The Forgotten Rebels of Eureka - Clare Wright

 

Of all the events of Australian history I know least about - Eureka is the top of that list.  Perhaps that is bad, perhaps I am negligent, and perhaps that is reflected in my personal dislike of Unionism.  I don't know.  It does seems somewhat unpatriotic though, it does seem too churlish to not know anything (or at least remembered anything from school) about Eureka, the stockade, the killing of the miner Scobie and the burning of the Hotel owned by the Bentley's.  I feel even more ashamed as Wright articulates that this is “…what all school children know.”  I don't.  Things get worse as I have to teach a unit of Eureka in my Yr. 9 History class in but a few weeks time.  Arggghh.

Wright quotes Blainey:

"Eureka is like a great neon sign with messages that flick on and off with different messages for different people on different occasions." (p xii)

Wright is seeking to use Eureka to "...illuminate issues of gender bias in our collective bedtime stories."  This sort of lefty proposal doesn’t sit well with me.  I was even more concerned when I read the endorsement in the inside cover from the Marxist left review:

“It is exhilarating to encounter a historian who thinks that writing women into history in not about emphasising family life, or portraying women as victims of men, separate from the big struggles for democracy and justice.”

Whoa, what about that then!  As I embarked, I wondered if the Marxist left and I were reading the same book.  Other reviews were closer to fact – the Courier Mail was one:

 “Beautifully written, her book takes readers on a vivid journey of what life was like for the families of the miners, merchants, prostitutes and police … It’s a great story.”

Wright's book is a gambolling ride through the 1850's in Victoria.  Wright is an outstanding story-teller and a truly wonderful writer.  Let me share two wonderful sentences, lightly peppered with alliteration and imagery. 

"But it was not just ideology that wove women into the fabric of the goldfields society.  In the hard-nosed way of British bureaucracy, there were structural provisions made for the reality that woman would be integral to the colonial economy." pg. 135. 

Wright shares that one major difference in the Californian Gold rush and the Victoria one was the abundance of Women on the Goldfields.  This was an ideological ploy, as it was believed that women were a civilising element and that the Australian Goldfields would not degenerate into the lawless frontier that was in the America's.  However, let's look at the writing.

I've marked the alliteration in the text; wove women, British bureaucracy, women would and the pièce de résistance, colonial economy.  Economy, having an iambic foot, sounds like alliteration (actually assonance) because of the unstressed ‘e’ and the stressed ‘c’.  Wright’s writing is sometimes so poetic.  She really is a wonderful writer and I think that I’ll be reading more of her as a result.  Then, of course, there is the fact that the imagery of weaving – working with fabric – is the metaphor used in the first sentence. Finally, there is the lovely way that this sentence is beefed up, injected with testosterone, by beginning with a preposition. It is just marvellous.

The stories are truly wonderful, the tales of immigration and the stories of Sarah Hanmer and Clara Du Val are fascinating, even more so as they develop throughout the book.  The stories of travel sickness and death in unsanitary conditions of the ships, along with the celebrations of crossing the equator line were riveting. The walk to Ballarat, particularly the asides, like how Wright mentions 'The Gap' at Bacchus Marsh.  A place where the dray's got stuck crossing the ravine and had to be pulled out.  They waited for days for this to happen and a good deal of money was made by those who did the pulling out.  This is contrasted with the "nifty rollercoaster stretch" of the Western Highway that we travel today.  It made me scurry along to Google Map to try to locate it.  Of course, the Stockade itself too.

The Scholarship is outstanding and the conclusions drawn do not seem forced.  Janet Kincaid's rather nasty letter to her husband is an interesting find.  Sarah Hanmer and Clara Du Val's lies about themselves demonstrate the desire to make new identities for a New World.  Culminating in the most provocative thesis of the book.  At the end of the chapter 'Parting with my sex' Wright illustrates how Ballarat in 1854 was a functioning township, not a miner's slum or frontier outpost.  She states that Gov. Hotham believed in the inveterate ability of women to humanise and bring order to society.  However, Wright ends, Ballarat '...was heading for a train wreck.  And the women weren't hauling on the brake.  They were stoking the coals.'

