Beach Haven

In several articles National Geographic authors describe various topics connected with slavery and the ship known as the Clotilda. This particular ship is noted because it was the last ship to bring enslaved people from Africa to the United States. The final voyage was after a law was past that made it illegal to bring new slaves to this country, though the law at that point did not make slavery itself illegal. The ship owners and crew were obviously aware they were breaking the law because they offloaded their cargo in clandestine ways. As soon as they did, they sailed her up a river where they burned and sank the ship.

The series of articles includes depictions of the technology of the ship Clotilda itself. There is a series of maps (another form of technical knowledge) depicting slave-ship routes and numbers of enslaved people forced along each of the routes between Africa and various parts of North America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. For example, the map shows how mainland North America received 307,000 slaves directly. At the same time over 4 million were taken to the Caribbean, many later were moved into North America, or the products they created directly benefited North American people. The map shows around 3.8 million were sent to mainland South America, with perhaps similar North American benefit. One other bit of technology I’d like to mention is the use of modern underwater tools to find and document the final whereabouts of the Clotilda. Underwater archaeology was not really possible to any extent even in the early part my lifetime. Here we are today with sophisticated imaging to find anomalies that we can then directly approach and explore in the water environment.

Archives and media are other forms of communication technology here. Sales of humans were documented, but so were the aftermath events to the people who were Clotilda victims. This issue of the National Geographic magazine describes the lives of some of them after emancipation, and their efforts to settle a new town that still exists today. Africatown, AL still has buildings built by its founders, many of whom were Clotilda survivors and their descendants.

As one who studies societal effects of technology and technological effects by social issues, I’m reminded by this series of stories how human aims drive technical development for well or ill. Acts of both evil and good were facilitated by and inspired creation of specific forms of technology. These kinds of stories remind me why the ideas of technological determinism are relegated to former thought, and themes of co-production are more generally accepted. Specific technical expression is not inevitable, but influenced. Social choice is not driven by technical advances, but both change each other. For example, despite all our access to online texts, when we lost electrical power in our home this past winter my hands and eyes turned to hard-copy. When I spend long hours in a car my ears turn to the same content through hands-free connectivity. These options and their use came to be by choice and the inspiration of necessity. None of that technical expression was inevitable.

Bibliography
Bourne, Joel K. 2020. "Cruel Commerce." National Geographic, February: 52.
—. 2020. "Saving Africatown." National Geographic, February: 61-65.
Brasted, Chelsea. 2020. "Owning the Past." National Geographic, February: 66-67.
Diouf, Sylviane. 2020. "Journey of No Return." National Geographic, February: 53-55.
 

This past Saturday I decided to take advantage of nice weather and a little time on my crowded schedule to go for a trail run. I went to Crow’s Nest Natural Area Preserve near our home. I have run all the trails in this place a number of times over the years. This particular run was along the Crow’s Nest Point Trail. 

A few hundred yards from the far end of the trail, near the point, there sits a monument containing a set of tableau erected on behalf of the Daniel family. They were early owners of the property that encompasses what is now Crow’s Nest. I sometimes hike the paths with a camera and shoot pictures. Sooner or later I'd like to get a stabilizing mechanism for my SLR and shoot a set of videos showing each of the paths. In either case, I thought I’d document for this blog the words on the memorial at the end of the trail. The far right tableau speaks to the family graveyard. I have not walked around to see if other headstones exist, but on initial look there are no more than what you see there. There are three flag stones on the ground in front of the memorial, but they contain no text. They may correspond to the three tableau above them, but it is not clear.
​

Tableau 1 Text
A testimonial of love and veneration for one who merited and possessed the veneration and love of all by whom he was known one faithful and exemplary in every domestic and social relation in every duty of a Christian: TRAVERS DANIEL, Senr. Born May 26, 1741 – Died June 18, 1824
​

Tableau 2 Text
This marble is erected in affectionate remembrance of the devoted wife, the tender mother, the humble and pious Christian: FRANCES DANIEL, (illegible) Travers Daniel, Senr. (birth and death dates illegible)
​

Top Center Grave Stone Text
Here lies the body of ELIZA TRAVERS DANIEL daughter of Travers and Mildred Daniel who departed this life in her 21 year Oct 29th, 1823 In the hour of death so strong was her faith in the savior of the world that her fondest friends in meditating on what they witnessed forbore to weep at what they lost: they communed with their own hearts and were still.

