Ah...racism.
Well, there was a time when racism was necessary. Back in the Roman days, if a six-foot-two guy with a bushy blond beard wearing a conical helm decked out with antlers and owl-esque eyeholes came knocking at your door, you knew not to open the door to him and his legion of similarly-clad warriors, because they were a bunch of barbarians. Back then, you were suspicious of anybody who came from outside your village, kingdom, religion or ethnicity, because there was a very real chance that they might want to kill you, rape your wife and burn your land. But racism, a phenomenon that should have died out long ago, has lingered on to this day...and this video explains why.
http://bigthink.com/floating-university/why-were-at-war-with-ourselves-understanding-racism-as-an-introduction-to-psychology
For those of you who don't have the three minutes to watch the video, it explains how we're all subconsciously racist. Even those of us who would say we aren't bigots subconsciously judge people of different races, religions, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and ideologies, generally stemming from a lack of experience. Basically, the people you grow up around provide your subconscious with a baseline for trust. As the video shows, having more experience with a specific group helps eliminate subconscious stereotypes you may have about that group. For example, my overwhelmingly positive view of the Irish people stems from my friends and a very, very large extended family. If I had Italian or Russian family, I would be more inclined to trust Italians or Russians. However, owing to a lack of experience with people from Italy or Russia, I'm much more inclined to trust the Irish people, and I have a few subconscious stereotypes about...well, all the non-Irish nationalities. I'm sure most people in England subconsciously see the Irish as loud, obnoxious, violent individuals, because they've been raised during (or by those who remember) the Troubles. And the video is right - the only way to remove the stereotypes from your subconscious is experience. Because, when you get down to it, the percent of law-abiding African-Americans in the black population is just about equal to the white population, not all Frenchmen are obnoxious smokers, and the vast majority of Canadians don't say "Eh." But somebody might have forgotten to mention that to your subconscious.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Monday, January 27, 2014
Brian's Movie Conspiracy Theories
Today, I'll be discussing some of my favorite movie conspiracy theories. I came up with some of these and heard about the rest from friends, but all of them make perfect sense, when you think about it (and all of them have been discussed online, I can promise you that). Once you notice them, you won't un-notice them...I can promise you that. I'll only do three theories for this particular post, but I may do more in the future.
1) The Dark Knight
Theory: The Joker was a veteran
"You wanna know how I got these scars?"..."A truckload of soldiers will be blown up, and nobody panics, because that's all part of the plan."
Is the second line just chance? Possibly...but possibly not. The Joker never does give a straight answer as to how he did, in fact, get those scars. It would also explain his deep-seated resentment of organized government, particularly America's. I mean, we all resent the government, but we don't want to see our nation descend into anarchy. The Joker would disagree with that. It might also explain why he's so darn crazy. Irritability, nervousness, thinking the world is against you...these are all symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and the Joker exhibits all three. It's quite possible he might have some other mental illness stemming from a traumatic experience...like a bombing. This theory is plausible at worse, and quite likely. It would also explain how a common crook knew how to use a military-grade rifle whilst trying to kill the mayor of Gotham City.
2) Fight Club
Theory: The movie is based on a grown-up version of the popular '80's comic strip Calvin and Hobbes
"You know you kind of look like a cartoon tiger in that jacket, right?"
For those of you who aren't familiar with the comic strip...Calvin is an imaginative six-year-old boy, Hobbes is his stuffed tiger/imaginary friend, and the two of them have crazy adventures together, because Calvin's life is actually sad and lonely. For those of you who know Fight Club, you may be seeing some similarities already. For those of you who aren't, what about the fact that the narrator's imaginary friend is named Tyler? As names go, it's about as close as you can get to the word "tiger." And what about that scene where Tyler wears the striped orange coat, and the narrator tells him that he looks like a cartoon tiger? And the fact that we never learn the narrator's name...coincidence? I noticed this the first time I saw the movie, and I'm convinced that it wasn't an accident or a coincidence. Fight Club is a grown-up, R-rated version of the comic strip I've loved since I was a kid. And I'm not sure I like that.
3) The Rock
Theory: Sean Connery's character is Sean Connery's Bond, abandoned by the British government after he was caught spying on the United States
"Mason was the British operative who stole the files...Of course, the British claimed that they'd never heard of him."
