So, tomorrow is September 11, 2010. The pastor of a small church in Florida is threatening to burn Korans, and everyone is fighting over whether the Islamic equivalent to a YMCA (and yes, that's what it is, if you're going to start screaming that it's an "Extremist Mosque" then go look it up...somewhere other than Sean Hannity's website) should be built in New York.
There is one similarity between them: in both cases, people are doing something perfectly legal, and in both cases we have to worry about how ideologues, the frightened, and the angry are going to act. In New York, we have to worry about whether people who don't grasp that Al Qeada is a fringe group within Islam will commit acts of violence and/or vandalism, and the Florida pastor is running the risk of giving yet more cause to uninformed people in the Middle East who - through the manipulations of their own media and political figures - may think that the Koran burning is a normal part of American and/or Christian life and not the act of a half-wit fringe group.
The reality is that both of these events would have passed by completely un-noticed were it not for media and political attention. In getting worked up over either of them, people are allowing themselves to be manipulated or else giving in to a gut-level emotional reaction without stopping to consider what being a citizen of this country actually means. To be fair, the manipulators (politicians, ideologues, and media fixtures) are very good at it, and most folks don't realize that it's happening not because of a lack of their own intelligence but because the manipulators are very good at their jobs.
Let's start with the "Ground Zero Mosque." It's not at Ground Zero - now some folks will point out that it is in a location where the building was damaged by debris from the attacks, which is true. However, Ground Zero is a specifically designated place, and this falls outside of it. You could call it "the Building Damaged by Aircraft Debris Mosque", but that doesn't have the same ring, and more importantly for the people who are making hay with it, it doesn't have the same "shut off thinking by getting people angry" emotional charge. It's also not a Mosque, but that's true on a technical distinction between what is and what is not a mosque that many Christians don't make regarding what is and what is not a church, so while it's technically not a mosque, I'm not going to argue too much about that, as it's close enough.
There are alot of other claims going around - "They're going to let a mosque be built, but not a church be rebuilt", "the Imam refused offers to buy him out and give addition financial incentives if he just re-locates somewhere else", "the Imam receives money from the Kingdom Foundation, which is run by a guy who funds extremist groups around the world!" And so on. For the first two points - as someone who has been involved in building planning for several years now, neither of these things seems sinister. In New York, there are different authorities who have control over the permits in different areas (the same is true in many cities in my own state) - the area where the Islamic Center/Mosque is going to be built is not under the Port authority, who actually does have permitting responsibilities for the area where an Eastern Orthodox Church once stood, and with different agencies comes different permitting processes, regulations to follow, etc., which means that something that would be permitted by one agency may not be permitted by another. This is perfectly normal, if frustrating if you happen to be the person trying to get permits. Also, once the permitting process has been started, it's normal for the project proponent, regardless of the project, to not accept offers to be bought out - I have seen it many, many times, and they tend to dig their heels in more when project get political. So, these things that people seem to think are suspicious are actually a normal part of getting things built - sad, but true.
The guy, often referred to as "the Extremist" (not Joe Satriani) who is behind the Kingdom Foundation who funds some of this Imam's activities is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. He is also one of the major shareholders of Newscorp, the organization that owns FOX News. So, if you are going to claim that this Imam must be an evil anti-American extremist because he accepts funding from Al-Waleed bin Talal, then it follows that Bill O'Reilly is also an evil Anti-American extremist*.
There are numerous other things that people have brought up to try to show the alleged evils of the Imam behind the construction, but following them up routinely brings me to the same sorts of things once I find the source: either the statements are misconstruals of perfectly normal practices that all construction projects have the potential to entail, or they are distortions of statements actually made (sometimes through quote-mining, sometimes through very loose paraphrasing), or they are statements made by people with a political agenda that don't actually accuse the Imam of anything but are clearly intended to get people thinking that he's done something (in other words, they're lies carefully worked to avoid a libel suit). In other words, every time I have actually followed anything to the source, it turns out to either be mundane, or insulting but normal within the context of American life. The same is true for those who wish to paint him as the most wonderful guy in the world. In other words, whether you regard this Imam as a demon or an angel, you are looking at a media image and not what the guy has actually said or done.
Now, does this guy hold views that I, personally, would find abhorrent regarding issues of individual rights, women's rights, social roles, etc.? Probably. He is an Imam, after all. You know who else holds views that I find abhorrent? The Pope. The Prophet of the Mormon Church. Franklin Graham (Billy Graham's son). Pat Robertson. And the list could go on for many pages. Would I object to them building a church near Ground Zero, or in any other location? Not if they obtained permits and went about it in a legal manner.
