Friday, October 28, 2005
Random Rantings
- Jazz is dead. There, I said it. It has become a lifeless, ivory tower exercise. The fire has gone out, it has become conventional. Where are the new prophets, to prove me wrong? Aside from these guys, of course.
- Indictments, failed nominations, increasingly bold criticism...you would think there was a democratic process in America.
- Why did it take natural and national disasters on these shores to wake up the American people?
- I'm really, really in to Rome. Perhaps moreso than I should be.
- It is clear that those in charge of public education in Kansas have no interest in public education in Kansas.
- How does one set up shop as a one-man think tank?
- The presidents of the University of Kansas and Cornell, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association should all be commended for their salvoes fired in the war against ignorance. How's that trial in Pennsylvania going?
Academic Rights
Among the many side-issues running through Congress recently has been the so-called Academic Bill of Rights (see also). It seems such federal legislation would protect students, in their right to free expression, and from any one who has a view contrary to their own.
The claim is that the academic world is so packed with liberals, especially among the faculty ranks, that students of a politically or socially conservative ideology are discriminated against. Conservative students claim they can’t speak their minds, lest they be pounced upon. Conservative students claim they must conform to their professors’ ideologies, whatever they may be, to pass their classes. Some have even made the value-for-money argument, saying they are not getting the quality education they are paying for, as conservative students.
What utter rubbish!
First of all, both students and faculty already enjoy protected expression. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees it. There is no classroom abeyance clause, suspending basic rights in the classroom. The higher –ed classroom is exactly the place for the unfettered, free-flowing exchange of ideas. However, many don’t seem to realize the true implications of that: if everyone gets to freely express their ideas, that means we are going to be exposed to new and different ideas, much of which we may not want to hear. The whole point of higher education is to expose one’s self to that which is new and different. (At least, it was; I fear that today higher education in America means nothing more than credentialism.) Indeed, academia may just be the very last stand for free expression in the United States, the media, polite society and the hoi polloi having all given up on it.
If we dig a little deeper it is clear this is yet another attack on education by the powers that be, to advance their own ultraconservative ideology. It is all well and good that ideas should be freely exchanged, they say, so long as those ideas are ours. How many policy issues in education today have nothing to do with teaching or learning, instead attempting to create a very narrow, very limited intellectual environment? Tyrants have long known that if you keep the people stupid, and sated with bread and circuses, their rule is assured.
But let us not let the academic community of the hook. Students have a clear responsibility in this exchange of ideas: speak up! If you are a college or university student, and find yourself in a classroom wherein your views or ideology is being dismissed, attacked or misrepresented, speak up! Avail yourself of your extant Constitutional and academic rights. Too many students are mere sheep, or worse, they just don’t care about what’s going on in their lives. Students also have to recognize that on any given day, the faculty are spokespersons, sales agents and story-tellers, relating facts and ideas not their own, but which are needful for true mastery of the subject. Further, students have to be open to the experience and willing in the first place, and give themselves over to the intellectual process. Aristotle said it was the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without accepting it.
And professors have a responsibility in this exchange of ideas as well: do what is right. It is not useful to needlessly politicize a math class. Recognize your responsibility to the subject matter comes first, your editorials second. Do not dismiss, denigrate or diminish any students who disagree with you. Indeed, debate them honestly and calmly, and see what learning ensues. Above all, don’t make students’ minds up for them, make them think for themselves, draw their own conclusions, form their own philosophies, and encourage them to do so at all times. And if you do rant in the classroom, don’t cowardly hide behind tenure after the fact.
In the end, this so-called Academic Bill of Rights is nothing more than a conservative shill, to subvert higher education. Students have guaranteed free expression, if they choose to use it. But if you’re going to dish it out, be ready to take it as well. And if you can’t take the heat, go to Bob Jones University.
The claim is that the academic world is so packed with liberals, especially among the faculty ranks, that students of a politically or socially conservative ideology are discriminated against. Conservative students claim they can’t speak their minds, lest they be pounced upon. Conservative students claim they must conform to their professors’ ideologies, whatever they may be, to pass their classes. Some have even made the value-for-money argument, saying they are not getting the quality education they are paying for, as conservative students.
What utter rubbish!
