Towns and Nature: Leesburg, FL: Paquette's Historical Farmall Museum
Towns and Nature: Leesburg, FL: Paquette's Historical Farmall Museum: ( Satellite ) This is one of those topics for which I took so many photos in the museum that I was intimated by the prospect of discussing t...
Lex Anteinternet: "All along the watchtower".
Lex Anteinternet: "All along the watchtower".: There must be some kind of way outta here Said the joker to the thief There's too much confusion can't get no relief Bob Dylan, &...
Blog Mirror: Losing Time
A new entry by South Roane:
Losing Time
This gets a bit to a topic I've addressed elsewhere, both here and on Lex Anteinternet, that being that if I'd had my ruthers, I'd just get by on what I grow, shoot or catch. That wouldn't be my wife's ruthers, however, so a volunteer cow and one of her cousin's pigs is in the freezer right now. And with my really bad luck on hunting license draws recently, if we got by on what I shot or caught, we'd be eating a lot, and I do mean a lot, of rabbit, as it's the only thing that in recent years I could be nearly guaranteed of getting.
Having said that, I did get a deer last year with a general draw license.
I posted a comment on the linked in blog entry, which is as always well worth reading, but what I'd note again here is that when we look back, and some do, and think "I'd live just like my ancestors. . . ", well, they didn't have freezers. At least not until the 1950s.
Related threads:
Lex Anteinternet: Carbon Hypocrisy
Lex Anteinternet: Carbon Hypocrisy:
Carbon Hypocrisy
Off to the side, in the blogs we follow section, is one called Buzzard's Beat.
"Buzzard" is a female rancher in southeast Kansas. I know that everyone who isn't too familiar with Kansas thinks of it as one giant wheat field, but it isn't. In actuality, there's a lot of ranch ground in Kansas.
I've had the opportunity to drive across Kansas twice. People complain about places like Kansas and Nebraska being boring, but I really enjoy the states. Moreover, I've driven across the back roads of those states in addition to the long, boring interstate highways. This true of North and South Dakota as well. I really love them, even though I'm not from there.
This isn't, however, a travelogue of the farm belt, but rather to point out two posts she makes.
One is entitled: Dear Richard Branson: What's worse, a rocket or a steak?
It's pretty clearly the rocket.
What I want to point out here is hypocrisy, and not just the hypocrisy of Sir Richard Branson, although I do want to point out that.
Rather, what I want to point out is that in the discussion on global warming, everyone seems to feel free to blame others while their own conduct goes unnoticed.
It's become trendy to blame agriculture, more particularly stock raising, for global warming. That gets both to this post and another she's put up, that one being Raising Cattle for a Healthy Climate. Both are well worth reading, as well as a number of other posts she's put up, including Dear Epicurious: Your Meat-Free Resolution Confuses Me.
This also gets to the recent trend of the dim giving up meat as they think it helps the planet somehow.
Seemingly missed by the dim are some basic facts of animal production. Every domestic meat animal can be raised on food, for it, that you can't eat. You really can't eat prairie grass, for instance, but cows can. You sure can't eat the crap that sheep do. And even the finish grain that's used, unless you are buying "grass fed" beef (or simply eating a volunteer grass fed cow, like we are), that being corn, is a grain that you can barely actually eat. I know that maize is a worldwide staple, but frankly unless its ground up and processed into something it's actually a human foodstuff that you can't really digest for the most part. Corn on the cob may be delicious, and it is, but it, um, mostly passes through you. And we all know that it's really a vehicle for butter, salt and pepper anyhow.
As she points out, the greenhouse gasses that are produced by livestock globally are really small. And contrary to what those self-declared non meat eating environmentalist may imagine, the carbon footprint of nearly everything produced by a "dirt" farm is massive.
Put another way, if you are dining on a big bowl of nice health brussels sprouts, unless you grew them yourself, they didn't get to your bowl during the annual brussels sprout migration. No, they were grown by somebody using some pretty heavy-duty diesel powered things, and then trucked to market by a pretty heavy diesel powered thing, kept cool by something that was electric, and then you probably fired up your car and drove to the store to get them.
Hmmm. . . .
Also, while we're at it, if you are vegan or a vegetarian, you should be aware that production crop agriculture is a major killer of animal life, so you can pretend you don't have blood on your hands, but they're at least as bloody as somebody's who eats meat. I'm not dissing farmers for this, it's just the way things are. But if you spend a day on a combine you are going to mow down something, and that's just the start of it.