Some people are going to be upset with of this construction because it's an Islamic center, and Al Qeada is an Islamic group. But the simple fact of the matter is that there is a very real distinction between Al Qaeda - an organization - and Islam - a religion**. Al Qaeda is an Islamic organization, to be certain. I'm not going to be one of those people who claims that they're not true Muslims, because as far as an honest assessment can be made, they are. But it should be kept in mind that in the 1930s, and possibly still today (I find alot of contradictory information) the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization, but it wasn't Christianity. In the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan used political rhetoric and Biblical citations to justify it's agenda, and it's leadership was definitely Christian, and it was accepted, applauded, or at best ignored by many Protestant Christian churches in the United States in pretty much precisely the same way that Al Qeada is by many Middle Eastern mosques today. And yet we all know that the KKK is not and never was the face of mainstream Christianity, it was a fringe group (if a widely accepted or even supported one).
If you bother to do some reading outside of the headlines and more sensationalistic outlets, it quickly becomes apparent that much the same can be said of Al Qeada. Indeed, Al Qeada, for all of their "anti-Imperialist" rhetoric, has shown itself to be just as (or perhaps even more) interested in killing other Muslims as in striking Europe and the United States - hardly the actions of the mainstream of a religion. Hell, the justification for suicide bombing had to be developed by Ayman al-Zawahiri using references to Medieval Christian martyrologies and then quote-mining the Koran***.
So, really, I see no legitimate reason to oppose the construction of this Islamic center if I'm not also going to oppose the construction of any other religious structure. I would not oppose the construction of a Catholic church next to an elementary school, or a Southern Baptist church in a Selma, Alabama, or a synagogue near a Palestinian-American neighborhood either.
I have, however, heard one legitimate reason for not building it, and this is where it ties back to our friend in Florida. The reason is this: given that there has been such a furor whipped up over it, constructing it will likely result in further conflict, probably result in vandalism, and may result in violence. But let's be clear - this is a concern about the actions of people other than those who want to build the place. This is a concern about the actions of people who are able and willing to commit criminal acts because they fail to grasp that living in a society where both speech and religion are free means that you don't have a right to not be offended. This is a concern about the actions of people who fail to make a distinction between a religion and individuals within that religion.
By the same token, I don't really care if some imbecile in Florida wants to burn books. If the media wasn't paying him so much attention, just as with the Islamic Center/Mosque, then this wouldn't be any more noteworthy than any of the huge number of other things that imbeciles do every single day. I don't consider the Koran holy - that would require me believing that there was some mystical being who decreed things holy - and so when I first heard of this guy, I gave it the same eye roll that I gave when I heard that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that there were no homosexuals in Iran. It was an idiot spouting off, something that everyone has the right to do when within the borders of the United States.
Since then, though, this has gathered so much media attention that it has become a legitimate concern that groups such as Al Qeada can use it as a recruiting tool ("evidence that 'the West' is against Islam, and not terrorism!") and that others with an axe to grind or media to sell in the Middle East may use it as a way to raise emotions and fan the ol' flames o' hatred, creating volatility where non exist.
But, again, let's be clear. The problem isn't that somebody has decided to legally burn something that he legally obtained. His actions and words show him to be a bigot and an idiot, but in the United States, we have the right to be bigots and idiots (even if I wish my fellow countrymen would exercise that right less often). The problem is that other people will use this to their advantage, and yet another group of people will fail to grasp that this guy is not representative of the U.S.A., the West in general, or even Christianity, and will engage in violent acts in response. What's more, this is a problem that arises from the fact that there are people in the world who fail to see the difference between the destruction of a symbol, and a violent attack against a religion's believers (a problem that is in no way unique to Islam).
"Gee, Mr. Armstrong, is there a point to this rant?"
Yeah. Over the past month, I have watched people, many of whom I respect and who are generally very smart and articulate people, reduce themselves to ranting madmen over the alleged evil of either the construction of the Islamic Center/Mosque, or the idiot with the book burning. But in both cases, this has been little more than giving in to emotion without reflection, or worse, allowing one's self to be manipulated by those with an agenda at worst.
We have the ability to be better than this. If you oppose the Islamic Center, then think about why you oppose it. If it's simply because the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim, then you are being inconsistent if you don't also oppose Catholic churches having daycare centers - let's face it, most priests don't abuse children, and most Muslims don't care for ramming airplanes into buildings. If you have some other reason for opposing it, then you may have a good point, or you may not, but at least you're not just giving in to a knee-jerk reaction.
If you are going to oppose the guy burning the Koran, then stop and consider that he now has power only because you have paid attention to him.
I can't fault anyone for having an immediate emotional response. But I can fault many people for not considering their position carefully and acting in accordance with their own stated principles.
*Wait a minute...this is starting to make some sense...
**This also holds for those who argue that being in favor of or opposed to the actions of the Israeli government means being in favor of or opposed to Judaism. There is a great distinction between Israel - a nation state - and Judaism - a religion and ethnic group.
