There was, when I was there in the mid-1990's, a growing Bosnian and Russian population. Most of the Bosnians (and some Sebs) were fleeing violence. Salt Lake being what it is- insular, homogenous, and isolated in spite of having an international airport- these populations kept pretty much to themselves. Most were not LDS, and this put them out of the mainstream. Muslims were "not even Christian", and so even further out of the main.
This past week saw a horrific shooting by a young man who was of the Bosinan community in Salt Lake.
Since this person had been a toddler, he had been subject to huge amounts of violence- direct threats to his existance which go far beyond the school tauntings often associated with these sudden outbursts of violence. He likely never got any kind of counseling for it, and living in Salt Lake, where there is a large, likewise scarred, Bosnian population served to both isolate and re-traumatise what was already a pretty shaky foundation. Being muslim in Salt Lake is no picnic, and being Muslim in Salt Lake with massive trauma and post 9/11 suspicion of Muslims is something I don't even like to think about.
Does any of this excuse what happened? No. Absolutely not. But it did not happen in a vacuum and maybe understanding what happened and why can prevent things like this from happening again.
The long-term effects of war are something we'd better learn to deal with, given both the number of returning war veterans and war survivors this world is going to have.
Given that we send people in to commit what was done to this young man, and that no re-conditioning is de rigure for returning combat vererans- given that seeking help of the psychological kind ias something which can endanger a military career, and given the number of people who are fleeing war, and often ending up here or in otherwise alien cultures, the isolation and trauma will only serve to create more situations such as the one in Salt Lake.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Why Darwin Matters and some other stuff
Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer, Times Books- hardback, $22.00 (eek!)
(Subtitle- The Case Against Intelligent Design)
I've just started this book, and have got through the prologue, and the first two chapters. The prologue makes a nice little dismissal of the continuing relavence of Marx, but I'm going to let that slide for now. It also goes into some interesting information about the author himself- he was at one time an evangelical, dinosaur-denying Christian. Education put a stop to that. He's now a regular columnist for Scientific American magazine as well as publisher of Skeptic magazine.
The first chapter is a darned good briefing on what evolution is- dispelling many of the myths used by the ID arguers, and giving a concise timeline and explanation of Darwin's discoveries and the implications thereof.
Chapter two- which I am going to re-read for further writing- is entitled "Why People Do Not Accept Evolution". In this chapter, Shermer brings up an interesting point when he says
"There is, however, a greater threat to the theory of evolution today: not from those who resist evolution, but from those who misunderstand it. Most people know very little about evolution, and this makes it easier for the people who do not accept evolution to encourage others to question the theory, even to the point of denial."
This is, I think, a very important point. For many, evolution is often accepted, sort of. Not understood, but taken for granted as what happened. One could argue that at least they acept it. I don't think that's enough, though. I will certainly admit that my own knowledge in this area is lacking, but, hopefully, growing.
Evolution is especiallly tricky, though, as so many other elements of scientific investigation and knowledge rest on this theory. Geology, biology, chemistry. It is also important to know what evolution is *not*. From defining the words involved (particularly "theory"), to the process of events, the lack of knowledge has given the proponents of anti-scientific modes of thought much leeway.
"If we decended from apes, why are there still apes?" "How come there are no transitional fossils?" Just two of the questions born of, and preying on, the lack of knowledge and understanding involved.
End of part one.
Charming picture pre-hairbrush:
Oh, yes, this reminds me- did you know that goosebumps are an evolutionary remnant of our "monkey days"? Indeed, just as other furry animals have the ability to puff up in anger or for size-maximizing appearance, goosebumps would, had we kept our hair, do the same for us. There, vesitges of our ancestors.
(Subtitle- The Case Against Intelligent Design)
I've just started this book, and have got through the prologue, and the first two chapters. The prologue makes a nice little dismissal of the continuing relavence of Marx, but I'm going to let that slide for now. It also goes into some interesting information about the author himself- he was at one time an evangelical, dinosaur-denying Christian. Education put a stop to that. He's now a regular columnist for Scientific American magazine as well as publisher of Skeptic magazine.