It's not that there aren't things everyone can do about this, but feeling sanctimonious about your own personal dinner plate isn't it. The more you think that your bowl is planetary benign, the more likely it isn't. Ideally, if we really wanted to be fully green, we'd grow our own vegetables, as much as possible (and it wouldn't be 100% possible) on our big urban lawns, and we'd buy a local beef or go hunting in the fall. If you aren't doing at least one of those things, you aren't the least bit green and should quit pretending that you are.
And if you are so massively wealthy that you can afford to blast yourself into space, unless you are a neo Tolstoy living the peasant life, you're mere existence is carbon positive, let alone indulging yourself in being a space cowboy.
Lex Anteinternet: Blog Mirror: “Since Time Out of Mind.” Asserting ...
Lex Anteinternet: Blog Mirror: “Since Time Out of Mind.” Asserting ...: “Since Time Out of Mind.” Asserting Woodland Rights in an English Village
The Good Old Days.
Among the blogs linked in to our companion blog Lex Anteinternet is the blog of the Adam Smith Institute.
I'll confess when I linked it in, I'd run across it and had confused it with another entity, perhaps The Philadelphia Society. No matter, this British institution celebrates the thinking of Scottish economist Adam Smith, a person whom free marketers herald, and with good reason.
In terms of economics, I'm a distributist, which puts me in a group of about five people or so, all of whom have to spend endless time, if the topic comes up, just trying to explain what distributism is. Distributism, a species of free market economics, hasn't been popular in the main since the Second World War, and to compound the problem of its obscurity, its not only saddled with an unfortunate name, but it attracts people who are sometimes on fringe of wacky, or not outright wacky. For example, as its modern founders were Catholics (Chesterton and Belloc), and English, it'll attract very conservative Catholics who have strayed into thinking they are monarchists. As Belloc had an absurdly romantic concept of the Middle Ages, and as some Belloc fans think everything he said must be accepted without analysis, perhaps there was some inevitability to that, and to a completely inaccurate view of what Medieval economics were like (and I do mean completely inaccurate).
Anyhow, the Adam Smith Society posts some really thought provoking items, and todays' entry is not exception.
THE GOOD OLD DAYS ARE RIGHT NOW - AND DON'T FORGET IT
I'll admit, I don't really fully agree with what the headline relates, but in some significant ways, this is really correct. They correctly note, for example:
We’re richer, live longer lives, have more choices, are, in general, just the generation of our species living highest upon the hog. At levels quite literally beyond the dreams or imagination of those significantly before us.
They go on to honestly note, however:
However, happier is more complex, one correspondent grasping this point:
Here's an interesting item on this:
This is why all those surveys showing that female - self-reported - happiness has been declining to standard male levels over recent decades. That wholly righteous economic and social liberation of women has led to greater choice and thus higher opportunity costs. As women gain those same choices as men therefore happiness rates converge.
The article doesn't really draw any conclusions, save for one, these are the "good old days". And it makes some pretty solid arguments.
All of this is in reply to a post in The Guardian, which posed the question of "when", or "what" were the good old days. [1]. It wanted reader comments on the same.
The Guardian is a notoriously left wing newspaper with frequently very radical ideas. It's gained global circulation in the age of the Internet, and it now is fairly widely read in the US, helped in part by the fact that it lacks a "pay wall", unlike the Washington Post or New York Times. My point here isn't to criticize those latter papers, but to simply note that's how The Guardian is now read by the same folks in rural Wyoming who read the NYT. Indeed, perhaps they're more like to read The Guardian, even though its radically "green" position is likely to make some folks pretty upset locally and they are, in my view, often way off in left field.[2].
Anyhow, the Adam Smith Society likely is correct that in all sorts of substantial ways, we're in the good old days right now. But it is interesting that female happiness is declining. And what its declining to is the rate of male unhappiness.
A couple of years we reported on the finding that workplace discontent is way up over 50% in the United States. That makes it seem like Joanna might be right in her comment to Peter in Office Space that "everyone hates their job", but if that's true, it's really distressing, to say the least.
The Guardian item brought a lot of replies, and its clear that a lot of people really do look back on a prior era, material advances not withstanding, as happier than the current one. Some people cited the 1950s, which seems to often hold this status in people's recollections, in spite of the really scary Cold War, the hot Korean War, and for the British the falling apart of the British Empire all being a feature of it. One person commented that it was the 1970s, which wouldn't occur to me, as I lived through the 70s and have a pretty good recollection of it.
