Like or same as Indiana Jones?

[Montana Smith]

American history is taught outside of America. It depends on the school's curriculum and obviously in every country, that particular country's history will be compulsory at some point.

American history as taught in countries such as Iran or North Korea would likely appear quite alien, as in Indy's facts/truth disclaimer.

Australian history is a compulsory element to Australian schools, however they also will teach another country's history or geography

So the history or Australia and another country combine to make one course for examination? I've always been curious about that, as Australia has a much shorter written history (presuming that the Aborigines - if that's still the correct term - didn't have detailed written records as such.)

A related curiosity is one of those subjects that I'm tenative to approach, for fear of causing offence.

It's about different country's versions of an 'English Literature' course. Since English is spoken in Britain, Ireland, Canada, America, Australia etc there is a huge wealth of material that can be chosen for study. Yet, with countries with a smaller unique language demographic, the choices for study would be far more limited, yet no less impressive in terms of writing skill.

 

[Joosse]

I have studied parts of American history, especially the American Civil War (Or Southern War of Independance, depending on your viewpoint), as I find them fascinating. That was truly the first modern war.

But I believe that only when a country is as isolated as the United States or Australia it is possible to concentrate on that country's particular history.

Over here in Europe the history of so many country's are completely interwoven with borders shifting every time.

But having said that I do believe it is rather limiting to focus a subject purely on the history of one nation. It ignores the fact that everything in this world is interconnected.

And my friend Montana raises an excellent point. Where does it start? With the history of the indigenous population, or with the discovery of those countries by other powers?

And the US and Australia being former colonies, would it not be possible to argue that they are actually ofshoots of British history? Or even Dutch history if you look at the likes of Peter Suyvesandt and Abel Tasman?

When a Dutchman discoveres Tasmania, or New Zealand for that matter, is that part of Dutch history or part of the respective histories of Australia and New Zealand?

My answe would be both, proving the point that it impossible to just teach the history of a limited part of the world without taking into account the rest of the world.

Eh...

I'll get off my soapbox now....

 

[Violet]

I have studied parts of American history, especially the American Civil War (Or Southern War of Independance, depending on your viewpoint), as I find them fascinating. That was truly the first modern war.

But I believe that only when a country is as isolated as the United States or Australia it is possible to concentrate on that country's particular history.

Over here in Europe the history of so many country's are completely interwoven with borders shifting every time.

But having said that I do believe it is rather limiting to focus a subject purely on the history of one nation. It ignores the fact that everything in this world is interconnected.

And my friend Montana raises an excellent point. Where does it start? With the history of the indigenous population, or with the discovery of those countries by other powers?

And the US and Australia being former colonies, would it not be possible to argue that they are actually ofshoots of British history? Or even Dutch history if you look at the likes of Peter Suyvesandt and Abel Tasman?

When a Dutchman discoveres Tasmania, or New Zealand for that matter, is that part of Dutch history or part of the respective histories of Australia and New Zealand?

My answe would be both, proving the point that it impossible to just teach the history of a limited part of the world without taking into account the rest of the world.

Eh...

I'll get off my soapbox now....

I agree with your answer on this as my history (and even political) education has not only been about Australian history and one particular, but also of Europe (we studied the Renaissance, the Reformation, WW1 periods), Asia (I studied the 20th Century history and politics of Indonesia, The late 19th and full 20th Century history of China, Japan), America (the Salem witch trials, Cold War era), Middle East (History of Iraq/Iran in the late 20th Century, particularly Gulf War) and even Africa (Aparthied period in South Africa, the history of Zimbabwe). That's education I gained from all my years in primary and high school though (that and I went to 9 schools and each one was different in their focus). I guess the one thing they missed with me, was South America. Otherwise, I know a little here and there with history in most of the world.

