|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6
stranger
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6 |
When someone's spouse dies, they become a widow or widower. When someone's parents die, they become an orphan. Is there no specific word in English to describe a person whose child or children have died?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
They are bereaved, but I haven't seen it used as a noun.
I was also going to mention "bereft" but it's not in my dictionary, to my surprise. I must go look it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6 |
I guess I wasn't clear enough with my question. I meant a *specific* word that applies *only* to parents who've lost a child or children.
No one but a child who's lost their parents is an orphan.
No one but a man/woman who's lost their spouse is a widower/widow.
Anyone who's lost anyone they cared about is bereaved. It's not a special word just for parents who've lost a child.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I meant a *specific* word that applies *only* to parents who've lost a child or children.
You'd *think that would go without saying, but Noooo.
I think the problem is that it is only recently that the condition has been other than essentially universal. No special term was felt to be needed to describe the condition that was so common for most of the period of development of the English language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6 |
That thought crossed my mind (the ubiquity of child death in the past) but becoming a widow has always been quite common and orphans have always been common.
If the commonality for something were a factor in whether it were named or not, we wouldn't have words like "breathing" or "dying."
I suspect that there is no word in the English language for "person whose child has died" but it puzzles me all the same. There *should* be such a word *because* it is such a common occurence.
Another thought that crossed my mind was that perhaps there is no word for it because people avoid discussing the topic. But I don't think Western society was always so tight-lipped about child death as it is now. Perhaps there is no word for it because childhood death was so much more expected than other deaths. The death of a spouse or one's parents are common but were less expected than the death of a child. (Today those expectations are reversed.)
There are other things that are highly expected that don't have names. We have the word "virgin" but there is no single word (that I know of) for a non-virgin because it's expected that we will all become one some day.
Now that childhood death is less expected, perhaps someone should coin a word for a bereaved parent. It seems too important a life experience to not be named.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
I know it's not the answer to the question but I think it's interesting in a tangential way, so I'm going to tell you all anyway.
In Indonesian there are two words for someone who has lost a parent: yatim for someone who has lost their father, and piatu for someone who has lost their mother. Orphan is yatim piatu.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Perhaps there is no word for it because childhood death was so much more expected than other deaths.
This may get to the nub of the matter better than my somewhat glib suggestion. Also being a widow, widower or orphan made a significant difference in one's life style. When a woman was economically dependent on having a man in her life and a man was just as dependent, for other reasons, in having a woman in his, noting that one was without the husband or wife was an important consideration. For a child to have no parents is still an important consideration. If all of one's children have died and the woman is past the age for bearing more, then there is only the matter of inheritance, and I'm sure there's a legal term for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
if there was/is an word-- it would apply to queen anne.
having ones children's die was a common enough occurance, but not one of the 14 (or some other godawful number) of queen's anne's children survived..
if some obsure word does exist-- look to a biography of her!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 67
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 67 |
"I know it's not the answer to the question but I think it's interesting in a tangential way, so I'm going to tell you all anyway.
In Indonesian there are two words for someone who has lost a parent: yatim for someone who has lost their father..."
Interestingly, in Urdu, 'yateem' (or 'yatim') means an orphan too... though it isn't specific to a child who has lost his/her father.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
re:Now that childhood death is less expected, perhaps someone should coin a word for a bereaved parent. It seems too important a life experience to not be named.
a few year ago, a young man i knew died(aged 34) of a ceribal hemorage how doyou spell anyorism?
his family was very religious jews, but unlike a normal 7 day period of morning, there was only a short time for sitting shivis.
the period of morning for the death of child is short, by law and custom. if he had been married, his wife would have been "the chief morner", not his parents. and he would have died as father or husband.. but since he was unmarried, he was considered a child still...
it was upsetting all round.. his death, everything...
your right Magdalene, things have changed... but it doesn't happen often enough for there to be a word for it.. and i doubt one will be coined.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6 |
your right Magdalene, things have changed... but it doesn't happen often enough for there to be a word for it.. and i doubt one will be coined.
You might be surprised at how often children die even today. The reason you hardly ever hear about it is that there is a strong social pressure against discussing the death of a child. Because the death of a child is less expected and because the bereaved parents are often discouraged from mentioning their experience, losing a child may be an even more traumatic experience today than it was a hundred years ago when it was expected and okay to talk about.
I think that there is some potential for a neologism. It would most likely come from a group of people like "Compassionate Friends" and then spread through the media to the general population. Whether a word actually is coined or not depends mostly, I'd suppose, on the needs and wishes of the bereaved parents themselves.