Indeed, there's a good case to be made that "the good old days" were the days in which you were young and without burdens, as your parents took care of them, or some past era you didn't experience, reflected through a mirror, inaccurately, with the bad things filtered out. There are, for example, people who are real fans of the 1940s, and the 1940s were generally horrific on the main. The British often look fondly back at the 40s, I'd note, as, at least in modern times, it really was "their finest hour." Be that as it may, if you were on a beach at Dunkirk hoping not to become a casualty or a German prisoner of war, it would have been unlikely to be seen as a nifty time, at the time.
But I digress.
Focusing on the rising level of female discontent, the Adam Smith Institute correctly notes the following, in my view.
That's pretty hard to disagree with.
What that comment means is that the calls by those who would really return truly to the past are misguided due to the horrors of the past. One of those was high infant, and female, mortality.
Both of those factors are well known but easily forgotten in romantic recollections of the past. Indeed, its interesting to see how this has evolved over time.
To set things in a bit of context, if we went back, let's say, to the 1700s, we'd find that the normal state for men and women to live in was, not surprisingly, marriage. No matter what moderns may like to believe, this is the normal state and for a society on thinner resources, it was actually the only one really safe if people were to yield to their reproductive instincts in any fashion. This is not a surprise.
What might be a surprise, however, is that remarriage by males was extremely common at the time due to a high female mortality rate mostly associated with childbirth. I.e., lots of women died in childbirth and the men usually went on to remarry. It must of hung like a cloud over pregnant women like nothing else.
Additionally, infant mortality was really high. Indeed, a lot of the illusion that we now live longer is based on the massive reduction in the deaths of infants and young children. Take those figures out, and average lifespans aren't much different than they are now. Additionally subtract those figures for women who died in childbirth and this is even more the case.
Not too many women in developed countries now die in childbirth and infant mortality is also way down. We know this intellectually, but we have a hard time grasping it in real terms. I don't know of a single person, personally, who has died in childbirth. I know of couples that have lost infants in childbirth, but not many.
So the Adam Smith blogger certainly has a point.
But it also begs a point. If being free from the high risks of death in childbirth and the risk of losing an infant aren't making women happier, why is that.
That gets back to what we've noted before. People aren't really meant to live this way. I.e, in an industrial society.
And that gets back to the overall happiness rate.
We noted the other day that what the Industrial Revolution achieved, in social terms, was to take people off the land and into factories and work places, but not all at once and not by gender all at once. It took men first, due to their physical build in part but also in part as it was easier to spare them from the home. I.e., you can take a young man with a child and send him down a coal mine without the child, but you really can't send a nursing young woman down the coal mine without the kid.
We're so used to the concept of men being out of the home and away from their families that it not only seems the norm, it became celebrated as the social norm for a long time. However, as we've also noted here in the past, the development of domestic machinery changed that for women over time and their labor became surplus to the home. When that happened, they were redeployed in the economy in the workplace. That went from a more or less temporary matter in a lot of households to a necessary one over time and now the economy demands it. It demands it so much, in fact, that a recent (and maybe still ongoing) effort in the U.S. Congress was to subsidize the workplace by government funding for daycares. People are so used to this concept by now that they don't recognize that for what it is, which is a pure subsidy for employers so that women with children have no excuse but to go to work.
Starting to resist that are women themselves. We just dealt with that more recently here:
A lamentation. The modern world.*
That post contained this item from a young woman in her early twenties from Twitter:
I don’t want to work. I want to be home with my baby and I can’t afford it. I hate that. I hate it so much.
I don't mean to keep belaboring this point, and this does all recall, kind of, Thomas Wolfe's comment that "you can't go home again and stay there". That seems to be sort of true, but then what Chesterton stated, and which is featured on the footer of this blog, about clocks being human contrivances and being capable of being set back is also completely true. What we seem to have achieved, however, is to create a system that makes us materially much wealthier but its contributing to some degree to our misery.
Why is that?
Well, it might be that a major deep seated reason for all of these changes was to secure us from the wolf at the door, but it was never meant, psychologically, to take that door out of the field. In other words, maybe we burned down the farm, in order to save it.
And we could always rebuild that.
Footnotes.
1. My favorite reply to the question was this one:
I remember a time when nostalgia was a thing of the past.
I'll get my hat...
2. The Guardian aids itself in being taken seriously, I'd note, by not prominently featuring Cheesecake like so many other British newspapers.
Lex Anteinternet: Friday July 8, 1921. Whiskey in some jars but not...