This theory ties into another well-known theory which many of you may be familiar with: James Bond is actually a codename for Agent 007. When one Bond dies, another agent becomes the new 007 - and becomes the new James Bond. If you subscribe to that theory, this one is obvious. In The Rock, Connery plays an ex-MI-6 agent named John Mason, imprisoned for spying on American officials. According to the film, Mason has no records of ever having lived in Britain...fitting for a nation's top secret agent, wouldn't you say? Mason also makes cracks about his sex appeal, requests suits, and reminisces about his womanizing past...not at all something an elderly James Bond would do. Granted, John Mason is rougher, fouler-mouthed, and less suave than James Bond, but hey - a few decades in prison will do that to a guy.
1) The Dark Knight
Theory: The Joker was a veteran
"You wanna know how I got these scars?"..."A truckload of soldiers will be blown up, and nobody panics, because that's all part of the plan."
Is the second line just chance? Possibly...but possibly not. The Joker never does give a straight answer as to how he did, in fact, get those scars. It would also explain his deep-seated resentment of organized government, particularly America's. I mean, we all resent the government, but we don't want to see our nation descend into anarchy. The Joker would disagree with that. It might also explain why he's so darn crazy. Irritability, nervousness, thinking the world is against you...these are all symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and the Joker exhibits all three. It's quite possible he might have some other mental illness stemming from a traumatic experience...like a bombing. This theory is plausible at worse, and quite likely. It would also explain how a common crook knew how to use a military-grade rifle whilst trying to kill the mayor of Gotham City.
2) Fight Club
Theory: The movie is based on a grown-up version of the popular '80's comic strip Calvin and Hobbes
"You know you kind of look like a cartoon tiger in that jacket, right?"
For those of you who aren't familiar with the comic strip...Calvin is an imaginative six-year-old boy, Hobbes is his stuffed tiger/imaginary friend, and the two of them have crazy adventures together, because Calvin's life is actually sad and lonely. For those of you who know Fight Club, you may be seeing some similarities already. For those of you who aren't, what about the fact that the narrator's imaginary friend is named Tyler? As names go, it's about as close as you can get to the word "tiger." And what about that scene where Tyler wears the striped orange coat, and the narrator tells him that he looks like a cartoon tiger? And the fact that we never learn the narrator's name...coincidence? I noticed this the first time I saw the movie, and I'm convinced that it wasn't an accident or a coincidence. Fight Club is a grown-up, R-rated version of the comic strip I've loved since I was a kid. And I'm not sure I like that.
3) The Rock
Theory: Sean Connery's character is Sean Connery's Bond, abandoned by the British government after he was caught spying on the United States
"Mason was the British operative who stole the files...Of course, the British claimed that they'd never heard of him."
This theory ties into another well-known theory which many of you may be familiar with: James Bond is actually a codename for Agent 007. When one Bond dies, another agent becomes the new 007 - and becomes the new James Bond. If you subscribe to that theory, this one is obvious. In The Rock, Connery plays an ex-MI-6 agent named John Mason, imprisoned for spying on American officials. According to the film, Mason has no records of ever having lived in Britain...fitting for a nation's top secret agent, wouldn't you say? Mason also makes cracks about his sex appeal, requests suits, and reminisces about his womanizing past...not at all something an elderly James Bond would do. Granted, John Mason is rougher, fouler-mouthed, and less suave than James Bond, but hey - a few decades in prison will do that to a guy.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
The Russian Olympic Crisis
Oh, Russia...
I'm sure most of you are aware of the "situation" involving the upcoming Winter Olympics. It's not the two-toilets-per-bathroom-stall situation, either: it's the terrorist situation. Unfortunately, we don't quite know what exactly is happening, other than the fact that things are really, really tense in Russia at the moment. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/winter-olympics/10590819/Winter-Olympics-2014-Sochi-under-siege-as-fear-and-suspicion-reign.html) Things are so bad, President Obama has even offered to station U.S. troops and warships in the Black Sea if things get out of hand. Russia is extremely unlikely to accept this offer, as our current diplomatic relationship is far from smooth. The last thing President Putin wants is for American troops, many of whom think less than highly of his regime, to interfere. It would make Russia look weak, and the nation already struggles to live up to its past. Hosting the games gave Russia an opportunity to prove its strength to the world, demonstrated through the massive security precautions present in and around Sochi. These precautions, however, have done nothing to discourage terrorist threats. So far, Russia has received threats involving the procession of the Olympic torch, and other nations (including our own) have been warned that their athletes are at risk. So, who are these terrorists? Some of the threats, which involve suicide bombings, seem to involve radical Muslims. After all, Sochi isn't terribly far from Chechnya, the militant-plagued Muslim area of the country that gained fame last year as the homeland of the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon Bombings. It's entirely feasible that incensed radicals would be willing to give their lives to attack the Russian government, troops and people they hate so. Other possibilities exist for some of the other threats, although they seem less likely. Tension is mounting in Ukraine, about as far from Sochi as the Chechnya region is (although to the north rather than the southeast), where protests are mounting against the president's Russian-backed decision to keep the nation from developing ties with the European Union. And what about Georgia, whose northern border lies under fifteen miles from Sochi, who waged war with the Russians not six years ago? It's a stretch, but history has proven that stranger things have happened. At any rate, I won't be watching the Opening Ceremony of the Winter Olympics without expecting the worst to happen.
