Author: Zaie Nursey

This weeks lecture from Dr. Loren McClenachan was an enlightening, yet frightening, talk about the newly discovered decline in marine ecosystem health. McClenachan worked in the Florida Keys researching the history of the marine ecosystem in the area. Her goal was to create a timeline of how the reefs and surrounding ocean has deteriorated over a relatively short period of time. Dr. McClenachan’s work is remarkable because she uses stark visuals in addition to facts and figures to communicate her message. She presented three aspects of the Florida Keys marine ecosystem and painted a holistic picture of how the ocean is progressively getting unhealthier. First, McClenachan talked about the decreasing size of trophy fishes. Second, she discussed the importance of coral reefs. Lastly, she exposed the damaging nature of boom-bust fisheries, and the sponge industry in particular.

One of the take home points that I gathered from Dr. McClenachan’s talk was that we need to acknowledge the rapidly shifting nature of our environment. We need to raise awareness through more studies like Dr. McClenachan’s. More specifically, we need to stop the shifting baseline syndrome and expose the large level of destruction that we are causing to the environment. In addition, we need to acknowledge that we have a such a  small historical record that only extends to the 1950s. Even in this short amount of time, we see such a stark difference between the past and the present. We can’t forget the once pristine nature of our environment, and we can’t forget the large ecosystem services we miss out on when we destroy the Earth. Dr. McClenachan is a perfect example of the importance of history and research in influencing future and present policy. By creating these comparisons, McClenachan is able to force the view to visualize the deterioration of our environment. McClenachan advocated and embodies the intersectionality of progress, that we can’t move forward without considering and studying all aspects of an issue. Her work is a good union of history and science, showing that even cutting edge work can involve past information.

As with many other environmentally themed lectures, we see this doomsday mantra that resonates throughout the presentation. Dr. McClenachan included hope in her talk. She referenced the Goliath Grouper and how we can save species and habitats if we really commit to this cause.

The Dr. McClenachan’s talk made me think about how restoration and preventative measures has not happened thus far. I wonder how nothing has really changed in the way we think about ocean conservation and exploration. Even after understanding how important the ocean is to the numerous communities that live on the coasts, not to mention the important ecosystem services it provides to us all. Loren McClenachan’s work and similar studies are what must to continue in order to accurately and effectively communicate the devastating effects of pollution, fishing, and other anthropogenic causes of climate change.

Heather Streets-Salter gave an illuminating talk about the Noulens Affair and the events that occurred in the 1930s around Asia. The lecture began by laying out the events of how European communists living in Asia were arrested and the aftermath of their arrest and investigation. The Noulens affair exposed the vast network that existed within Asia and their connections with the Soviet Union. The investigation unearthed important documents that showed direct connections between the Soviets and parts of Southeast Asia and led to hundreds of arrests.

Dr. Streets-Salter talked about the underestimation of colonized people in relation to the Noulens Affair. She mentions how the Noulens, European communists, got the spotlight and the Asian communists that had helped build this vast secret network were underreported, propagating the narrative that colonized peoples are mean to take orders and not think for themselves. In addition, the women involved in this were also sidelined, while the men got all the attention and credit.

The lecture extends the history of the Cold War and exposed the inner mechanisms of empires. Dr. Streets-Salter used the Noulens affair to illustrate how the European colonies in Southeast Asia were secretly and effectively rebelling and building up systems of authority independent of their colonizers. As Dr. Streets-Salter said, empire in the 20th century were loosely defined territories which reported to a “mother country”. Through this lens, we see how the early anti-communist movement, led by the British and French, was fueled by the fight for colonial stability. The origins of the Cold War and anti-communist movement in was created by the possibility of colonial revolt if the colonies decided to side with the Soviets and create a new communist government. This worry of upheaval caused the European colonizers to vilify communism, and consequently caused the United States to jump aboard the anti-communist movement.

Dr. Streets-Salter mentioned that there was not much literature regarding the Noulens Affair, even though it was an international news story at the time. Dr. Streets-Salter’s talk gave insight into the anticommunist movement from the perspective of the European nations, as well as the Southeast Asian nations. This deepens our understanding of the Noulens Affair, and the international relations that existed in the 1930s, and how that effects us today. This makes me think about our biases and how reliable history really is sometimes. It is very possible that the Soviets or communists working in Asia tried to bury this story as to not expose them. In addition, when learning about the Cold War and the anti-communist movement in school, this wasn’t mentioned at all. Learning history in a specific country means that you will hear the narrative that most pertains to that country. This creates history that is one-dimensional and doesn’t show the true intricacies of past events. It is a hard task to ensure that all aspects of a historical event are told and analyzed, but it is important to note that, usually, when learning history we are only getting one piece of the larger picture. I wonder how this the Noulens Affair  is taught in Russia, China, and around the Asian countries who were also involved in this event.

Carin Berkowitz gave an intriguing talk about Charles Bell, a British anatomist living and working in 19th century England, and his practice of linking science and art. Bell was a renowned anatomist at the time who opened his own anatomy school in London. His teaching styles consisted of utilizing many different mediums to illustrate the human body in addition to practicing surgery. His figures were created with artistry and craft that was unusual for this type of art. It was through these sculptures, paintings, and drawings that Bell highlighted the large intersection between art and science, and how they so explicitly rely on each other.

Bell and his artwork embody one of the few intersections between once seemingly polar opposite fields. He links science and art in a way that is both functional and beautiful. Bell linking these subjects attests to how connected our world is, he was just an early example of intersectionality. This connectedness erases the boxes that we once set for our society. This interest in science and art is not uncommon. Leonardo da Vinci blended art and science to create his masterpiece “Mona Lisa”, and the field of architecture is a blend of physics and sculpture.

