Fish 'n Brewis 'n Vereniki

It’s the 30th Anniversary of the Dictionary of Newfoundland English. 

“What’s that,” you ask? “Are you sure that’s English ə-tall?” 

Wha’ dat y’ say? Yer some crooked t’day, me by! Bin spiken yer fish ‘n brewis again, me by?

I’ve been “ta Newfland,” and can attest to the colourful nature of the dialect, but can’t half understand some of it, so the Dictionary of Newfoundland English is going into my suitcase the next time I visit.

I grew up in a place with similar characteristics. Where Newfoundland patter draws heavily on origins in the British Isles, mine is more a mixture of a Low German that was the day to day language of my people before and after immigration in the late 19th Century, the Ukrainian and Jewish neighbourhoods adjacent to them for a hundred years in Russia and the gradual incorporation of English words borrowed to cover cases unfamiliar to my people’s history. 

Take Vereniki. We pronounced it Vren’-ə-tje and grew up thinking it was ours. Turns out it’s a mispronounced варе́ники, the Ukrainian word for a stuffed dumpling. But we made it ours by varying the contents of the dumplings, smothering them in cream gravy and plums and eating them with “Mennonite Farmer Sausage.” (I was recently asked how many Mennonite farmers had to be ground up to make a tonne of sausages!)

Borscht, similarly, became our word although traceable to the Ukrainian борщ.

There was a time when Low German and English were freely mixed in speech, a practice still persisting in more conservative Mennonite villages in Canada. Not every word is easily translatable, like Daugnikjs, for instance. Made up of Dauge—to amount to something—and nikjs (nix), it had no handy English equivalent, so mothers were apt to improvise with “You little Daugnikjs!” 

But it worked the other way ‘round as well, particularly where no German equivalent of an English word was to hand: “Dau mutt here somewheres jewesz ən loophole senne!” (There’s certainly got to be a loophole here somewhere.”) 

I confess I’m often torn between the “correctness” guaranteed by preserving the language as it was and the linguist’s understanding that all aspects of language--including grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.-- are fluid, and that the way to find out how to say a thing is to listen to how people commonly say it. I still balk, however, when I hear the pronoun “I” used in the objective case, as in “John went out with Jenny and I,” or at the splitting of an infinitive, as in “To quickly escape was mandatory.” 

Likewise, mixing languages seems to me to be either snobbish or boorish, depending on whether the foreign word used is French or Low German: de rigueur is a language snob’s fashionable and Klutz a language-boors clumsy person.

One thing, though, language is endlessly interesting. My linguistics prof posed a question that still bugs me: “Can you think without words?” he asked. In other words, is conceptualization bound by language such that a person who owns only a small vocabulary can’t possibly think loftily. Or a person who doesn’t know the jargon of science can’t think scientifically. An intriguing conundrum.

We ate at Velma’s in St. John’s. It’s touted as the place to go for authentic Newfoundland fare. I passed up on the cod cheeks and opted for fish and brewis with Figgy Duff for dessert. You may protest that cod don't actually have cheeks, but then, chickens don't have balls either.

There were no Vereniki on the menu, me by.

Remembrance Day 2012 - A Guest Blog.

Morning Sun at Little Manitou

 Remembrance Day, 2012: Today was a travel day, so I spent about 250 kilometres of the drive listening to Rex Murphy's Cross Country Check-up . . . on remembering. When I got home, I had the letter below from good friends Hugh and Ethel. 
 (My words on Remembrance Day were recorded on You Tube a few years ago, and they can be revisited at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9S0Ri9lXTk&feature=plcp

 Meanwhile, I share with you Hugh and Ethel's letter, which says it so well. Hugh hopes it will give me an idea for a blog, but I can't think why I'd rewrite this wonderful reflection!)

"Hi George,

Ethel and I were listening to CBC while we were driving today and there was quite a bit of talk about Remembrance Day.  That listening gave rise to some thought and some discussion.  We thought we'd share some of it with you in case it might stimulate you to do a blog on the topic. 

There is a subtle twist in thinking involved in Remembrance Day.  The implicit question in the usual discourse around Remembrance Day is: "Aren't you grateful for the sacrifice those wonderful men and women made so that you can live in freedom?" 

