God" instead? We ignore His rules for good living and then expect Him to bless us when we are in trouble? See? It was a short sermon.
Now I'd like to turn to the Second Amendment ("2A"). It's too easy to see the 2A as the source of the murder problem in this country, but we have to ask: "What is the purpose of the 2A?" Is it an excuse for good ol' boys to shoot up road signs for fun? Our founders, while admittedly mostly not getting it about slavery, did understand a few things about politics, philosophy, and human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
A republican (small r) form of government (no, we're not supposed to be a democracy) alone is no guarantee against connivers and usurpers. Even with the 2A guarantee as a prevention against tyranny, we are on the verge of tyranny today, thanks to the one party system we now have. There are people more powerful than presidents; just look at who the top 10 contributors were to both the McCain and Obama campaigns. Google it and you'll see that they were the same entities.
Consider this quote from globalist insider Prof. Carroll Quigley from his book, "Tragedy and Hope":
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
Case in point: Bush II succeeded Clinton, promising smaller government and less spending. Bush II outspent Clinton and every president before him, much of it on the very social programs he campaigned against. Obama has succeeded Bush II, and we're already seeing a continuation of the same policies of Bush II but on a grander scale. The "two" parties invent tertiary issues for the masses to squabble over--guns, abortion, education, welfare, etc., but the overall course this country is on does not change.
This rabbit hole goes much deeper than there is room here to explain. Suffice to say that government is one giant PSYOP. If anyone thinks Bush or Obama is going to be the savior of this country, they are caught in the divide-and-conquer tactic that the Party uses to keep our focus off of what they are doing, which is spending this country into oblivion. There is only one way to break this country, and that is to bring our economy to its knees.
Consider this last point: The Federal Reserve, which is neither federal nor a reserve, but rather an unconstitutional group of private banks controlling U.S. currency, prints money out of nothing, loans it to the U.S. government, the government gives it to private companies that made fiscally irresponsible decisions, and we the taxpayers get to pay all this money back at interest to the Fed, which, remember, created this money out of nothing. Doing this deflates the value of our currency, causing inflation of goods and services. That's the reason our dollars don't buy as much today as they did a year ago. Which would you rather have; a five dollar bill or a $5 silver coin? A five dollar bill would buy you just over two gallons of gas; the $5 silver coin would fill your tank. That's why Ron Paul harped on returning to a currency backed by precious metals or something of intrinsic value.
We are being robbed blind by the bankers and our servant government (Google "fabian socialists"). We are being dumbed down so that we obey rather than think. We are being made dependent rather than self-sufficient. We are being pitted against each other over minor issues to distract us from the bigger picture.
Gun murders are just one symptom of a much larger problem, and that problem is being implemented in an organized fashion for a purpose--to reduce We the People to serfdom in a socialist (whether communist or national socialist doesn't matter) global plantation.
While guns are dangerous in the wrong hands (like government, which murdered more people in the 20th century than all other 20th century non-natural deaths combined), those entities that pull the strings of Obama and every other president would love nothing more than to see We the People disarmed, just as they are on the precipice of achieving their victory.
For the record, I live just across the Potomac from the District of Criminals, and I work as a defense contractor supporting an office within the U.S. Army.
Thank you all for giving me some great thoughts to ponder, including how to move the conversation just beyond "gun control" and into a deeper, richer discussion of the emotional and mental health of our society. What leads us to "take up arms" is at the crux of this issue.
My husband often says: Guns don't kill people.....people kill people. It's a quote but I don't know by whom, and in a simple way rather sums up these comments. It's true that a gun can't perform the act but the ease with which it can find it's way into the hand of an angry, depressed person just doesn't seem civilized.
Never think even there is no gun, the violent will gone, we have to start from people thinking
Custom Homes by Michelle
Post a Comment