The first chapter is a darned good briefing on what evolution is- dispelling many of the myths used by the ID arguers, and giving a concise timeline and explanation of Darwin's discoveries and the implications thereof.
Chapter two- which I am going to re-read for further writing- is entitled "Why People Do Not Accept Evolution". In this chapter, Shermer brings up an interesting point when he says
"There is, however, a greater threat to the theory of evolution today: not from those who resist evolution, but from those who misunderstand it. Most people know very little about evolution, and this makes it easier for the people who do not accept evolution to encourage others to question the theory, even to the point of denial."
This is, I think, a very important point. For many, evolution is often accepted, sort of. Not understood, but taken for granted as what happened. One could argue that at least they acept it. I don't think that's enough, though. I will certainly admit that my own knowledge in this area is lacking, but, hopefully, growing.
Evolution is especiallly tricky, though, as so many other elements of scientific investigation and knowledge rest on this theory. Geology, biology, chemistry. It is also important to know what evolution is *not*. From defining the words involved (particularly "theory"), to the process of events, the lack of knowledge has given the proponents of anti-scientific modes of thought much leeway.
"If we decended from apes, why are there still apes?" "How come there are no transitional fossils?" Just two of the questions born of, and preying on, the lack of knowledge and understanding involved.
End of part one.
Charming picture pre-hairbrush:
Oh, yes, this reminds me- did you know that goosebumps are an evolutionary remnant of our "monkey days"? Indeed, just as other furry animals have the ability to puff up in anger or for size-maximizing appearance, goosebumps would, had we kept our hair, do the same for us. There, vesitges of our ancestors.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Problems revisited
There's a lot in Problems Of Everyday Life (Trotsky) to consider. One of the essays involved rudeness- and the rudness of the revolutionary comes into question. About that section, I wrote:
If, after the revolution, leaders are seen as condescending, the problem of counter-revolutionary actions will grow. The workers who will fight for the revolution will as soon give it up if they see their concerns brushed aside by the future leaders of revolution in the same dismissive manner as that of the elites of today.
I would like to clarify this somewhat, in light of a recent event.
While I still think people should be polite whenever possible, I do also very firmly believe that counter-revolutionary ideas should not be nurtured, and should indeed be cut off at the first sign of appearance (once a mistake, twice a tendency). In *political* discourse, it is of the utmost importance to seperate the personal from the political. If, then, a worker advocated something which would undermine the revolution, to call that worker's dedication into question would be justified. If, after explaining why their idea was not within the interests of the revolution, they persisted, it would be wise to not associate with that person.
This is not to say that a revolutionary leader can go around making personal remarks about workers (or others) and get a free pass- but on the subject of revolution, the personal is immaterial. To take having an idea shot down (for whatever reason, really, but *with reason*) as personal is a mistake.
If, after the revolution, leaders are seen as condescending, the problem of counter-revolutionary actions will grow. The workers who will fight for the revolution will as soon give it up if they see their concerns brushed aside by the future leaders of revolution in the same dismissive manner as that of the elites of today.
I would like to clarify this somewhat, in light of a recent event.
While I still think people should be polite whenever possible, I do also very firmly believe that counter-revolutionary ideas should not be nurtured, and should indeed be cut off at the first sign of appearance (once a mistake, twice a tendency). In *political* discourse, it is of the utmost importance to seperate the personal from the political. If, then, a worker advocated something which would undermine the revolution, to call that worker's dedication into question would be justified. If, after explaining why their idea was not within the interests of the revolution, they persisted, it would be wise to not associate with that person.
This is not to say that a revolutionary leader can go around making personal remarks about workers (or others) and get a free pass- but on the subject of revolution, the personal is immaterial. To take having an idea shot down (for whatever reason, really, but *with reason*) as personal is a mistake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
