Are City Dwellers scared of the forest?

[jakunen]

Jack,

Just to through anotehr fly in the oitment...If I was talking about the Savernaker(sp?) or Ashdown Forest, wouldn't I still use forest rather than wood/woodland?

And if you're waiting to be stoned...whay haven't you lit up yet?

 

[Gary]

That anti forestist Jack!! :rolmao:

I dont mind calling it anything you like mate - I'LL CALL IT SUE IF YOU WANT BUT what if its name is forest such as Epping or the NEW?

The dividing line between a forest and wood in peoples minds these day is size and nothing to do with the Norman concept of a forest being a hunting ground which included hamlets and villages ect - not being awkward but I dont think many people understand the older conortations of the names - in fact you probably think of various sized woods as a difference which most of us wouldnt even consider.

Sorry

 

[Adi007]

Don't want to throw a spanner in the works of Rev Maddave, but do you all think that we could, starting from Jan 1st, start to use the word 'wood/woodland' instead of forest :?:

As forest, ( historically) has nothing to do with woodland :shock:


Cheers.

Jack ( who is now waiting to be stoned )

What's the difference Jack?

 

[jakunen]

AGGHH!! Now Gary and I are doing similar simultaneous posts!!!!:yikes: :yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes:

 

[Gary]

Were all becoming part of the collective - we are being cyber assimilated!! :borgsmile

 

[Jack]

Jack,

Just to through anotehr fly in the oitment...If I was talking about the Savernaker(sp?) or Ashdown Forest, wouldn't I still use forest rather than wood/woodland?

And if you're waiting to be stoned...whay haven't you lit up yet?

Absolutely spot on Jakunen, because this is the true meaning of the word 'forest'.


And I haven't edited your last post................I hit the edit button instead of quote

 

[Jack]

That anti forestist Jack!! :rolmao:

I dont mind calling it anything you like mate - I'LL CALL IT SUE IF YOU WANT BUT what if its name is forest such as Epping or the NEW?

The dividing line between a forest and wood in peoples minds these day is size and nothing to do with the Norman concept of a forest being a hunting ground which included hamlets and villages ect - not being awkward but I dont think many people understand the older conortations of the names - in fact you probably think of various sized woods as a difference which most of us wouldnt even consider.

Sorry

See your point Gary, but can you really see the New Forest being called the SUE Forest


But on a serious note. I think it is important to be a purist on this point as to truly understand you environment you have to understand its history and if we start to use the wrong term for it then there is a strong chance that over the years the true meaning could be lost.

It’s a bit like calling a tent a hammock, you can sleep in both, they are both used outdoors and can be made from the same material but the are distinctively a different product but can cross over.

 

[Gary]

Good point mate! :biggthump

Whats wrong with the Sue forest? :rolmao: :rolmao:

what are your definitions of a wood and a forest? I have always taught/believed it stems from the Normans as before this period in our history all woodland/forestry was common(ish) land and the Normans canned the phrase forest to show where they had the right to hunt and where the saxon peasant were not allowed too!

 

[sandbender]

Could you stick a couple in the gallery sandbender? I think everyone would be interested in seeing them.

Bill

I will do so eventually, I have a San (Bushman) bow, quiver and some survival doodads which I will photograph and post, however the vast majority of photographs will be of little interest to people who wer'nt actually there.

 

[sandbender]

.....but there is increasing thought and evidence that Neolithic and Upper Palientific man wasn't quite the "Caveman thug" type that is popularly thought to be (sorry my spelling is so bad!!!).......None of which changes the point Sandbender is making but it's just a point of interest.....well to me anyway! ):

I agree, I wasn't trying to suggest that the folks shivering at the back of the cave were in any way less smart or capable than ourselves.

During the past summer I spent some time with the San Bushmen in northern Namibia, many people believe that these people are both physically and socially as close as its possible to get to the humans who walked the earth forty thousand years ago, if this is the case and should you somehow find yourself transported back to ancient britain you'd find yourself in good company.

The San were approachable and friendly (not common traits in modern Britain).

They all spoke two, three or more languages (something practically unheard of in modern britain)

They were both practical, adaptable and thrifty (something never seen in modern britain)

Interestingly, during my trip I visited Twyfelfontein, a place which had been in near constant habitation for more than forty thousand years, engraved into the cliff walls were some startlingly accurate depictions of the local wildlife, impressive in itself, however beside each animal was a full scale rendition of the animals prints! possibly the earliest tracking school in existence.

Another engraving drawn to my attention showed a 'hunting bag' and its contents, this was a kind of 'possibles' bag containing everything that a man would need to survive and hunt in the bush.

Three days later when I met the San, some of the men produced their own hunting bags, both bags and contents were identical to the ones someone had chipped into the rock face forty millennia ago....

 

[Gary]

Sandbender I dont want to be cynical, and I salute the San for keeping their traditional skills alive - but how much do the San get paid per visit?

A friend of mine did a similar thing with a company that took them to see the Masai - long story short - the Masia told 'the tourists' they were paid to show traditional skills while 'out of season' they all lived a modern life more than that they then charged them x dollars to allow their pictures to be taken.

I have also heard of a hotel building built 'across the road' from Bushman land so the good old eco tourist doesnt have to walk to far to 'experience' the traditional bushman life style.