The question arose in my mind after reading a news story by reporter Lindy Washburn in which the author said, "Women who have lost their husbands are called widows. Women who have lost children should have their own special term, so defining is the ordeal." It struck me that there really should be a word for that and how surprising that there isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
No special term was felt to be needed to describe the condition that was so common for most of the period of development of the English language.
Huh?
What was "so common" throughout the history of the English language that explains why there is no word in english to describe parents who have survived their offspring.
Was it more likely a hundred or two hundred years ago that children would predecease their parents? And, if it was more likely, why would that be a reason not to have an english word describing the parents who survive their child?
If it is more likely today that a child will predecease their parents than in the past, why would that be a reason not to have an english word describing the parents who survive their child? New words appear in the language every day to describe things that previously went unnoticed or, at least, unnamed. [Tornadoes have been around forever, but how long has "tornadic" been around, I wonder?]
I just don't get it, Faldage. Can you make any sense out of what you have just written?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171 |
Perhaps one of the constraints against coining such a word has to do with the inadequacy of the English languge to express in a single word the status of the surviving parents. It is clear that "orphan" defines a person who has lost both parents; and it is clear that "widow/widower" defines a woman/man who has lost her/his husband/wife. But how would one define parents who have lost a child but who may (or may not)have other surviving children?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6 |
If one can define them with the phrase "bereaved parent" why couldn't one define them with a single word?
How do you define a parent who had one or more children that all died? Are they still a parent? A childless parent? Do they "have any children"? How would they answer the question? "none living?" "No" "yes, but they're dead"?
I don't think a term to describe a bereaved parent ould really need to specify whether there were other children or not. A widow can have a husband - if she re-marries she's a "re-married widow" but still a widow. An orphan can have parents - they can be an adopted orphan. And a parent who's lost a child can still have other children but be bereaved all the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
how would one define parents who have lost a child but who may (or may not) have other surviving children?
I follow your logic, Hawaii. A very plausible explanation.
Do you follow the explanation Faldage has offered? I'm not sure if his theory is plausible or not because, try as I might, I can't detect any theory in his postulation.
Is it possible to postulate something without actually postulating a theory?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171 |
There actually is a term that describes a mother who has lost a child, but it's unique as to circumstance: Gold Star Mother.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
In Indonesian there are two words for someone who has lost a parent: yatim for someone who has lost their father..."
Interestingly, in Urdu, 'yateem' (or 'yatim') means an orphan too... though it isn't specific to a child who has lost his/her father.
Orphan in Indonesian is yatim piatu, i.e., fatherless motherless.
One thing I have noticed is that if you ask an Indonesian how many brothers and sisters they have, the answer will include any deceased siblings. So they might say "5 but 2 died", or they might say 5 and not bother to tell you that 2 of them died. I haven't asked many parents how many children they have, so I'm not sure if the same holds for parents.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
his family was very religious jews, but unlike a normal 7 day period of morning, there was only a short time for sitting shivis.
the period of morning for the death of child is short, by law and custom. if he had been married, his wife would have been "the chief morner", not his parents. and he would have died as father or husband.. but since he was unmarried, he was considered a child still...
Coincidentally enough, I was reading Plutarch's biography of Numa Pompilius (king of Rome, traditional dates 715-673 BC), who was revered as a great law-giver and establisher of religious rituals, and came across this passage:
Numa also prescribed rules for regulating the days of mourning, according to certain times and ages. As, for example, a child of three years was not to be mourned for at all; one older, up to ten years, for as many months as it was years old; and the longest time of mourning for any person whatsoever was not to exceed the term of ten months; which was the time appointed for women that lost their husbands to continue in widowhood. If any married again before that time, by the laws of Numa she was to sacrifice a cow big with calf.
A complete translation (it's the same translation as I'm reading)is at:http://makeashorterlink.com/?K1AD21294
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 180
member
|
|
member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 180 |
"how doyou spell anyorism?"
aneurysm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
No special term was felt to be needed to describe the condition that was so common for most of the period of development of the English language.
Can anyone please help me out here?
I don't get it.
What was "so common" which would explain why there was no word to describe a parent who had lost a child?
If this doesn't make any more sense to anyone else than it does to me, why do we pretend it makes sense by ignoring it?
I think Faldage is deserving of more respect than that.
If no-one else can explain what Faldage means, maybe we should give Faldage a chance to do it for himself.
