Who Are The Heroes?

On August 15th, 1945, Japan surrendered to the United States, and World War II was officially over. That day has always meant something to me: my father fought in this war, my older brother died in this war, my ex-husband fought in this war, and my husband of 36 years fought in the Korean War. To me, these four men are heroes, as are all the men and women who have fought, died, or returned home from the many wars we have been involved in.

But who are the heroes of today? Sports stars from football, baseball, basketball, and the like are touted by the media as being "heroes." Really? What makes a football star a hero? I guess it depends upon your own personal definition of who or what makes a hero.

This is mine: A hero is a person who willingly, and without a thought of himself/herself, makes a personal sacrifice for the sake of someone else, known or unknown.

This is why every member of the US Armed Services is a hero to me. Each of these men and women have volunteered to sacrifice their own life, if necessary, in order to create safety for those of us left on the shores of the United States. This is why each and every one of the First Responders on September 11, 2001, is a hero to me. They willingly and courageously risked their own lives, and many lost them, to save the lives of hundreds of people they didn't know.

Who are the unsung heroes in our midst? How about the four teachers, school psychologist, and the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary school, who all died defending their students? How about six year old Jesse Lewis, who yelled "Run!" to the first graders in his class when the gunman rushed in, but had to stop to reload his weapon before he could begin killing again? His first shot went into the head of Jesse Lewis, who had waited until all his classmates were out the door before he turned to run. Too late.

What about all the grandparents today who are raising their grandchildren because their own kids have left the life of responsibility to drown themselves in drugs, or alcohol, or who go to jail because of having committed a crime? These Senior Citizens have made personal sacrifices, some have even had to return to some form of work to make ends meet, now that they have children in the home again. Their dreams of an easy and peaceful retirement have come to a sudden halt, as they now have to begin raising kids all over again. As a grandmother, I could not do this, so to me, those who do are heroes.

Where are the values of today's society, when we read and hear over TV all the time about the praises heaped upon the sports stars, celebrities, and other people of note, all of whom are referred to as "heroes?" What exactly have they done to be considered "heroes?" As a society, have we fallen so low that a hero is nothing more than someone who has 715 homeruns, or is a celebrity having children without marriage, and who is often leading an immature and sometimes drug-filled life, but who is still held up by the media as a "star?" These are the people our children are supposed to emulate, to be impressed by, and to grow up to be "just like?" Not in my book.

Who are your heroes?

Mikki Sadil
http:// mikki-wordpainter.BlogSpot.com
The Freedom Thief
Cheers, Chocolate, and Other Disasters
Lily Leticia Langford and the Book of Practical Magic
Night Cries: Beneath the Possum Belly, book one

Eighteenth Century Welfare-Parish Relief, by Diane Scott Lewis

In my continued research into history, to add to my 18th century novels, I came across interesting details about the English version of Welfare, Parish Relief. Charity in this era was limited. The very poor had to rely on parish relief to survive. But first they had to prove they had a legal link, such as birth, a residence or employment, in the parish—the territorial area under the clerical jurisdiction of one parish priest—where they sought funds. People who were denied parish relief were sometimes found starved to death.

Some parishes were so small they tried to shuffle their poor into the larger neighboring parishes. The elderly and sick were turned away. A few parishes paid indigent bachelors in other settlements 40 shillings to marry their poor women to take them off the books. Overseers of the poor might interfere in a marriage between two paupers, fearing it would result in burdensome children.
To make matters worse, parish authorities were often corrupt and stingy. They’d spend the Poor Rate (the tax on prosperous citizens for the care of the poor) on themselves instead of their deserving claimants.

The poor rates were a source of constant irritation to those who had to pay them. As the population and rates rose, the richer citizens were desperate to find others to pay for their poor. Men who deserted their wives or bastard children were pursued for support. One prominent merchant was discovered to have let his mother wilt away in a workhouse—he was forced to pay for her maintenance.

For deserted children, or foundlings, wherever they were found was their settlement/parish. Self-sacrificing women often traveled to the richer parishes at the onset of labor, hoping to birth their babies in more solvent settlements. But the parish authorities were aware of this and would force these women back over the boundaries. The Parish Act of 1772 came to the aid of these women by stating: “mothers who are suddenly taken in labour will no longer be subject to be removed...” Of course, enforcing this act was another matter.

Children born in wedlock were part of their father’s settlement. If the fathers died, after the age of seven, the children became part of their mother’s parish.

Reformer Jonas Hanway—a merchant who had traveled widely (and the first Londoner to carry an umbrella)—devoted himself to philanthropy. His efforts resulted in a Parliamentary act in 1767 to set aside funds to send urban orphans to country wet-nurses, and provided incentives for the children’s survival.

Though commissioned in the late seventeenth century, the classic eighteenth century’s solution to ending poverty and idleness was the workhouse. By the 1720’s parishes could commit any pauper who sought relief to the workhouse. Ideally a shelter, these places could never make a profit since many people were indigent because there wasn’t enough work available. Workhouses became the repository of the sick, elderly and mentally retarded. Infants consigned to workhouses before Hanway’s intervention were virtually sentenced to death. Hanway called one London workhouse “the greatest stink of mortality in these kingdoms, if not on the face of the whole earth.”

