Archive of articles classified as' "Thinkage"

Back home

Did PLANET OF THE APES Revive Creationism?


Serious question:
Did the original Planet Of The Apes movie revive the fading creationist movement by unintentionally preying on the racial fears of rural and suburban white Christians?

SPLOWW indeed SNSPLOWW!! indeed

Planet Of The Apes was one of four major ground-breaking / trend-setting sci-fi media concepts that landed within an 18-month period of one another in 1967-68.[1]  It was the biggest popular hit of the quartet, launched a successful series of features, a not-so-successful live-action TV series, a somewhat more successful animated series, numerous novel spinoffs, comic books, and a host of imitators and rip offs.

Then as now the film was viewed (at least on one level) as a parable of American racial politics, with the apes implicitly understood to represent the downtrodden finally getting the upper hand over the previously dominant white culture.[2]

Michael Wilson and Rod Serling’s script followed the lead of Pierre Boulle’s original novel to show a satirical (albeit not particularly humorous) view of “normalcy” turned upside down.  In many cases it was done by showing humans used the way we use animals:  For taxidermy, research, and sport.  In others, it was an implicit criticism of dominant white culture with the promise / warning:  “You’ll get what’s coming to you.”

While the apes were presented as antagonists in the first two films of the series[3], African-American audiences tended to sympathize with them more than they did with stalwart Chuck Heston (even before his NRA days).

By the times Escape From… and Conquest Of… rolled around, the identification of African-Americans with the apes was clearly overt (albeit it in a sympathetic and not denigrating manner).  Conquest in particular hammers the apes / slavery issue home with a 12-lb sledge, and it’s pretty hard to whip up any sympathy with (predominantly white) humanity in either of those two films.

Recognizing this, and desiring the success of the series to continue, 20th Century Fox watered down the message in the fifth and final film of the original series, Battle For The Planet Of The Apes, which ends in a bright future where apes, humans, and mutants co-exist peacefully and happily.

That vision of the ape-ocalyptic future flopped miserably at the box office and the films series ended, tho it continued thriving on the small screen and in comics with the original potent message.

It’s hard for modern audiences to understand the impact of these films when first unleashed from 1968-73.  First off, nothing quite like this had ever been seen before.  The closest anyone might have come to it is The Wizard Of Oz with its myriad of bizarre cultures in an even more bizarre world, but that was a fairy tale and not meant to be taken seriously.  With the exception of a few post-apocalypse movies that featured mutants in cheesy make-up, nobody had ever tried to create not one but three entire species of realistic non-human characters for a film, complete with costumes, props, and buildings designed with apes in mind.[4]

And despite the nervousness of the studio, producer Arthur P. Jacobs & co. pulled it off with remarkable aplomb.  There had been serious sci-fi films before Planet Of The Apes, to be sure, but Apes was one of the first that easily crossed over into main stream audiences instead of relying primarily on the (admittedly growing) sci-fi fan base.[5]

But the cinematic / literary / pop culture impact was only a small fragment of what the world of 1968 – especially the United States of America – was going through at that time.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was only four years old at the time Apes was released.

Had the nation not been in a period of shock and mourning in the aftermath of President Kenney’s assassination, conservative southern politicians would have probably blocked the act until the 1970s.

The nation was only four years away from segregated bathrooms, segregated diners, segregated water fountains.  Loving v Virginia was only one year old!

African-Americans were still pretty much invisible in their native land.  They were starting to make a few token appearances in TV shows and movies[6] but they were far from ubiquitous.

Planet Of The Apes, without directly referring to the apes as analogs for African-Americans, pretty much forced audiences to draw that unavoidable parallel.

And, yeah, there were some who sneered and hooted and derided contemporary blacks by likening them to the monkeys on the silver screen…

…but the inescapable conclusion was that
those damned monkeys were in charge!

…and things were not going to be
so rosy for Mr. Whitey in the future.