 

[bambodoggy]

No worries Sandy, I knew what you meant....I was just being pedantic! ):

I've heard the same as Gary about other tribes in Namibia....even so far as to say that the Government doesn't allow them to hunt or carry on their normal and traditional life anymore... unemployment is high and the suicide rate through the roof.
It's hard to tell when we are visitors to these places and certainly nobody wants to spoil what was obviously a most wonderful trip for you but in a cynical westernised and money orientated world where so much of this does actually go on it's very hard to tell truth from theatre. :?:

I hope very much that it was the real deal and that they are still living as they have always done
Either way you had a great time and that's what counts to you mate....good on ya for getting off your butt and going in the first place :You_Rock_

 

[sandbender]

Sandbender I dont want to be cynical, and I salute the San for keeping their traditional skills alive........doesnt have to walk to far to 'experience' the traditional bushman life style.

You are absolutely right to be cynical Gary, I saw much evidence of the sort of thing you are referring to, perhaps the worst tale related to tourists purchasing San bows and tools. The killer is that once he has sold his bow and kit, a bushman will struggle to make another! Tourists would keep offering a higher and higher price until the bushman gave up and took the money.

The money usually ended up being spent in a bar, and important and irreplaceable skills were lost to the next generation.

I purchased my kit from a German pastor who had set up a charity to buy bushman equipment in bulk from all the tribal groups, the money earned is then turned into food aid for all San. One of our number did enquire if the San were expected to convert to Christianity and was assured that this was not the case.

As far as the amount of money the San we worked with were paid, I wouldn't know, however the trip was run by Ray Mears and his aim was to engender a 'relationship' with the people we were working with, one which was long term and ultimately beneficial to all concerned.

The biggest problem the San face is the tribal hostility thats endemic across Africa and as the Damara and other Bantu peoples are in charge in Southern Africa these days the best way to help the San is to ensure that those in power know that the tourist dollar values a happy and free San nation, not some disneyfied themepark, moreover that the San youth appreciate that there is nothing wrong with, and they are not devalued by, learning the skills their parents and grandparents can teach them. There was evidence of a government line to the contrary, a kind of cultural genocide.

Ray and the Namibian firm we traveled with are working towards this end.

 

[bambodoggy]

That's very good to hear sandbender.... ):

 

[Squidders]

I used to go swimming at a local lake with a friend at night... The first time, I was quite on edge and was earing all sorts of noises.

I was sure I could hear someone talking so I said "hello" in a fairly loud voice and heard "hello" come from up in the air, I pointed my torch up and saw a bloke in a tree... I then heard another "hello" from another direction and then another.

There were about 6 people, men and women hanging out, on the ground, up in trees all chilling out with beer and a joint or two. They were all really friendly and we chatted for a while, my friend and I had a swim and by then the people had cleaned up their empty beers and bags, put them in the bin and wandered off.

It was very surreal and since then, no noises really bother me too much. I have to admit, I'm fairly secure that at worst, the noises are going to be a hedghog or cat, not like the US/Canada where it could be a bear or (moderated) :yikes:

 

[Not Bob]

there is increasing thought and evidence that Neolithic and Upper Palientific man wasn't quite the "Caveman thug" type that is popularly thought to be (sorry my spelling is so bad!!!)

It now appears they had trade and commerce as well as almost production line techniques for making valuable items and selling them....

Well since they were genetically the same as us 'moderns' there's no reason why they shouldn't have complex social/cultural relationships as we do. Mind you they must have been well hard if you believe the pictures you see in books of them wandering around in the Ice Age with only a few animal skins draped over them and loads of flesh showing.

 

[jakunen]

From what I understand they were physinomically different to us in that they were much hairier and also matched their diet to the seasons, so knowing that it was cold, they ate more in general and specifially ate more types of food that would lay down a store of winter fat to act as blubber.

May be complete "I'm a world famous entho-paleontologist and I said its true so there...", but that is what I've heard.

 

[bambodoggy]

Well since they were genetically the same as us 'moderns' there's no reason why they shouldn't have complex social/cultural relationships as we do. Mind you they must have been well hard if you believe the pictures you see in books of them wandering around in the Ice Age with only a few animal skins draped over them and loads of flesh showing.

I guess it's the same for the Scot's up there in their kilts in more modern history....I've not worn one out in the woods but somebody on a thread here said they were very warm

I've been laying down layers of blubber "for warmth" for years now...

 

[Not Bob]

I don't know a lot about the subject but I would think it would be pretty difficult if not impossible to prove early humans had a different physiology. However I was actually being ironic about our ancestors walking around in the semi-nuddy in sub-zero conditions (an example of how 'moderns' see early man as little more than a clever beast). Most probably they wore 'tailored' clothes of animal skin - seems a more realistic answer to how they survived in those times. Simpler answer too - Occam's Razor and all that.

Sorry that I seem to have wandered off-thread but all this guff just came to me - who says BCUK doesn't make you think? 'Nuff said, I'll shut up.

 

[Hoodoo]

From what I understand they were physinomically different to us in that they were much hairier and also matched their diet to the seasons, so knowing that it was cold, they ate more in general and specifially ate more types of food that would lay down a store of winter fat to act as blubber.

May be complete "I'm a world famous entho-paleontologist and I said its true so there...", but that is what I've heard.

Well...I'm not buying it eh? :wave: No one can lay down fat better than us modern humans. ): As for being hairier, I doubt that was significant. Humans originally evolved in a hot, arid environment and lost much of their hairiness early on when compared to their primate cousins. If you look at Eskimos, they don't appear to be hairier and they have survived some of the harshest cold on the planet.

Humans were able to move into colder climes mainly due to technology: animal skins for clothes and shelter, fire for warmth. However, there is a physiological "furnace" found in mammals that helps them produce heat. This is called "brown fat" and it's still with us today. It works by uncoupling the production of ATP from electron transport but then, that's another story.