On donkeys, guns, sailboats and true pilgrimages

[GAUVINS]

As some may know, I am just about to get to know Salomé and Lolita, two 5-year old donkeys, that will travel with our little family on the Le Puy route to SJPP and eventually, maybe, Santiago.

To my considerable surprise this has been met with a great deal of scepticism if not outright contempt by many members of this forum,

Let me say this:

First, there is probably a cultural chasm. Maybe not unlike the American gun culture. As a Canadian, events such as the Charleston shooting make me shake my head in disbelief. And then I remember that the right to bear arms is part of the U. S. constitution, for reasons that may appear to be obsolete, but that are at the core of the idea of individual freedom and responsibilities. America is probably, still, the most progressive society that I know, where freedom of speech means respecting those who speak differently, where civil liberties are most likely to progress.

I chose this example because most non Americans are aware and disapprove of this situation. Americans themselves are profoundly divided. But the question is not simple and goes far far beyond "the gun lobby". Same thing, on a much smaller, different and benign plane, with respect to donkeys. There is more than appears on the surface.

---

My interest in sailing started in the Whitsundays, many years ago. My wife and I thought that it would be fantastic if we could take a sabbatical and sail around the world, back to this magical place.

I am quite methodical and can be obsessive. I read entire bookshelves to try and understand what was involved. Deaths on passage making sailboats are extremely rare and usually involve competitive sailors, in particular those who sail single handedly.

Yet the typical reaction of friends with whom we shared our idea was that it was risky and complicated. Very few do it and so on. Very much what I see here on the donkey front, albeit differently, obviously.

As the best made plans do change, I ended sailing across the North Atlantic with two of my sons and a grad student. Yes it would have been much more convenient to fly. But there is absolutely no comparison between flying and sailing across an ocean.

But my point here is not this.

Two close acquaintances died that Spring. A colleague in a stupid car accident, and a (close) friend from a stroke. Both had worried about our safety.

---

Somewhere between Saint-Antheme and Estivarelles, a couple of days walk north of Le Puy, the GR3 was, for the first time that I am aware of, marked with the stylized yellow on blue Compostela shell. And most unexpectedly I have been moved to tears.

It took me a few minutes to understand why - my pilgrimage is over.

I've been walking alone, for almost a month now. Alone as in party of one. As in nobody else on this path.

And it felt as if today my personal journey had met the footsteps of a thousand years.

Pretty soon I'll be reunited with those who matter (and no, I do not mean the donkeys). And we will travel a little bit like those who did, before, a long time ago. And obviously this will not be like anything we have ever done before.

Why would we do that anyway?

 

[C clearly]

As for the sailing trips and donkeys, I say "go for it" and I love to read about it. However, if you ask for advice on a forum, whether on brand of backpack or preferred suncreen, you are going to hear about everyone's concerns, cautionary tales and opinions. (And most forum members are less adventurous than you.) That is not the same as contempt, although certainly you will find a touch of contempt expressed on any subject under discussion on the internet. Bringing the guns into this conversation might be considered provocative.

 

[ManyMiles2Go]

As far as the donkeys go, I say, just make sure you take them some carrots You can pick 1000 topics to discuss, and someone, somewhere is going to argue with you about it. While walking our camino, we saw people with heavy packs, light packs, no packs, walking, bicycling, getting off buses, getting out of taxis, riding horses, walking with donkeys, and even some on wheelchairs. I smiled to all of them the same and wished them all a "Buen Camino!!". They were doing their camino their way, and I was doing mine my way. Don't let a few people pull you down because they don't agree with you !! As an American, not going to touch the gun example, this is not the correct forum for that Never sailed, but I do like boating, so no comment there either I do understand your feelings at the end of your journey. I was both happy and sad to see Santiago. Glad I completed what people said I couldn't do, but very sad that it was over

Buen Camino !!

 

[GAUVINS]

Don't let a few people pull you down because they don't agree with you !!

I understand what you are saying. Thank you. But I am not trying to say that I felt uncomfortable or inappropriately challenged. Not one bit.

Let me, however, re-emphasize the idea that there is a cultural gap.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Brierley makes no mention as whether an accommodation accepts donkeys or not. The leading French guide, the Miam Miam Dodo, does.

---

I also understand that the gun culture example is unsettling.

My (first) point is that it takes some conscious effort to try to see beyond our instinct. I could have made it with a less controversial topic (like eating foie gras?) but still think that it is a good exercise to try to argue for something that goes against our beliefs.

If someone took offense, I apologize. My intent was simply to use powerful imagery.

 

[ManyMiles2Go]

No offense taken I agree with you about arguing for our beliefs. I think it can be a good learning experience. I may have been brought up believing in something (because of my parents/grandparents beliefs), but they are not necessarily correct beliefs. I think being exposed to different cultures will definitely make us better people. On my camino, I spoke very little Spanish. I think I lost a lot of great experiences with talking to locals because of it. My next camino, I WILL speak much better Spanish! Unfortunately, some people take a difference of opinion personally, and react as if it were intentionally directed at them Those are the ones where you shouldn't continue the argument, most likely you won't win anyway. I just move on, knowing they are wrong

 

[William Garza]

Opinions and belly buttons..,
Take those steps,your very own,unique,personal additions to history.
Your own story
You own,your story

All those unlucky souls,sitting round the safe,warm....comfortable????hearth..telling stories about travel,hardship,toil and strife as they sip the same popular wine,as everyone else,nibbling on some rare and esoteric cheeze from the misty blue mountain country of some far off place,where the milk of tiny heirloom goats raised at 26.000 feet,who eat only purple truffles from under a bristlecone pine wrapped in fog once a year.,bought from some boutique on the main drag.
Whereas you...
Have tasted the cheese,made with love out of some smiling farmers kitchen,given to you with a smile,a warm handshake and a buen camino as you walked in the same footsteps as countless Pilgrim before you...
But ironically, the ones who have not walked these paths,far outnumber those who have.