***It should, of course, be noted that suicide attacks have occurred throughout history. They are usually justified via legalistic interpretations of either religion or tradition after the fact.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Proper Language and Ebonics
As I drove to work this morning, I had the radio tuned to a discussion of the DEA's decision to hire translators for Ebonics (AKA Black Enlgish). A linguist was on the show explaining that Ebonics, while not a language in and of itself, is an internally consistent dialect of English*, largely derived from the dialects of English spoken by indentured servants who worked alongside slaves in early historic America. This led to one person calling in to the show and attempting to tell the linguist that Ebonics was not a dialect, but was simply "improper English."
But, well, for there to be a "proper language" you need two things that are rather new in human history: 1) Someone with the authority to dictate what is and is not proper (in the case of language, this is usually in the hands of academics or government ministers) which usually comes with the formation of a state (although it could come from other forms of organization), and 2) the ability to codify what is or is not proper, which until the 20th century could only be done with writing, and is still most practically done with writing.
For most of human history, we lived in communities where the exact dialect of a language would gradiate from band-to-band or village-to-village, and two groups who lived quite distant from each other would speak dialects that were similar to each other, but different enough that they could arguably be called different languages (think of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese in the modern world). And languages change over time as well as space - Elizabethan English (what you would find in one of Shakesepare's plays) is a different dialect than modern English in the very same part of England in which Shakespeare lived and wrote.
Language is a living thing - costantly changing, constantly being altered. We all recognize this, and yet to most of us the idea of a "proper" form for a language seems intuitive. We seem to be able to accept that different nation-states will have their own proper form of a language (Spanish from Spain being different from Spanish from Mexico, and there are differences between British English and American English) - in fact the caller who insisted that Ebonics was not a dialect cited his experience as an infantryman traveling with the Marines, experiencing different dialects in different countries - but we seem to be unwilling to accept that there may be true dialects within each nation state. We accept regional accents and slang, but we regard full dialects as simply "improper" language, when, in fact, they are simply evidence of the normal evolution of language.
Which is not to say that there aren't many advantages to artificially slowing language change, creating an agreed-upon proper language, through both writing and education. I would say that the benefits outweigh any negatives that you could imagine, and it's an absolute necessity in modern nations. But, nonetheless, our adherence to an artificially glaciated language is anomolous. It's a tremendous innovation and a wonderful tool, but it's not the norm, it's a recent invention and the development of dialects such as Ebonics is the norm.
*I know that somebody's going to try to get me to argue about whether or not Ebonics belongs in the classroom. So, I'll just say this - that's beside the point of what I'm trying to discuss here, and I'm disinterested in discussing that matter, so piss off.
But, well, for there to be a "proper language" you need two things that are rather new in human history: 1) Someone with the authority to dictate what is and is not proper (in the case of language, this is usually in the hands of academics or government ministers) which usually comes with the formation of a state (although it could come from other forms of organization), and 2) the ability to codify what is or is not proper, which until the 20th century could only be done with writing, and is still most practically done with writing.
For most of human history, we lived in communities where the exact dialect of a language would gradiate from band-to-band or village-to-village, and two groups who lived quite distant from each other would speak dialects that were similar to each other, but different enough that they could arguably be called different languages (think of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese in the modern world). And languages change over time as well as space - Elizabethan English (what you would find in one of Shakesepare's plays) is a different dialect than modern English in the very same part of England in which Shakespeare lived and wrote.
Language is a living thing - costantly changing, constantly being altered. We all recognize this, and yet to most of us the idea of a "proper" form for a language seems intuitive. We seem to be able to accept that different nation-states will have their own proper form of a language (Spanish from Spain being different from Spanish from Mexico, and there are differences between British English and American English) - in fact the caller who insisted that Ebonics was not a dialect cited his experience as an infantryman traveling with the Marines, experiencing different dialects in different countries - but we seem to be unwilling to accept that there may be true dialects within each nation state. We accept regional accents and slang, but we regard full dialects as simply "improper" language, when, in fact, they are simply evidence of the normal evolution of language.
Which is not to say that there aren't many advantages to artificially slowing language change, creating an agreed-upon proper language, through both writing and education. I would say that the benefits outweigh any negatives that you could imagine, and it's an absolute necessity in modern nations. But, nonetheless, our adherence to an artificially glaciated language is anomolous. It's a tremendous innovation and a wonderful tool, but it's not the norm, it's a recent invention and the development of dialects such as Ebonics is the norm.
*I know that somebody's going to try to get me to argue about whether or not Ebonics belongs in the classroom. So, I'll just say this - that's beside the point of what I'm trying to discuss here, and I'm disinterested in discussing that matter, so piss off.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Home Office
So, my office is closing down. Don't worry, I still have a job. But, my office is closing down. When I am in town, I'll be working from home, and when I am out of town, I'll be spending my time down in Los Angeles County working on a large transmission line project.
