Andrew Oettle

Another Polemic from an Anti-English Yank

Revisado: 12-29-24

The thoroughness of the presentation is noteworthy, as is the characterization of the Indian historical figures. However, as soon as the author discusses any involvement by the British, he resorts to a complete lack of nuance. Quite obviously this is an academic who in his own mind is still fighting the American revolutionary war against the evil empire. The deliberate attack on fellow historian, Niall Ferguson, was particularly petulant.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

An Important Message Marred by Bias

Revisado: 11-12-24

The central thrust of the book is a message I can easily get behind: acknowledging the ubiquitous nature of neurodiversity across all categories of humanity and the need to depathologize atypical characteristics and behaviours.

What I can't get behind is the suffussion of postmodernist and intersectional feminist jargon and bias throughout the book.Thankfully the author candidly acknowledges that she isn't a psychiatric or psychological professional, she's a journalist reporting her own experiences and those of other like-minded women. The unfortunate consequence of this position is the tendency to view historical actors in the fields of psychology and psychiatry with deep suspicion and prejudice, rejecting their contributions to the science by virtue of their inalienable (but unforgivable) traits of being male and white.

There is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method or the philosophy of science. There is a lack of appreciation for the fact that human knowledge cannot progress from ignorance to awareness without traversing the historical track even if it is problemtic. Instead we are repeatedly reminded that the domains of medicine and psychology were for much of their history male-dominated and therefore dismissive of 'other ways of knowing', often of a traditionally feminine source. This is crass oversimplification of historical perspective, placing an overemphasis on power disparities while ignoring the value of the lessons learned along the way, even if those lessons are cautionary. This oversimplification is characteristic of Gender Studies and similar fields, and should be recognized and denounced for damaging cognitive biases it encourages.

We all want to live in a world that is more accepting and encouraging, and not just for neurodivergent women, but for everyone on every conceivable cognitive spectrum, including people who happen to share physical traits with past oppressors.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

A Good Primer on Energy if a Little Dated

Revisado: 09-27-24

The presentation is thoughtful and fair considering that the topics covered aren't without controversy. The discussions on oil and coal are balanced and realistic, as is the content on nuclear fusion and energy storage.

My criticisms are directed at the less balanced approach for wind, solar, and nuclear fission. Wind and solar both hold considerable promise, but the negatives need to be better stated. The intermittancy is addressed, but what isn't is the lack of longevity for the components such as standard photovoltaic cells and wind turbine blades, and the fact that neither are recyclable, they are disposed of in landfills. The other problem is the question of sustainability with the supply of Lithium and REE's and the severe environmental impact of mining them. To be clear, I support these technologies as needed elements in the energy mix, but nothing is without impact or cost. On the question. of nuclear fission: the key point that was missed is the fact that spent rods can be recycled at a rate of up to 96%, and while the storage question is a problem, it's not a technical one but a political one and the rest of the world outside the US has managed its waste quite effectively.

The point on using hydrocarbons more sensibly hits the nail on the head, but my concern is with the promise EVs made that hasn't been fulfilled. The main problem appears to be a lack of willingness on the part of the manufacturers to manage the lifestyle of these vehicles responsibly. After 5 years the battery packs have to be replaced, but the manufacturers aren't interested in repair or recycling, they only want to sell another new product, wasting all of material invested in the older vehicle. Half of the environmental impact of any vehicle in its lifespan is made before it's sold, and a 5-year lifecycle is far too short to be sustainable in the long term.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

An Insidious Message About a More Isidious Movement

Revisado: 09-11-24

The central theme of the book, the connection between modern Wokism and Marxism, is a valid observation and their critiques of both are equally valid and accurate, but to argue that the appropriate response is to dispense with liberal democracy and champion Caesarian or Franco-esque autocracy is dangerously flawed.

Calling out Cancel Culture, DEI, and the Long March Through the Institutions is both necessary and laudable, but to argue that Donald J. Trump is some kind of strongman cure to these ills is every bit as misguided as the force they are trying to counteract. They are arguing for the suspension of liberal values to bring down a greater threat without realising that in doing so they are turning themselves into a mirror of their opponents. Their endorsement of McCarthyism, Franco's dictatorship, and the January 6th protest reveal a disturbing tendency to accept dispensing of the rule of law to counter a perceived greater threat. In each case considered the reactions produced misanthropic results that could have easily been avoided with a more even-handed approach. McCarthy basically played by the same book as the communists: guilt by association, and consequent cancellation. If (classical) liberal minded westerners are to meet this grand assault on our values, it won't be improved by the adoption of the extreme leftists' own tactics.