I'm sure most of you are aware of the "situation" involving the upcoming Winter Olympics. It's not the two-toilets-per-bathroom-stall situation, either: it's the terrorist situation. Unfortunately, we don't quite know what exactly is happening, other than the fact that things are really, really tense in Russia at the moment. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/winter-olympics/10590819/Winter-Olympics-2014-Sochi-under-siege-as-fear-and-suspicion-reign.html) Things are so bad, President Obama has even offered to station U.S. troops and warships in the Black Sea if things get out of hand. Russia is extremely unlikely to accept this offer, as our current diplomatic relationship is far from smooth. The last thing President Putin wants is for American troops, many of whom think less than highly of his regime, to interfere. It would make Russia look weak, and the nation already struggles to live up to its past. Hosting the games gave Russia an opportunity to prove its strength to the world, demonstrated through the massive security precautions present in and around Sochi. These precautions, however, have done nothing to discourage terrorist threats. So far, Russia has received threats involving the procession of the Olympic torch, and other nations (including our own) have been warned that their athletes are at risk. So, who are these terrorists? Some of the threats, which involve suicide bombings, seem to involve radical Muslims. After all, Sochi isn't terribly far from Chechnya, the militant-plagued Muslim area of the country that gained fame last year as the homeland of the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon Bombings. It's entirely feasible that incensed radicals would be willing to give their lives to attack the Russian government, troops and people they hate so. Other possibilities exist for some of the other threats, although they seem less likely. Tension is mounting in Ukraine, about as far from Sochi as the Chechnya region is (although to the north rather than the southeast), where protests are mounting against the president's Russian-backed decision to keep the nation from developing ties with the European Union. And what about Georgia, whose northern border lies under fifteen miles from Sochi, who waged war with the Russians not six years ago? It's a stretch, but history has proven that stranger things have happened. At any rate, I won't be watching the Opening Ceremony of the Winter Olympics without expecting the worst to happen.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Big Think: International Prejudices
It's undeniable: some countries just hate each other.
On Big Think today, there was an article on the tense relationships between Japan and China, fueled by a long history of mistrust and resentment:
http://bigthink.com/dragons-and-pandas/if-all-chinese-go-to-the-coast-and-spit-japan-will-drown
Of course, as the article explains, this is quite the powerful feud, going back to the second World War. But this is a much broader phenomenon, one that applies to most of the world's nations. Conflicting ideologies and past strife lead to mistrust between nations that can last years, decades, or even millennia. Even as countries rise and fall, these divisive factors may remain in place. Take America's relationship with Russia - today, we're walking on thin ice. Our two nations have been at each other's throats a great deal, what with Syria, human rights issues, and diplomatic tension. This is a continuation of the tension that's been present since the end of the second world war. I likened the current state of Russo-American relations to "thin ice." If that's the case, as we all know, our relationships during the cold war were akin to walking on a tightrope made of dental floss over a tank of starving tiger sharks. Such tensions don't always apply to enemies, either - take America and its so-called ally, the United Kingdom. On the political and military level, our two nations are allies. On the individual level...not so much. The British people, as a group, tend to view Americans as snobbish, rude, stupid, and overweight. Americans fall into two camps: anglophiles, and those who see the British as weak, pathetic, pompous cowards who would be speaking German if not for the good ol' Yankees. But, as in the case of our dysfunctional relationship with Russia, things were much worse in the past. For those of you who think that the U.S. and the U.K have been the best of friends since the first world war, look up a little something called "War Plan Red." Better yet, I'll tell you what it is: it was an American plan to conquer Canada (then a British dominion) and assault Great Britain with the full force of our navy. Want to know when this plan was approved? In the year 1930, less than ten years before the start of World War Two. Top officials only scrapped this plan because they recognized Germany and Japan as bigger threats. But even though most of the American people have never even heard of War Plan Red, many of them feel the resentment its writers felt, less than a century ago. And if history has taught us anything, it's that wounds of this sort heal slowly, if at all.