Take your steps pilgrim
Take them upon the River of Stars.
Let those whove not tread upon seas
Whove not felt the yearning
Who have not looked up and seen the eternal westering path.
Let those... not count your shadow to fall frequently,fluently on easy shore.
Rather,let them wonder,which shore your shadow is upon....
I count you among the lucky few...

Pity for those who cast word unto breath,unto the cooling air...for you have gone further down the road.

Be Blessed Pelegrino.

 

[Melensdad]

I also understand that the gun culture example is unsettling.

My (first) point is that it takes some conscious effort to try to see beyond our instinct. I could have made it with a less controversial topic (like eating foie gras?) but still think that it is a good exercise to try to argue for something that goes against our beliefs.

If someone took offense, I apologize. My intent was simply to use powerful imagery.

I see no reason why the comparison to the "gun culture" is unsettling or provocative.

It is what it is. You stated it pretty accurately with only minimal bias.

It was used as an example.

Honestly I think it made sense to use BECAUSE it is not commonly used here on this forum. And it parallels very nicely with the donkeys simply BECAUSE they are not commonly discussed here on this forum.

No harm, no foul.

Now all that said, I was actually shocked (in a different thread) when one of the English, or maybe Aussie, members referred to a little Swiss Army Knife as a "weapon" and pretty much derided her husband for owning it, expressing some level of comfort in the fact that he no longer carried it because it is a crime in her country. That tiny pocket knife is no 'weapon' but rather a gentleman's knife most commonly used to cut an egg at lunch, or trim a cuticle, or similar things, but one thing is clear, it is no weapon ... at least to me.

So now that I have probably offended the Aussies & English here, let me say that our different cultures may be linked by a similar language but that does not make us as similar as many think.

All that said, I say to you that you should walk your own walk. That is an American phrase often used for those who choose to hike differently on the 2100+ mile AT. I believe it applies to your Camino too.

Buen Camino and walk your own walk

 

[CaptBuddy]

I've read the OP 3 times now, and I still do not understand the post at all.

 

[Anemone del Camino]

I don't see it as a culture gap, just incredulous when you stated in your original thread that donkeys did mot require care, that only grass would do it. Here is an interesting read on donkey feeding, including working donkeys: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd12/2/agan122.htm

Or maybe it is a cultural gap, not in terms of reading Brierly vs MMDD but when it comes to animal husbandry.

 

[Oztrekker]

Donkeys live along time. So i would ask the age of the donkey before renting it.

They can also be quite noisy, so ask for a quiet one.

 

[t2andreo]

I enjoyed the OP and the entire thread. I would like to offer further explanation regarding the gun issue. This is historically based and better places the context.

Also, I do rather agree with others this is, perhaps not the correct place for such a discussion. However, since it was raised, I view this as an opportunity for education and understanding. THAT is one of the underlying precepts of this forum. Another forum precept is that there is no such thing as a stupid question. So, I will endeavor to keep this within bounds of propriety and try to expound on Mr. Gauvin's statements. If the moderators disagree with me, so be it. But note my opposition to censorship in advance.

Mr. Gauvins is correct when he mentions how the right to have firearms is enshrined in our constitution. The original intended purpose was to provide the populace a means to protect themselves against a too-strong central government that might turn on the populace to oppress them, firearms are far better than pitchforks and staffs. The second purpose was to resist foreign invasion. At the end of the 18th century, the United States was a sparsely populated, rural, largely agricultural society. The primary means to resist foreign invasion would be through the rapid employment of local militias who would bring their own arms to the defense of their community and their country. We had a very weak army and a non-existent navy in the beginning.

I note, parenthetically, here that although many historians credit having an ocean on each side of us as preventing foreign invasion through the end of the 20th century, the fact is that potential enemies KNEW that our population had millions of guns. The guns were not centrally registered. Any attempt to occupy the United States would be a long, bloody war of attrition. That, in addition to the logistical problems of a distant invasion, made foreign invaders think twice or thrice.

As another historical note, in 1917, as the United States was desperately trying to remain neutral in the Great War, Germany contacted Mexico and made a written offer to cede back to Mexico the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado (if I recall correctly) if they would declare war on, and invade the United States, from the south, as Germany's ally. This would force the United States to keep its army and navy at home and permit the Germans an opportunity to win the First World War. This diplomatic exchange was intercepted by either British or U.S. intelligence officers (I cannot recall at present) and relayed to President Wilson. Armed with this clear evidence of an impending invasion threat, the United States finally declared war on Germany, and so began it's contribution to the First World War.

These points also allude to one of the factors that made the United States a unique society and different from the rest of the world, NOT necessarily better, just different. The rest of the world largely believes that a strong central government will keep all its citizens safe and secure in their homes. We do not.

Americans have an innate mistrust of their central government that is based on history and precedents around the world. We love our system, our country and our way of life. We simply do not completely trust our central government.