So, I still have a paycheck, I still have health insurance, and I still have a job. I just won't have an office after the end of this month. There are some up-sides to this. On the one hand, working from home will be pleasant in that I will be able to have my workspace as I wish, without concerns about disturbing coworkers. It'll also be nice to not have to get up, get dressed, and drive to work - starting the day by walking down the hall in my pajamas is a nice idea. On the downside, I do like the structure of having a place to go, and a set number of hours a day when I am supposed to be there. I genuinely like associating with my coworkers, and so to not have daily interaction with them will be a loss. And I tend to be given to over-working anyway, so having the necessity of going home removed may increase my tendency to overwork*. So, it's got it's up-side and it's downside.
The biggest thing about this for me, though, is the fact that over the last three and a half years, I have spent more time in my office than in my home (see the comment about overworking above). To see it going away is, frankly, weird. It would be one thing if it was going away because it was being replaced with a different office, or if it was staying here but I was going on to a different job. But the office is simply going away, and those of us associated with it are becoming independent in our own personal home offices. It's sort of a lonely feeling.
So, anyway, I'm still working, and all is well on that front. It's just a weird feeling to see what has become part of my home going away.
*For example, several years back, a friend of mine needed to get hold of me at 10 PM on a Friday night. Before they called my cell phone or my home phone number, they tried my office, and I answered. When I asked why they called that number first - pointing out that it was, after all, 10:00 on a Friday night - they said that, based on past experience, they felt fairly certain that I was more likely to be at my office than anywhere else at that time.
So, I still have a paycheck, I still have health insurance, and I still have a job. I just won't have an office after the end of this month. There are some up-sides to this. On the one hand, working from home will be pleasant in that I will be able to have my workspace as I wish, without concerns about disturbing coworkers. It'll also be nice to not have to get up, get dressed, and drive to work - starting the day by walking down the hall in my pajamas is a nice idea. On the downside, I do like the structure of having a place to go, and a set number of hours a day when I am supposed to be there. I genuinely like associating with my coworkers, and so to not have daily interaction with them will be a loss. And I tend to be given to over-working anyway, so having the necessity of going home removed may increase my tendency to overwork*. So, it's got it's up-side and it's downside.
The biggest thing about this for me, though, is the fact that over the last three and a half years, I have spent more time in my office than in my home (see the comment about overworking above). To see it going away is, frankly, weird. It would be one thing if it was going away because it was being replaced with a different office, or if it was staying here but I was going on to a different job. But the office is simply going away, and those of us associated with it are becoming independent in our own personal home offices. It's sort of a lonely feeling.
So, anyway, I'm still working, and all is well on that front. It's just a weird feeling to see what has become part of my home going away.
*For example, several years back, a friend of mine needed to get hold of me at 10 PM on a Friday night. Before they called my cell phone or my home phone number, they tried my office, and I answered. When I asked why they called that number first - pointing out that it was, after all, 10:00 on a Friday night - they said that, based on past experience, they felt fairly certain that I was more likely to be at my office than anywhere else at that time.
Monday, September 6, 2010
That Ol' Rugged Cross
This is just a quick one, but it's something that I have been thinking about, and that is of interest in archaeology, as it is about how symbols and their material expression change meaning over time.
In Daniel Radosh's book Rapture Ready, he discusses the world of Christian pop culture. In it, he describes a man who has developed a symbol that he calls The Smiling Cross. It's weird, the adaptation of a sign of torturous punishment into an anthropomorphic smiling figure.
But how did it get here? That's the interesting thing.
The cross began as a tool of the Roman state. It was used by the Romans to execute criminals*, a death that was long and agonizing. Moreover, the cross with the corpse could be left up for a while, if the authorities deemed it good that the people see the body on display (either as a deterrent, or to show the people that a hated criminal had been caught).
As the Roman Empire declined and eventually fell, the cross would come to be taken as a sign of the Christian religion. The cross took on meanings associated both with Roman law enforcement and with Christianity.
As crucifixion fell out of favor as a form of capital punishment, the association with execution began to be shed. Yes, the Bible and most history books speak of this, but crosses are no longer used for execution, and the only place where westerners would see crosses was in churches. As such, the cross became a purely religious symbol for all but a few historians. At this time, though, the cross was still tied to the notion of Jesus' torture and death, important events in Christianity, as they also lead to the redemption of humanity.
