Culture Clashes

In a recent news article about the aftermath of the US pullout from Afghanistan, a Taliban spokesperson was addressing the issue of women’s rights. He made the following statements:

“[T]here will be no issue about women’s rights.”

He opposes Western views that “women should have an education without [a] hijab.”

“That is a change of culture. Our culture … they can receive education with hijab. They can work with hijab.”

“There will be no issue about the women’s right. No problem about their education, their work. But we should not be after changing each other’s culture as we are not intending to change your culture, you should not be changing our culture.”

I recognize that there are many who have reason to doubt these statements, given the history of the often brutal way in which the Taliban has dealt with its citizens. But I’d like to focus on the last sentence regarding culture. So let me give a little of my own cross-cultural experience and then I’ll come back to Afghanistan at the end.

 

Some of My Cultural Experiences

I have had the opportunity not only to travel to other countries on work-related activities, but to get involved in investigating the culture of other countries and writing about it. You can read about some of that here. Over the years we produced a series of host family handbooks for these countries.

Culture can be illustrated as being like an iceberg in that most of it is “below the water line” and is not observable.

[Cultural Iceberg]

 

When two cultures clash, the clash most often is between the various components that are unseen. So, while we can easily see things like dress, food, etc. we are not aware of things like personal space, the importance of time (or lack thereof), etc. But these unseen aspects can be even more important than the ones that are unseen.

[Culture clash]

 

One can also think of culture as being the color of our glasses. When a person is wearing yellow-tinted glasses and sees something that is blue, it appears to them as green. But another person who might be wearing red-tinted glasses would see that same object as violet. Taking off your own glasses and putting on someone else’s (i.e., looking at the world through their lenses) is not easy.

[Culture lens]

Aspects of Culture

Here are some of the aspects of culture that we explored in these various handbooks. Not every topic is important in every culture, but this gives you an idea of the range of things we need to consider.

• ·        Greetings
• ·        Direct/indirect communication style
• ·        Showing negative emotions
• ·        Volume and tone of voice
• ·        Eye contact
• ·        Disagreements
• ·        Conflict resolution
• ·        Independence/dependence
• ·        Religion and beliefs
• ·        Life cycle customs (birthdays, weddings, deaths, etc.)
• ·        Friendships
• ·        Social values
• ·        Personal hygiene
• ·        Modesty/nudity/sexuality
• ·        Diversity/prejudice/disability
• ·        Personal space

 

Thailand Example: Greetings

During my first full day on my first trip, Noon [a former exchange student who had lived with us for a year] had told me that I should expect to be visited by a number of her relatives. After all, it’s not every day that one’s “American father” comes to visit. I was seated with her in their living room and could hear voices outside. She told me, that’s my uncle. He came in the room and walked toward me. I stood and was preparing to greet him with the traditional Thai wai (bow) – hands together, etc. Instead, I was surprised that he stuck out his hand to shake mine, to which I thought, “he’s going to greet me in the US tradition instead,” so I shook his hand. But the next words out of his mouth were, “How old are you?” I was a bit taken aback, as this is not the typical first question that anyone in the US asks, but I also quickly went through the reading on culture that I had done and realized why he was asking. Relative age is very important in Thailand and the younger person must honor the older person, including by bowing more deeply so that your head is below the other person’s. Since we were both older gentlemen with balding, white/grey hair, he did not know if I was older or younger and needed to know so that he knew how to address me. All this thinking went through my head in a fraction of a second, so I then answered him, to which he replied, “Ah, young man, young man.” (He was about a year older than I was.)

I’ve used this story many times to illustrate how culture plays a part in our lives. On the visit with the AFS-USA team a few years later I had told this story to the team at the beginning of our time there. The following day, we were visiting a school and the teacher asked the class if they had any questions for us. One of them finally got up the nerve to talk and asked, “How old are you?” which turned into a great teaching moment.

