For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
Don't let a few people pull you down because they don't agree with you !!
I see no reason why the comparison to the "gun culture" is unsettling or provocative.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.
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
factors that made the United States a unique society
So i would ask the age of the donkey before renting it.
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
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.
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.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
I've read the OP 3 times now, and I still do not understand the post at all
ditto......I've read the OP 3 times now, and I still do not understand the post at all.
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.Probably says something about reading skills
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.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?
they will probably like it
No news? How are the donkeys doing?
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.
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.I, too, would be interested to hear more about the trip with the donkeys
[...] how you experienced the different parts of your way.
Read Tim Moore's Travels with My Donkey: One Man and His Ass on a Pilgrimage to Santiago
My examples would have been views and opinions on the Battle of Waterloo (today) and the Falklands war
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.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
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.)
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:
THAT IS IT! Please read on...
- 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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?