The trouble with the Internet

"South Park did a decent job encapsulating a skeptics view of the Joseph Smith story, but in the main I would take Tacitus over South Park for historical accuracy, and South Park over Tacitus for poop jokes.

It's funny if you read The Annals (heh heh) of Tacitus that he's largely objective about events and other cultures, and saves all his mouth foaming for Christians. I guess Paul must have been as popular in Rome as he was with the Jerusalem church."

This is a quote taken from a rather popular Internet forum that acts as a sendup of dozens of contemporary news items. The first paragraph may be taken as strict opinion, and not subject to any meaningful comment.
The second paragraph is more interesting. The first sentence presents an opinion of Tacitus, a complete unknown to more one half of one percent of persons currently alive. It then states that Tactus is somehow historically accurate about "events and other cultures," and only irrational about Christians.
Well, someone reading this might then go and read a translation of Tacitus, or read some hideous scholarly article about Tacitus, but by and large that sentence will sit in their memory like some tiny, poisonous toad, unquestioned. In fact, Tacitus was a historian in the sense that what he said was accepted up into modern times as "historical," but some of what he says is factual, and some is just risible. In between, we have such things as his commentary on the Germans, who Tacitus chose to present as a moral model to contrast with the Rome of his own time, which he despised for its decadence and corruption.
The Germans were described as strong, simple, sturdy folk with good bedrock moral values and great integrity…in fact, superior in just about every way Tacitus could think of, except, of course, that they were barbarians.
This presentation of the Germanic tribes was taken out of its Taciturn context and was a standard reading in classrooms throughout Germany well into modern times. German youth were presented with an opinion (what was, in fact, simply whole cloth from some Roman who had never been near Germany or the Germans, except perhaps some he had run into in Rome) as if it were demonstrable historical fact.
Generations of German youth were persuaded to accept Tacitus' account as the basis for the superiority of the Germans and German culture, which was part of the foundation on which the Hohenzollern Empire built its theory that Germany was entitled to its "place in the sun," and on which the Nazis built their theories of race and world conquest.
So much for objectivity.

This Will Not End Well

The History Channel has finally done what no one has attempted since the 1970's- to produce a comprehensive history of the United States. As with so many things these days, I'll read the reviews before I even consider watching any of it. Given current trends, not only on the Hysteria / History / Catastrophe Channel, I suspect that the series will be fatally flawed. I predict that the essence of it will be "Cover everything and attempt to please everyone, but explain nothing and satisfy no one."

The last series to attempt to tell the story of the United States was Alistair Cooke's America: A Personal History. It even appears as though THC has attempted to "borrow from" the title. However, there is a vast difference between what some may consider the same sort of program, and one need go no further than the respective titles to see it.

The strength of Cooke's America lay in the twofold nature of it being a personal viewpoint (and Cooke never claimed otherwise), and in Cooke being a transplanted Englishman (became a U.S. citizen in 1941, six days before Pearl Harbor), which gives the author an almost essential detachment from hewing to a particular native viewpoint or politics. In this, Cooke may be seen as a legitimate heir of Alexis de Tocqueville, still the most famous foreigner to write of this country in Democracy in America, (1835 / 1840), and in so doing, having written what many still consider the best analysis of this country.

The History Channel has entitled its opus America: The Story of Us, which I'm sure it will be. I'm sure it will be supremely earnest, with all sorts of "docu-dramatic" vignettes that purport to be historical, that technology will be portrayed as a deus ex machina, and that every effort will be made to place Abigail Adams on the same plane as John, and Harriets Tubman and Beecher Stowe on the same level of importance as Abe Lincoln. It will be very, very egalitarian, and very, very inclusive, irrespective of the degree to which it is very, very far removed from what may have happened. My prediction could be wrong, and I sincerely hope that it is.....but I'm sticking to it.

I will conclude with my favorite quote from Cooke's America (Episode 3, Making a Revolution) :

"That, too, is history- not what happened, but what people convinced themselves must have happened."

Thanks, I Needed That

Since I'm constantly pounded by the disingenuous crap that pours in a nauseous river from most media outlets, it's nice to read something like this, from The Roller of Big Cigars. It would be nice if I had something about this long (i.e., nice and short) to read, say, once a week:

Shocked, I say

I am completely and utterly shocked that a government would value the rights of a multi-million dollar corporation over the rights of it’s broke, apathetic citizens. Shocked how a company that can afford lobbyists and campaign contributions could be have such sway over the people it helped elect. How fucking bizarre! I mean who knew that politicians could be corrupted? Who knew that companies wanted to use government to help them make more money? How could anybody guess that greedy people would be ruthless in getting what they wanted? This all sounds like something from science-fiction doesn’t it? The next thing you know guys will start liking porn and geeks will start watching Star Trek.

Do You Like What I Like?

Here's the article of the day, in the Daily Illini, student newspaper at our nearby Illinois (...it used to be The University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, but is now being marketed as simply "Illinois," and....don't ask.)