But I’d like to relate one other “greeting” incident where I did NOT do the right thing. Most of the Thai members of our AFS-USA-Thailand group were female, since most AFS volunteers in Thailand are teachers. They would address me with the Thai greeting, “Suwadee Kha”. So, I decided that I would greet them back by saying “Suwadee Kha” to them. But this only generated a lot of giggling on their part. It turns out that “Suwadee” mean not simply “Hello,” but something more like “Hello from,” and the “Kha” part is feminine. So “Suwadee Bangkok” on a t-shirt means “Hello from Bangkok” and “Suwadee Kha” means “hello from a female!” Thus, when I say hello, I need to use the male ending and say, “Suwadee Khrap.” They quickly corrected me and I added to my knowledge of cultural mistakes!

 

Germany Example: Nudity

In 2007, I was part of a group who travelled to Germany to confer with our German counterparts in writing the first of a series of handbooks that addressed culture specific issues for host families of students from that country. One of the volunteers had acquired two magazines designed for young teens. One was in German and was for a German audience, the other was published by a US subsidiary of the same company and was designed for a US audience. They were both for the same month in the summer of that year.

The US version had its lead article devoted to Selena Gomez, a young actress who was about 15 and who had recently begun working on shows on the Disney Channel. Like most such magazines, there was a picture of her on the cover. The article inside had several more pictures with captions, but not a lot of text to go with it. All were in keeping with the wholesome image that one would expect of Disney.

The German version also had a picture of Selena on the cover, but there was more text in the article as well as additional pictures. However, the pictures were designed for a German audience which has different cultural norms – so there were pictures in various phases of undress and one where she was nude from the waist up.

I was startled enough by that, but turning over a few pages my cultural norms received a further shock.

There was an article, which apparently was a regular feature, with the title being something like “All About Me” (but in German of course). Taking a full page was a full-frontal nude picture of a teenage girl, about 15 or so. Around the edge were facts about her – age, hobbies and interests, etc. She was evidently a reader of the magazine and had submitted it for publication. In the US that kind of thing would be labeled as child porn, but since nudity in Germany is fairly common (coed saunas, changing on the beach in full view of others, etc.) it was not out of the ordinary. Flipping over the page, one encountered another such picture, but this time a full-frontal nude male about the same age and similarly marked.

 

Applicability to Afghanistan

Now, let’s look back at the last sentence in the quote from the Afghani spokesperson:

“But we should not be after changing each other’s culture as we are not intending to change your culture, you should not be changing our culture.”

Afghanistan has a long and storied history. There is evidence of human activity dating back 52,000 years and of urbanization dating back 4000-5000 years ago. Although landlocked, its position at the crossroads of central and south Asia made it the target of conquest by many different empires over the centuries. Thus, at various times, the dominant religion (Hindu, Buddhist, Islam) was a product of whomever controlled the area at the time. But these times of occupation each lasted hundreds of years, the time required for introducing a change of culture.

Those of us in the West make a great number of mistakes in our relationships with places like Afghanistan. These include at least the following:

o   Our view of the world is overly influenced by the modern-day boundaries of countries. But in the case of Afghanistan, those boundaries were only established in the late 1800s by agreement between the British and Russians. Thus, the current country includes areas which have had different tribes over the centuries and these differences in historic control mean that there is still much internal conflict.

o   Afghanistan has been a Muslim country for a millennium and a half. Change takes a long time.

o   The Afghani people rightfully have a negative view of outsiders. Much of their history has been one of being overrun by others – whether those from Iran to the west, India to the east, Russia to the north, or the British during their empire-building time.

o   All past changes in culture were imposed by conquering armies who then occupied the land (or at least part of it) for centuries afterwards.

Against this background, we see the recently-ended US occupation – a scant 20 years. And we see the typical US philosophy – not of wanting to conquer and control, but to enter in order to find and root out those who dared to attack us on 9/11/2001 and then leave once we had accomplished our purpose.

And then we have the expectation that simply because we were there for 20 years that they will change their culture in areas such as women’s rights, religion, etc. and simply ignore the prior centuries! No! Their culture includes warring tribes within an externally imposed border, reliance on Islam, disdain for “outsiders” and only changing if those changes are imposed upon them for several centuries. And we have the audacity to think that our being there for 20 years will cause change! It doesn’t work that way.