This was the first time a lot of white people were forced to realize that the times, they were a’changin’ and what they were changing into was not going to resemble the world they grew up in where everyone knew (and kept) their place.

Planet Of The Apes did not present its topsy-turvy world as one laid down by divine fiat, a wrathful God punishing sinners by letting apes rule over them.

Planet Of the Apes said pretty plainly that humans – white humans in particular – were not fit to survive, and that a more vigorous, more capable breed was going to take over.

That was classic evolution,
and there wasn’t a damned thing
white humanity could do about it.

Creationism was not unheard of or even unargued in the late 1960s, but it was pretty much losing its steam.  Evolution existed; there was no denying genetic changes in various species with common ancestors, and even prehistoric humanity had been guiding evolution along for their domestic plants and animals (“survival of the fittest” in this case meaning those most fit to serve humans).  Creationists were pretty much giving up on the new earth / six literal twenty-four hour days version of creation and instead arguing what is now referred to as Intelligent Design (only with God explicitly in control).

Their basic point was that God had a plan, and that everyone in the world was assigned a place in that plan, and if God ordained one race to be the masters leaders and another to be the slaves servants workers helpers then who are we to argue with God?

Planet Of The Apes pretty much says God is no respecter of species, much less persons, and in fact famously ends with Heston ranting and screaming that God has rightfully damned humanity for being a buncha murderous self-centered pricks.[7]  It was a pretty shocking ending for mainstream audiences at the time[8] and has been lampooned so often and so successfully that contemporary audiences have no idea just how chilling it was to Joe Six-Pack and Mrs. & Mrs. Suburbia.

…especially in light of the ongoing societal change / upheaval and
the rapid advancements in civil rights by African-Americans.

Mind you, the majority of white audiences seeing the film for the first time were not racists in the classic sense of the term:  They burned no crosses, lynched no victims.

But they kinda liked the fact that they got to live over here while those people had to live over there, and while many of them knew and genuinely liked black folks they encountered daily, few of them realized they held a protected and privileged position that was paid for by the sufferings of others.

Apes kinda sunk home the message that there might not be a soft landing for their genteel lifestyle, that rude awakenings and abrupt changes may be the order of the day.

And yeah, Planet Of The Apes is at heart a big budget goofy Hollywood movie, with a whole bunch spectacle & action and a smattering of smarts, not really the sorta thing that can withstand close logical scrutiny for long…

…but that didn’t matter.

The message is what mattered.

And the message was:  Time’s up.  Things are changing.

A lot of people did not like that change.

They rendered lip service to it, but were willing to do so only so long as things didn’t change for them.

Now, when faced with major changes in one’s life, there are two basic approaches one can take:

You acknowledge the change even if you don’t willingly embrace it; life may get rough but at least you’ll be prepared for it and it won’t catch you by surprise.

The other is to double down on the old system, to bet the heart transplant money that the way things are is The Way Things Are Meant To Be, and that if you just hold fast this faddish craze of modernity will pass and things will once again be good and wholesome and sweet with you in the driver’s seat, just like when you were a child and your father was a child and your great-great-great grandfather was a child.

It’s no accident that the big push towards homeschooling – which originally began among hippy-dippy parents looking to raise their children outside the conforming standards of the dominant class public schools – took off among rural and/or white and/or conservative religious fundamentalists in the south and midwest during this period.[9]

And it’s no accident that creationism takes – nay, demands – a centerpiece of that movement.

Because creationism allows the believer in it to deny the humanity of others, to deny their rights, to deny their equality.

Creationism allows the believer to dismiss all claims for justice with a derisive “God doesn’t want that” and never examine the basics of the question.

Creationism, as has been pointed out, is the handmaiden of Mammon, the self-righteous belief that one’s personal enrichment is God’s master plan for the universe, that every sub-atomic particle in every atom in every molecule of every speck of dust and wisp of gas up to and including the hugest of stars exists solely for the purpose of making your life materially easier and more comfortable…

…and maybe the lives of your immediate family as well…

…and perhaps even a few of your closest friends…

…but certainly not the lives of them – and especially if making their lives any easier requires you to give up an hour of TV or some outrageous demand like that.

