Fulbright Lecture
These are the notes I took at a Fulbright lecture a while ago now (last year sometime); it was part of a symposium of peace and human rights education, althought I only got to this lecture. As always – my notes, quite possibly my misunderstandings….
*Dr Diana Shelton (?sp) (American)
The world since Sept 11…
– Terrorism seen as act of war, not (as it actually is) a crime. Parallels with Pearl Harbour in WWII.
– People held, not given rights of POW or civilians, but as unprivileged combatants: on June 16, someone could be held in perpetuity without trial [I think I missed something here, like which year and country this was referring to… oops. Doesn’t really make much sense without that].
– USA PATRIOT Act (which I still cannot believe is an acronym; I thought only bad editors did that…) had no community consultation, was done in a panic after Sept 11, enhances executive branch powers, including protesting against the government, potentially [this being banned, I think, was the idea]; also surveillance rights, eg no search warrant needed.
–most sections have sunset clause – 31 Dec 2005 – but trying to get this extended.
–changes attitudes towards non-nationals in, and coming in.
– Other executive orders carried out… people being held for long periods with no bond… justice is being made a travesty of! Also issue about interrogation – when does it become torture?
– Losing liberty just to get a little secutiry is a bad deal.
*Prof George Williams (Australian)
– The gulf between actual knowledge of a threat v community fear of one [that’s all I wrote; I think the idea was that this is something that needs to be seriously considered. After al, lots of people think that crime is increasing when actualy it’s not, etc. The media has a lot to answer for).
– Aust laws did not get passed very quickly , and were frequently subject to parliamentary review and criticism, meaning that the laws that did, eventually, pass are better than they would have been without that.
— Still grave issues, however (you can be jailed for 5 years for reporting publicly that you were held by ASIO, or saying you were mistreated by them – as can any journalist saying this about you).
—However, human rights doesn’t seem to have a place in dialogues about these issues…
— He is a strong advocate of a Bill of Rights for Australia.
Me: I can’t believe that Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights. That’s just a bit embarrassing… I guess the founders assumed we would be under Magna Carta or something. Stoopid. I really enjoyed this lecture. The American and the Australian were nicely complementary of one another. It frankly scared me, too, to hear about the changes to laws that both countries have made. I think it’s just dreadful that liberties are restricted to try and curb terrorism and other threats to our lifestyle. Surely that means that the people who apparently don’t like deomcracy and Western ways of living are winning?
The Invention of Money by the Greeks
Richard Seaford spoke at uni earlier this year – I’ve just re-discovered my notes, so I thought I would write them up, for my own memory and public delectation. He wrote a book called Money and the Greek Mind, and this lecture was called “The Invention of Money by the Greeks.” Of course, this is what I wrote as I listened – I may have misunderstood… my thoughts are in square brackets.
**In the sixth century BC came the invention of what makes society today what it is [Western, anyway; and these are just his ideas]: democracy, drama, philosophy, scientific medicine, money, and history writing.
**Money and its Invention
– money is different and separate from wealth
– started in Ionia, Thrace, Cyprus and the Greek colonies.
– coinage: revolutionary and convenient – could be used in everyday life, which led eventually to a thoroughly monetised society.
– Egypt and Mesopotamia did not have money; they used metals as a commodity, which Seaford claims is not the same as using money.
– it’s hard to give a definition for money, because it is both a ‘thing’ and a relationship, particularly a power relationship, especially over someone’s labour [Marxism…].
–So how do you decide what is acting as money?!
—Money functions: it must be a means of payment, and a means of exchange, and and a measure of value, and a means of storing value. If something does all four functions, it’s money.
Money=sophistication? For a culture, that is. [Really not convinced by this idea… I think it’s a very modern, Western, and fairly arrogant assumption….]
**Philosophy: the view that the universe is an intelligible system, subject to uniformity and impersonal forces.
* Seaford claims that sixth C BC Greece is the first time anywhere this view was held.
* He also says that the world is/was divided into those who think the world is personal vs those who see it as impersonal.