The history of the United States, since colonial days, when we were ruled by the United Kingdom, is STRONGLY rooted in individualism, personal privacy, and the freedom to do pretty much what we want, as we choose, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. That is why we have laws, police and courts.

Many of us simply believe that "less is better" when it comes to a central government, and that the states are the best level to settle many issues including lifestyle issues, etc., that are NOWHERE mentioned directly or indirectly in the Constitution or the various Amendments.

Now, I admit there are many of my fellow Americans who disagree with this precept of "less is better." And, as our First Amendment provides, ALL persons have the right to their individual opinion and to state those opinions.

Currently, that has been the ongoing debate across the US, occasioned by the election in 2008 of a president whose idea was to fundamentally change the United States to resemble the nations of Western Europe. Our present administration prefers a very strong central government with weaker states, subordinate to Washington. However, the rest of us, not all, but many of us, believe in the Constitution, as it is. We prefer that all powers not specifically granted to the central government be retained by the various states.

Many times over our history, the United States has had to intervene to assist countries around the world where this relationship went sour and, either their central government turned against the population, or a neighboring country invaded the countries who were unable to protect themselves. Once the central government and standing armed forces were defeated or negated, the war was OVER. This is yet another reason why the right to bear arms in the US is such a hot-button issue here.

Only rarely were there enough armed private citizens willing to risk everything to protect their homelands and evict the invaders. Even where the people were willing to risk everything to fight back, outside forces had to provide arms, as these societies did not see the need for an armed populace. As evidence, I offer all the armed resistance movements across Europe during World War II.

The other thing one must understand as regards the United States, is that we are NOT, strictly speaking, a democracy. We are a Federal Republic, similar to Germany. In fact, the post-war German Constitution was patterned after the U.S. Constitution. That is a fact, not a judgment.

Under our constitution, and that of Germany, the individual states AGREED to bond together to form a union having shared common interests. In that agreement, the various states agreed to cede to the central government such logical and common sense authorities as are necessary to run a smoothly functioning country. So, the US constitution, as ratified in 1789, reserves to the central (Federal) government ONLY these enumerated powers:

The Congress shall have Power:

• To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
• To pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...
• To borrow Money;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign nations and between states;
• To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Bankruptcy laws;
• To coin Money, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for punishing counterfeiting;
• To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing (copyrights and patents);
• To establish courts inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, …;
• To raise and support Armies, …;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for regulating the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may … become the Seat of the Government of the United States,
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

THAT IS IT! Please read on...

The first Ten amendments to the original Constitution, ratified in 1791, are referred to as our “Bill of Rights.” They were adopted only two years after ratification of the original document in 1789, once it was apparent that some corrections were needed. These refinements to the original document were adopted to refine, restrict, and clarify the original document. Each amendment to the Constitution has the same force and effect as the original document. They say what they say, and they are what they are.

That is why we have a Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court tells the parties bringing an action before it what is and is not Constitutionally correct. They are the final arbiter. That is why Supreme Court decisions are so hotly debated here.

The Tenth Amendment (1791) was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment states that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution, as listed above.

Any power not listed is, says the Tenth Amendment, left to the states or the people. While there is no specific list of what these "reserved powers" may be, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations, commerce that occurs within a state's own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.

Hence, visitors to the United States will be amused to find out that some laws in, say Maryland, are different from those just across the river in Virginia. This may seem silly to many of my European friends. Then I explain that, in terms of land area, you can fit the Kingdom of Belgium into the territory occupied by my state of Virginia FOUR TIMES, with many square kilometers left over. The United States is quite simply a very large country. As a general rule, each of our states is larger than most European countries. That we have managed to keep it together so long, under one, continuously functioning system of government is nearly a miracle.

I note in passing that, in Germany today, the individual states also have immense power. They can solely, or acting in concert with their fellow states, influence federal policy.

Finally, and again, as an historical side note, The United States is the country functioning continuously for the longest time, under it's original constitution, since 1789. Other democratic nations have existed nearly as long, but under successive, changed constitution. For example, I believe France is presently in its' Fourth Republic, having adopted at least three successive and different constitutions. Although a younger unified country, Italy has had dozens of successive constitutions. Also, India is the world's largest democracy.

I tried strenuously to NOT editorialize and to present facts as I know them, or as researched. if the moderators wish to take issue, I shall not get pissy about it. But, I feel correct in offering a full and thorough elucidation on the issue of gun rights in the United States.

I hope this helps.

 

[Tincatinker]

@t2andreo. A concise, and educative to me, elucidation of the legal foundations of civil life in the USA. Thank you. I learn from this forum on every day I enter it.

However, I am minded that the OP was more focussed on his right to walk the Camino Frances, with the additional burden of a donkey or two, without censure from this forum than with the universal rights of the citizens of the USA to bear arms.

Meanwhile: I for one have every faith that a member who has intensively researched the arts of oceanic sailing and put them to practice is likely to have done equally thorough research into the welfare of donkeys as beasts of burden. In my experience a good muleteer waters and feeds the beasts first, then his guests and then himself. I see no reason to doubt that @GAUVINS will be anything but a good muleteer.

Buen Camino a todos. Whatever burden you bear.

 

[GAUVINS]

the OP was more focussed on his right to walk the Camino Frances, with the additional burden of a donkey or two, without censure from this forum

Not really preoccupied by my rights, simply surprised by the reaction.