Bell’s work is an anatomically correct version of human anatomy. It is interesting to see how this vision of art portraying humans has changed into present day. Idealized forms of the human body are common among pieces of art and lately, it seems that mass media propagates a very specific unachievable human form. Even in Bell’s illustrations, he depicts the insides of muscular, thin, physically fit humans. Here, we see the roots of or modern beauty standards that we see play out in media today.

Art is a way to communicate scientific understanding in accessible ways. During science fairs in middle school, I was always instructed to make a poster that communicates my findings. On a larger scale, nature documentaries like Planet Earth and Chasing Ice blend beautiful and sometimes troubling images about nature to advocate for climate change that is based on evidence found by scientific journals.

Berkowitz’s lecture made me realize just how similar art and science really are. Both disciplines attempt to depict or describe the world around us. Science uses formulas and diagrams, while art uses prose and paintings. All of these attempt to understand the unknown, and share knowledge that is acquired in the process of creating a scientific or artistic work. Before the rigidity that once prevailed in our society, we see people like Bell and da Vinci, who naturally bridged the gap between science and art, and explored them both. Today, we are returning to that mindset which opens doors to our new innovations, like 3D printers that utilize computer code to create physical objects or understanding how pixels can create visually stunning digital images.

Suegene Noh’s lecture about the social interactions of chimeric social amoeba populations gives us important insight into just how important social interactions are. Dr. Noh presented her research on how competition among amoeba effects their genes and pushed them into new directions evolutionary. She talks about chimera, or organism composed of genetically different cells, and its effect on evolution on these organisms. Dr. Noh concluded that there is evidence for inducible adaptation for social conflict, or that conflict between two genetically different organisms can cause evolution. She explores the symbiotic relationships between these amoebas and translates that to microbes in general. Her findings are important because they shed light on the inner workings of adaptive evolution at a small level. One can apply these findings to other examples of microbial symbiosis, like the bacteria found in human digestive systems. This conclusion can be viewed as a microcosm can be transposed onto larger organisms and social structures. Dr. Noh’s work, along with all of evolutionary biology, is the scientific embodiment of how the past shapes the future.

The importance of microbial symbiosis is larger than we ever acknowledge. Our whole environment is composed on microscopic organisms that are the base of most ecosystems. Our bodies function so efficiently due to these bacteria who keep us running smoothly. This was the first conclusion I made from her lecture, that without the harmony that exists at a molecular level, it would be impossible to develop multicellular life, and especially have such intricate ecologies like the ones that exist on Earth today. Our whole world is shaped by these small interactions, which we have built the foundations of life upon.

If we apply chimera on a macro sense, we can see how it applies to our countries, territories made up from a patchwork of races, ethnicities, and ultimately genetics. These same principles found in Dr. Noh’s research can be applied to human interactions. We should use the conflicts we have experienced in the past in an evolutionary manner, working to build upon our existing relationships and social skills. On large and small scales, this understanding of how conflict results in growth is essential to the progress of our human race. If we learned to embrace chimera in the real world, then could solve most our conflicts.

As we have seen throughout the whole lecture series, the past truly shapes the present. I find Dr. Noh’s lecture especially important because it gives us mechanisms to apply past knowledge to future experiences. Her work proves that nothing is born without conflict, and that sometimes we need conflict to evolve. It emphasizes the essential of teamwork and symbiosis, and shows us how reliant we are on each other, and how reliant we are on the building blocks of life – cells.

Greta LaFleur’s lecture explored the relationship between the environment and sexuality. She explained how sex was understood in the 18th century and how that is related to our environments. She went on to say that back then, there was an intimate relationship between the environment and humans, who were thought to be “porous envelops” based on the humoral theory that was present at the time.  Carl Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae, attempted to create a taxonomy for Homo sapiens based on geography. It was thought that race was a direct product of our surroundings, and that race was a malleable thing based on where one was raised. Each taxonomy had assigned characteristics that describes their physical appearance, temperament, and, in some cases, their sexuality. This classification categorized darker skinned women as more sexually promiscuous and lighter women as more conservative with their bodies. Through this perception of race, LaFleur links together race and the perception of sexuality.

This link between race and sexuality is still seen today. The notion that darker skinned women are more sexually active than lighter skinned women is a narrative that is played out today in the media. In addition, the fetishization of asian women who are seen as exotic and reserved is also seen in popular culture. This differentiation creates divides for women of different races. Black women are often portrayed with high sex drives and are objectified my mass media, while white women are portrayed as pure and modest. In addition, certain sex acts that have also been linked with darker skin are consequently criminalized and looked down upon. Since the roots of these ideas can be traced back to the 1600’s, before we had developed vocabulary to talk about sexuality, I think it is about time to revise our perception of sexuality, particularly when in reference to race. The notion that women’s sex drive or sexual preference is based on race is archaic and outdated.

Even back in the 17th century, these narratives were being spread to the mass public through different types of literature. Barbary Captivity Narratives are stories about white sailors captured and sold on the Islamic slave trade. LaFleur brought up this form of literature as one example of mass media that perpetrates the overtly sexualized image of darker skinned women.

We see the vestiges of this today. We see how even after centuries of time, our subconscious are not able to readily separate race from sexuality. We see how we so easily conflate the two and add another dimension into the oppression of women of color.

I am curious to see if there are similar narratives about queer narratives. In modern day, we see a lack of representation in the queer community from people of color, and I find it interesting that, generally speaking, many associate being gay with sexual promiscuity, yet we don’t always associate being gay with being a person of color. I wonder why this differentiation between queer and straight sexualities and their respective relationship with race came about, and how we can work to ensure that this relationship dissolves and we created two separate identities.