|
December 30, 2007
Recreating a past we only imagine
Have you ever wondered what it must have been like to cross the prairies and the Rockies, then make the truly perilous trip through the snowy mountains to California during the first half of the 19th Century? Celia Hayes (best known to the blogosphere as "Sgt. Mom") has written a great book -- To Truckee's Trail: the Greatest Adventure... Never Told -- which will take you on this harrowing journey in a way that reading history can't. What's unusual about this is that unlike many historic novels it has a documentary feel to it (it is loosely based on real characters and events). The action is punctuated by diary entries, and a (fictionalized) 1932 interview of one of the members of the party who lived into his late 90s and recalls his childhood memories. It is a riveting read. Close calls with Indian war parties, political treachery, near starvation and freezing to death, and inevitable illnesses and deaths. It's truly amazing that they made it. Some great observations along the way. I loved this one: A good wife will re-load for you, a great one will take up a knife and slit your enemies' throats.Very rugged people, these pioneers. I found myself wondering how so many of their descendants came to evolve into the soft people we've become today. Don't miss this book. It's a real treat. I loved every page. UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds for the link, and welcome all! I have to say, it renews my faith to know that the quote above refers not just to nameless women in in the 1840s, but to Dr. Helen! UPDATE: I'm delighted to see that Sgt. Mom has linked this post -- and even more delighted to see that thanks to Glenn's link there's a resulting uptick in sales! posted by Eric on 12.30.07 at 05:17 PM
Comments
Thanks for the lead to this book. I will definitely read it. Frank · December 31, 2007 12:58 AM xwl Isn't that what we strive for though? We don't want our children to have to deal with roving bands of Indians, short lives, and a uncertain existence. Soft times means you have largely succeeded and can turn your mind to curing diseas, lessening poverty, etc. The life illustrated usually means a family trying to make a better life for themselves and their offspring and not have to reload or slit throats. Blowing a single adventure tale into a condemnation of an entire people is harder than it looks. Richard Cook · December 31, 2007 01:24 PM Richard, I suppose I would support your position if we actually accomplished what we are striving for these days. I mean, if the settlers back then crossed the country in a fashion similar to today's war on pverty, they would still have not left the east coast. xwl's point is valid in my opinion. What has replaced the pioneer's can-do attitude is one of a complete lack of presonal responsibility. So sure, would I rather be focusing on curing poverty than avoiding indians? Of course, but the big the difference is they were successful and we are failing. I wonder why... GOP4ME · December 31, 2007 01:35 PM No, we don't want our children "to have to deal with roving bands of Indians, short lives, and a uncertain existence," but we'd sure like for them to be able to deal with with those things if they had to. And yes, the softness is what most of us really strive for. And politics has nothing to do with that basic fact; left softness and right softness are just two different flavors of the same opiate. Seeking ease is pretty fundamental in our culture. Putting yourself out there on the cracked and bleeding edge is something you have to try to do, most of the time, and I bet that's the way most of us would prefer it. I know I would. Life is easy because we want it to be. And because it can be. That's why a lot of us are probably squishy instead of resilient. But we'll never know which one of those things we are until the Indians come back out to make our lives uncertain. You can't have tested steel in your spine without the test. Robert · December 31, 2007 01:40 PM I am glad to know that I, too, have married a great woman. There are some out here still that would readily rise to such a challenge, and we need to remember that the attrition rate among 19th century pioneers was somewhat greater than 0%. While it is true that there is a great deal of softness - sloth, if you will - in our current culture, in times of crisis the strong reappear, do what is necessary, and then return quietly to their homes and families. Mark Webster · December 31, 2007 01:46 PM The problem, though, is that too many people are using these soft times in order to dedicate their lives to hectoring other people on how they should live their lives. With all these modern discussions of "rights" and such, too many people seem intent on ignoring my right to be left the hell alone. Letalis Maximus, Esq. · December 31, 2007 01:48 PM Most people are not descendants of the pioneers. My family has been in California for 7 generations. We are still all fiercely independent. Also...people who were nuts enough to go West at that time were...well...a little nuts. Debra · December 31, 2007 02:02 PM "I found myself wondering how so many of their descendants came to evolve into the soft people we've become today." We don't have a challenge that requires us to not be soft. Were we challenged, I think many of us could / would revert... anyway, btw and IMO, the worst tend to not be people with roots in the west... They showed up after the area was subdued and made prosperous... thomass · December 31, 2007 02:04 PM GOP4ME If you have to put yourself out there, there ain't gonna be many people participating. One reasing the Corps manpower