Keeping Up With Dr Jones
Created | Updated Jun 15, 2008
This issue of the Post sees us tripping the light fandango with our
very own hootoo Vice President, Jodan. Apart from constructing
Alabaster House and generally being a marauding sheep, the man is a
savant of American History:
As an American (sorry, Ohionese), do you feel that perhaps a
sense of pride about your country has given rise to your interest in
history? Or would you say it's more a case of not wanting to think
about the present and wishing to relive the past? Or something else
entirely?
I suppose I like to know why things are the way they are. If you
have studied enough local history, you begin to see it all around you
in street names, architecture, statues - just about anything. It's the
same thing for a country. Just like I know why there's a stone statue
of a man on a horse at the end of my street, I can tell you why the
northern border of Ohio is the way it is (Respectively: The man, John
Patterson, refused to hire anyone for his company National Cash
Register (NCR) unless they could ride a horse; The Toledo War).
Of course, just because I write entries on US history and Ohio
history doesn't mean those are the only things I'm interested in.
Ancient history fascinates me - especially Rome. It's much more
interesting than reading about Thomas Jefferson, I think, what with
the stabbings and the conquering and what not. Only there are plenty
of keen writers on h2g2 who are more knowledgeable about those things,
so I leave that to them.
I think you're right about the Romans in a way, it's all that
murder and intrigue and orgies - something for everyone really. You
could also argue that history can sometimes revolve around individual
persons. If you could step into the shoes of an individual you have
researched about, who would that be, and why?
Ah, how could I forget the orgies?
I'd choose to be John Glenn - the first American to orbit the
earth. For two reasons.
First, while he was historically important, if I was 'in his shoes'
and was incapable of doing what he did, NASA still would have sent
someone else into orbit. If I chose to step back in time and be
Abraham Lincoln, I probably would have done a *lot* of damage. Poor
old Honest Abe would be remembered for all the wrong reasons.
Second, I love space and astronomy. It's the only branch of science
I can really appreciate. Science is largely a snoozefest for me, but
the field of astronomy is incomparably beautiful. It fills me with the
kind of awe that no chemical reaction or DNA strand can do. Astronomy
is a study of the history of the Universe, after all. I really would
have liked to have been out there like John Glenn - and I don't have
enough money for one of those private space cruises (yet).
Well, after you receive payment for this interview of course,
you'll be a step closer to your dream. You know, the one about black
holes? You mentioned stepping back in time to be Abe Lincoln, so
we'll move onto the ubiquitous time travelling question. So, if you
could travel in time, where and when would you go? Bear in mind
though, there's a small hitch. You can't come back. 'When' do you
think you could make a go of it?
Tough question, because I think the most exciting time to live in
is right now. Plus, if I go too far back I lose things like indoor
plumbing and frequent showering.
Discounting those factors, I would say I would travel back to the
1830s in America. There was a lot of opportunity then. The future was
wide open. That would be a nice thing. Or I could go back to the early
1900s and win money betting on the World Series every year. I'd like
that too.
Ah, a venture capitalist then? Well that brings me on to my next
question, in relation to goods and services. There are many
historical artefacts in museums the world over, and some that haven't
been found yet too. What one thing would you just love to get your
hands on?
The US Constitution. I'd like to see if there really is a smudge of
law in the takings clause...
Historically speaking, are you glad you're an American? Or
would you rather live somewhere else to have access to many different
aspects of human history?
That's an interesting question. I prefer American history, so I'm
glad I live here. I like Oscar Wilde's quote (which sits atop my
unwisely named 'A Short History of the United
States of America' entry that "America is the only country that
went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between."
That has made for some interesting times.
The wonderful thing is that I feel I have plenty of access to
whatever aspects of human history I want to learn about. Sure, I can't
very easily go to a museum in London, but if I was inordinately
interested in British history, I'd have plenty of resources through
the internet. I'd just use "google.co.uk" rather than "google.com" for
example. That would take some getting used to, though.
