I think that often when we learn about the twentieth-century world wars in primary and secondary school, a lot of the nuance and complexity of the situation is brushed over in favor of succinct lists of memorize-able facts and causes. Of course, the period is extremely complicated and there is some necessity to leave out some things just to make it manageable for a high school class to cover, but as per usual, the final product in many high school curriculums is decidedly America-centric. When a wider, more global scope is used when looking at this war-ridden era, the multifaceted nature of the conflicts and the international parallels begin to become very clear. The separation between World War I and II was already decidedly shaky, as the two sides of the war were mostly consistent and the first war in many ways directly caused the second one. Dr. Streets-Salter’s lecture on the roots of Anti-Communism in 1930s South and Southeast Asia really brought the Cold War into even closer contact with the two previous wars, making me question why we even divide them into three separate conflicts, when other violent encounters, like the off-and-on battles of the English Hundred Years’ War, is merged into and titled as a single conflict. Continue reading “Wars Like Dominoes”
Shift Towards Practicality
Dr. Berkowitz’s lecture, which focused on Charles Bell’s schools of anatomy, really matched well with themes from past lectures, which all encourage the reunification of art and science as disciplines of study. The way Dr. Berkowitz described Charles Bell’s anatomical illustrations as a way to retain the dignity and humanity of the body on display was very compelling, considering how poorly these bodies were typically treated, and how duplicitously they were usually obtained. Continue reading “Shift Towards Practicality”
Conflict Creating Communities, Even On a Cellular Level
Dr. Noh’s lecture on the presence of the past in multicellular aggregated amoebas really stood out as unique among all the lectures I have attended in this seminar. Her presentation had the most scientifically-technical jargon and content of all the previous ones in the series. This placed her talk firmly outside my typical comfort zone, where I usually focus more on literary analysis and its correlations in art, history, and philosophy. I was fascinated, then, that the themes of the seminar could fit so well with Dr. Noh’s research. Of course, “the presence of the past” is a fairly general theme, so one could find echoes of it in many different areas of study and fields of research, but the exact significance of it really resounded well in Dr. Noh’s work. Using what data is present to extrapolate how things might have been in the past, while also acknowledging that the opposite is also true, and what occurred in the past informs what sort of data one has access to in the present, fit Dr. Noh’s study of dicty in the same way it does the humanities and human history. Scientific exploration while in a world that is forever moving into the past and the future at the same time emphasizes the importance of temporality in all endeavors. Continue reading “Conflict Creating Communities, Even On a Cellular Level”
Categorizing the Fear of Difference
One member of the audience asked for elaboration on the archaic suggestion that different types of humans are associated with various plants and animals. This was in reference to Linnaeus’ eighteenth-century work, Systema Naturae, wherein the author taxonomized all aspects of nature, including humans by varieties. Specifically, the question evoked thoughts about Linnaeus’ sexual system of botany, which categorized plants by the visibility of their sexual organs, among other things. This is a good example depicting that even when considering and studying plants, humanity still often prescribes to a fixed dichotomy between male and female, and shoehorns that application onto species and things where it may not fit. Continue reading “Categorizing the Fear of Difference”
The Root of Environmentalist Debate, and Who Should Care
One member of the audience asked who should be included in this reorientation of the social narrative of environmental debate. Peterson’s lecture clearly wanted to encourage a place at the table for critical philosophy in this new version of talk about environmentalism. His presentation about a priori thought explains a lot about how apathy is cultivated in the minds of many average citizens, and so the inclusion of philosophy would perhaps help to push back against that. Peterson’s answer, however, was that ideally everybody should be included in these kinds of debates. This response makes perfect sense, as anybody who is advocating for the inclusion of more varied types of intellect to join in a conversation would want even more kinds, not just from different departments of academia, but from all spheres of human thought. Continue reading “The Root of Environmentalist Debate, and Who Should Care”
Science or Humanities? A False Dichotomy
In some ways, Dr. Wai Chee Dimok’s lecture reminded me of a previous talk in the series, Dr. Hensley’s lecture on the parallels between the transitionary periods of the beginning and end of the Industrial Revolution, and therefore climate change, through the lens of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Both talks made the extremely interesting connection between the literary and scientific worlds. I was fascinated by this lecture’s comparison between Bishop and Blake, and how selected works by those two poets could represent a tension between different frames of mind concerning knowledge, much in the same way Hensley compared Carroll’s work to modern attitudes. Continue reading “Science or Humanities? A False Dichotomy”
To Question Science (Is Good)
In the past, the subject of race has been viewed as an innate biological difference, often with the ill-intent of declaring one racial group superior to another. It would of course make sense then, that the first civil rights movements would be centered fully around the cause of destroying that idea of ‘difference,’ and emphasizing how every person is the same in their basic humanity. I have seen lots of posters, slogans and examples explaining racial diversity in a sort of cute, motivational-speaker-type manner, such as a popular elementary school lesson explaining it by showing that white eggs and brown eggs are identical once you crack them open. This emphasis on ‘sameness’ claims and constantly reaffirms that race is just a social construct, an unreal, non-scientific category that humanity made up in its constant attempt to overcome others or put things in boxes. Continue reading “To Question Science (Is Good)”
From Transition, To Action, To End
Dr. Hensley’s lecture was a fascinating addition to our growing understanding of the presence of the past, as it brought up the relevant and ever-increasing modern issue of climate change and environmental decay, and matched it with two-hundred-year-old literature. That pairing initially seemed to be a little bit of a reach to me, but the lecture quickly proved how unfounded that concern really was. As we near the apparent end of this industrial-focused period, it really does make a lot of sense to go back and look at the beginning of it. And, as Dr. Hensley suggested, where better to look for the common views and social or cultural environment surrounding the literal environment than in the literature of the time? Dr. Hensley’s lecture on his work reminded the audience, including myself, that literature is never written in a vacuum, and is formed within the context of contemporary issues. Continue reading “From Transition, To Action, To End”
Another Ignorant Perspective
Dr. Thomas’s lecture largely focused on information about and interactions with Native American Reservations in Montana. This was especially relevant to me, as I am actually also from Montana. I can unfortunately confirm that not much has changed in the education system concerning education about the history of Native American mistreatment. This topic was often brushed over, sugar-coated, or only mentioned in passing while focus was given instead to the minors and missionaries who built the American towns, or Lewis and Clark. As a result of this, a new generation of school graduates, including myself, are coming towards these problems with only a vague awareness of them, and to make a solid grasp on the subject we have to learn about it on our own. Continue reading “Another Ignorant Perspective”
Pride in the Future: Merkel’s Memory Politics
During the Q & A portion of Jennifer Yoder’s lecture, one student suggested that some Germans might see Merkel as an undesirable leader because her actions do not “take pride” in her nation, instead focusing on apology and reconciliation. Indeed, Merkel’s emphasis on the importance of responsibility for Germany’s past actions connotes an atmosphere of “shame,” to use a word from one of Merkel’s own speeches. Merkel approaches the past and present of Germany in a fairly head-on manner, so she constantly acknowledges the modern frame of German history, mentioning or discussing the German past in 67% of her recorded speeches. But this student’s question brings up two questions of my own. Firstly, is patriotism really a necessary or good quality in a leader? And secondly, do Merkel’s actions and speeches really make her “unpatriotic”? Continue reading “Pride in the Future: Merkel’s Memory Politics”