My grandfather, Percy Taylor Coe, was born into a long lineage of Presbyterians, many of them ministers or missionaries. They were serious about their faith.
Evidence of this was the prayer said before each meal, prayers when one went to bed, service to the poor, giving 10% to the church, trying to love people you did not want to like much less love....One of my memories is riding home with them after church. My grandmother wanted ice cream, but was ashamed to stop at the store to buy it, as buying things on Sunday was not done. Meals for Sunday were to be prepared the day before. I don't know of anyone else with this memory of Presbyterians being so careful about keeping the Sabbath holy. When I once told the story, people looked at me like my ancestors had come from another planet, which, come to think of it, they might have done.
However, this memory is not the one I refer to when I talk about being the last person alive with a particular memory, a memory that will end with me, although my children, having heard the story, possibly will remember the story, not the act.
After my grandfather died, many came to his funeral to say their good byes. They all looked like Presbyterians, men in suits and ties and polished shoes, women in modest dresses and with hats and gloves-- church clothes. What was odd, however, was that at the end of the service, the minister said, we have one last request from Mr. Coe and that is to play his favorite song, The Bells of St. Mary's. "It is," the minister said, "odd that a strong Presbyterian would ask for this song to be played at his funeral. He loved the song and asked us to play it." And they did, leaving me to ponder this mystery for the rest of my life.
I am listening to the song now, sung by Vera Lynn. I am trying to figure out why he loved it so. It is a love song. Either it was about his love for my grandmother -- and we never had doubts that they loved each other even though she was an Eleanor Roosevelt type wife. However, my grandmother told me that when he died, he sat up in his hospital bed (he was dying of cancer), held out his arms, and called out the names of two people --a couple -- who had been friends of his in his youth. He had been skating with them on a pond in Baxter Springs, Kansas, before he and his brothers moved west. As they skated the ice broke and the young couple fell through the ice and drowned before they could be rescued. In dying he called out both their names. "The bells of St. Mary's ...I hear they are calling. The young love, the true love, who calls from the sea, and so my beloved when red leaves are falling, the love...." I always wondered if that song reminded him of his lost friends.
11/14/2009
5/17/2009
early art/symbolism, schmimbolism
World’s Oldest Manufactured Beads Are Older Than Previously Thought
ScienceDaily (May 7, 2009) — A team of archaeologists has uncovered some of the world’s earliest shell ornaments in a limestone cave in Eastern Morocco. The researchers have found 47 examples of Nassarius marine shells, most of them perforated and including examples covered in red ochre, at the Grotte des Pigeons at Taforalt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fingernail-size shells, already known from 82,000-year-old Aterian deposits in the cave, have now been found in even earlier layers. While the team is still awaiting exact dates for these layers, they believe this discovery makes them arguably the earliest shell ornaments in prehistory.
The shells are currently at the centre of a debate concerning the origins of modern behaviour in early humans. Many archaeologists regard the shell bead ornaments as proof that anatomically modern humans had developed a sophisticated symbolic material culture. Up until now, Blombos cave in South Africa has been leading the ‘bead race’ with 41 Nassarius shell beads that can confidently be dated to 72,000 years ago.
Aside from this latest discovery unearthing an even greater number of beads, the research team says the most striking aspect of the Taforalt discoveries is that identical shell types should appear in two such geographically distant regions. As well as Blombos, there are now at least four other Aterian sites in Morocco with Nassarius shell beads. The newest evidence, in a paper by the authors to be published in the next few weeks in the Journal of Quaternary Science Reviews, shows that the Aterian in Morocco dates back to at least 110,000 years ago.
Research team leader, Professor Nick Barton, from the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Oxford, said: ‘These new finds are exciting because they show that bead manufacturing probably arose independently in different cultures and confirms a long suspected pattern that humans with modern symbolic behaviour were present from a very early stage at both ends of the continent, probably as early as 110,000 years ago.’
