Bromo wrote in
:

On 2/15/04 5:11 PM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
wrote:

Europeans had longer lifespans. My ancestor who arrived here in
1634 died at the age of 82, his wife at the age of 84 and many
others of his contemporaries lived well into their 80's.

It was not until the more recent era that lifespans became
increased - you ancestor and that crew were quite an exception,
though through basic hygiene lifespans reaches about 40-55 or so,
previously it was unusual for someone to last that long given
disease, etc.

You missed the point. They were NOT the exception; they were the
first generation of Europeans to live on this continent. There were
few diseases to start with, and fewer still that the French did not
have the secret to curing, including scurvy, which gave them a
comparative advantage over the English for two hundred years, in
terms of long-term establishment in the colder climate of the Saint-
Laurent valley.

Of course, I failed to say "Europeans arriving in North America had
longer lifespans", but as I was referring to native lifespans, I
thought the juxtaposition was obvious. I overestimated. My
apologies. Next time I'll be more explicit.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 2/15/04 7:47 PM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" wrote:

Bromo wrote in
:

On 2/15/04 5:11 PM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
wrote:

Europeans had longer lifespans. My ancestor who arrived here in
1634 died at the age of 82, his wife at the age of 84 and many
others of his contemporaries lived well into their 80's.

It was not until the more recent era that lifespans became
increased - you ancestor and that crew were quite an exception,
though through basic hygiene lifespans reaches about 40-55 or so,
previously it was unusual for someone to last that long given
disease, etc.

You missed the point. They were NOT the exception; they were the
first generation of Europeans to live on this continent. There were
few diseases to start with, and fewer still that the French did not
have the secret to curing, including scurvy, which gave them a
comparative advantage over the English for two hundred years, in
terms of long-term establishment in the colder climate of the Saint-
Laurent valley.

Of course, I failed to say "Europeans arriving in North America had
longer lifespans", but as I was referring to native lifespans, I
thought the juxtaposition was obvious. I overestimated. My
apologies. Next time I'll be more explicit.

Fair enough. I suppose I misunderstood. Without disease we saw some people
settling in N. Am having exceptionally long lifespans. After the first few
generations, the length seems to have settled down to the more typical
average.

BTW, did your anscestors settle in Jamestown area or Boston?

Frogleg nattered on
m:


easily; but you continue to live. Having not observed the "strapping
good looks and health" of Irish peasants of the 1840s, but only
sketches of emaciated people in rags, I am unable to comment

Were these sketches made before or during the Hunger? Were these sketches
of English origin? If so, specifically what text accompanied them in
publication? There was a great deal of racism in English portrayal of the
Irish.

Bromo wrote in
:

Of course, I failed to say "Europeans arriving in North America
had longer lifespans", but as I was referring to native
lifespans, I thought the juxtaposition was obvious. I
overestimated. My apologies. Next time I'll be more explicit.

Fair enough. I suppose I misunderstood. Without disease we saw
some people settling in N. Am having exceptionally long lifespans.
After the first few generations, the length seems to have settled
down to the more typical average.

BTW, did your anscestors settle in Jamestown area or Boston?

Québec. We usually made mincemeat (viande hachée) our of the
Bastonnais :-)

When my ancestor arrived (with his eldest son), there were only three
houses in the colony. He had taken a contract to build a fourth (he
was a stone mason) and elected to stay, sending for his wife and
small children the following year.

There are strong indications that he was a friend (or at least a
supporter of) Champlain as he is the first person mentioned in
Champlain's will.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

(ASmith1946) wrote in
:

Still, the life of a primitive person is nasty brutish and short.

On the contrary, most "primitive" people had/have a relatively
decent life. Take the San (Bushmen) of southern Africa. They have
lived in one of the most inhospitable places on the earth for
almost tens of thousands of years. Today, the men hunt on average
6 hours a day. That's it.

Anthropological comparison of household labour between French nuclear
families and Amazon tribes shows that "primitives" perform only as
much labour as is necessary, usually about 2 hours a day for
gathering and cleaning. Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of its
purpose.

Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not be
constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies where the
natives could live freely off the land. Private ownership of all
subsistence resources was capitalism's answer. Obviously, if only
two hours a day of not particularly gruelling labour is necessary to
produce subsistence level resources and that these resources are
available without the obligation of binding agreements to work 12
hours to earn 6 hour's worth of wealth, then no one could be
constrained to work for a pittance in unsanitary and unsafe
conditions.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 16 Feb 2004 14:58:30 GMT, Michel Boucher
wrote:

Anthropological comparison of household labour between French nuclear
families and Amazon tribes shows that "primitives" perform only as
much labour as is necessary, usually about 2 hours a day for
gathering and cleaning. Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of its
purpose.