Over time, though, the image of Jesus on the Cross became less prominent than the cross itself. There are a number of really fascinating reasons why this happened, including an abhorrence on the part of many Protestant reformers with "graven images" and the rise of theologies that held that the notion of redemption was more important than "the passions" (Jesus' horrible death). At this point in time, the image of "Christ the Sufferer" is largely Catholic, while most Protestant sects focus on a more serene Christ in their iconography. And so, images of the cross in protestant circles are usually generic symbols bereft of the image of Jesus:
And images of Jesus are usually free of any sign of passion, showing him as contemplative or devoted, but not suffering:
The end result is that the cross came to be seen as an abstract symbol of Jesus, rather than the sign of his execution. Yes, most Christians are aware of the fact that it is based on the method of execution, but that doesn't change the fact that the immediate mental connection is with Jesus and not the death penalty. And so, the Cross becomes a stand-in for Jesus. And as the cross has become a symbol for Jesus himself, rather than for Jesus' death, it has also become associated with the properties attributed to Jesus, and as "Christ the Lamb" has become ascendant in Christian theology, this means that the Cross is often seen as a friendly symbol rather than a symbol of suffering and redemption. And so, the Smiling Cross, as bizarre and even sacrilegious as it may seem, is really just a continuation of the trajectory that a symbol representing Roman capital punishment has been on for a long time.
I just feel bad for Kevin Smith. He thought that he was being really clever with Buddy Christ...
Only to be outdone by reality.
*One of my history professors in college always liked to point out that crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, the Jews in the Roman Empire used the old reliable methods of Stoning people to death. So, when people talk about the Jews "killing Jesus" they are factually incorrect - it was the Romans who did so. Assuming that the account in the bible is correct, which is a dubious assumption, the Rabbis did political maneuvering, but the Romans did the rest.
In Daniel Radosh's book Rapture Ready, he discusses the world of Christian pop culture. In it, he describes a man who has developed a symbol that he calls The Smiling Cross. It's weird, the adaptation of a sign of torturous punishment into an anthropomorphic smiling figure.
But how did it get here? That's the interesting thing.
The cross began as a tool of the Roman state. It was used by the Romans to execute criminals*, a death that was long and agonizing. Moreover, the cross with the corpse could be left up for a while, if the authorities deemed it good that the people see the body on display (either as a deterrent, or to show the people that a hated criminal had been caught).
As the Roman Empire declined and eventually fell, the cross would come to be taken as a sign of the Christian religion. The cross took on meanings associated both with Roman law enforcement and with Christianity.
As crucifixion fell out of favor as a form of capital punishment, the association with execution began to be shed. Yes, the Bible and most history books speak of this, but crosses are no longer used for execution, and the only place where westerners would see crosses was in churches. As such, the cross became a purely religious symbol for all but a few historians. At this time, though, the cross was still tied to the notion of Jesus' torture and death, important events in Christianity, as they also lead to the redemption of humanity.
Over time, though, the image of Jesus on the Cross became less prominent than the cross itself. There are a number of really fascinating reasons why this happened, including an abhorrence on the part of many Protestant reformers with "graven images" and the rise of theologies that held that the notion of redemption was more important than "the passions" (Jesus' horrible death). At this point in time, the image of "Christ the Sufferer" is largely Catholic, while most Protestant sects focus on a more serene Christ in their iconography. And so, images of the cross in protestant circles are usually generic symbols bereft of the image of Jesus:
And images of Jesus are usually free of any sign of passion, showing him as contemplative or devoted, but not suffering:
The end result is that the cross came to be seen as an abstract symbol of Jesus, rather than the sign of his execution. Yes, most Christians are aware of the fact that it is based on the method of execution, but that doesn't change the fact that the immediate mental connection is with Jesus and not the death penalty. And so, the Cross becomes a stand-in for Jesus. And as the cross has become a symbol for Jesus himself, rather than for Jesus' death, it has also become associated with the properties attributed to Jesus, and as "Christ the Lamb" has become ascendant in Christian theology, this means that the Cross is often seen as a friendly symbol rather than a symbol of suffering and redemption. And so, the Smiling Cross, as bizarre and even sacrilegious as it may seem, is really just a continuation of the trajectory that a symbol representing Roman capital punishment has been on for a long time.
I just feel bad for Kevin Smith. He thought that he was being really clever with Buddy Christ...
Only to be outdone by reality.
*One of my history professors in college always liked to point out that crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, the Jews in the Roman Empire used the old reliable methods of Stoning people to death. So, when people talk about the Jews "killing Jesus" they are factually incorrect - it was the Romans who did so. Assuming that the account in the bible is correct, which is a dubious assumption, the Rabbis did political maneuvering, but the Romans did the rest.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Hyena Vomit and Human Evolution
The 1950s through 1980s were a time of very active change in archaeology. New technologies coupled with changes in the way that humans are viewed by archaeologists (less mythic "man the conqueror", more practical "humans as a specieis adapted to life on Earth") spurred a number of advances in the way that archaeologists study our evolutionary past.
