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.
 

A few postings ago I wrote about an article I read in National Geographic. I was favorable on the content, but somewhat critical of the television channel created by the same brand. After I posted, it hit me I had not watched the channel much lately. Truth be told, I haven’t been much of a TV watcher for quite some time. I have nothing against the medium. I worked in that part of the business for nine years. Other sorts of media, mostly reading, just keep my attention these days. I thought perhaps I should remind myself how Nat-Geo and similar channels present themselves lately. In some sense of fairness I started watching the cable version of the product, and some of its direct competition as a sort of research sampling.

Unlike ‘real’ research there is nothing written down, no data to analyze, no hypotheses to either support or refute through statistical patterns. Instead I just made time to watch some hours of Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History. These three in the past were similar in content approach with a similar appeal. To be at least somewhat thorough in my shabby research, I note that each of these offers a traditionally programed cable channel as well as a number of online video options. I focused on the cable channel version of Nat-Geo. I also looked at some of the program descriptions available online. So what did I find in this very loosey-goosey amateur research?

I was still disappointed to some degree with History and Discovery. Both had some interesting (to me) programs, but their line up seems more and more filled with reality shows that don’t seem to match the brand name, and competition shows that also seem misaligned. Of the three, Nat-Geo seemed closer to my fuzzy idea of what they are supposed to be about. Nat-Geo also has some ‘reality’ shows, but these seem more like documentaries about some real-life setting, and less like unscripted (or scripted) soap-operatic peep shows. To be fair to History and Discovery, they had these better quality programs also, but fewer of the better version, and more of the not-so-good sort. I’m ok with reality shows that are more like documentaries that are showing real life, but not so much with shows called ‘reality’ but are clearly anything but real.

One thing that does bug me a bit about all three of these offerings. They each clearly have quality tiers. For Nat-Geo, the content offered on cable is generally ok, but their best quality (the sort I might have more interest in) is guarded behind the Disney+ pay wall. It almost feels like the cable version is the tease to get you to pay for ‘the good stuff in the back room’. This is not unique to Nat-Geo. The business model of online streaming channels you have to pay for to get better stuff sooner is quickly becoming the norm. Just about every network out there now has a paid streaming service. The model really does lend itself to an ala carte. That would great if we lived in an area where we could just get Internet without cable. Sadly that’s not the case for us. The only real option we have for Internet comes from Comcast. Since they have no competition where we live they will not allow you to purchase Internet without also bundling their cable service. Every year they mess with the channels (to more and more stuff we don’t care to watch), and jack up the prices. It’s pretty ridiculous. The amount they charge makes it difficult to justify paying them and separately paying a handful of online streaming providers that we might actually want to watch now and then.

Some of the better programming on Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History is offered outside the pay wall, but it tends to be older shows. The truth is that’s ok to me since if it’s the first time we watch something, it may not be new but it’s new to us. On the other hand, some of the show trailers can be enticing and make me wonder if we should give in and scratch up the fee. So far the answer to this last question has been a resounding NO!

I don’t know what these business model shifts in media mean exactly. All three of these educational content providers are for-profit entities. The fact that they feel pressured to shift away from their original name-sake focus to something that less represents it could be a statement about us as an audience. If we weren’t up to watching something that helped us learn something then perhaps they are simply succumbing to our own focus on escapism in order to stay profitable. Perhaps, and maybe the more likely, is I’m just getting older and stuffier. 

Anyone who knows me also knows that I’m not some sort of radical tree-hugger. At the same time, anyone who knows me also knows I’ve spent a lot of time in the wilds of this world, and I care about the planet. I do believe that God gave Adam and Eve and their descendants (us) a stewardship to take care of this world. There are many people who take political positions on both extremes of what we used to call conservation. Some would either seek to push us into paths that would have a strong negative impact on human life and livelihood through an overly restrictive approach. Others seek deeper exploitation with little-to-no restriction. In the midst of such heated polemics, I’m always happy to see good ideas that are neither irrationally restrictive, nor blatantly exploitative. I like practical ideas that are actually put into use.

While we were visiting relatives over the holidays this past year, my father-in-law decided I would be a target for his efforts to ‘spring clean’. For Christmas he gave me a stack of his National Geographic magazines, yes the printed variety. I’m already up to my eyeballs in reading between work, school, church, and even the occasional pleasure-read. Having yet another reading pile wasn’t exactly what I was looking for. On the other hand, I have respect for this particular brand, even if their TV channel seems less and less to mission. Last month I randomly pulled one out, and unlike the TV version, I was not disappointed.

The edition is from March of 2020. There is good story variety in this particular publication. Rather than add to anyone else’s paper pile, I’ll include a link to the online version of this specific edition. Then anyone can follow up if they have a mind to, and we won’t need to ship around a re-gift.

The main headline is an evocative assertion: “The End of Trash”. Although that statement seems unlikely, the focus is on ideas related to a circular economy with a growing emphasis on turning our waste into something useful. Although not completely circular, the idea of generating power through incineration is also not a new one. Since plastics are derived from petroleum products one could argue this approach is not that different from other electric generation plants burning carbon-based fuels. While that may be true, modern burning approaches do seem to produce fewer emissions then in the past. Using stored petroleum in the form of plastics can also reduce pumping demand. It does require transport, but so does every other form of energy in some way. Even wind or solar require manufacture and physical shipment for installation. In my opinion, nothing people do is truly neutral.

One interesting approach to trash incineration documented in the story is in Copenhagen, Denmark (my wife’s people) where they built a year-round skiing complex to hide the entire incinerator and the large pile of trash awaiting its demise. If we ever visit that town I will certainly be making some turns on the roof-top.

Here is a link to the edition:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/issue/march-2020
​
Here is a link to the specific story on trash and the circular economy:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/how-a-circular-economy-could-save-the-world-feature