Bottom Center Grave Stone Text
E.T.D. (for Eliza Travers Daniel)
​

Tableau 3 Text
To the memory of Mrs. MILDRED DANIEL who was born in Charles County, Maryland Feby. 27th 1772 and died in the County of Stafford Virginia, October 17th 1837. She was the widow of TRAVERS DANIEL & daughter of Thomas Stone of Maryland, a signer of the declaration of Independence. Mrs. DANIEL lived and died an exemplary Christian. “Precious in the sight of the Lord in the death of his Saints.”  I. Psa. 116:15
​

Tableau 4 Text
DANIEL FAMILY GRAVEYARD
“Crow’s Nest”, 3500 acres, was granted to Raleigh Travers in 1665. He married Hannah Ball. Their daughter Sara, aunt of George Washington and great aunt of James Madison, married Peter Daniel, Justice of Stafford County. He was the son of James Daniel and Grandson of Capt. William Daniel, who settled in Middlesex County in 1669. Their son, Travers Daniel, 1741-1824, married Francis Moncure and had eleven children. Among them were:

Raleigh Travers Daniel, 1763-1824, married Mildred Stone, daughter of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was twice Attorney General of Virginia and Lt. Governor.

Peter Vivian Daniel, 1784-1813, first married Maria Niven in Scotland, where he had studied medicine. Second, Margaret Stone, sister of his brother’s wife. Their grandson, John Moncure Daniel III was minister to Italy and editor of the Richmond Examiner.

Dr. J.M. Daniel’s third marriage was to Maria Vowles in 1810. Their son, Dr. John Henry Moncure Daniel, 1813-1891, graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and married Fenton Mercer Brooke, 1828-1875. Their three sons, John Moncure, Selden Brooke, and Thomas Cushing were born at Crow’s Nest before the home was destroyed during the northern invasion.
​
Erected by their descendants 2002

Here in Virginia winter has continued. We have had a series of snow and icy rain storms moving through Stafford, and the forecast says there are more to come. Clearly Punxsutawney Phil got things right this year. Between storms it stays cold, and the ground stays alternatively frozen or muddy. It’s made outside yard chores a bit more challenging, but I’m managing to clear some wood-fall, seed some bad yard patches, and till up some garden spots. If you want things to blossom in their time, work is required early.

In our gospel work we know that too. It’s true that church work is about the harvest. Gospel work is also about preparing ground, sewing seeds, and feeding truth and the Spirit for those who will follow to the harvest. Others have done some of that work for our harvest. We do similarly for others who later harvest. I’m reminded of how the Mormon pioneers approached the westward migration from Illinois to Utah. Along the path they planted grain fields. These were fields they would never actually harvest and eat from themselves. They planted those fields for the waves that would follow them on the same trail.

If you’ve ever been through western Nebraska and looked at the various trails west you would see how God’s wisdom was at work. One year while traveling from our home in Lincoln, Nebraska where we lived at the time to visit family in Utah, we decided to travel along the pioneer route (now known mostly as Route 2). At one point we stopped in Scottsbluff and went to the top to look over the expansive valley divided by the North Platte River that flows from west to east. There’s an observation point on top the bluff with all sorts of information. As it turns out the Oregon Trail passes through the same place. Oregon-bound migrants traveled on the south side of the river. Church members traveled on the north side. I found that curious as eventually those bound for Oregon would cross the river and head northwest. Those bound for the Salt Lake Valley would follow the river to the west-southwest. That means at some point along the way the trails crossed each other. In either case, by traveling on the north side church pioneers were able to plant their storehouse fields for those to follow without the harvest being taken by other travelers who might not have understood their purpose.

In our studies of the Doctrine and Covenants this year, my wife and I discussed some ideas of predestination and foreordination as shown through the story of the lost 116 pages of translation from the book of Lehi within The Book of Mormon. Nearly two thousand years before Joseph Smith received the plates from Moroni, Heavenly Father inspired Mormon to include the small plates of Nephi in his condensed version of the Nephite history. A thousand years earlier still He inspired Nephi to keep two sets of plates with similar information, but with a different focus. Those two small decisions allowed God to inspire Joseph Smith to publish The Book of Mormon while thwarting the evil intent of whoever stole the 116 pages of manuscript from him.

Were those with the evil intent of changing the words on the manuscript predestined to harbor those thoughts and attempt to discredit the prophet? If not then Heavenly Father might not have needed to inspire both Nephi and later Mormon about the small plates. Yet, all have agency. If it were not so we could easily fall prey to the idea that everything we do is preset and we have no agency. Some argue in favor of predestination to excuse poor behavior as if they have no choice. Many scientists and philosophers argue this point about whether or not we actually have agency, not from a religious perspective, but relying on logic. Some combination of genetics, chemistry, and circumstance cause our actions, they say.

Yet the gospel teaches that we do have agency, and are accountable at some level for what we do, say and think. I argue the foreknowledge of God does not preclude our agency. We are certainly influenced by genetics, chemistry, and circumstance. Influence is not a determinant, no matter how much the reasoning of science and philosophy says so.