First of all, both students and faculty already enjoy protected expression. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees it. There is no classroom abeyance clause, suspending basic rights in the classroom. The higher –ed classroom is exactly the place for the unfettered, free-flowing exchange of ideas. However, many don’t seem to realize the true implications of that: if everyone gets to freely express their ideas, that means we are going to be exposed to new and different ideas, much of which we may not want to hear. The whole point of higher education is to expose one’s self to that which is new and different. (At least, it was; I fear that today higher education in America means nothing more than credentialism.) Indeed, academia may just be the very last stand for free expression in the United States, the media, polite society and the hoi polloi having all given up on it.
If we dig a little deeper it is clear this is yet another attack on education by the powers that be, to advance their own ultraconservative ideology. It is all well and good that ideas should be freely exchanged, they say, so long as those ideas are ours. How many policy issues in education today have nothing to do with teaching or learning, instead attempting to create a very narrow, very limited intellectual environment? Tyrants have long known that if you keep the people stupid, and sated with bread and circuses, their rule is assured.
But let us not let the academic community of the hook. Students have a clear responsibility in this exchange of ideas: speak up! If you are a college or university student, and find yourself in a classroom wherein your views or ideology is being dismissed, attacked or misrepresented, speak up! Avail yourself of your extant Constitutional and academic rights. Too many students are mere sheep, or worse, they just don’t care about what’s going on in their lives. Students also have to recognize that on any given day, the faculty are spokespersons, sales agents and story-tellers, relating facts and ideas not their own, but which are needful for true mastery of the subject. Further, students have to be open to the experience and willing in the first place, and give themselves over to the intellectual process. Aristotle said it was the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without accepting it.
And professors have a responsibility in this exchange of ideas as well: do what is right. It is not useful to needlessly politicize a math class. Recognize your responsibility to the subject matter comes first, your editorials second. Do not dismiss, denigrate or diminish any students who disagree with you. Indeed, debate them honestly and calmly, and see what learning ensues. Above all, don’t make students’ minds up for them, make them think for themselves, draw their own conclusions, form their own philosophies, and encourage them to do so at all times. And if you do rant in the classroom, don’t cowardly hide behind tenure after the fact.
In the end, this so-called Academic Bill of Rights is nothing more than a conservative shill, to subvert higher education. Students have guaranteed free expression, if they choose to use it. But if you’re going to dish it out, be ready to take it as well. And if you can’t take the heat, go to Bob Jones University.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
War, Crimes
The trials of Saddam Hussein, charged with crimes against humanity, began today.
There have been 2,177 coalition troop deaths (1,979 Americans, 98 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians) in the war in Iraq as of today, and at least 14,362 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon as reported by CNN.com.
There have been 306 coalition deaths (249 Americans, one Australian, four Britons, seven Canadians, three Danes, three French, 17 Germans, two Italians, one Norwegian, three Romanians and 17 Spaniards) in the war in Afghanistan as of today. At least 616 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon as reported by CNN.com.
As far as I can discern, no-one has any real count of the Iraqi and Afghani dead, injured and displaced as of today. As of today, it seems that neither state is close to functioning as a self-sufficient democracy.
President Bush's approval rating today is no higher than 45% , as measured by several polls.
The Secretary of State, appearing today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committe, today refused to "speculate" about timetables for completion of the mission in Iraq and withdrawl of US forces, saying such speculation would give a "strategic advantage" to the insurgents.
Usama bin Laden remains at liberty today.
There have been 2,177 coalition troop deaths (1,979 Americans, 98 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians) in the war in Iraq as of today, and at least 14,362 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon as reported by CNN.com.
There have been 306 coalition deaths (249 Americans, one Australian, four Britons, seven Canadians, three Danes, three French, 17 Germans, two Italians, one Norwegian, three Romanians and 17 Spaniards) in the war in Afghanistan as of today. At least 616 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon as reported by CNN.com.
As far as I can discern, no-one has any real count of the Iraqi and Afghani dead, injured and displaced as of today. As of today, it seems that neither state is close to functioning as a self-sufficient democracy.
President Bush's approval rating today is no higher than 45% , as measured by several polls.
The Secretary of State, appearing today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committe, today refused to "speculate" about timetables for completion of the mission in Iraq and withdrawl of US forces, saying such speculation would give a "strategic advantage" to the insurgents.
Usama bin Laden remains at liberty today.
