Although I believe you can never resolve the past by rummaging through it, I do believe that if you have the courage to remember and the strength to be objective you can learn from your own past. The great lesson I've learned is there are times to be silent and even perhaps passive and times when you must emphatically say no.
When I was 12, on December 24th, 1956 my father came to wake me and get me started on mopping the halls of our 5 story apartment building. It was one of my jobs. We were working as superintendents to build enough money so we could own our own home.
I couldn't get out of bed. Every time I moved I felt a sharp pain in my side. I told my Dad I was sick. He figured I shirking my duty and pushed me to get to work. I did. The tenants saw I was in pain and went and told my parents who took me to the MD. I had appendicitis, and the MD. said they got to it just before a rupture. The recovery was a long time spent in bed until April because the incision wouldn't heal. It then became an issue that I might be a Hemophiliac.
Roles abruptly changed. My father became a supplicant, concerned about my needs. Every night when he came home he came first to see me. He brought me dinner and asked how I was and what I would like for dessert. I would ask for an ice cream sundae or a brownie from Moskowitz's bakery and I got it. I was 13 and went from a rail skinny kid to extra large.
To this day as the New Year approaches, I plan again to go on a diet.
Food is a connection to the most important person in my life and the food is not fruit and vegetables. I want to and most probably have to forgive my father but at the same time, I want to hold on to that change in our roles: me on top, getting what I want without putting in the work.
Way past time for the No. Want to get to work and mop up, get clean.
So, a resolution to get fit, for the New Year.
Friday, December 30, 2016
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
The Economist
From their Holiday Double issue is this story titled: "Brentry".
I find it is another attempt by the media to understand and in that way explain Brexit. The Economist uses history. Specifically the Norman Conquest, exactly 950 years ago it was: " the single greatest political change England has ever seen." It was a horrifyingly bloody and transformative time, and the results of that invasion continue until today. The Anglo-Saxon system of government and its economy was destroyed and replaced by the 'continental' system. The Economist names that transformation 'Brentry': the British entry to the continent's way of governance, business, and ecclesiastics. The lands of 4,000 English Lords passed over to 200 Norman and French Barons. By 1073 there were only 2 English Bishops. English Cathedrals, Abbeys, and Castles were destroyed. Despite the damage, the invasion helped the English economy. For example, English wool became very popular on the continent; the destruction resulted in massive infrastructure spending. Before the invasion there were about 60 fairs and markets, within 30 years there were 350. Most probably spurred on by the increase in the standard of living from 1.70 pounds to 3.30 pounds. Slaves were freed and slavery outlawed. The population grew from 2.25 million in 1100 to 6 million in 1300.
The conquest was more brutal and longer lasting in the North. The people in the North did not consider themselves British. They were more aligned with the Scots and Scandinavians. They continued to resist the Normans and suffered for it. In 1086 the South was 4 times as wealthy as the North and York had lost half its population. Although the North had never been economically affluent its wealth suffered even more after the invasion and they never recovered.
Here, the writer leaps to the present day to connect the voting for Brexit with the counties of the North that suffered during the Norman Invasion. He mentions that the surnames of students at Oxbridge Universities are today Norman in origin.
The real thrust of the piece is the fact that England needs the continent. Brentry brings wealth, political stability, and order. While Brexit is the exact opposite.
I would add: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." {George Santayana].
In another article in The Economist: "City of the Century" I was reminded of another lesson from history.
Tomorrow, then.
I find it is another attempt by the media to understand and in that way explain Brexit. The Economist uses history. Specifically the Norman Conquest, exactly 950 years ago it was: " the single greatest political change England has ever seen." It was a horrifyingly bloody and transformative time, and the results of that invasion continue until today. The Anglo-Saxon system of government and its economy was destroyed and replaced by the 'continental' system. The Economist names that transformation 'Brentry': the British entry to the continent's way of governance, business, and ecclesiastics. The lands of 4,000 English Lords passed over to 200 Norman and French Barons. By 1073 there were only 2 English Bishops. English Cathedrals, Abbeys, and Castles were destroyed. Despite the damage, the invasion helped the English economy. For example, English wool became very popular on the continent; the destruction resulted in massive infrastructure spending. Before the invasion there were about 60 fairs and markets, within 30 years there were 350. Most probably spurred on by the increase in the standard of living from 1.70 pounds to 3.30 pounds. Slaves were freed and slavery outlawed. The population grew from 2.25 million in 1100 to 6 million in 1300.