One of the blessings of this life is the ability to develop faith. That only comes because Heavenly Father wisely removed memory of our pre-earth life. What we call a veil of forgetfulness also helps answer the question of the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and our agency as opposed to predestination. He may know all things, but thanks to the veil, we don’t. We are influenced by our own strengths, limitations and circumstance. We all are responsible within the varying levels of light we have received in our life. Ultimately Christ knows the level of our culpability and repentance, and He will be our judge. The experience of it all is a learning and growth opportunity for us. The knowledge we do not yet possess, that He does, makes our choices an act of agency, not mechanical predestination. In the end we will all agree his judgement is both just and merciful.

Just as the pioneers knew the blessing their field planting would be to those who followed, God knew the small plates would bless those to follow. The pioneer planters and reapers both had the choice to plant or reap, but those who reaped only had the choice because of those who chose to sew. Oregon-bound migrants did not sew, and none behind them were blessed. This all sounds a lot like the work of bringing souls to Christ.
​

Guldi, Jo. 2019. "Parliament's Debates About Infrastructure: An Exercise in Using Dynamic Topic Models to Sythesize Historical Change." Edited by Suzanne Moon. Technology and Cuture: The International Quarterly of the Society for the History of Technology (Johns Hokins University Press) 60 (1): 1-33.

Reviewed by Michael Beach

This article looks at data generated through text mining of debates held in British Parliament regarding social infrastructure from 1800 through 1890 with the specific intent to “test the usefulness of text-mining methods” (p.3) for a specific microhistory and for synthesized macrohistorical trends. The study links infrastructure words with specific project types, and also shows how evolving infrastructure terms show government priority shifts over time. Guldi intends to show how the data can “reveal new tensions and turning points that characterized the uptake of infrastructure” (Ibid.) over time.

Historians have long debated the usefulness of looking at a microhistory and extrapolating trends in macrohistory, or how such trends can be read into individual microhistorical events. One example shared based on the word association data was the amount of infrastructure debate investment Parliament put toward piers and dredging in the River Shannon. As expected there was more attention to major needs on River Thames, but what is surprising was how such a lesser-known body of water like River Shannon attracted so much attention. For example it is mentioned considerably more than work destined for the Nile, Clyde, Trent and Severn rivers, all of which the author notes as having more significant economic value.

The data tables offered are persuasive in terms of how computer-based datamining can quickly find these historical shifts not easily captured otherwise. Guldi ultimately concludes that micro- and macrohistories complement each other. This larger conclusion seems more opinion than can be synthesized from the arguments made through the word-association data. Historians of technology are the specific intended audience, but historians in general may find such a computer-based tool helpful in other areas of research. 

For the mid-term this semester we selected two topics from among six. I wrote these in reverse order. The first to appear was actually the second I wrote, and was rushed in the process. I think it shows. 

De-centering the ‘Big Picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the Modern Origins of Science
By Adrew Cunningham and Perry Williams
 
In this article, the authors look at historical approaches to science. They divide scientific histories into two sorts, those that seek a macro story, and those that focus on more personal experience. The macro version of history attempts to paint broad patterns. Patterns and major milestones dominate the depictions. The micro version of history tends to focus on individual scientist experience and resultant breakthroughs.
 
The origins of modern science refers to the period of time in seventeenth century Europe commonly referred to as the scientific revolution. The authors note at the macro level historians in general consider areas of:

• Philosophical - particular method of inquiry to produce general causal laws - mathematical
• Moral - basic values of freedom and rationality, truth and goodness, social and material progress
• Universal human enterprise - human curiosity - new humanism - science as human civilization

 
In the area of modern origins of science focus is more about a plurality of ways to know the world. The is an expression of a transition from considering nature as created by God, to an attempt to understand natural processes.
 
When the authors speak to de-centering the big picture histories, they note how these histories are often confided to the last 250 years and are Europe and North-America-centric. As opposed to seeking only scientific process knowledge, Cunningham and Williams also stress other sorts of knowledge such as knowledge of fact, technical knowledge, relational knowledge and moral knowledge.
 
In terms of de-centering, the article does not go on to speak to other scientific, or knowledge centers geographically such as Asia, Africa or South America. The authors also don’t speak to traditional local forms of knowledge such as non-western approaches to medicine. Cunningham and Williams depict science as an invention, or perhaps they might have better stated it as a convention. If this is true, then why only focus on one conventional approach?

