Constant Reader discussion
Constant Reader
>
Disappearing History
date
newest »
newest »
Theresa wrote: "... prehistoric peoples studied the stars and had an excellent understanding of astronomy, as evidenced by Stonehenge and numerous other prehistoric edifices - they tied these observations into burial and other practices, so it was not simply a utilitarian practice..."According to Cunliffe, who is quite eminent in archeology, the evidence of wide-ranging trading and travel (just throughout Europe) is impressive. Tracing the findings of amber and obsidian, which had limited sources, tell those who understand these details that an aggressive pioneering ethic was present throughout. That each new generation might have had to move on to new settlements as they spread from SW Asia throughout Europe is one of the more easily argued viewpoints, he writes, from the extensive physical evidence. Reading Cunliffe, I can say this much -- our ancestors seem a helluva lot less risk-averse, and that much more adventurous, than we are!
Mary Ellen wrote: "nI will assert that we have no proof at all that prehistoric peoples were "as wise as Emerson' (by what measure of wisdom, I suppose is the question) and pondered the same questions as Emerson did. (Michael, I'll admit to not having read the book to which you cite. But I gather from your post that it did not include any such "proof" either.).."I'm not entirely sure how you could gather that, Mary Ellen. But in any case -- Do you think human nature has changed? Do you think our intelligences are different? Personally, I doubt it. Our tools have improved -- by tools, I include all methods of recording. So we are far more able to build on our inherited knowledge base. But I doubt we are really much different, fundamentally, from our ancestors of 10,000 years ago.
I don't necessarily think we are much different either, except in the ways that we are.
And that seems to be the issue, doesn't it?
A discussion over half-full or half-empty?
And that seems to be the issue, doesn't it?
A discussion over half-full or half-empty?
Michael, I was responding to the claim that all people at all times, hunter-gatherers or otherwise, came up with the same questions that Emerson did. I don't disagree with that because I think people of earlier ages were less intelligent than we. I disagree because I think that the thought of one age often responds/reacts to, builds upon, that of prior ages. And (this is pure prejudice, I admit) that literacy itself changes our capacity for thought. If nothing else, literacy allows us to be less reliant on memory, (and probably leads us to be much less good at remembering) and this perhaps allows us to develop some other mental capacities further. (Difference doesn't mean better or worse, just difference.) But under your broad definition of philosophy (articulable thought?) I agree with the surmise that all people through the ages have philosophized, do philosophize and will philosophize. Or, briefly: what Russ2 wrote in his penultimate post.
Mary Ellen
Gail wrote: "Sad if true, Michael. One would like to think that we've made some progress, at least in our dealings with others, in that amount of time. While perhaps human nature remains much the same, would you say that we have covered it with at least a veneer of civilization, so that we have perhaps more control of our impulses than they had, or than they thought was necessary or wise? yo..."I don't find it sad, Gail. I think it's important that we examine our assumptions about ourselves and any presumed superiority to prehistoric peoples. Ten thousand years ago is not a really long time, after all -- why would we assume the species is different now? Were we that different, in nature, 2,000 years ago? The evidence strongly says no, IMO. So 10,000 is not a whole different order of magnitude.
I think society's organic development requires rules, and humans adapted to the rules necessary then, just as we adapt to the rules necessary now. The rules keep getting more complex, I suppose that is true. And some individuals cannot make the adjustment -- now or then. Some tribes..... some nations.
Just to get back to the little case of Emerson -- I believe the intelligence level was the same then as now. So there were individuals capable of wisdom then, superior wisdom to the average in the circumstances that existed at that time, in the same way that Emerson took the greater range of inputs that life afforded him and applied his intelligence to them.
So is civilization merely a veneer? Well, yes and no... LOL. We try to evolve rules for our survival and prosperity. Our natures both create those rules, and also sabotage them, sometimes. I have found this particular book I've referenced a very encouraging packet of information, intelligent conjecture, and careful analysis. It cannot but leave you impressed by your brothers and sisters of 400-500 generations ago. They did exceptional things, and they exercised sense and intelligence as they adapted, experimented, developed, and grew. The evidence is fantastic. Of course, the failures get little notice. Warfare was common at different stages, but how different could it have been from what we just lived through in the 20th century, probably the bloodiest century on earth? When we think about that, is the case for human progress that clear? This discussion involves a very long-term perspective. As Cunliffe says somewhere, by this viewpoint, the Roman Empire is a brief episode notable primarily for solidifying the already-existing roads and connections throughout Europe. That's so broad a viewpoint that it may not be a comfortable, or emotionally meaningful, perspective for many of us.