One of the first steps along the path to re-evaluating our evolutionary past was determining whether or not many of the archaeological sites that had been used to argue for the particular model of the human past were, in fact, archaeological sites at all. High on this list were caches of animal bones that litter the African landscape. Often found in caves or rock shelters, these caches of bone indicate selection - only certain pieces of bone are found, not entire skeletons, and the types of bones are fairly consistent across sites - and show signs of modification - marks on the bones and bone breakage. The selection of bone and the signs of modification had long been taken as evidence of homonid (the family of animals to which humans belong, and of which humans are the only surviving member) activity, and specifically of hunting and butchering.
This changed as archaeologists began to look at the behavior of other animals that are present in the parts of Africa where our ancestors wandered. Researchers discovered that the feeding habits of certain large cats likely created some of the bone caches that had been found, with the marks on the bone coming from teeth or post-depositional environmental factors.
One particularly important book, The Hunters or the Hunted?, by a fellow with the delightful name of C.K. Brain, discussed bone caches found in African caves with an eye towards evaluating what materials came from homonid activities, and what was due to animals, both large and small, that also selectively leave bones behind.
However, the study that really grabbed my attention as an undergraduate involved the examination of hyena vomit. Yes, the study was done in the 1970s, and everyone was on drugs then, but there actually was a valid reason to study hyena vomit.
You see, hyenas have been around for approximately 26 million years, meaning that they were wandering the African savannah along with our early ancestors. Hyenas also are scavengers, meaning that they get access to carcasses after other animals have already had a chance to take what they want from them. Hyenas are well-adapted to scavenging because one of the many things that they can do is swallow bone and vomit it back up on demand. "How does this help them" you ask? Simple - the swallow the bone and their stomach begins to digest the grease and meat left on and in the bone, allowing them to gain nourishment from remains for which other animals would have little use. Once their system has extracted what it can from the bone, they vomit it back up, leaving behind select pieces of bone in piles that might look like a homonid had gone about picking up choice cuts of meat and leaving the bone behind to be discovered by it's descendants a couple of million years later.
With the results of this study, people studying homonids were better able to eliminate hyena puke sites from their lists o' potential archaeological sites. A useful thing to be sure, and a tool that allowed the view of humanity's evolutionary past to be refined.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the study of homonids during this period is that it reflected how a change in how we think about ourselves can allow data to be more fully examined. Prior to this period, it had been common to think about "man the hunter" and "man the conqueror" - whether this was glorified or villified, we were seen as beings that could and did take the world by force and make it as we wished, and this was reflected in many of the models of our evolutionary past. With Post-WWII social change, not to mentiont echnological change, we began to look at ourselves and our ancestors in a different light, and began to consider that the data might be saying something different than what we had initially assumed. The image that began to emerge as the data was evaluated with better techniques was that our homonid ancestors did eventually become hunters, but that they likely spent quite a bit of time scavenging, and we were shaped by our environment at least as much as we would eventually shape it (probably more so).
One of the first steps along the path to re-evaluating our evolutionary past was determining whether or not many of the archaeological sites that had been used to argue for the particular model of the human past were, in fact, archaeological sites at all. High on this list were caches of animal bones that litter the African landscape. Often found in caves or rock shelters, these caches of bone indicate selection - only certain pieces of bone are found, not entire skeletons, and the types of bones are fairly consistent across sites - and show signs of modification - marks on the bones and bone breakage. The selection of bone and the signs of modification had long been taken as evidence of homonid (the family of animals to which humans belong, and of which humans are the only surviving member) activity, and specifically of hunting and butchering.
This changed as archaeologists began to look at the behavior of other animals that are present in the parts of Africa where our ancestors wandered. Researchers discovered that the feeding habits of certain large cats likely created some of the bone caches that had been found, with the marks on the bone coming from teeth or post-depositional environmental factors.
One particularly important book, The Hunters or the Hunted?, by a fellow with the delightful name of C.K. Brain, discussed bone caches found in African caves with an eye towards evaluating what materials came from homonid activities, and what was due to animals, both large and small, that also selectively leave bones behind.
However, the study that really grabbed my attention as an undergraduate involved the examination of hyena vomit. Yes, the study was done in the 1970s, and everyone was on drugs then, but there actually was a valid reason to study hyena vomit.
You see, hyenas have been around for approximately 26 million years, meaning that they were wandering the African savannah along with our early ancestors. Hyenas also are scavengers, meaning that they get access to carcasses after other animals have already had a chance to take what they want from them. Hyenas are well-adapted to scavenging because one of the many things that they can do is swallow bone and vomit it back up on demand. "How does this help them" you ask? Simple - the swallow the bone and their stomach begins to digest the grease and meat left on and in the bone, allowing them to gain nourishment from remains for which other animals would have little use. Once their system has extracted what it can from the bone, they vomit it back up, leaving behind select pieces of bone in piles that might look like a homonid had gone about picking up choice cuts of meat and leaving the bone behind to be discovered by it's descendants a couple of million years later.
