Aside from 6 letters in the same order, Ireland and Iceland also share something else in common: mitochondrial DNA (mDNA). mDNA is the kind of DNA you get from your mother. It, in fact, is handed down daughter to daughter, generation after generation. What is interesting about Iceland is that even though it is assuredly Scandinavian, a good share of its mDNA is closely related to women who lived in Ireland thousands of years ago.
How is this possible? you ask. Space aliens? While space aliens would be a very satisfying answer, scholars speculate that the real answer is much more earthy: rape and pillage. You see for centuries Vikings terrorized the British isles, storming in and stealing goods and women. When settling Iceland randy and wifeless Norwegians took a nip into Ireland and stole some them some wives. Ipso facto.
Fascinating!
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Offended or the Scion of West Jordan Speaks or You don't fuck with family
I have no clue why I am so offended by this event that has to do with my family:
What the hell? Ghosts? 13 bucks a pop?
What the hell.
They were my ancestors, not theirs to be exploited for your entertainment.
I had words with someone who doesn't understand family on this issue. I regret that.
Still, I am very protective of my family and was quite riled to see our name used in such an egregious fashion.
Yes, I probably am old-fashioned in that sense. Despite my rather unconcerned nature, I'm ready to come to blows over this insult.
I think what it is, is that someone is taking control of my family's history, other than someone who is of the family.
That's an extreme violation of taboo in my family. Only the family tells its history. All others are flat out wrong.
Wow. I'm surprised at the guttural nature of my feelings on this matter. In any case, I am right, and they are wrong.
Pure and simple.
That's pretty much how my family has kept it over the years. The first and best joke I ever heard was "The only problem with the X-family (insert a suitable name there) is that they think they are as good as the Gardners. "
Oh yeah, I am pre-disposed to think I'm better than you all.
Actually I've moved beyond that, but it is stunning how this little bit of usurpation really scritches me.
Funny what pride can do, ain't it? It is at moments like this when movies like the Godfather make total sense.
What the hell? Ghosts? 13 bucks a pop?
What the hell.
They were my ancestors, not theirs to be exploited for your entertainment.
I had words with someone who doesn't understand family on this issue. I regret that.
Still, I am very protective of my family and was quite riled to see our name used in such an egregious fashion.
Yes, I probably am old-fashioned in that sense. Despite my rather unconcerned nature, I'm ready to come to blows over this insult.
I think what it is, is that someone is taking control of my family's history, other than someone who is of the family.
That's an extreme violation of taboo in my family. Only the family tells its history. All others are flat out wrong.
Wow. I'm surprised at the guttural nature of my feelings on this matter. In any case, I am right, and they are wrong.
Pure and simple.
That's pretty much how my family has kept it over the years. The first and best joke I ever heard was "The only problem with the X-family (insert a suitable name there) is that they think they are as good as the Gardners. "
Oh yeah, I am pre-disposed to think I'm better than you all.
Actually I've moved beyond that, but it is stunning how this little bit of usurpation really scritches me.
Funny what pride can do, ain't it? It is at moments like this when movies like the Godfather make total sense.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Fascinating Fact #4: Tennis Scoring
There is some debate as to how tennis gained its wonky scoring--you know: love, 15, 30, 40, deuce. Some say that it derives from a clock face that might have been used to keep score in the Rennaisance: 15, 30, 45, 60. "But wait!" you shout. "There is no 45!" It has been argued that "45" was shortened to "40" because it was easier to say. This may be true in French, (a language, I am told, which has a really odd counting system), but it certainly seems to be stretching it in English.
Others argue that tennis derives it scoring from a sphairistike (a game played by British officers in India) which named the scoring after the caliber of canon on ships.
The term "love" has obscure origins too, with various people making up etymologies as they go along.
As you can see, there is no clear history of either the game of tennis (which existed at least since the thirteenth century in some form) or its scoring. It is argued that early tennis (played inside on wooden courts) was a very different game indeed. Sphairistike, they would argue, is the direct predecessor of modern outdoor tennis.
So the fact is that the history of tennis is quite obscure. No doubt this is because people were much too busy playing the game than writing about it.
Fascinating!
Others argue that tennis derives it scoring from a sphairistike (a game played by British officers in India) which named the scoring after the caliber of canon on ships.
The term "love" has obscure origins too, with various people making up etymologies as they go along.
As you can see, there is no clear history of either the game of tennis (which existed at least since the thirteenth century in some form) or its scoring. It is argued that early tennis (played inside on wooden courts) was a very different game indeed. Sphairistike, they would argue, is the direct predecessor of modern outdoor tennis.
