You would love the NFB Film Cosmic Zoom. I used it once to open a international meeting. When it finished ( It is not long), an older Indonesian said quietly. "It is a prayer"
- It begins with a boy rowing a boat on the Ottawa River.
- The camera then zooms out—past Earth, the solar system, and deep into the universe.
- Then it zooms back in, returning to the boy, and dives into the microscopic world through a mosquito on his hand.
- The journey ends at the atomic level, before zooming back out to the original scene.
It’s a mesmerizing visual exploration of scale—from the cosmic to the cellular—and all without a single word. You can watch it on the NFB’s official site if it’s available in your region.
NFB is still a gem, though a hidden gem. When I taught, I used it often, and I wish more teachers used it today. Dan's use of the cosmic zoom is so fitting. Thanks for that perspective!
While I agree that a misunderstanding of the complexity of history is a significant issue, I think the issue is more fundamental than that - it is a basic lack of knowledge of history.
I went to elementary, high school, and university in Saskatchewan in the 1960s and 70s. A course in History was offered in high school (I honestly don’t recall whether it was optional or mandatory, but I do know I took it). I don’t know whether it is still offered in Saskatchewan and, if not, when that ended.
I do know it has apparently not been offered in Alberta for at least the last 3 decades. My kids did not have the option of studying history in junior or senior high school in the 1990s.
I have been teaching introductory Canadian Criminology, a 2nd year university course, for 20 years. At the very start of the course, we examine the origins and role of the criminal law. Canadian criminal law of course has its roots in the common law of England, and the Canadian legal system is a common law system (except for Quebec – see below).
As I move through the history of the origins of the common law to where we are today, I ask the class these questions:
• What happened in 1066, that determined the course of English (and Canadian, and American) criminal law?
• What happened in 1217?
• What happened in 1763?
• What happened in 1867?
No student in those 20 years has been able to answer even one of these questions and, when I then ask whether anyone has taken a course in history, the answer is, “No”.
What about current events? A question I ask at the start of the first class is, “Who reads the newspaper?”
Other than some mature students (over the age of 30) that I may have in the class, nobody reads newspapers. In the first 10 years of my asking that question, when I followed up with, “Where do you find out what’s happening?”, a few would respond that they got it from TV.
Since then (about the last 10 years), it appears that any knowledge of current events is gained from social media. When I then point out that anybody can post anything to social media and it is rife with misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies, most students nod their heads in agreement, from which I infer they believe that they are capable of discerning what is accurate from that which is inaccurate. But it is obvious as we progress through the course that they are all pretty much mistaken in their belief that they can distinguish accurate information from all the other dross. Indeed, many cannot distinguish between opinion and factual reporting.
While not within the realm of history, it’s worth noting that most have no conception of the difference between causality and correlation when I introduce them to the topic of correlates of crime.
How does this relate to what you have said, Dan? Of course, you know the answer to that question, but for those readers who may be wondering, it is quite simply that all our laws are political [historical] in origin – there has to be some body [government], in whatever form that takes) with the acknowledged power and authority to enact laws for there to be any laws.
So the point, I suppose, is that the failure of our education system to provide rudimentary instruction in history means we have generations of citizens who are lacking a basic knowledge of how we came to be who and what we are, and what that means going into the future.
And for those who may be wondering:
• The Norman King, William the Conqueror, defeated the English at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and became the King of England. Among other things, he decreed that all crimes were crimes against the King, and that remains the case today.
• Magna Carta was executed in 1217, at Runnymede, and established the fundamental rights of citizens that cannot be abrogated by the Crown.
• The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1763, ending a war (one of many) between France and England whereby France ceded all its Territories east of the Mississippi River to England, but preserving the Catholic religion and civil law system in Quebec.
• The British North America [BNA] Act was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1867, establishing what had been a colony as the Dominion of Canada and setting out, among other things, the legislative authority of the federal and provincial governments.
A well written as well ‘thought out’ article. Thank you. In the information era’ whatever that is, it has required communication to be packaged in ‘60’ second information ‘bites’ because apparently we as humans are too ‘busy’ to absorb more. IMO this is the crux of the problem of today’s ‘machine gun’ communication protocol- a sort of drive by exchange. Anyone who takes the time to not only read but to deliberate on the contents of this article will come away a better informed and thus ‘smarter’ person. However I am comfortable in saying that only the intellectually curious will delve into the article with the intention of better understanding our history and the charlatans who lurk in its crevasses and corners. I fully embrace George Santayana comment "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". It appears many Americans maybe aren’t forgetful but rather too lazy to remember or worse yet learn.
Bravo - thank you for lifting the hood - we always do well to check how things are running - there are many engines sputtering on low-grade nonsense or even nothing but hot air these days
The key point of David’s article is that these pseudo-intellectuals are not spewing ‘nonsense', they are quite artfully presenting a false view of history by selectively presenting (and omitting) information to support their desired view. If it were ‘nonsense’ the unwary would easily be able to discern that fact and disregard the ideas.