Yes, I am moved by the memory of those whom I knew who lost their lives or came home with bodies that were crippled from the effects of war.  I remember as a teenager going to St. Boniface Hospital to visit a neighbor who was a veteran of the First World War.  He had been gassed and spent the rest of his life with lungs that didn't serve him well.  I inquired as to where I would find him only to be told that he had died.  I remember Jack, our close neighbor, who came through the depression with his family and was so happy with the meals that he was served when he joined the army.  He was wounded when he landed with the Canadians at Dieppe and was taken back to England where he died of wounds.  I remember the pain his family suffered while he suffered in England and then was taken from them.  I remember church services when we moved to Winnipeg; each Sunday morning part of the list of names of those who were in the Services was read out.  Then there were the Sunday mornings in which other words were added after the names: Missing in action; Missing and presumed dead; Killed in action.  I remember the young man from our farm community who was in Hong Kong when the Japanese arrived.  Rather than be taken prisoner, he was last seen swimming out to sea where he perished. 

But the ones I remember constitute only a very small part of the human cost of war.  There was the total cost in Allied lives during WWIi, the military personnel on the other side who also paid the supreme price, the civilians on both sides who lost limbs or lives, and the millions who were considered enemies of the state or potential enemies of the state who were transported to interment camps or to death chambers.  And that was only WWII.  The total cost of war is horrific; it is not to be glorified. 

Yes, I remember.  But my first emotion is not gratitude.  It is closer to something like anger.  Whose purposes were served by the deaths of these young men?  What has been done to the thinking of humanity that it does not rise up against this senseless activity that we call war?  Why do those who have risen to power in government think that it is appropriate for them to expect that young men and women will be willing to die for causes that should have been settled in other ways? 

Yes, there is disagreement and conflict among human beings.  But rather than perpetuating the cycle of violence that leads to war, humanity must learn other means of problem solving.  Violence in all its forms is inappropriate.  Violence needs to be identified and named for what it is.  Question period in the House of Commons perpetuates verbal violence.  Violence in professional sports is a teaching tool.  The use of physical pain as a means of discipline in training children in the home and elsewhere teaches children that violence is appropriate.  We speak loudly against bullying but validate it when we cheer violent behavior in hockey and other sports and spend time watching violent shows on television.   

Humanity will take a huge step forward when it stops responding emotionally to provocation and works at identifying the real problem so that solutions that are acceptable to everyone can be sought.  If we could step beyond irrational motivations for conflict such as nationalism or our sense of superiority and recognize the equal humanity of everyone, we might begin to reduce violence.

Training is important and the best place to start that is in the home and then the school.  Parenting that focuses on problem solving rather than punishment does much more to get children on the side of working together.  There are parenting methods that help in this direction.  Communities benefit when these methods are applied also in schools and in the community in general. 

I hope that we as the human race are moving in the direction of peace.  The cost of war is too high and war is too dangerous.  A fraction of the cost of the US military could bring prosperity to the world.  The loss of life can no longer be counted by the number of military personnel who die.  The cost in civilian casualties, lost lives, maimed bodies, mental and emotional wounding, destroyed infrastructure, and cultural destruction all are part of the cost of war.  The costs of war are costs to both sides and they impact the whole world. 

There are much better ways. We are a long way from ending war.  But surely that is a goal that we might all commit ourselves and our society to pursue.  This Remembrance Day, let us remember those who were caught in fighting wars with respect and honor them and their memory. But let us not use their lost lives as a way of glorifying war with its destruction. 

George, thanks for listening, [if that's what we are doing when we read].  It probably did me good to give expression to this concern.  I don't know what you might do with this other than file it.  But it might be grist for some morning coffee break mill.

Hugh & Ethel [who read a draft and made helpful comments].

Gimme, Gimme, Gimme

Reach for you guns!

Land of living skies

Gideons International (Bible distribution) just sent me a 2013 calendar. So did PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). This week, I also got address labels and/or appeals for donations from:

     Handicap International (Children injured by landmines),

     Souls Harbour Rescue Mission (Christmas Dinner for Homeless),

     Council of Canadians (Don’t Frack with our Water),

     Operation Smile (Cleft lip and palette surgery in third world countries),

     Speroway (Christmas for starving children),

     Smile Train (another cleft palette/lip surgery organization in third world countries),

     2012 Annual Christmas Seal Campaign (Lung diseases),

     Nature Conservancy (Natural habitat preservation in Canada), and

     Inter Pares (Canadian social justice organization).