Wright's book is a page-turner, comparable to the best fiction writers, yet with the scholarship of a responsible historian.  A truly great read and a chance to learn a lot.  I never felt that I was being assaulted by the left - or an ideology shoved down my throat.  I found myself engulfed in a by-gone era and challenged to think differently.  Truly great writing.

5 Stars

The Alternberg 16 - Suzan Mazur

Independent Journalist Suzan Mazur has written a cracking book about the current state of Evolutionary Theory.  When I say 'cracking' I mean that It was easy to read and that I learnt a lot from it.  There are many drawbacks in her writing style too, so let's not misinterpret 'cracking' for well-written.

Richard Dawkins tells us that Evolution is fact.  However, this book shows that his statement needs to be carefully nuanced.  Here is a veritable list of incredibly clever men and women working in the field of evolutionary biology who dissent from the neo-darwinist claims.  All of them believe in evolution, as in biological change over time, however, the centrepiece of the neo-darwinist modern synthesis is that 'natural selection from random genetic mutations' is the main driver of the evolutionary process.  In 2008, a bunch of academics got together in Altenburg, Vienna to discuss an Extended synthesis that drives biological change.

This book is a series of blog-like posts that Mazur has put together.  It can make for very frustrating reading.  There is no plot, or unveiling of a narrative.  It is a series of interviews, some from those who attended the Altenburg meeting and others who demur with the Modern synthesis.  Dawkins is interviewed too, his hubris is truly ever-present.

I the found the Lima-de-Faria (a cytogeneticist) interview absolutely fascinating.  Quotations like the following are eminently interesting:

"Selection is a political not a scientific concept.  At the time of Darwin it fitted perfectly  the expanding colonialism of Victorian England.  At present, Darwinism has been equated with evolution in an effort to convert it into the ideological arm of globalization (sic)...everybody knows that selection occurs in nature, but the chromosome and the cell circumvent its effect by many molecular mechanisms." (pg.86)

Wow, the fallowness of Dawkins's brazen oversimplifications are manifest in the concerns of many, particularly in the question "What drives evolutionary change?"  I came out of this book further affirmed that we just do not know.

The book is subtitled "An exposé of the Evolution industry."  Nowhere in the book is that more explicit than the interview with Roger Buick (great name), an Australian (trust us to say it as it is), who is head of Earth Sciences and Astrobiology at the University of Washington.

"I don't think academics are co-opted into anything.  But they do tend to follow the money.  There's no coercion in it.  Academics are greedy for cash like anybody else." (pg.160)

Science, like anything, is subject to the whims of man.  Where there is money, the research will follow.  Dr Chris McKay sums up the real problem with neo-darwinism.

"The Darwinian paradigm breaks down in two obvious ways.  First, and most clear, Darwinian selection cannot be responsible for the origin of life.  Secondly, there is some thought that Darwinian selection cannot fully explain the rise of complexity at the molecular level." (Pg. 213)

Dr Chris McKay is a NASA astrobiologist.  In the only personal touch in the book that didn't make me roll my eyes, but made me laugh, Mazur says,

'Over the phone I detect a touch of William Shatner's Kirk in the voice of NASA astrobiologist Christopher P. McKay." (pg.200)

The evolution industry is beset by political pressure, money and High priest-like dogmatism and is muddier than what it's apologists would lead you to believe.  Mazur's book shows some of this and it is no wonder that the PZ Meyers of this world vehemently decry it's worth.  It is not really well written and can be a difficult book to grapple with because of it' structure.  However, Mazur is an intelligent journalist and she knows her stuff, asks the right questions and draws coherent conclusions.

Some interesting content, too much repetition, too much with the familial statements - could have been better presented.  Also, while the book contains full transcripts of interviews, the salient details could have been extracted for a book 2/3's it's size.  Good to ensure context - lots of laborious reading.

