Institution of Affiliation - Essay Example

? No topic of Affiliation This essay intends to examine the thematic evolution of Andrew Marr in the eight episode series. Andrew Marr takes on the world. The first five episodes of the Andrew Marr’s series on the day the world took over, covers the history of humankind. The first episode of Andrew Marr’s History of the world takes us back on a classic journey through 70,000 years of human history. Marr has applied dramatic reconstructions and immense graphic design to reveal the vital moments that have so far shaped the world that we subsist in today. Marr traces the earliest initial stages of human being in Africa. He tells the story of the nomadic ancestors, and how they spread across the globe to become the first farmers and urban inhabitants is explicitly explained (Marr, 2012). This is clearly indicated when he uncovers surprising handprints left in European caves, 30,000 years down the line. Moreover, the generational path of human development from earliest ancestors to rise of piracy and first seeds of private enterprise is well explained. However, I find a born of contention in Marr’s a statement that, we all evolved from one mitochondrial woman-Eve. I believe this might not be the case because the mitochondrial Eve means the universal antecedent to all present humans on the matrilineal line and the nature of humanity must have potential mothers due to existence of diverse genes. This statement is open to criticism and can be easily misinterpreted (Marr, 2012). Marr argues that genetic material can be traced back in time, but is arguable that, it reaches certain limit. In essence, it is disputable to imagine that all humanity is in a lineal civilized from the remainder of the world. Another instance, were I find a claim not substantial at all, is the assertion that, the Hom sap wiped out the Neanderthals. The primary cause was mass murder and this attributes to the argument that humans are naturally violent and clannish. I do not subscribe to this assertion, because if that is the case, why then cohesive state control is not regarded as an eternal necessity. In the last three episodes, Marr explains his understanding on revolution, industry and extremes. It is evident that, watching this series a clear mind of Marr is visible. Marr wanted to take the present generation through the evolution process of humanity, then revolution, industrial aggressiveness and far reached extremes. Marr expresses the path of revolution as being similar in all the revolutions that have occurred across the globe. For instance, he mentions of idealism, and then follows extremism and ultimately collapse of power into the hands of strong military man (Marr, 2012). However, commentators have repeatedly rehashed the idea that revolution leads to autocracy and attribute the evils of the 20th century to the French revolution. It is evident that Marr’s objective is to malign the inspiration of revolution by refuting that revolutions are not driven by ideas and at the same time asserting that such revolutions keep on rolling because of ideals. I find Marr’s arguments conflicting. They do not add up to indicate his beliefs on then real causes of revolutions. However, my reflection on the overall aspect of revolution is inclined is to the fact that, the initial civilizations were because of being driven to extremes and the response to survive gave rise to revolutions (Marr, 2012). This opinion is subject to criticism. On the same note, Marr fails to give correct account of the Russian revolution. Instead, he delivers piece-wise information, and at the end, the whole scenario result to portraying the Russian revolution as a derivative of the machinations of German imperialism in a bid to conceal the responsibility of the Russian population and Bolsheviks as the real forces that drove the revolution. The question arising is, does Marr imply what he believes in or simply his insinuations are meant to cow people to his selective study? I believe the Russian revolution forms a monumental occurrence of the twentieth century that requires proper account and appreciation. The episodes close with the conclusion that Zimmermann was accountable for the forming of the two world powers: The USA and the USSR. The arising question is why statures were not raised in public squares of the super powers in honor of Zimmermann for the noble responsibility (Marr, 2012). It is notable that, Marr’s view that history is made by great individuals is portrayed, when he treats Edward Jenner with respect for his far-reaching efforts to eradicate small box. Jenner a notable scientist discovered and developed a vaccine foe small box, which he distributed to all corners of the world without the support of any government. I agree with Marr, on this acceptance and appreciation because this aspect of glorification of personalities exemplifies the journalistic and sensational staging of history, which is familiar in the present world. Admission to the seventh episode introduces us to the rule of Stalin, despite weighty and permissible prospects that the closing episode would intricate on the path of proceedings in Russia from 1917 to 1929. The first action where Russia is mentioned links it to the Nazi wash out of Jews in Kiev (Marr, 2012). We are told that, the purge was made easier by what the Reds had done- the famine that resulted from Stalin’s policies on agriculture. I find myself not ready to accept this argument. How did famine make the purge, where atrocities were committed easier? This question needs an explanation. My understanding on this argument is that, there is no logical linkage of famine with the atrocities. Moreover, Marr forms the equation that Nazism= Socialism. This linkage is a pure insult because Marr ignores the analysis done by Trotsky on the degeneration into Stalinism in the Revolution Betrayed. This depicts Marr has one researcher who distorts historical certainty to fit the ruling classes (Marr, 2012). Conclusively, Marr seeks to categorize all revolutions as fundamentally the same by taking them from their chronological perspective and connecting them to the notion of revolution to terror. Marr declares the Russian Revolution a pessimistic force in the initial positions and raises Stalin as unopposed continuation of the Soviet policy. This increases the fear of history distortion and this requires defense of historical truth since forms the fundamental instrument in the hands of the population. On the other hand, American by the History: Mankind: The story of All of Us (2012), the series has magnificent visuals; however, it is blatantly terrible. As a point of departure, it completely skips over the ancient Indian civilization- the Mohenjo-Daro. These were the ancient people considered by every ancient historian, when developing chronological account of humanity towards the present world civilization (American by the History Channel, 2012). Moreover, the series skips a number of vital accounts on leadership. For instance, rulers have continually referred themselves as Czars/Caesars over many generations, but the mention of Caesar is absent, this incredible. In addition, the series does not include the revolution of Rome from a Republic to an empire. I find his exclusion inconceivable that these segments cannot form part of the world history. This series does not measure up due to its inclined overview. Its coverage on the discovery of the crossbow and exclusion of American Revolution and Napoleon actions indicates a complete cycle of bias. My question arises on the necessity of a news commentator Brian Williams of NBC, featuring in a historical documentary and yet he is not experienced on matters relating to the world history. I believe that, a further consultation was fundamental before the development of this series. History experts such as Kelly DeVries would have been consulted since they have featured in other historical documentaries to articulate on the several untruths exposed in this series. I find this series inconceivable, particularly, when it puts more focus on wars and conflict as if it forms a primary component of history. I find it had to embrace the arguments in this series (American by the History Channel, 2012). I believe that, the history of humanity is far reaching in terms of arts and scientific inventions, industrial discoveries among others. The series misses to balance and the perception created promotes the westerners and Chinese as the sources of humankind history. Indeed, the collection of 12 episodes summarizes human achievement based on the west while sideling the east. My question is did the series really succeed to summarize the human civilization? Secondly, does it mean that the world’s respected people are the plunderers, intellectually challenged, sociopaths, looters, murderers among all evil doing individuals? The series “American by the History: Mankind: The story of All of Us” does not mean its title. The ultimate perception is that, the series inclined to the European history and the authors purports to use a few excerpts to justify, that it touches on the history of humanity, which is not true. This series is biased to the western history and it is made of half-truths (American by the History Channel, 2012). Conclusively the two series depict short falls in illustrating the world History, “American by the History: Mankind: The story of All of Us” displays numerous aspects of biasness, inaccuracy and inconsistencies. Equally, Andrew Marr’s “History of the world” contains a more specific view, which raises questions, however, its contents well evidenced. References Marr, A., Giles, T., Salaria, F., Whately, F., Dashwood, R., & British Broadcasting Corporation. (2007). Andrew Marr's history of modern Britian. England: BBC. Read More