I applaud the work of all of them. I wish I could give them each a million dollars. At the same time, I’m bugged by the fact that one of the ways of raising funds is by selling my address to other causes so that my mailbox is always full, especially at this time of year.  

               "Big deal," you might say. "How hard can it be to recycle all that paper?"

               That’s no problem. I generally open the envelopes, take out the pieces that identify me and shred them and dump the rest into the recycling basket unshredded.

        It’s not that either.

               A bigger problem is that the photos of homeless men and women, children in rags with cleft lips and palettes, abused animals and children missing limbs all cry out with such loud voices for help that I feel guilt every time I consign one more appeal to the shredder.

               There’s something wrong with the entire picture. How much did PETA spend, for instance, to mail me a calendar I absolutely don’t need? How much does it cost to make up a sheet of address labels and a bunch of stickers and mail them to me? If I sent them each $10.00, would that cover their cost?

               It’s all done on margin. I once did a calculation of the economics of a charitable lottery. Although I didn’t know how much was paid to the company for running that fundraiser, the cost of the prizes (estimated) could easily be compared with the number and price of the tickets. By a conservative estimate, a purchase of a ticket by me for $100.00 would have netted the charity no more than $20.00! Probably less. (I might have won a house I couldn't afford to live in.)

               Canadians my age donate an average of $592.00 to charity annually. The median annual donation is $200.00, which means that most donating is done by a minority of Canadians while a whole host give virtually nothing, or at least, very little. There are obviously good reasons for low donations among the poor, that goes without saying, but in churches, the statistics that suggest that 80% of donations come from 20% of members and v.v. is a telling statistic. A few are generous, more are not.

               In my humble opinion, health research, nature conservancy, animal protection, etc. should be funded through our tax system. The progressive income tax and the goods and services taxes are probably the most equitable ways to distribute the load among the population. Take the Kidney Foundation, for instance. Why should the work they do require them to go through a wasteful fundraising process to get the necessary dollars to carry on their work? Why should any charitable organization feel forced to bribe me into giving money by sending me address labels and calendars that I absolutely don’t want in order to “guilt” me into giving.

               Let’s raise our taxes a bit and look after each other the way we ought to.

               Equitably.

Let me warm your feet a bit, it may help you to think!

Aaaahhh, autumn

What a difference a day makes, 24 little hours . . .

From CBC News online:

“Two convicted criminals, one of them still serving time, have been awarded Queen's Diamond Jubilee medals by a Conservative MP.”

    The Conservative MP awarding these medals was my MP, Maurice Vellacott, representing the constituency of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin. The two “criminals” referred to are anti-abortionist activists Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons, both of whom have been convicted over the years for disobeying restraining orders prohibiting them from demonstrating at and/or interfering with the normal activities at abortion clinics.

    I didn't know about these medals, nor that MPs each had the privilege of recommending 30 people to receive them. Vellacott's choice has been questioned by the opposition and others inasmuch as the two recipients have demonstrated contempt for the law which MPs are expected to uphold.

    Vellacott's defence was also reported in the article:

“Unlike the justice minister, Vellacott was unable to award these medals to the victims of crime, because these baby victims are dead, so instead the award to those 'heroines of humanity' Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons who are trying to protect defenceless, voiceless human beings in the womb from butchery and death, and trying to let vulnerable women know that there are other options and support and adoption possibilities,” Vellacott said in his statement: “It's what you would expect in a caring, compassionate society.”

    Vellacott continued, “It's a pretty upside down world when we honour abortionists like Henry Morgentaler for killing over 5,000 babies and imprison precious women, like Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons, who try to save babies from such savagery. They are the real heroes of humanity!”

    I'd be the last to condemn the women for exercising civil disobedience in support of their strongly-held beliefs. Their courage, considering the consequences to themselves, seems clear whether you agree with their stand or not.

    Vellacott's actions in awarding them the Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal, however, shows a lack of judgement many of his constituents recognize as being consistent with a chain of missteps. Vellacott needs to decide whether he represents his constituents or a few ideological hot buttons. I know the distinction isn't clear-cut, but the laws regarding abortion must either be upheld or changed by the orderly processes of parliament and the recent rejection by that body of any revival of debate on “when life begins” seems not to have taught Vellacott anything.

