Weekly Blogpost #33

Wednesday, April 7th, 2014

Achebe and the other side of History

Don't you think the novel "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe fits in perfectly with the theme we are discussing now, history and the perspective from which it is told?

One of the reasons I loved Achebe's novel was because of the skillful incorporation of European and African literary techniques. Achebe wrote the novel in the storytelling style that is much respected in the Igbo culture, in a winding and circumlocutory style through which the narrator approaches around the point he is trying to reach before finally settling in to the purpose of the story. At the same time, Achebe uses the European storyline, telling the story of Okonkwo as a tragic hero whose hubris ultimately leads to his end. Furthermore, Achebe reflects the education and sophistication of the Igbo culture by including fables, proverbs, expressions, words, throughout his novel. The incorporation of the Igbo language exhibit the complexity of the culture that cannot be translated perfectly and literally with English words. Whereas people often have a common misconception on the simplicity of the African culture, Achebe undermines this belief by hinting at its complexities and claiming the existence of many small traditions within Africa (a name often used as a synonym for a country instead of an entire continent).

BBT 33

Friday, May 9th, 2014

In the 5th edition of the IB Theory of Knowledge program outline History is defined as:

"the attempt made by professional historians to record and reconstruct the past through the study of evidence derived from a variety of sources... History can never be objective in an absolute sense and the contribution of every historian must contain a subjective element... every generation must rewrite its own history in the light of new evidence and under the influence of its particular attitudes and prejudices. History is also part science, in its approach to evidence, and part art, in recording and communicating its findings."

Why would they call history part science, part art?

History is comprised of evidence and facts collected in a systematic method that seeks to find the greatest level of accuracy and adherence to the "true" events. History is written as literary work is written. But the content of the historical work is more of a science, because it has been compiled with precision and accuracy. The historians try to seek for objectivity, yet the interpretation makes it more similar to art. History, as art, tries to persuade its audience into understanding and identifying with the perspective that they are trying to initiate and incorporate. Historians are scientists who purposely include their colours in order to make their works more poignant. They strive to find the truth, as opposed to the truths that science aims to uncover.

Homework from Week 32

Monday, May 5th, 2014

Excerpt from "A People's History of the United States,", Howard Zinn

1) On pages 3 and 4, Professor Zinn "bluntly" states his approach to the writing and teaching of the history of the United States - his thesis statement. Investigate his approach. Do you agree with it?

Professor Zinn decided to approach the history of the United States in a less conventional point of view: the perspective of the "conquered." If history is truly recorded and told from the point of view of the victors, Zinn decided to attempt a historical account through which he would tell the story on the extreme. I think that this is an interesting attitude and position. It offers another view on the events, at least to the audience. Our views are complimented by accounts from the two sides, in a way that makes our view more complete and balanced on both sides of the spectrum. On the other hand, if Zinn's work allows the audience to develop a broader and more expansive understanding, I think that Zinn is somewhat limiting himself and also contradicting himself. After all, his defense of the "defeated" people also implies a bias, that is not necessarily less strong. But I guess that his explicit statement that he will bluntly and singularly write from this point of view undermine his position as a biased historian.

2) Professor Zinn was not ashamed to say his approach to history was biased, however it just happened to be biased towards viewing history through the eyes of the common people rather than political and economic elite. Should historians write with a bias? Or rather, can any history be objectively written?

Similarly to an omniscient third person narrative in a novel, it is extremely difficult, if not quasi impossible, to write a complete bias-free account of history. This is because it is too broad and expansive to include the thoughts and positions of all the people in the world. To write a completely objective point of view, one would have to include and therefore research on ALL the people included. The wording, furthermore, is impossible to be completely unbiased, for the reason that language itself is filtered by our own biases. To write a completely objective historical account implies a book filled with an infinite number of opinions, because all the people would have to be included. Furthermore, aren't the categorizations all dependent on the people who make them? How can we ever know that we fairly judged all the involved? I guess we do the best we can, and we will have to ignore those who may potentially think that the work is not bias-free, because, after all, we only know the much we know. 

3) Professor Zinn's book was loudly criticized by some of his peers. Georgetown history professor Michael Kazin "characterized the book as an overly simplistic narrative of elite villains and oppressed people, with no attempt to understand historical actors in the context of the time in which they lived," and Harvard historian Oscar Handlin said "the book conveniently omits whatever does not fit its overriding thesis... It would be a mistake, however, to regard Zinn as merely anti-American. Brendan Behan once observed that whoever hated America hated mankind, and hatred of mankind is the dominant tone of Zinn's book." 