requirements are small. My point is that this is the natural point for a prosperous country with no direct threats. Yes there is terrorism but we do not have a North Korea on our border or are surrounded by countries intent on wiping you out. There is no challenge you are forced to rise to only challengers you choose to participate in. Mark Webster This is what you get when a large proportion of people turn over their responsibilities to the government. The government will govern you whether you like it or not. Richard Cook · December 31, 2007 02:31 PM "I found myself wondering how so many of their descendants came to evolve into the soft people we've become today." The descendants of the ones that made it over the pass aren't that soft, and are a large part of the California Republican party. Unfortunately they are greatly outnumbered by those who came here later by bus, car, and plane. Dennis Clay · December 31, 2007 02:45 PM IMO, striving for a life of leisure as adults is not a bad thing. To each his own. However, we should be raised learning personal responsibility. And, we should be physically and mentally challenged during our formative years; somewhere between today's softness and the upbringing of the Spartans. mockmook · December 31, 2007 03:17 PM You don't have to look any further than the MEN & WOMEN in the military !! Also, there were a lot of "softies" who wouldn't leave NY, PA, NJ, etc. at that time also. Contrarian · December 31, 2007 03:38 PM Remember that 80% of the people who emigrated west in the 1800's either died or returned home within a very few years. The relative few that survived long enough to procreate wanted something better (softer) for their children. Mutinousdoug · December 31, 2007 03:58 PM I believe a Roman general was quoted as saying: Look how soft the English nobility became, these descendants of the Normans who conquered England. It happens every time. I just do not know of any culture or group of people that has survived prosperity. joel · December 31, 2007 07:02 PM To my shame I once took a wife who was a borderline personality--who, when I was under attack, would get so excited by the rage of my enemy she would turn and slit my throat. The divorce is final in two weeks. A bad wife. anonymous in Mass. · January 1, 2008 10:41 AM We work sedentary jobs, only to go nowhere on treadmills. Our culture seeks safety and comfort, then engages in extreme sports to satisfy our need to encounter and overcome odds. Some are content to satisfy that urge mindlessly hand-shaking one-arm bandits. Others pay Disney or other "adventure services" to experience an engineered, faux experience not at all on the edge, but deliving the sentimental equivalent of a "punch." And now they've figured out that little boys really do develop better when they're left to play with guns. Go figure. rasqual · January 1, 2008 08:15 PM This is why the Dangerous Book For Boys is such a phenom... Lots of us seem to realize that a world (or at any rate a hemisphere or so) in which "poverty" may include a car and a DVD player but, sadly, no subscription to Netflix, in which "hardship" may include the power going out for a couple of days in a comparatively well-insulated house with plenty of warm clothes on hand (and having to wear more than summer clothes indoors), may not be stressing us enough to prepare us for the real thing. Not that Dangerous really IS dangerous, for the most part, but at least it fosters an attitude that we're still capable of doing more than we actually need to do. My family tent-camps. My husband loves it because he loves the out-of-doors and the family togetherness; I do it because, in addition to those things, I think it's valuable for our kids to understand that we can not just live but even enjoy ourselves with a whole lot less technology than we normally have handy. (Admittedly, we camp with a lot of technology: our tent doesn't leak, ever; our sleeping bags are very warm; while we always try starting a fire without matches or lighter, just for fun, we pretty much always use the backups because our patience gives out; and yes, we tend to cook more over our stove than over the fire. Maybe this summer we'll try it harder.) Jamie · January 2, 2008 04:11 AM To understand the soft vs hard trend all should read Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fisher--it details the 4 major British migrations to America and how each group was different in its folkways and the cultures they established. And the generalities hold true right up to today. What blows my mind is how the staunch Puritans that founded New England became the irreligious soft underbelly of the nation. DamnWalker · January 2, 2008 02:08 PM |
|
February 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"How are we going to manage to lose this time?"
Extreme common sense? The price is nuts Guilty Until Proven Innocent CALL THE ACLU! We Have Beaches Details which give me a splitting hair ache Once a RINO, always a RINO Coulter endorses Hillary They Elected To Receive
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Soft times breed soft folks. We've allowed dogooders to absolve people of personal responsibility and lawyers to pursue suits that have lead to a cultural distaste for risk.
Nerf covers everything (real and metaphoric), of course we're a lot doughier than before (also, in a very real and metaphoric sense).
But then, when push comes to shove most people would prefer to be a little too fat, a little too comfortable, and a little too complacent than lean, discomforted and hungry.
(also explains why the warnings of bad things to come out of Muslim lands were aggressively ignored in the 90s)