Also leading the research team Dr Abdeljalil Bouzouggar, from the Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine in Morocco, said: ‘The archaeological and chronological contexts of the Taforalt discoveries suggest a much longer tradition of bead-making than previously suspected, making them perhaps the earliest such ornaments in the world.’
Archaeologists widely believe that humans in Europe first started fashioning purely symbolic objects about 40,000 years ago, but in Africa this latest evidence shows that humans were engaged in this activity at least 40,000 years before this.
Excavations in April 2009 also continued in the upper levels of Taforalt to investigate a large well-preserved cemetery dating to around 12,500 years ago. The project, co-ordinated by Dr Louise Humphrey, from the Natural History Museum in London, has found adult as well as infant burials at the site. The infant burials throw an interesting light on early burial traditions as many of the infants seem to be buried singly beneath distinctive blue stones with the undersides smeared with red ochre. By contrast, studies by Dr Elaine Turner of the Römisch Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz, show that the adults’ grave pits were generally marked by the horn cores of wild barbary sheep. Taforalt remains the largest necropolis of the Late Stone Age period in North Africa presently under excavation.
Professor Barton said: ‘Taking our new discovery of the shell beads at Taforalt, together with the discoveries of the decorated burials excavated by Dr Louise Humphrey, it shows that the cave must have retained its special interest for different groups of people over many thousands of years. One of its unique attractions and a focal point of interest seems to have been a freshwater spring that rises next to the cave.’
__________________
Hum, it looks like a duck. Could that be because I was just watching a film of Konrad Lorenz walking with his ducks.
ScienceDaily (May 7, 2009) — A team of archaeologists has uncovered some of the world’s earliest shell ornaments in a limestone cave in Eastern Morocco. The researchers have found 47 examples of Nassarius marine shells, most of them perforated and including examples covered in red ochre, at the Grotte des Pigeons at Taforalt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fingernail-size shells, already known from 82,000-year-old Aterian deposits in the cave, have now been found in even earlier layers. While the team is still awaiting exact dates for these layers, they believe this discovery makes them arguably the earliest shell ornaments in prehistory.
The shells are currently at the centre of a debate concerning the origins of modern behaviour in early humans. Many archaeologists regard the shell bead ornaments as proof that anatomically modern humans had developed a sophisticated symbolic material culture. Up until now, Blombos cave in South Africa has been leading the ‘bead race’ with 41 Nassarius shell beads that can confidently be dated to 72,000 years ago.
Aside from this latest discovery unearthing an even greater number of beads, the research team says the most striking aspect of the Taforalt discoveries is that identical shell types should appear in two such geographically distant regions. As well as Blombos, there are now at least four other Aterian sites in Morocco with Nassarius shell beads. The newest evidence, in a paper by the authors to be published in the next few weeks in the Journal of Quaternary Science Reviews, shows that the Aterian in Morocco dates back to at least 110,000 years ago.
Research team leader, Professor Nick Barton, from the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Oxford, said: ‘These new finds are exciting because they show that bead manufacturing probably arose independently in different cultures and confirms a long suspected pattern that humans with modern symbolic behaviour were present from a very early stage at both ends of the continent, probably as early as 110,000 years ago.’
Also leading the research team Dr Abdeljalil Bouzouggar, from the Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine in Morocco, said: ‘The archaeological and chronological contexts of the Taforalt discoveries suggest a much longer tradition of bead-making than previously suspected, making them perhaps the earliest such ornaments in the world.’
Archaeologists widely believe that humans in Europe first started fashioning purely symbolic objects about 40,000 years ago, but in Africa this latest evidence shows that humans were engaged in this activity at least 40,000 years before this.