I’ve written many times in the past that when we ignore the events of the past and are not students of history, that we are setting ourselves up for failure. In this case, as much as I may disagree with some things that the Afghani spokesperson represents, his statement on culture change is correct. The influence of the 20 years of US occupation will be but an insignificant footnote in the history of this part of the world.

Medical Checkup

Recently I had my annual Medicare “Wellness Checkup”. As I was mentally reviewing how things were going with me recently and what I should share with my primary care physician (PCP), I prepared a mental outline of just four words – Head, Heart, Blood, Foot. This gave me enough of a reminder that I would not forget what I should share with her. But I thought this might be a good outline to summarize my medical situation for this blog as well.

 

Head – Alzheimer’s Studies

I’ve shared recently about my involvement in a number of Alzheimer’s studies, so I won’t repeat that here. If you want to read details and you have not done so, here is a link. But I’d like to spend a little more time on the most recent study that I’m about to embark upon – the AHEAD study. Unlike all the other Alzheimer’s related studies, this one is a phase 3 Clinical Research Study (see below for what this means). But since it may actually have an impact on any progression of the disease, it will also mean that I will be dropped from both the ABC and APT Webstudy as those are looking at changes over time in individuals who are not receiving treatment.

The fact that they consider me eligible for the AHEAD study means that I have met their criteria, including (1) no current diagnosis, and (2) has an elevated or intermediate level of amyloid in my brain. While the latter will be confirmed by an initial PET scan (see participation requirements) , the spinal tap I had in 2019 would have shown the presence of the proteins that are produced by the amyloids.

While all the other tests that I take periodically continue to show unimpaired mental abilities, I have begun to notice that I have had a few instances the past few months where I was trying to come up with either a word of a name and totally drew a blank – very unlike me. Is this an early indication of Alzheimer’s in me? I don’t know, but I will continue to monitor myself for additional instances of these memory failures.

Clinical Research Studies

Just a little education on drug studies. Once a drug has gone through laboratory testing and possible testing in animals, it enters a series of clinical research studies. These studies are divided into several phases as follows:

Phase 1 – Is it safe?

In this phase, a small dosage of the drug is administered to a few people, perhaps a dozen, of healthy subjects to ensure that there are no major side effects. If there are none, then the dosage may be increased and administered to another group. This process continues until the doctors find a dosage that is most likely to work while having an acceptable level of side effects.

Phase 2 – Does it work?

In this phase a group of 25-100 patients who have the disease that the drug is designed for are given a dose to see if the drug works as intended. Sometimes the patients are divided into groups and they receive different dosage amounts, or it is administered in a different way (say orally v. via an IV).

Phase 3 – Is it better than an alternative?

In this phase the drug (or a placebo) is administered to a large number of people, perhaps a thousand or more, for a long period of time, perhaps 2-4 years. Some (picked at random) may receive a placebo instead. These patients, and often the doctors administering the drug, do not know if they have received the actual drug or the placebo. This is to ensure that the impact of the drug is what is creating the difference and not that just the patient’s attitude is having an impact. Patients are selected from many different geographies, economic levels, racial groups, etc. to see if there may be other things at work.

 

Heart – Cardiology Status

I also posted about my recent nuclear stress test, so I’ll not repeat myself on that here. You can follow this link if you are interested. I relayed this to my PCP as well that I have no concerns about my heart health.

 

Blood – Bloodwork and Diabetes Status

Back in mid-July, upon the recommendation of my PCP I had my first appointment with a pharmacologist, an individual who examined all my current medications as well as my most recent bloodwork. She was looking for any potential drug interactions (when you take as many pills as I do each day, that is always a possibility), as well as she made recommendations on future treatment or dosage changes that might be of benefit.

She saw no potential interactions, but noted that I was at the maximum dosage of a couple of the medications I take to manage my blood sugar levels. But of concern was that my sugar level has started going back up. My A1c levels were always somewhat marginal, i.e., pre-diabetic, and with medication were being kept from getting out of hand, but even so had slowly crept up into the diabetic range, i.e., over 7. I’d managed to keep it not much more than that, but then it started back up again and my most recent bloodwork showed me at 8.0 – too high!