So the fact is that the history of tennis is quite obscure. No doubt this is because people were much too busy playing the game than writing about it.
Fascinating!
Sunday, March 02, 2008
The gift outright or a punching your mother in the eye
The SL Tribune editorializes this morning on more silly Utah legislation:
or, as Frost noted:
What with the increased in Utah's population over the last 3 decades, my assumption is that most of us Utahns are out of very recent immigrant stock (immigrants to Utah, that is.) Now, I'm not going to beat this to death, but I think it is important to establish where we come from in order to move on to the question that bugs me about the presumption of the legislature that Utah should control the fate of wilderness within its borders. I'm not sure I will delve into the major contributing factor to the issue--what the belief system is that motivates people to "reform" nature rather than accepting it as it is. I will save that question for another day.
Now, back to the population issue: while Utah families tend to be large, I don't think that this would account for the massive growth in population. I suppose if I took an informal poll, I could easily determine Utah natives from Utah imports. Easily 50% of my colleagues in my department at work, for example are imports. I would not take this sample as a valid indicator of populace, simply because academia is an itinerant occupation and academics go to where the students, rather than staying where they are at and having no students to teach, even if they have to move to a place they detest.
This sudden expansion in Utah's population, has lead to, some might believe, certain attitude towards the land that Frost talks about: people think they own the land rather than being owned by it. In a Terry Tempest-Williams sense, we are of a place: that place shapes our psyche, our sense of self, even our values. What I'm getting at is that sometimes folks with out a sense of history of a place--without a sense of that place being "home" have little regard for either its preservation or sustainability. This certainly, I believe, has been a small factor in the destruction of Sugar House: recently arrived Utahns may not have any nostalgia for the place, and don't see the sense in preserving a bunch of dilapidated old buildings. (Bear with me, non-Utah native readers, as I'm not really insulting you.)
Now, of course, this being Utah, such a supposition is contradicted: the folks often times advocating for preservation of wilderness are not native Utahns. In fact it is often native Utahns who want to rip up the wilderness all for the sake of a few measly dollars that will go into their home towns (the rest of the wealth being exported to other climes--in that sense they are being colonized without even realizing it.) Often times these folks are seen as carpetbaggers and derisively called "Californians" no matter where they originate. They also seem to have a certain embarrassment about Utah: it lacks civilization; it is ugly desert; it is boring (all the things in italics are observations about Utah I've heard in conversation.)
Ultimately this is where a nativist gets it wrong: just because you are born in a place is not going to make you love it or be "owned" by it. In fact, you might think that because it is yours by birth right you can do whatever you want with it. Much as a 2 year old will willing sock his mother in the face, a native will figuratively sock mother nature in the face simple for the offense of being inexplicably there (and beautiful to boot.)
So what is the upshot of all this: never get used to anything because one day its not going to be there to be used to any more. Often times we adopt a place and are spiritually nourished by it, to go back to the Tempest-Williams goo gah.
"This land is our land: We're just thankful that Utah House Resolution 10, which tells Congress to quit creating federal wilderness areas in Utah without the unanimous support of the state's congressional delegation, is nonbinding. Built on the erroneous argument that Utahns should have more say over federal land here than other Americans who also own it, the resolution ignores the economic reality that ranching and energy extraction are yielding to tourism as Utah's primary economic engine. Wilderness-quality lands must be held in trust for future generations. We don't believe that we should entrust Utahns alone with that responsibility." (The Thumb - Salt Lake Tribune)
or, as Frost noted:
The land was ours before we were the land's.
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England's, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed by,
Possessed by what we now no more possessed.
Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced,
Such as she was, such as she would become. (Robert Frost, "The Gift Outright." The Poetry of Robert Frost, 424-25)
What with the increased in Utah's population over the last 3 decades, my assumption is that most of us Utahns are out of very recent immigrant stock (immigrants to Utah, that is.) Now, I'm not going to beat this to death, but I think it is important to establish where we come from in order to move on to the question that bugs me about the presumption of the legislature that Utah should control the fate of wilderness within its borders. I'm not sure I will delve into the major contributing factor to the issue--what the belief system is that motivates people to "reform" nature rather than accepting it as it is. I will save that question for another day.