Great piece, but ... You make "expert" sound too much like a binary category - there are experts and and there are those who should remain silent. I know this is not your point, but the long presentation gives it that flavor.
I agree with the description of the misuse of “ history “ and the mischief that it can occasion in present society. Since the victor gets to write history it will always be a challenge to extract truth. We may have to content ourselves with the larger themes and trends that run through history.
A view of history from the noon may provide as much clarity as we need and which can be both trusted and relied upon.
A key challenge is that the process or pattern you set out applies as well to the more standard history. I remember learning in school that the Aztecs (or Mexica) were essentially a blood-thirsty people sacrificing virgins everywhere whose empire fell because they believed the Spaniards to be gods. It was a view that tended to support a more positive conventional wisdom about Spanish colonialism. Having recently travelled to visit a few historical sites there, we were presented with several alternative views and lots of new facts about that period. So, while I long ago discarded the narrative received in school, the complexity you highlight leaves me without a consistent storyline as the few additional podcasts and books looked at since revise the history in many different directions. And not having a single through line to guide can be disquieting for us humans, especially if there are strong values underpinning the history which could reflect on our sense of self.
From my “View from the Moon” (or maybe the ISS) level of understanding, this is one of the best explanations as to why an objective perspective of history matters that I’ve read.
Fascinating piece. While not approaching the import perhaps of the growing influence of Holocaust deniers, we have this same issue in Canada, and oddly, emanating from official Ottawa with respect to Sir John A Macdonald and other ‘complex’ historical figures. I wrote about this recently - hopefully not inappropriate to link to it here. https://www.ottawalife.com/article/when-the-historic-sites-and-monuments-board-forgets-what-a-monument-is-for/
I wish I came to this realization about how false historical narratives are propogated by pseudo intellectuals when actress Gina Carano foolishly parroted these types of pseudo historical narratives back in 2022.
You would love the NFB Film Cosmic Zoom. I used it once to open a international meeting. When it finished ( It is not long), an older Indonesian said quietly. "It is a prayer"
- It begins with a boy rowing a boat on the Ottawa River.
- The camera then zooms out—past Earth, the solar system, and deep into the universe.
- Then it zooms back in, returning to the boy, and dives into the microscopic world through a mosquito on his hand.
- The journey ends at the atomic level, before zooming back out to the original scene.
It’s a mesmerizing visual exploration of scale—from the cosmic to the cellular—and all without a single word. You can watch it on the NFB’s official site if it’s available in your region.
https://www.nfb.ca/film/cosmic_zoom/
I was thinking of this exact same film as I was reading this article!
NFB was such an important institution for us! Loved hearing that someone else "out there" remembered it too!
NFB is still a gem, though a hidden gem. When I taught, I used it often, and I wish more teachers used it today. Dan's use of the cosmic zoom is so fitting. Thanks for that perspective!
What a gift! Dan’s piece with which I concur wholeheartedly and then this coda from Elizabeth. Humble 🙏🏻 today.
To paraphrase Dr von Newman, “facts are like people, torture them enough and they’ll tell you whatever you want to hear."
Yes. Yes. Yes. And zooming in and out from big blue dot to grain of sand and back is part of the understanding process itself!
While I agree that a misunderstanding of the complexity of history is a significant issue, I think the issue is more fundamental than that - it is a basic lack of knowledge of history.
I went to elementary, high school, and university in Saskatchewan in the 1960s and 70s. A course in History was offered in high school (I honestly don’t recall whether it was optional or mandatory, but I do know I took it). I don’t know whether it is still offered in Saskatchewan and, if not, when that ended.
I do know it has apparently not been offered in Alberta for at least the last 3 decades. My kids did not have the option of studying history in junior or senior high school in the 1990s.
I have been teaching introductory Canadian Criminology, a 2nd year university course, for 20 years. At the very start of the course, we examine the origins and role of the criminal law. Canadian criminal law of course has its roots in the common law of England, and the Canadian legal system is a common law system (except for Quebec – see below).
As I move through the history of the origins of the common law to where we are today, I ask the class these questions:
• What happened in 1066, that determined the course of English (and Canadian, and American) criminal law?
• What happened in 1217?
• What happened in 1763?
• What happened in 1867?
No student in those 20 years has been able to answer even one of these questions and, when I then ask whether anyone has taken a course in history, the answer is, “No”.
What about current events? A question I ask at the start of the first class is, “Who reads the newspaper?”
Other than some mature students (over the age of 30) that I may have in the class, nobody reads newspapers. In the first 10 years of my asking that question, when I followed up with, “Where do you find out what’s happening?”, a few would respond that they got it from TV.
Since then (about the last 10 years), it appears that any knowledge of current events is gained from social media. When I then point out that anybody can post anything to social media and it is rife with misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies, most students nod their heads in agreement, from which I infer they believe that they are capable of discerning what is accurate from that which is inaccurate. But it is obvious as we progress through the course that they are all pretty much mistaken in their belief that they can distinguish accurate information from all the other dross. Indeed, many cannot distinguish between opinion and factual reporting.