Excavations in April 2009 also continued in the upper levels of Taforalt to investigate a large well-preserved cemetery dating to around 12,500 years ago. The project, co-ordinated by Dr Louise Humphrey, from the Natural History Museum in London, has found adult as well as infant burials at the site. The infant burials throw an interesting light on early burial traditions as many of the infants seem to be buried singly beneath distinctive blue stones with the undersides smeared with red ochre. By contrast, studies by Dr Elaine Turner of the Römisch Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz, show that the adults’ grave pits were generally marked by the horn cores of wild barbary sheep. Taforalt remains the largest necropolis of the Late Stone Age period in North Africa presently under excavation.
Professor Barton said: ‘Taking our new discovery of the shell beads at Taforalt, together with the discoveries of the decorated burials excavated by Dr Louise Humphrey, it shows that the cave must have retained its special interest for different groups of people over many thousands of years. One of its unique attractions and a focal point of interest seems to have been a freshwater spring that rises next to the cave.’
__________________
Hum, it looks like a duck. Could that be because I was just watching a film of Konrad Lorenz walking with his ducks.
4/24/2009
What has science brought about?
I have been working on a paper about American Indian elders. To prepare for writing this paper, I reviewed many academic tomes, from biology to culture, and many decades worth of writings. I not only want to describe elderly American Indians, but -- more than that -- I want to build the argument that in virtually all species with large brains, and long childhoods, elders become important. This is as true in caribou as it is in humans. This is as true in American Indians as it is in Whites, who have seen their elders migrate, like lemmings to the sea, to the Sun Cities of the world.
It was a bit startling to move from the period that encompassed the late 1800s to the 1940s. This literature included strong and clear descriptions of the role of elders, the wisdom of their words, and the respect that position held. We read detailed descriptions of the importance of the knowledge of the elders - how their wisdom saved their people-- and stories of great personal self-sacrifice on the part of the elders to protect the young. We read about the time that elders put into nurturing and educating and protecting the young and the vulnerable
Beginning in the 1950s, however, new approaches appear and slowly, with decade building upon decade, we begin to read about another picture of elders taking up resources, acting in self-interested ways, and repressing the young, because of elder selfishness. Elder influence of the young was no longer seen as a means to an end of pro-social behavior, no longer was it seen to be important to restrain the behavior of the young, encouraging such things as good manners or thoughtfulness.
Now a review of google scholar shows where all this scientific study probably led, and it is a pretty dismal picture,to paper after paper on AI elder dementia, diabetes, cognitive impairment, elder abuse, depression, and coping strategies for careworn care givers.
One has to ask, where did all those studies of noble elders go? There may be two answers here, or a million answers. First, when traditions that encourage altruism and compassion and socially skilled behaviors are lost, we see the influx of depression, abuse, and other problems. Second, there still are strong and resilient elders, our studies, unfortunately, by and large are just not focusing on them. Public health so often involves curious approaches, so often focusing on problems that need to be solved and not on what is working. We look to psychology for solutions, not at what is working in the real world. Where are the studies of those elders? Where are the studies of resilience, nobility, compassion, honesty, justice, service? One has to wonder whether or not a focus on what works, not just on what is broken, might not be important.
It was a bit startling to move from the period that encompassed the late 1800s to the 1940s. This literature included strong and clear descriptions of the role of elders, the wisdom of their words, and the respect that position held. We read detailed descriptions of the importance of the knowledge of the elders - how their wisdom saved their people-- and stories of great personal self-sacrifice on the part of the elders to protect the young. We read about the time that elders put into nurturing and educating and protecting the young and the vulnerable
Beginning in the 1950s, however, new approaches appear and slowly, with decade building upon decade, we begin to read about another picture of elders taking up resources, acting in self-interested ways, and repressing the young, because of elder selfishness. Elder influence of the young was no longer seen as a means to an end of pro-social behavior, no longer was it seen to be important to restrain the behavior of the young, encouraging such things as good manners or thoughtfulness.
Now a review of google scholar shows where all this scientific study probably led, and it is a pretty dismal picture,to paper after paper on AI elder dementia, diabetes, cognitive impairment, elder abuse, depression, and coping strategies for careworn care givers.