The conquest was more brutal and longer lasting in the North. The people in the North did not consider themselves British. They were more aligned with the Scots and Scandinavians. They continued to resist the Normans and suffered for it. In 1086 the South was 4 times as wealthy as the North and York had lost half its population. Although the North had never been economically affluent its wealth suffered even more after the invasion and they never recovered.
Here, the writer leaps to the present day to connect the voting for Brexit with the counties of the North that suffered during the Norman Invasion. He mentions that the surnames of students at Oxbridge Universities are today Norman in origin.
The real thrust of the piece is the fact that England needs the continent. Brentry brings wealth, political stability, and order. While Brexit is the exact opposite.
I would add: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." {George Santayana].
 |
| From the Bayeux Tapestry |
In another article in The Economist: "City of the Century" I was reminded of another lesson from history.
Tomorrow, then.
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Merry Christmas
The middle of winter has always been a time of celebration.
In Scandinavia, the Norse celebrated Yule from 12/21 to the end of January. Yule was the Germanic Tribes name for the winter solstice when the days grew longer. The Norse fathers and sons would bring home logs that they set on fire and these yule logs would burn for 12 days. During that time there would be a lot of feasting on food and drink. It's the time of year that cattle would be slaughtered so they wouldn't have to be fed during the winter when grazing wasn't possible. This questions the fact that Christians chose 12/25 for their birth of Christ. The bible says shepherds were herding their sheep at the time of Christ's birth. Not something you would do in December.
In Rome, the winter celebration was called Saturnalia after Saturn, god of agriculture. It was party time. The word saturnalian has come to mean a time of merrymaking. The Romans also celebrated the birth of Mithra, god of the sun, on December 25th.
In early Christianity, Christmas was not celebrated at all. The major holiday was Easter. It was in the 4th century that Pope Julius I created Christmas and designated 12/25 as the day of celebration. The Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches celebrate The Epiphany on 1/7, the day the Magi visited Christ as their 'Feast of the Lights'.
In America, when Cromwell and the puritans outlawed Christmas it was banned in Boston from 1659 to 1681. It was in the 19th Century that America reinstituted Christmas as a family holiday. It was Washington Irving's stories: "The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon, gent." that had a lot to do with it. They were fictionalized stories of families celebrating Christmas. In 1843 Charles Dickens added to the tradition with his book: "A Christmas Carol".
A part of Christmas since Germany in the 18th Century has been lights. Lights on trees and lights on the home. Here are some of the lights in New York City's 5th Ave. today:
In Scandinavia, the Norse celebrated Yule from 12/21 to the end of January. Yule was the Germanic Tribes name for the winter solstice when the days grew longer. The Norse fathers and sons would bring home logs that they set on fire and these yule logs would burn for 12 days. During that time there would be a lot of feasting on food and drink. It's the time of year that cattle would be slaughtered so they wouldn't have to be fed during the winter when grazing wasn't possible. This questions the fact that Christians chose 12/25 for their birth of Christ. The bible says shepherds were herding their sheep at the time of Christ's birth. Not something you would do in December.
In Rome, the winter celebration was called Saturnalia after Saturn, god of agriculture. It was party time. The word saturnalian has come to mean a time of merrymaking. The Romans also celebrated the birth of Mithra, god of the sun, on December 25th.
In early Christianity, Christmas was not celebrated at all. The major holiday was Easter. It was in the 4th century that Pope Julius I created Christmas and designated 12/25 as the day of celebration. The Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches celebrate The Epiphany on 1/7, the day the Magi visited Christ as their 'Feast of the Lights'.
In America, when Cromwell and the puritans outlawed Christmas it was banned in Boston from 1659 to 1681. It was in the 19th Century that America reinstituted Christmas as a family holiday. It was Washington Irving's stories: "The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon, gent." that had a lot to do with it. They were fictionalized stories of families celebrating Christmas. In 1843 Charles Dickens added to the tradition with his book: "A Christmas Carol".
A part of Christmas since Germany in the 18th Century has been lights. Lights on trees and lights on the home. Here are some of the lights in New York City's 5th Ave. today:
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Starting over, again
It's been awhile since I posted anything and I miss doing that. So I am starting over again with the intention of writing in the blog a couple of times a week.