On Big Think today, there was an article on the tense relationships between Japan and China, fueled by a long history of mistrust and resentment:
http://bigthink.com/dragons-and-pandas/if-all-chinese-go-to-the-coast-and-spit-japan-will-drown
Of course, as the article explains, this is quite the powerful feud, going back to the second World War. But this is a much broader phenomenon, one that applies to most of the world's nations. Conflicting ideologies and past strife lead to mistrust between nations that can last years, decades, or even millennia. Even as countries rise and fall, these divisive factors may remain in place. Take America's relationship with Russia - today, we're walking on thin ice. Our two nations have been at each other's throats a great deal, what with Syria, human rights issues, and diplomatic tension. This is a continuation of the tension that's been present since the end of the second world war. I likened the current state of Russo-American relations to "thin ice." If that's the case, as we all know, our relationships during the cold war were akin to walking on a tightrope made of dental floss over a tank of starving tiger sharks. Such tensions don't always apply to enemies, either - take America and its so-called ally, the United Kingdom. On the political and military level, our two nations are allies. On the individual level...not so much. The British people, as a group, tend to view Americans as snobbish, rude, stupid, and overweight. Americans fall into two camps: anglophiles, and those who see the British as weak, pathetic, pompous cowards who would be speaking German if not for the good ol' Yankees. But, as in the case of our dysfunctional relationship with Russia, things were much worse in the past. For those of you who think that the U.S. and the U.K have been the best of friends since the first world war, look up a little something called "War Plan Red." Better yet, I'll tell you what it is: it was an American plan to conquer Canada (then a British dominion) and assault Great Britain with the full force of our navy. Want to know when this plan was approved? In the year 1930, less than ten years before the start of World War Two. Top officials only scrapped this plan because they recognized Germany and Japan as bigger threats. But even though most of the American people have never even heard of War Plan Red, many of them feel the resentment its writers felt, less than a century ago. And if history has taught us anything, it's that wounds of this sort heal slowly, if at all.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Big Think: Technology is the Bane of Human Self-Autonomy
My blog wasn't named without reason: I HATE technology with a passion. At times I feel I would have been better off in the time of the Crusades, even though I would probably have died before the age of thirty. But I digress, because I've found this excellent article that finally vindicates me:
http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/personal-autonomy-is-evaportating-should-we-care
As I said, I believe it's excellent, but you should probably see for yourself - I'm really biased on the subject. But the article has undeniably valid points: technology is getting more complex, more controlling, and more prevalent. And as this occurs, people are becoming more and more dependent upon technology for everything. To those of you who think I'm technophobic, that's what I'm afraid of: reliance on technology. Because, in my experience, technology is extremely unreliable. Just in the last day or two, Anika failed to send Danny a video clip for one of his commercials - not for lack of trying, but because the technology let them both down. And it's not just that - emails don't always send, Google Maps and GPS's almost always tell you to take the long way, and voice/fingerprint recognition technologies, such as the ones beginning to be used in cars and homes, are faulty and easy to fool. And there's the increasing danger of cyber warfare - when society becomes dependent upon the Internet, and GPS's, and other satellite-controlled technologies, what happens when a rival nation starts shooting down your satellites, or hacking into those programs? You get chaos, because in fifty years, driving your own car, getting into your house with keys, and spending a night without a computer will be considered catastrophes. And that could be a very serious problem. So I can promise you all this: in sixty years, I will be that crotchety old guy who drives his own car and gets apprehended all the time for breaking the law (see the article). In fifteen, my kids will be among the few in America who won't be watching T.V. or playing on their cell phones. In ten, I will be the guy who uses a map made of actual paper when he goes on the road. And in three, I will be the guy who still reads books made of paper.
http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/personal-autonomy-is-evaportating-should-we-care
As I said, I believe it's excellent, but you should probably see for yourself - I'm really biased on the subject. But the article has undeniably valid points: technology is getting more complex, more controlling, and more prevalent. And as this occurs, people are becoming more and more dependent upon technology for everything. To those of you who think I'm technophobic, that's what I'm afraid of: reliance on technology. Because, in my experience, technology is extremely unreliable. Just in the last day or two, Anika failed to send Danny a video clip for one of his commercials - not for lack of trying, but because the technology let them both down. And it's not just that - emails don't always send, Google Maps and GPS's almost always tell you to take the long way, and voice/fingerprint recognition technologies, such as the ones beginning to be used in cars and homes, are faulty and easy to fool. And there's the increasing danger of cyber warfare - when society becomes dependent upon the Internet, and GPS's, and other satellite-controlled technologies, what happens when a rival nation starts shooting down your satellites, or hacking into those programs? You get chaos, because in fifty years, driving your own car, getting into your house with keys, and spending a night without a computer will be considered catastrophes. And that could be a very serious problem. So I can promise you all this: in sixty years, I will be that crotchety old guy who drives his own car and gets apprehended all the time for breaking the law (see the article). In fifteen, my kids will be among the few in America who won't be watching T.V. or playing on their cell phones. In ten, I will be the guy who uses a map made of actual paper when he goes on the road. And in three, I will be the guy who still reads books made of paper.
