The timelessness of this question proves the validity of Churchill's quote. Theorizing about the changes humanity would've faced if the American revolution had ended differently is as important as thinking about what happened to that kid who cracked his new I Phone screen. The events that have occurred have occurred- history has been "written" and America is now one of the most powerful nations on the planet, and that kid no longer has a functional phone. Although the American revolution seems like a relic of the past, and a broken I Phone is too trivial to reflect on, any and all events in history are fair game to analyze Churchill's statement. The Glass Castle is one of the best examples of this philosophy. Jeannette Walls is a "victor" having worked hard enough to earn an education and succeed in life. Thus, she is writing her own history, literally, in the form of a memoir. The reader feels sympathy for Walls and all her struggles, and they should. However, Jeanette is far from the only person that has had problems with poverty, or molestation, with thousands of people having it far worse than her. Even though millions of people deserve to be heard, they never can be, and never will be; simply because they have "lost" in society's eyes. One of the most influential figures in the modern day is Oprah. She turned her childhood struggles into an extremely popular daytime television show. Now she writes history. Oprah dictates many a life, with thousands of zealous watchers eating what Oprah eats, reading what Oprah reads, and trying as hard as they can to live how Oprah lives. However, for every Oprah, there are tens of thousands of the depressed, the unheard, the forgotten- those that are lost and have lost. They might be more well read than Oprah, more cultured, have more of an appreciation for the arts, but nobody would ever guess that that dirty, homeless man was a Shakespeare connoisseur. Even more meta into the subject of winners and losers in The Glass Castle is a certain instance where Jeanette is discussing her new job with her mother. Instead of covering the "oppressive landlords, social injustice, and the class struggle on the Lower East Side" (Walls 171) she writes articles on the gossip of the city's elite. She is "winning" by getting a decent job writing about the "winners", that is the wealthy of New York, which provides her the money and credibility to "win" in the future- which is publishing her own book, which deals with how history is written by the victors. Another case is in the Disney movie Frozen, and possibly every other Disney movie ever. The main character always has a happy ending, while the villain is defeated and properly punished. In Frozen, we see Hans, the villain, getting punched off a boat, while we see Elsa and Anna return to a loving kingdom. A sequel is rumored to be released in 2015, which raises the question, "what happened to the other guys?" Did Hans drown after being punched off a boat? Was he exiled from his homeland for his criminal behaviors and eventually killed in the wilderness? Was he executed for his treasonous behavior? He "lost" by failing in his plan to take over Arendelle kingdom, and for that we will never know his story. Perhaps he had good intentions for Arendelle. Maybe whatever he took from his brothers was far worse than anything he ever did to Anna. With a simple example from a childish movie, we can see one of the greatest inequalities in human nature. In a world with so much to say, learn, discover, and be, 50% of the world is being ignored. History is the study of past events, and with those past events being described and dictated by those that have come out on top, there seems nothing else to do but ignore those on the bottom.
Wow this blog post is really good. I like the historical reference to Winston Churchill. I never realized how the underdogs are undermined by history.
ReplyDelete