With the results of this study, people studying homonids were better able to eliminate hyena puke sites from their lists o' potential archaeological sites. A useful thing to be sure, and a tool that allowed the view of humanity's evolutionary past to be refined.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the study of homonids during this period is that it reflected how a change in how we think about ourselves can allow data to be more fully examined. Prior to this period, it had been common to think about "man the hunter" and "man the conqueror" - whether this was glorified or villified, we were seen as beings that could and did take the world by force and make it as we wished, and this was reflected in many of the models of our evolutionary past. With Post-WWII social change, not to mentiont echnological change, we began to look at ourselves and our ancestors in a different light, and began to consider that the data might be saying something different than what we had initially assumed. The image that began to emerge as the data was evaluated with better techniques was that our homonid ancestors did eventually become hunters, but that they likely spent quite a bit of time scavenging, and we were shaped by our environment at least as much as we would eventually shape it (probably more so).
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Thinking About Privatization and Government Control
I have alot of fiscal conservatives, both of the Republican and of the Libertarian sort, in my family. What this means is that, ever since I became aware of such things as a teenager, I have routinely heard that private business is always more efficient than government, and that most government duties should be privatized.
This has always seemed very odd to me, as the evidence that most of these folks give for their beliefs is their own interactions with government agencies - time at the DMV, dealing with building permits through the county or city government, and so on. I fully agree that this sort of interactions absolutely does reveal a slothful and often bloated bureaucracy that typically seems more concerned with following draconian procedures than with getting anything done.
The problem is that private industry is often not much better. Have you ever dealt with a telephone company? A bank? An insurance company? Hell, even most large retailers? They are generally just as bad. And that's not even getting into the weird jungles of government responsibilities that get privatized - private jails, defense contractors, etc.
I also live in Santa Cruz, which means that I have regular interaction with people who want things that are currently private industries made government functions (look at the recent health care shouting match - no, it wasn't a debate, because there was little actual discussion), and they will often cite the very same sorts of inefficiencies, draconian rules, and corruption that those who want everything privatized.
A fair-minded observer has to ask if the problem isn't so much that one is government and one is private, but rather that you are dealing with large bureaucracies. Proponents of privatization will point out that private companies are capable of making sudden changes that can improve efficiency - this is sometimes true, but often other factors (both within and outside the companies) influence against this. Proponents of government agencies will often point to the corruption within large companies (due to the large sums of money taken in) as a problem that makes them untrustworthy, also fair, but also a problem with government agencies.
What is fascinating to me is that, whether one is pro-privatization or anti-privatization, all of the arguments are big on rhetoric and assumption, and pretty much empty of hard data. In fact, many researchers have looked into the benefits of having various functions be handled by private vs. government agencies, and when one brushes away the "studies" performed by political organizations on both sides, what is left is a simply data that indicates that some functions are most efficiently performed by private industry, while others are most efficiently performed by governments, and which function falls into which category is dependent both on the service/purpose in question, and the time and place where it is being executed.
So, I find myself really quite amused (and when they influence policy, quite disturbed) by people who are absolutely convinced that, say, government health care will unquestionably be better, or that privatizing police forces will lead to safer cities. Both groups seem equally convinced of their position based on just-so stories with no real data (aside from maybe a bit generated by someone with a political rather than reality-based agenda) to back them up. Both fall to the confirmation bias and fail to take into account disconfirming data.
Generally, when someone routinely insists on the privatization or nationalization of various different functions or industries, they probably haven't bothered to actually do their homework.
This has always seemed very odd to me, as the evidence that most of these folks give for their beliefs is their own interactions with government agencies - time at the DMV, dealing with building permits through the county or city government, and so on. I fully agree that this sort of interactions absolutely does reveal a slothful and often bloated bureaucracy that typically seems more concerned with following draconian procedures than with getting anything done.
The problem is that private industry is often not much better. Have you ever dealt with a telephone company? A bank? An insurance company? Hell, even most large retailers? They are generally just as bad. And that's not even getting into the weird jungles of government responsibilities that get privatized - private jails, defense contractors, etc.
I also live in Santa Cruz, which means that I have regular interaction with people who want things that are currently private industries made government functions (look at the recent health care shouting match - no, it wasn't a debate, because there was little actual discussion), and they will often cite the very same sorts of inefficiencies, draconian rules, and corruption that those who want everything privatized.