Now, back to the population issue: while Utah families tend to be large, I don't think that this would account for the massive growth in population. I suppose if I took an informal poll, I could easily determine Utah natives from Utah imports. Easily 50% of my colleagues in my department at work, for example are imports. I would not take this sample as a valid indicator of populace, simply because academia is an itinerant occupation and academics go to where the students, rather than staying where they are at and having no students to teach, even if they have to move to a place they detest.
This sudden expansion in Utah's population, has lead to, some might believe, certain attitude towards the land that Frost talks about: people think they own the land rather than being owned by it. In a Terry Tempest-Williams sense, we are of a place: that place shapes our psyche, our sense of self, even our values. What I'm getting at is that sometimes folks with out a sense of history of a place--without a sense of that place being "home" have little regard for either its preservation or sustainability. This certainly, I believe, has been a small factor in the destruction of Sugar House: recently arrived Utahns may not have any nostalgia for the place, and don't see the sense in preserving a bunch of dilapidated old buildings. (Bear with me, non-Utah native readers, as I'm not really insulting you.)
Now, of course, this being Utah, such a supposition is contradicted: the folks often times advocating for preservation of wilderness are not native Utahns. In fact it is often native Utahns who want to rip up the wilderness all for the sake of a few measly dollars that will go into their home towns (the rest of the wealth being exported to other climes--in that sense they are being colonized without even realizing it.) Often times these folks are seen as carpetbaggers and derisively called "Californians" no matter where they originate. They also seem to have a certain embarrassment about Utah: it lacks civilization; it is ugly desert; it is boring (all the things in italics are observations about Utah I've heard in conversation.)
Ultimately this is where a nativist gets it wrong: just because you are born in a place is not going to make you love it or be "owned" by it. In fact, you might think that because it is yours by birth right you can do whatever you want with it. Much as a 2 year old will willing sock his mother in the face, a native will figuratively sock mother nature in the face simple for the offense of being inexplicably there (and beautiful to boot.)
So what is the upshot of all this: never get used to anything because one day its not going to be there to be used to any more. Often times we adopt a place and are spiritually nourished by it, to go back to the Tempest-Williams goo gah.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
We can prevent this!
We can prevent this!
Originally uploaded by Theorris
Sugar House in SLC is under attack yet again: the historic Snelgrove sign is the latest Sugar House landmark under threat. The sign, for those not in SLC, is on 21st South, just before 9th East. It has been there for decades and used to advertise the Snelgrove Ice Cream store that was one of the last pure ice cream fountains that saw its heyday from the early 20th century until about 1950. The Snelgrove store hung around until the late 80's/early 90's when Snelgrove sold their brand to Dreyer's. Dreyer's quickly ditched the store, converting it into corporate offices.
The plot thickens now, since Dreyer's has decided to abandon the Snelgrove brand in favor of its own. This, in itself, is not problematic, but, unfortunately, Dreyer's apparently wishes to so de-brand Snelgrove that it is going to remove this famous Sugar House landmark.
Albeit Dreyer's is seeking to give the sign to a local group, but failing that, it seems the sign's future is in peril. It would, of course, be better if the sign stayed where it was at, but if Dreyer's is bound and determined to remove a local landmark all for the sake of "branding" then so be it. The sign, however, should be preserved--preferably on 21st South somewhere.
Don't let them do what they did to old Sugar House to the Snelgrove sign! See the Sugar House flickr group for more information.
This is what I just sent to the KSL TV and Radio news directors to get some media attention to the matter:
Dear KSL News Director,
As KSL has reported, Dreyer's ice cream has decided to discontinue the Snelgrove brand altogether, and replace it with Dreyer. An acquaintance of, [arts enthusiast], was concerned about what Dreyer's was going to do with the historic landmark Snelgrove sign in on 21st South in Sugar House. She, therefore, wrote to them and inquired about the future of the sign (which was, by the way, recently damaged without explanation). She received the following reply from Dreyer's:
> Dear Ms. [arts enthusiast],
>
>
> Thank you for visiting our website and for your
> e-mail message. It is always a pleasure to hear
> from our consumers whose ideas, comments and
> concerns are very important to us here at Dreyer's.
>
> We appreciate your loyalty to Snelgrove and its
> significance in the history of your area. We hope
> you will be happy to know that Dreyer's is presently
> in talks with a handful of local historical
> societies to see whether we can donate the sign so
> it can be enjoyed by generations to come.
>
> We are delighted to hear that you feel Dreyer's
> produces delicious ice cream. Please watch for our
> follow-up response to arrive shortly by U.S. Mail,
> some coupons for future purchases and a current
> flavor list. We appreciate your interest in our
> company and the time you have taken to contact us.
