Alaska lives on as a land that few Americans get a chance to experience. So vast and beautiful it is, but so remote at the same time. A land whose history has changed the whole world, Alaska's mystic history reveals itself in the book "Alaska" by James A. Michener. The book is broken up into a collection of stories that collectively amount to well over 900 pages of pure history. The first story is the most historically accurate, and the one that I read. Trofim Zhdanko, the main character, is a convict in Russia during the early 1700's. Zhdanko faces a death sentence, but is confronted by Peter the Great the night before his execution. Peter the Great and Zhdanko have a friendly history, and they work out a deal before the night ends. The agreement involves Zhdanko, among others, traveling the unknown lands of Alaska. The man in charge of the expedition, Vitus Bering, and Trofim Zhdanko lead the adventure through Alaska, which involves various discoveries and factual events. The true nature of the story just leads an expanded excitement for what comes next.
This book would surely appeal to anyone who enjoys adventure. Michener takes these factual characters and events and essentially retells what history has already told us. The catch here is that Michener adds his story telling ways to the text. This skill allows the reader to get lost in the text without even knowing they are essentially reading the equivalent of a terrific history text book. I now know so much more not only about Alaska's history, but Russia's as well. It was a terrific read that captivated me from the moment I caught sight of the first word.
I wouldn't generally grab a book off the shelf that was purely about history, but I now realize that it might not be a terrible idea. The historical aspect allowed me to be more informed about history while thoroughly enjoying the text. In the end "Alaska" by James A. Michener proved to be a special piece of literature that not only brought to light the past, but the joy a good read can give.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Monday, September 1, 2014
"In Darwin's Footsteps" Blog
"In Darwin's Footsteps" by Jonathan Weiner fooled me in terms of its content. Weiner makes a case for the work of the Grants (Peter and Rosemary). The essay follows a chronological order that makes the reader realize the true significance of the Grants. The Grants were able to make their groundbreaking discoveries because of two variables-- the island and Big Bird.
Daphne Major served as the island that would propel the Grants to their finest discoveries. The island was different from the Galapogas Islands, where Darwin did his research, in several ways. The Galapogas Islands were many and vast. Daphne Major was as Weiner puts it best, "big enough to support many hundreds of finches, but small enough that the Grants and their students and assistants could band and recognize and measure almost every bird." This aspect was key in their many discoveries, as their time was also much more extended from Darwin's. Darwin spent only five weeks in the Galapogas Islands, enough time for plenty of discoveries, but not a lifetime's worth. The Grant's have been in close contact with the Daphne Major since 1973. Time was also on their side, which proved to be pivotal because of the true power of evolution. Darwin was the first to bring forth many of these ideas of evolution and survival of the fittest, but he failed to entirely recognize the power of evolution. This is where the Grants surfaced on their island as real physical changes occurred over the generations of birds. The Grants were able to refine these ideas when a single hybrid finch arrived on the island, Big Bird as they called him.
This bird had several physical advantages over the average finches on the island. The author sums up his superiority best when he states, " Big Bird became a patriarch. He lived 13 years, a long time for one of Darwin's finches. His children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren all sang his song, and they were clannish." The population flourished over the years as the new birds became acclimated to Daphne Major. The Grants were present this whole time on this little island that allowed tremendous research to be done. The author states about the Grant's success, "The Grants have won just about every award in their field, including the prestigious 2009 Kyoto Prize in Basic Science." Weiner adds a snippet in the article after this that shows their is no category for evolution for the Nobel Prize. This tugs at the assumption that Weiner believes they would have won this award as well.
The case for the Grant's work surely presents itself greatly, even in comparison to the work of Darwin. The island and Big Bird proved to be two components that led the Grants to a world of international recognition. Darwin has universal recognition, but the work of the Grants may well be on its way to that very same title.
Daphne Major served as the island that would propel the Grants to their finest discoveries. The island was different from the Galapogas Islands, where Darwin did his research, in several ways. The Galapogas Islands were many and vast. Daphne Major was as Weiner puts it best, "big enough to support many hundreds of finches, but small enough that the Grants and their students and assistants could band and recognize and measure almost every bird." This aspect was key in their many discoveries, as their time was also much more extended from Darwin's. Darwin spent only five weeks in the Galapogas Islands, enough time for plenty of discoveries, but not a lifetime's worth. The Grant's have been in close contact with the Daphne Major since 1973. Time was also on their side, which proved to be pivotal because of the true power of evolution. Darwin was the first to bring forth many of these ideas of evolution and survival of the fittest, but he failed to entirely recognize the power of evolution. This is where the Grants surfaced on their island as real physical changes occurred over the generations of birds. The Grants were able to refine these ideas when a single hybrid finch arrived on the island, Big Bird as they called him.
