Some of my best friends

And now, a little article about some of my best friends...
Felis catus would be its taxonomic nomenclature, an endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature...

Okay, copyright infringement...

What can I say? So far, I haven’t met a cat I didn’t like.

Research was conducted into the origin of domestic cats, including DNA comparison with known subspecies of wildcats worldwide. Five genetic lineages were revealed, but only one, Felis silvestris lybica, included the domestic cat. This species is found mainly in the Middle East, including remote deserts of Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, locations where the wild representatives of this subspecies were collected for the study. This means domestic cats originally came from only that area of the world.

So, Felis catus or Felis silvestris lybica? Is there still a reason to distinguish between the two?

In that region called the Fertile Crescent, cats came to live among humans to feast upon scraps as well as those smaller animals that raid gardens and harvests. Cats cause little damage and even kill off vermin. Once this was realised, humans may even have encouraged them to stick around. If we add the “cuteness” factor, like large eyes, a snub face and a forehead that is high and round, it doesn’t take much to imagine our distant ancestors taking in kittens simply because their faces were irresistible.

Can we know when they were first domesticated? The archaeological record can give us hints. The grave of an adult person who lived on the island of Cyprus, 9,500 years ago was discovered to include the corpse of an eight-month-old cat, its body oriented westward, the same as for the dead human. Since cats are not native to Cyprus, they must have been brought over by boat. The cat’s presence in the grave shows that humans and cats already had a special relationship by at least 9,500 years ago, probably more. Since humans began establishing permanent settlements in the Middle East about 10,000 years ago, the cat must have been in the process of being tamed at about the same time.

Why did this species become the sole domestic species the world over when others, notably the Southern African and Central Asian wildcats, might be just as easily tamed? It’s thought the domestic cats simply followed the patterns of civilisation and exploration from the Middle East outward. As other civilisations established themselves, Felis silvestris lybica arrived, either on the heels of explorers or as trade goods themselves, and was already there to integrate itself into new human habitats, effectively denying a similar chance to local subspecies.

Most domesticated animals are either livestock or were made to work for us somehow. The cat is perhaps the only one to have been adopted in Neolithic times for its cuteness factor.

Ning-a-ding-ding

I posted an article on some Ning nudist social sites last April. I later added an update saying that these sites would no longer be free, and that a contribution might be requested from members in some cases.
Now, the sites will go through another metamorphosis of sorts as the Ning service will allow NO NUDITY WHATSOEVER starting August 19.

The Ning sites I have joined and are nudist per se are Skinbook, Bare Friends International (BFI) and Free Range Nudists (since renamed Free Range Naturists, or FRN). The different services strived to maintain high naturist standards, i.e., no erection or crotch shots, no sexual banter, no swinging, no alternative communities, etc. Some of the sites only required a profile pic. Others insisted that at least three “respectful” nude pictures be posted, and even three pictures in “naturist settings.”

Another Ning site, Lenny's Room of Friends and Fun, isn’t nudist but it allowed nudists (and others) to post nude pictures. Lenny’s Room will continue on Ning despite the new anti-nudity rule. Since nudism is not its main raison d’être, there would be no need to transition, and it will continue “as is” minus the nude photos. For the other sites, though, a nudist social networking site must at least allow nudity, so in that sense at least, staying on Ning would not be an option.

Skinbook says it will first seek an exemption from Ning for its group, but if that doesn’t work out, everything will be transferred intact to a new platform, with no need to re-register. All that will change is the site address. So far, with two days to go as of this writing, I have heard nothing about having received special permission from Ning to continue as is, nor anything about a new Web address having even been chosen.

BFI and FRN have chosen a different path. In the case of BFI, the original creators had backed out of operating the site due to illness, and since Ning refused to deal with anyone besides the creators, the administrators who took over operating the site had their hands tied on certain issues. There was therefore already talk some months ago about moving away from Ning, and the anti-nudity rule seems to have been the final impetus to put the plan in action. The site can now be found at a new address and it would appear the service will continue to be offered at no cost to members. But those who want to stay with BFI must register at the new site and transfer any photos or other material there themselves.

FRN tried first going the diaspora route with members joining groups on MySpace, Facebook, Yahoo, Flickr, Google, etc., and even creating an FRN group on Skinbook. Most recently, they found a new home on the elgg system, which does allow nudity. Like BFI, FRN must work out some bugs in its system, but the service is still offered at no cost to members. However, those who were members before and want to stay must register at the new site.