– Philosophy started in Miletos,
– Why?? Some say it is because of a political development – indeed, the polis, not subject to an autocrat, where citizens rule themselves. So there is no monarchy to be imprinted onto the cosmos. But, the polis was in existence before these guys, and there is nothing that special about Miletos. So it doesn’t really fit, although it is appealling. So why Miletos? Was the first to be thoroughly ‘monetised’, and one of the greatest economic powers of the time – trading, etc.
Short Interlude…
The supposed way money was invented: The King of Lydia at Sardis get lots of electrum from a river, and pays mercenaries with it, and stamps it all to make the pieces worth the same amount.
And Lydia is very close to Greek cities like Miletos….
Interesting point: in Homer, in animal sacrifices, everyone gets the same amount of meat – on a spit of the same size. The obol, the smallest coin, is a similar word to that for the name of th spit! One theory runs that the spits got traded [but I ask, why??], and then replaced by coins [eventually…somehow…].
…so Back to the Story…
**So the link between money and philosophy is?
– The philosophers all thought that the world was composed of one substance, in different forms (although of course they all thought that it was a different substance from what the last guy said).
– Without a monarch, money is the most powerful thing in society. It is exchangeable for anything, and anything is exchangeable for it… much like the one universal substance of the philosophers. [He did go into the various philosophers and what they thought that substance was, but I was tired by that stage and couldn’t keep up, so I’m not really doing him justice.] Additionally, of course, it is impersonal – another attribute of the philosophical view of the world [according to Seaford].
– Money is also abstract: it has two different values – the substance and the form. The abstract value is of more importance. So the most real and most important power in society is abstract… which influences the way the thinkers of the time view the world.
**Final thought: Parmenides dealt with the rift between the abstract and the sensual; he says that the sensual is an illusion, and that only the abstract actually exists. Like money.
*Parmenides influences Plato.
***My final thoughts: I most definitely don’t know enough about the development of money, nor of the various philosophers he mentioned, to decide based on this lecture whether I believe it or not. He was certainly a very entertaining and persuasive speaker, and during the lecture I was more than willing to be convinced. One of my favourite things about these sorts of lectures is playing Spot the Lecturer/Tutor (there’s the magnficent Chris Mackie, there the brilliant Ron Ridley, supervisor extraordinaire, the moderately boring Roger Scott, etc). In front of me this time was Elizabeth Pemberton (for whom I can’t find a link, as she has left my Melbourne Uni), who shook her head a fair bit and was obviously not convinced by a number of things he said. This served as quite a nice counterbalance to my possible gullibility!
Nobel Prizes and historical writing
I found out just now that Theodore Mommsen won the 1902 Nobel Prize in Literature for the three volumes of History of Rome, and remembered that Winston Churchill took it out sometime after WWII for his History of the English Speaking People. I find it quite amazing, and highly admirable, that historical writing is able to win this prize.
I also frequently get Mommsen and … now I’ve forgotten his name; someone else who wrote about Rome – oh yes, thanks Wikipedia, Edward Gibbon. Don’t ask me why; could well be because they are both giants in Roman history and I haven’t read either. Bad me.
Somewhat related to this, there’s an interesting article in The Age about Making a fiction of history… – Kate Grenville has written some book (called The Secret River) which includes some ‘real’ events but out of their correct context (geographically, chronologically, and personally). There’s a dispute raging about whether novelists are allowed to claim that their stories are ‘history’ in some sense. Inga Clendinnen is fuelling the fires with a will…. I’m not sure what I think of the whole furore. I think I agree with Clendinnen’s words at the end of the article:
“You’re allowed to play games if you’re clearly on your side of the ravine,” she says. “Thousands of people will read The Secret River and get some knowledge of their past. That’s great – as long as it’s kept in the fiction section.”
