Author: ksinclair1 (page 3 of 6)

Week 9 Reading Analysis

Mona Gleason’s article “Disciplining Children, Disciplining Parents”[1] and Tamara Myers and Mary Ann Poutanen’s “Cadets, Curfews, and Compulsory Schooling”[2] both speak of Canadian families after WWII and examine the affluent treatment and increased freedom given to youth by parents.[3] In postwar Canada “between 1946 and 1963, teenagers enjoyed their family’s prosperity and security, and developed their own unique subculture with music and movies as their voice,” they were becoming powerful and the government had to implement mandatory measures to ensure harmony. Both articles acknowledge this post war change of society, and how this enforced parental involvement to raise responsible children.

Myers and Poutanen’s article is thorough and understandable, but lacks references. They make arguments such as “…In their role in supervising and disciplining students, schools… created programs to identify and address pre-delinquency. As part of the campaign to prevent delinquency, schools mobilized children and youth. We argue that this in turn fostered an exaggerated effort to create good children and patriotic citizens,”[4] but lack references which makes their evidence unreliable. The motives of compulsory education and curfew are unclear as they state they are implemented to “prevent children from growing up to quick”[5] and “protect childhood and reinforce the family,”[6] but later propose they are instilled to “control young people”[7] and submit youth to values that favoured patriotism and loyalty which would regulate, guide and socialize children. [8] Having an education system that would guide children to conform is not a new concept, but the governments ulterior motive to their advertisement of the newly implemented practises shows the desperation for control as “teenagers formed their own identity and became an influential subculture.”[9]

In Gleason’s article it is clear the introduction of psychology and psychiatry after WWII

progressed the notion of a ‘healthy’ child and in turn put more pressure on parents to raise a ‘healthy’ minded and behaved child. Societies quick grasp on new psychological ideas gave no time for parents to adhere to the new norms and their dependence on medical expertise shows the emergence of a gullible society, “after the war the power of the perception of social disruption, regardless of proof to the contrary… [influenced] and [shaped] public opinion.”[10]

There is a shift from the mother being all-knowing to her being the problem parent, and father emerging as the correcting influence.[11] This recognition of gender roles showed the progression of the father to be the “new man”[12]  rather than the bread winner, and presents a “virulent attack on [the] parenting skills of mothers.”[13] Gleason displays the overwhelming amount of change parents were expected to adopt in a simple to understand format. Her focus on parent’s hardships allow the reader to gain a perspective not often given and understand the development of our modern parenting regimen, as we typically give our children more freedom that restrictions, this was influenced by the youth rebellion.

Progression did not always mean for the better of all society. In the case of youth rebellion, the importance of child well-being is identified as more important than the parental well-being because youth were the the hope for the future. Therefore, when they began to rebel measures were taken to try and ensure they conform. Parents took the blame for much of their rebellion, when realistically they were doing it on their own because of the economic boom after WWII.[14] Parents were responsible for what their children became in life and it was believed this was fully reliant on their upbringing. This notion is similar to society today, we are quick to judge parenting regimens and often forget the complex minds of children and their stubbornness. Parents can only serve as a guide for their children towards their full potential and this concept is not quite recognized by either authors, which makes it believable that this concept was not yet established following WWII.

References

[1] Gleason, Mona. “Disciplining Children, Disciplining Parents: The Nature and Meaning of Advice to Canadian Parents, 1945-1955,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 357-375.

[2] Myers, Tamara and Mary Anne Poutanen. “Cadets, Curfews, and Compulsory Schooling: Mobilizing Anglophone Children in WWII Montreal.” Histoire Sociale 38, no.76 (2005): 367-398.

[3] “The Canadian Teenager.” https://canadianprosperityandsecurity1.wordpress.com/the-canadian-family/the-canadian-teenager/

[4] Ibid. 369.

[5] Ibid. 378.

[6] Ibid. 379.

[7] Myers, Tamara and Mary Anne Poutanen. “Cadets, Curfews, and Compulsory Schooling: Mobilizing Anglophone Children in WWII Montreal.” (2005): 369.

[8] Ibid. 383,386,387.

[9] “The Canadian Teenager.” https://canadianprosperityandsecurity1.wordpress.com/the-canadian-family/the-canadian-teenager/

[10] Gleason, “Disciplining Children, Disciplining Parents: The Nature and Meaning of Advice to Canadian Parents, 1945-1955,” 360.