BTW thanks for your comments wrt to the effort that we put in this.

I might add that I am in a gîte where there are, fortuitously, several farmers and people familiar with the Le Puy route. Other than warnings that 15k will probably be the daily distance, not one person expressed concern.

 

[GAUVINS]

factors that made the United States a unique society

Thanks for your post. Very good illustration of what it means to be American.

 

[GAUVINS]

So i would ask the age of the donkey before renting it.

First paragraph

 

[GAUVINS]

you stated in your original thread that donkeys did mot require care, that only grass would do it

I do not remember saying that donkeys do not require care. As a matter of fact, I suppose that it is fair to say that living beings require caring owners. An even your car or computer or HVAC.

I believe that I wrote that horses require more care.

The paper you refer to is an excellent example. It says that donkeys diet should be supplemented by (oats, etc) if they don't have enough time to graze. (see below).

The objective when feeding donkeys should be to make judicious use of available feed during times of deficit

 

[Anemone del Camino]

I do not remember saying that donkeys do not require care. As a matter of fact, I suppose

Meanwhile: I for one have every faith that a member who has intensively researched the arts of oceanic sailing and put them to practice is likely to have done equally thorough research into the welfare of donkeys as beasts of burden. In my experience a good muleteer waters and feeds the beasts first, then his guests and then himself. I see no reason to doubt that @GAUVINS will be anything but a good muleteer.

Buen Camino a todos. Whatever burden you bear.

I do not remember saying that donkeys do not require care. As a matter of fact, I suppose that it is fair to say that living beings require caring owners. An even your car or computer or HVAC.

I believe that I wrote that horses require more care.

The paper you refer to is an excellent example. It says that donkeys diet should be supplemented by (oats, etc) if they don't have enough time to graze. (see below).

The objective when feeding donkeys should be to make judicious use of available feed during times of deficit

Perhaps you want to read your post: "Horses are different: they require food and care" You wrote this, as early as yesterday. So forgive me worrying about your level of animal husbadry. Tinkateer, is from the UK takes kt for granted, but reality is that your neighbours to the north are very well known for their care of animals unlike so many other countries. Hence my agreement with you about the issue perhaps being cultural after all. And let's not forget that not too long ago ypu also posted asking for opinions on the matter of donkeys, si I assume your current knowledge is fairly theoretical.

 

[ricitosdeplata]

This reference is probably one you're already aware of but got to mention Travels with My Donkey, One Man and his Ass on a Pilgrimage to Santiago. It's by Tim Moore, a British man who decides he'll follow an ancient practice. It's a good read that will make you laugh.

 

[GAUVINS]

I've read the OP 3 times now, and I still do not understand the post at all

Probably says something about my writing skills

I'll take this opportunity to go over the arguments one more time. They were structured in a sequence where one dovetails into the next :

1. There appears to be a (strong) cultural bias with respect to donkeys.

2. When beliefs are culturally grounded, conversation becomes very difficult.

3. It is the journey that matters, more than the destination

4. Traveling with donkeys is likely to change the nature of the journey, for the better.

---

1. Two days ago my day started at the boulangerie. Small talk led to "where are you from". I recite my executive summary and the boulangère is beaming. She had walked a section of the Gr65 with a donkey the previous year and loved it. And she advises me to always walk in front of the donkey.

My day ended in a restaurant. Small talk with the waitress led to where are you from. Exec summary leads to "great! I have friends who've done it and really enjoyed every bit of it". Followed by many comments about searching for authenticity, revival of traditional values and so on.

Yesterday I pass a (young) couple, just south of Le Puy. Small talk led to "yes, we've thought about but couldn't". Moments later (and I am not making this up) I come across a man who's walking with a donkey. I wave him to a stop and there is a brief exchange where he tells me that (a) any advice he'd give me would most likely not work as no two donkeys are alike (b) his donkey is his friend and they travel together, (c) yes there is a strong revival in the Pyrenees - breeders display the name of their association on their license plates.

And my day ends at the gite where we'll get to know Lolita and Salome. And the owner has this funny look. And I ask why. And she tells me that last week a customer abandoned his donkey in her field. And we both laugh, me perhaps a bit more nervously than her...

The donkey-for-hiking business is thriving in France. Thousands of breeders, hundreds of renters. 5 million euros a year for an estimated 800 000 donkey kms. There is nothing comparable anywhere else. I could find only one website in Spain (not working anymore)

But more importantly. Miam Miam Dodo, the universal Camino guide book in France, for several routes including the route du Puy and the CF devotes a page to traveling with a donkey. I was socialized about Santiago de Compostela through them and it felt completely natural to consider donkeys as a worthwhile alternative. My interactions on the ground confirm that impression. My interactions on this forum do not.

To me, it has become abundantly clear that French have a different attitude toward donkeys.

2. Yhen I am saying that culturally grounded topics are not easy to discuss.

I've started or participated in controversial threads but had never been told that most of what I write about footwear is not correct, or that I might be the kind of person that will not take good care of sandals.

3. If one wants to go from North America to Europe, one will fly. It is obvious that sailing is not the best option. If the question were "what is the best way to go from A to B?" the answer will rarely be by sailboat (or donkey). But you see, one could argue that it is the journey that matters, not the destination.

If the journey didn't matter, who would give a hoot if you ride cabs to Santiago?

If the journey matters, how will it be impacted by the presence of donkeys?