Monday, January 13, 2014
The Mousetrap Fiasco
So...I've had an interesting day.
Things sailed smoothly until about 3:20 this afternoon. School had proceeded normally, as school goes, and I'd made a fair amount of progress on my STAC Art project. After school, I endured the arduous thirty-foot hike from the STAC room to the auditorium, where we were supposed to have had auditions for the dramatic production, The Mousetrap. For those of you who don't know, this play was written by Agatha Christie, perhaps the greatest mystery writer of all time, responsible for such masterpieces as And Then There Were None. As for the play itself...I can't reveal much without spoiling it, but it is masterfully written, and contains Christie's habit of throwing off the audience/reader. So there we were, filling out the audition forms, and looking forward to getting up on stage...when Mrs. Latham, our director, came back from the music office with bad news. Apparently, Agatha Christie somehow made it illegal to perform The Mousetrap within seventy-five miles of Manhattan. Why? Who knows? She didn't ban any of her other works from Broadway. We have permission to perform Ten Little Indians (based upon And Then There Were None), according to the music office. What's more, Herricks has performed The Mousetrap in years past, or so I've been lead to believe. And I can't find any source online that mentions the play being banned in the New York area, and it isn't for lack of trying. So why can't we put on the damn show? The only thing I know for certain is that this whole fiasco has definitely lowered my opinion of Ms. Christie.
Things sailed smoothly until about 3:20 this afternoon. School had proceeded normally, as school goes, and I'd made a fair amount of progress on my STAC Art project. After school, I endured the arduous thirty-foot hike from the STAC room to the auditorium, where we were supposed to have had auditions for the dramatic production, The Mousetrap. For those of you who don't know, this play was written by Agatha Christie, perhaps the greatest mystery writer of all time, responsible for such masterpieces as And Then There Were None. As for the play itself...I can't reveal much without spoiling it, but it is masterfully written, and contains Christie's habit of throwing off the audience/reader. So there we were, filling out the audition forms, and looking forward to getting up on stage...when Mrs. Latham, our director, came back from the music office with bad news. Apparently, Agatha Christie somehow made it illegal to perform The Mousetrap within seventy-five miles of Manhattan. Why? Who knows? She didn't ban any of her other works from Broadway. We have permission to perform Ten Little Indians (based upon And Then There Were None), according to the music office. What's more, Herricks has performed The Mousetrap in years past, or so I've been lead to believe. And I can't find any source online that mentions the play being banned in the New York area, and it isn't for lack of trying. So why can't we put on the damn show? The only thing I know for certain is that this whole fiasco has definitely lowered my opinion of Ms. Christie.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Big Think: The Stonehenge Man
I still hate it, but technology is amazing. I found this video on Big Think, and I don't doubt its authenticity:
http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/reconstruction-gives-stonehenge-man-a-face
It's amazing that scientists today can redesign someone's facial features, excepting the color of their eyes and hair, based solely on their skull. Even a skull that's over five-and-a-half-thousand years old. That, however, raises another question, of whether or not Stonehenge, where the skull was found, existed at the time of this man's life - and death. Because, after all, we don't really know what Stonehenge is, or why it was built, or by whom.
So just how old is Stonehenge? Well, the best evidence suggests that it was built in the second millennium before Christ, between three thousand and four thousand years ago, though nobody can agree on the exact century, or why it was built (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7625145.stm, http://press.nationalgeographic.com/2008/05/29/stonehengeuse-as-cemetery/). At any rate, it would seem that the "Stonehenge Man," whose skull is seen in the video, perished centuries before Stonehenge was built, and was likely discovered there by chance. But that still doesn't explain why Stonehenge was built. There is, of course, the famous calendar theory, which states that that the rising sun, when viewed through the stones, indicated the time of the year. However, there's no evidence that this is anything more than a coincidence, and that if it is, it was the sole purpose. There's also the theory that the site was constructed as a cemetery, but there haven't been enough bodies discovered near the site for this to be the case. The theory I subscribe to is that the site was constructed as a sort of grave marker for the aristocracy or monarchy of the area, akin to the pyramids of Egypt, as evidenced by the discovery of elaborately-buried individuals there. As for the idea that Celtic pagans constructed Stonehenge as a religious site, there is no evidence for this. Although pagans did construct stone circles, they would not have remotely resembled Stonehenge: they were simply circles with a perimeter of stones. And as for other theories, including those stating that Stonehenge is a memorial for victims of some battle or hallowed ground for a lost culture...we simply have no way to know if they are true, and likely never will.