With all that, it’s still puzzling why Ning, after first having approved “non-Adult” (non-sexual) nudity, suddenly did an about face and decided it didn’t want any nudity after all. This would seem to be in line with Facebook’s policy where even breastfeeding can’t be shown. Only Ning can say why it has now decided to prohibit even the most innocent of nudity. They say many of the problems they encountered with the more “adult” style nudity have been occurring with the other type as well. They don’t say what those problems are.

Tintamarre

In a previous post I mentioned that the Acadian flag dates back to 1884. What I should have also said was that the flag was never intended to represent a portion of a province’s or country’s population. Rather, it was to represent a People, the descendants of the non-Native people who first settled in Acadia before 1710, as well as those who integrated into Acadian society after 1710, and especially after 1755. Where the Acadians lived after 1755 was of no consequence since the original settlements and settlement patterns had been destroyed forever. Therefore, the flag’s sphere of influence extends beyond New Brunswick, beyond the Atlantic Provinces, and even beyond North America. Acadia has no borders, and neither does its flag.

A similar argument could be made for the flag of the Mi’kmaq. Their flag no longer represents a territory per se, but all Mi’kmaq and all people who integrated into Mi’kmaq society claim that flag for themselves. There can always be a debate as to whether recognising the Acadian flag as an official flag of the province was a good move or not. But that’s an entirely different issue.

The Anglo Society, however, never pretended to be anything more than a provincial organisation. It purportedly represents all the non-Francophones of New Brunswick. But what does this mean, exactly? What historical moment or process led to the creation of a nation called English New Brunswick? That would be 1784, when the territory north of the Chignecto isthmus became New Brunswick. The province included a relatively sizeable number of francophones, the vast majority of them being of Acadian descent, but the province was nonetheless quite English. Therefore, the flag of New Brunswick IS the proper flag of English-speaking New Brunswick. But because New Brunswick actually has a territory to call its own, anyone living there can also call the flag its own. This includes the Acadians who live in New Brunswick.

So, what exactly does the Anglo flag represent? It represents the ultimate goal of the Anglo Society: linguistic inequality. It harkens back to the days where equality was afforded to anyone as long as they spoke English. That’s what they mean by “Equal Rights For All.” The flag represents the myth of French rule in the province, a myth the Anglo Society is only too happy to promote. It advances their slogan of “Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow.” The choice of Sept. 18 as the “national holiday,” the day Quebec surrendered to British forces in 1759, doesn’t help things.

The goal is clearly to put the French in their place. It sounds like they really don’t like the French. Worse, they’re doing their best to convince others to not like the French either. Or at least to not like the French who won’t be English. Denying equality, spreading false information about an identifiable cultural or ethnic group... Doesn’t that meet the definition of hate?

Photos

This year’s Tintamarre in Fredericton wound up being a little more interesting than previous years. Yes, Anglo Society people were there to be seen at least, if not heard. But so were others who seemed to want to have at least as good a time as the Acadians. Here are a few photos I took:

Just in case you can't make them out: "Eastern cougars DO exist," "Diamond Shreddies are just regular Shreddies," "Kittens R Cute," "Puppies R Cuter," an Anglo sign, "This is a sign" and "Is City Hall run by lizard people?"

For those of you can’t make out the sign, it says “I’m not with Crazy→.”

How can an Anglo Society member make a serious point when he has on either side a Diamond Shreddies protester and a believer in the famous Eastern cougar?

J'aime ma pancarte! (I love my placard!)

UPDATE: For different view, go here.

Ecological footprint

The world population is closing in on seven billion, so it may be surprising to learn that our species, Homo sapiens, almost became extinct at one time in the past.

Our species came about shortly before 195,000 years ago, at a time when the African climate was mild and there was plenty of food. At its highest, the population of Homo sapiens at the time consisted of about 10,000 breeding people. This did not include Neanderthals, who lived in Eurasia.