A fair-minded observer has to ask if the problem isn't so much that one is government and one is private, but rather that you are dealing with large bureaucracies. Proponents of privatization will point out that private companies are capable of making sudden changes that can improve efficiency - this is sometimes true, but often other factors (both within and outside the companies) influence against this. Proponents of government agencies will often point to the corruption within large companies (due to the large sums of money taken in) as a problem that makes them untrustworthy, also fair, but also a problem with government agencies.
What is fascinating to me is that, whether one is pro-privatization or anti-privatization, all of the arguments are big on rhetoric and assumption, and pretty much empty of hard data. In fact, many researchers have looked into the benefits of having various functions be handled by private vs. government agencies, and when one brushes away the "studies" performed by political organizations on both sides, what is left is a simply data that indicates that some functions are most efficiently performed by private industry, while others are most efficiently performed by governments, and which function falls into which category is dependent both on the service/purpose in question, and the time and place where it is being executed.
So, I find myself really quite amused (and when they influence policy, quite disturbed) by people who are absolutely convinced that, say, government health care will unquestionably be better, or that privatizing police forces will lead to safer cities. Both groups seem equally convinced of their position based on just-so stories with no real data (aside from maybe a bit generated by someone with a political rather than reality-based agenda) to back them up. Both fall to the confirmation bias and fail to take into account disconfirming data.
Generally, when someone routinely insists on the privatization or nationalization of various different functions or industries, they probably haven't bothered to actually do their homework.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Ghost Signs
A post from several months back at the Diary of a Bluestocking blog discussed "ghost signs", the long-abandoned and usually fading signs that advertise businesses no longer in existence, goods no longer sold, and/or advertising campaigns long since dead and gone*. The writer of that blog, who I'm pretty sure could single-handedly beat me in a knowledge-off (and who is a better writer than I am) routinely demonstrates a concern for the lack of appreciation that most of us have regarding the ever-present artifacts of our relatively recent past. It is a matter that I have had to address on a professional basis, as many of these types of objects are now old enough that we have to consider them for the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources.
Her discussion of ghost signs got me wondering about the role that these play in my home state of California. Generally, my fellow Californians seem to regard these old signs with something of a mixture of acceptance and affection. They serve as an active part of our social landscape - landmarks on routes, makers of our social territories, and re-assuring objects that remain the same every time that we pass them. For many of the people who own businesses to which these signs are attached, they serve as a way of marking that the business is part of the community (even if the business isn't as old as the sign indicates), and for others they serve primarily for their kitch value, creating a new meaning rather than tying in to the community.
It's interesting to me that, while we Californians generally seem ready to replace almost everything - from our consumer electronics to our homes - we rarely seem to be in any hurry to paint over or get rid of these signs. It seems to fit in with our usual attitude - once something is old enough, we consider either venerable or kitch, and we allow it to stay. If it's not old enough, we want to obliterate it before it gains sufficient age to gain new meaning.
And, really, as odd as it is for many people to consider them in such a context, they are part of our archaeological record. There is information in their placement, their preservation (or the occasional attempt to cover them up), and in the ways in which the use of the buildings on which they are emblazoned change that is useful in evaluate our culture. In truth, they can be analyzed in the same way that we analyze the cave paintings of prehistoric peoples.
Although rather different from most ghost signs, there's this one, a reminder of times forgotten, that I took a picture of while in Seattle, Washington:
*And not the feces of ghosts. Sorry to dissapoint you.
Her discussion of ghost signs got me wondering about the role that these play in my home state of California. Generally, my fellow Californians seem to regard these old signs with something of a mixture of acceptance and affection. They serve as an active part of our social landscape - landmarks on routes, makers of our social territories, and re-assuring objects that remain the same every time that we pass them. For many of the people who own businesses to which these signs are attached, they serve as a way of marking that the business is part of the community (even if the business isn't as old as the sign indicates), and for others they serve primarily for their kitch value, creating a new meaning rather than tying in to the community.
It's interesting to me that, while we Californians generally seem ready to replace almost everything - from our consumer electronics to our homes - we rarely seem to be in any hurry to paint over or get rid of these signs. It seems to fit in with our usual attitude - once something is old enough, we consider either venerable or kitch, and we allow it to stay. If it's not old enough, we want to obliterate it before it gains sufficient age to gain new meaning.
And, really, as odd as it is for many people to consider them in such a context, they are part of our archaeological record. There is information in their placement, their preservation (or the occasional attempt to cover them up), and in the ways in which the use of the buildings on which they are emblazoned change that is useful in evaluate our culture. In truth, they can be analyzed in the same way that we analyze the cave paintings of prehistoric peoples.
Although rather different from most ghost signs, there's this one, a reminder of times forgotten, that I took a picture of while in Seattle, Washington:
*And not the feces of ghosts. Sorry to dissapoint you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)