You are here: Home » Commentary » Of History and Marriage- Musings On Changing Definitions

Of History and Marriage- Musings On Changing Definitions

There are many pithy and relevant comments about politics and politicians which more often than not become cliche after a while. None of those statements really applies to what is at hand, however. The reality is that most people love politicians who can make them feel good about themselves and do not say things like ‘trying to get Congress to do anything is like trying to heard a bunch of hyperactive cats.’ President Barack Obama is, honestly, right about what I expected. Indeed, I have been less surprised by him and his performance than I have been by the people who are constantly complaining about him. Perhaps it comes less from the fact that I am jaded about politicians and more from the fact that I have a love of history.

More times than not, I head people go ‘I hated history in High School’ and they kind of lack the ability to understand why I love it so much. People, cultures, and events fascinate me. To me, history is not a bunch of names and dates, but rather a long story. It is, to borrow from Michael Ende, a never ending story. Ok, certainly the story has to end somewhere, and there is a beginning somewhere though physicists and theologians may disagree about that. I certainly do not blame people for having a dislike of history given that it is often presented in a form that more resembles the processed meat that they serve in the lunchroom than a fine buffet full of delicacies. Certainly it is easier to present our own culture upon the people of the past than it is to try and understand them in the context of themselves.

The very idea of homosexuality is very recent. The terms ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’, ‘transsexual’, ‘transgender’, and even ‘heterosexual’ did not exist until the last three hundred years. For many cultures, the idea of a homosexual or a transsexual would be baffling. This does not mean that what we today would term as homosexuality or transgenderism did not exist. Rather, the notion of those categories did not exist. For many cultures, the notion of ‘male’ and ‘female were mental and not physical. Thus, an individual might have a male brain and a female body and they were assigned male tasks in the tribe and were expected to perform all the manly duties up to and including taking a wife. In some tribes, a person with a female brain and a male body was expected to take up womanly duties in the tribe and take a husband. In a rare few cases, these individuals would marry. Most often, however, they married someone who was of the same sex as they were but not of the same gender and they often adopted orphans from within the tribe.

Some societies do not seem to have had those notions of what some call a third and fourth gender, but that is often because of a lack of information. One Greek source stated that Celtic men were known to marry other Celtic men. This is not surprising since the few legal sources that remain from the Celts do not include gender specific marriage laws. Perhaps the Celts also had a different idea of what a man and a woman was suppose to be. Certainly, there were Celtic women who fought along side their men. Women were known to serve in the most holy of all Celtic war troops- the Briganti. Among the greatest of all Celtic warriors were women. While Budhug (Bouddicea), Scotia, and Sgathach are all named, what remains of many male warriors is their title. Certainly everyone knows about Arth Ri (Arthur), and the two Brennus, but nothing is known about their names.

But, where does that leave us? Well, the reality is that traditional marriage of a Romano-Christian form was intended solely for the purposes of procreation. Marriage among other cultures differed from this, but to that culture, marriage was intended to be for the continuation of the patrimony. Marriage is not about procreation anymore. Who cares if a child has their father’s name any more? Traditional marriage comes from a different time and a different culture. Many cultures did not see marriage as being about ensuring the father’s legacy, but rather, as an economic or an emotional structure. Certainly the Celts did not seem as wrapped up in the need for children to have a stable home as we would see it today. Marriage was a contract between two individuals that could last for a year, three years, five years, and rarely for life. Certainly the Romans and Greeks did not hold marriage to be some sacred rite which bound them to a specific partner for the rest of their life. Romans had some of the most extensive networks of brothels imaginable. Greeks in ancient times often had lovers. Many of those lovers were of the same sex. While we often associate Sappho of Lesbos with emotional and sexual love between two women, she was married and she did have at least one child. The love of her life may have been a woman, but she was a wife to a man. Socrates had a wife, but it was to his male lovers that his last words were spoken.

What does this all have to do with President Barack Obama? Well, nothing much beyond this- history informs us of what has been and what will be. A man who has spent a few years in the Senate is not a man who is going to get in there and lead. In truth, people who have spent a great deal of time in the Senate are rarely great leaders either. I knew this not from some gut feeling, but rather, from a study of history. I looked back into the history of this country and weighed the Presidents that have lead this nation, and I knew that many of the truths we hold about Presidents are wrong. Generals do not always make great Presidents. Governors are not always great Presidents. Senators rarely make great Presidents. Our best Presidents are ones who have spent time within both the Legislative and the Executive branches of government, even at the state level. That does not mean that they are statesmen or historical leaders. That is left to how they deal with the events that they face. There are certainly those who would have been horrific Presidents had they not dealt effectively with the problems of their times.

History is more than just events and people and dates. History is a massive tapestry which informs us in every decision we make even if we do not even know it.

Photo of Clio, Muse of History

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clio_in_Domus_Philologiae.JPG

Photo of The Statue of Boudicca, Westminster Pier, London- Copywright Bridgette LaVictoire.