![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI've finally found something that podcasts are useful for (listening to comedians chattering to each other thinking that they are funny does not qualify) -- that being, The History of The World in 100 Objects.
Actually, I wish that I had discovered them in time for the series 1968 day by day (the 1989 follow-up was a relative disappointment, I felt).
The neat thing about these broadcasts is that three of them fit nearly perfectly into my walk from London Bridge to work. So that gives me one walk one week and two walks the next. The other good thing about this is that it fills up with something useful some of the few spare minutes that I have in each day. The podcast download is very fast (I'm sure that you can automate it, but then I would foreget about it and the stuff would end up unheard) and goes on my spare 2gb mini mp3 player rather than the big one. The small one turns on very quickly -- another advantage.
But never mind the medium, what about the message? On the whole, from the first five episodes, I would say, very good, with one or two important reservations.
The first is the apparent insitence of wasting three minutes of each 13 minute episode listening to someone who is clearly only there for celebrity value. While David Attenbrough brings some strength and gravitas, the reasons for using Rowan Williams and Michael Palin struck me as very thin, and I didn't feel that they contributed much to their respective programmes.
The second was the frequent interruption of background "mood" music -- particularly during the strange 1 minute introduction, before we are given the title of the programme.
This music background almost seems to come from the "Something Understood" school of radio than from the irritating habit on BBC TV of never showing sporting highlights these days without a musical accompaniment. All bar "Something Understood" seem to display a lack of self-confidence in the power of the spoken word (or displayed picture) on its own.
I don't think this musical background/interruption adds anything, but I may be in a minority.
But the choice of objects is clearly well-calculated and the "expert" commentators usually have something positive to add. The "Clovis spearhead" episode was a bit of an oddity, because one American Indian (I avoid the term Native American quite deliberately here) academic was interviewed and spoke of how the fairly undeniable proof that American Indians arrived around 15,000 to 13,000 years ago through the Baring Strait land bridge was seen as a "challenge" by many American Indians.
The logic was all a bit convoluted and unclear, perhaps deliberately. It seemed to go that, because American Indians' religious belief systems in the past were suppressed by evangelical Christians, this scientific demonstration that American Indians are also "newcomers" to American land is seen as another example of repression of American Indians' belief systems. She stopped short of saying that it was such a repression, hedging her terms with "many, not all, see it this way". She also stopped short of actually saying that scientists shouldn't say this kind of thing because it challenged American Indians' traditional beliefs. But she did seem to hint at it.
Of course, any comparison between a faith vs faith argument and a science vs faith argument is laughable. But from the faith side, it seems quite similar. They believe that scientists start out with a conclusion and then seek the facts to fit (because, that, after all, is how faith systems work). Meanwhile the poor scientist says "look, sorry, I didn't start out with a belief system. I just went where the evidence took me".
The topsy-turvy land where it's ok to refuse to go to war if you are a "conscientious objector" but not if you think that "it's just fucking stupid" implies that, contrary to the paranoid androids in the Church of England or the local mosque, the irrationalists still have a strong control in this land. Any excuse is fine if it's a matter of "your religious beliefs", but it's not in the least bit fine if it's a matter of "I'm sorry, but I've studied all of this quite carefully, and for the following logical reasons, I disagree with this law".
All of which deviates considerably from the original point, which is that, while I wouldn't listen to this series every day, it makes a great three-episodes at once snack., three times a fortnight.
+++++++++++++++
On Facebook I have a strange collection of friends, many of which have been inherited for various reasons. One of these has joined a group that is called, with no irony whatsoever; "Bring KFC to Evesham!".
Yes, I did a double-take at that as well.
__________________
Actually, I wish that I had discovered them in time for the series 1968 day by day (the 1989 follow-up was a relative disappointment, I felt).
The neat thing about these broadcasts is that three of them fit nearly perfectly into my walk from London Bridge to work. So that gives me one walk one week and two walks the next. The other good thing about this is that it fills up with something useful some of the few spare minutes that I have in each day. The podcast download is very fast (I'm sure that you can automate it, but then I would foreget about it and the stuff would end up unheard) and goes on my spare 2gb mini mp3 player rather than the big one. The small one turns on very quickly -- another advantage.