Throughout the book I found myself constantly vacillating between agreement and disgust. Agreement with their description of their opponents past and present, and even with some of the responses, but absolutely repelled by the espousal of the anti-democratic sentiments like the willful disregard of the populace if they are deemed to have the wrong views. That's no better than the Neomarxists trying to force western civilization into suicide. Either way we would lose our Western classical liberal values.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Poor performance and poor scholarship

Revisado: 01-19-24

The first point one must accept about this publication is that it is a product of a well-meaning scholar raised in a horrendously racist society trying lift up his community. When viewed from that position it becomes apparent why this book was written and why it was needed. Despite mostly focusing on reinterpretation of African history, the perspective is very distinctly American. It relies heavily on a class structure that is only relevant in America and applies it at scale to a continent that is in reality too vast and complex to be characterised by so narrow a lens. This work is an artifact of American class struggle, and offers very little of value to African history or understanding. I appreciate the deep need for a history of which black-skinned Americans can be proud, but presenting activist psuedo-scholarship such as this as a means to that end is dishonest, planting its own seeds of failure at the outset. Black Americans have a rich history to be proud of, but this isn't it. One cannot blame Chancellor Williams for not being able to access the wealth of ethnolinguistic, archeological, and genetic research that has been added to the field of study since the time of writing this work, but reading the work now and being aware of all that has come since only serves to reinforce the awareness that this book was written not to rewrite African history in a meaningful way, but to present an appealing but highly inaccurate vision of the past. The first major problem is it's initial premise that to be African is to be black skinned and that all African cultures have a common origin has utility as a rallying cry, but has no historical or modern real world applicability. The premise is invalidated when one realises that there were Africans who were not black-skinned over 6000 years ago (before the earliest date considered in this work), and there were black-skinned people who weren't African long before that (consider the Australian and Papuan aboriginees). Furthermore, it cannot be reasonably demonstrated that the cultures of the Niger River region, the Congo, ancient Kush or Nubia, or the Kalahari have a common origin. Palaeolinguistic studies show clearly that these language groups are distinct, having occupied vastly different regions across a very vast continent and having had very little mutual contact prior to the last 800 to 2000 years. The next problem is the appropriation of Egyptian civilization. From the time of Menes to the 25th dynasty, Egypt was a kingdom of diverse peoples with a predominant group that is largely still present today as modern Egyptians. The key point is the 25th dynasty when Nubia conquered Upper and the Lower Egypt, this was the first time in recorded Egyptian history that Egypt had a black-skinned ruling class. To be clear, Egyptian civilization was always African, but never entirely black-skinned or white-skinned. Egyptian records very clearly depict ethnic groupings by language and skin colour. The next problem is the troubling use of American concepts like 'mulatto' that have no real meaning in an African context. Africa is a diverse continent with native populations of many different hues for a variety of historical, genetic and environmental reasons. Skin colour and the concept of endemism are in reality far more ephemeral over the course of millenia than most realise, since changing skin colour is an adaptive response in humans to the environment on a multi-generational level. The point is made clear when considering the related people's of the Bushmen, Khoe-Khoen, Nama or Namaqua of Southern Africa. Archeological data indicates that these peoples have histories in this region going back more than 100 000 years, but they are lighter-skinned people than Africans from the Congo or Nigerian regions. The error is most clearly demonstrated when the author refers to the Cape Coloured people as merely a "mulatto" group, a product of intermingling between the Dutch settlers and the native black-skinned people. The lack of contextual understanding here is actually quite egregious because the author is mapping American concepts of race onto a uniquely African ethnogroup. The Cape Coloured people may speak the same language today as the descendents of the Dutch settlers, but they aren't simply a product of Dutch and black African intermarriage. Both groups are present in the people's genetic history, but both are only small components. The larger source groups for this remarkable people are the native brown-skinned Khoi-Khoi, Nama, Namaqua and Malay peoples (brought to the Cape from Indonesia by the Dutch in the 1600s). These people are as African as any other. Lastly, I don't think the world needs to hear another segregationist message, people need to see others as being of equal intrinsic value, while respecting each other's customs, practices and norms (provided they aren't harmful), the vision of Martin Luther King has worked surprisingly well in America, despite recent claims to the contrary - that is the way forward, and not only for America, or Africa.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Disingenuous Representatation

Revisado: 10-19-23

There are so many canonical errors here for both Pratchett and Tolkien, overlaying activist postmodernism in a highly inappropriate way. Canonical errors aren't severe, but they do detract from the presentation. For instance: when they note that the wizards had been in their present form since Sourcery, it was from Moving Pictures onward. The speakers insist on maintaining an analysis where they consider gender as exclusively performative, it can be but it isn't exclusively so. It's very obvious to the listener that the presenters entirely disregard biology.

As for overlaying racist tropes on Tolkien and attempting to problematise it, I find this deeply disingenuous, particularly when it's obvious that they aren't as familiar with Tolkien to make such a determination. The orcs in Tolkien were corrupted elves, made so by Morgoth. The Uruk-Hai were a product of crossbreeding orcs and men - they were never meant to be representative of black-skinned people. Yes, Sauron had dark-skinned Easterlings, but it was also made very obvious that those peoples had been coerced into supporting Morder. Also, remember that in a world where travel is difficult and dangerous, societies tend to be more homogeneous than not. This is a fact of geography, not political will, it's not surprising that most of Tolkien's characters are white-skinned. It's not 21st century Earth.