Lex Anteinternet: Friday July 8, 1921. Whiskey in some jars but not...:
________________________________________________________________________________
Friday July 8, 1921. Whiskey in some jars but not others. End of the Anglo Irish War, Prohibition, and the formation of Land o Lakes.
On this day in 1921 the Irish Republicans and the British government agreed to a truce in order to commence discussions concerning Irish independence. The truce was to go into effect on July 11.
De Valera's note to David Lloyd George at the conclusion of the meetings read:
Sir, The desire you express on the part of the British Government to end the centuries of conflict between the peoples of these two islands, and to establish relations of neighbourly harmony, is the genuine desire of the people of Ireland.
I have consulted with my colleagues and secured the views of the representatives of the minority of our Nation in regard to the invitation you have sent me.
In reply, I desire to say that I am ready to meet and discuss with you on what bases such a Conference as that proposed can reasonably hope to achieve the object desired.
I am, Sir, Faithfully yours, Eamon de Valera
With this, a major mental impasse had been reached in the conflict with the British all but agreeing to some form of Irish independence.
Land o Lakes agricultural co op was formed. We noted their formation date, and the controversy surrounding their former promotional image, here:
Exit Mia.
On July 8, 1921, Minnesota Cooperative Creameries Association, a dairy cooperative, formed for the purpose of marketing their products. They didn't like the name, however, and held a contest that ended up selecting a submission made in 1926, that being Land O Lakes, noting the nature of Minnesota itself, although we don't associate lakes much with dairy. In 1926 the coop received a painting of an Indian woman holding a carton of their butter, looking forward at the viewer, with lakes and forests in the background. They liked it so much they adopted it as their label and while they had it stylized by Jess Betlach, an illustrator, the image itself remained remarkably consistent with the original design, which says something as illustrations by Betlach sometimes approached the cheesecake level and depictions of Indian women in the period often strayed into depictions of European American models instead of real Indian women.
For reasons unknown to me, the depiction of the young Indian women acquired the nickname "Mia" over time.
And now she's been removed from the scene, quite literally.
In 1928 the Land O Lakes dairy cooperative hired an advertising agency to come up with a logo for them. The logo that was produced featured an Indian woman kneeling in front of a lake scene, with forests surrounding the lake, and holding a box of Land O Lakes butter in a fashion that basically depicted the woman offering it to the viewer. From time to time Land O Lakes actually changed the logo on a temporary basis, but it always featured Mia, but not always in the same pose. On at least one occasion she was shown in profile near a lake and seemingly working (churning) something in a pot. On another, she was rowing a canoe.
Frederic Remington nocturn, The Luckless Hunter. This is a fairly realistic depiction of a native hunter in winter, on the typically small range horse of the type actually in use on the Northern Plains.
The adoption of Indian depictions and cultural items as symbols in European American culture goes a long ways back, so Land O Lakes adopting the logo in 1928 was hardly a novelty. In ways that we can hardly grasp now, European American culture began to admire and adopt Indian symbols and depictions even while the armed struggle between the native peoples and European Americans was still going on. Frontiers men dating back all the way to the 18th Century adopted items of native clothing, which may be credited to its utility as much as anything else. In 1826, however, a tribe was romantically treated in Cooper's Last of the Mohicans, which virtually defined the "noble" image of the Indian even as the "savage" image simultaneously kept on keeping on. The popular genre of Western art continued to do the same in the last half of the 19th Century, and often by the same artists (with Russel being an exception, as he always painted natives sympathetically, and Shreyvogel being the counter exception, as always did the opposite). Cities and towns provided an example of this as their European American settlers used Indian geographic names from fairly early on, after the original bunch of European place names and honorifics ceased to become the absolute rule, with some western towns, such as Cheyenne, being named after Indian tribes that were literally being displaced as the naming occured.
William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody and Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake, i.e., Sitting Bull, in 1885, the year he joined Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. Sitting Bull received $50.00 per week, as sum that's equivalent to $1,423.00 in current U.S. Dollars. He worked for the show for four months, during which time he made money on the side charging for autographs. This came only nine years after he was present at Little Big Horn and only five years before his death at the hands of Indian Police at age 59, just two weeks before Wounded Knee.
The entire cultural habit took on a new form, however, in the late 19th Century, just as the Frontier closed. Oddly, the blood was hardly frozen at Wounded Knee when a highly romanticized depiction of American Indians began. Starting perhaps even before the last major bloodletting of the Frontier had occurred, it arguably began with Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West Show, which employed Indian warriors who had only lately been engaged in combat with the United States.