Planet Of The Apes is downright terrifying
to people with that mind set.[10]

Small wonder so many conservative whites willingly and eagerly embrace a disproven anti-intellectualism that denies the reality of the world around them, because embracing that fantasy makes it possible to deny the change going on around them.[11]

Like little children threatened by a big mean dog, they sincerely believe if they squinch their eyes closed reeeeeeeeal tight that it will go away.

No, one single silly movie does not a religious heresy make, and in a different time it’s doubtful that the film would have had much more impact than as a popcorn muncher (much like the recent remakes and sequels have landed with resounding thuds).

But one thing Planet Of The Apes sure did was to give millions of scared white people a very very frightening glimpse of a future where they would no longer be in charge, when the first would indeed be last, and the low would be risen high.

And rather than embrace that spiritual truth, they flock to a self-serving myth that not only will fail to protect them, but will make the eventual change that much more painful for them.

As for me,
like Mark Twain wrote: 
When it’s steam boat time,
you steam boat.




[1]  It isn’t an exaggeration to say the shadows from these projects – both in film, TV, comics, and other media as well as literary and other pop culture influences – is still being cast today.  The other three were the original Star Trek TV series, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Barbarella.  Of the four, Barbarella received the worst response from the public, a critical drubbing, and a commercial flop…and yet each year a loyal cult grew and grew around this film.  Today it’s a fondly remembered classic of the era and has aged better than the other four.  Go figure…

[2]  I may be wrong, but I can’t remember any African-American actors among the primitive humans in the original film, not unless one counts the ill-fated astronaut who ended up lobotomized.

[3]  Tho who wasn’t an antagonist in Beneath The Planet Of The Apes?  It’s the only major studio Hollywood production ever to end with the hero thinking that blowing up the entire planet was A Real Good Idea.

[4]  The world of the final film was much different that the original concept and script.  Jacobs originally wanted a world like the one in Boulle’s novel with full size cities, cars, and helicopters designed for apes.  By scaling the size back to a few isolated middle-sized towns with low grade industrial age technology, the film actually became more convincing than a modern version.  An exact ape parallel to our own world would have only invited laughter, but changing it significantly enough while still leaving it basically recognizable helped sell the idea to audiences.

[5]  And basically, because of all the projects of that era, Planet Of The Apes offered the one concept that every body in the audience, including the dullest witted, got right away:  The five-fingered shoe is now on the other foot.

[6]  And more importantly, cast in commercials as users of the product being sold, not servants making white folks’ lives easier, thus tacitly acknowledging them as part of the American fabric and not just an accessory after the fact.

[7]  …or words to that effect…

[8]  No matter than we fan boys saw it marching down the avenue from the moment the film started talking about archeological digs involving humans.

[9]  No, I am not saying Planet Of The Apes was responsible for that; it was the general societal upheaval of the late 60s and early 70s that scared much of the mostly white religious right into fleeing society with the hopes of one day leading a counter-rebellion against it.

[10]  And mind you, screenwriters Michael Wilson and Rod Serling managed to have their Darwinian cake and theologically eat it as well:  A strong argument could be made for the film as the mene mene tekel uparsin of mainstream American values, a judgment handed down from on high and executed with our own hands around our own throats – but holding to that argument requires denying human supremacy in general and American exceptionalism in particular and recognizing both our personal and national sins and shortcomings and, hey, who wants to believe that becuz America!  Right?  Right?!?!?

[11]  And embracing it not in a little way but going all out:  None of this namby-pamby “God created the universe billions of years ago and guides the natural processes in it” but “Bang! Done!  Full and complete in six twenty-four hour days and you can’t change it – ever!”