In terms of how Australian history is taught, it depends on what years in school it is being taught. In the same kind of years you teach, it would start with a bit of British history around 1770s, before Captain Cook landed in Australia (Of course, there is mention of the Dutch and Portguese who already turned up to Australia, however the mention is usually small). Then it goes on about the First Fleet, and onwards to settling, Explorers and the Gold Rush (the Eureka Stockade and the fight for the working class, on the flag is the Southern Cross). History tends to go more 20th Century, with WW1, Gallipoli and on the odd occasion, Beersheeba. Then the migrants and the White Australia policy and how things have shaped to what they are today. The only major Dutch things that are learnt is the translation of the country's actual name ("Terra Australis" or "New Holland") and yeah, Van Diemen discovering Tasmania. Admittedly though, it's like the system likes to forget about it's European non- English roots (I just don't get it, coz my background is European non-English).

The Aborigines and their history, is often set as a different course of study. Often studies of their history, will include the terrible things that occured during the Stolen Generation. Also another major part is the Dreamtime mythology and traditions like corroborees and weapons like boomerangs (yes, that's right. It was a hunting weapon!). So to answer your question, it starts with the imperial power (the British) who decided to turn up. When I was studying China, however it was actual Chinese history before the English turned up that we learnt first.

In my historic/political education, we couldn't have studied the Australian foreign policy without knowing a little something about the history and countries Australia is politically tied to, as there is no escaping the fact that more and more, this world is getting closer together. Oceans are no longer a barrier, as they used to be.

I have to ask (really for the Americans): do you guys learn anything about the Native Americans as we learn about the Aborigines?

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I have to ask (really for the Americans): do you guys learn anything about the Native Americans as we learn about the Aborigines?

Yes we do... in elementary (I guess for you that is primary school) and high school and depending on your history corses in a university. In every single school transition we learned about "native americans".

In elementary the main focus was the native american involvement in the first Thanksgiving though, which is understandable since that happens to be the youngest age bracket.

 

[Montana Smith]

Yes we do... in elementary (I guess for you that is primary school) and high school and depending on your history corses in a university. In every single school transition we learned about "native americans".

In elementary the main focus was the native american involvement in the first Thanksgiving though, which is understandable since that happens to be the youngest age bracket.

Dr. Gonzo, how is the issue of conflict between the native Americans and the white Americans approached? This must be contentious, given the idea that America as a nation prides itself on being the 'land of the free'. I ask the question because a while ago my dad was reading a book on the Indian Wars (I think it was called Warpaths), in which the author justified the wars in the following way: America was a big enough country to support an incoming population, and the natives had no right to claim all the land for themselves.

I found the author's idea pretty shocking, since as a Briton I'm well aware of the horrors that our own empire inflicted on the world (horrors which we also inflicted on fellow Europeans, as with the Irish, or the Dutch we put into concentration camps in South Africa).

To keep this on topic, this does tie into the idea of the enlightened character of Indiana Jones, who bears witness to injustices and tries the best he can to resolve them (especially in the Young Indiana Jones series, and in Temple of Doom).

 

[Goodeknight]

Getting back to the topic, personally I have the Wested, a couple of hats, plenty of khaki shirts, David Morgan whip (albeit a stock whip, not an Indy style bullwhip), bag, boots, etc. But wearing that stuff is probably when I'm *least* like Indy. That's really just playing dress up.

However, I did live in Egypt for two years studying anthropology, sociology, and Egyptology at the American University in Cairo. Worked with Kent Weeks in KV5, and had plenty of adventures there. I've told many people I got out of academia because going in I think I just wanted to run from boulders and shoot Nazis, not study four dead languages and live in a library. One professor's "field of interest" (i.e. "life") was New Kingdom meat production. Another's focus ("life") was one line of pharaohs' dental records. In reality not all that exciting. I loved field work, but "Seventy percent of archaeology is done in the library. Reading, researching..."

But now, as a reporter, I've traveled to South Africa, Zambia, Ethiopia, Alaska, and recently Haiti (yes, post-earthquake) to do stories. Plenty of stories from those trips. So being a reporter has actually been an adventure, and closer to the spirit of Indy than modern archaeology. My wife and I have also vacationed in a dozen countries and gone on safari in Tanzania. In all of those cases I've felt more "Indy" than when I'm wearing the full costume for a party or something. And in my little cubicle (my home away from home) I have artifacts from my travels. African statues, Egyptian relics like funerary cones and Roman glass, and a fox skull from Qumran. Featured objects at work are my Raiders poster and my hat, whip, and bag hanging on a hook beside the pick I used in the Valley of the Kings.

So for all of us, if we really think about it, we're probably closest to Indy when we're not wearing all the gear.

And for one final note, I know if I was fighting the German Mechanic and he punched me in the face, I'd land right on my butt. That's pretty Indy, right?

 

[Lance Quazar]

Yes we do...

But really, not much. Not much at all.

 

[chr0n0naut]

This thread is kind of ironic.

Someone who was truly like Indiana Jones would not be a fan of heroic characters or care about posting on threads and sharing fan-based opinions with others (ignoring the obvious fact that computers were not around).

So the very fact that we are here reading these threads means that we are inherently NOT like Indiana Jones.

 

[Montana Smith]

This thread is kind of ironic.

Someone who was truly like Indiana Jones would not be a fan of heroic characters or care about posting on threads and sharing fan-based opinions with others (ignoring the obvious fact that computers were not around).

So the very fact that we are here reading these threads means that we are inherently NOT like Indiana Jones.

That's a good point. Indy was often a bit of an anti-hero, or at least not a conventional hero. It's more about people recognizing character traits, as opposed with identifying with the complete character. Or, to put it another away, Indy has depth to his character, as opposed to a lot of action-heroes who are pretty much interchangeable.

 

[chr0n0naut]

That's a good point. Indy was often a bit of an anti-hero, or at least not a conventional hero. It's more about people recognizing character traits, as opposed with identifying with the complete character. Or, to put it another away, Indy has depth to his character, as opposed to a lot of action-heroes who are pretty much interchangeable.

Yeah I suppose I know what you mean. No one is idential to Indy as whole but we have bits and piece of who we are, that run alone the same vein as the character.

I'd say my stubborn determination is the most Indy-like of all my traits. I'm the "bad penny" as it were.

 

[Indy's brother]

This thread is kind of ironic.

Someone who was truly like Indiana Jones would not be a fan of heroic characters or care about posting on threads and sharing fan-based opinions with others (ignoring the obvious fact that computers were not around).

So the very fact that we are here reading these threads means that we are inherently NOT like Indiana Jones.

"Take thy beak from out my heart..." -Edgar Allan Poe

From the "The Raven", how perfect is that?

 

[NickTurner]

I am most like Dr. Jones in that I am extremely skeptical of all things mystical, occult or other-worldly, at least as far as trusting any HUMAN's sproutings on such subjects. Such things are fascinating, no doubt, but I believe in the rational and logical above all. Mysteries can exist for sure, but really are just things we cannot yet explain.

For an example, years ago I worked out a logical and rational explanation of God that took only two premises and a few steps to explain. So simple and elegant was it that I dismissed it for years as being ridiculously simple, and naive even. However, now I am older I have still yet to hear a more persuasive argument!

I have always liked Indy's matter-of fact acceptance of the fantastic things that surround him. Never corrupted, never overwhelmed, never really surprised even! Now THERE's an open-minded individual!

 

[Mickiana]

I'd like to hear your explanation for god. I agree with your summation of Dr Jones' approach. I've always seen him as a skeptic, not supporting or diminishing what he may see, hear or experience. He is presented as quite an amoral person, that is not to say he doesn't have morals, he just doesn't push them.

 

[Darth Vile]

Yeah I suppose I know what you mean. No one is idential to Indy as whole but we have bits and piece of who we are, that run alone the same vein as the character.

Yep - That's why he's a great screen action hero i.e. he's someone we can relate to and identify with. He's fallible... he gets jealous, he gets nervous, he's sceptical, he gets knocked down, he bleeds... he's human... Those are really the elements where most of us are like him. As far as the adventurous and romantical elements are concerned, I think it's more a case of wishful thinking on our part.

 

[Montana Smith]

For an example, years ago I worked out a logical and rational explanation of God that took only two premises and a few steps to explain. So simple and elegant was it that I dismissed it for years as being ridiculously simple, and naive even. However, now I am older I have still yet to hear a more persuasive argument!

Effective storytelling plus superstition?

I have always liked Indy's matter-of fact acceptance of the fantastic things that surround him. Never corrupted, never overwhelmed, never really surprised even! Now THERE's an open-minded individual!