The principal Indian performers, if we wish to consider them that, were men, as were most of the performers. But women had a role in Wild West shows as well, as did children. As Cody was not unsympathetic to Indians in general, his portrayals of Indian women and children were not likely to have been too excessive, but this is not true of all wild west shows of the era, some of which grossly exaggerated female Indian dress or which dressed them down for exploitative reasons.
Nonetheless, as this occurred, a real romantic view of Plains Indians arose and white performers affected Indian dress or exaggerated Indian dress and an entire romanticization of a people who were still very much alive and not living in the best of circumstances oddly took off. White performers made the circuit performing as romantic Indian couples and an adopted romanticized Indian culture seeped into the general American culture in various ways, including in the form of depictions and ritual.
Camp Fire Girls in 1917. The first half of the 20th Century saw the rise of the scouting movment and in the English speaking world this spread to girls after it has become very successful with boys. The Boy Scout movement had military scouting and hence military men as the model for its idealized muscular Christianity movement, but no such equivalent existed for girls. In the US this came to be compensated for, however, by the adoption of the Indian woman as the model, as she was outdoorsy and rugged by default.
This saw its expression in numerous different ways, including in its incorporation into the Boy Scout inspired female scouting organizations and in popular "Indian maiden" literature. But it also saw the development of the use of depictions of Indians in advertising and popular culture.
Out of uniform Girl Scouts in 1912 in clothing and hair styles that were inspired by presumed native female dress.
In 1901 one of the legendary American motorcycle companies simply named itself "Indian", for example. Savage Firearms named itself that in 1894, with there being no intent to demean Indians but rather to name itself after Indian warriors. Cleveland called its baseball team the "Indians". The NFL being a late comer to American professional sports, the Washington football franchise didn't get around to naming itself the "Redskins" until 1932 in contrast.
The psychology behind this cultural adaption is an interesting one, with a conquering people doing the rare thing of partially co-opting the identify of the conquered people, even as those people remained in a period of trying to adopt to the constantly changing policy of the post frontier American West. Celebrated in their pre conquest state, and subject to any number of experiments in their day to day lives, it was as if there were two different groups of people being dealt with, the theoretical and the real, with the real not doing so well with the treatment they were receiving. Indeed, that's still the case.
Following World War Two this began to be reconsidered, with that reconsideration really setting in during the 1970s. Books and films, and films based on books, that reflected this reconsideration became widely considered. Thomas Berger's brilliant Little Big Man remains in its brilliant and accurate reflection of Plains Indian culture what True Grit is to the culture of the southern American European American West. Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee destroyed any remaining claim the Army had to the event being a battle definitively. The 1973 American Indian Movement occupation of Wounded Knee brought the whole thing into sharp focus. Kids who had gone to school their entire lives with Big Chief writing tablets would finish the decade out with Son Of Big Chief, who looked a lot more like he'd been with AIM at Wounded Knee or maybe even at Woodstock.
American Indian Movement flag.
As this occured, people questioned the old symbols and depictions. But it wasn't really until the late 1990s that the commercial and popular ones began to go.
Slowly, and sometimes controversially, after that time, people began to reconsider the depiction of people it had used in advertising where those people had been minorities. It didn't just apply to Indians, of course, but too all sorts of things. Sombrero wearing Mexican cartoon characters and bandits disappeared from Tex-Mex fast food signs. Quaker Oats' "Aunt Jemima went from being a woman who was clearly associated with Southern household post civil war servants, who had only lately been slaves, in an undoubtedly racist depiction, to being a smiling middle aged African American woman whom Quaker Oats hoped, probably accurately", would cause people to forget what being an "aunt" or "uncle" meant to African Americans. As late as 1946 Mars Inc. would feel free to do something similar but without the racist depiction and use the "uncle" moniker and a depiction of well dressed elderly African American for Uncle Ben's Rice, something they've kept doing as they'd never gone as far as Quaker Oats. And these are just common well known examples. There are leagues of others.
But removing labels and depictions has been slow. The Washington football team remains tagged with the clearly offensive name "the Redskins". Cleveland finally retired the offensive Chief Wahoo from their uniforms only in 2018.
So what about Mia?