Monday, October 17, 2005
rhythm(solo)
For a several months now, I've been working on-and-off on a personal recording project, entitled rhythm(solo). To keep myself on task and honest, and to document the project, I will record under this heading the progress to date. Go to my site for the full track run-down.
No-tune cha-cha is 90% complete, but the conga solos need to be re-recorded. There's a rattle from the mic mount on the tumba coming through.
Place of Fire is so close, yet so far. All I need to do is put down the udu solo over the first part, and lay down the tonbak solo and backing tracks for the second part.
I've finalized the sequences for Deep Ancestry and Conquer the Drum. I have only now made my peace with electronic instruments, so far as this project is concerned. Forgive me, but I actually went to Musician's Friend to price the Roland HandSonic. Thankfully, they are still to expensive to justify right now. I could buy a couple of great drums for that money!
The remaining tracks are still all in my head, as are the production values...for Dancing Ritual, I'm going to try a "behind the drums" recording perspective, by wearing a PZM on my chest as I play. The final product will thus be a one-take improvisation (though I'm sure I will record several takes to choose from). Likewise, sfumato will be a real-time improvisation on the drum set, and I will use the cut-up method on the piano accompaniment. The snare part to Lead Tip's Salute is composed, and the bass and tenor parts will be layered on after in recording.
For both Ritmo de Solo and Deep Ancestory, I could do them now if I could figure out the loop function on my recording software. Like I said, I'm just working out this electronic thing...
No-tune cha-cha is 90% complete, but the conga solos need to be re-recorded. There's a rattle from the mic mount on the tumba coming through.
Place of Fire is so close, yet so far. All I need to do is put down the udu solo over the first part, and lay down the tonbak solo and backing tracks for the second part.
I've finalized the sequences for Deep Ancestry and Conquer the Drum. I have only now made my peace with electronic instruments, so far as this project is concerned. Forgive me, but I actually went to Musician's Friend to price the Roland HandSonic. Thankfully, they are still to expensive to justify right now. I could buy a couple of great drums for that money!
The remaining tracks are still all in my head, as are the production values...for Dancing Ritual, I'm going to try a "behind the drums" recording perspective, by wearing a PZM on my chest as I play. The final product will thus be a one-take improvisation (though I'm sure I will record several takes to choose from). Likewise, sfumato will be a real-time improvisation on the drum set, and I will use the cut-up method on the piano accompaniment. The snare part to Lead Tip's Salute is composed, and the bass and tenor parts will be layered on after in recording.
For both Ritmo de Solo and Deep Ancestory, I could do them now if I could figure out the loop function on my recording software. Like I said, I'm just working out this electronic thing...
Gig Journal
Back on the weekend of 7-8 October, I had a few gigs…
Authenticity
The current incarnation of the Temporal Mechanics Union had their debut on 7 October, at Cowley College, as part of the unfortunately-named “Nooner” concert series. Despite not receiving the same publicity as other “nooners,” we managed to pull a respectable crowd, mostly students. It was a sunny, warmish day, with a gentle breeze, perfectly suited to drumming outdoors.
We played a few different styles, of what I call the “ethnographic” repertoire of the TMU. We opened with some North African/Middle Eastern rhythms, followed by a quick change into a batacuda, then a bembe, and concluded with a gahu. (To make up some time, I quickly improvised a multi-conga solo, which hopefully all present will soon forget…) Playing these styles got me to musing on the subject of authenticity in music.
None of us in TMU are North African, or Arab; we are not from Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro; to my knowledge, none have devoted themselves to Shango or Eleggua; not a single one of us is from Ghana. Yet, here we are, playing these rhythms, even doing some singing and dancing at times. I even tried, with limited success, to get the audience to show their appreciation in a West African method, by holding paper currency to the drummer’s head (a custom American audiences of all types should certainly adopt).
I am the one responsible for teaching these and other “ethnobeats” to the ensemble for several years now. While I have studied with representatives and more advances students of these cultural styles, I’m clearly no insider to any of them. It’s all outsider, second-hand information for me. Is it at all possible to transmit anything that is authentic about any of these styles of music?
Years ago, at a party following a formal concert, one of the guest artists of the evening was holding forth on what might be generously called the shortcomings of anthropology. He was insisting that no one could possibly ever know a culture other than their own. He cited an unsubstantiated anecdote of some ethnographer, around a fire with some “tribe.” The locals were speaking and gesticulating animatedly, with the visiting stranger taking notes at a fast and furious pace, sure this was some momentous, culturally crucial discussion going on. In the end, when he transcribed his notes and translated the tape, he found they were discussing his tape recorder. This apparently is proof enough that an outsider can never look inside and understand what is seen.