4. Here I say that starting tomorrow, my walk becomes our walk.

Trying to learn, I google quite a bit. Came across this article, about a family of 6 walking from Le Puy with two donkeys. And the one paragraph that stuck to my mind says that it was so cold that the kids wore their socks on their hands, like makeshift mittens. And that they hugged the donkeys to feel their warmth.

My 4-year old has no idea what Santiago de Compostela is.

I plan to try to tell her a story that will roughly go like this:

There was this guy. James. A long long time ago. He was good friend with Chris(t). Both, and others, said that we must care for each others. Today James is like grandpa. And many many people go to see him to say thanks.

And you know what? People say that Chris(t) was born in a small town at the tip of the Med. And you know what? His mommy was riding on a donkey. Just like you.

And maybe Lolita and Salome will think that a long long time ago, one of their ancestors witnessed history.

 

[Mark Lee]

I've read the OP 3 times now, and I still do not understand the post at all.

ditto......

 

[William Garza]

From what i got
There are those who would disagree with the modality of travel

 

[oursonpolaire]

I have only (in eight caminos) encountered two sets of donkey pilgrims; the first was an elderly French couple whose Camino had doubled in length of time. They were very attached to their two donkeys, but made it clear that their needs, both in nourishment and care, had taken a priority for them, and had quite changed the nature of their Camino. I had also met a young French family (I heard from someone that a docoumentary had been made about them) whom I met west of Burgos in 2005-- when I met them they were quite stressed and exhausted by the experience and were barely speaking. Their young kids seemed fine and were adapting, but I do not know if the adults were. Still, with preparation, realism, and patience, it should be doable. Gauvins' enthusiasm for this is apparent, but I would hope that he considers the practicalities very fully. From my (Canadian) education, many of the points about the US constitution are debatable, and this forum is not the place for that.

 

[GAUVINS]

ditto......

Probably says something about reading skills

 

[Mark Lee]

Probably says something about reading skills

Nah, doubt it. More like no use trying to make sense of the post which pretty much comes across as just a Canadian trying to sneak in their opinion on firearm culture in the US on a forum about the Camino de Santiago.

 

[David L. Lewis]

As some may know, I am just about to get to know Salomé and Lolita, two 5-year old donkeys, that will travel with our little family on the Le Puy route to SJPP and eventually, maybe, Santiago.

To my considerable surprise this has been met with a great deal of scepticism if not outright contempt by many members of this forum,

Let me say this:

First, there is probably a cultural chasm. Maybe not unlike the American gun culture. As a Canadian, events such as the Charleston shooting make me shake my head in disbelief. And then I remember that the right to bear arms is part of the U. S. constitution, for reasons that may appear to be obsolete, but that are at the core of the idea of individual freedom and responsibilities. America is probably, still, the most progressive society that I know, where freedom of speech means respecting those who speak differently, where civil liberties are most likely to progress.

I chose this example because most non Americans are aware and disapprove of this situation. Americans themselves are profoundly divided. But the question is not simple and goes far far beyond "the gun lobby". Same thing, on a much smaller, different and benign plane, with respect to donkeys. There is more than appears on the surface.

---

My interest in sailing started in the Whitsundays, many years ago. My wife and I thought that it would be fantastic if we could take a sabbatical and sail around the world, back to this magical place.

I am quite methodical and can be obsessive. I read entire bookshelves to try and understand what was involved. Deaths on passage making sailboats are extremely rare and usually involve competitive sailors, in particular those who sail single handedly.

Yet the typical reaction of friends with whom we shared our idea was that it was risky and complicated. Very few do it and so on. Very much what I see here on the donkey front, albeit differently, obviously.

As the best made plans do change, I ended sailing across the North Atlantic with two of my sons and a grad student. Yes it would have been much more convenient to fly. But there is absolutely no comparison between flying and sailing across an ocean.

But my point here is not this.

Two close acquaintances died that Spring. A colleague in a stupid car accident, and a (close) friend from a stroke. Both had worried about our safety.

---

Somewhere between Saint-Antheme and Estivarelles, a couple of days walk north of Le Puy, the GR3 was, for the first time that I am aware of, marked with the stylized yellow on blue Compostela shell. And most unexpectedly I have been moved to tears.

It took me a few minutes to understand why - my pilgrimage is over.

I've been walking alone, for almost a month now. Alone as in party of one. As in nobody else on this path.

And it felt as if today my personal journey had met the footsteps of a thousand years.

Pretty soon I'll be reunited with those who matter (and no, I do not mean the donkeys). And we will travel a little bit like those who did, before, a long time ago. And obviously this will not be like anything we have ever done before.

Why would we do that anyway?

let me add this, as a rural American gun owning country boy, that has owned horses, donkeys, hogs chickens, dogs, cats, birds and a menagerie of other animals, take those donkeys on Camino, why not , they will probably like it, and may be better travel companions than a lot of people would.

 

[GAUVINS]

they will probably like it

We've had Lolita and Salomé walking with us for about a week now. Not clear to me if they like it, but has been great or us so far. Will post in a separate thread when I have the time.

 

[Anemone del Camino]

We've had Lolita and Salomé walking with us for about a week now. Not clear to me if they like it, but has been great or us so far. Will post in a separate thread when I have the time.

No news? How are the donkeys doing?

 

[GAUVINS]

The best!

Pedicure day today, with the blacksmith making home calls on campgrounds. Donkeys give all appearances of being happy. And humans definitely are.