Slowly, and sometimes controversially, after that time, people began to reconsider the depiction of people it had used in advertising where those people had been minorities. It didn't just apply to Indians, of course, but too all sorts of things. Sombrero wearing Mexican cartoon characters and bandits disappeared from Tex-Mex fast food signs. Quaker Oats' "Aunt Jemima went from being a woman who was clearly associated with Southern household post civil war servants, who had only lately been slaves, in an undoubtedly racist depiction, to being a smiling middle aged African American woman whom Quaker Oats hoped, probably accurately", would cause people to forget what being an "aunt" or "uncle" meant to African Americans. As late as 1946 Mars Inc. would feel free to do something similar but without the racist depiction and use the "uncle" moniker and a depiction of well dressed elderly African American for Uncle Ben's Rice, something they've kept doing as they'd never gone as far as Quaker Oats. And these are just common well known examples. There are leagues of others.
But removing labels and depictions has been slow. The Washington football team remains tagged with the clearly offensive name "the Redskins". Cleveland finally retired the offensive Chief Wahoo from their uniforms only in 2018.
So what about Mia?
She started leaving, sort of, in 2018 when the logo was redesigned so that the knees of the kneeling woman were no longer visible, in part because in the age of easy computer manipulation she became a target for computer pornification by males with a juvenile mindset. That fact, however probably amplified the criticism of the logo itself, which was changed to being just a head and shoulder depiction. Now, she's just gone.
But did that really make sense, or achieve anything, in context?
A literal association between Native Americans and dairy would be odd and was probably never intended. While native agriculture varied widely, no Indian kept cattle until after they'd been introduced by European Americans and cattle are, of course, not native to North America. Indians did adapt to ranching in the West, something that's rarely noted for some reason, and indeed the entire Mexican ranching industry is a mestizo one and therefore a blending of two cultures by definition. On the northern plains some Indians were working as cowboy and even ranchers by the early 20th Century and Southwestern tribes had adopted livestock in the form of sheep by the mid 19th.
But dairy cattle are a different deal and there's no, in so far as I'm aware, Native American association with it. Indeed, 74% of Native Americans are lactose intolerant.* This isn't surprising as its fairly well established that lactose tolerance is a product of evolutionary biology. By and large, the vast majority of cultures have had no reason over time to consume the milk of cattle they were keeping, which were kept first for food, and then for labor, and then as things developed, for labor until they could not, at which time they became food. Milk wasn't high on the list. And for Native Americans, being one of the three inhabited continents in which cattle were not native, it was obviously off the list.**
Some critics have called the imagery racist. North Dakota state Rep. Ruth Buffalo, a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, says it goes “hand-in-hand with with human and sex trafficking of our women and girls, by depicting Native women as sex objects". But that comment seems misplaced with this logo. She's definitely not the odd blue eyed "Navajo" woman wearing blue beads that still appears on the doors of the semi tractors of Navajo Express.
Indeed, the irony of Mia is that in her last depictions she was illustrated by Patrick DesJarlait, who was a Red Lakes Ojibwe from Minnesota. He not only painted her, but he painted her wearing an Ojibwe dress. So she was depicted as an Indian woman, by an Indian artist.
It's hard to see a man panting a woman of his own tribe, fully and appropriately dressed, as being a racist or exploitative act.
Indeed, the opposite really seems true. The original dairy co-op was really trying to honor their state in the name and they went the next step and acknowledged the original owners. Mia was the symbol of the original occupants.
And now she's gone, and with that, the acknowledgment of who was there first.
Which doesn't seem like a triumph for Native acknowledgment.
________________________________________________________________________________
*As are 70% of African Americans and 15% of European Americans. Surprisingly 53% of Mexican Americans are, in spite of dairy products being common to the Mexican dietary culture. A whopping 95% of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant.
Just recently I've come to the conclusion that I'm somewhat lactose intolerant myself, something I seem to be growing into in old age. Only mildly so, and I've only noticed it recently. My children, however, have problems with dairy. My wife does not. So they must get that via me.
***Cattle are not native to the new world or Australia, but are found just about everywhere else.
Prohibition raids were going on in the Washington D. C. era on this day a century ago.
Pouring whiskey into a sewer
In legal proceedings elsewhere, French observers at German warc rime trials departed after declaring the German proceedings "a farce".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 66th Edition. A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer up your pants.*
Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 66th Edition. A littl... : Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 66th Edition. A little song, a littl...
-
So, having published this screed over a period of days, and then dropping the topic, we resume with the question. Why, exactly, do you think...
-
Southern Rockies Nature Blog: Lettuce Get Down to Business : Photo from 1918 of the Mahon Ranch, west of Buena Vista. Pictured are Martha M...
-
I see Joe Salatin is at this event: Homesteaders of America Am I the only Agrarian in the world who isn't a Salatin fan? I can't eve...