No Comments

Thinkage; or How To Price Records


Some years ago I put out a set of records called Love, Serve, Remember.  The records – which had music, readings from the Gospel of John, and all kinds of neat things – came in an album with a beautiful booklet with text and pictures.  It was a wonderful package, and we sold we sold it by mail order for about $4.50.

I showed the album to my father.  Dad was a wealthy Boston Lawyer – a conservative Republican, a capitalist, and, at the time, the President of a railroad.  He looked over the album and said, “Great job here!  But, gee, you know – four and a half dollars?  You could probably sell this for ten dollars – fifteen dollars, even!”

I said, “Yeah, I know”

“Would fewer people buy in if it were more expensive?,” he asked.

“No,” I relied. “Probably the same number would buy it”

“Well I don’t understand you,” he pressed on.  “You would sell it for ten, and your selling it for four- fifty? What’s wrong, are you against capitalism or something?”

I tried to figure out how to explain to him how our approaches are differed.  I said, “Dad didn’t you just try a law case for Uncle Henry?”

“Yeah,” he replied, “ and it was a damned tough case.  I spent a lot of time in the law library.”

I asked, “Did you win the case?”  And he answered, “Yeah, I won it.”

Now, my father was a very successful attorney, and he charged fees that were commensurate with his reputation.  So I continued. “Well, I bet you charged him a hand and a leg for that one.”

Dad was indignant at the suggestion.  “What, are you out of your mind?  That’s Uncle Henry – I couldn’t charge him.”

“Well, that’s my problem,” I said.  “If you find anyone who isn’t Uncle Henry, I’ll rip them off.”

– Ram Dass

No Comments



“The truth is, evangelical Christians have already ‘lost’ the culture wars. And it’s not because the ‘other side’ won or because evangelicals have failed to protect our own religious liberties.  Evangelicals lost the culture wars the moment they committed to fighting them, the moment they decided to stop washing feet and start waging war.  

“And I fear that we’ve lost not only the culture wars, but also our Christian identity, when the  ’right to refuse’ service has become a more sincerely-held and widely-known Christian belief than the impulse to give it.” – Rachel Held Evans

No Comments

An Old American Proverb


Life is like a s4!t sandwich:  The more bread you’ve got  the less s4!t you eat.

But maybe the eating of s4!t is inescapable if one insists on eating bread

Maybe we’re better off consuming something else

If you can only think in terms of bread, you will always be consuming s4!t

Maybe the people who disagree with this
are people who lack the imagination
to eat something else

Or maybe they are people corrupted by bread
and support the system because if they have to eat s4!t
they’re gonna make dang sure other people have to eat more

No Comments

Hamster Diddlers: Can You Trust Them?


hamster diddiler drew friedman dwight frye

You’re stepping out for a night on the town with your beloved and just as you’re about to enter the very very tres ritze’ restaurant where you’ve booked reservations months in advance…

…you encounter the town’s most notorious hamster diddler.

And there’s no doubt this person diddles hamsters: 
Not only have they been convicted of hamster diddling in the first, second, and third degrees but they also have a website where they’ve uploaded selfies of themselves diddling hamsters.

And as you’re entering and the hamster diddler is leaving, they lean over to you and say:

“Don’t go in there,
the kitchen is on fire!”

Now, do you:

(a)  Ignore whatever that damned hamster diddler has to say because =feh!= they’re a hamster diddler, f’r cryin’ out loud! and proudly march into the restaurant.
………………… …or…
(b)  Do you look inside to ascertain if you can see smoke and/or cooks running around screaming with flames billowing off of their chef’s hats?

Because if — if! — the hamster diddler is telling the truth that’s valuable information to know!

Got into an interesting
online discussion with
someone regarding
the previous post.

Essentially the person I was discussing the topic with wanted no part of Bertrand Russell on the grounds he was an atheist[1] who favored big government.[2]

Okay, be that as it may,
does any of that negate
the validity of what he said?

The truth, as Agent Mulder frequently reminded us, is out there.
And it doesn’t matter from whose lips or depraved fingers it may fall.
It’s either true or it’s not.