I had just finished my masters in anthropology, and was burning with the fire of the newly converted. I was bursting at the time to engage in debate, and ask him how he had managed to learn Brazilian music, and indeed make a career of it, when he is not “Brazilian” in the least. But it was a convivial gathering, he was our guest, and we were all guests in another’s home, so I bit my tongue at the time. Hard. Besides, the other guest artists remained silent, and they are masters of musical forms from cultures not their own.
Authenticity in music is a very important matter for me. As a performer and teacher, it is vital that I do the best I can to learn, employ and teach not just the music, but the cultural traditions of these “ethnobeats” as well. The styles were not made and cannot exist in a vacuum. If any of us are to have any hope of playing it “right,” we need to get deep in that local knowledge, as deep we can as outsiders. If one is open to the experience, and immerses oneself, whole new worlds open up. Points of origin become meaningless.
To use trivial examples: I am not Italian, or Japanese, nor from India, but that does not prevent me from appreciating (and consuming!) the cuisine. Or language: as any high schooler knows, you don’t have to be Spanish, French or German to learn Spanish, French or German. One could learn all three, and many more besides. But of course, there is a difference between “book learning” a language, then going to the homeland and speaking it with the locals. The student finds, as an outsider, there is more to learn. There is always more to learn, and much that perhaps can’t be learned from the outside, but that does not mean there is no hope of understanding. We are all of a kind; we can each enjoy a good meal, be nourished body and soul, eating the food from any culture. With time, with good teachers and practice, we can do some good cooking ourselves.
Don’t count the audience before they arrive…
That very evening after the TMU set, 5 Man Trio played in Harper, USA. Gentle Reader, brace yourself for Hard Truth: we had previously agreed, based on the last time we played there, that we would give it a miss. Nobody would be there, there’s no money to it, long drive, the place is a dive, full of dust….
For the record, Gary and Dave caved, shamed by a plaintive email from our patron there. I caved because we are a band, dammit.
The audience was numerous if not legion, appreciative and generous, and a good time was had by all. Bit of dust still, but not as bad as last time. A good gig.
Happy Birthday Paula!
Saturday we played at a pub called Yvie’s in Wichita, for Number One Fan Paula, on the occasion of her birthday. The party had been organized by her man Laddie as a surprise. (That's her, alas obscured by Dave's mic stand in the drummer's-eye-view photo) A very lively crowd, and a comfortable if cramped venue. Yvie herself, and the non-party patrons at the other end of the bar reportedly dug us. I have to admit that I was a bit dubious at the thing beforehand, especially given the “local” nature of the club, the close quarters. I was worried about having room to move. All reservations vanished with the first tune of the night, thanks in no small part to the party-goers and their good vibes and jibes. But I also think the “fool-factor” played a part in the good sound of the night. “Fool-factor” is the term I use to describe the impetus musicians take from the possibility they may look like fools if they don’t have it all together. We were in a new venue, with strangers looking on, and we played well and had a blast. As a band we could stand to play such gigs more often.
One of the best parts of the night, and of any 5 Man Trio gig, is hanging out with friends and fans. Got to talk with Michael and Lori a bit at the break, and Dave and I shared a round with Paula and Laddie after packing up. That human connection is what it’s all about.
Authenticity
The current incarnation of the Temporal Mechanics Union had their debut on 7 October, at Cowley College, as part of the unfortunately-named “Nooner” concert series. Despite not receiving the same publicity as other “nooners,” we managed to pull a respectable crowd, mostly students. It was a sunny, warmish day, with a gentle breeze, perfectly suited to drumming outdoors.
We played a few different styles, of what I call the “ethnographic” repertoire of the TMU. We opened with some North African/Middle Eastern rhythms, followed by a quick change into a batacuda, then a bembe, and concluded with a gahu. (To make up some time, I quickly improvised a multi-conga solo, which hopefully all present will soon forget…) Playing these styles got me to musing on the subject of authenticity in music.
None of us in TMU are North African, or Arab; we are not from Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro; to my knowledge, none have devoted themselves to Shango or Eleggua; not a single one of us is from Ghana. Yet, here we are, playing these rhythms, even doing some singing and dancing at times. I even tried, with limited success, to get the audience to show their appreciation in a West African method, by holding paper currency to the drummer’s head (a custom American audiences of all types should certainly adopt).