Here's a Brave New World quote, now:

"I like the First Amendment," said Will Green, graduate student and member of the Graduate Employee's Organization. "And our University doesn't respect that."

And why should it be incumbent on anyone to "like" what you "like," Will? Answer: it shouldn't. Our rights proceed from basic principles antecedent to government, so that government is subsidiary to them, not that government is obliged to "like" or "respect" them. It's perfectly obvious that Will has never moved beyond an elementary school playground level of analysis. No government respects your rights, Will, it can only fear what will happen if it transgresses, and in the meantime, will attempt to get away with whatever it can.

I don't respect you OR your ideas, Will. How do you like that?

OK, Listen Up!

I've read and listened to one too many pieces about people who refuse to have their children vaccinated because they might get autism. So, if you happen to read this, ONE MORE TIME:

[rant on]

The idea that vaccines, or the preservatives in vaccines, cause autism, or ringworm, or fallen arches, is completely UNPROVEN. Studies done in both the U.S. and Europe have failed to find any significant correlation between vaccination and autism. The hysteria engendered in a world of missing information is just a harbinger of the coming Dark Age. We have become Super Barbarians, who channel surf with the latest technology, the world passes by our faces in a blur, of information about anything there is only a smattering, information incomplete, understanding illusory, enlightenment increasingly in the shadows.

The view that the only risk is measles (as my most recent piece argues) conveniently leaves out all those things that may be prevented by vaccines: diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), etc. And how about polio? Willing to give that a pass? Can you REALLY do that and look in the mirror and call yourself a fit parent?

[rant off]

There it is.....

I don't make a practice of posting other people's rants, but I'll make an exception in this case.....and it's a comment to a blog*, of all things! There is so much that's marvelous in this comment about the fragmentation of what we have always taken for granted when we say "education," as well as what passes for culture (we now have to modify it and call it "popular culture"). Then there are the more specific things, such as the withering away of a literate readership with a capacity to sense any subtlety in what is written......just read it.

By Yancy Berns on September 23, 2008 7:34 PM
I'm just afraid that we've transformed this culture, collapsed it down to a xylophone shape, and nobody has the time, the inclination, the temperament, even the desire to see what lives within those folds.
Let's wipe away ALL the invisible quotation marks (god, to be part of the 'irony' generation, and to have no taste for the stuff, such have been my days) and state something obvious: your TV critic did not recognize the line from HAMLET, and it doesn't matter, because 10,000 of his readers won't either, and will think its funny that the critic makes a goofy of those "elitist" words... the fact that it is indeed from the greatest written work of western culture (500 years and still at the top of the pops!) would not sway them if they knew. Because they believe that they are righteous, these Invaders, these "new people" who have no time for details, no interest in ambiguity, and can only afford to take everything at face value as they hurtle down their highways. All things pander to this new uni-mind, and I say again, they brim with what must be righteousness.
I could say this to a 25 year old. I could say, "You know 'Hamlet', that play that they shoved down your throat in 10th grade? It's actually a riveting piece of writing that you will see yourself in, throughout, feel your living in, perhaps more than in any other written thing you would be able to find."
They would say, "How could someone who lived that long ago possibly write something that relates to my life?"
And I could say, "Some things never change."
And they would say, "But i live in the modern era. 2008 isn't about moping and worrying! It's about being positive! One love!"
And I would say, "There can be much positive in a dour work of art. Much you can learn about empathy and soul."
And they would say, "I've got enough drama in my own life. Have you seen those gas prices? I don't need this Hamlet business."
And at that point I would walk away defeated, because I realize this is probably the same person who can't relate to 'Under The Boardwalk' by The Drifters either, because it's 40 years old - and what could someone in the early 60's possibly know about living such a fantastic life in such a fantastic age as we do?
And I might mutter, "Forty years don't mean much in terms of human evolution. Maybe you also won't read a fortune cookie if it comes to the table too long after the check, because what could someone in the back of the restaurant five minutes ago possibly know about you, your life, your troubles, your fabulous friends, in this amazing NOW?"
Now, I might agree about the cookie in general, but if there's one disease that has this culture in its grasp, it's utter, yawning apathy... and not just apathy about the big game or the big election, but about the human condition. This may be a failing of the school system, or just a failing of our attention spans, but nobody took my generation by the hand and led them to Kurosawa or Pete Seeger... and good, because what could Kurosawa or Pete Seeger or Edith Wharton possibly know about what it's like to be a human being in this so fabulous, super-speedy 2008?
We've finally reached the future! "This is our time!", the dispassionate shout, "and we choose not to notice all the interesting ways humans can be different than each other, in conversation, in art, none of that! 'Satire'? Oh, I'm so sick of satire! Every time I don't like a movie and someone tells me I didn't get it because it was satire, I just want to slap him in his smug face!"
And so back to that list of useless dead people, who have no possible idea about the amazing human adventure of 2008,and could offer no possible comfort from beyond the grave. Everything is miniature, and everything is fast, and if death carried you away before this wonderful age of all-inclusive cultural ignorance (why actually learn about it when they can just install Wikipedia into my phone?), they you lose, sucker!
And they fall away: Buster Keaton, S.J. Perelman, Kafka, Christ... what could those knuckle-draggers ever know about faster and faster, smaller and smaller? What, are they gonna help me figure out what do when my friend Tony does that one thing I don't like? Puh-leeeezze!