Formulate your own critique of the excerpt you've read of Professor Zinn's book.

Assuming that the excerpt is part of the introduction to Professor Zinn's book, I like that he establishes his ethos, and explains the point of view from which he will be writing his novel. He claims that "the reader may as well know" that he will be writing covering a much neglected part of the history of the United States, interpreting events from the unconventional perspective of the defeated, the conquered, the poor. He thus already states that there will be portions in his book that may seem anti-American, and his acknowledgement of this feature reflects the opposite of some of the criticisms. Professor Zinn does not "invent victories for people's movements," and rather attempts to examine, no, reveal the stories that are often overlooked in favor of the more glorious accounts of victory. The reason that Zinn is doing this is because of his definition and his belief for the purpose of history. Zinn believes that history is a subject that examines past events in order to learn from humans' past. He therefore believes it it not correct to solely praise the good. He believes we must also face the bad in order to not emulate the same mistakes. The stories he recounts are actually all incorporated in glorious accounts of the victors'. The reason that they are not more widely spread is because they are often forgotten and overshadowed by the more exciting and appealing stories of human goodness and wins. Zinn's purpose was to compile all these left-in-the-dark stories into a book, because it is by fierce exposure without any protective layer that lay bare the occurrences that are, after all, part of the story of all of us. I cannot help but note the fierce and sanguine diction he employs, such as "massacre," words and expressions associated with connotations of violence and unjust deaths. I cannot help but build a skepticism towards the point of view that Zinn is presenting, because as he is ultimately trying to reverse people's views on the writing of history, he will necessarily use and include stories that seem particularly more aggressive and brutal. 

4) Professor Zinn’s account history has been called honest and necessary, or biased and hateful.  Evaluate this claim in relation to Professor Zinn: How does who writes history shape our understanding of history?

Depending on the writer, our view on the event will be swayed by their bias. Primary accounts, especially, are retold with stronger emotions that breed a more marked and passionate account. If the account is written in favor of the victors, it will contain praises and optimistic visions that reinforce the idea of the positive effects of the events. The reader will be more prone to believe that the outcomes of the events were positive and beneficial for all. However, if the account is told from the view of one who was exploited, defeated, unprivileged, it will reveal a more gloomy and negative attitude that will influence the reader to pity and condemn the events and people involved. Professor Zinn is writing his book in order to provide the reader the other side of the story, in the hope that this alternative view will compliment and thus complete another piece of the jigsaw puzzle making up history.

BBT 32

Friday, May 2nd, 2014

"In a very real sense the study of history is more concerned with a subject matter more objective and independent than that of natural sciences. Just because historical matter is in the past, is gone... its objective reality is guaranteed."    -G.R. Elton

Does history being "objectively guaranteed" mean we have guaranteed knowledge of the past?

I define history as a body of knowledge, of historical evidence and their interpretation, humans use to describe the past, to asses past events in order to plan future actions and decisions. I believe that history is not simply the past events, but more so the interpretation of these events as well. There are many things that happen in the world, that happened in the world, and it is not possible to know everything because there are possibly a lot of evidence that have not been uncovered. The events may happen, but they may pass without being recorded; therefore, that event will be lost because it will not be known later. Some people argue that history is always biased. However, bias does not mean wrong. They still give information about the perspectives and the thoughts that happened in the time.

A Small Insight #5

Monday, April 28th, 2014

Newspaper article on Racism in Soccer

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-29/outrage-over-alves-banana-racist-taunt/5417026

When I saw this article (and video), I could not suppress a small chuckle of amusement and slight horror. But then, as I thought it over, I felt my heart warming of admiration for this soccer player, Daniel Alves.
It may be difficult to act with good humor and without anger in situations of racism, yet Alves managed to overcome the adversity by taking advantage of the situation and eating the banana that had been thrown at him. Well, I guess that, in his case, his wit came before any aggressive impulses.
It makes me wonder where racism stems from. I mean, Alves is a pretty renown soccer player, and it surprises me a little that anyone had the guts of showing the narrowness of his/her thoughts when his action was streamed for the world to see. It is possible that he/she expected Alves to react in a less-mannered and more self-deprecating, humiliating way.
Anyway, I am happy of how this situation ended pretty well. 