I am the one responsible for teaching these and other “ethnobeats” to the ensemble for several years now. While I have studied with representatives and more advances students of these cultural styles, I’m clearly no insider to any of them. It’s all outsider, second-hand information for me. Is it at all possible to transmit anything that is authentic about any of these styles of music?
Years ago, at a party following a formal concert, one of the guest artists of the evening was holding forth on what might be generously called the shortcomings of anthropology. He was insisting that no one could possibly ever know a culture other than their own. He cited an unsubstantiated anecdote of some ethnographer, around a fire with some “tribe.” The locals were speaking and gesticulating animatedly, with the visiting stranger taking notes at a fast and furious pace, sure this was some momentous, culturally crucial discussion going on. In the end, when he transcribed his notes and translated the tape, he found they were discussing his tape recorder. This apparently is proof enough that an outsider can never look inside and understand what is seen.
I had just finished my masters in anthropology, and was burning with the fire of the newly converted. I was bursting at the time to engage in debate, and ask him how he had managed to learn Brazilian music, and indeed make a career of it, when he is not “Brazilian” in the least. But it was a convivial gathering, he was our guest, and we were all guests in another’s home, so I bit my tongue at the time. Hard. Besides, the other guest artists remained silent, and they are masters of musical forms from cultures not their own.
Authenticity in music is a very important matter for me. As a performer and teacher, it is vital that I do the best I can to learn, employ and teach not just the music, but the cultural traditions of these “ethnobeats” as well. The styles were not made and cannot exist in a vacuum. If any of us are to have any hope of playing it “right,” we need to get deep in that local knowledge, as deep we can as outsiders. If one is open to the experience, and immerses oneself, whole new worlds open up. Points of origin become meaningless.
To use trivial examples: I am not Italian, or Japanese, nor from India, but that does not prevent me from appreciating (and consuming!) the cuisine. Or language: as any high schooler knows, you don’t have to be Spanish, French or German to learn Spanish, French or German. One could learn all three, and many more besides. But of course, there is a difference between “book learning” a language, then going to the homeland and speaking it with the locals. The student finds, as an outsider, there is more to learn. There is always more to learn, and much that perhaps can’t be learned from the outside, but that does not mean there is no hope of understanding. We are all of a kind; we can each enjoy a good meal, be nourished body and soul, eating the food from any culture. With time, with good teachers and practice, we can do some good cooking ourselves.
Don’t count the audience before they arrive…
That very evening after the TMU set, 5 Man Trio played in Harper, USA. Gentle Reader, brace yourself for Hard Truth: we had previously agreed, based on the last time we played there, that we would give it a miss. Nobody would be there, there’s no money to it, long drive, the place is a dive, full of dust….
For the record, Gary and Dave caved, shamed by a plaintive email from our patron there. I caved because we are a band, dammit.
The audience was numerous if not legion, appreciative and generous, and a good time was had by all. Bit of dust still, but not as bad as last time. A good gig.
Happy Birthday Paula!
Saturday we played at a pub called Yvie’s in Wichita, for Number One Fan Paula, on the occasion of her birthday. The party had been organized by her man Laddie as a surprise. (That's her, alas obscured by Dave's mic stand in the drummer's-eye-view photo) A very lively crowd, and a comfortable if cramped venue. Yvie herself, and the non-party patrons at the other end of the bar reportedly dug us. I have to admit that I was a bit dubious at the thing beforehand, especially given the “local” nature of the club, the close quarters. I was worried about having room to move. All reservations vanished with the first tune of the night, thanks in no small part to the party-goers and their good vibes and jibes. But I also think the “fool-factor” played a part in the good sound of the night. “Fool-factor” is the term I use to describe the impetus musicians take from the possibility they may look like fools if they don’t have it all together. We were in a new venue, with strangers looking on, and we played well and had a blast. As a band we could stand to play such gigs more often.
One of the best parts of the night, and of any 5 Man Trio gig, is hanging out with friends and fans. Got to talk with Michael and Lori a bit at the break, and Dave and I shared a round with Paula and Laddie after packing up. That human connection is what it’s all about.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Why Evolution Must be Taught
A case being heard in a Pennsylvania court (see also here and here) is yet the latest round in the 'debate' over what American students should be taught in their science classrooms. Rather than rehash the science-religion dichotomy, I here propose there are at least two very important reasons why evolution must be taught in American schools.