3 out of 5 stars.

In the beginning...we misunderstood - J Miller & J Soden

This is a well written little book by two conservative Christians, both with PhD's from Dallas Theological Seminary.  Neither of these men believe in the 'Young Earth Creationist' viewpoint.  When I was a new Christian, one of the first books that I was given was Ken Ham's "The Lie", with his lambasting and polemical invective against Evolutionary theory and Modern Science.  He espoused a belief in understanding Science through the prism of Scripture.  Miller & Soden accurately attest to this 'concordism' in theology, and they, correctly in my view, dismiss its worth.

The purpose of this book is to show conservative Christians that Ken Ham's and J Sarfarti's views of a young earth and seven literal 24 hour days of creation is not the only goat in the shed.  There are a plethora of views available to them, and it doesn't mean rejecting the faith or denying the truth of God's Word.

I soon came to find Young Earth Creationism (YEC) to be confusing and misguided.  This was not because of a belief in Modern Science - that would be concords, rather from what the text, itself says.
This can be an uncomfortable issue for many conservative Christians.  However, it shouldn't be.  It really exposes a hugh flaw in Bible teaching and literacy in Churches today.  Unfortunately most conservative Christians believe the lie that they must be YEC or they have rejected God's Word to us.  It seems that issues of inspiration, inerrancy, hermeneutics and exegesis are simply either misunderstood by most Church leaders or they are not trained in them.  This is true of my local Church - the Pastor has done courses in counselling and ministry - not doctrine or systematic theology.  It is no wonder that the Creation mob from Brisbane has such a strong foothold where they really shouldn't.

"Young Earth Creationists are one kind of concordats.  They read Genesis 1 through a particular set of scientific lenses that assume it presents the material origins of the Universe, and therefore it is science.  They start with the Bible and read science into it." (pg. 36)

Old Earth Creationists, like myself, can also be concordists and conclude that from Modern science that the days of Genesis are not literal - rather figurative.  It seems to me that both have a high view of Scripture and that both are dedicated but both are in error as concords is the wrong interpretive tool to use in understanding Genesis.

The preliminary chapters in this book are a fantastic introduction for the lay Christian and the non believer in the state of the discussion at the moment.  Chapters 3 & 4 deal with how to understand Genesis and what is it's purpose.  They are a simplistic but accurate overview.  It is not a Waltke or Walton commentary (both recommended for those interested in further reading) but it is an excellent summary.

For instance, the Toledoth table on page 60 is valuable, for further detail though, Sailhamer's "The meaning of the Pentateuch" is more detailed.  Although, from this chart the believer should be able to mount an argument against those who claim that Genesis 1 & 2 are two contradicting creation accounts.

Miller & Soden then go on to analyse the Hebrew Creation account in Genesis with the Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Canaanite creation myths.  In alternating chapters we have similarities and the differences of each.  Again, reading Walton's "The lost world of Genesis one" or particularly Oswalt's "The Bible and the Myths" one will get more information, but it is a wonderful introduction to the Ancient Near Eastern writings and particularly the Creation Myths.

Understanding an ancient and nuanced text like Genesis 1 & 2 needs understanding of ancient language, customs, worldview, archeology and alike - it is a complex matter.  Atheistic scientists who claim that the YEC is the only feasible view and then rip it to shreds are themselves irresponsible with the text.  The placing of the text amongst the other ancient narratives is important - although I am not as certain that it is as important as Miller & Soden think.

One of the best sections of this book is the discussion on 'Death before Adam and Eve'( pg 166-171).  This deals with a theological question that YEC seem to think is a knock-down argument against more figurative approaches.  If animal death before Human kind existed before sin - then sin could not have entered with Adam and therefore cannot be expiated through Jesus.  This question is important but easily answered - Miller & Soden do it well.  Dembski, in his book the 'End of Christianity' answers it in a way that I find more plausible.  But either answer is fine with me.