It seems only fair.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171 |
"What was "so common" which would explain why there was no word to describe a parent who had lost a child?"
I interpreted the statement as meaning that "infant mortality" was "so common" that almost all parents fell into the category of "parents who had lost a child", and that there was therefore no need to differentiate among parents by coining a special word which would essentially apply to the majority of them. I'm not sure enough of the statistical basis for this statement (i.e., what percentage of parents suffered child loss during the "period of the development of the English language"), but the premise doesn't seem that far fetched to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
the statistical basis for this statementApparently solid statistics weren't kept then, but this site seems to indicate that before the 20th century infant mortality ran around 200-300 per 1000 live births: http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
I happen to both understand and agree with Faldage's view. The number of families in which children died - and it was 17 in the case of Queen Anne, if my memory is not too faulty - prior to the 20th century was so high that it was something to be expected. Why no English word was coined to describe a parent who had lost a child is no clearer to me than to Faldage, but his explanation of why one may not have been required rings quite true.
For most of human history, infant mortality in the region of 25% seems to have been the norm. You bred four times to ensure three. Or something like that anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
In my historical interpretive studies for mid-19th Century American (US) life, the figure given for childhood mortality, under the age of ten, was 50%....so Americans, at that time, could expect to lose half their children before they were ten years old. A high childhood mortality rate was one of the reasons folks were given to raising such large families then (10 to 17 children were common)...the other being that, in a largely agrarian society, extra hands were needed to run the farm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,636
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,636 |
Well, *that and there really was no effective means of birth control and dag-nabit, the making is just too much fun 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
Nobody seems to ever ask "How many parents do you have", even though the time seems to be *ripe for it.
+
As long as your ability to have more children isn't hindered what difference did it make if any died when loss is/was so *common.
=
?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
before the 20th century infant mortality ran around 200-300 per 1000 live births
OK, now I get it. Thank you.
An interesting point. But it gives us only half an explanation. It explains why we did not have a word to describe such a parent over a hundred years ago, but it doesn't explain why we have no word for such a parent today. New words come into the language all the time. That's why I lean toward Hawaii's explanation. It covers both time periods, then and now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Well, *that and there really was no effective means of birth control and dag-nabit, the making is just too much funYep, Connie...and most women in those days were almost continually pregnant from the time they first wed (many as young as 14 or 15) to the time they reached menopause (usually around 40 or so). Fun, eh, ladies?  That is, of course, unless they decided to refrain from their "fun" for awhile. I guess that's why brothels were viewed as a "necessary evil" where gentrified gentlemen could partake of their pleasures without worrying about impregnating their wives. Brothels were the "birth control" of the day, if you will. And a strange, and never-spoken-about, double standard in a supposedly rigorously religious society. Of course the less-monied, the poor, and the farmers couldn't afford this option. But one does wonder when they found time among the rural set, since many of the farm families shared one large bed with the mother and father in the middle and the children, according to age, next to them, the daughters next to Mom and the sons next to Dad. Doesn't make a great recipe for romance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Re:. Brothels were the "birth control" of the day, if you will.
and the ladies there too, got pregnant-- another 'unspoken' aspect was 'work houses' and 'infants' home (such as the the oliver twist got sent to) where infant mortality was as high a 95%--
in NY city, such 'day care centers' for the poor and unwed often had 97 to 99% mortality in the first year.. (it was a form of infantcide)(according to reformer like Jacob Riis)
the mothers (or fathers) didn't do it directly, but they abandon their children to such care centers/orphanages, and never visited them.. and the children soon died..
it was rare for an orhanage to actually care for and have children survive.. the exceptions were usually religious run orphanages.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
farm families shared one large bed with the mother and father in the middle and the children, according to age, next to them, the daughters next to Mom and the sons next to Dad. Doesn't make a great recipe for romance.
Which reminds me of the Buck Brown cartoon from Playboy many, many moons ago: "Betty Sue, I'm ashamed o' you, givin' to a total stranger what you won't give to your own kin!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Brothels were the "birth control" of the day, if you will.