Yup. I learnt an enormous amount about Roman history from Colleen McCollough (sp?) and her Rome series – to the extent that I knew stuff at uni that impressed my tutor, always a good thing – but I had to keep in mind that the motivations and emotions she attributed to the characters were her invention, no matter how well researched they were. I like empathy in history, I try hard – althoguh perhaps not ahrd enough – to get my students to feel empathy – but somewhere, there is a line where empathy does not and cannot help, and may be misleading.
Yeh, really not sure where I’m going with all of this.
One Day in History
Go there! Talk about your October 17th! Be part of the biggest blog ever!
Such a neat idea.
History Carnvial XLI
The latest History Carnival, History Carnival XLI is up – and hey, look at that! I got in, for the first time! Welcome, if you happen to be visiting from ClioWeb!
A Tale of Three Egyptian Mummies
“New Science on Ancient Livesâ€
Dr Karin Sowada, assistant curator at the Nicholson Museum, Uni of Sydney. Spoke at the Melbourne Museum last year.
*Mummies currently held by the Nicholson; had never been studied before this.
*Two have coffins; one an inscription. Curators were trying to see what they could find out from textiles etc, not just the body.
*Why mummify at all?
–probably arose through seeing natural mummification in the desert sand.
–once you start building structures for holding bodies, you remove them from the sand and heat, so you need to do it artificially.
—-But why?
–to be recognisable to the soul coming back
–be identified with Osiris
NB: mumiya = bitumen (in Arabic); in the 19th century, it was thought that bitumen was used on the mummies, because of the colour.
Mummy 1
*A very well-decorated coffin.
*Possibly priestly; has the title ‘Beloved of the God’ – not really sure what this means.
*Name is Padiashaikhet, meaning “One given by Ashaikhetâ€; a very unusual name, because Ashaikhet is a personal name, not a god. Could be some sort of debt the parents had??
*From c.720-700BC.
*Wrapped in used linens, despite signs of his obvious wealth and status.
*Nothing left in the body, not even the heart; no broken bones.
*Possibly died of dental abscesses (ouch).
Mummy 2
*Female, from c.1950BC. Her name was Meruah (sp??). Had priestly duties.
*Highly decorated coffin. People couldn’t afford big funerary houses, so coffins get the pictures usually found on the walls.
*Torso filled with something. The mummy encased in a plaster carapace! Painted red over face, green over body (for Osiris).
*But: the DNA says the body is male! Red face of carapace is the colour used for males on coffins. Shows re-use of funerary stuff? Or, possibly, that it was done by a nineteenth-century dealer….
**Huge issues over whether you can actually trust that the coffin and body match in other cases**
Mummy 3
*A child, 7-9 years old. From early second century AD, so Roman.
*No coffin accompanying the mummy. Has a painted mask. The linen wrappings were once dyed red, blue and yellow. The colours have probably faded after arriving in Sydney – was stored in a large, airy room, with lots of indirect sunlight; no knowledge of this.
*All organs removed; linen plug at the incision site. Some sort of package inside; no idea what.
*No DNA sample taken because the wrappings are so thick.
My take: this was a great lecture; it was fascinating to hear about the processes undergone to examine the mummies, as well as the sort of stuff that could be learnt. And just bizarre to think that these mummies had never really been examined before.
HTAA Conference seminars – day 3
Seminar 1
Thinking about Alexander
Sources:
–Quintus Curtius Rufus – in Penguin as The History of Alexander: lots of speeches; Roman bias against king.
–Plutarch – parallel with Julius Caesar; character more than politics
–Arrian – in Penguin as The Campaigns of Alexander; very pro-Alex.
**These are all 400+ years after his death, so they’re really secondary sources.
–Also: Lysippos: the offical court sculpture of Alex.
*Alexander:
–was a monomaniac
–was a drunkard (almost certainly)
–had a troubled childhood
–was alf-Illyrian, because of Olympias, so possibly not the best choice for king (which was elective, within the royal house)
–inherits the kingship, being hegemon (overlord of Greece, as in representative), and a huge debt to Greek moneylenders. Add in his monomania, and here are three excellent reasons for invading Persia….