I, too, have read that the change from hunter/gatherer culture to
purposful agriculture and animal husbandry *increased* the difficulty
of daily life. The idea of lying in a hammock and plucking fruit from
surrounding trees, supplemented by trapping a few fish or shellfish
sure sounds good. Not many opportunities for same in, say, northern
Europe.

In fact, I have a hard time understanding why human emigration
apparently followed a path from Asia north to some problematical
crossing to Alaska and then down through North and South America.
Following herds of animals? It surely couldn't have been "whoopee --
we've found the perfect natural freezer!"

Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of its
purpose.

Nag, nag, nag. :-)

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:27:58 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 14:58:30 GMT, Michel Boucher
wrote:

Anthropological comparison of household labour between French nuclear
families and Amazon tribes shows that "primitives" perform only as
much labour as is necessary, usually about 2 hours a day for
gathering and cleaning. Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of its
purpose.

I, too, have read that the change from hunter/gatherer culture to
purposful agriculture and animal husbandry *increased* the difficulty
of daily life. The idea of lying in a hammock and plucking fruit from
surrounding trees, supplemented by trapping a few fish or shellfish
sure sounds good. Not many opportunities for same in, say, northern
Europe.

In fact, I have a hard time understanding why human emigration
apparently followed a path from Asia north to some problematical
crossing to Alaska and then down through North and South America.
Following herds of animals? It surely couldn't have been "whoopee --
we've found the perfect natural freezer!"

The climate back then was different. A hunter/gatherer ecosystem
requires a pyramidal food chain. Man, at the top of the pyramid, can
only sparsely populate an area. Thus, as the human population increased
in an area it had to expand or die.

The extinction of many large herbivore species (and competing carnivore
species) of animals in North America coincides rather remarkably with
man's migration into the area.

The domestication of food animals and cultivation of food crops provided
more efficient and predictable use of the land and permitted a larger
population in an area.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:21:30 -0500, Bob wrote:

snip, cut, tear

Developed nations offer their citizens the greatest number of choices
for their food. It doesn't mean they'll choose wisely. Indeed, they
haven't. World-wide. Whether the fault lies in deliberate choices of
nutritionally bad food when better could be purchased, or bad food was
the only food available, humans don't have a good record for healthy
eating until relatively recent times. Attribute it more to mass media
than folk wisdom.

Whew! Very interesting post (and references). I agree with most of
what you wrote. And "mass media" promoting a steaming Whopper is
certainly more persuasive than a CNN report on, say, childhood
obesity.

It is odd that some 'peasant' food has historically been inadequate in
terms of total calories and nutrients, and is now harmful by way of
excess fat and sugar. Upscale food outlets offer coarse "stone
ground" cornmeal and bunches of dandelion greens at astronomical
prices. Many things seem to have switched places. A bacon-cheeseburger
is cheap; a salad of field greens luxurious.

I do doubt folk wisdom. Traditional diets in the southern US are
bloody awful! Pork side-meat with everything, plus sugar.*Good* diets
must be few and far-between. Maybe the ancients weren't *wise* to
choose beans&corn or lentils&rice, but just happily stumbled on an
economical combination that seemed to work. folk wisdom -- spend a
few hours waiting at the DMV and imagine how many clients you'd like
to have planning your meals. Much less driving on the same roads.
(What *was* that guy with a white cane doing there?)

On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" wrote:

Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not be
constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies where the
natives could live freely off the land. Private ownership of all
subsistence resources was capitalism's answer. Obviously, if only
two hours a day of not particularly gruelling labour is necessary to
produce subsistence level resources and that these resources are
available without the obligation of binding agreements to work 12
hours to earn 6 hour's worth of wealth, then no one could be
constrained to work for a pittance in unsanitary and unsafe
conditions.

Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he? I don't buy his
explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to speak of when the
first farms were created - it may have evolved to avoid having to move
around a lot and to try to make sure there was enough to eat always.

On 2/16/04 3:07 PM, in article ,
"Frogleg" wrote:

I do doubt folk wisdom. Traditional diets in the southern US are
bloody awful! Pork side-meat with everything, plus sugar.*Good* diets
must be few and far-between. Maybe the ancients weren't *wise* to
choose beans&corn or lentils&rice, but just happily stumbled on an
economical combination that seemed to work. folk wisdom -- spend a
few hours waiting at the DMV and imagine how many clients you'd like
to have planning your meals. Much less driving on the same roads.
(What *was* that guy with a white cane doing there?)