By 195,000 years ago, the planet started a glacial stage known by geologists as the Marine Isotope Stage 6 (MIS6), a stage that would only end about 72,000 years later, or 123,000 years ago. During that time, as the climate grew colder and more arid, and deserts we know of today were probably even larger, most of Africa would have been uninhabitable. During this time, the number of Homo sapiens went from 10,000 people to just hundreds. (Again, this did not include Neanderthals, whose population seems to have remained stable.) This means all people alive today are the descendants of a group which was lucky enough to find a milder part of Africa in which to survive.

It’s therefore ironic that our species eventually came to have such a negative effect on so many other species in the millennia that followed. A TV show called Découverte on Radio-Canada (the French CBC) recently explored the sixth major extinction of Earth’s natural history. Unlike the others which were caused by natural phenomena, this one is caused by human activity.

According to recent research, a certain species of caribou in Quebec avoids anything that smacks of human activity to the point of refusing to even cross logging roads. Imagine what happens when the caribou habitat is affected by clear-cutting.

In various parts of the world, scientists are working to identify new species as quickly as possible in order to better know whether their eventual extinction is caused by human activity. One of the scientists spoke of the homogenization of species around the world. Just like music and news that become the same in all countries, we may one day see only species adapted to human presence, as the others will all be gone.

It’s not that humanity doesn’t follow its conscience. Instead, we must recognise that after only about two hundred thousand years of existence, our species has reached a stage of development that disturbs the natural balance of the entire planet. For years, our species had to constantly struggle against the onslaughts of nature with few defences, little natural strength, and virtually nonexistent technology. Our intelligence, the only special weapon at our disposal, was not always enough.

Over time, we have made remarkable progress and discoveries that have allowed us to overcome diseases that were once deadly, and in many cases, put an end to repeated famines. Mortality rates today are significantly lower than in the 19th century. Today, we no longer die of old age at 40.

These advances occurred in a wink of geologic time, and nature can only compensate partially and slowly. When a natural balance can’t be restored, nature seeks a new equilibrium. However, we have long thumbed our collective nose at nature, always trying to deceive and defeat. Our presence in larger and larger numbers on the planet has already led to negative consequences for biodiversity.

Life has always managed to bounce back after major extinctions. Will it do so again this time?

The truth about the Anglos

Don’t worry. This isn’t a diatribe against Anglophones. Instead I want to explore the origins of two flags often seen in New Brunswick, the Acadian flag, which now flies in front of many government buildings, and the flag developed by the Anglo Society of New Brunswick.

The Acadian flag is said to represent the Acadians. It was chosen at the 1884 Acadian Convention in Miscouche, PEI, on Aug. 15. The Acadians are descendants of the first French settlers in an area corresponding roughly to the Maritime Provinces of Canada and Eastern Maine, USA. Britain took over the area for a final time in 1713. From then on, any Acadian born in the area would automatically be a British subject, but the British decided to ignore that and consider them enemies on British soil. In 1755, British authorities began the process of deporting these British subjects, without trial or any finding of guilt in court, and then proceeded to replace them with protestant colonists, most of them English speaking. When Acadians returned to their former land, they were generally unwelcome and second-class citizens.

Rather than just assimilate into the English-speaking majority, Acadians chose to live in isolated areas and maintain their language and customs. Today, New Brunswick’s population is 33 percent French-speaking and Acadians are a powerful political force. It is the main reason why New Brunswick today is officially bilingual.

But there are always people who disagree with some government policies. Official bilingualism led to enough discontent in some areas to foster the creation of the New Brunswick Association of English-speaking Canadians in 1984. The main impetus for this group was the decision to celebrate the Acadian flag’s 100th anniversary by flying it on government building flag posts. However, the group spent most of the time contesting the Poirier-Bastarache Report, which called for, among other things, greater access to government jobs for the French population. The group disbanded in 1986, but the discontent took a new form in the eventual creation of the provincial wing of the Confederation of Regions (CoR) Party. When CoR bit the dust, another organization took up the “cause,” the Anglo Society of New Brunswick.

The Acadians chose Aug. 15 as their national holiday, which was Assumption Day on the Catholic calendar, a nod to their patron saint, Mary, mother of Jesus Christ. The Anglo Society decided to choose a date more in keeping with English conquest over the French: Sept. 18, the day New France fell to British forces. No doubt: this was war!

Ever since its inception the Anglo Society has tried to have its flag flown in different areas of New Brunswick – especially in the capital city of Fredericton. The request has been turned down many times. Ever since, the group has since made a point of showing up every Aug. 15 at City Hall to make their feelings known during the annual “tintamarre.”