While not within the realm of history, it’s worth noting that most have no conception of the difference between causality and correlation when I introduce them to the topic of correlates of crime.
How does this relate to what you have said, Dan? Of course, you know the answer to that question, but for those readers who may be wondering, it is quite simply that all our laws are political [historical] in origin – there has to be some body [government], in whatever form that takes) with the acknowledged power and authority to enact laws for there to be any laws.
So the point, I suppose, is that the failure of our education system to provide rudimentary instruction in history means we have generations of citizens who are lacking a basic knowledge of how we came to be who and what we are, and what that means going into the future.
And for those who may be wondering:
• The Norman King, William the Conqueror, defeated the English at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and became the King of England. Among other things, he decreed that all crimes were crimes against the King, and that remains the case today.
• Magna Carta was executed in 1217, at Runnymede, and established the fundamental rights of citizens that cannot be abrogated by the Crown.
• The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1763, ending a war (one of many) between France and England whereby France ceded all its Territories east of the Mississippi River to England, but preserving the Catholic religion and civil law system in Quebec.
• The British North America [BNA] Act was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1867, establishing what had been a colony as the Dominion of Canada and setting out, among other things, the legislative authority of the federal and provincial governments.
A well written as well ‘thought out’ article. Thank you. In the information era’ whatever that is, it has required communication to be packaged in ‘60’ second information ‘bites’ because apparently we as humans are too ‘busy’ to absorb more. IMO this is the crux of the problem of today’s ‘machine gun’ communication protocol- a sort of drive by exchange. Anyone who takes the time to not only read but to deliberate on the contents of this article will come away a better informed and thus ‘smarter’ person. However I am comfortable in saying that only the intellectually curious will delve into the article with the intention of better understanding our history and the charlatans who lurk in its crevasses and corners. I fully embrace George Santayana comment "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". It appears many Americans maybe aren’t forgetful but rather too lazy to remember or worse yet learn.
Bravo - thank you for lifting the hood - we always do well to check how things are running - there are many engines sputtering on low-grade nonsense or even nothing but hot air these days
The key point of David’s article is that these pseudo-intellectuals are not spewing ‘nonsense', they are quite artfully presenting a false view of history by selectively presenting (and omitting) information to support their desired view. If it were ‘nonsense’ the unwary would easily be able to discern that fact and disregard the ideas.
Yes. What they create is carefully, cleverly constructed propaganda — masquerading as history.
Knowing that Germany had a list of grievances from 1919-1939 but wisdom is knowing that Hitler was a terrible and evil (yes evil) leader
The Germany invading Poland thing could be Putin and Ukraine. He and Hitler just HAD to protect their nationals................................
Great piece, but ... You make "expert" sound too much like a binary category - there are experts and and there are those who should remain silent. I know this is not your point, but the long presentation gives it that flavor.
Fair point. It's certainly an ambiguous term that could benefit from some definition when used in particular instances.
Excellent presentation!
I agree with the description of the misuse of “ history “ and the mischief that it can occasion in present society. Since the victor gets to write history it will always be a challenge to extract truth. We may have to content ourselves with the larger themes and trends that run through history.
A view of history from the noon may provide as much clarity as we need and which can be both trusted and relied upon.
You'll appreciate Gwynne Dyer's most recent column on Ukraine and NATO.
A key challenge is that the process or pattern you set out applies as well to the more standard history. I remember learning in school that the Aztecs (or Mexica) were essentially a blood-thirsty people sacrificing virgins everywhere whose empire fell because they believed the Spaniards to be gods. It was a view that tended to support a more positive conventional wisdom about Spanish colonialism. Having recently travelled to visit a few historical sites there, we were presented with several alternative views and lots of new facts about that period. So, while I long ago discarded the narrative received in school, the complexity you highlight leaves me without a consistent storyline as the few additional podcasts and books looked at since revise the history in many different directions. And not having a single through line to guide can be disquieting for us humans, especially if there are strong values underpinning the history which could reflect on our sense of self.
From my “View from the Moon” (or maybe the ISS) level of understanding, this is one of the best explanations as to why an objective perspective of history matters that I’ve read.
Love the view from space analogy.
Fascinating piece. While not approaching the import perhaps of the growing influence of Holocaust deniers, we have this same issue in Canada, and oddly, emanating from official Ottawa with respect to Sir John A Macdonald and other ‘complex’ historical figures. I wrote about this recently - hopefully not inappropriate to link to it here. https://www.ottawalife.com/article/when-the-historic-sites-and-monuments-board-forgets-what-a-monument-is-for/
I wish I came to this realization about how false historical narratives are propogated by pseudo intellectuals when actress Gina Carano foolishly parroted these types of pseudo historical narratives back in 2022.