I'll start another thread in a short while.

 

[Kanga]

@GAUVINS I recall encountering a lovely family walking with two donkeys in 2004, young (by my standards) parents, a 4 year old and a 2 year old. The two children rode in panniers carried by the donkeys. They all seemed happy and having a good time. Organising food for the donkeys as an ongoing concern and they were letting the donkeys graze frequently, so it was a real amble.

 

[Deleted member 3000]

I, too, would be interested to hear more about the trip with the donkeys

Read Tim Moore's Travels with My Donkey: One Man and His Ass on a Pilgrimage to Santiago. It is all you need to know about traveling with a donkey, and quite funny as well.

 

[GAUVINS]

[...] how you experienced the different parts of your way.

Thanks for asking.

Wrt segments, our family decided in favour of walking the Stevenson way instead of the CF. Somewhat turned off by stories about overcrowding on the CF, but mostly seduced by a poster. So we've walked from the Puy en Velay down to Lectoure, then to Auch, then the Arles way, upstream to Saint Guilhem le Désert. We are now on our way to Saint Jean du Gard and expect to be back to Le Puy early September. We'll have walked more than 1500 kms.

Wrt logistics, things couldn't have been better.

Wrt the experience, it is enormously rewarding. Four quick vignettes :

1) Our four-year old. Running as fast as she can across a large prairie, gently sloping towards the sunset. To give a good night kiss to Lolita and Salome. On their nose. "All white and very very soft". There are few moments so precious in a lifetime.

2) Crossing the city of Toulouse (4th largest in France,
population 1,2M). Somewhat apprehensive at first. Progressively becoming incredulous as everyone is beaming. Drivers and pedestrians alike smile, wave, come and talk with us when possible. As if donkeys were spreading happiness all around.

3) After a very long day, my wife sits, exhausted, on a bench. Then Lolita, who's never shown much emotion before, approaches her and gently nests her head between my wife's arms and stands motionless, as if she needed a hug. Or maybe it was the other way around and she wanted to comfort my wife.

4) On a particularly treacherous trail (where a horse had broken a leg earlier this year and had to be rescued by helicopter). It's been a couple of kilometres of steep descent on a rocky trail. But now, to our consternation, there is this steep drop close to a meter high, on a slippery rock that ends with just a few centimetres before a precipice. Lolita and Salome turn around and walk a couple of steps before coming to a full stop. They never did that before. They are afraid. We talked to them. Literally telling them that they can do it. We remove their packs. And watch them both return to this fearsome obstacle. Walking slowly. And making it. (they had double ration of carrots at the end of the day. And our eternal respect.)

Wrt spirituality... Things feel right.

---

I'll post at the end of our trip. There could be some procrastination, but I would argue that this is more a case of feeling that the story is not ready to be told yet.

If it is not 100% clear - we feel that we are extraordinarily lucky.

 

[GAUVINS]

Read Tim Moore's Travels with My Donkey: One Man and His Ass on a Pilgrimage to Santiago

Tim Moore is a humorist. Humorists take liberties with facts.

For instance, you'll read :

You cannot train a donkay without pain! When he kick, you hit him with power in the stomach. [...] Always in the stomach. Their pain centre.’

I suppose that this falls in the funny category (as the hilarious "fetchez la vache" from Monty Python's Holy Grail is not an historically correct description of the defensive strategies of medieval Europe) But probably not in the "all you need to know" category either.

 

[Anemone del Camino]

Steveson trail, probably much more dunkey friendly than the CF. Glaf,things are gong well.

 

[Kanga]

@GAUVINS absolutely lovely to hear from you and your story sounds wonderful. Enjoy and blessings on your little expeditionary force!

 

[Rebekah Scott]

I read through this and I feel like we've all been trolled by someone with two donkeys on a rope and a chip on his shoulder.

 

[GAUVINS]

My examples would have been views and opinions on the Battle of Waterloo (today) and the Falklands war

You understand what I am (or was) trying to say.

I was in Argentina a few months ago and surprised by the number of roadsigns saying that the Malvinas ARE Argentinians. So yes you are right when you write that intelligent dialog on that topic is next to impossible.

I might have picked a less sensitive image.

Or maybe it was necessary.

A post comparing attitudes towards donkeys to those about Napoleon or the Malvinas would probably not have highlighted differences as most members of this community either share similar views or care little either way.

I find it difficult to rationalize that someone would think that I would provoke for fun (troll) or that I'd be bitter (why would I care?).

So, yes, this thread is about two things. The most important, maybe, being how difficult conversations may be.

This is why I am a bit reluctant to post "updates" in this thread. But I will, certainly, post in another, sometime in September.

(for the record - Since we left Le Puy en Velay, we have seen only one (1) child under the age of 8. And he was riding a donkey.)

 

[Kanga]

@GAUVINS in an earlier thread you were asking about swimming pools on the Camino Frances. As you are getting near now you might like to have a look at the thread "Swimming the Camino". https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/swimming-the-camino.34599/

 

[zzotte]

I'm sorry but I can't comprehend how can people use animals to do what then don't want to do them selfs did you ever ask the donkey if he/she wants to carry your crap? Old days my a** back them pilgrims toke their whole house with them and besides back in the days people toke months and months to make it not just a few weeks. So stop animal cruelty already. Yes it ticks me off when people take dogs in the camino too.

