Happy 80th Birthday Your Majesty

I love the British monarchy. I cannot imagine life without them. All the pomp and ceremony, the icons and, of course, the upper class twittiness of them. They are a complete anachronism in an age which revolves around functionality. That, in my view, is their strength. As long as we have a monarch our country is safe from tyranny and we can continue to bewilder the rest of the world with what we call 'typically British'.

Consider, for a moment, what the alternative might be. God forbid that we should have a president. Think of the unrest that would cause. Where's the continuity. Eight years max and they're gone (some not a moment too soon). And what 'represents' the country long term - a house. I ask you, a house. Not even a castle or a palace. A house.

No, I am convinced. The head of state must not be a politician, soldier, dictator, or anyone with actual power to run the country. A monarch is perfect. Long may she reign over us. Long may her family rival the soaps with their antics. God save the Queen.

Image source: www.achievements.co.uk/services/royal/index.html

Pierre

 

Fools' Logic

Every so often a whole generation seems to 'happen' almost overnight. The process has always intrigued me, partly because I have a special interest in process but mainly because it happens in so many completely different situations and is not just limited to social and culture-bound phenomena. Metal, under pressure, will bend a certain amount before a catastrophic snap. Indeed the structure and nature of scientific revolution has been that a theory holds until it is discredited and replaced. Once that happens, everything changes. As they say in the Catholic Church 'Everything is prohibited until it is compulsory.'

This article is about just a tiny aspect of that idea and it is inspired by a television programme I saw last night. The programme charted and analysed the changes in comedy in British tastes over the past 40 years or so. Like so many programmes at the moment it seems to begin from an assumption that history began in the 1970s and then changed dramatically in the 80s. In truth, the natural starting point for modern history is obviously 1945. However, I digress.

The theory of humour ran thus: In the 1970s comedians were racist and sexist as were the population at large and, therefore, made humour out of hurtful jokes at the expense of the persecuted minorities. In the 1980s, on a wave of political correctness, the mainstream was challenged by a huge influx of politically aware 'alternative' comedians, including women and black people. This was so successful that it became the mainstream. Obviously, a new minority had to be found, not least because the young people of the day needed to laugh at something their parents could not understand. This emerged in the form of Reeves and Mortimer who managed to find a 'middle way'. This new style was to make humour out of nothing in particular, much of the emphasis being visual and at times surreal. It also achieved a more unifying atmosphere allowing the present generation of comedians to express their indebtedness to Reeves and Mortimer without putting their illustrious predecessors out of business. The most successful example of modern comedy, as cited, was 'Little Britain'.

For the benefit of readers from outside the shores of this fair land let me explain what you might expect from 'Little Britain'. It is full of characters who express the worst prejudices and political incorrectness you can possibly imagine. Sexism, racism, classism, genderism, you name it, they express it. Now, we are told that this is funny because it is so obvious that these characters are not real that this makes it alright.

I'm afraid this fools' logic escapes me. I cannot see the connection with the innocent frolickings of Reeves and Mortimer. This is not a progression from the past. This is revolution. The new generation sweeping in a new set of parameters. What is so very worrying is that a huge number of mainly young people obviously find it hilariously funny. These are people who cannot remember how prejudice was justified back in the 70s. Modern comedy is, in truth, pushing the boundaries of control to see how much it can get away with before someone comes along and imposes some restraint. Do we have a generation out of control who are so arrogant they feel they can justify parameters of intolerance with the overall message of our time - 'I can say what I want, do what I want and think what I want.' Dear God, how do we stop them?

Image source: www.costumes4less.com

Pierre

 

I Don't Eat Babies' (Afterbirth)

Within hours of my last post reporting Tom Cruise's stated intention to eat Katie Holmes' placenta right after the birth little Suri came into the world. Already Tom appears to have retracted his statement in a further interview on television. For the time being no more interviews are being given.

The more I see of this pair and the more obvious it becomes that they are at the giggly love struck teenager stage in their relationship. Any idea they dream up is treated as a 'wow, awesome' and it is pointless trying to glean some factual sense out of it. The incident does, of course, tell us much about the relationship and I am afraid it is not good news. I had a brief look at some images of the 2 of them which confirmed their body language. Katie was in the 'hopelessly in love' position and Tom in the 'I own you' position of power. As I said yesterday, it is not normal for the man to be the one eating the placenta as he is not the one compromised physically by giving birth. So the point of Tom's statement was to make a power assertion about Katie. Who, in truth, owns the placenta? Katie. So why was she not the one saying who was going to eat her placenta?