If we are talking about philosophy or social norms, I'm not sure that progress has a real meaning if the comparison is h/g vs. current society. I'm not one that buys into the "prehistoric matriarchal paradise" theory, but it seems to me that much of modern social progress is really a correction of missteps in social organization in industrialized societies.Theresa
Russ, love Gilgamesh. It's one of the stories my sister and I will talk on the phone for hours about...having grown up sharing a mutual love of it. I've often hoped to have a discussion about it online. I adore Hessiod, Homer and Aristophanes and Meander. Poetry of Sappho Alcman. Hey, anytime if you want to open up a Classics of Roman and Greek topic thread...lit I am in! I wish we had some discussion on such. I prefer them to contemporary lit, except for a few jewels.Mary Ellen said..."literacy itself changes our capacity for thought. If nothing else, literacy allows us to be less reliant on memory, " This is a lovely observation. Memory skills have probably changed and might be one of the biggest differences between written traditions and cultures that practice with texts and oral traditions and cultures that practice without texts. Something is in this Mary Ellen...you're on to something with this...
Hi Candy,
I've been wondering about oral traditions and story-telling skills. It would seem to me that skills can be polished through repetition and practice and that skills such as say singing, or writing music, or even writing stories, have evolved and changed to more complex forms through the ages (or at least changed). With training, sopranos reach impossibly high notes; (some) poets write with beautifully complex but clearly articulated syntax; some (most?) novelists write in their own distinctive styles, and some with very large vocabularies that are not so easy to read, and so forth. I've been wondering if the Haida stories you refer to might not have been subject to the same sorts of embellishment, alteration and "improvement" through the ages, within their own stream of development, as successive generations of story-tellers have brought their own skills to the task and worked in their own burnishments and improvements. I would not imagine them lacking the imagination to do that. In short, perhaps the Haida stories that impress us so much nowadays are not faithful replicas of the seminal plots they once started out to be so many years ago in original hunter-gatherer times. Perhaps, like much else, they have evolved and our desire to imagine them frozen in amber is misplaced. Or maybe I only imagine there is such a desire.
I understand that people much smarter than I regard them, for a variety of reasons, as links to the past that are as undisturbed as we can find them nowadays, but the thought still arises.
Just wondering.
I've been wondering about oral traditions and story-telling skills. It would seem to me that skills can be polished through repetition and practice and that skills such as say singing, or writing music, or even writing stories, have evolved and changed to more complex forms through the ages (or at least changed). With training, sopranos reach impossibly high notes; (some) poets write with beautifully complex but clearly articulated syntax; some (most?) novelists write in their own distinctive styles, and some with very large vocabularies that are not so easy to read, and so forth. I've been wondering if the Haida stories you refer to might not have been subject to the same sorts of embellishment, alteration and "improvement" through the ages, within their own stream of development, as successive generations of story-tellers have brought their own skills to the task and worked in their own burnishments and improvements. I would not imagine them lacking the imagination to do that. In short, perhaps the Haida stories that impress us so much nowadays are not faithful replicas of the seminal plots they once started out to be so many years ago in original hunter-gatherer times. Perhaps, like much else, they have evolved and our desire to imagine them frozen in amber is misplaced. Or maybe I only imagine there is such a desire.
I understand that people much smarter than I regard them, for a variety of reasons, as links to the past that are as undisturbed as we can find them nowadays, but the thought still arises.
Just wondering.
Gail wrote: "While perhaps human nature remains much the same, would you say that we have covered it with at least a veneer of civilization, so that we have perhaps more control of our impulses than they had, or than they thought was necessary or wise"I'm with Michael on this one: "When we think about that, is the case for human progress that clear?"
Progress in terms of change? Yes. In terms of "improvement"? That argument can be made. In terms of failure? That argument can be made, too.
Control our impulses. There are plenty of rapes and murders right here in the good old civilized U.S.A. And we're still bombing the shit out of innocent women and children in Afghanistan, with no plan to stop as far as I know.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/0...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf...
And the impulse to screw over our neighbor for a buck will live on forever, no matter how civilized we get, it seems.
Andy, I think you are just a tad too inclusive in your indictment of we who are now alive. Yours is a popular view no doubt, but please don't include me in too readily. It has been a long time since I raped or killed anyone, and I assume the same for you too.
Gail wrote: "Good grief, Andy, your view is a dark one."Gail wrote: While perhaps human nature remains much the same, would you say that we have covered it with at least a veneer of civilization, so that we have perhaps more control of our impulses than they had...
Depending on who you mean by they, I'd say you have a fairly dark view yourself, Gail. Who do you mean by they? At what point in history did they suddenly begin to control their impulses? How did the control come about? Was it like the will power necessary to quit other bad habits, like smoking? What are the impulses you are talking about?