Zzotte

 

[dougfitz]

I'm sorry but I can't comprehend how can people use animals to do what then don't want to do them selfs did you ever ask the donkey if he/she wants to carry your crap? Old days my a** back them pilgrims toke their whole house with them and besides back in the days people toke months and months to make it not just a few weeks. So stop animal cruelty already. Yes it ticks me off when people take dogs in the camino too.

Zzotte

This is an interesting opinion from someone whose profile picture appears to be a dog chained up, left outside and forced to sit in the snow. I'm sure there will be a reasonable explanation for that, just as there is a reasonable explanation for using a pack animal to carry a load, eating meat or any of the myriad other things animals do for us or are used for. You are welcome to your view, but I don't think what the OP is doing is animal cruelty.

 

[jpflavin1]

You understand what I am (or was) trying to say.

I was in Argentina a few months ago and surprised by the number of roadsigns saying that the Malvinas ARE Argentinians. So yes you are right when you write that intelligent dialog on that topic is next to impossible.

I might have picked a less sensitive image.

Or maybe it was necessary.

A post comparing attitudes towards donkeys to those about Napoleon or the Malvinas would probably not have highlighted differences as most members of this community either share similar views or care little either way.

I find it difficult to rationalize that someone would think that I would provoke for fun (troll) or that I'd be bitter (why would I care?).

So, yes, this thread is about two things. The most important, maybe, being how difficult conversations may be.

This is why I am a bit reluctant to post "updates" in this thread. But I will, certainly, post in another, sometime in September.

(for the record - Since we left Le Puy en Velay, we have seen only one (1) child under the age of 8. And he was riding a donkey.)

Gauvins:

In my limited lifetime experience, I find that most folks use analogies (cultural differences) to touch on topics that are important to them. The motivation is only clear to that individual.

In regards to use of Donkeys on a Camino, it is your Camino and you should walk it the way you choose too.

Ultreya,
Joe

 

[jpflavin1]

I enjoyed the OP and the entire thread. I would like to offer further explanation regarding the gun issue. This is historically based and better places the context.

Also, I do rather agree with others this is, perhaps not the correct place for such a discussion. However, since it was raised, I view this as an opportunity for education and understanding. THAT is one of the underlying precepts of this forum. Another forum precept is that there is no such thing as a stupid question. So, I will endeavor to keep this within bounds of propriety and try to expound on Mr. Gauvin's statements. If the moderators disagree with me, so be it. But note my opposition to censorship in advance.

Mr. Gauvins is correct when he mentions how the right to have firearms is enshrined in our constitution. The original intended purpose was to provide the populace a means to protect themselves against a too-strong central government that might turn on the populace to oppress them, firearms are far better than pitchforks and staffs. The second purpose was to resist foreign invasion. At the end of the 18th century, the United States was a sparsely populated, rural, largely agricultural society. The primary means to resist foreign invasion would be through the rapid employment of local militias who would bring their own arms to the defense of their community and their country. We had a very weak army and a non-existent navy in the beginning.

I note, parenthetically, here that although many historians credit having an ocean on each side of us as preventing foreign invasion through the end of the 20th century, the fact is that potential enemies KNEW that our population had millions of guns. The guns were not centrally registered. Any attempt to occupy the United States would be a long, bloody war of attrition. That, in addition to the logistical problems of a distant invasion, made foreign invaders think twice or thrice.

As another historical note, in 1917, as the United States was desperately trying to remain neutral in the Great War, Germany contacted Mexico and made a written offer to cede back to Mexico the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado (if I recall correctly) if they would declare war on, and invade the United States, from the south, as Germany's ally. This would force the United States to keep its army and navy at home and permit the Germans an opportunity to win the First World War. This diplomatic exchange was intercepted by either British or U.S. intelligence officers (I cannot recall at present) and relayed to President Wilson. Armed with this clear evidence of an impending invasion threat, the United States finally declared war on Germany, and so began it's contribution to the First World War.

These points also allude to one of the factors that made the United States a unique society and different from the rest of the world, NOT necessarily better, just different. The rest of the world largely believes that a strong central government will keep all its citizens safe and secure in their homes. We do not.

Americans have an innate mistrust of their central government that is based on history and precedents around the world. We love our system, our country and our way of life. We simply do not completely trust our central government.

The history of the United States, since colonial days, when we were ruled by the United Kingdom, is STRONGLY rooted in individualism, personal privacy, and the freedom to do pretty much what we want, as we choose, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. That is why we have laws, police and courts.

Many of us simply believe that "less is better" when it comes to a central government, and that the states are the best level to settle many issues including lifestyle issues, etc., that are NOWHERE mentioned directly or indirectly in the Constitution or the various Amendments.

Now, I admit there are many of my fellow Americans who disagree with this precept of "less is better." And, as our First Amendment provides, ALL persons have the right to their individual opinion and to state those opinions.

Currently, that has been the ongoing debate across the US, occasioned by the election in 2008 of a president whose idea was to fundamentally change the United States to resemble the nations of Western Europe. Our present administration prefers a very strong central government with weaker states, subordinate to Washington. However, the rest of us, not all, but many of us, believe in the Constitution, as it is. We prefer that all powers not specifically granted to the central government be retained by the various states.

Many times over our history, the United States has had to intervene to assist countries around the world where this relationship went sour and, either their central government turned against the population, or a neighboring country invaded the countries who were unable to protect themselves. Once the central government and standing armed forces were defeated or negated, the war was OVER. This is yet another reason why the right to bear arms in the US is such a hot-button issue here.