and the ladies there too, got pregnant--
Yes...and, unfortunately, the female babies there were pretty much born into the life. Raised by their brothel mothers, they were then actually marketed by the madam as virgins, when ready, for inflated fees....sometimes disgracefully underage. An excellent study of this was the Louis Malles film, Pretty Baby, which looked at the late 19th century New Orleans "Storeyville" red-light district through the eyes of famed lithograper, Toulouse-Lautrec. And, remember, New Orleans was the Bible Belt, and still, the well-to-do gentlemen had a second life in these dens of iniquity. It was a magnificiently photographed art film that saw wide release at the time (1978)...but I don't know if it could even get made today with shots of a naked 10 year old actress (Brooke Shields) with her mother (Susan Sarandon), and the not visually graphic but audio-graphic deflowering scene. The other double-standard, of course, was that "good women" (wives) were not supposed to *enjoy sex. Only whores enjoyed sex. Ergo a woman who *enjoyed sex was looked down upon as something of a harlot. And that attitude lingered well into the 1960s...and still does in some quarters today. So husbands looked to their wives to make babies, and to the brothel for their *pleasure. Lusting for one's wife would degrade her virtue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
REa:these dens of iniquity
boy,thats a blast from the past!--it was one of the phrases my mother used to put down places we hung out (local soda shop!) when i was teen!
and when some one was a dissevled, "they looked like the wreck of the Hesperus"
and when she complained about our rooms being a mess, she likened them to 'the black hole of Calcuta'...
look out Juan, you're turning into my mother!
and remember, New Orleans was the Bible Belt-- this is not really true..
NO was, (and all of louisiana,) very catholic-and its still very french
in fact, its state constitution,is not based on english common law, as are the other 49, but on napolianic code- and this shows up in accounting, were "General Recognizes Accounting Practices"- a guide to accounting, notes that lousiana does not follow the same rules..
--it even plays out in vocabulary-- the state has parishes, not counties.. and of course it still celebrates Mardi Gras... in a big catholic way.. (and only in Spanish South America so you get anything that comes as close-- Rio's "carnival")-- the catholic influence is so strong, that before the US civil war, it was the second choice for irish immigrants, (after NY, with boston 3rd!)
the irish weren't treated any better there than in NY or New England, tho
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171 |
Does anyone follow the "Word Fugitive" column in "The Atlantic Monthly?"
This month, the challenge is to come up with a word "...for the common experience of saying something to your child and then realizing--often with shock--that you sound like one of your own parents."
(The other challenge this month is to come up with "...a word for a fear of running over squirrels.")
If you're not familiar with this enjoyable column, you can find it on line at <http://www.theatlantic.com/fugitives>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
The last time I looked, Good Friday was still a legal holiday in Louisiana. To give public employees a day off to go to church on Good Friday has been held, by courts in other states, to violate the First Amendment, but it seems not to trouble the justices in Louisiana.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
To give public employees a day off to go to church on Good Friday has been held, by courts in other states, to violate the First Amendment, but it seems not to trouble the justices in Louisiana.
This is a timely remark for me, Father Steve. The other day I went to my daughter's Honor Roll ceremony. She goes to a public school. Now, Kentucky is most definitely in the Bible Belt; if memory serves me correctly, it took a Federal court order to get the Ten Commandments out of Kentucky schools (posted on the wall, they were), and there is still a lot of controversy over it. However, it has pretty much become accepted that staff cannot lead students in prayer, nor can they advocate any particular religion. So it came as rather a surprise to me when the school's chorus sang a VERY Christianity-based song. And for the first time (mind, it had been a long, long time since I'd heard something like that), it bothered me, sitting there listening to what I would expect as a matter of course--in church. I certainly never gave a thought to it as a child; being a WASP, it did not occur to me that familiar words and songs might be strange, or even offensive, so other kids. But this day, it did bother me; I glanced around, wondering how many in the audience might be non-Christian or atheist, and I thought it was rather unfair to force them to be a captive audience.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
come up with a word "...for the common experience of saying something to your child and then realizing--often with shock--that you sound like one of your own parents." I think that's been done, John. Or, at least, I'd call that an ohnosecond!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
This is such a difficult and fascinating area of the law.
On the one hand, the First Amendment protects us all from some school teacher or administrator indoctrinating our children into their favourite sect or cult ... and the majority thinks that is good. On the other hand, the First Amendments prevents the majority from imposing its dominant religious beliefs on those who do not share them ... and the majority is unnerved by this.
The area of music is especially difficult, but it is similar to many other areas where there is a literature which ought to be studied and enjoyed, but that literature contains or arises from a religious point of view. Surely students of English ought to be able to study the Canterbury Tales without their teacher being accused of a First Amendment violation. Surely students of art ought to be able to view those masterpieces which have religious subjects without their teacher being accused of proselytizing. Just as surely, there are great pieces of music which have religious content and any school system which pretended that they do not exist -- either as objects of study or pieces to perform -- would be delivering less than a complete education.