My take: I love Alexander. I love the stories that have grown up around him, and the very romance of taking that many men that far. I’m not necessarily that enamored of the man himself, but that hardly matters.
HTAA Conference Keynote – day 3
John Fitzgerald: “What did Napoleon say about China? Recent trends in studies of Chinese history.
*Napoleon apparently said: “Behold the Chinese empire! Let this dragon sleep, for when it awakes the whole world will tremble.” (Or something along those lines, anyway).
** This quote has been used as the opening of two best-selling books.
*Almost no scholarship has been done on Chinese history before the 1950s – only on Americans in China, etc.
*John King Fairbank pushed the Western impact/Chinese reaction mode of Chinese history (1950s-70s), not looking at indigenous history; more on assimilation, or not.
*Paul Cohen pushed/identified trend Chinese-centred history (1980-90s). China did have pre/non-West history; also that “West” is itself problematic; Chinese-Western relations are two-way.
*Post-Cohen writings:
–China in regional and world economic history
–pre-modern Europe as similar to pre-modern China, more similar than modern China to modern Europe
–Ethnic histories of China
–History of Chinese overseas
*China/Australia:
–Morrison and Donald, both white men in China; both journos for major international papers, in late 19th-early 20th century. Morrison was also the secretary to Chiang Kai-Shek’s (sp??) wife. Both not all that well known, but they do have biographies and other remembrances.
–Who remembers the Chinese who made equal contributions to relations between China and Australia?
-William Ah Ket
-NSW Chinese Chamber of Commerce – second in establishment to the one in Hong Kong
-William Liu
-Australian department stores established in China; still there
-James See (Hsieh Tsan Tai), born Sydney. Founded first revoluntionary organisation in China! Joined with Sun Yat-sen’s group.
*Pattern of migration for China to Australia parallels Europeans to USA; about 40% returned after a while.
–“District club” – organised by people from the same regions, to organise social and often financial affairs.
–Australasian Kuomintang association was second largest outside China. They set up a Canton HQ, for Australian Chinese visiting.
–Empire Reform Association
–Chinese Masonic Association
*Turns out Napoleon did not say that about China (surprise, surprise). Probably did say something about Britain shouldn’t fight China because then China would learn its own strength, build a fleet and defeat Britain.
NB: immigration to Australia: Aust imposed a tax per head. As a direct result, women did not come because they were not commercially productive and couldn’t, therefore, repay the 10 pounds it cost to get them in.
My take: I know very, very little about Chinese history or the scholarship thereof. This guy was really interesting. It’s terrible, the little we know about the contributions of non-Europeans to Australian society.
HTAA Conference seminars – day 2
*Well Done, Those Men, be Barry Heard (sp?), a Vietnam Veteran
*Sovereign Hill, Ballarat – doing authentic learning there. Suggested topics on the Sovereign Hill website.
Seminar 1
Catering for all Learners
*Definitions: Giftedness – the potential; possession of natural ability
Talent – the use; achievement/performance beyond expectations.
*History is like… a ladder
… a compost heap
… a mirror
Teaching is one quarter good preparation;
three quarters pure theatre.
HTAA Conference Keynote – day 2
Michael Caulfield, “Capturing History”
*In telling a story – any story – you decide what to include, and therefore what to exclude.
*For a doco on the Chinese PLA, they stole videotape from China. Is this legit??
*Was the ?producer/director of Australians at War Film Archive, which interviewed men and women who had participated in all theatres of war in living memory (basically). This archive is not censored by the producers. Some stuff is on embargo, at the request of the interviewee – say until their death, or that of someone else; very few actually did this. Also, current ADF interviewees not available for 15 years. The website has photos of the interviewee at the time of war service and at time of interview, as well as some of their own photos.
My take: I heard this exact same lecture at the national conference the year before. However, seeing the footage hadn’t grown old – it’s still affective, powerful, and really interesting basically. I’d love to use this in the classroom, but I’m not sure I’ll ever have the chance.
Randomly Yours, Alex 