Ok, that's probably a bit harsh. And, I have to admit, I was not immediately able to identify every person on the left. But, it is interesting how fame is distributed.
Those who make significant contributions to the world are often largely overlooked by the general population (do you know who won the Nobel Prize for Physics last year? I don't.), while those who achieve nothing of any consequence (aside from being entertaining) become household names. Arguably, Darwin did not write The Origin of Species for the fame (while Snookie's life appears to be one big publicity stunt) but is this skewed distribution of recognition ok? Or is it problematic that people know the "Guidos'" phrase "gym, tan, laundry," while Freud's "id, ego, and superego" flies over their heads. Would mankind be able to evolve more successfully if people had a better knowledge of history, of the amazing things that people have done before, and the innovations taking place today? Is pop culture drowning out all other culture?
Maybe. What do you think?
You "hit the nail on the head" with this one. Very good! I'll be visiting often!
ReplyDeleteTracie
crackyouwhip.blogspot.com
Awesome! Thanks for reading Tracie!
DeleteThe central problem of the discipline of history today, judging from my not inconsiderable experience arguing with professors in the field, is not one of ignorance. Everyone (living outside of the confines of New Jersey, at least) seems to know that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, that the holocaust actually took place, that Henry VIII was perhaps too forceful in his marital relations, that Thomas Beckett was perhaps too outspoken for his own good, that Benjamin Franklin jumped the bones of virtually every noble-woman in late Eighteenth Century Europe and that Abraham Lincoln actually told a lie when he promised to uphold the constitution and then subsequently suspend the writ of Habius Corpus upon the outbreak of the American Civil War. The far more disturbing problem than the prospect of people not knowing their history, is the prospect that they will forever refuse to take it seriously. In short, it is a popular thing to say that history repeats itself, and yet it is an unpopular thing to say(at least in the overly-dogmatic modern intelligentsia,)that it is prudent not to allow mistakes of the past to become modern tragedies. Self-contradictory perceptions of historical truth exist and in fact abound, even within the minds of distinguished historians. I cite the frequency of the supposition, among our most "educated" peers, that the circumstances of past eras, being as they are, not wholly able to be reproduced, have nothing whatever to teach us. It is the mentality that argues things like "Prime Minister Chamberlain has nothing to teach the ministers of the credulous and naively pacifistic U.N. Security Council", "that ice ages do not have tendency to come and go", and that "Steve Jobs looks nothing like a Carnegie or any other tycoon for that matter". The point is that popular culture, however distracting and mind-numbing, is no true threat to our understanding of history when pitted against the fallacious and misguided methodology of our own historical scholars, immersed as it is in the modern rampant relativism and categorical skepticism that has the nerve to call itself "objective".
ReplyDeleteExcellent points. I agree wholeheartedly. However, in terms of fame in the present, do you think it is problematic that, to a large extent, it is not held by those making useful and amazing contributions to the world? Or is fame essentially frivolous and inconsequential?
DeleteKeep asking good questions.... I don't have a clue re the identity of the brunette. For once, that's a good thing...
Delete