>
> Sincerely,
>[name withheld to protect the worker]
> Consumer Response Representative
>
> Ref # [withheld]
>
As you may note, Dreyer's is apparently not interested in preserving this landmark on their sight--a sign beloved by many Utahns and an important reflection of our community values.
I believe that the future of the sign is worthy of a story on KSL. It would be interesting to know, for example, who they have contacted to preserve the sign and where it would end up eventually.
Of course as a life-time Utah resident, I am interested in keeping the sign where it is at, but if Dreyer's insists on removing it, I fully understand that it is their right to do so. I believe, however, that it should be preserved.
Now, of course, it is up to you if you think this story is worth pursuing. I believe that many Utahns would be interested in the fate of this sign, given that Sugar House has undergone some very tumultuous changes in the last decade.
Sincerely,
[Theorris Boonasty]
[The Wilhelm]
Salt Lake City, Utah 841[XX]
(801)-[XXX-XXXX]
Arts Enthusiast is going to write to the Utah Historical Society and to SLC Mayor Ralph Becker.
I suggest that if you're interested in preserving a bit of SLC history, you write to someone too.
So is my current blog theme of "Justice" an uncanny prediction of events I'm currently engaged in, or unduly influencing my recent mondo-political blogging?
Thanks again to Cunaldo for sharing his image "Godzilla's Profile" under a Creative Commons license, share and share alike.
----------------
Listening to: Siouxsie & the Banshees - Cities In Dust
via FoxyTunes
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Friends, Utahns, and Countrymen...
Heyo...some immediate action needed, dear Utah readers. Take a gander at the email I received from Jessica at HEAL Utah:
Here is what I wrote (and despite the rhetorical flourishes, I really do believe it):Dear [Theorris],
Your State Senator, [Sen. X], will be voting on Renewable Energy Provisions (SB 173) this Friday during a committee meeting. This bill sets a target for 25% of our energy in Utah to come from renewable sources by 2025. Can you please contact Sen. Fife and urge him to vote for SB 173?
Below is a sample message you can use, and here is Sen. [X's contact info [find it yourself at the Utah State Senate site.]
Make sure to say you are his constituent and to vote “Yes on SB 173, Renewable Energy Provisions.” Here is a sample message/e-mail note:
Subject: From Constituent: Vote Yes on SB 173, Renewable Energy Provisions
Body: Dear Sen. X,
As your constituent, I ask that you please vote “yes” on SB 173, Renewable Energy Provisions. I believe this is the bill Utah needs to develop the clean energy resources we have in our state. SB 173 creates a market for renewable energy to attract the clean energy jobs and investment now flowing into other western states. Renewable energy is already economical to conventional sources and this bill would protect ratepayers should it ever prove to be too costly.
Sincerely,
Your nameThanks again for contacting your state senator. For more information about the bill, visit our website: http://www.healutah.org/files
/RealMcCoy.pdf . Feel free to contact me with any questions or if you get back a response.Jessica Kendrick
Field Organizer
HEAL Utah
801-355-5055
Dear Senator [X],
As your constituent, I ask that you please vote "yes" on SB 173, Renewable Energy Provisions and to encourage your fellow State Senators to join you. This is the bill Utah needs to develop clean energy resources. SB 173 creates a market for renewable energy, attracting clean energy jobs and investment now flowing into other western states. Renewable energy is already more economical than conventional sources, and this bill would protect ratepayers in the unlikely event that renewable energy ever prove to be too costly.
Support of renewable energy is a means of ensuring that we will be able to pass on to future generations a livable and sustainable world. Ultimately, it is up to us all to ensure that our progeny, both distant and immediate will be able to live in the Utah that wise-minded people like my ancestors (pioneers of 1847) left. In their brief respite on Earth, they planned a community that was sustainable and passed it on to their children. I fear that the road we travel down now is ignoring their essential wisdom and common sense about how to live in a place like Utah and flourish, for the sake of "convenience" and, I hate to say, greed.
Senator Fife, I am a proud Utahn, the scion of pioneer stock, and I feel SB 173 is essential to our future.
Sincerely,
[Theorris Boonasty]
[The Wilhelmn]
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, The Universe 84109
gardnecl@gmail.com
Prospecting
Selenite
Originally uploaded by Theorris
My grandfather was a prospector in Southern Utah and consequently was a rock hound. He had thousands of specimens which he would enter into mineral and rock shows.