There is so much to do in NYC and so much to write about.
First off, I am not going to get into the recent election results. It is just too maddening. I will only say that my favorite response to the election was from the American Civil Liberties who said: "We'll see him in court." Naturally I increased my donation.
My last entry was about 'The Jungle Book' movie. It is among my favorite movies of the year along with 'Manchester By The Sea', 'Indignation', 'Elle' [possibly], Captain Fantastic', 'Hail Caesar', 'Handmaiden', and 'Love and Friendship'.
Today I am planning a trip to the Film Forum to see one of my favorite films 'The Tree of the Wooden Clogs' written and directed by Ermanno Olmi. The film won the Palm d'Or at the Cannes film festival of 1978. Which doesn't say much to me since a number of the films that have won that prize did not impress me at all. But 'The Tree ...' most certainly did and does. One of the great things about films is the fact that they continue living into the present. 1978 or 2016 'The Tree of the Wooden Clogs" continues as fresh as it was the day it was released. If films are really good they never age whether silent, black or white, or the computer enhanced modern film, the good ones live on.
Olmi is considered an Italian Neo-Realist because he uses the long slow takes and his films contain some social commentary. Among his other films are: 'Il Posto', The Profession of Arms', and 'The Legend of the Holy Drinker'.
"Off to the movies!".
There is so much to do in NYC and so much to write about.
First off, I am not going to get into the recent election results. It is just too maddening. I will only say that my favorite response to the election was from the American Civil Liberties who said: "We'll see him in court." Naturally I increased my donation.
My last entry was about 'The Jungle Book' movie. It is among my favorite movies of the year along with 'Manchester By The Sea', 'Indignation', 'Elle' [possibly], Captain Fantastic', 'Hail Caesar', 'Handmaiden', and 'Love and Friendship'.
Today I am planning a trip to the Film Forum to see one of my favorite films 'The Tree of the Wooden Clogs' written and directed by Ermanno Olmi. The film won the Palm d'Or at the Cannes film festival of 1978. Which doesn't say much to me since a number of the films that have won that prize did not impress me at all. But 'The Tree ...' most certainly did and does. One of the great things about films is the fact that they continue living into the present. 1978 or 2016 'The Tree of the Wooden Clogs" continues as fresh as it was the day it was released. If films are really good they never age whether silent, black or white, or the computer enhanced modern film, the good ones live on.
Olmi is considered an Italian Neo-Realist because he uses the long slow takes and his films contain some social commentary. Among his other films are: 'Il Posto', The Profession of Arms', and 'The Legend of the Holy Drinker'.
"Off to the movies!".
Thursday, April 21, 2016
The Jungle Book
I have recently seen the movie: "The Jungle Book" directed by Jon Favreau; who is more familiar to me as an actor. The screenplay is by Justin Marks from the book by Rudyard Kipling. A few words about the movie. It is beautiful. It may seem long to some at 105 minutes. The level of computerization and/or digitization and/or animation is remarkable. The music by John Debney will be perfect when Disney produces the stage version alla "The Lion King".
The only negative is the scary moments. Otherwise the film would be perfect for children.
It is from the pen of Rudyard Kipling, winner of the Nobel Prize in literature.
"The Law" as recited by the wolves was asked of Mr. Kipling and given to the Cub Scouts. Much of Kipling's work was written for young minds and much of that work is not without controversy. Kipling was and is the public relations man for Empire and the promoter of imperialism. He was dubbed in his lifetime 'The Poet of the Empire'.
In his poem 'The White Man's Burden" he writes: "Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half devil and half child". Some of Kipling's work is racist. It was written in support of the U. S. during the Spanish-American war and our 'annexing' of the Philippines. [He lived in Vermont with his American wife for a number of years and they were happy there except for threats from a drunken brother-in-law. They escaped by moving back to England.]
Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the central or most important species on earth. That belief/question is at the center of the Jungle Book.
Shere Khan hunts Mowgli because he is a man cub and has the red flower that destroys.
When there is a drought all the animals gather at a pool of water without incident because the peace rock is showing. When it shows the law says water is more important than any other law of the jungle.
To fight back at Shere Khan, Mowgli goes to a village and takes fire, the red flower. He races through the jungle and accidentally sets the jungle on fire. He then saves the jungle by diverting the water to douse the burning areas.