The Anglos say they have nothing against bilingualism per se, but oppose “forced bilingualism.” They add that they have nothing against the French per se. Yet, the signs they use at their protests would seem to tell a different story:

• “Politicians dancing to Acadian fiddle.”
• “Help Wanted. Province of New Brunswick. Unilingual English need not apply.”
• “Is New Brunswick Quebec’s Branch Office?”
• “Acadians represented. English rejected.”
• “Minority control a reality in N.B.”
• “Bilingual today means French tomorrow.”
• “English doctors in N.B. need not apply.”

For a better view of many of these signs, click here.

Earlier this month, we learned that the City of Bathurst, almost half of which is francophone, had agreed to fly the Anglo flag on Sept. 18 of this year. Reaction from francophones and their supporters was quick and negative. Even the province’s Official Languages Commissioner and the Deputy Premier had weighed in on the issue, hoping Bathurst City Council would reconsider its decision. About a week later, the previous decision had been rescinded.

Various reports say the Anglos hadn’t planned on attending Fredericton’s tintamarre this year, but changed their minds following the flip-flop in Bathurst. Their target is supposed to be the mayor of Fredericton, Brad Woodside. We’ll see. Meanwhile, the Anglos also intend to hold a protest at Bathurst City Hall on Sept. 18.

Monogamy... myth or reality?

I had been sitting on two new entries to my blog because the more I read them and explored their implications, the more I wondered just how true they were. I finally posted them as one sole article just before this one, and now I want to play devil’s advocate, at least to some degree.

In the last post, I noted that from the point of view of geneticists, humans were a monogamous species. As I pondered the matter further, I began to wonder how that conclusion was reached. There is no doubt that males and females seek out life partners. But to what extent do they seek out only one? To what extent do they actually intend to obey their promise to “forsake all others?”

We are so used to the ideal of monogamy in modern society that we forget that other types of marriages and relationships existed in the past, and still exist. Polyandry and polygyny have existed in different societies for various reasons. Sometimes a man had many wives due to societal status or simply wealth. In other cases, some men had two wives simply because there weren’t enough men to go around. In some American Indian cultures, a man might share his wife – if she consented – with one of his friends who happened to still be unmarried. One is tempted to wonder what China’s one-child policy may bring about given the much lower number of women available for marriage due to parents heavily favouring the birth of male children and taking measures to make this happen.

Even when monogamy imposed itself, the object was often not merely the union of two people, but rather two families. In some cases, political alliances were formed between two crowns through the marriage of a king’s daughter to the king or king-in-waiting of another realm. Love had nothing to do with it. That was left for adulterous relationships, which were officially frowned upon, but often tolerated. A different version of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Today, things are no less complicated. Yes, many strictly monogamous relationships endure for decades. Other people opt for serial monogamy, that is, one monogamous relationship after another. Then there are those who refuse to choose between two (or more) lovers and choose polyamory or ménages à trois.

I’ve wondered where “swingers” fit in all this. The members of these couples allow each other to have sex with others, but the marital commitment to each other is still strong. Therefore, are they monogamous and non-possessive or non-monogamous yet seriously committed? Or both?

It’s true that not everyone enters into non-conventional relationships. However, how much of that is due to societal pressure to conform and how much of that is due to human nature? It would be easy to say that monogamy does not reflect human nature given the many people who find it too constricting. At the same time, monogamy has become an integral part of almost all cultures today. Could this have happened if there wasn’t at least a little bit of human nature to help things out?

It gets more complicated when you check out the actual definition and use of the word monogamy. There are at least three types which should interest us here:

Social monogamy is what we could call two people living together, married or not, and includes having sex with each other, as well as sharing resources. No sexual exclusivity is implied, though we might expect it.

Sexual monogamy is what we call two people who have sex with each other and no one else. They may or may not live together.

Genetic monogamy is when two people have children only with each other, regardless of how many other people they may have sex with.

Remember that question I had about swingers? It turns out they could easily fit both the first and third definitions. The polyamorous could fit the third, and perhaps the first depending on how openly they live their lifestyle. Those who are in open marriages might fit the third or not.

So, are human beings monogamous? It depends on how you define monogamy.