The Newest History: Science and Technology
By Melvin Kranzberg
May 1962
​
In this article, Melvin Kranzberg argues for a new approach to history through the lens of science and technology. Old history is about politics and the state. Democratizing history adds society (the people) to history. A few of his arguments in favor of a focus on science and technology in history include:

• History is incomplete without including science and Technology
• Regular citizens make decisions based on science and technology
• No single group has a monopoly
• Science and technology add a fun factor
• One can gain solace in human potential through science and technology when civilization seems to fall backwards
• Science and technology progress even if society doesn’t

Kranzberg points out that interest has been increasing in the topic. The Cold War drove increased focus on science and technology, and that focus also drove interest in the study of its history, processes, social influences, etc. He also notes interest I stories about scientists and their ideas, human use of technology, and how understanding the history helps make modern science and technology decisions more informed.
​
The original article was published in 1962. As it turns out much of his predictions have panned out in that there are whole disciplines related to science and technology that is academically concerned with history, philosophy, sociology and policy for example. Despite that, his point about using history to make better decisions about modern employment of science and technology may be overstated. Most college graduates today completing a degree in a STEM field have likely not taken any courses in any of the liberal arts areas that focus on STEM areas. Despite the fact that most “soft science” programs consider it important for “hard science” majors to have some understanding of such topics, perhaps the hard science program directors are not yet sold on the idea.

Final paper from class on History of Science at VT. Try to stay awake.
​

​An entertaining video I watched while learning about the topic was from Terry Jones called The Story of 1. It's hilarious in a very Monty Python sort of way, but full of good mathematical and historical ideas. 

Here's the video:
​

The idea of progress as linked with the most recent version of the idea of technology implies change. It also implies that the change is supportive of the goals or preferences of whoever is designating the change as progress. In Modernity and Technology by Thomas J. Misa, the author argues that as some see modernity and technological advancement as progress, other philosophers see these ideas linked as a negative. Among his proposals the author states “Technology may be the truly distinctive feature of modernity” as proposal 2. Misa posits that those who argue for technological determinism of social norms (modernists), and those who prefer a focus on societal change independent of technology (post-modernists) are both thinking too macro. He argues, “To constructively confront technology and modernity, we must look more closely at individual technologies and inquire more carefully into social and cultural processes.”

As Misa offers “proposals” in his article, likewise Melvin Kranzberg offers “laws” in his article Technology and History: “Kranzberg’s Laws”. His sixth law states, “Technology is a very human activity – and so is the history of technology.” In this section of the article Kranzberg argues “man the thinker” is also simultaneously “man the maker.” In fact, he is saying that what man the thinker is thinking about is what to make and how to make it. Like Misa, he questions the technological imperative. Although we often shape our lives around technology such as the clock or the automobile, “this does not necessarily mean that the ‘technological imperative’… necessarily directs all our thoughts and actions.”

As Misa states that the concepts around technology should look more at the specifics, the micro instead of the macro, Kranzberg actually gives some specific examples. In speaking of “technical devices that would make life simpler or easier for us but which our social values and human sensibilities simply reject”, he shares how we, in America at least, do not accept the use of communal kitchens. “Our adherence to the concept of the home has made that technical solution unworkable,” he adds. Where some might take advantage of the shared benefit of a communal kitchen, including better equipment with pooled resources and less work in cleaning and maintaining through shared effort, American culture does not see the technical advantage as a form of progress.

​The Misa writing helps to see some linkages between various aspects of technology that are not so obvious. For example, under his proposal 4 comparing modernism and postmodernism he speaks to architecture as a technology. Modernists, he states, follow the idea that less is more, while postmodernists would argue less is bore. Another example of a strength is linking the concepts of reason and freedom. He shares both arguments of freedom through reason, and concern that it can lead to domination by reason, hence the opposite idea that reason usurps freedom. Similar examples through the work point to both the strength and weakness of the writing. Helping present multiple sides of the questions is helpful to arriving at a better understanding of the questions, but the author generally does not take a side. He frames the questions and shares the answers of others that disagree. He also generally only shares two sides to each of the posed questions. I am sure there are many more than two sides that could be understood.

An important part of the study of history is to seek out primary sources about the research topic in question. Below is an analysis of three primary sources that will inform my final semester research project. Each source is evaluated on a form, then there is a write up discussing the story the sources tell. The format is dictated by the course professor, but is a good one for students of history to use with the intention of writing on a research topic. Even if one does not intend to write on a topic, the initial form document is helpful for at least focusing evaluative thought. The reason this document is called "Part 2" is because the initial part of the assignment was to email a one paragraph explanation to the professor along with links to the sources so she could offer any feedback. Enjoy.

A short team paper on development issues with Windows Vista. I think our son Nate got stuck with this operating system when we got him a laptop for college. At the time that was the only OS pre-loaded on Windows machines, and we could't afford to pay for the licenses to replace it with something more reliable. Enjoy this trip down memory lane.