Does Kipling believe in Anthropocentrism?
I was left wondering. What about the peace rock? That river supplied water to the rock and the river was now diverted. When the next drought comes ... no peace rock. No chance for the vulnerable to survive. Man cub has altered life in the jungle.
It's not just 'the red flower' that destroys it's also what his protector Bagheera calls 'the tricks'.
The only negative is the scary moments. Otherwise the film would be perfect for children.
It is from the pen of Rudyard Kipling, winner of the Nobel Prize in literature.
"The Law" as recited by the wolves was asked of Mr. Kipling and given to the Cub Scouts. Much of Kipling's work was written for young minds and much of that work is not without controversy. Kipling was and is the public relations man for Empire and the promoter of imperialism. He was dubbed in his lifetime 'The Poet of the Empire'.
In his poem 'The White Man's Burden" he writes: "Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half devil and half child". Some of Kipling's work is racist. It was written in support of the U. S. during the Spanish-American war and our 'annexing' of the Philippines. [He lived in Vermont with his American wife for a number of years and they were happy there except for threats from a drunken brother-in-law. They escaped by moving back to England.]
Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the central or most important species on earth. That belief/question is at the center of the Jungle Book.
Shere Khan hunts Mowgli because he is a man cub and has the red flower that destroys.
When there is a drought all the animals gather at a pool of water without incident because the peace rock is showing. When it shows the law says water is more important than any other law of the jungle.
To fight back at Shere Khan, Mowgli goes to a village and takes fire, the red flower. He races through the jungle and accidentally sets the jungle on fire. He then saves the jungle by diverting the water to douse the burning areas.
Does Kipling believe in Anthropocentrism?
I was left wondering. What about the peace rock? That river supplied water to the rock and the river was now diverted. When the next drought comes ... no peace rock. No chance for the vulnerable to survive. Man cub has altered life in the jungle.
It's not just 'the red flower' that destroys it's also what his protector Bagheera calls 'the tricks'.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
The blue of distance
I am currently reading Rebecca Solnit's "A Field Guide to Getting Lost". In the book the chapters alternate between memoir and philosophical musings. The philosophical chapters are titled "The Blue of Distance". In the first "Blue of Distance" chapter she compares medieval painting with renaissance painting. Early medieval paintings were sometimes backed up by a solid wall of gold. As artists became more interested in painting what the eye saw and with the emergence of perspective "they seized upon the blue of distance". Ms. Solnit quotes Leonardo Da Vinci's advice to young painters: "To make one more distant than another, you should represent the air as more dense. Therefore make the first building ... of its own color; the next most distant make less outlined and more blue; that which you wish to show at yet another distance, make bluer yet again; and that which is 5 times more distant make 5 times more blue."
In another section she writes: "There is no distance in childhood: for a baby, the mother in another room is gone forever, for a child the time until a birthday is endless ... Their mental landscape is like that of medieval paintings, a foreground full of vivid things and then a wall. The blue of distance comes with time, with the discovery of melancholy, of loss, the texture of longing, of the complexity of the terrain we traverse, and with the years of travel."
The first quote is new information for me and so simple it's remarkable: blue brings distance. The second quote is not entirely new and a bit obvious: time brings experience. It is interesting that she equates time/experience with loss and melancholy. To take her example, when the mother leaves the room the child's experience of loss often leads to loud crying which brings the mother back. But then the child is happy again.
I was just reminded of Dylan Thomas': "Rage against the dying of the light". Rage against the melancholy in your life!
In another section she writes: "There is no distance in childhood: for a baby, the mother in another room is gone forever, for a child the time until a birthday is endless ... Their mental landscape is like that of medieval paintings, a foreground full of vivid things and then a wall. The blue of distance comes with time, with the discovery of melancholy, of loss, the texture of longing, of the complexity of the terrain we traverse, and with the years of travel."
The first quote is new information for me and so simple it's remarkable: blue brings distance. The second quote is not entirely new and a bit obvious: time brings experience. It is interesting that she equates time/experience with loss and melancholy. To take her example, when the mother leaves the room the child's experience of loss often leads to loud crying which brings the mother back. But then the child is happy again.
I was just reminded of Dylan Thomas': "Rage against the dying of the light". Rage against the melancholy in your life!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)