Someone told me that most of the foods we associate with "peasant" foods
were actually celebration foods - and not the day-to-day diets. A friend
took me to an excellent Cuban restaurant in San Jose, CA, and proceeded to
order for us both - the food was wonderful and tasty - he pointed out,
though, that this was celebration food, and red beans and rice was much more
day-to-day typical. I think this is typical, no?

Frogleg wrote in
:

Hunting takes a bit more time but it removes
the men from the female controlled environment, which is part of
its purpose.

Nag, nag, nag. :-)

Along the same lines, I believe that Roman soldiers were more than
anxious to go to war when the doors of the temple of Mars opened in the
Spring. It was most likely considered less dangerous to be fighting
bloodthirsty barbarians with pointed sticks as opposed to having to
stay home with the uxor and pueris throughout the hot summer months.

:-

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

Bromo wrote in
:

On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
wrote:

Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not
be constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies
where the natives could live freely off the land. Private
ownership of all subsistence resources was capitalism's answer.
Obviously, if only two hours a day of not particularly gruelling
labour is necessary to produce subsistence level resources and
that these resources are available without the obligation of
binding agreements to work 12 hours to earn 6 hour's worth of
wealth, then no one could be constrained to work for a pittance
in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.

Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he?

Actually, he was remarkably terse on many topics that have been
widely attributed to him, and cogent on many topics that are ignored.

I don't buy
his explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to
speak of when the first farms were created

Marx was writing about the 19th century. I think you will find that
by that time mercantilism and its ******* child capitalism had
already spread their oleaginous presence throughout the planet.

Why do you think he spoke (once) of ownership of land as theft?

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On 2/16/04 4:52 PM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" wrote:

Bromo wrote in
:

On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
wrote:

Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not
be constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies
where the natives could live freely off the land. Private
ownership of all subsistence resources was capitalism's answer.
Obviously, if only two hours a day of not particularly gruelling
labour is necessary to produce subsistence level resources and
that these resources are available without the obligation of
binding agreements to work 12 hours to earn 6 hour's worth of
wealth, then no one could be constrained to work for a pittance
in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.

Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he?

Actually, he was remarkably terse on many topics that have been
widely attributed to him, and cogent on many topics that are ignored.

He had explanations for many things - some of which may have validity, some
of which has been largely discredited. For instance, the economic theory of
history may explain a few things, but is rather limited or be a stretch for
other things.

I don't buy
his explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to
speak of when the first farms were created

Marx was writing about the 19th century. I think you will find that
by that time mercantilism and its ******* child capitalism had
already spread their oleaginous presence throughout the planet.

Why do you think he spoke (once) of ownership of land as theft?

To support the hunter gatherer lifestyle?

Frogleg wrote:

I do doubt folk wisdom. Traditional diets in the southern US are
bloody awful! Pork side-meat with everything, plus sugar.*Good* diets
must be few and far-between. Maybe the ancients weren't *wise* to
choose beans&corn or lentils&rice, but just happily stumbled on an
economical combination that seemed to work. folk wisdom -- spend a
few hours waiting at the DMV and imagine how many clients you'd like
to have planning your meals. Much less driving on the same roads.
(What *was* that guy with a white cane doing there?)

LOL He was waiting before going to the bank drive through with the
Braille dots (!) on the pushbuttons...

Pastorio

Bromo wrote in
:

Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he?

Actually, he was remarkably terse on many topics that have been
widely attributed to him, and cogent on many topics that are
ignored.

He had explanations for many things - some of which may have
validity, some of which has been largely discredited. For
instance, the economic theory of history may explain a few things,
but is rather limited or be a stretch for other things.

I've been reading Marx, specifically Capital, and I assure you that
any discredit which has been attributed to his work is entirely in
the minds of his critics.

I don't buy
his explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to
speak of when the first farms were created

Marx was writing about the 19th century. I think you will find
that by that time mercantilism and its ******* child capitalism
had already spread their oleaginous presence throughout the
planet.

Why do you think he spoke (once) of ownership of land as theft?

To support the hunter gatherer lifestyle?

He actually thought that was gone and passé. He was merely stating
that private ownership of land is either outright theft of a communal
resource or it perpetuates such a theft which occured in the past.
After all, (I am extrapolating here) the first person who took land
did not buy it, or if he did, the other person did not have the
authority to sell it. The resource however was taken away from those
who used it freely. "Owned" land can be restricted although why
restrictions are a big issue beyond simply the vacuous exercise of
power is beyond me. the people wo lived off the resources on the now
owned land no longer have access to it. At some point, the system
covers the entire realm and the landless must sell their labour to
survive, which is precisely what the capitalist needs them to do
(well, in the 19th century anyway)...create a pool of cheap labour.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003