The ancient church had no problem accepting the findings of pagans, polytheists, Mithrans, Muslims, Hindus, diests, Gnostics, and agnostics in matters pertaining to things outside the theological realm.

Their findings in science & math & metallurgy & medicine & engineering either worked…

…or it didn’t work.

And if it didn’t work it didn’t matter how bona fide their bona fides were:  It didn’t work!

And if it did work — It worked! — no matter how how suspect their philosophical and/or theological roots.

You are not betraying your faith — whatever it may be — to look at something a person of another faith[3] did and say, “Yeah, in that particular area they’re right”.

It doesn’t touch your theological underpinnings,
it doesn’t crumple up your church.
You just acknowledge it

Accept it

And move on.

We have far too often allowed ourselves to be divided[4] and have far too often followed blindly when some pundit tells us “We are always right, they are always wrong; ignore everything they have to say and especially don’t listen to anything that contradicts what you’ve been told by us!”

First off, anybody who is confident they speak / write the truth has no bashfulness re confronting contrarian opinions:  They will either expose weaknesses in their own thinking, or at the very least give us an opportunity to understand why those with opposing points of view possess those views.

Second, no mortal human being, not even yrs trly is always 100% right all the time[5], and even a sincere person who is absolutely right re a particular situation today may be wrong on that same situation tomorrow as new evidence comes in or conditions change.

‘Twas ever thus…

Bottom line:
Don’t automatically dismiss something a hamster diddler has to say.

Not unless you want to have your after dinner mints in the burn ward.

art by Drew Friedman




[1]  Yes.

[2]  Arguable.

[3]  Or non-faith. 

[4]  And, truth be told, too willingly — nay, eagerly! — participate in the divisiveness.

[5]  Although some folks have some pretty decent batting averages.

No Comments

Bertrand Russell’s Decalogue


bertrand russell

Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:

  1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
  2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
  3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
  4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
  5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
  6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
  7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
  8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
  9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
  10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

found via brainpickings

No Comments

David Gerrold On Defending A Position vs Taking A Stand



Imagine we’re all standing on a giant chessboard. 

I can take a position. Row E, Column 4. (Not a strong position on any chessboard, but never mind.) I can say, “This square — Row E, Column 4 — this is my position. This is the best position on the board. This is the only position worth having. This is the right position and I will defend it to your death.” That’s defending a position — a specific position. It keeps the defender, immobile, stuck, unable to move forward or back, unable to adapt or respond.

Now, let me try it another way. I can step onto any square on the board and declare. “I am a stand for winning. I stand for victory. I can stand here on this square and stand for winning, or I can take two steps to the right and stand on this square and stand for winning. I can stand on a white square and stand for winning, or I can stand on a black square and stand for victory. But wherever I am standing, I stand for winning.” It doesn’t matter where I’m standing, I still stand for the same goal.

Self-righteousness is about defending a position.

Making a difference is about taking a stand.

David Gerrold

art by
Frank Kelly Freas

No Comments

Sunsets, Who Can Explain ‘Em?


Creationism is one of the last sick remnants of slavery.  In the days before the Civil War, northern Christian abolitionists cited the Golden Rule as reason to do away with slavery.[1]  Southern slave owners funded preachers and teachers who countered with literal readings of the Bible to not merely justify slavery but to denigrate African-Americans as inferior because they were descended from Ham, Noah’s son who was punished for telling his brothers that their father got drunk and was lying naked in his tent. [2]

The result was southern and rural western and midwestern churches (as dispossessed southerners moved out after the Civil War) who held to a false doctrine of Biblical literalism.[3]

Recently the creationist position was brutally sodomized mercilessly gutstomped given a pants down spanking bitch-slapped to a faretheewell demonstrated to be sadly lacking humiliatingly defeated bested in a much publicized debate.

We won’t go into that because others have done it better.