This bird had several physical advantages over the average finches on the island. The author sums up his superiority best when he states, " Big Bird became a patriarch. He lived 13 years, a long time for one of Darwin's finches. His children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren all sang his song, and they were clannish." The population flourished over the years as the new birds became acclimated to Daphne Major. The Grants were present this whole time on this little island that allowed tremendous research to be done. The author states about the Grant's success, "The Grants have won just about every award in their field, including the prestigious 2009 Kyoto Prize in Basic Science." Weiner adds a snippet in the article after this that shows their is no category for evolution for the Nobel Prize. This tugs at the assumption that Weiner believes they would have won this award as well.
The case for the Grant's work surely presents itself greatly, even in comparison to the work of Darwin. The island and Big Bird proved to be two components that led the Grants to a world of international recognition. Darwin has universal recognition, but the work of the Grants may well be on its way to that very same title.
Hitler and Putin: A Tale of Two Authoritarians
This essay covered various topics, led primarily by the comparison of Hitler to Putin and the status of democracy. The author juggles the two topics creating an act that coherently works to prove the author's opinion. The piece of writing does a superb job dispersing the information throughout the essay allowing the facts to run parallel with the ideas at the points in the essay.
Not many people would make the comparison of Hitler and Putin because people feel we are well removed from the time period in which Nazis made a run at world at world dominance. The author of this article thinks otherwise as he presents several instances in which Hitler and Putin are similar. The author states about how both came of diminished societies and imposed their will, "The real lesson is that dictatorships, especially fascist dictatorships built on the ruins of collapsed empires, are prone to do bad things, such as engage in imperialistic ways." The author is not completely blind in his remarks, as he is correct in saying that both have emerged as rulers after "the ruins of collapsed empires." The "imperialistic ways" part also begs for attention as recent actions of Russia would prove this author correct. Taking the Crimea and attempting to snatch part of Ukraine both ring alarms of imperialism. The author also connects the two when writing both the rulers "constructed regimes that may justifiably be called fascist." Hitler had his whole government on board the regime. Although Putin may not have his whole government on board, he has his knock off of the KGB that allows him essentially total control. These two men shared various qualities, and their distaste for democracy surely was one of them.
The author focused the second half of the essay on the democracy, and the distinct advantages democracies have. The ability to evade war arises as one of the primary advantages that democracies offer. The author compares this to a dictatorship by saying, "Dictators are more prone to war precisely because they can manipulate public opinion and ruthlessly pursue whatever warped visions they have without much resistance from institutions and elites." The author favors obviously favors democracy, but does not praise it as some may. This apparent because of the famous quote from Winston Churchill that he uses. Churchill stated, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." A truly genius quote it is, because it captures the true superiority of democracy without calling it the perfect society.
When the essay was all finished, the juggling act would prove to be a success. The comparison of Hitler and Putin, and the status of democracy would both help the writer's opinion form a greater hold of the reader's mind.
Not many people would make the comparison of Hitler and Putin because people feel we are well removed from the time period in which Nazis made a run at world at world dominance. The author of this article thinks otherwise as he presents several instances in which Hitler and Putin are similar. The author states about how both came of diminished societies and imposed their will, "The real lesson is that dictatorships, especially fascist dictatorships built on the ruins of collapsed empires, are prone to do bad things, such as engage in imperialistic ways." The author is not completely blind in his remarks, as he is correct in saying that both have emerged as rulers after "the ruins of collapsed empires." The "imperialistic ways" part also begs for attention as recent actions of Russia would prove this author correct. Taking the Crimea and attempting to snatch part of Ukraine both ring alarms of imperialism. The author also connects the two when writing both the rulers "constructed regimes that may justifiably be called fascist." Hitler had his whole government on board the regime. Although Putin may not have his whole government on board, he has his knock off of the KGB that allows him essentially total control. These two men shared various qualities, and their distaste for democracy surely was one of them.
The author focused the second half of the essay on the democracy, and the distinct advantages democracies have. The ability to evade war arises as one of the primary advantages that democracies offer. The author compares this to a dictatorship by saying, "Dictators are more prone to war precisely because they can manipulate public opinion and ruthlessly pursue whatever warped visions they have without much resistance from institutions and elites." The author favors obviously favors democracy, but does not praise it as some may. This apparent because of the famous quote from Winston Churchill that he uses. Churchill stated, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." A truly genius quote it is, because it captures the true superiority of democracy without calling it the perfect society.
When the essay was all finished, the juggling act would prove to be a success. The comparison of Hitler and Putin, and the status of democracy would both help the writer's opinion form a greater hold of the reader's mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)