    And then there's the language: savagery, killing, butchery in relation to abortion are words that suggest the speaker has lost his objectivity, an objectivity constituents have a right to expect from their representative in Ottawa.

    But then, “orderly processes of democracy” is something the current government doesn't seem to be concerned about: omnibus bills, proroguing parliament to avoid difficulties, announcing controversial decisions at two minutes to midnight, the list goes on and on by now. If Vellacott acts without an understanding of how democracy ought to function and what the role of an MP is in a democratic state, he's in good company with Stephen Harper, Vic Toews, Bev Oda, Peter McKay, John Baird and the rest, all of whom have demonstrated their contempt for parliamentary debate at various times.

    The awarding of a few Queen's Diamond Jubilee medals is not a big thing, and maybe I'm just piqued because I didn't get one. The behaviour of MPs in a democracy is a big thing, however, and I wish my fellow constituents would hold Maurice Vellacott's feet to the fire more often than they do.

    There's no point in my doing so; he won't acknowledge my messages anymore.

If a child asks for bread, will his father give him a snake?

Near Drake, Saskatchewan

Ditch Bouquet near Lake Blackstrap

The conversation at coffee turned to bullying the other day. Here are some of the comments made there and on other occasions:

•     “Children need to learn not to be so sensitive.”
•     “We used to bully each other, but it was never chronic; we knew it would get out and our parents and the parents of the kid we were bullying would know each other well and both would come down on us like a load of bricks.”
•      “Cyber-bullying would be a criminal offense, like libel and slander, if it was done by adults.”
•      “Some kids invite bullying.”
•      “I don’t understand why children are allowed access to a medium that can’t be supervised.”

      There’s a grain of truth and an attempt to find an answer in each of the comments, seems to me, but I hope that Amanda Todd’s suicide leads to something more substantial than speculation. I find the most merit in the last comment; children aren’t allowed to play with guns or drive cars, so why are they given full access to a medium through which they can bully another person to death, be lured into taking off their clothes in front of the webcam for some sexual pervert or be inundated with misinformation, propaganda and worse? We don’t allow children to go physically where we can’t keep an eye on them, so why doesn’t cell phone texting or Facebook dialogue raise bigger inability to protect and guide flags in parents, teachers and lawmakers?

     I learned a long time ago that the immediacy and anonymity of the web distorts the way many people dialogue with one another. As chair of the board of a private high school, I was the recipient of numerous scathing emails from a parent surrounding a decision to expel a son for marijuana use while in attendance. At the same time, all offers to meet with the parent face to face were rejected. In other words, the medium enabled a certain person to bully me in a way that normal conversation wouldn’t. It’s very McLuhanesque, isn’t it? The medium becomes the message, or, at least, controls its content.

     But not every parent can be conversant in the insights of Marshall McLuhan, nor can they be expected to stay fully on top of their teenagers’ every activity, considering how they dive and dodge to avoid adult scrutiny as they explore their independence, scramble about for recognition and influence among their peers. Where parents and teachers can’t protect and guide, therefore, the problem may well become a task for lawmakers who now regulate at what age a person can drink alcohol or drive a car, at what age one may marry without parental consent.

     So here’s a proposal: a law that makes it illegal for a person under the age of 16 to possess or use a cellphone—except for simple audio calling—or the internet, and equally illegal to provide a minor with same.  This may seem draconian to some, but let’s be real here. Given the world-wide web, there is no sure-fire remedy on the horizon against the promulgation of child pornography, no easy way to prevent exploitative connections between pedophiles and children, no means for preventing children from getting caught up in webs of bullying, unless we learn how to deny sexual deviants’ and schoolyard bullies access to our children while monitoring their activities just like we do when we supervise playground play, teach Sunday or regular school classes or take them on travelling vacations.

     There’s more to it than that, of course. Better, more relevant education, for one, responsible and skilled parenting for another. But at the moment, too many children are being damaged by unsupervised internet use. The suicides have to be the tip of an iceberg if logic applies.

      WE are the adults here; for too long we’ve been giving our children matches as playthings, snakes with which to amuse themselves.  