One has to ask, where did all those studies of noble elders go? There may be two answers here, or a million answers. First, when traditions that encourage altruism and compassion and socially skilled behaviors are lost, we see the influx of depression, abuse, and other problems. Second, there still are strong and resilient elders, our studies, unfortunately, by and large are just not focusing on them. Public health so often involves curious approaches, so often focusing on problems that need to be solved and not on what is working. We look to psychology for solutions, not at what is working in the real world. Where are the studies of those elders? Where are the studies of resilience, nobility, compassion, honesty, justice, service? One has to wonder whether or not a focus on what works, not just on what is broken, might not be important.
12/02/2008
Raising Homo sapiens children to be sapien
11/20/2008
The Dark Side
The other day on NPR, Susan Roesgen discussed Michelle Obama’s desire to be “First Mom” and seemed to find it unbelievable that a Princeton and Harvard Law School graduate might actually decide to forgo pursuing a high powered career to focus on her children. Having to give up a career, she said was the dark side of his winning the presidency and her becoming first lady.
I have to admit, given the bias of my book, that it seems absurd to hear a giving up a "career" -- so you have time to nurture your children -- referred to as the dark side. It may be the side that involves the most sacrifice and the greatest investment; however, dark side seems a bit overstated.
Google the words "Dark Side," and 40,900,000 hits will appear.
The term "darkside, although I could not find the origin of the term in the dictionary, refers to something negative -- the dark side of man -- our propensity for evil.
Responses to Susan Roesgen's statement fell into two distinct camps:
(1) “First Mom” is the best and most appropriate title for a First Lady with young chldren. I didn't support Obama for President, but I will applaud if his wife remembers her children are far more important than anything else.
(2) It is disappointing to see Ivy League women sell out to patriarchy and become economically dependent on their husbands. Like it or not, a stay-at-home mom is subordinate to her husband. I know it is hard to raise children. However, it should be a “call to arms” to demand family-friendly workplaces, and end to discrimination against wage-earning mothers, and most of all, husbands who take equal responsibility for housework and childcare. I voted for Obama, but already I am disappointed in his “pale male” administration. American feminists need to demand that Obama follow the lead of Chile’s Michele Bachelet and Spain’s Louis Zapatero and ensure that 50% of his Cabinet members are feminist women. I don’t like Michelle’s “First Mom” comment. However, First Ladies don’t get paid anything and Michelle needs to insist that if we expect First Ladies to “be active,” then America needs to pay them. Nov 8th, 2008
These comments raise several points we might discuss.
(1) Are children more important than anything else? If so, why? If not, then what is more important?
(2) Should we really be disappointed when "Ivy League" women -- as opposed to state university graduates? -- leave their careers and devote their time to mothering?
(3) If a woman does make such a decision -- or better said -- if such a decision is made, is that women really "selling out to the patriarchy (and related question -- who/where/what is the patriarchy).
In response to (1), to cut to the chase, there are two ways to look at this question. The first if to look at the person and her personal interests, her self-interest. The second is to look at the future and what it takes to produce a productive series of generations (not necessarily happy or self-fulfilled, but possibly successful as measured in a number of ways); in other words, sacrificing one's self-interest to promote that of future generations.
If we look at the existing research, although the designs often leave something to be desired, studies fairly consistently show that mothers are important in a large number of ways. Mother-involved and well-loved children are more likely to be resilient, have better mental, emotional and physical health, and be good citizens -involved in their communities, and less likely to engage in high risk behavior. I could add more, but I will conclude this part of the discussion by saying that I know of no studies, other than perhaps some really skewed studies done during the heat of the feminist movement, that saw anything negative about such mothers. The negatives of mothering are individual positives. One cannot be a top lawyer, doctor, researcher, and also an involved and loving mother. Children are time-consuming. To raise a child well is pretty much a full time job, particularly during the early years. I am tired of writing, but will end here by stating that if we think primarily of ourselves, it is natural that we will focus on ourselves and our careers; however, if we are concerned about the future, that is a foolish thing to do if we have chosen to be mothers, or even had motherhood thrust upon us. What other people realize and we as Americans often do not, is that we are just a link in a chain that goes back to the beginning of life on earth, and that will continue as long as we have descendants, either Homo sapiens or some other species. While each of us is, in the bigger scheme of things, relatively unimportant, a mere link in a chain, we are also crucial, as that chain could break and thus end with us.