Weekly Blogpost #32

Friday, April 25th, 2014

Afterthoughts on Seminar

The main distinction, in my opinion, between science and religion is that science is a method to find answers while religion provides the answer. That said, let me give an example. When people turn to their faith to explain death and possibly afterlife, they do not really seek to question the explanation that is given to them. Some people can question, can have doubts and try to find an alternative answer. But in the end, the purpose of religion is to answer the inexplicable, to seek answers without having "doubts" or "questions" as the main or principal purpose. Religion gives the answer. On the other hand, science is a method to find truths. People use science as a pathway to find evidences supporting different beliefs. 

Homework from Week 30

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014

Reading: "Crystal Truth and Crystal Balls," Richard Dawkins

& "The Fallacy of Scientific Objectivity," Hilary Lawson

1) Why does Richard Dawkins think that a scientific approach to understanding crystals is "more illuminating, more uplifting, and also stranger than anything imagined" by pseudoscience like mystics and New Age gurus?

Dawkins believes that pseudoscience is controlled by the magical power of language. People are able to fool others by using bombastic and much colourful words in order to convince the others of the truthfulness in their preaching. People with less education, or with a less keen and critical eye, would be more easily gullible to the words of a New Age guru who holds on to a claim and persuasively defends the veracity of the phenomenon he is explaining. On the other hand, the scientific approach observes phenomena as they are, without attempting to embellish the natural course of things. In the atomic level, or further down, there are particles, rays, that define and are in a constant show of wonderful things that are not necessarily visible to the naked eye. Of course, tools of high technological development might be necessary, but the evidence provided by others having witnessed the natural phenomena is proof enough for the people to at least imagine (or search up on Internet) what happens naturally, in a scientific point of view.

For example, people are sometimes tricked into believing star signs (ie astrology) is very much true. It is possible that there is a correlation between the positions of the stars and planets and the personality of an individual. However, instead of listening to a woman or man using their mystical powers and their persuasive eloquence to find out, the people might better seek out to look at the stars themselves, and try to find a relationship between  the two supposed factors.

Haven't many people experienced the placebo effect, where a patient believes himself cured because he was told he had ingested a medicine? Well, this is a clear example of humans' tendency to believe what we would like to believe, even though it is not necessarily true.

Alchemy might be another example. It is said that gold was tried to be produced in a man-made fashion. Instead of seeking this out of sole trial-and-error, it might be better to try finding the sources from where gold is produced in the earth, and then try to emulate this. If not, just enjoy the view and thought of how gold is produced, a fascinating process for some, I am sure.

Black holes are covered in myths, due to words and language that distorts the way they actually are. But when one delves into the core of the truth, maybe he will find the beauty from their terrifying power. Truth is not reflected by language, a medium through which scientific knowledge is spread.

2) Why does Hilary Lawson think that science is a "fiction" that tries to achieve objectivity but can't?

Lawson thinks that scientific knowledge is also tainted by bias. The scientist can present his thesis, his ideas, his data, and his evidence in such a light that makes his hypothesis seem right. People might be tricked by his skillfullness in presenting his research, and then adopt these faulty findings due to practicality. The common use of this knowledge incorporates it in everyday life until it is not questioned, and is bothered to be questioned, anymore.

For example, Galileo never offered concrete evidence that the world turned around. He had not observed this, yet everyone eventually accepted it. None of them carried conviction, yet we accept that the earth revolved around the sun as common knowledge. Or in physics. Many of us don't understand, grasp, or have witnessed the phenomena that we discuss, yet we accept them as true due to a certain dogma. We believe so because it seems right. Lawson suggests that science might lose credibility someday as well, as religion did in the past.

3) How can we square the circle? Create a theory of your own that allows for both "crystalline truth" and "scientific fiction."

The truth is, even though we have not been able to observe them with the naked eye, there are things that happen in the microcosmic world that we have to accept happen. For example, we are made of atoms, even though we do not see each individual particle. Are we going to start questioning that because we cannot see it? We could, but what would be the use? Of course, scientific knowledge can have a source of bias, but that is why we receive our own education, to be able to raise our skepticism when we feel something is not right. We have the right for judge for ourselves, choose what we want to accept and don't, and this is applicable to science as well. There are things that allow for imagination to take its course, and what allows this to happen is the veracity of the scientific knowledge that we have (or at least our conviction of their happening). After all, this does refer back to the question we had at the end of the Perception lesson: What would life be if "seeing" is not believing.