Any criticisms of the book?  I have some quibbles, however, in the light of what it is supposed to do:

"...helping laypeople and students ask the most vital interpretative question that needs to be asked in the study of any portion of Scripture:  What did the original author (and Author) mean for the original readers?" pg 190

I think that it is quite a success.  Although mostly for lay readers.

4 out of 5 stars

The Churchill Factor - Boris Johnson

I love reading about Churchill.  Despite his many failures, he was an outstanding Statesman and a true hero - a dying breed.  Boris Johnson however, the mop-haired, affectionally toffy-nosed, slightly drunk on Sherry, Lord Major of London, is another thing all together.  He seemed to me one part comedian, one part conservative politician and two parts liberal democrat.  However, in this book I can see why the Lord Major of London is so very endearing.

I relate so much to the opening of the book; Boris shares how he grew up believing that Churchill was the greatest Statesman of all time, and he used to read Martin Gilbert's "Churchill: a life in pictures".  My Dad has this book - I remember pouring over the pictures of Churchill amazed at the fawning adulation and the pomp and ceremony that surrounded him.  He was the Wartime Prime minister, he saw Hitler for who he really was - no one but Churchill was capable of leading Britain during the War.  Then Johnson mentions his wit:

Colville, Churchill's chief whip had to bear the unhappy news of some homosexual behaviour involving a cabinet member in public - the exchange went:

""Did I hear you correctly in saying that so-and-so has been caught with a Guardsman?"  

""Yes, Prime Minister."  

"In Hyde Park?" 

""Yes, Prime Minister."  

""On a park bench?"

""That's right, Prime Minister."

""At three o'clock in the morning?"

""That's correct, Prime Minister."

""In this weather!  Good God, man, it makes you proud to be British!"" [Pg. 3] 

 Johnson has such overwhelming respect for Churchill - he defends him from his enemies and tries to reason why he has been mis-represented.  He is honest about his mistakes and errors; he is forthright about his ego and hubris.  Yet, Churchill is an endearing character and he sparkles when seen through Johnson's eyes.

The book is Johnson's - he somewhat ostentatiously recounts standing in the places where Churchill stood - drinking beer on Churchill's battlefield in Belgium and being chased off by a local farmer.  He has a great balance between modern ways of communicating and a respect for language.  Boris Johnson is a clever man - cleverer than I thought - maybe not as conservative as I thought - but intelligent.  He writes in a warm, affectacious manner in which both he and Churchill feel like familiar friends.

The book is discussed with funny Churchillian witticisms and even ones that weren't his (but were good for a laugh anyhow).  I loved the section on America, it was revealing and interesting and hilarious and emotional all at the same time.  Churchill great line about having to kiss America on all four cheeks was funny and the decision to avoid Roosevelt's funeral was disquieting.

The bombing of the French fleet, the Dardanelles disaster and the failed WWII battles were all brought up as Johnson wanted a warts and all discussion.  However, it always has a love for Churchill behind it all.  This is Johnson's model of leadership; and it answers a number of questions about Boris too.

There is a section worth quoting as it has to do with Churchill's prescient understanding of events and the popular political views of the time.  It is a section which cautions us to listen to those that bring bad news, that challenge current thinking and buck the popular perspective.

Churchill made a speech in Fulton, Missouri in 1946 that was a warning to America about the dangers of Communism and the advent of the 'Iron Curtain'.  He was predictably demonised by the Russians, labelling him a warmonger.  However, for a man views have been vindicated by history, he was subjected to inimical invective from within his own party and people.

"'Winston must go' was the word from the lunch tables.  labour MP's were so scandalised by his red-baiting that they called on Atlee to repudiate the speech...they tabled a censure against Churchill" [pg. 288]

 Many today censure and restrict the truth.  It seems to me that Churchill's brilliance lay in his refusal to give credence to the denouncement of others.

