A few things. First, the Wild Card games yesterday were a bit lame. Bengals/Houston was a a matter of scoring just enough to win it. Houston better do better if they think they will have a shot at being the Pats though their Defense was okay. I didn't think the Viks would win, but with an early injury to their QB, didn't have a chance. The 24-10 score was in fact makes it sound closer than it actually was, the one TD obtained in garbage time. Hopefully, today's games will be better.
Mentioned watching Creation, the Darwin biopic, again recently, particularly the commentary track and some of the extras. To clarify, my problem with the film was two-fold: the parts with him struggling over the death of his daughter was heavy-handed and the timeline was pretty garbled. Origin of Species was published over five years after her death though the viewer might think once he was over her death, he was able to get back to work along with the impetus of another person sending him a monograph on the idea. The film has various good individual scenes, but its sense of time was confused. Also, heavy-handed.
Paul Johnson's mini-bio on Darwin was a good read, providing a type of thumbnail sketch of his life and work. I recall at least looking at and maybe reading his similar effort for Socrates, not wishing to read long book on the subject. With the Internet and all, it is harder for me these days to get into longer books, so these smaller books on various subjects, including American presidents and court cases are appreciated. I also think it provides the general public a means to get a taste of various subjects.
Johnson also provides an honest account, including Darwin's weaknesses on discussing the human condition as compared to animal/plant life. Also, he is not totally "innocent" as to Social Darwinism, including opposing birth control and maybe even vaccination laws. Darwin did not really get into the social applications of this theories per this account, in fact, he was loathe to get into such complications given what happen when science clashed with religion (and his concern with his wife's religious beliefs). Still, Johnson notes Darwin was a bit too enthused with "survival of the fittest" type language, even though scientific evidence suggests a more slow, less dramatic process. He however was apparently thrown by Malthusian thought. Interesting ideas. His relationship with his wife also seems interesting -- wish more of that was there.
Finally, an additional word about the Vietnam lecture I referenced. The professor talked about the commonly believed "fact" that various vets were spit at when they came back from Vietnam. She asked the students when they first heard about this and few were clear exactly (other than in their assigned readings) when this was. I thought about this myself and also couldn't remember when exactly I first read or heard about that. It is one of those things heard about from various sources, often secondhand discussions and analysis. It's like when you say something on a chat board and they challenge you. It is not so easy to research the issue and show where you obtained you material, even if it is pretty clearly true.
Some have dealt with the spitting matter -- as the professor noted -- and came to various conclusions. She noted, e.g., a debate between a Slate article and a Volokh Conspiracy analysis of it. One analysis that seemed to conclusively determine that it actually didn't happen was put to the test and the judgment of the professor and others was that it itself deserved to be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, she noted a quick reference in a 1970 (or so) interview of spitting, so it wasn't just some urban legend brought up later, including in Rambo movies.
OTOH, I got the sense it was exaggerated. It sounds to me like one of those things where it very well might have happened once or a few times and it became a "thing," a symbol. This would include not spitting in particular, but let's say chants of "baby killer" or general mistreatment. And, since it was made a lot bigger than it was and hard evidence is hard to come by (no Youtube), it was easy also to assume nothing happened. As the professor notes, not all war protestors were nice people. She also was amused at one analysis of why it didn't happen that included the "fact" that well women don't spit, so accounts of them doing it doesn't make sense.
A good reminder of the nuance required in historical analysis and analysis of many things in general. Again, interesting lecture.
Mentioned watching Creation, the Darwin biopic, again recently, particularly the commentary track and some of the extras. To clarify, my problem with the film was two-fold: the parts with him struggling over the death of his daughter was heavy-handed and the timeline was pretty garbled. Origin of Species was published over five years after her death though the viewer might think once he was over her death, he was able to get back to work along with the impetus of another person sending him a monograph on the idea. The film has various good individual scenes, but its sense of time was confused. Also, heavy-handed.
Paul Johnson's mini-bio on Darwin was a good read, providing a type of thumbnail sketch of his life and work. I recall at least looking at and maybe reading his similar effort for Socrates, not wishing to read long book on the subject. With the Internet and all, it is harder for me these days to get into longer books, so these smaller books on various subjects, including American presidents and court cases are appreciated. I also think it provides the general public a means to get a taste of various subjects.
Johnson also provides an honest account, including Darwin's weaknesses on discussing the human condition as compared to animal/plant life. Also, he is not totally "innocent" as to Social Darwinism, including opposing birth control and maybe even vaccination laws. Darwin did not really get into the social applications of this theories per this account, in fact, he was loathe to get into such complications given what happen when science clashed with religion (and his concern with his wife's religious beliefs). Still, Johnson notes Darwin was a bit too enthused with "survival of the fittest" type language, even though scientific evidence suggests a more slow, less dramatic process. He however was apparently thrown by Malthusian thought. Interesting ideas. His relationship with his wife also seems interesting -- wish more of that was there.
Finally, an additional word about the Vietnam lecture I referenced. The professor talked about the commonly believed "fact" that various vets were spit at when they came back from Vietnam. She asked the students when they first heard about this and few were clear exactly (other than in their assigned readings) when this was. I thought about this myself and also couldn't remember when exactly I first read or heard about that. It is one of those things heard about from various sources, often secondhand discussions and analysis. It's like when you say something on a chat board and they challenge you. It is not so easy to research the issue and show where you obtained you material, even if it is pretty clearly true.
Some have dealt with the spitting matter -- as the professor noted -- and came to various conclusions. She noted, e.g., a debate between a Slate article and a Volokh Conspiracy analysis of it. One analysis that seemed to conclusively determine that it actually didn't happen was put to the test and the judgment of the professor and others was that it itself deserved to be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, she noted a quick reference in a 1970 (or so) interview of spitting, so it wasn't just some urban legend brought up later, including in Rambo movies.
OTOH, I got the sense it was exaggerated. It sounds to me like one of those things where it very well might have happened once or a few times and it became a "thing," a symbol. This would include not spitting in particular, but let's say chants of "baby killer" or general mistreatment. And, since it was made a lot bigger than it was and hard evidence is hard to come by (no Youtube), it was easy also to assume nothing happened. As the professor notes, not all war protestors were nice people. She also was amused at one analysis of why it didn't happen that included the "fact" that well women don't spit, so accounts of them doing it doesn't make sense.
A good reminder of the nuance required in historical analysis and analysis of many things in general. Again, interesting lecture.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!