But I do want to touch on part of the fallout, specifically this lady’s question from the creationist side.

sunset enhanced-27109-1391576856-1

The sunset question gets quite fascinating when you start to unpack it.

For starters, you can’t have a “sunset” without an observer:
Planets rotate all the time but unless someone is actually there to observe it there’s no sunset to see.[4]

Further, a sunset is not so much a noun as a verb; it is more of an event than a thing.  Observers on Earth placed a hundred miles apart on an east-west line would not see the same thing:  One could still be in daylight, another in night while the one in the middle enjoyed the view.

Set them up on a north-south axis and while the rotation of the planet may cause the sun to appear to dip behind the horizon, one observer many be in a cloudless area and see nothing spectacular, another much further to the south may be in an overcast area and not even be able to see the sun, while someone between the two might have the optimum blend of light and just the right kind / number of clouds to observe a spectacular show.

Further still, enjoying a sunset is something pretty much limited to people with unimpaired vision:  A terribly nearsighted person might perceive a smudge of color, a color blind person would see only shades of purple and grey, a blind person wouldn’t see anything at all (though they might sense the passing of the warmth of the sun’s rays on their skin).

Even humans with perfect (for our species) 20-20 vision are at a disadvantage.  We see only three colors; our good friend the mantis shrimp sees sixteen!  No human can even imagine what the mantis shrimp’s world must look like because no human is capable of visualizing those colors.[5]

Further further still, only a human could look at a sunset and say “That’s beautiful.”  A camera can record the light and the position of the sun and clouds relative to that vantage point on Earth, but a camera conveys no meaning.  A person with no sense of aesthetics might see colors and details but not be able to put them together as “beauty”, likewise a person under some form of psychological stress might not appreciate the beauty that overawes their companion.

Clearly, the beauty of a sunset has much less to do with the Earth’s atmosphere and sun than it does with the state of consciousness of the observer.

Which, when you think about it,
is a pretty apt metaphor for
the religious experience.

We, and the materialists,
are experiencing the same set of sensory inputs;
we are just processing them differently.

This does not have to be a needless either/or proposition; there is nothing incompatible with faith in a a great metaphysical being/spirit/concept that is responsible for/links together everything in our universe and an understanding of the physical mechanics of that universe.[6]

So, yeah, in a very real sense only God can make a sunset insofar as no religion postulates a theology where human consciousness is not in some fashion intrinsically linked to the divine.

sunset article-2362566-1AC8CA6F000005DC-878_964x954

[1]  On the basis that since nobody wants to be a slave, ergo it must be wrong to own slaves.

[2]  Slave owners plied both sides of the street, citing Darwin as biological proof to justify slavery.

[3]  Personally, I prefer the term “plain text reading” as opposed to “literal” or even worse, “inerrant”. “Inerrant” means the theological teachings are without error, not that every word is literally true, but sloppy usage has confused the two terms in the minds of most people. Using the term “plain text reading” allows one to study the particular passage for its inherent meaning without requiring it to be 100% factual.

[4]  And, technically, our sun never sets; it’s a relative fixed point to the real motion of the Earth, although the Sun itself and the Milky Way galaxy are all traveling through space on their own.  I suppose ala Pitch Black there may be some double or triple star systems where one member actually does move behind another at some point, but that’s another topic for another time…

[5]  Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, and William S. Burroughs excepted.

[6]  The people who do make it incompatible generally tend to have a host of other hoops they require you to jump through for their benefit.

No Comments

The Next Time You Feel Like Having A Pity Party…


…remember these kids.

School Under Bridge In India

No Comments

A Little Reminder As We Prepare To Sally Forth Yet Again…


VN Thích-Quảng-Đức2


VN Marines-II


VN Vietnam-War-Eddie-Adams-saigon-Execution-1968-07


VN 3169589_org



VN photo-from-vietnam-war-turns-40


VN Wounded


VN course21


VN my_lai_massacre


VN Iconic-Protests_Darg


VN th146



VN vietnam-war1


VN Vietnam Memorial

No Comments