"A lesser man would have packed it in, and gone off too...paint.  Not Churchill.  He never gave up; he never gave in...." [pg275]

5 Stars -so enjoyable.

My Grammar and I (or should that be 'me'?) - Taggart & Wines

This is advertised as the "Eats shoots and leaves..." of Grammar.  Well it isn't as funny.  However, it is eminently readable and enjoyable.

I had heard that is was wrong to split an infinitive - but I didn't really know what that meant.  Apparently the verb after the word 'to' cannot be split.  Star Trek is the most famous error in this regard.  "To boldly go where no man has gone before."  This should be "To go boldly..."  You can't split the infinitive.

I must admit that it was grand to be able to put names to the turns of phrase that have irritated me.  I particularly loath modern sports parlance; but have not understood exactly why it is erroneous.  When sports players refer to themselves with the pronoun 'myself' when it should be 'me' or 'I'.  For example, '... the boys and myself' or '... they are to report to myself.'  This is the misuse of the reflexive pronoun.  It should be 'I' if you are a part of the subject or 'me' if you are the object.  The reflexive pronouns should only be used when the subject and the object of the verb are the same person.  'I speak for myself."

I really enjoyed the section on tense and moods.  Ever since I first came across Anslem's ontological argument, I have been fascinated by modal logic.  So, the subjunctive mood was a particularly interesting section.  However, you have to go step by step.

1)  We all know what a verb is but do we know what auxiliary verbs are? Well, auxiliary verbs are used to indicate the tense, voice and mood of another verb where this is not indicated by inflection.(pg.75)  Bet you didn't know that there are only twenty-three of them in the English language.  We can memorise auxiliary verbs by singing them to jingle bells:

There you go - the twenty-three auxiliary verbs.

2)  Conditional clauses in the subjunctive mood are statements of the possible or counterfactual.  For example, 'If I were rich, I would be happier than I am now'.  This is a conditional statement in the subjunctive mood - a counterfactual statement of the possible.  Now the auxiliary verbs 'was' and 'were' are crucial in these sentences.  The verb 'was' denotes a fact; 'were' is used for counterfactuals.  Dr who illustrates:

Rattigan (Child genius):  'If only that was possible'.   

Dr Who:  'If only that were possible.  Conditional clause.'   

Dr Who: The Sontarian Stratagem 

 This is a great book - full of interesting examples, funny anecdotes and lots of Grammar.  Enjoy.
5 stars

Cricket as I see it - Allan Border

A family holiday when I was 15/16 yrs. old was a turning point in my reading life.  We rented a house in a beautiful part of Phillip Island for a week or two over January.  We didn't have TV, but we did have a Pool Table.  I was a 'sleep in until midday' if possible type of teenager and most mornings I would wake at seven or eight and not get out of bed until twelve.  In the room that I was sleeping in was a bookshelf full of cricket books - I randomly picked up a book by Max Walker.  It was full of funny anecdotes about Doug Walters and 'Tangles' cricketing life.  I devoured three or four of them that holiday - and despite the fact that they are badly written they were rollicking tales and fed my love of cricket.  From that time I started to read cricket books - none of them are good literature - but they are an easy entertaining read.

That is until Gideon Haigh started writing about cricket; what a great writer.  I'm also glad for the Kindle that I got for my birthday a few years ago.  One feels somewhat embarrassed - like you are a voyeur - when one reads about Shane Warne.  I was able to download Haigh's great book on Warne, without having to ask for it in public.  Haigh's inspiring writing, magnificent metaphors of cricket paralleling life - his passionate embellishment an his intellectual prowess takes cricket reading to a new level.

So, I'm on holiday in Far North Queensland and in my lackadaisical mindset can't quite get into a book on Art metaphysics yet - so i saw Allan Border's book in the shop and thought that it would be a nice easy read.

My childhood friend, Tim, had an uncle who was an MCC member.  I remember sitting in the members stand and rushing over to the players walkway as they came out and patting Allan Border and Craig McDermott on the back.  I always admired Border, his sheer grit and determination, and the taking of the captaincy against the backdrop of the Kim Hughes debacle.