Only rarely were there enough armed private citizens willing to risk everything to protect their homelands and evict the invaders. Even where the people were willing to risk everything to fight back, outside forces had to provide arms, as these societies did not see the need for an armed populace. As evidence, I offer all the armed resistance movements across Europe during World War II.

The other thing one must understand as regards the United States, is that we are NOT, strictly speaking, a democracy. We are a Federal Republic, similar to Germany. In fact, the post-war German Constitution was patterned after the U.S. Constitution. That is a fact, not a judgment.

Under our constitution, and that of Germany, the individual states AGREED to bond together to form a union having shared common interests. In that agreement, the various states agreed to cede to the central government such logical and common sense authorities as are necessary to run a smoothly functioning country. So, the US constitution, as ratified in 1789, reserves to the central (Federal) government ONLY these enumerated powers:

The Congress shall have Power:

• To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
• To pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...
• To borrow Money;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign nations and between states;
• To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Bankruptcy laws;
• To coin Money, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for punishing counterfeiting;
• To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing (copyrights and patents);
• To establish courts inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, …;
• To raise and support Armies, …;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for regulating the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may … become the Seat of the Government of the United States,
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

THAT IS IT! Please read on...

The first Ten amendments to the original Constitution, ratified in 1791, are referred to as our “Bill of Rights.” They were adopted only two years after ratification of the original document in 1789, once it was apparent that some corrections were needed. These refinements to the original document were adopted to refine, restrict, and clarify the original document. Each amendment to the Constitution has the same force and effect as the original document. They say what they say, and they are what they are.

That is why we have a Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court tells the parties bringing an action before it what is and is not Constitutionally correct. They are the final arbiter. That is why Supreme Court decisions are so hotly debated here.

The Tenth Amendment (1791) was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment states that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution, as listed above.

Any power not listed is, says the Tenth Amendment, left to the states or the people. While there is no specific list of what these "reserved powers" may be, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations, commerce that occurs within a state's own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.

Hence, visitors to the United States will be amused to find out that some laws in, say Maryland, are different from those just across the river in Virginia. This may seem silly to many of my European friends. Then I explain that, in terms of land area, you can fit the Kingdom of Belgium into the territory occupied by my state of Virginia FOUR TIMES, with many square kilometers left over. The United States is quite simply a very large country. As a general rule, each of our states is larger than most European countries. That we have managed to keep it together so long, under one, continuously functioning system of government is nearly a miracle.

I note in passing that, in Germany today, the individual states also have immense power. They can solely, or acting in concert with their fellow states, influence federal policy.

Finally, and again, as an historical side note, The United States is the country functioning continuously for the longest time, under it's original constitution, since 1789. Other democratic nations have existed nearly as long, but under successive, changed constitution. For example, I believe France is presently in its' Fourth Republic, having adopted at least three successive and different constitutions. Although a younger unified country, Italy has had dozens of successive constitutions. Also, India is the world's largest democracy.

I tried strenuously to NOT editorialize and to present facts as I know them, or as researched. if the moderators wish to take issue, I shall not get pissy about it. But, I feel correct in offering a full and thorough elucidation on the issue of gun rights in the United States.

I hope this helps.

Without getting into a debate on your posts accuracy in it's totality, that I will leave in the hands of the Supreme Court, I think we can agree that there are 27 amendments to the Constitution not just ten.

 

[t2andreo]

Without getting into a debate on your posts accuracy in it's totality, that I will leave in the hands of the Supreme Court, I think we can agree that there are 27 amendments to the Constitution not just ten.

Yes, there are 27 Amendments at present. However, my post stated that the FIRST ten amendments...are referred to as our "Bill of Rights." Grammatically, that left open the likelihood and fact that there were likely more than just 10 amendments.

As to historical accuracy, I wrote the post off-the-cuff. If I misstated something factual and historically based, do please correct me. If you wish to debate something one-on-one I would be glad to have a constructive dialog, but please take it to a PM.

That said, I am one of those increasingly rare Americans who took the formal oath of office multiple times (three) on entering government, military, or civilian service. The oath does not change. Section 5 of the United States Code, Section 3331 prescribes the following mandatory language:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Only the President takes a different oath, that specific language being prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. The above, standard oath for ALL U.S. elected or appointed government service, is more inclusive and binding than the presidential oath.

So, having taken that oath several times, and while I may disagree with a person or group's opinion or statements, I am bound by that oath to defend to the death the right to hold a contrary opinion. Coincidentally, there is nothing in U.S. statute, court opinion, policy, practice or procedure that releases a person from that oath, EVER. When I finally separated from government service on retirement, I was in fact reminded by my security officer of that fact during my out-processing when I retired.

Extrapolating, that means there are literally multiple tens' of millions of former U.S. civil servants and military members bound by the same oath. All's the more a pity that too many of our elected officials conveniently forget their oath, even while they are serving.

I note in passing that this is one of those unique properties that makes the United States a unique and exceptional, country among all others. It is what makes veterans no longer serving on active duty jump in front of bullets to shield innocents during a mass shooting incident, or rush into a dangerous situation to try to save innocents.

I hope this clarifies matters, lest any of our non-American friends get the wrong idea.

 

[zzotte]

hahaha perception is everything Doug if you only knew what this girl its up to (us)

zzotte