Russ wrote: Andy, I think you are just a tad too inclusive in your indictment of we who are now alive. Yours is a popular view no doubt, but please don't include me in too readily. It has been a long time since I raped or killed anyone, and I assume the same for you too.
Where were the clothes you are wearing made? I bet a sweatshop. Do you view sweatshops as barbaric or generous?
And how does your portfolio look these days? What are those companies up to that you are supporting? Surely they are not polluting the world. Surely they are not laying people off and replacing them with cheap labor in other countries. Surely they are not cheating on their taxes. Surely they are more worried about human dignity than they are about profit, right?
And you live in New York City, Russ? How many murders were there in NYC in the month of July? I know YOU didn't commit murder, but you were physically close to hundreds of murders in the last few of months. Why weren't those murderers able to "control their impulses?"
Is the veneer of civilization not strong enough? Perhaps we should become even more civilized and require our citizens to cover their skin and curb their language so no unwanted impulses come up.
edited: 10:18 central
Great stuff here.I happen to be in the very middle of working on how to tell history.
Andy, you will find this interesting. I'm working on a film about a massacre in Latvia in WW2. I'll add the website at the end of this post. It's absolutely fascinating because there are so many facets to how holocaust researchers and narratives are told. For example, the film has archival photos of people without clothes, moments before they are murdered. Do we show those images? Does the documentation of the abuse, of showing women as objects by the Nazi's a part of the narrative, of this story, immediately mean it should be included? Are film makers perpetuating the sense of abuse? If we block them or crop the images...are we sanitizing the holocaust?
It is endless. The discussions and dialogue around preserving this history...the dialogues surrounding genocide narratives are very good examples of how history and it's approaches have changed...even in 50 years.
The future of holocaust stories is often times going to be the responsibility of family oral narratives. What used to be considered the responsibility of trained academics and historians might now be the expertise and domain of family/community oral narratives and films such as this one.
And then on top of this...I've spent a fair bit of the last two days investigating the insurance coverage. So...on one hand you have the tragedy...contrasted on another the practical aspects of building the narrative, insuring film equipment in international locales and protecting the crew.
It's weird...because while I'm working this very discussion has surfaced in some of opur production meetings. It's been informing me all yesterday and today.
Here is the web site...I'm working with Mitch Lieber:
http://www.rumbulasecho.org/
Andy,
As I said, yours is a popular view.
I'll add: we disagree.
As I said, yours is a popular view.
I'll add: we disagree.
Russ: Agreed. But won't disagreement today lead to two views of history tomorrow?Candy: Looks like an amazing project! Can't wait to hear more about it!
Ahhh...the eternal debate and one of the greatest of all time. Whether we are noble savages or just savages? Whether mankind is inherently "bad" or "good". Greater minds than mine have been humbled by this question. Philosophers couldn't agree (Rousseau and Hume?) and neither can scientists (selfish gene vs cooperation). Don't think anyone is ever going to agree or solve that one in this millennium, and perhaps what we believe says more about ourselves than about the actual state of things. Here's an interesting theory though: read a couple of articles last year (?) that posited the delicious theory that the novel has been responsible for engendering a more inclusive view of who we regard as people. By immersing readers in others' lives, it created the cultural receptivity to accepting other people's humanity. So we no longer debate whether South American natives are animals or whether they have souls as the Spanish and the Catholic church once did. And likewise we no longer ask whether women are capable of rational thought. I make no call as to whether it's right or wrong but as a member of Constant Reader the idea tickles me pink.
I love it Whitaker and I think we had a link to at least one of those articles here last year at Cr...because it's ringing a bell.Andy, more details to follow...
Andy, There will be two views of history tomorrow, whether or not we agree today. And especially whether or not we two agree. I don't sweat the question anymore.
Andy...some of the issues of this film right now...are limited budget for travel but need for PAs of course. Then so you've got a crew of 6 people...which is sparse even in independent film scenarios...but interviewing survivors has it's own challenges. Instead of bringing the interviewees to a central, easy to photograph set or location...surivors are often more comfortable talking and sharing their memories in their own homes. And a smaller amount of people...a more intimate group of people is also a sensitive issue. The personalities of the people who are crew may be a factor. Being sensitive, an empathetic kind person is basically every bit as important as being a hard core experienced professional.These kinds of factors are something that is part of the dialoque about historical narratives...on all kinds of situations and research.
