Why does it always seem that those who study history appear to have a better understanding for modern-day events? No, that was not meant to be a question but rather a statement that alludes to our time's failure to appreciate history as a living and breathing…well, thing. To paraphrase a former professor of mine; “History is alive and well for those who wish to acknowledge it.” To some, this seems like the ranting of a history person trying to make an argument as to why their field of study is the best. But in reality, as an aspiring history teacher, I am looking to change the broad opinion that history is only a class that schools use to waste part of the school day. My goal is to help and revitalize what it means to study history.
History is the study of former significant moments, events, eras, people, places, things, etc. The list is endless when it comes to talking about what is considered “history.” The problem with this is that many people consider history to be this concrete and not-debatable thing that has no real wiggle room. Well, not to burst any bubbles, but if you think that way, you are wrong (though some events, i.e. statistics and the understanding of historical documents, can be viewed that way).
Let us look at something that we can debate that causes a big stir in the media: interpretation of the Constitution. I will refrain from adding it into this argument but rather refer back in time. In this day and age we have a two-headed beast, the two heads of which each argue and want to declare the other unconstitutional. We throw that word around, but do we really understand what is meant? The Constitution of the United States was written in 1789, and was designed to outline the rules of the young nation as it was growing. In it, you find some rules that were designed to protect the citizens of this country. If you haven’t read it, you probably should before trying to wrongly include it in an argument. This document was written in such a way that it would not give too much control to the federal government, nor too much power to the state government. It was designed to protect basic rights of the governed.
Now that we all understand the purpose of that, let's get down to a brief discussion. Is it right to change our rights? Technically speaking, we the people reserve a right to change the manner in which we are governed. That’s the beauty of living in a democracy. However, it is not that simple. You cannot just wake up one day and decide to rewrite the laws. While we have the right to include our opinions on how we are ruled, we cannot just change this. We were granted certain unalienable rights from our creators, but the rest were rights given to us by the architects who helped this country. Those rights were wished to be preserved to protect a nation of people who just wanted to be left to live their lives: to grant people the rights to speak their minds, defend their families and to protect them legally from oppression.
So now here is where we answer the question, is it our right to change our rights? My answer is yes and no. The beauty of this nation is that this question is open for debate. While some people say yes, others would say no, and this creates a dialogue between people and it helps to create advocates and special interest groups who are able to bring light to causes. To put it simply, change is something that comes from time to time, and sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad. What was good for the Founding Fathers may not be good for us. But rather than denounce their opinions, why not understand what they meant?