[11] Ibid. 365.

[12] Ibid. 365.

[13] Ibid. 364.

[14] “The Canadian Teenager.” https://canadianprosperityandsecurity1.wordpress.com/the-canadian-family/the-canadian-teenager/

I wrote a paper and did a presentation on Hamlet’s influence over modern day diagnosis of bipolar disorder. I had to do a writeup for my presentation and have attached it here. I found it interesting because I was comparing the past to the future, but not in a history class. I had to find ways to prove that history created an aspect of the modern world.

Hamlet’s Influence on Modern Diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder

Today’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder did not come from nowhere; Hamlet and modern diagnosis of this illness have many similarities. When Hamlet and Neil Hilborn’s stories are compared bipolar disorder is an obvious factor because they both tell a story which connects depression, suicide, and mania. They speak of their struggles with this illness and how it outcasts them since their brain is constantly speaking to them in ways the average person does not experience. Looking into the past establishes more than a simple understanding of bipolar disorder, but also how a person with this illness acts; therefore, we have something to compare people to today– “by expanding our experience to the lives of men and women in different times and places, history teaches us valuable things both about others and ourselves” (Sheehan). If Hamlet did not exist “the link between mania and depression [which was] largely unnoticed for many centuries” (Cherney and Krans) may have never been recognized, because there would be nothing to compare the characteristics to. We can learn a lot from the past, and by comparing Hamlet to Hilborn’s speech it is clear that todays diagnosis for bipolar disorder could have been derived from Hamlet’s character.

Hamlet states multiple times that he is miserable with his life and that he would take his life if the church did not forbid it. He desires to rewrite his life and this is a relatable feeling. It takes a lot to fight through unjust situations and this is where many depressed people fail; they decide to quit rather than pursue life– like Ophelia. The people who are not influenced to take their life are often thought to be strong, but Hamlet proves this is not the case if you suffer with bipolar disorder. Hamlet does not recover from suicide because his father’s ghost gives him a purpose: kill Claudius. His choice to pursue life is influenced by manic episodes, which are known today as command hallucinations; therefore his suicidal state of mind is simply bypassed. He is goal-directed and feels powerful, and this is relatable to Hilborn’s speech.

Hilborn gives the modern diagnosis of bipolar disorder through a speech that includes his life experiences. He speaks of his struggle with suicide and outlines his reasons for why he does not pursue killing himself: “I think a lot about killing myself, not like a point on a map, but rather like a glowing exit sign at a show that’s never been quite bad enough to make me want to leave. See, when I’m up I don’t kill myself because holy! there’s so much left to do! And when I’m down, I don’t kill myself because then the sadness would be over and the sadness is the old paint under the new. I’d still be me without it, but I’d be so boring!” (Hilborn. “The Future”). This is similar to Hamlet because he also does not kill himself; they both feel a pressure to stay alive. Hilborn continues on stating that people began to recognize his actions as abnormal, and from there concluded he had bipolar disorder. This diagnosis was a shock to him because he thought he was normal; therefore, the fact that all people did not think like him was a shock: “When they first told me I had bipolar disorder, I was somehow still surprised like, “You mean not everyone sees demons and feels as though they are covered in insects several times a day?” As it turns out, seeing and feeling things that aren’t technically there is called “disordered cognitive functioning”.  I call it “having a superpower” (Hilborn, “The Future”). The term ‘disordered cognitive thinking’ was derived from the past, which happens to be present in Hamlet. Hamlet did not disclose where his pressure to kill Claudius came from because he did not think people would understand. Hamlet is aware that people will not accept his explanation of a ghost directing him to kill Claudius, yet he insists he is sane despite it. There is a connection of misinterpreted sanity by both Hamlet and Hilborn, although both of them suffer with disordered cognitive thinking they both convince themselves they are not crazy. We can also link Hilborn’s notion of superpowers to Hamlet because he holds himself higher than the majority; this is shown when he feels he is the only one worthy to lead the people to Denmark. Hilborn and Hamlet’s stories are relatable in many ways, which proves that society has learned from the past to create a diagnosis for bipolar disorder.