Evolution is Basic Science
The Pennsylvania case was sparked by parent's objections to a local board of education ruling that a disclaimer of sorts was to be read in science classrooms, saying in part that evolution is a "theory, not a fact." This is often cited as reason enough to limit or ban the study of evolution, by those who do not wish it to be taught, or taught without qualification. The very use of the phrase "theory, not fact" indicates a basic ignorance of the scientific method. In common usage, theory can mean anything from emotional reaction to unfounded opinion to unformed notion. In scientific usage, a theory is a generalized statement of knowledge, based upon observable, tangible data arising from the testing of an hypothesis. Gravity is thus "just a theory;" does anyone in any way object to gravity being taught to American pupils?
A study of evolution is basic to the study of science. It is a cental feature of the biological sciences, of course, but the idea that natural phenomena change over time, and that there are natural mechanisms to such change, is common all scientific efforts, from geology to astronomy to medicine, just to name three.
Perhaps the need for a grounding in science is not self-evident to some. But is there a single aspect of our daily lives that is not in some way influenced or affected by scientific knowledge? Consider the role science plays in a nation's economy: shortages in requirements, from oil to flu vaccines, have direct consequences for the inidividual's financial stability, and the nation's economic strenght at the same time. Is is not science that will address these two issues most effectively? Perhaps the two fields that have the most potential for changing the human condition in the twenty-first century are genetics and nanotechnology. Where are the future generations of scientists in these fields going to come from, if they are not first properly educated in primary and secondary classrooms? Do Americans want the social and economic benefits of such science to be the exclusive privilege of other nations? Will Americans be satisfied to go begging for genetic and nanotechnology applications which the rest of the world take for granted?
While American pupils are certainly not at the very bottom of the list, they aren't at the top, when it comes to international comparisons of science and mathematics. What is being taught in those foreign classrooms that gives the edge to those students over Americans? Indeed, to the very best of my knowledge, this 'debate' over evolutuion is only to be found in the US. Certainly, there is no debate in the international scientific community. While there may be competing views of how evolution played out for humankind, no one seriously disputes (in the mainstream scientific community) that evolution did play out. Evolution is basic science, and basic science is central to a nation's prosperity and well-being in the twenty-first century.
The Study of Evolution Can Address Racism
I suspect that in many cases, the religious rhetoric hides a more pernicious evil in American society, the evil of racism. If one studies the current paleoanthropological and genetic evidence, one finds that we are all the same; there is no biological basis for the concept of race. We are all of the same kind, with the same origins. No doubt, this is a very dangerous idea to those who base their politics on intolerance, hatred and control of one group by another. But it seems that danger is the very reason why we must teach, from an early age, the unity of human kind. I am not so naive as to suggest that the study of science and human evolution in particular will solve all of our problems, but if we have the means to address such a problem, shouldn't we? How else can we make things better for all of us?
For the first time in many years, if not ever, I did not have any students drop my intro-level anthropology course because of the study of evolution. Perhaps they will be the tolerant, well-educated leaders of tomorrow who can move their society forward.
Evolution is Basic Science
The Pennsylvania case was sparked by parent's objections to a local board of education ruling that a disclaimer of sorts was to be read in science classrooms, saying in part that evolution is a "theory, not a fact." This is often cited as reason enough to limit or ban the study of evolution, by those who do not wish it to be taught, or taught without qualification. The very use of the phrase "theory, not fact" indicates a basic ignorance of the scientific method. In common usage, theory can mean anything from emotional reaction to unfounded opinion to unformed notion. In scientific usage, a theory is a generalized statement of knowledge, based upon observable, tangible data arising from the testing of an hypothesis. Gravity is thus "just a theory;" does anyone in any way object to gravity being taught to American pupils?
A study of evolution is basic to the study of science. It is a cental feature of the biological sciences, of course, but the idea that natural phenomena change over time, and that there are natural mechanisms to such change, is common all scientific efforts, from geology to astronomy to medicine, just to name three.