http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/reconstruction-gives-stonehenge-man-a-face
It's amazing that scientists today can redesign someone's facial features, excepting the color of their eyes and hair, based solely on their skull. Even a skull that's over five-and-a-half-thousand years old. That, however, raises another question, of whether or not Stonehenge, where the skull was found, existed at the time of this man's life - and death. Because, after all, we don't really know what Stonehenge is, or why it was built, or by whom.
So just how old is Stonehenge? Well, the best evidence suggests that it was built in the second millennium before Christ, between three thousand and four thousand years ago, though nobody can agree on the exact century, or why it was built (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7625145.stm, http://press.nationalgeographic.com/2008/05/29/stonehengeuse-as-cemetery/). At any rate, it would seem that the "Stonehenge Man," whose skull is seen in the video, perished centuries before Stonehenge was built, and was likely discovered there by chance. But that still doesn't explain why Stonehenge was built. There is, of course, the famous calendar theory, which states that that the rising sun, when viewed through the stones, indicated the time of the year. However, there's no evidence that this is anything more than a coincidence, and that if it is, it was the sole purpose. There's also the theory that the site was constructed as a cemetery, but there haven't been enough bodies discovered near the site for this to be the case. The theory I subscribe to is that the site was constructed as a sort of grave marker for the aristocracy or monarchy of the area, akin to the pyramids of Egypt, as evidenced by the discovery of elaborately-buried individuals there. As for the idea that Celtic pagans constructed Stonehenge as a religious site, there is no evidence for this. Although pagans did construct stone circles, they would not have remotely resembled Stonehenge: they were simply circles with a perimeter of stones. And as for other theories, including those stating that Stonehenge is a memorial for victims of some battle or hallowed ground for a lost culture...we simply have no way to know if they are true, and likely never will.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Free Post: More on Mr. Martin
As I'm sure most of you know, I had my appendix out on Friday. What this means is that I've been hopped up on pain medications these last few days, and have mostly-closed cuts on my abdomen that feel ready to pop open when I sit or stand up straight. I'm still hoping that I'll be able to make it into school tomorrow, but I'm not making any promises. Needless to say, I'm not in one of my better moods right now. So what have I been up to these last few days? Well, I've been reading further into George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which I discussed briefly in my last post (which I wrote on Thursday with the intent of editing on Friday). And I came to this conclusion about three hours ago: the history of Martin's fictional continent of Westeros is parallel to the mythology and history of the British Isles, regardless of whether Martin intended this. The events in this history resemble myth and history from both Great Britain and Ireland, and I'll explore both.
HISTORY OF WESTEROS:
I wrote a massive summary of the events I'll be discussing, but honestly, who wants to read that? So...enjoy these links!
Note: The drawback of the links is that they contain more spoilers than my summary did. Read at your own risk.
The Children of the Forest/The First Men: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dawn_Age
The Others/The Wall: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Long_Night
The Andals: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Andal_Invasion
The Targaryens: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/War_of_Conquest
Robert's Rebellion: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Robert%27s_Rebellion
So how is this all parallel to the tales and history of the British Isles? In many ways:
1) The Children of the Forest
Irish legend speaks of the Tuatha de Danann, remembered today as the fairies. Legends remember them as Celtic pagans with some supernatural powers, somewhat smaller and daintier in stature than the Milesian Gaels, the ancestors of the modern Irish.
2) The First Men
The First Men most likely represent the Roman Empire (see #3 for the explanation), though you could argue that they represent the Gaels. In both cases, a new people arrived and made the island their own. The difference between the two: whereas the Romans mixed and mingled with the Britons, the Gaels waged a relentless war upon the people they met.
3) The Others/The Wall
The Others are clearly based on the Picts, Celtic barbarians from pre-Gaelic Scotland. The Picts terrorized the Romans stationed in Britain on their forays into what would become England. As a result, the emperor commissioned (and lent his name to) Hadrian's Wall, the obvious inspiration for Martin's Wall, to deter the invaders of the north.