In the past depression, suicide, and mania were not linked to an illness, but rather seen as punishments from God or signs from God: “Mental illness has been known throughout human history, and the symptoms have always been recognized as something different—an abnormal behavior. In ancient times, madness was considered a punishment of the gods but also as the distinctive characteristics of the chosen ones; the manifestation of the symptoms was seen as a sign of a divine message” (Quintanilla). This quote discerns many similarities between Hamlet and Hilborn’s stories, but primarily abnormality and purpose. Hamlet and Hilborn have a purpose to stay alive, despite their fluctuating emotional states, in the end they both choose life presenting the connection of suicide of mania. Both are persuaded to do things by their minds which “influence [them] to engage in behavior that is dangerous to [themselves and] others.” (Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary); for instance, Hamlet kills Polonius, is aggressive towards Ophelia, and is an influence on Ophelia’s death; Hilborn, on the other hand, has been told by his brain to “join a cult, start a cult, become a cabinet maker, kill [himself], so in essence, become a cabinet maker, break into and then paint other peoples’ houses, have sex with literally everyone who reminds [him] of [his] mother, [and] fight people who are much… fightier than [him], like the cops” (Hilborn, “The Future”). There is a clear struggle by both to maintain a sane state of mind. They are heavily influenced by what their minds tell them– presenting the manic stage of bipolar disorder. Hilborn’s mind may not be influencing him to the same extremes of Hamlet, but they are comparable because they both connect depression, suicide and mania. The similarities between these actions and states of mind show that bipolar disorder may not have been recognized in the seventeenth century, but the attributes of it have continued to modern day; therefore, we have been able to diagnose this illness and use the past to help derive a legitimate understanding of its characteristics.

Hamlet is a play built upon tragic events that create an aura of madness. Throughout the play we are not only exposed to tragic events in Hamlet’s life, but also his inauguration to bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder is recognized in Hamlet’s character because he displays three attributes that delineate this illness: depression, suicide, and mania. Neil Hilborn’s speech recognizes these three characteristics as the diagnosis of bipolar disorder today; connecting the seventeenth century to the twenty-first century, thus proving that our knowledge has expanded from the past, and clarifying that Hamlet could be an outline for modern understanding of bipolar disorder.

Works Cited

Cherney, Kristeen and Krans, Brian. “The History of Bipolar Disorder.” Healthline Media.

January 28, 2016. http://www.healthline.com/health/bipolar-disorder/history-bipolar

“Command Hallucinations.” The Free Dictionary. Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary 2012.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/command+hallucination

Hilborn, Neil. “The Future.” 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xUEg2WxGqQ

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Robert S. Miola, Norton & Company Inc, 2011.

Sheehan, James. “How Do We Learn From History?” The Newsmagazine of the American

Historical Association. January 2005. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-

directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2005/how-do-we-learn-from-history

Quintanilla, Beatriz. “Witchcraft or Mental Illness?” Psychiatric Times. June 21, 2010.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schizoaffective/witchcraft-or-mental-illness

My History 

I had done an interview with my Oma to learn more a lot about World War II. Before this interview I had not been exposed in detail to all the difficulties and hardships of the war. I also did not know many of these parts of my Oma’s life. We learn so much about European history in school that I thought this would be a great way to connect the two together. A topic is always more interesting when you hear a real experience and this interview opened my eyes to the impact Hitler had on people. We spend so much time looking at what he did and how he did it; I find teachers often forget to look at how it impacted others and changed the future.

My Grandma, Heidi Jakob, was kind enough do to a phone interview with me and tell me about her experience as war child. This interview was eye opening to me. It was hard to believe that my Oma actually experienced some of the things that she did– things that we only hear about and rarely consider the reality of.

I can not imagine the constant worry of a siren going off and the need to hide in a bomb shelter– the mere thought brings a shiver down my spine. The need to be tested for being Jewish would also be extremely intimidating; the wait to get results, and just knowing the consequences if your test came out positive would be devastating. A point that was brought to my attention by mother, was that my family does not truly know whether or not we have Jewish back round. Apparently, my Opa’s grandfather worked in a high position for Hitler and thus received special treatment. He got out of doing many things; therefore, we can’t be certain my Opa’s grandfathers’s tests came out positive or negative because Hitler did not want to lose him as a worker. This amazed me. It really goes to show how Hitler’s power enabled him to make his own rules, and we still see this today… Trump?