I would be the last one to predict how a relationship will turn out but I have no problem commenting on how it is now. This one has all the passion of a high school infatuation but no sign of real growth for a lasting future. Power is the keyword in my version of psychotherapy and it is crawling all over this one. The person claiming the one up position, Tom, can only lose ground as the sub dominant one, Katie, begins to play gatekeeper. Tom's known response to frustration is to lash out and from then on he is on the retreat. He has no other strategy. If this couple were in therapy the main issue would be about control. Sad to say, this incident is not so much about eating a placenta as eating your words, Tom.

Pierre

 

I Eat Babies' (Afterbirth)

Cynicism abounds over the announcement that Tom Cruise will eat Katie Holmes' placenta immediately after she gives birth. No details yet as to how it will be cooked and whether or not the occasion will be televised. Most believe this is more about publicity than getting in touch with some primal or ancesteral self. Presumably details will emerge bit by bit in order to savour the moment. I sense a certain territorial angst here from the press who would not themselves hesitate to grab and elaborate on such a story if they had 'discovered' it for themselves. Many of the British Sunday Papers write stories like this all the time. Perhaps part of the problem is that the announcement 'missed' the Sundays.

Digging a little deeper into the idea reveals that far from being a bizarre notion it is a practise well rooted in history and given that placentas are designed to be nutritional obviously had a functional justification. Death of the mother in childbirth was quite common. Nowadays it is extremely rare. A mother who has lost a lot of blood would be happy for the nourishment. There are also beliefs that it prevents post natal depression and restores hormonal balance. Less probabal is the post I found of a woman whose hippie mother had a home birth without drugs in order to be 'natural' and promptly buried the placenta under a Linden tree. I was about to dismiss this as nothing more than superstition when I noticed that the poster's username is 'treehugger'. Perhaps more care should be taken about the disposal of such a sensitive organ.

It has taken us a very long time to shed our animal past and there remain many examples of how we hanker after it still. Once we were caught by the civilisation kick there really was no turning back. Smell is probably the most obvious one which could never make a comeback. In my lifetime the requirement to shower daily and disguise the natural body odour has become firmly established. In the 19th century and previously the smell which came from human bodies was very pronounced to say the least. Our attitude to pain has changed also. Once just something you had to put up with, now totally unacceptable. I saw a television programme recently in which modern children experienced schooling in the 1950s style and in one scene a girl was near hysterical because she was being made to run 100 yards. Her belief was that her human rights were being infringed by this barbaric act.

To return to the cooking of placentas. I have found a website of recipies reproduced from Mothering Magazine, September 1983, Vol. 28, pg 76. Here you can choose from: Placenta Cocktail, Placenta Lasangne, Placenta Spaghetti, Placenta Stew, Placenta Pizza and Placenta Roast. Find them all on: http://www.twilightheadquarters.com/placenta.html

The idea that eating a placenta is just practical and not an act of cannibalism is something I have some difficulty with. I suppose the notion is that it is of no further use to the mother or child after the birth so it may as well be put to good use. Well, supposing that a group of people lost in a remote part of the world suffer an attack from a crocodile who bites off someone's leg but is repelled before being able to devour it. The leg is of no further use to the unfortunate wretch who has lost it so why not eat it? What then if the victim takes a turn for the worst and dies from his injuries. His body is of no further use. Why not eat it? At least the man died of his injuries and was not killed for food. Which is worse killing an animal for food or eating meat from an animal (or human) who has died from some other cause.

If my argument were sound the next step would be the justification of eating all dead people. Instead of a wake the family would gather for a feast - 'Dearly beloved we are gathered here today to eat the body of our dearly departed'. The idea is clearly repulsive. There is something about human attachment behaviour which prevents us from closing the final chapter on our loved ones in anything but a grieving way. There really is a distinction between humans and animals. At the end of life the sanctity of the body is clear. At the beginning of life it is fiercely argued, the biggest problem being that of deciding at what point an embryo becomes human. Placentas and other bodily secretions are not human. They are the waste products of the human organism, never capable of sustaining independent life and never part of the human body. It is morally, therefore, acceptable to eat them, just like drinking urine, without this being an act of cannibalism. Personally, I am far too civilised, and have no wish to emulate my ancestors but if Tom gets a kick out of it well good luck to him. I am curious to note that the literature I have reviewed so far refers to the benefit to the mother or child (usually later in childhood) but I can find no reference to fathers eating the placenta. Perhaps animal fathers do this in order to clean up the evidence when the young are at their most vulnerable but what of human fathers? If anyone knows of any evidence please post a comment. Meanwhile, I will keep an eye on the press to see what develops.

Pierre