4) The Andals
The Andals seem to be based upon the Normans, who invaded Britain and Ireland (the south of Westeros) but failed to capture Scotland (the north of Westeros). The realms they create (several kingdoms competing for power) is reminiscent of the pre-Norman Irish kingdoms of Munster, Leinster, Connacht, Ulster and Meath.
5) The Targaryens
In this case, the Targaryens are the English, and Westeros the Emerald Isle. English artillery, represented as dragons, spelled doom for the Norman-Irish troops fighting the invaders. Throughout it all, the English tried to garner the loyalty of the Irish, succeeding in many cases by appealing to the Norman lords, just as the Targaryens won support in Westeros.
The fall of the Targaryens is peculiar, in that the events (particularly the cause and the aftermath) don't seem to be based on anything I can think of or find at the moment. At least, not in the history of the British Isles: a man fighting to reclaim his wife, and inadvertently becoming king, seems more the stuff of legend than of history. As for the rest of the rebellion, it's similar and dissimilar to any revolution from history. But I don't want to give too much away. I highly recommend the books to anybody who enjoys reading and writing. You can draw your own conclusions from there.
HISTORY OF WESTEROS:
I wrote a massive summary of the events I'll be discussing, but honestly, who wants to read that? So...enjoy these links!
Note: The drawback of the links is that they contain more spoilers than my summary did. Read at your own risk.
The Children of the Forest/The First Men: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dawn_Age
The Others/The Wall: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Long_Night
The Andals: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Andal_Invasion
The Targaryens: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/War_of_Conquest
Robert's Rebellion: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Robert%27s_Rebellion
So how is this all parallel to the tales and history of the British Isles? In many ways:
1) The Children of the Forest
Irish legend speaks of the Tuatha de Danann, remembered today as the fairies. Legends remember them as Celtic pagans with some supernatural powers, somewhat smaller and daintier in stature than the Milesian Gaels, the ancestors of the modern Irish.
2) The First Men
The First Men most likely represent the Roman Empire (see #3 for the explanation), though you could argue that they represent the Gaels. In both cases, a new people arrived and made the island their own. The difference between the two: whereas the Romans mixed and mingled with the Britons, the Gaels waged a relentless war upon the people they met.
3) The Others/The Wall
The Others are clearly based on the Picts, Celtic barbarians from pre-Gaelic Scotland. The Picts terrorized the Romans stationed in Britain on their forays into what would become England. As a result, the emperor commissioned (and lent his name to) Hadrian's Wall, the obvious inspiration for Martin's Wall, to deter the invaders of the north.
4) The Andals
The Andals seem to be based upon the Normans, who invaded Britain and Ireland (the south of Westeros) but failed to capture Scotland (the north of Westeros). The realms they create (several kingdoms competing for power) is reminiscent of the pre-Norman Irish kingdoms of Munster, Leinster, Connacht, Ulster and Meath.
5) The Targaryens
In this case, the Targaryens are the English, and Westeros the Emerald Isle. English artillery, represented as dragons, spelled doom for the Norman-Irish troops fighting the invaders. Throughout it all, the English tried to garner the loyalty of the Irish, succeeding in many cases by appealing to the Norman lords, just as the Targaryens won support in Westeros.
The fall of the Targaryens is peculiar, in that the events (particularly the cause and the aftermath) don't seem to be based on anything I can think of or find at the moment. At least, not in the history of the British Isles: a man fighting to reclaim his wife, and inadvertently becoming king, seems more the stuff of legend than of history. As for the rest of the rebellion, it's similar and dissimilar to any revolution from history. But I don't want to give too much away. I highly recommend the books to anybody who enjoys reading and writing. You can draw your own conclusions from there.
Which is Stranger: Fact or Fiction?