Thus, her recommendation was that since I was already at the maximum dosage of the primary medications I take for it, that it was time to begin taking insulin. She passed that onto my PCP who ordered an initial supply for me. Time for a daily needle stick – in addition to the finger stick I take to check my levels each morning!

As I write this, it’s now been about 6 weeks since I started a daily injection. The rules are (1) start at a dosage of 10 units, (2) every three days take an average of my morning (fasting) blood sugars and if the average is not yet in range, increase dosage by 2 units, and (3) when consistently below a reading of 130, then maintain that dosage.

My average before starting was about 195 (per her instructions I brought my meter with me that showed a history of the readings). After the first two weeks, my average was down to 179. After another three weeks my average was down to 163 (very stubborn and keeps plateauing!) But then I finally started seeing some real progress. Only a week later my average for the past week is 145, including my first reading ever below the target 130!

I’m hoping that I will reach my target by about mid-month. Since my next scheduled A1c test is in January and it measures average sugar levels for the prior 90 days, I’m pretty certain to be below 7 – and my personal target is to see it in the low 6’s. I will celebrate (with non-sugary foods of course) if I can reach that!

 

Foot – Slow Healing Process

I’ve noted in the past about the fact that I have a distortion at the ball of my big right toe due to arthritis and the pressure that walking puts on that area of my foot. This builds up a callus which eventually breaks loose and leaves me with a sizable hole on the bottom of my foot. This first happened in the spring of 2017 and in May of that year I developed sepsis which put me in the ICU for several days. In January of 2018, after several months of weekly tissue grafts, I developed an infection under the graft and had a second bout of sepsis. After more healing, staying off my foot for an extended period and treatment at a wound care center, I finally got it healed up.

But then this spring, after nearly 3 years, the callus once again broke off. This time I went to a podiatrist and was fortunate enough to get one that had previously worked in the wound care center. For the past several months I’ve been meeting with him about every three weeks for evaluation. In between I’ve been trying to offload my foot as much as possible (not walking on it, using a cane so I can put less pressure on it, etc.) Once the hole started getting smaller, he referred me to a pedorthist (a person who specializes in custom shoes). It took several weeks for a new pair to be delivered (the COVID pandemic has affected all kinds of supply chains). With these new shoes I can put aside the cane, but I’m still trying to avoid as much walking as possible.

I’ve managed to avoid any more episodes of sepsis (since a bad case can kill you), but the slowness of the healing process is quite frustrating. In the meantime, I do a lot of sitting (which causes sores in other places that I won’t go into here), and I faithfully change the dressing on my foot per the podiatrist’s instructions.

 

Summary

Head – OK, but being aware of any potential changes while I “give back” through participation in studies.

Heart – Great, no issues at all since my original heart attack in 2005

Blood – New regimen, making progress

Foot – Going slowly which is frustrating

 

Appendix – How Long Will I Live?

Back in 2015, when I was starting this blog, I addressed this question (see link). With this medical update, I thought it appropriate to look at this again. Since I have good genealogical records, I have listed below all my ancestors back to my great-great-great-grandparents (58 people as there are two who are more recent immigrants and I don’t know their parents back in Europe).

At age 73, I am now older than 28 of these 58 ancestors. So, I’m pretty much in the middle of all these individuals. But in just two years I will be as old or older than another 6 of them. Thus, while there are certainly days where I feel “old”, and with my sparse white hair, slow walk, etc. I would certainly not be mistaken for being “young”, I am hopeful of having about another decade on this earth. Then at age 83, I would have become older than all but 8 of these 58 direct ancestors.

But I’m really not in charge of my destiny. Sure, I try to do the right things in taking care of my health. But God is the one who has the final say, and whenever “my time is up”, then I will happily join with Him in glory!