Title - Ye must be born all over again

Thanksgiving table centrepiece - arranged by Cynthia

Thanks for nature's bounty - arranged by Cynthia's dad

I suspect that most of us are baffled by the mob demonstrations in the Middle East, responding—at least so we're told—to a You Tube amateur film ridiculing the prophet Muhammad. It's hard to imagine similar demonstrations by Christians in Ottawa, Washington or London in response to an unfavourable depiction of Christ in, say, China or Malaysia. And because we can't imagine the one, we are flummoxed by the other.

            A group of us talked briefly about this a few days ago and I suggested that there must be a continuous, hot resentment brewing just below the surface, waiting for a  trigger that will allow the mix to boil over. It's happened in the Middle East and North Africa before—remember The Satanic Verses?

           Most certainly, there are forces waiting also for the opportunity to foment mob rage, specifically against the United States; the USA was no more implicated in the production of this latest insult than was Iceland but the irrelevance of that fact was successfully propagandized out of the equation by whatever forces were fanning these latest flames, apparently.

            It's unfortunate. The degree to which North Americans equate terrorism with Islam is bound to escalate as a result of these demonstrations; it's already a big problem, particularly for Muslims who have settled in North America and become productive, civic-minded Canadians and Americans. They can protest all they want that the violence is not sanctioned by their faith and is certainly not endorsed by Muslims who have immigrated in order to live a better, safer life in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect for human rights. But see one terrorist in a head covering and human nature easily generalizes it to all people wearing similar symbolic clothing.

            The history of civilization as we know it has demonstrated over and over again that human rights progress can be easily undone by a very few events. One has only to recall the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Towers in New York to realize how much freedom of movement and right to privacy have been compromised as a consequence. How much more may Muslim Canadians feel the tightening noose as a result of the current upheavals?

            I've recently kept informal track of the web comments generated by news articles on the current anti-American violence in the Middle East, North Africa, the Philippines and Malaysia. It's not a true test of general opinion, but the anti-Muslim comments outnumber the tolerant comments about 5 – 1. You might well say that the internet attracts bigots, and that's likely mostly true, but the “bigots” writing these vitriolic comments are also walking our streets, waiting—as it were—for the coalescing of a retaliatory mob through which their hatred can be released on the nearest representatives of that which they hate and fear. In North America, that happens to be a highly visible minority.

            Working in Europe in the '80s, we had occasion to spend time in both Irelands and to talk to people there about the “troubles,” which were going full force. “North Americans don't get what's going on here,” they told us. “This is not a Catholic/Protestant conflict at all, it's a pro and anti-colonialism struggle! The independence people—the native Irish—just happen to be mostly Catholic and the pro-Britain faction just happen to be mostly Protestant. Solve the colonialism question and the two religious persuasions will get along just fine!”

            To apply this paradigm to the Middle East holus-bolus might be oversimplifying it; I'm no expert on all the details, but considering that the West has recently sent armies and/or lethal weaponry to enforce its will in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Libya, might it not be reasonable to suggest that there could be deep anti-colonialist resentment driving the outbreaks—and with good reason? It's that curious kind of a world, after all, in which it's perfectly logical that Israel should have nuclear weapons and massive military power to defend itself, while for Iran to possess these capabilities is considered unthinkable.

            Inequality always breeds resentment and factionalism; that's a literal truism by now. Nations that feel equal to their neighbours, and are respected for that fact, don't produce terrorism aimed at these same neighbours. (Local vandalism is a form of domestic terrorism, also identifiable as a response to perceived inequality; it works at all levels.) President Obama seemed to get this at the beginning of his first term when he made some noises to indicate that we might have precipitated some of the resentment that led to 9/11; he very soon learned that American presidents don't admit to error and don't apologize . . . ever.

            John 3:1-21 is a narrative about Jesus' encounter with the pharisee, Nicodemus. At the core of the story is the phrase that has become the centrepiece for the “born again” focus in North American Christianity: “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again (NIV).” Using metaphors of wind, darkness and light, Jesus tries to explain to Nicodemus that he can't possibly grasp what the Kingdom of God is about until he commits to starting over, this time seeing the world through the “spirit” as opposed to the “flesh.”

            But this proves to be yet another metaphor that Nicodemus has trouble following.

            Can nations be “born again?” Can the Israeli/Palestinian conflict be resolved unless the principals (and their principles) are “born again?”

            It seems unlikely.