Ah, the internet, what a wonderful resource it is! What do you
think about the way history is recorded now though, especially as the
world wide web is open to such abuse? Do you think future historians
might 'log on' to the memory banks of ancient computers and find that
there are records of Pamela Anderson being Prime Minister of
Gibraltar, and since it's a recorded document, not question it? Do
historians of today question the past as much as we require, and not
take things on face value? Or might we find in the future the Erik
von Danikens and conspiracy theorists might write down the past as
they see it? And have we, to some extent, done that with our
ancestors anyway?
Well, that's the story of the study of history. Sorting out the
true from the untrue. I don't think we need to worry about anything as
outrageous as that just yet. I have no doubt of the abilities of
future historians to recognize parody, satire and sarcasm.
More seriously, I should hope that the historians of the future use
the internet appropriately. Most of the internet's great banks of
knowledge are totally second hand (see g2, h2). The really interesting
thing for historians in 50 or so years will be accessing millions of
blogs and conversation forums. We use personal journals and
correspondence to understand a person or an era. People chronicling
the birth of the digital age will have such an abundance of resources
that they won't know what to do with it all.
I have to suspect that the historians of tomorrow will do a better
job of finding out the truth of history. To assume anything else would
be an abrupt end to a pattern where historians have become better and
better over time.
I often wonder if there's too much information just bouncing
around in a kind of free for all, I don't envy future historians the
task of sorting through all the dross to find the jewels. Instead of
digging in the dirt to find a Roman pot, sifting through countless
pages of data to find that one truth. Oof.
So, on to my next question. If you could leave your mark on
history (or leave something in a time-capsule), what would it be and
why?
I think I did make a time capsule as a kid. I have no idea what I
left in it. I guess that's the idea, though. If I were to make a time
capsule, I wouldn't try to represent all facets of human life for
future humans. I don't imagine that they'll have a handy decoder ring
for that purpose. I'd probably just stick in whatever was handy at the
moment, to be honest. Right now, that would be a necktie, a bottle of
water, a mechanical pencil and a novel (though I'd like a chance to
finish the novel first before I start putting it into time
capsules).
The very nature of time capsules is that people over-think them. I
vaguely remember in elementary school, there was some sort of contest
to choose audio recordings which would be broadcast into space. If the
wisdom of grade school children was adhered to, some lifeforms near
Alpha Centauri have probably decided not to make contact with us
because of the bad boy-band and 80s music we've been subjecting them
to. There's no real way to encapsulate a culture or a time period
short of a Vesuvius time capsule kind of thing.
I have a feeling that Boy George would probably have gone down a
storm in the Centauri quadrant...but it's like one of those feelings
you get when you wonder what it was you ate last night and if you
should get up to work. Moving swiftly on, I think we need to draw
things together and ask the burning question,
If you were one of the oarsmen at Washington's crossing the
Delaware, would you have been tempted to push him in?
Well, let me start out by saying No. I'm guessing you're thinking
of the painting Washington Crossing the Delaware? It's a very good
painting, I think, which only partially excuses the fact that almost
everything about it is historically inaccurate (probably owing to the
fact that it was painted almost a century after the fact).
Most currently pertinent is the fact that George Washington almost
surely never stood up in his boat (especially in that ridiculous pose
which makes him look like he's stretching his left thigh) when they
were crossing the Delaware because it would have made either the boat
or himself unsteady (or both) and he almost certainly would have
fallen in, without any help from a sinister oarsman.
Aha, you see, history is in the eye of the beholder...
Makes you wonder whether the representations for history in art
are actually as accurate as what we first consider, such as those
dotted around Egypt, or the Bayeux Tapestry, or indeed cave paintings
in France.
Food for thought, and speaking of food, I fancy a bacon
sandwich. Thanks for the chat old fruit, it's been most
illuminatin'!
In the next issue of the Post our very own Editor Skankyrich will tear himself away from his other
duties to talk to us of his love for old things.
Keeping Up With Dr Jones Archive