*For the sake of limiting the size of this post, I'll put in only one other quote from the other blog. For the record, It's Roger Ebert's Journal, entry This is the Dawning of the Age of Credulity. The quote from Hamlet referenced in the entry is cited by Ebert referencing a NYT review by Adam Buckman:

Let me give another example of credulity. The following paragraph appeared this week in a New York Post review by Adam Buckman of the season premiere of "Heroes."

"This show, which was once so thrilling and fun, has become full of itself, its characters spouting crazy nonsense. Here's one I wish someone would translate for me: "There's a divinity that shapes our ends--rough hew them how we will," spouts the enigmatic industrialist Linderman played by Malcolm McDowell, who should win an Emmy for keeping a straight face while reciting these lines."

I am still having a hard time believing that Buckman could not have known that the quote from Hamlet wasn't something he'd read or seen somewhere, and then I alternate with wondering whether or not he was being ironic. And yet, it's easily demonstrated that any sort of classical allusions in literate discourse are pretty much fossilized, receding with the speed of light......so I don't know why Buckman's apparent opacity when it comes to a famous Shakespeare quote should surprise me.

Another Great Critic Gone....

We only achieve a comprehensive understanding of ourselves when we share the thoughts of those outsiders who in some fashion transcend our perspective on our national condition. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was one such.

Alexis de Tocqueville detailed the endless, incestuous slide of Democracy toward a total preoccupation with egalitarian minutiæ.

.....and here we are.

Alistair Cooke, although he embraced America enough to become a citizen, roundly criticized what he called our "-love of show."

....ditto

Solzhenitsyn is at least as important as the other two, attacking the West's moral decay forty years ago in his 1978 Harvard commencement address:

"It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations. Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil."

Not to slight the press:

"Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one's nation's defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: 'everyone is entitled to know everything.' But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information."

It's popular to characterize such critics as just curmudgeons. In Solzhenitsyn's case, nothing could be further from the truth:

"If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era. This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but -- upward."

You tell 'em.

If People Can't Communicate.....

"People who cannot distinguish between good and bad language, or who regard the distinction as unimportant, are unlikely to think carefully about anything else."

- B.R. Myers, "Keeping a Civil Tongue," The Atlantic, April 2008

Why Read?

As can be seen from the category, this is another of those books you really should read.....if you read. If you're part of the growing hordes of non-readers, you can quit reading this post now. The Gutenberg Elegies by Sven Birkerts is a volume that may occasionally be tiresome, but it's point is one I've read in no other dedicated book: what is happening to us as a civilization because of the tectonic move away from reading caused by the various technologies and media of "the information age?"

For me, this book has nothing to do with:

1) reading to attain "literacy."

2) reading to peruse the newspaper or magazines; these media are in the same status as the dinosaurs a few seconds after the asteroid hit, and reading for information has nothing to do with the point being made.

3) reading to get some job, pass a test to get a grade, and all that dreary crap.

What really grabbed me about Birkerts' book is something else again: reading as escape. Reading to get away from.....this. (From YOU, too!) Just me and the words of Dickens, or Hemingway, or Heinlein, or Miller, or......and if you don't understand what I'm talking about yet, here's another invitation to stop reading. Chances are if you don't get this, you never will.

By way of digression, unlike a lot of people, I don't believe reading is for everyone. First, about a third of the human race doesn't read, and will never be able to read, or not very well; I suppose that's what's meant by "functional illiteracy." Doesn't matter, it's built-in. Reading and writing are an altogether different proposition, categorically different from speaking and hearing. Any normally functioning human being will learn to speak and listen to their language, without the slightest effort, just by "hanging out," by the time they are 2 or so. Reading and writing are handled in different parts of the brain, and a significant fraction of the human race can no more learn to read or write than most can do differential equations. This is -yet another- thing that is not admitted by the educational establishment, although it's documented beyond all question.

To return to the main point, and Birkerts', what will become of us when we can no longer "get away" for a while? Is that "reading place" where a lot of the world's creativity is brewed? I don't know, and don't rate the concept that highly anyway. Is it just one of the last really private places, in a world more crowded and packed each day? Although I consciously live as far away as I can from most humans, and particularly their noxious collectivities, I value it terribly. I can't escape my conviction that whatever the consequences, if and when the world of the reader disappears, something great and fundamental in us will be lost, and our humanity will be something other than we have known.