Well, this book is the trite cricket anecdotes that never fail to put a smile on my face.  Borders thoughts are repetitive and quite disorganised.  The problem with talking about 'cricket today' is that it rapidly becomes out of date.  Border extols Phil Hughes virtues as a batsman and thinks he should get another go in the team.  Of course, some weeks after the book was published - Hughes died in that tragic cricket accident.

Borders thoughts are interesting because they are Border's thoughts.  However, they are superficial and somewhat banal.  It was a bit tedious when he went through his best world XI - then his best Australian XI - then his best fun XI - sigh.

If you like cricket books - it's a fun read though.

2-3 Stars.

The Soul - JP Moreland

Moreland is one of my favourite philosophers - I never fail to be challenged by what I have learnt and in every book he shows himself to be the real deal.  I was fascinated with the Mind/Body issue after reading his chapter in "Philosophical foundations of a Christian Worldview" many years ago.  In 2012 I purchased his remarkable book "Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument."  I read about half of it with a pencil in my hand, defining words and trying to link ideas.  It was too hard for me.  I put it back on the shelf and thought that I must come back to it later.  Then Moreland published this - a laypersons account of his argument and I rushed to buy it.  Complete with his argument against Naturalism, "The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism," I am ready to digest what Moreland has to say about the Soul and it's existence.  

So, this is the first of his three books on the Mind/Body issue that I will try to read this year.  I have a couple of others to balance out my views too.  So, wow, what an easy book to read, he defines some terms and is helpful for the lay reader whenever possible.  In fact, the chapter summary and glossary at the end of each chapter is fantastic.  There is a few pages of difficult reading when Moreland looks at different types of Physicalim and he shifts easily into more academic philosophical writing.  He states that one should feel free to skip over this section of the book if it causes issues.  Many would do that I think.

This book is written for Christian’s as a defense of the belief of the Soul.  In fact, Chapter 2 is dedicated to analyzing the Biblical text to see if belief in a non-material Soul is a necessary part of Christian belief.  He concludes that it is – I think he is correct.

However, this book is not just for Christians – it should be picked up by anyone wanting to understand the basic arguments around the mind/body issues.  This is an outstanding introduction to philosophy of the mind.  In chapter one there is a section where Moreland states that modern advances in Neuroscience have not advanced the dialogue in any meaningful way.  He repeatedly makes the point that substance dualism/property dualism and various brands of Physcialism are empirically equivalent.  The scientific data fits with all the views and the philosophical arguments are where the real issues lie.  This is clearly not the view of the Physicalists as they view dualism as ‘Folk psychology’.  Moreland is really quite persuasive here.

Leibneitzian laws of identity are the key to understanding the arguments.  Moreland does a great job explaining it all.  I like the modal argument myself and find it very convincing although I understand that most people don’t feel its force.

The last chapter is worth the price of the book itself – Moreland seeks to explain why the Soul is important and how it links to Christian belief.  He provides a persuasive case for Christian Theism and gives thoughtful response to objections. 

I think that this is an area in which Christians will need to understand more &more, and actively engage with.  What constitutes personhood in the cases of Euthanasia and Abortion?  These are issues of contention and areas of attack from the secular world.  This world is becoming increasingly secular and I believe this will increasingly rob humanity of hope, meaning, purpose and moral truth.  The 'Soul' is a key battleground and one everyone should be conversant with.

I particularly enjoyed Moreland’s dealing with Near Death experiences and with Ebon Alexander, a materialist Neurosurgeon changing his mind about the soul after a Near Death Experience in recent years; Dualism is not going away.

Any negatives?  I would like more on the difference between Cartesian and Thomistic Dualism.  I would also like to see other non-identity based arguments for and against Dualism.  I'm sure that I will get this as I delve more into the literature.

5 Stars – Should be read by everyone