My Grandma’s experience travelling to Canada was quite dramatic. She was an eighteen year old girl in a totally new country; she didn’t know the language or her whereabouts– I can’t imagine what it was like for her. I can relate to the feeling of minority and unknown from my travels, but my circumstances were not the same: I wasn’t running from a Nazi leader. My Oma admitted that she felt out of place and very uncomfortable when she came to Canada; for example, she said she didn’t eat for two days because she didn’t know where the meal ticket was; she was too scared to ask and didn’t know how because she didn’t know English.

I admire my Oma and Opa’s childhood and find it very interesting. After doing this interview I feel like I know a lot more about my family back round; I feel more connected by knowing these stories and having heard these real experiences. My eyes have been opened and I have been exposed to more of the world’s history.

Questions & Answers From My Oma:

• What happened to the children during the war?

They were like any other person. When they heard sirens they went to the shelters to keep safe from the bombs.

• Did you have to get tested to see if you were Jewish?

No, I was only 2 years of age at the time and because I was so young I don’t remember much.

• When did you come to Canada, and how old were you?

It was 1958, and I was 18 years old, I was going to Edmonton to see Otto, because we were engaged and he had already come over seas and was living there.

• Where did you and Opa meet?

At a mountain resort called, Konigswinter Mountain on May 1 1957. It was a holiday in Germany, much like Labor Day.

• What did Opa’s dad do as a living?

He was a carpenter for a long time, but when the war started he started working on the railroads. He was also a Nazi Soldier.

• Did Opa have to get tested to see if he was Jewish?

Yes he did, the tests came out negative.

• How did you get to Canada?

I took a boat from Germany to Canada, and then a train across Canada to Edmonton.

• What was it like travelling across Canada not knowing any English?

Very difficult because I couldn’t understand anything anyone was saying, so I didn’t eat for two days on the train ride because I didn’t understand that the meal ticket was on my train ticket.

• What did you do when you got to Canada?

I went to typing school and then taught typing and shorthand, which is like note taking to secretaries.

I also decided to have no German friends so I could learn English faster, since I was teased at work for mispronouncing words.

While I was reading these documents on dance houses all I could think about was the modern bar. Let’s take Kamloops’ very own Cactus Jacks (CJ’s). A dingy bar with loud music, bright lights, and a multitude of drunk people of every ethnicity. What are the reasons for going to a place like this? Other than a place to dance and see friends while you’re intoxicated I would say the next reason is to find a guy/girl to go home with for the night. The way girls are dressed and the way they all dance together on the dance floor can only be worse than it was at dance houses.

This connection when I first thought about it made me laugh because I had no idea dance houses were a thing and to think the modern bar is so similar to what it was during the Gold Rush proves that aspects of history still live on today. I also started to think how all the things that happen in bars today are normal because not just Indigenous women are taking part, but all cultures; when back in the late 1850’s they wanted to close them all because the atmosphere and actions happening within were not standard acts of white women. Now a majority of people who go to bars are indeed white women.

A thought I still need to ponder is whether Indigenous influence over the normality of dance houses/CJ’s is a good thing…?

Would there still be bars today if the Victorians actually decided to get rid of dance houses?

While browsing through this blog you will find that I speak a lot about the mistreatment of Indigenous populations. Throughout this course the topic that struck me hardest was Indigenous history. This topic became a soft spot to me because I knew so little about it; therefore I had lots of room to learn. I also became an expert question asker… you will probably find that I use the question mark just as much as I use a comma, and that’s because this class has made me question a lot! Mainly about how we teach history and social studies today, but also how we continue to live out some historical problems. I have found that history is still alive today– from inequality of certain groups to the means behind certain actions, some things really haven’t changed. I question things like: the stereotype of Canadian’s ‘niceness,’ the equality of women and what we hope for, the connections between certain historical actions and their influences, and the treatment towards Indigenous groups.

History is not dead; history is behind us waiting to be uncovered so we can truly understand the depth to every aspect of life.

After doing the reading logs I gained a deeper connection and understanding to the mistreatment of Indigenous peoples. The many stories, groups, wars, and lack of Canadian accountability made me want to research something that involved this group of people. I am not the type to research a topic that is dry and boring– I like to look into things that I question, connect to, and want to broaden my understanding on. For my other classes I was researching topics like eating disorders and teen girls, medias role on youth body dissatisfaction, and cellphones influence on youth brain development; therefore I needed a topic that I could not relate to and had little to do with psychiatrics.

