Author: srkohli (Page 1 of 2)

This week, Janet Browne returned to Colby to speak on the Origins of the Origins of Species, a defining work not only in the world of science and biology, but a revolutionary text with immeasurable impact globally. While speaking on the origins of Origins of Species, Browne spoke on what could be deemed as the Origin of the origin. Where did we come from? Where did the Earth come from? How do origins fit into the Evolution theory? Ultimately, where does the story start? Humanity, when looked at in a general picture of evolution, is often depicted as a muscular man evolving from apes. But what defines the modern man? We are constantly transforming and growing, not reaching an endpoint that boxes in our humanity, despite a the aforementioned photo of a hairy, upright, biped man. Evolution cannot be equated to steps on a staircase, but rather steps to multiple different rooms all on the same floor, given that within each room there are hundreds upon thousands of steps, incremental and nearly non-noticeable changes separating every mark. As a concept, it is dependent on gradual development, with no clear intro, body, conclusion, or more appropriately, beginning, middle, or end. It is an idea, not a list of consequential steps. The silhouetted model often reflects a timeline, marked by a single line of growth. In reality, there is a much greater resemblance to a patch of trees, with each species representing a brand on one of multiple trees, having stemmed from the same, similar, or even entirely different parent species. Evolution is a never-ending process, with the definition constantly being altered by those studying it.

However, in a constantly changing world, with political leaders and administration fighting what is common knowledge and widely accepted fact, how do we avoid falling into pitfalls of invalidity and false science? In a political administration run by those who advocate for racial and social difference concluding a biological hierarchy, where difference is hated rather than appreciated, we must fight for the importance in genetic variation, diversity, and science-based perspective.

Although I was unable to attend Chris Gavaler’s lecture on Superheroes, I encountered the idea of heroes and superheroes in my personal research project on the Origins of Decision, and particularly evil. Superheroes are defined as having supernatural powers, but also “dedicated to fighting crime, protecting the public, and usually battling supervillains.” Heroes, though originated in comics, movies, and books, are ever-present today as notable figure of humanity by carrying out the same tasks as the aforementioned superheroes. But where do the lines between humanity, heroism, and evil separate? Having written my research paper on this topic, this is a particularly idea of interest. Hannah Arendt’s “Banality of Evil” is rooted in the idea that the evil that occurs in society is not actually as a result of the existence of “evil people,” but rather that evil can be drawn out in any one of us. A seemingly evident and defined line separates “evil and good,” one that separates terrorists from figures like Ghandi, MLK, or even everyday people, such as yourself. In turn, categorizing good and evil is also categorizing “moral and immoral,” immediately casting the two far apart and unable to mix, flow across, and combine. Though it is easy to initially cast one another apart, we immediately recognize that this is not reality, as there are not globally specific locations of evil, encapsulated within a town or state border. It is easy to embrace this lack of personal responsibility, settling for the mentality of evil in the “other.” As Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explains, “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human-being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” This divide is expressed in a number of ways, such as in art, as created by MC Escher’s ‘Angels and Demons.’ This piece is a geometric tessellation of black devils and white angels – hinged on the viewer’s perspective. The Yin & Yang of human dimension, the devil and angel represent good and evil in the world, however the image merely poses the two extremes. Visually, and metaphorically, the transformation from good to evil can happen immediately yet is fluid, seemingly without any conscious choice. The same idea separates heroism and normality, that any one human can be a hero, or a villain.

Arnout Van Demeer’s lecture was titled “In Search of the Origins of National Identity in Southeast Asia” centered around Soemarsano, and sparked a particularly chord in me given my father’s ancestry in India, with much family in Southeast Asia. As Professor Van Demeer shared, the Southeastern Asian countries are often overlooked in the discussion of Asia, with primary focus being on China, Korea, Japan, and the previously considered “Oriental” nations. Having grown up in Arizona, but living in Hong Kong and Singapore for a year, with Indian heritage, my perspective of Asia has always been slightly altered comparatively. However through multiple different classes at Colby, this disregard for Asian countries has become aware to me, through discussion of the myth of the model minority and Asian-American history. The myth of the model minority is one founded upon the notion that Asians are more likely to achieve success in “climbing the social and economic ladders” of America due to their strong family values and strong work ethic. This idea was debunked as mythical, but certainly outcasted Southeast Asians, including Vietnamese, Thai, and Cambodian communities. While they were unable to replicate the success of other Asian ethnic groups during this time period, it was not as a result of any cultural values or weaknesses, but rather geographic disparities resulted in poorer educational and work backgrounds. When Southeast Asians immigrated to the United States, they were thus unable to achieve the same success as “typical” Asian-Americans, much to the confusion and disbelief of American culture. While Van Demeer focused on a specific individual, Soemarsano, and Southeast Asian national identity, this model minority myth certainly ought to be accounted for in regards to affecting national identity, causing for outcast by Americans by a unifying among the Southeast Asian-American communities within the United States. Another key element of Van Demeer’s lecture was the Onion Theory, another topic I’ve faced in classes at Colby. By peeling back the layers of cultural identity, you are able to pinpoint the core and basis for the root one a nation’s culture. While in theory this makes sense, it is not a viable nor pragmatic way of identifying elements of cultural importance or relevance. It is simply not all-encompassing or detailed, rather focusing strictly on history rather than growth. Origins, though looking at history and foundation, requires understanding progression and transformation, for origins are not truly the origin, but the beginning of a transition.