The closing comments clearly demonstrate why applied postmodernism is destructive, not creative: you aren't permitted to have antagonists, you can't portray evil - why? Dark tetrad traits abound in society, there are bad actors, and literature should represent them.

In closing, the podcast spent its entire runtime talking about tangential elements in the story without considering the wealth of cultural references on the history and origin of football. The book devotes significant attention to it, but it's nit mentioned once, Also, why is it problematic to insist on a degree of cultural integration, like a vampire not tearing an innocents throat open. Not all assimilation is inherently bad, but postmodernist thought vlearly notes that anything identifiable as Western is and should therefore be derogated. This makes no sense, all cultures and civilizations have cultural norms that are there for a reason, even if you don't agree with it. If you have chosen to live there, you must adapt or move somewhere more suited to your own considerations of propriety. This tendency for problematising everything in sight is not helpful and makes for a culture that is doomed to decadence.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Witty, Wise and Epic in Scale

Revisado: 09-08-23

The narrative is swift even if the subject is exhausting. The scale of the work is almost unbelievable, and despite relating familiar figures and events when it's all tied together, it's impossible not to appreciate the heights of the empire and regret the eventual state by comparison. The history of Rome might be seen as a magnificent tragedy, but perhaps its most valuable lesson is to be mindful of your own culture and situation, that when a people grow indolent, servile, cowardly, or inclined to lethargy it should serve as warning. Civilization is only maintained by each generation doing its best build a robust life, culture, and economy and pass that on to the next. Ours could be next to be so described; one hopes not in scratchings on paper or clay.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

High enjoyable supernatural fluff

Revisado: 04-08-23

The performance is excellent, the story drags occasionally but it's inventive and compelling and makes for pleasant distraction for an afternoon or two.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

A Much-Needed Voice of Clarity

Revisado: 03-01-23

I enjoyed this every bit as much as Konstantin's interviews with Francis on Triggernometry. The performance is well executed; the comedic timing exactly as it should be producing several laugh-out-loud moments despite the very serious subject matter.

The book highlights the very troubling ethos plaguing the anglosphere at the moment: the rising movement of Intersectional Critical Social Justice, commonly identified as "woke" ideology. This account serves to highlight inherent problems of this novel movement that so quickly labels anything vaguely critical of itself as "problematic" before seeking to stifle all debate and actively place in jeopardy the heretic's capacity to continue to earn a living. This is a topic that has been dealt with extensively and eloquently in recent years by authors like Andrew Doyle and Douglas Murray, and Konstantin's unuque persoective serves only enhance their efforts in counteracting this regressive agenda.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

An Important Message Wrapped in Troubling Ideology

Revisado: 12-12-22

On the one hand, the central message of this book: the importance of recognizing that racism is not restricted to those who would openly embrace it but is present, both consciously and unconsciously in everyone who is actively engaged in modern society regardless of the degree of diversity present in that society. It also points out that it is the ongoing responsibility of everyone to confront their own racism, wherever it manifests, and to seek outside aid to improve your own actions and perceptions.
What I take extreme exception to is the attempted redefinition of important terms: racism itself, and white supremacy. The book identifies itself as clearly belonging to the body of academic work that is characterized by the term Anti-Racism, and seeks to redefine racism to specifically refer to an institutional system that serves to maintain white authority. While I will readily acknowledge the need to define such a system as it exists in white-majority countries, it is entirely inappropriate to restrict the meaning of so useful a term, especially to restrict it to so narrow a definition that only has real significance in the United States. This Orwellian imposition of the redefinition of so important and useful a term on the entire anglophone world is entirely unacceptable, and frankly quite galling.
This book is myopically American, it considers no history prior to 1776, apart from one reference to the commencement of slavery in the British American colonies. It paints racism as an evil that can only be committed by white people with little real acknowledgement that the patterns presented as “racist” and supporting of “white supremacy” (by the definitions provided) are behaviours adopted by majority groups in most countries throughout the world, regardless of whether the majority group is white. This points to another key problem with the book: it sees race in only the broadest terms and fails to realise the deeply racist sentiments that can be expressed by one people, one ethnic group, to another even if they happen to share the same or similar skin colour. For example: the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the Armenian genocide from 1915 to 1917. Both events were characterized by deep-seated racist hatred of the other group and resulted in the deaths of millions. By attempting redefine racism to meet the demands of modern diversity considerations in America, must we consign the remainder of the English-speaking world to the absence of this very necessary term to describe events that are unambiguously racist? I would also hasten to remind the reader, that the anglophone world is not restricted to the standard list of English-speaking countries noted in this book (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa), but also includes numerous countries where people of colour are the majority population such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Ghana. Should we apply the same ideologies in those contexts as well? The author would do well to realise that there is a much broader and more complex world beyond the United States, that doesn’t accept the laughably simple dichotomy of white vs black in race relations.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña