I recently wrote a piece for Skeptic titled “Ranking Presidents: Does It Make Any Sense?”, in which I outlined three reasons why ranking Presidents against one another is a fool’s errand: presentism, the evolving role of the presidency, and sui generis.1 The current trend of the first of these criteria, presentism, becomes problematic when applied to entertainment made for previous generations. Viewing and evaluating the culture of the past through a contemporary lens has led to erasing history in at least three relatively recent incidents. This is, I believe, a slippery slope toward censorship and a missed opportunity for valuable lessons about our collective past.
In 1991, Disney released a video version of their 1940 masterpiece Fantasia, describing it as “a meticulously restored version of the original, full-length film.” It wasn’t, though. The version Disney released omitted an original scene in which a Black centaurette named Sunflower is shown shining shoes of a White centaur.2 Seen today, Sunflower is a patently offensive stereotype.3 Ten years later Disney released the censored version for the film’s 60th anniversary DVD.4 Disney’s use of racist stereotypes is not limited to Fantasia. In varying degrees, such tropes are seen in Dumbo (1941),5 Peter Pan (1953),6 The Aristocats (1970),7 and Aladdin (1992).8
In 2020, the company (admirably, in my view) took steps toward addressing this controversy by adding disclaimers to their films on their streaming services, noting the “harmful impact” of racist stereotypes. Unlike the quiet actions the company took censoring the re-releases of Fantasia, the films are viewable in their original forms.
This begs the question: If the racism was so apparent, why weren’t these films decried upon initial release? The answer is they weren’t considered offensive by the public at the time, and applying today’s attitudes toward race crystallizes the fallacy of presentism.
In 2014, Ruth Wise, professor emerita of Yiddish and Comparative Literatures at Harvard, criticized Fiddler on the Roof (1971) for sacrificing Jewish identity to make the musical more universally appealing.9 The problem with Wise’s argument is (again) presentism. In the early 1970s, M*A*S*H writers employed rape jokes,10 and America’s most popular sitcom (All in the Family) featured a working-class bigot who employed racial slurs for laughs.11 John Lennon released a song titled “Woman is The (N-word) of the World”12 and Richard Pryor would use the same racial epithet in an album title three years later.13 Our attitudes towards cultural authenticity and appropriation have evolved since the early 1970s.
In 2020, a 1988 Golden Girls episode called “Mixed Feelings” was pulled from the streaming platform Hulu due to “a scene in which Betty White and Rue McClanahan are mistaken for wearing blackface.”14 In the episode, Dorothy’s (White) son introduces his fiancé, a much older Black woman. Blanche and Rose are mortified with embarrassment when they unexpectedly meet the couple wearing cosmetic mud masks.
Were Rose and Blanche revisiting a minstrel show to characterize Black Americans as lazy, hypersexual thieves, ala “Amos ‘n Andy,” as minstrel shows were in the past?15 Of course not. The joke lay in their mutual embarrassment of appearing as if they were in blackface.16 Each Golden Girls actress (Betty White, Bea Arthur, Rue McClanahan, and Estelle Getty) came of age decades before the women’s movement, but their show was considerably progressive for their time. In its seven-year run, The Golden Girls featured episodes centered on then-controversial topics of racism, sexual harassment, same-sex marriage, age discrimination, homelessness, the death of children, and addiction.17 Perhaps most significantly, a 1990 episode titled “72 Hours,” has Rose worried that she may have come in contact with HIV.18 It was only five years prior that President Reagan first addressed the AIDS crisis, by which time 42,600 people had died from the disease. By 1990, that number had spiked to 310,000, a third of which were deaths occurring that same year.19 When one considers the climate of the times, airing the episode was courageous.
The same year “Mixed Feelings” was removed from Hulu, an actor named François Clemmons published Officer Clemmons: A Memoir. Clemmons played “Officer Clemmons” on Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood in the late 1960s, the first African American actor to have a recurring role on a children’s television program.20 In Clemmon’s mostly heartwarming book, he relates an incident in which Fred Rogers called him into his office. His boss said to him, “Someone has informed us that you were seen at the local gay bar downtown. Now, I want you to know, Franc, that if you’re gay, it doesn’t matter to me at all. Whatever you say and do is fine with me, but if you’re going to be on the show as an important member of the Neighborhood, you can’t be out as gay.”
Was Mr. Rogers homophobic? When Rogers had the conversation with Clemmons, homosexuality was still listed as a disorder in the DSM. It wasn’t until 1974 that it was replaced with “sexual orientation disturbance.”21 In reality, Fred Rogers, a Presbyterian minister, was an LGBTQ ally. He’d intentionally hired gay men and women since the 1960s and rebuffed efforts from his viewers to renounce homosexuality.22
In John Hughes’ The Breakfast Club (1985)23 and Jeff Kanus’ Revenge of the Nerds (1984),24 there are scenes of sexual assault upon women played for laughs. Both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert (renowned film critics) praised each film, neither noting their discomfort with the now-troubling scenes in either review.25, 26, 27 Why did they fail to do so? Were both Siskel and Ebert misogynists willing to overlook scenes of women being sexually assaulted? Of course not. The social mores in the early 1980s didn’t apply to those we share today. Are these scenes excusable? No, but both actresses (Molly Ringwald and Julie Montgomery) have publicly reckoned with the blatant sexism in their roles and neither has insisted the scenes be omitted.28, 29
In 2022, the UK’s Channel 5 aired the 1961 classic Breakfast at Tiffany’s, but bowdlerized scenes of Mickey Rooney as “Mr. Yunioshi,” an over-the-top yellow-face Asian caricature.30 Should Rooney’s role be excised? No. Just like the racist characters in Disney movies of the 1940s–1990s, and the sexual assaults depicted for laughs in 1980s raunchy comedies, the climate in 1961 was different.
Pop culture of the past is just that: of the past. Applying today’s standards to them is at best a fool’s errand and, at worst (as seen in the cases above) a slippery slope toward censorship. Entertainment from yesteryear should be taken in context while viewed in its entirety.
About the AuthorJohn D. Van Dyke is an academic and science educator. His personal website is vandykerevue.org.
ReferencesThings have been extremely busy! I have
If any of these might interest you, here are the details!
Article on Science and Language in New ScientistFirst, about the latest article I’ve written for New Scientist magazine. (My other New Scientist articles can be found at the bottom of this page.) This one is about the interplay between science and language. There are a lot of words in English that have been repurposed by physicists — force, mass, energy, field, etc. — whose meanings for physicists differ, to a greater or lesser extent, from their meanings in ordinary conversational settings. This definitional mismatch creates all sorts of opportunities for misunderstandings.
I also dealt with this issue, to a certain extent, in my book. From my experience teaching, and also writing on this blog for many years, I have come to the conclusion that one can’t properly explain the most important results of modern physics without close attention to this linguistic challenge.
Anyway, in this new article, the focus is mostly on three words crucial for modern physics: atom, force, and particle. I examine how and why their meanings have shifted over time, and the legacies of these shifts for those trying to make sense of physicists’ verbal explanations of how the universe works.
This is my second article of the month; if you missed my article in Quanta Magazine about how the Higgs field truly gives mass to elementary particles, you can find it here. My approach to this topic (also covered extensively in my book) avoids the false analogies of the Higgs field being like molasses, or soup, or anything else that violates the Principle of Relativity. It also draws attention to the connection of these ideas to those of resonance, which is fundamental to the physics of musical instruments.
If you find these articles too brief or too oracular, the book can provide far more details without the use of math. If you actually want some of the math (but not too much), you can find that here on this website, for example here and here. If that’s still not quite what you want, feel free to ask me for guidance, or explore this website further using the Search bar at the upper right of this page.
Know Time Podcast About the Topics of my BookShalaj Lawania, on his podcast Know Time, has a terrific series of interviews with a wide variety of interesting people, including but not limited to scientists. I’m very pleased to be added to his impressive list. It’s a real shame that he has relatively few subscribers, given the high quality of what he is doing. I strongly encourage you to check out his channel. You will not be disappointed.
As he always does, Lawania curated a well-structured interview. We methodically covered a wide range of topics from my book, as well as some more general issues about science and belief. The full interview is two hours long! But no worries if that’s way too much; you can listen to various self-contained excerpts that Lawania has separated out.
The AudioBook is Finally In SightSince many people find it convenient to listen to books rather than read their texts, it’s not surprising that I’ve often been asked about the audio version of my book, for which we’ve had to wait over six months. But the wait is over. I’m pleased to tell you that the audiobook will finally become available next Tuesday, September 24th. (It can be pre-ordered now.) The company who recorded it wanted a professional reader with an in-house recording studio, so they did not offer me the option of reading it myself. But I am reasonably confident in the skills of the reader they selected.
I’m concerned, though, that the audiobook may be harder to follow than the written text. After all, the written text has many figures and a glossary, and it’s more amenable when one wants to review earlier material that appears again in a later section. To mitigate this, I have put the figures, the tables, the glossary, and the endnotes online on this webpage. That way, while you’re listening to the audiobook, you can have the images etc. open in your browser, so that you can access them easily when they are mentioned.
And I do think you should expect to listen to certain sections of the book twice. The ideas of modern physics are very strange indeed. I’m sure that I myself, before I took physics classes, would have had trouble completely absorbing these concepts the first time through.
Let me know how the audiobook works for you! And if you think there’s anything I can do on this website to make the audiobook easier and more accessible, please let me know.
More to ComeMore podcasts and articles are in the works. So is additional supporting material for the book. Stay tuned!
If Drs. Vinay Prasad and Tracy Hoeg want to prove they actually care about routine vaccines, they can do what the should have done a long time ago and openly and unequivocally denounce Mr. Kennedy and his fire hose of anti-vaxx disinformation.
The post A Simple Challenge For Drs. Vinay Prasad and Tracy Hoeg: Denounce Robert Kennedy Jr. For Promoting The Movie Vaxxed 3: Authorized to Kill first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.Computers truly are wonderful things and powerful but only if they are programmed by a skilful mind. Check this out… there is an algorithm that mimics the growth of slim mold but a team of researchers have adapted it to model the large scale structure of the Universe. Since the Big Bang, the universe has been expanding while gravity concentrates matter into galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Between them are vast swathes of empty space called voids. The structure, often referred to as the cosmic web.
The cosmic web is the largest scale structure of the universe and it’s made up of filaments of galaxies and dark matter that stretch across the gulf of space. The filaments connect galaxy clusters with immense voids in between. The web-like structure has formed as a result of the force of gravity pulling matter together since the beginning of time. Studying the cosmic web helps us to piece together the evolution of the universe, how matter is distributed and the relationship with dark matter.
Image from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope of a galaxy cluster that could contain dark matter (blue-shaded region). (Credit: NASA, ESA, M. J. Jee and H. Ford et al. (Johns Hopkins Univ.))Since the early 80’s it’s been known that the nature of a galaxy and its environmental properties has an impact on how it grows and evolves. The exact nature and how this happens is still the cause of many debates. A team of researchers believe they may have demonstrated how galaxies evolve using a slime algorithm!
The team, led by Farhanul Hasan, Professor Joe Burchett and eight co-authors, published their findings ‘Filaments of the Slime Mold Cosmic Web and How they Affect Galaxy Evolution’ in August’s edition of the Astrophysical Journal. In the paper they report how the mold algorithm has helped to unlock mysteries of the cosmos.
Burchett recommended the slime mold algorithm could be used for an astrophysical application. Hasan worked with Burchett and altered the algorithm to help them visualise the cosmic web. The team worked with graphics rendering expert Oskar Elek to use the slime mold algorithm. The mold algorithm was designed to mimic slime mold that could find its own food by reforming itself into a structure much like the cosmic web. It took the team several years to complete their work.
In shaping the Universe, gravity builds a vast cobweb-like structure of filaments tying galaxies and clusters of galaxies together along invisible bridges hundreds of millions of light-years long. A galaxy can move into and out of the densest parts of this web throughout its lifetime. Credit: Volker Springel (Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics) et al.The result produced far more detailed discrete structures than the old method according to Hasan. He added ‘I didn’t know how well it was going to work or not work, but I had a hunch the slime mold method could tell us much more detailed information about how density is structured in the universe, so I decided to give it a try.’
Of the conclusion, Hasan and team found that the impact on galaxies seems to have taken the proverbial u-turn. In earlier epochs, the growth of a galaxy was stimulated by proximity to larger structures. In the near universe, and therefore in cosmologically recent times, we see that galaxy growth is limited by proximity to larger structures. This wasn’t possible without the modified slime mold algorithm. We can now map out the gas around the real universe using the algorithm across many different times to help understand how the web has changed and the universe evolved.
Source : NMSU astronomy research uses slime mold to model galaxies
The post Slime Mold Can Teach Us About the Cosmic Web appeared first on Universe Today.