I am almost never as fullfilled by any activity as I am when I'm involved in the hands on stuff of making films...but this project has really been incredible so far. I feel really lucky to have met this director. We met at a meet up at chicago Filmmakers...and it's really amazing. I usually write my own comedies...and film interviews on much more well light hearted topics. So this is pretty substantial change for me. A major learning opportunity. I don't have a lot of time to write more...I'm on my way back to the office looking for interns. (film students, Jewish history students, history departments at local universities, translators)
Later!
I hope you, and others, maybe had a chance to check out the link I posted earlier...
Russ2 wrote: "And therefore anything goes. Feh!Not my cuppa tea, Dottie."
No, that was not my intention to imply that anything goes -- either by the Orwell quote or anything I said -- I meant that the thought Orwell expressed on our time being one in which we seem to have abandoned the idea that there can be truth, fact and concrete reality in historical circumstances seemed to me to tie into this idea of no right/wrong, truth/untruth which as I've said, I've encountered elsewhere. I don't believe we can't have factual, truthful history written and learned and taught. That also doesn't mean that another culture won't have their own take on that same history if they played a part in those events addressed.
Dottie, I so agree with you. I do think that we need to acknowledge that there are inherent limits to a factual, truthful history. This is partly because later recountings of the episode are written to favour the views of one side. One example that shouldn't raise hackles is that of the English War of the Roses, and the subsequent deliberate portrayal of the losing side in a bad light by the winning side, the Tudors. That's why historians will from time to time revise their views of a particular historical personnage.
This is also partly because some things will, inevitably, be lost in the mists of time. So, I don't think anyone will ever provide a factual, truthful history of what happened to the princes in the Tower of London.
The flip side is that there are, of course, inherent limits to "anything goes". No one can say that Richard II did not exist, or that Richard II was really Emily Waterstone from Whiteacre, or that Richard II was really a black African man.
In between these two limits are what we get as historical accounts, and sometimes, fiercely contested historical accounts.
It surprises me actually that this should be such a controversial idea. A simple test is to go ask your childhood friends or your siblings to write a mutual history. There will be some things that no one is going to challenge: your gender, when you were born, who were your teachers in school. There will be some things where you will, perhaps to your surprise, differ.
Reviewing the historical documents will add some certainty to some parts, but those won't cover everything. Some of those documents will contain inherent biases: your elder sister's diary calling you a snot-nosed pig for example. And, perhaps surprising to all, documents that contradict what people remember of a particular event. Not too surprising really since memories do change and get confused with time.
As with the personal so too goes the larger historical picture, but complicated a thousand times over.
Hey Gail, what Whitaker is saying ties in closely to what Andy was saying...and the idea that it's difficult to have one concrete sense of history is because we learn once we look back. The idea of "they" has been ouutdated in narratives about history. History studies have tried, if they fail, so be it , but they try...to be inclusive. By a more empathetic, interdisciplinary approach history studies have (hopefully) bannished the idea of "they".Meanwhile, Gail, or if there is anyone else interested...I have posted some behind the scenes pics of working on set on the Latvia massacre documentary I mentioned earlier in this thread. The experience of working on this film has been closely associated with discussion, for me, in this very thread. That the preservation of traumatic narratives, like genocide survivors, rape victims, survivors of violet urban attacks has become part of a anew "faith" in the oral tradition.
As the Shoah Foundation Institute so clearly inspires whose mandate is To overcome prejudice, intolerance, and bigotry—and the suffering they cause—
through the educational use of the Institute’s visual history testimonies
Their mandate is an interesting example of how we have changed our approach to historical narratives.
Anyways...Sia, our first interview for the feature length documentary I've been working on has also had her story recorded with the Shoah Foundation. And...here are my photos from the interview of a Survivor of the Latvia massacre of 28,000 Jews...I am so proud to have met Sia and she is a real life Superhero...
http://gnosticminx.blogspot.com/2009/...
It's pretty interesting isn't it? And it so relates to disappearing history, storytelling and oral narratives.
Constant Reader
Books mentioned in this topic
Europe Between the Oceans: Themes and Variations, 9000 BC - AD 1000 (other topics)A Pillar of Iron (other topics)
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (other topics)
Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II (other topics)
Ruined (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Annette Gordon-Reed (other topics)Lynn Nottage (other topics)
Douglas A. Blackmon (other topics)
Annette Gordon-Reed (other topics)
Lawrence Hill (other topics)
And that point of view is probably a case of projection from our own condition now. WE cannot imagine having the time to ponder, make musical instruments, or philosophize if we had to BE hunter-gatherers or early farmers. But we ain't them and most of us, outside of archeology, have no idea how they did it, so it seems that much more challenging a thought to us softies. Great posts, Theresa.