McLuhan Reading

The reading was for this week was at best, a heady one. McLuhan has composed an article and idea here that requires a great deal of reflection and pause in order to understand it. The idea that communication and the message contained therein is one that is important to our study of history. These messages (whatever their form) can shape individuals and nations without thought, as they become a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived. I find the quoted statement made by General David Sarnoff especially true: “We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them.” Much of the ‘problems’ that people experience today have tended to be directly related to their use of technology within their lives. Too much technology can detract from the individual’s ability to process and learn from the world around them, and processes like watching the news has people focus too much on the obvious (the content of the broadcast) in order to gain information. This however misses the structural changes that are contained within the story that are both subtle and take time to understand. For historians this makes the process of understanding and conveying historically long ideas and processes difficult, and hard to transmit to others.

McLuhan Reading

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but tend to agree more with "General David Sarnoff" when he says, "We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” McLuhan goes on to assign a "good" or "bad" value to something based on how it is used, i.e.: "If the slugs reach the right person, the firearm is good." I do not believe that this what Sarnoff is saying. I think he would argue that how we use things like, guns, print, light bulbs, etc... doesn't reflect a moral value on the item being used, but the person using the gun, print or light bulb.Value, doesn't mean you imply a moralistic judgment. These things, are simply tools.
Perhaps, I gravitate more to Sarnoff's statement more than to McLuhan's argument because understand fully (or at least fuller than I do McLuhan's), and perhaps I am hyper-cautious to give medium that much emphasis/power. It seems McLuhan is greatly emphasizing the medium, over the people and makes me leery to step in line with him.
Then again, maybe I am missing the boat.

McLuhan Reading

I agree with you Sterling, I found that part of the criminal to be interesting, the non-comformist who is seen as "pathetic" simply because he does not adapt to technological advances. That made me view myself as a man who does not have an iphone, ipod, i-anything, did not get a laptop until this summer, carries a walkman, and did not get an N64 until the end of Gr.5. I remember kids laughing at me since I was the only one in my "clique" that did not have an N64 immediately. And that is seen in the article between the Europeans and Orientals, by which the Orientals are not seen as "civilized" as the Europeans, since they are not as technologically or literally superior as the "civilized" ones.

I also found the part about the media battling with each other for supremacy interesting. I have utter disgust at times for media and their tactics with the "if it bleeds it leads" theory, and I always think back to the Ted Kaczynski interview phenomenon where he agreed to give one interview to the highest media bidder. Out of this came ABC, CBS, and NBC excusing all of his acts, claiming he was a freedom fighter, a hero who had been misunderstood, who just needed an interview to tell the world his side of the story. I still have the letters the stations sent to him in jail (enclosed in my History of Terrorism book from last year)which were sad pleas by the networks to boost their ratings, and claim to be that one network who could have that all illusive one interview with the Unabomber.

But overall, I liked how they viewed the message as uniting the Frenchmen together in the Revolution, and Napoleon stating that three hostile newspapers are worse than a thousand bayonets. And there is truth to that, the media has power over alot of people who turn in everyday. And being on the wrong side of the media could potentially ruin someone's life..Look at Richard Jewell.

But the article leaves me wondering...did Shakespeare foresee television? What are his thoughts on 2012?

The Message is the Medium

Yes... I know that's the reverse of what Marshall McLuhan was stating within his book; however, part of my MRP this year will be attempting to debunk this statement.

Aside from this aspect and belief, I find this section of his work highly interesting. I specifically found the notion [p.158] that there are two ways of viewing a criminal to be fascinating. The idea that a criminal could be simply a non-conformist who is unable to fit the technological demands of society versus simply belonging to a niche presents an interesting ideological struggle that I would've loved to have seen given more attention. I would be excited to know more of his thoughts on this paradigm.

Furthermore, these 10 pages are heavy and can be a daunting read. The concept itself is a main determinant of this quagmire - differentiating between the medium, the content, and the message and whether or not one is 'in tune' enough to determine the difference. Overall, I am looking forward to discussing this topic next week and reading more about others' views.

My Favourite Historian

This is a difficult question to answer, however, I believe my preferred historian would be Edward Gibbon. He was one of the first histories that I read prior to University, and that I thoroughly enjoyed. His seminal work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was something that opened up both the historical world, and the classical age to me, just as I began to take a real interest in history. His writing style and structure allowed me to understand the overall ideas and arguments that he made within the work, as well as the interspersed humour ensured that it was not just another boring tome.

Fave Historian

A simple yet difficult question. I have dabbled in many genres of history, and my tastes are that of a Renaissance man. Pierre Berton has consistently taken up space on my ever-expanding bookshelf. While some could argue that Berton falls short of the criteria for a historian, I have always found his books well researched and entertaining. Too often I have heard Nipissing students ridicule Canadian history as unimportant or boring. After reading Berton's renditions, it is clear that such labels are unfounded. Our Nation's history is rich in diversity, and has shaped the course of time. For myself, with interests in local affairs, I believe Berton's "The Dionne Years" remains the best work of non-fiction ever written on North Bay history.

My Favourite Historian

Trying to think of a favourite historian is a daunting task, however after much thinking I would have to say that my favourite is Craig Heron. Heron is a Professor at Yorke University, and he has published many works on "The Working Class", "Masculinity", and "Alcohol". I enjoy his work best because it is readable, and discusses topics that have a sociological relevance to today. Heron is also concerned mainly with Canadian content which I would argue is a fabulous plus -- if we don't write our history then who will?