But never mind the medium, what about the message? On the whole, from the first five episodes, I would say, very good, with one or two important reservations.
The first is the apparent insitence of wasting three minutes of each 13 minute episode listening to someone who is clearly only there for celebrity value. While David Attenbrough brings some strength and gravitas, the reasons for using Rowan Williams and Michael Palin struck me as very thin, and I didn't feel that they contributed much to their respective programmes.
The second was the frequent interruption of background "mood" music -- particularly during the strange 1 minute introduction, before we are given the title of the programme.
This music background almost seems to come from the "Something Understood" school of radio than from the irritating habit on BBC TV of never showing sporting highlights these days without a musical accompaniment. All bar "Something Understood" seem to display a lack of self-confidence in the power of the spoken word (or displayed picture) on its own.
I don't think this musical background/interruption adds anything, but I may be in a minority.
But the choice of objects is clearly well-calculated and the "expert" commentators usually have something positive to add. The "Clovis spearhead" episode was a bit of an oddity, because one American Indian (I avoid the term Native American quite deliberately here) academic was interviewed and spoke of how the fairly undeniable proof that American Indians arrived around 15,000 to 13,000 years ago through the Baring Strait land bridge was seen as a "challenge" by many American Indians.
The logic was all a bit convoluted and unclear, perhaps deliberately. It seemed to go that, because American Indians' religious belief systems in the past were suppressed by evangelical Christians, this scientific demonstration that American Indians are also "newcomers" to American land is seen as another example of repression of American Indians' belief systems. She stopped short of saying that it was such a repression, hedging her terms with "many, not all, see it this way". She also stopped short of actually saying that scientists shouldn't say this kind of thing because it challenged American Indians' traditional beliefs. But she did seem to hint at it.
Of course, any comparison between a faith vs faith argument and a science vs faith argument is laughable. But from the faith side, it seems quite similar. They believe that scientists start out with a conclusion and then seek the facts to fit (because, that, after all, is how faith systems work). Meanwhile the poor scientist says "look, sorry, I didn't start out with a belief system. I just went where the evidence took me".
The topsy-turvy land where it's ok to refuse to go to war if you are a "conscientious objector" but not if you think that "it's just fucking stupid" implies that, contrary to the paranoid androids in the Church of England or the local mosque, the irrationalists still have a strong control in this land. Any excuse is fine if it's a matter of "your religious beliefs", but it's not in the least bit fine if it's a matter of "I'm sorry, but I've studied all of this quite carefully, and for the following logical reasons, I disagree with this law".
All of which deviates considerably from the original point, which is that, while I wouldn't listen to this series every day, it makes a great three-episodes at once snack., three times a fortnight.
+++++++++++++++
On Facebook I have a strange collection of friends, many of which have been inherited for various reasons. One of these has joined a group that is called, with no irony whatsoever; "Bring KFC to Evesham!".
Yes, I did a double-take at that as well.
__________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-25 06:30 pm (UTC)All this has led to a bunch of ownership controversies, perhaps most notably the one over Kennewick Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man)
Knowing a bit about the topic already, I thought the lady academic was being very careful in how she stated the issues - she told part of the story quite well, but not all of it. Yes, part of the problem is the Indian version of Darwin vs the Creationists, but there is also the big issue of whether the Indians were "there first" or not, which she didn't really touch on.
Part of rehabilitating and rebuilding the Indian identity after centuries of repression has been that they were in effect aboriginal. Discoveries such as Kennewick and Clovis suggest that actually the Indians themselves were Johnny-come-latelys, which is hugely threatening to them in all sorts of ways, not just religious.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-25 06:58 pm (UTC)Now, if politicians start misusing that science (by, say, attempting to deny American Indians certain rights because other humans were there first), then, sure, fight the politicians. But don't say to the scientists "Don't go down this path, because politicians will misuse it". It's just not the job (and neither should it be the job) of scientists to make such decisions.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-26 12:35 am (UTC)So you've read DY's blog then.