Here is one of his specimens, a piece of selenite (a gypsum). It was not the easiest thing to photograph, as I wanted its translucence and ability to spread light to be shown. Selenite is the same chemical composition as alabaster, in case you wanted to know. Selenite is just the clear, well clearer, version of it.
You can see some of my grandfather's rock collection and his entire arrowhead collection at Southern Utah University.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Shipler revisited
Shipler revisited
Originally uploaded by Theorris
This was taken roughly from the same spot as Shipler's photograph from December 1950.
I think in 2010, I'll go to the same spot in December and take another. I should have taken this one in December 2007, given that the buildings (now demolished) would have still been there. A kid walked by while I was taking this and said in reference to the demolition: "Its sad, isn't it?"
Note the big differences--B&N, no more Redman Movers sign, no more buildings to the right. Shipler also had a real panorama camera. I just have its digital equivelant (therefore the stitching.)
Note the similarities: cars and precious-few pedestrians.
Which do you like better?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
The past in a laundry basket
Friend Counterintuitive recently worried about floppy disks that he keeps. I've done him a gigabyte better with my collection of hard drives from the many, and dearly loved, computers I've owned over the last 20 years.
How did hey end up in my laundry basket?
God only knows.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Why I don't write about the Catholics occupying channel 3 on Comcast or How to piss another religious group off
Channel 3 on my loverly Comcast[TM] cable network is current showing nothing but the ever-famous ETWN (Eternal Word Network) a.k.a. the angry Nun channel. I used to watch ETWN for fun when it was on channel 72 or whatever on Comcast[TM], but after being removed from the cable network for a year or so, they are back, decidedly so, on channel 3 where they used to show Park City TV and a ton of fun snowboarding and skiing highlights.
Now I salute Comcast[TM] for being committed to religious diversity, especially since they offer 2 channels devoted to LDS concerns and one (channel 72) devoted to fundamentalist concerns, but come on! Put ETWN back on the high end of the dial where I can surf between evolution and poker.
In any case, I was very amused while wandering around between the Simpsons (who had a great slam on Utah, by the way) and Family Guy, to find either a Benedictine or an Augustine Monk (can't tell the difference between their gray garb) proclaiming that "Jesus was offensive to all the religions of his day" since he proclaimed himself or was proclaimed the son of God. He also mentioned that Mohamed would have been very offended by such a proclamation, because (like the Jews) followers of Islam believe that God is one god and that there can be no "son" of god.
Now all of that is sound, in that both Islam and Judaism proclaim that. His next claim, however, was extraordinarily specious: pagans (i.e. the Roman/Greek religion) would also never accept that a man could be god.
I stood (yes I was standing), stunned, not thinking of my next hit of the button to change channels. I had to wonder if this monk really believed that. Did he not know that Julius Caesar was declared a god by the Romans? Did he not know that Augustus (while seemingly denying his elevation in lifetime) was also declared a god?
What about the ever-problematic Caligula? He proclaimed himself to be Jupiter himself.
Nero too.
Claudius, the god.
Ignoring cultural context and proclaiming something unique seems to be a rather human foible.
Now I salute Comcast[TM] for being committed to religious diversity, especially since they offer 2 channels devoted to LDS concerns and one (channel 72) devoted to fundamentalist concerns, but come on! Put ETWN back on the high end of the dial where I can surf between evolution and poker.
In any case, I was very amused while wandering around between the Simpsons (who had a great slam on Utah, by the way) and Family Guy, to find either a Benedictine or an Augustine Monk (can't tell the difference between their gray garb) proclaiming that "Jesus was offensive to all the religions of his day" since he proclaimed himself or was proclaimed the son of God. He also mentioned that Mohamed would have been very offended by such a proclamation, because (like the Jews) followers of Islam believe that God is one god and that there can be no "son" of god.
Now all of that is sound, in that both Islam and Judaism proclaim that. His next claim, however, was extraordinarily specious: pagans (i.e. the Roman/Greek religion) would also never accept that a man could be god.
I stood (yes I was standing), stunned, not thinking of my next hit of the button to change channels. I had to wonder if this monk really believed that. Did he not know that Julius Caesar was declared a god by the Romans? Did he not know that Augustus (while seemingly denying his elevation in lifetime) was also declared a god?
What about the ever-problematic Caligula? He proclaimed himself to be Jupiter himself.
Nero too.
Claudius, the god.
Ignoring cultural context and proclaiming something unique seems to be a rather human foible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)