Indy is cautiously skeptical. He applies his rational scientific training before admitting that something may truly be supernatural. If he can't explain something logically then he accepts the fact that there are things out there which we just haven't categorized yet by scientific methods.

Incorruptible is a good description. He's cunning and driven to the point of employing underhand tactics. His morality is questionable, yet he is nevertheless incorruptible. That is, he is true to his own notion of right and wrong. I can imagine Belloq sneering with a hint of jealousy: "Ah, the inccoruptible Dr. Jones!" Belloq will sell himself to the highest bidder to attain his goals, yet Indy will try to achieve them on his own terms.

 

[NickTurner]

I'd like to hear your explanation for god.

I'd love to share. As you can appreciate it's not something I thrust on people, but I think it's kinda neat.

The story goes like this:

-------


A common thread to many,if not all, religions is the concept of God as a creator of all and a supreme or perfect being.

So, what's a good example of a creative being? How about an artist? A artist exxpresses his or her self through the medium of, let's say, paint.

The painting is thus an expression of the artist, and the painting is judged according to how much of the artist is expressed on the canvas. An average painter is only somewhat engaged but a master artist pours his soul onto the canvas.

So, if the creation is an expression of how much of the creator is in the work, how much do you think a perfect being is capable of expressing?

Surely a perfect being can only create the perfect creation. In other words, 100% of the creator is expressed in the creation.

Since 100% of the creator is in the creation, how do you tell them apart? Are they not then ONE AND THE SAME!

So the creator and creation are indivisible, not separate. Look all around you and you see God - no need for a telephone!

------


So such declarations that God is everywhere and nowhere suddenly make sense.

Some claim to have a 'personal relationship' with God. Well, I say we all do!

Some say that science and religion are at odds, but making a life long study of how the universe works now seems like the ultimate 'worship'.

 

[Montana Smith]

I'd love to share. As you can appreciate it's not something I thrust on people, but I think it's kinda neat.

The story goes like this:

-------


A common thread to many,if not all, religions is the concept of God as a creator of all and a supreme or perfect being.

So, what's a good example of a creative being? How about an artist? A artist exxpresses his or her self through the medium of, let's say, paint.

The painting is thus an expression of the artist, and the painting is judged according to how much of the artist is expressed on the canvas. An average painter is only somewhat engaged but a master artist pours his soul onto the canvas.

So, if the creation is an expression of how much of the creator is in the work, how much do you think a perfect being is capable of expressing?

Surely a perfect being can only create the perfect creation. In other words, 100% of the creator is expressed in the creation.

Since 100% of the creator is in the creation, how do you tell them apart? Are they not then ONE AND THE SAME!

So the creator and creation are indivisible, not separate. Look all around you and you see God - no need for a telephone!

------


So such declarations that God is everywhere and nowhere suddenly make sense.

Some claim to have a 'personal relationship' with God. Well, I say we all do!

Some say that science and religion are at odds, but making a life long study of how the universe works now seems like the ultimate 'worship'.

You just described the idea of Pantheism, literally meaning "All is God".

 

[NickTurner]

You just described the idea of Pantheism, literally meaning "All is God".

If you like, yes. I don't ascribe to labels myself. Starts to sound like a religion then

 

[Joosse]

Well, it certainly is an interesting point of view.

Thanks for sharing that with us, Nick!

 

[Mickiana]

Yes, thanks Nick, that is a good metaphor. 'God' is a word and the originator of the word was trying to convey a meaning. The confounding thing, then, as with all words, is that the only thing with which to describe words are other words. So, can truth be found in words? I think not and the fastest way to totally lose any intentional meaning is to take the words literally, or worse still impose some abstract inflection upon them, as many people do with the word 'god' and virtually all other words.

So, how do we know what someone else really means? Perhaps we can never really know, or perhaps there is a way. I think the way is not an outward way, such as the intellectualisation that words produce, but through an inward way, such as sublimation, that bypasses all words, but then allows for a complete understanding of all words and their limitations. It's the way we string words together that is the attempt to convey meaning. A word on its own is virtually nothing, but in a sentence it becomes part of the conveyance of meaning.