I always loved David Macauley take on this. He wrote a book as if people 2000 years ago found a motel and he presumed the “sanitized for your protection” banding and toilet seats would have been seen as ceremonial wear.
Ehh idk about this take. I agree with the article that there are some commercial historical mediums like the History Channel that interpret the past in an absurd/almost malicious way. However modern archaeology does a really good job of finding out how objects from the past were used and how people interacted with their environment. A toilet is not really gonna be up for debate as for what its use was. Historical text, fecal remains, toilets looking pretty similar for the past thousand years, is gonna tell you it’s a toilet.
The notion of our interpretation of the past being completely flawed is kinda true if it was like the 1950s and we were talking about non-western cultures from a western perspective.
ion know why you saying “again” like you made a big point of it being a children’s book (you didn’t). I’m just saying I don’t like media like this. It feels like they’re delegitimizing research that is already brushed off by society as not useful compared to something in a stem field.
It’s fiction? I think you need to take a second to actually read the link provided because it’s very clear this is for children and your response to it is silly.
Broski no need to get so pressed. What do you think fiction is? How would a young, impressionable audience, interpret this work?
Works of fiction don’t exist in a vacuum. They are directly inspired and informed from the world we live in. In a similar vain, the impact of fiction does not exist in a vacuum. You don’t read a book and come away with no thoughts related to it. You don’t just throw away knowledge like that. If anything fiction works directed at children have an outsized impact on how we perceive the world compared to the space they occupy in literature.
Im not your bro. You literally are complaining about a fiction book that most people read at the age of nine to twelve. It’s not having the impact that you think it does. You are worrying about nothing likely because you don’t have kids.
I read a book at the same age that suggested we could live on Mars and there was a whole culture on the planet yet I don’t believe that either. Is that because at 9 I understood what fiction is?
I’m confused about what you’re trying to argue. I don’t get what your example of a book about Mars is trying to say. You’ve completely missed the point of what I’m trying to say.
You’re literally complaining to an internet stranger about being called a term which imo shows some level of endearment. You’re worrying about this comment thread likely because you don’t have a job.
You are complaining this will cause kids to conceive of anthropology incorrectly and Im arguing the 9-12 year olds aren’t thinking that deeply on this. I read John Carter of Mars as a kid I seemed to be able to realize it was fake and you cannot live on Mars despite being a kid when I read this book. Most kids aren’t going to think this represents what real anthropologists do because they understand fiction.
If you had regular contact with kids you wouldnt be overthinking this to this extent.
I remember reading a book as a kid, I can’t remember if it was this or maybe inspired by this, but adapted for kids (iirc the art style was more cartoony and comedic) where archeologists unearth a motel called the Toot and C’mon.
Edit: after a bit of searching I think it was this book. Unlocked some memories I didn’t realize I had.
I can’t remember if it’s an official Asimov book or not, but one of the Foundation books set far beyond even the main series has an archaeological mission finding thousands of ceremonial hard white ceramic bowl-funnels and speculating on their significance to these incomprehensibly ancient peoples.
I always loved David Macauley take on this. He wrote a book as if people 2000 years ago found a motel and he presumed the “sanitized for your protection” banding and toilet seats would have been seen as ceremonial wear.
https://www.byanyothernerd.com/2020/04/stranger-days-39-mysteries-of-motel.html?m=1
Ehh idk about this take. I agree with the article that there are some commercial historical mediums like the History Channel that interpret the past in an absurd/almost malicious way. However modern archaeology does a really good job of finding out how objects from the past were used and how people interacted with their environment. A toilet is not really gonna be up for debate as for what its use was. Historical text, fecal remains, toilets looking pretty similar for the past thousand years, is gonna tell you it’s a toilet.
The notion of our interpretation of the past being completely flawed is kinda true if it was like the 1950s and we were talking about non-western cultures from a western perspective.
Again this is a children’s book.
ion know why you saying “again” like you made a big point of it being a children’s book (you didn’t). I’m just saying I don’t like media like this. It feels like they’re delegitimizing research that is already brushed off by society as not useful compared to something in a stem field.
We can have different opinions lol
It’s fiction? I think you need to take a second to actually read the link provided because it’s very clear this is for children and your response to it is silly.
Broski no need to get so pressed. What do you think fiction is? How would a young, impressionable audience, interpret this work?
Works of fiction don’t exist in a vacuum. They are directly inspired and informed from the world we live in. In a similar vain, the impact of fiction does not exist in a vacuum. You don’t read a book and come away with no thoughts related to it. You don’t just throw away knowledge like that. If anything fiction works directed at children have an outsized impact on how we perceive the world compared to the space they occupy in literature.
Im not your bro. You literally are complaining about a fiction book that most people read at the age of nine to twelve. It’s not having the impact that you think it does. You are worrying about nothing likely because you don’t have kids.
I read a book at the same age that suggested we could live on Mars and there was a whole culture on the planet yet I don’t believe that either. Is that because at 9 I understood what fiction is?
I’m confused about what you’re trying to argue. I don’t get what your example of a book about Mars is trying to say. You’ve completely missed the point of what I’m trying to say.
You’re literally complaining to an internet stranger about being called a term which imo shows some level of endearment. You’re worrying about this comment thread likely because you don’t have a job.
You are complaining this will cause kids to conceive of anthropology incorrectly and Im arguing the 9-12 year olds aren’t thinking that deeply on this. I read John Carter of Mars as a kid I seemed to be able to realize it was fake and you cannot live on Mars despite being a kid when I read this book. Most kids aren’t going to think this represents what real anthropologists do because they understand fiction.
If you had regular contact with kids you wouldnt be overthinking this to this extent.
I remember reading a book as a kid, I can’t remember if it was this or maybe inspired by this, but adapted for kids (iirc the art style was more cartoony and comedic) where archeologists unearth a motel called the Toot and C’mon.
Edit: after a bit of searching I think it was this book. Unlocked some memories I didn’t realize I had.
This guy did a bunch of kids books. My favorites were Castle and Pyramid.
What if instead toilet seats become a symbol for a group of genetically engineered super soldiers known for being Mary Sues?
I can’t remember if it’s an official Asimov book or not, but one of the Foundation books set far beyond even the main series has an archaeological mission finding thousands of ceremonial hard white ceramic bowl-funnels and speculating on their significance to these incomprehensibly ancient peoples.
There’s probably millions even if you account for the fact that most would have been destroyed