I will continue with the other questions at some point.
I have to admit, given the bias of my book, that it seems absurd to hear a giving up a "career" -- so you have time to nurture your children -- referred to as the dark side. It may be the side that involves the most sacrifice and the greatest investment; however, dark side seems a bit overstated.
Google the words "Dark Side," and 40,900,000 hits will appear.
The term "darkside, although I could not find the origin of the term in the dictionary, refers to something negative -- the dark side of man -- our propensity for evil.
Responses to Susan Roesgen's statement fell into two distinct camps:
(1) “First Mom” is the best and most appropriate title for a First Lady with young chldren. I didn't support Obama for President, but I will applaud if his wife remembers her children are far more important than anything else.
(2) It is disappointing to see Ivy League women sell out to patriarchy and become economically dependent on their husbands. Like it or not, a stay-at-home mom is subordinate to her husband. I know it is hard to raise children. However, it should be a “call to arms” to demand family-friendly workplaces, and end to discrimination against wage-earning mothers, and most of all, husbands who take equal responsibility for housework and childcare. I voted for Obama, but already I am disappointed in his “pale male” administration. American feminists need to demand that Obama follow the lead of Chile’s Michele Bachelet and Spain’s Louis Zapatero and ensure that 50% of his Cabinet members are feminist women. I don’t like Michelle’s “First Mom” comment. However, First Ladies don’t get paid anything and Michelle needs to insist that if we expect First Ladies to “be active,” then America needs to pay them. Nov 8th, 2008
These comments raise several points we might discuss.
(1) Are children more important than anything else? If so, why? If not, then what is more important?
(2) Should we really be disappointed when "Ivy League" women -- as opposed to state university graduates? -- leave their careers and devote their time to mothering?
(3) If a woman does make such a decision -- or better said -- if such a decision is made, is that women really "selling out to the patriarchy (and related question -- who/where/what is the patriarchy).
In response to (1), to cut to the chase, there are two ways to look at this question. The first if to look at the person and her personal interests, her self-interest. The second is to look at the future and what it takes to produce a productive series of generations (not necessarily happy or self-fulfilled, but possibly successful as measured in a number of ways); in other words, sacrificing one's self-interest to promote that of future generations.
If we look at the existing research, although the designs often leave something to be desired, studies fairly consistently show that mothers are important in a large number of ways. Mother-involved and well-loved children are more likely to be resilient, have better mental, emotional and physical health, and be good citizens -involved in their communities, and less likely to engage in high risk behavior. I could add more, but I will conclude this part of the discussion by saying that I know of no studies, other than perhaps some really skewed studies done during the heat of the feminist movement, that saw anything negative about such mothers. The negatives of mothering are individual positives. One cannot be a top lawyer, doctor, researcher, and also an involved and loving mother. Children are time-consuming. To raise a child well is pretty much a full time job, particularly during the early years. I am tired of writing, but will end here by stating that if we think primarily of ourselves, it is natural that we will focus on ourselves and our careers; however, if we are concerned about the future, that is a foolish thing to do if we have chosen to be mothers, or even had motherhood thrust upon us. What other people realize and we as Americans often do not, is that we are just a link in a chain that goes back to the beginning of life on earth, and that will continue as long as we have descendants, either Homo sapiens or some other species. While each of us is, in the bigger scheme of things, relatively unimportant, a mere link in a chain, we are also crucial, as that chain could break and thus end with us.
I will continue with the other questions at some point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)