This subject seems a bit far afield from the normal discourse on this board, and I fear that we may rile up a few sensitive souls by having this conversation here, Jackie. Maybe it ought be continued by PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
, father steve, this could be a subject that slips into a war.. but as see your agruement, Surely students of art ought to be able to view those masterpieces which have religious subjects without their teacher being accused of proselytizing. -- i think about the fact that i was never taught that algerba was an arab inventions..
the whole idea of arabic numbers (a term i never learned till out of highschool!) came from the arab world..
now, i went to a RC school, and they did give a history books with a definate religious slant. (ie, we learned about 'good Queen Mary'--ie, "bloody Mary", Queen Elizabeth's older sister.) and the whole of crusades were very slanted to show the views of christianity.. (and after reading more, i tend to agree with that view)
but no where, were we taught about any of the influence of non europeans --a little snuck in in HS level but really history was all viewed through the eyes of europeans...
china gets a mention in the middle ages,(marco polo) and the idea of orient is kicked around, leading to the discovery of the americas, and then china make an appearance again in the boxer war, --japan is treated the same way too, only of interest when europeans went there.
history books, even a HS level cover "world history" as "the history of european exploration of the world"-- its a very simplistic view.
and the treatment of africa is worse! 99.9% of american think all of africa is inhabitated by negros.. they are unaware of berbers (an ethnic group found on the north edge of africa), or that bush men- (crossing thread) are an other total different groups.. and why should they? the only mentions africa rates is in the history of slavery.. (its as if nothing ever happened there till europeans showed up!)
so i am all for immigrant learning about european history, and culture, it is the predomiante one here in US, and i think it has a lot to offer the world, it is more democratic and tolerant than most other cultures in the world..
but we children of european settlers, and inheritors of european culture, need to learn more about the world!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
I think the difference lies in the difference between "discussion of" and "advocacy of".
When I was at primary school we had religious instruction, a very Presbyterian hellfire and brimstone version of Christianity, and the hell with you (literally) if you weren't a WASP.
Even then we could tell that our teacher hated it and everything to do with it; she flatly refused to do the teaching and they got some nong in who ranted and raved at us for 40 minutes every week. We saw it as time out.
But it is very hard to discuss topics like this without being seen to be advocating them rather than raising them as topics for discussion. I found, when I was teaching ethics, that some people simply cannot grasp the idea that it is possible to discuss something without actually taking sides on its legitimacy, especially if there is an emotive element to it.
Staying away from politics and religion on this Board makes a lot of sense ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
...and I fear that we may rile up a few sensitive souls by having this conversation here, Jackie. Maybe it ought be continued by PM.
- and -
Staying away from politics and religion on this Board makes a lot of sense...
I agree!
********
Since 'politics' and 'religion' don't represent two different things (not that they *realistically ever have) why does "the West" continue to attempt to logically divide these two (and fail miserably, I might add)?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
"Does 'one divide into two' or 'two fuse into one'? This question is a subject of great debate. This debate is a struggle between two conceptions of the world. One believes in struggle, the other in unity. The two sides have drawn a clear line between them and their arguments are diametrically opposed."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
Good Friday was still a legal holiday in Louisiana
You mean it's not a day off in other parts of the US? I never thought Canada was such an oddball. It's one of the few mandatory store closing days here in Newfoundland, and also in Manitoba. (There are only about five days in the year here when stores MUST close, and Good Friday is one of them. The rest of the holidays depend on the individual employer or union.) It also should be remembered that Catholics traditionally did not have a lot of power in Canadian politics, since the "usual" political split in the "olden days" would be French-Catholic vs. English-Protestant, with the English-Protestants having the upper hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Re:...would be French-Catholic vs. English-Protestant, with the English-Protestants having the upper hand.
Yeah, but©, it's not as if the English-Protestants don't observe Good Friday.. so really, there is no conflict... both groups would agree to having the day as holiday.