Three substantial private charities would be formed to take the burden from the parishes. The Foundling Hospital for abandoned children, Magdalen House to reform prostitutes, and Hanway’s Marine Society to clothe and prepare pauper boys for the navy.

Parish relief was resented, underfunded, unorganized and corrupt. Along with these issues and the misunderstanding of poverty’s causes, attempts to help the poor, or at least make them less visible, were doomed to fail.

Enjoy my recent release which takes place in 1781 Truro, England: The Apothecary’s Widow.

Click HERE to purchase

Diane Scott Lewis writes historical fiction with romantic elements.
http://www.dianescottlewis.org

Sources:
Daily Life in 18th Century England, by Kirstin Olsen, 1999
Dr. Johnson’s London, by Liza Picard, 2000

Regency Fashions for Ladies by Victoria Chatham

CLICK TO PURCHASE FROM AMAZON

Fans of the Regency era will, no doubt, be quite familiar with terms like muslin and superfine, half boots and spencers. It doesn’t matter in what era we set our novels, our characters need clothes, at least for some of the time depending on how hot the romance is. The Regency fashions were looser and less form fitting than in earlier eras emulating as they did the flowing neoclassical styles of Greek and Roman statuary.

So what, exactly, did a Regency lady wear under her gown? The fact is – not much! Short-legged drawers with a drawstring waist were only just coming into fashion in the early 1800s but were more popular by 1811. Our Regency belle would also have worn a chemise designed to protect the outer clothes from perspiration or prevent a silk or muslin dress from being too revealing. A chemise rarely had any trimming as the coarse soap and boiling water in which it was frequently washed would have reduced trimmings to rags in no time.

The chemise was worn next to the skin and the corset, either short or long stays over it. The short stay fitted just below the bust and the long stays reached the hipbone and created a smooth vertical line. Both styles of stays were kept in place by shoulder straps. A petticoat, usually with a scooped neckline, short sleeves and fastened at the back with hooks and eyelets, was worn over the chemise and stays. Usually trimmed at the hem, it was meant to be seen when a lady lifted her outer dress to avoid mud or to otherwise prevent it being soiled. Stockings were made of silk, knitted cotton or wool and held up by garters.

Dresses were often made of soft, clinging muslins but the oft mentioned morning dress was high necked, long sleeved and made from plain, serviceable fabrics such as wool and linen. The thin twilled fabric sarsnet, or sarcenet, was woven with different colors in the warp and weft so that when the fabric moved there was a subtle shift in color. Evening dresses, or ball gowns, were satin and silk creations, fitted under the bust, short sleeved and with low necklines. An apparent contradiction in terms was that being fully dressed referred to evening wear which showed quite a bit of skin and décolletage, and being underdressed meant wearing a high neckline as in morning clothes. Colors indicated status as young ladies wore bright colors such as pinks, pale blues and lilacs, while mature ladies dressed in purple, deep blue, yellow, strong reds or black.

Outerwear included capes, wraps, shawls, spencers (a short waisted fitted jacket) and pelisses. Rather than a pocket, which was worn under a dress with a slit in the side for access, ladies carried a reticule, or a bag closed with a drawstring and often decorated with beads. This in essence was the lady’s handbag in which she could keep her vinaigrette and handkerchief. No respectable lady would dream of leaving the house without her hat or bonnet and, at home, married women usually wore caps. Short gloves were worn at all times during the day and long gloves reaching the elbow or higher during the evening. The latter would be removed for dining.

Flimsy flat soled slippers of silk, satin, kid or velvet would be worn indoors. Often embroidered or otherwise decorated, they were usually tied with ribbons and sometimes had a short heel. For walking, a lady had her half boots made of kidskin or nankeen, a canvas type fabric. She might even resort to slipping a pair of pattens over her shoes, which lifted her up out of the dirt and mud and prevented both shoes and hem from getting dirty.

No lady would dream of leaving the house without wearing a hat, usually some style of bonnet trimmed in numerous ways. Chip straw was not actually straw, but thin slivers of wood woven into shape. Grosgrain, a ribbon most often used for trimming hats and bonnets, is still in use today and is a coarse weave, tightly woven fabric. It resembles a fine cord that lies perpendicular to the long edges with the warp (the threads which run lengthwise on the loom) being lighter than the weft (the threads that run across the loom). Grosgrain has to be sewn carefully as it frays easily and holds pin or needle marks. It was usually made of silk or wool and occasionally a combination of the two. It was most often used for trimming hats and bonnets.

Sources:

https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/

http://candicehern.com/regency-world/

Tom Tierney’s Fashions of the Regency Period Paper Dolls

Wikipedia

Victoria Chatham is proud to be a Books We Love author.

Find her at:

http://bookswelove.net/authors/chatham-victoria/

www.victoriachatham.webs.com
www.facebook.com/AuthorVictoriaChatham