After the readings on the Gold Rush I was intrigued and looked a little bit more into that, which opened many doors to me because it is a huge topic. After a lot of thought I wanted to look into the role of Indigenous women during the Gold Rush because after week 4’s Nagging Wife article I was appalled at their clear inequality of being non elites. This brought attention to a lot of information I had never considered and reeled me in very quickly. I became enthralled in this topic and eager to learn more. I started with hopes of finding letters by Indigenous women to explain rape during this era, but then realized that rape was not really a thing, so that opened the door to prostitution and the question of whether Indigenous women were doing this willingly or not. And that is where it all began… After many visits to the librarian and countless hours learning about prostitution in colonizing Canada, I gained an in depth understanding that has changed my perceptions of the Indigenous culture and made me more sympathetic towards this group of people’s past.

Boys will be boys?

Duelling is a peculiar topic because in the back of your mind you more than likely know what it is, but have you ever actually considered it?

When I was reading these articles I didn’t really know what to think other than where are your mothers? And then as I continued to read I realized that they were likely on the side line watching…Wait what!

The act of duelling to me is one of the most pointless things I have ever heard of. I relate it starting a physical fight, which men still tend to do a lot– and I find to be incredibly stupid. It’s like we’ve turned the act to something less violent but with the exact same means. Men still fight in order to show their worth and strength, and it is not necessary. As we have seen with the Beothuk’s and Dakleh–violence will get you nowhere, so with knowing violence will more than likely solve no problems; we can assume the means behind violence is still to show male virtue.

What does it mean to be a man today? Do we still follow the idea that they are strong, powerful, and fearless? If this perception is still the same, then history still lives on and nothing has changed; therefore we can assume the meaning behind a modern duel is the same as historical duelling?

I did not simply learn from Paul Michelle’s presentation– I was moved.

My lack of Indigenous knowledge really made me rethink what I find historically important. All my years of education have been European dates, wars, and people and very little on Indigenous history.

What did I learn from Paul Michelle?

1.) The 7 Aboriginal languages/ peoples: Salishan, Tsimshian, Hadaii, TLingit, Wakashan, Kutenaii, Dene

2.) 400,00+ Aboriginals before Europeans came/ 42,000 once they came

-This created severe mourning and devastation among their people

-No accountability by Canadians

-genocide?

3.) Things to keep in mind when studying Aboriginal people

-Attitudes of homogenous: they are not all the same, they are diverse

-Attitudes of static: they do not stay the same, they are flux

-Attitudes of inferior: they are dynamic

This reading log is where my idea for my research paper exploded.

I grew up in Prince George so Barkerville was a place that I went to many times with school and friends. It became so familiar that by the time I was old enough to actually understand what it was I had very little interest in knowing. While I was reading Mica Jorgenson’s article I could literally see what was being explained, I had clear photo in my mind of it all. This was another instance where an Indigenous group was forced away from their land…. this is getting a little repetitive isn’t it? That just goes to show how bad it really was.

While they were both talking about the Gold Rush my first thought was Barkerville and all the old schools, churches and China Town they have set up there; not the actual Gold Rush itself, and this is when I realized I had never taken the Gold Rush into consideration before. I had panned for gold at the gold panning site they have in Barkerville, but never actually considered the Gold Rush in terms of anything else. Many stories from miners were given and this opened my eyes to the hardships of the Gold Rush; it made me realize that it was not simply a time of gold and money, but rather hard work and low pay.

Were the Beothuk’s just being stubborn?

The first time I read this article I was almost angry that the Beothuk’s were being so stubborn. All I could think was why in the world would you go to that extreme to avoid the Canadians; we aren’t that bad.

My thoughts have completely changed since then. I applaud the Beothuk for doing what they did because they should have never been put in the position to run away on land that was their own. They were not being stubborn, they were trying to save their culture and avoid the missionaries and other groups who were going to condemn them for how they lived their life. Beothuk’s would have been considered deviant because their beliefs and norms were not that of the majority. This is ironic though because at this time there are multitudes of ethnicities and backgrounds in Canada so not everyone had the same values and beliefs– so why were we interrogating the Indigenous culture? Were we afraid they could actually have power and take over? Did Britain fear a Canada ruled by the Indigenous people? Was this not how it should have been… it is their land?

After reading other reading logs I gained a lot of knowledge on Indigenous culture and my thoughts towards this group changed; I became more sympathetic towards them through other findings.