I suppose I heard the phrase "You can't make that up" one time too many, and that's why I have this question on my mind. Does the phrase hold true when we apply it in the real world? Are events we experience, or have experienced, actually stranger than events in fiction, literature and myth? I would say yes. Picture this: in a small fraction of a vast empire, a small group of individuals cries for their freedom. One such individual assassinates a leader of the empire. Fearing the full wrath of the imperial military, the rebels turn to their ethnic brethren to the east, who have a vast empire of their own. War breaks out between the two empires, with both the western and eastern empires dragging their allies, and the allies of their allies, into the conflict. Eventually, the great eastern empire collapses from within and withdraws from the conflict, leaving the rest of the combatants to fight for no real reason. Around this time, one of the allies of the first empire joins the opposing side. In the end, from across a great sea, military aid comes to the allies of the now-dead eastern empire, and together the allies crush the three empires opposing them. We all know I'm talking about the First World War, but remove the names of Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, France, Italy and America, and it sounds like the plot of some fantasy novel. And these events are tame in the long term.As I mentioned in my last post, I view the two world wars as a single chain of events, beginning long before conflict was sparked a hundred years ago. World War Two really began with the Treaty of Versailles, when France and Britain basically said "F##k you all" to the rest of the world. We all know the rest: a tale of betrayal, of bloodshed, of desperation, of horrors unimagined by any, and effects felt by all. And we can't ignore the fact that all fiction has some basis in fact. Tolkien's battle scenes were inspired by his own experiences on the western front during the First World War. George Lucas's Battle of Endor saw lesser-equipped natives defeat a superior invasion force, substituting the Viet Cong and American soldiers with the ursine Ewoks and Imperial Stormtroopers, respectively. Even George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, perhaps the most unpredictable work of modern fiction, is guilty of this: Martin, a self-proclaimed history buff, has stated that many aspects of his tale have historical roots: the fictitious Wall is based on Hadrian's Wall, Henry VIII inspired the character of Robert Baratheon, and so on. At the end of the day, in my opinion, events aren't the factor that makes fantasy fantastical.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Big Think: The Significance of Language
http://bigthink.com/floating-university/humans-make-language-language-makes-us-human
This article appealed to me from the start. Any anthropology geek worth his salt knows that language gave the first modern humans an edge over their Neanderthal cousins. Scientists agree that Neanderthals could speak, but most hold to the belief that they couldn't communicate complex ideas or events. This likely contributed to their extinction. The video accompanying the article, both of which discuss the hard-wired ability of toddlers to acquire language skills, is excellent. It's pacing is just right, so the audience stays interested in the subject matter and doesn't feel rushed. It also has a friendly quality than most other lecture videos lack. The body of the article itself is curious. The second half supports the idea that humanity's use of language and increased ability to communicate over long distances has lead to a decrease in violence since the start of human history. While this theory does have some valid points (the author cites the Enlightenment and the Internet as examples), I'm not sure I would agree. The start of human history was one of the most violent times our species has ever known, but most of the violence was human against animal or human against Neanderthal. Our species was too busy fighting the rest of nature to fight itself. Human-on-human violence only increased with the dawn of civilization, and there's no evidence to the contrary. While the article states that humanity has "tamed itself" over the years, is this really the case? Granted, society no longer practices slavery, nor does it tolerate many forms of persecution that have been the norm. But that doesn't change facts: conflicts have only escalated over time. Of course, after all the blood is spilled, the combatants go on a hiatus that can last for decades, even centuries, which leads to the impression that we're "taming" ourselves. But new conflicts always emerge, with newer, deadlier weapons wielded by people who've forgotten the suffering of war. Humanity is in such a period of hiatus now, as we have been since the Second World War. The question isn't if this period will end; it's when.
This article appealed to me from the start. Any anthropology geek worth his salt knows that language gave the first modern humans an edge over their Neanderthal cousins. Scientists agree that Neanderthals could speak, but most hold to the belief that they couldn't communicate complex ideas or events. This likely contributed to their extinction. The video accompanying the article, both of which discuss the hard-wired ability of toddlers to acquire language skills, is excellent. It's pacing is just right, so the audience stays interested in the subject matter and doesn't feel rushed. It also has a friendly quality than most other lecture videos lack. The body of the article itself is curious. The second half supports the idea that humanity's use of language and increased ability to communicate over long distances has lead to a decrease in violence since the start of human history. While this theory does have some valid points (the author cites the Enlightenment and the Internet as examples), I'm not sure I would agree. The start of human history was one of the most violent times our species has ever known, but most of the violence was human against animal or human against Neanderthal. Our species was too busy fighting the rest of nature to fight itself. Human-on-human violence only increased with the dawn of civilization, and there's no evidence to the contrary. While the article states that humanity has "tamed itself" over the years, is this really the case? Granted, society no longer practices slavery, nor does it tolerate many forms of persecution that have been the norm. But that doesn't change facts: conflicts have only escalated over time. Of course, after all the blood is spilled, the combatants go on a hiatus that can last for decades, even centuries, which leads to the impression that we're "taming" ourselves. But new conflicts always emerge, with newer, deadlier weapons wielded by people who've forgotten the suffering of war. Humanity is in such a period of hiatus now, as we have been since the Second World War. The question isn't if this period will end; it's when.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)