Tennessee, now, because of various factors (new car factories being build there, and other new technological industristies relocating there, etc) had found its self with immigration of the type east coast cities used to have...very multi ethic!
there are now large populations from the indian sub-continent (pakistani, and indian), and from south east asia. so the white bread, WASP population of Jackie's childhood, has become much more international!
an indian writer, living in a large neighborhood in NY--were it is easy to keep ones native accent, wrote an article about visiting a cousin in Kentucky. when he phoned and spoke to his neice, he first thought he had the wrong number... instead of the common 'sing song' rhythm of speech, (Apu of the simpsons is a perfect example of the sterotype) he heard a southern drawl, You' all, know what i mean?--his neices and nephews had taken on the rythm and speach habits the area!
he also gave a guide to approximating the indian population.. look in the telephone book, and find the name 'Patel' - (it doesn't mean smith, but it is as common a name as smith)- multiply the number of 'Patel's' by 100-- you have the number of households..
and he further refined it to note that you need at least 3 patels to find a good indian restaurant!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
One believes in struggle, the other in unity.The word "believes" in there *deserves all our attention.------------- The two sides have drawn a clear line between them and their arguments are diametrically opposed.One believes that competition between individuals will collectively increase the value of the whole as all the individuals better themselves... the other believes that when the best parts of each individual are brought forth for the benefit of the whole, the society betters itself. I think it's quite clear that both are true, but...The one where an individuals progression is sought doesn't really find the value in the individual (other than the collection of them...) and the one where societies' progression is sought directly from the value of the individual doesn't really find value in society. The blindness to the above 'values' exposes the need for the religions each (diametric) has *chosen. I'm sure someone can shed even more light with clearer words than those...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
One may concede easily that civil governments ought not give people the day off (nor close banks nor allow the kids to escape from school) for such occasions as the Feast of the Assumption nor Saint Bernard's Day nor Maundy Thursday. But that is not the hardest case. Purist political philosophy wanes when the question is put: do we keep the post office open and make kids go to school on Christmas?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
(posing as a cynic)
Not a problems really, letting kids out of school for christmas, lets face it, in US, christmas is a secular holiday, all about gift (or one could say all about shopping) and it no longer is a religios one.
some old die hards still remember the christian religious underpinnings, but in an other couple of hundred years, it christmas as a religious holiday in US will be as quaint as All Hallows Eve!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> Christmas as a religious holiday
Is this 'Christmas' you refer to some archaic form of the great end-of-year spending frenzy we call X-Mas?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
... are both public holidays in NZ. Garden centres open on both days and are regularly prosecuted for doing so ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
They offer such things as:
"--A full range of quality plants and products, with market leading brands
--Quality advice from a qualified and experienced team
--Replacement guarantee of establishment of our plants in your garden
--Continuously changing 'special-priced' promotional lines
--A weekly radio Garden Show
--Landscape design advice
--General garden advice "
Won't give the site, as it's a commercial one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
What on God's green earth do USns call Garden Centres, then?
And why Garden Centres, in April? Isn't that fall/autumn in NZ? Not the greatest of times to be a-plantin'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>What on God's green earth do USns call Garden Centres, then?
Garden Centers. 8 )
except, of course, in the backwoods of New York and in deepest, darkest Atlanta
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Thank you, Bean. That was the gist of my question. As for you, dear tsuwm, an emoticon: 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 180
member
|
|
member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 180 |
"Isn't that fall/autumn in NZ? Not the greatest of times to be a-plantin'."
Au contraire. Fall is the most conspicuously bestest time to plant many things, like trees and shrubs. They have to be left in peace to put down roots before spring comes and they have to concentrate on growing. Which I mean they CAN'T grow leaves and stuff without they got some roots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
Fall ...They have to be left in peace to put down roots before spring comes and they have to concentrate on growing.Silly me. I guess other places have "peaceful" winters. I would not want to be a rootless tree in one of OUR winters, that's for darn sure! Any tree would blow away before roots could be put down! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
"peaceful" winters
OTOH, some bulbs *want to be frozen (or at least want to winter over) before they'll give you their best come spring.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
And why Garden Centres, in April? Isn't that fall/autumn in NZ? Not the greatest of times to be a-plantin'.
Au contraire, my little runner Bean. In most parts of New Zealand, winter just means that different plants are giving it their best shot. We tend not to run to six feet + of snow ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
The discussion below has all been very interesting, but there's a very simple explanation why there is no word for a parent whose child has died: there was no need for it in the law.
A widow or widower has a legal standing vis-a-vis the estate of the deceased spouse. Similarly, an orphan has a legal standing with respect to his parents' estate. The special legal circumstance for an orphan includes the state's taking on the responsibility for ensuring the welfare of the child. There was no need for such a word for one whose child or children died, since such an event did not provide or require a special status in the eyes of the law.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6 |
Thanks. That makes the most sense of all to me. It's such a simple explanation that it's a surprise that it didn't occur to me right away. Sometimes the obvious is anything but. :-)
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,328
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
691
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