Perhaps the need for a grounding in science is not self-evident to some. But is there a single aspect of our daily lives that is not in some way influenced or affected by scientific knowledge? Consider the role science plays in a nation's economy: shortages in requirements, from oil to flu vaccines, have direct consequences for the inidividual's financial stability, and the nation's economic strenght at the same time. Is is not science that will address these two issues most effectively? Perhaps the two fields that have the most potential for changing the human condition in the twenty-first century are genetics and nanotechnology. Where are the future generations of scientists in these fields going to come from, if they are not first properly educated in primary and secondary classrooms? Do Americans want the social and economic benefits of such science to be the exclusive privilege of other nations? Will Americans be satisfied to go begging for genetic and nanotechnology applications which the rest of the world take for granted?
While American pupils are certainly not at the very bottom of the list, they aren't at the top, when it comes to international comparisons of science and mathematics. What is being taught in those foreign classrooms that gives the edge to those students over Americans? Indeed, to the very best of my knowledge, this 'debate' over evolutuion is only to be found in the US. Certainly, there is no debate in the international scientific community. While there may be competing views of how evolution played out for humankind, no one seriously disputes (in the mainstream scientific community) that evolution did play out. Evolution is basic science, and basic science is central to a nation's prosperity and well-being in the twenty-first century.
The Study of Evolution Can Address Racism
I suspect that in many cases, the religious rhetoric hides a more pernicious evil in American society, the evil of racism. If one studies the current paleoanthropological and genetic evidence, one finds that we are all the same; there is no biological basis for the concept of race. We are all of the same kind, with the same origins. No doubt, this is a very dangerous idea to those who base their politics on intolerance, hatred and control of one group by another. But it seems that danger is the very reason why we must teach, from an early age, the unity of human kind. I am not so naive as to suggest that the study of science and human evolution in particular will solve all of our problems, but if we have the means to address such a problem, shouldn't we? How else can we make things better for all of us?
For the first time in many years, if not ever, I did not have any students drop my intro-level anthropology course because of the study of evolution. Perhaps they will be the tolerant, well-educated leaders of tomorrow who can move their society forward.
Struggles with Stoicism
Of all the classical schools of philosophy, the Stoics have the greatest resonance for me. I find the concept of perfect detachment (apathea) to be the best for navigating unscathed through the unspeakable horrors and seductive wonders of life. That this school was shared by an Emperor and a slave speaks to me as well, suggesting the universality that is the hallmark of any good philosophy. The similiarity to the teachings of the Buddha is obvious. Trouble is, I'm not very good at detachment.
I find detachment difficult, because of the notions I have of action. Surely, one must act to improve one's self, much less the world one finds one's self in? Surely, we are not to be so perfectly removed as to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others? The best historical expression of detached action can be found in the bushido code of the samurai, as expressed in the Hagakure by Yamamoto Tsunetomo (see the edition translated by William Scott Wilson, ISBN 4-7700-1106-7). When the common fighting man takes the oath to serve his master, his life is over. Rather than a fatalistic point of view, this is one of complete liberation. Every single second of life counts, is meaningful, because of what one can accomplish in that second. Life is precious not in itself, but because of it's very fleeting nature. Note this is not living for the moment, but truly living in it. To me, this seems very much the same as what Marcus Aurelius meant when he wrote " you would give yourself relief, if you were to do every act as if it were your last."
But how to act? I turn to Hindu dharma for that one: in the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna tells the
great warrior Arjuna that he must act in accordance with his nature. Arjuna is given the task of starting the final battle, by blowing a signal on the conch shell. At the penultimate moment, he hesitates. To paraphrase this great work, Arjuna asks "Who am I to do such a thing?" Krishna tells him (again, paraphrasing) that he is Arjuna, and must so must be Arjuna; he can be no other. This seems very much like the Stoic philosophy to me, as expressed again by Marcus Aurelius: "Whatever the nature of the universe puts before any man at any time is for the good of that man at that time." There is an order to the universe, and we are each a part of the universe, and so we can't go against the natural order of the universe and expect things to go well or easy for us. For me, then, these are the potent lessons of the Stoics: we can not control the universe, but we can control ourselves in it. Swimming against the current is a futile, fruitless exercise. Act in accordance with your own nature, realizing that much of life, the universe and everything is beyond your control. Discipline your own nature so that you may flourish, that you may act well. I think these are the kinds of things Epictetus had in mind when he said, 'Wherever I go it will be well with me."
It's a good way to live, in a complicated life. Now if I can just pull it off..