 

Ancestors of Alan Russell:

·        Vernon Russell – 85

o   Erskine Russell – 75

§  Louis Russell – 74

·        Walter Russell – 43

o   Silas Russell – 83

o   Hester [Disbrow] Russell – 90

·        Lois [Cook] Russell – 38

o   Levi Cook – 81

o   Sally [Barton] Cook – 87

§  Anna [Merchant] Russell – 32

·        Francis Merchant – 74

o   unknown

·        Nancy [Soan] Merchant – 60

o   unknown

o   Vera [Levy] [Russell] Rogers – 68

§  Maurice Levy – 42

·        Alexander Levy – 78

o   Lewis Levy – 64

o   Caroline [Lee] Levy – 81

·        Phoebe [Isaacs] Levy – 66

o   Phillip Isaacs – 76

o   Anna [Marks] Isaacs – 85

§  Caroline [Northrop] Levy – 63

·        Lawrence Northrop – 83

o   Joel Northrop – 74

o   Catherine [Canfield] Northrop – 76

·        Mary Lois [Rogers] Northrop – 82

o   Benjamin Rogers – 61

o   Lois [Chaffee] Rogers – 38

·        Sylvia [Pierpont] Russell – 88

o   Harold Pierpont – 71

§  Wilson Pierpont – 66

·        Charles Pierpont – 59

o   Austin Pierpont – 57

o   Sally [Beecher] Pierpont – 52

·        Mary Ann [Warner] Pierpont – 82

o   Jared Warner – 67

o   Mary [Bronson] Warner – 90

§  Annie [Merrill] Pierpont – 39

·        Nathan Merrill – 85

o   Elijah Merrill – 64

o   Anna [Perkins] Merrill – 89

·        Eunice Hoadley – 72

o   Artemus Hoadley – 39

o   Alma [Frisbie] Hoadley – 82

o   Sara [Blackman] Pierpont – 81

§  Clarence Blackman – 59

·        Isaac Blackman – 79

o   Joel Blackman – 57

o   Nancy [Crofutt] Blackman – 62

·        Harriett [Johnson] Blackman – 71

o   Cyrus Johnson – 49

o   Frances [Lockwood] Johnson – 79

§  Alice [Talmadge] Blackman – 58

·        Stephen Talmadge – 80

o   William Talmadge – 64

o   Anna [Sperry] Talmadge – 82

·        Sarah [Few] Talmadge – 81

o   John Few – 74

o   Rebecca [Fisher] Few – 75

Age at death:

·        31-40: 5       (32, 38, 38, 39, 39)

·        41-50: 3       (42, 43, 49)

·        51-60: 7       (52, 57, 57, 58, 59, 59, 60)

·        61-70: 10     (60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 64, 64, 66, 67, 68)

·        71-75: 9       (71, 71, 72, 74, 74, 74, 74, 75, 75)

·        76-80: 6       (76, 76, 78, 79, 79, 80)

·        81-85: 13     (81, 81, 81, 81, 82, 82, 82, 82, 83, 83, 85, 85, 85)

·        86+: 5           (87, 88, 89, 90, 90)

 

 

Frank Lloyd Wright and Taliesin

Recently when perusing social media, I ran across an article with the title “The Real Life Horror Story Of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin House” (see here). It was the juxtaposition of the words “Wright” and “Taliesin” that caught my eye – because “Wright” was the maiden name of my wife’s mother and “Taliesin” is the middle name of one of our grandsons. I decided I had to do some further investigation.

 

Frank Lloyd Wright – a convoluted personal life

Frank was born in 1867 in Wisconsin. (You can find much of his life story here). His father, William Cary Wright, was originally from Massachusetts and his mother, Anna Lloyd Jones, was an immigrant from Wales. Although never graduating, Frank attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he studied civil engineering. In 1887 he moved to Chicago which was still rebuilding after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and found work as a draftsman and architect. In 1889 he married his first wife, Catherine Lee “Kitty” Tobin. They went on to have six children.

By 1901 he had completed about 50 projects, including many houses in Oak Park. It was about this time that he began working on a house style known as “Prairie Style”.  In 1903, while designing a house for Edwin Cheney (a neighbor in Oak Park), he became enamored with Cheney’s wife, Martha “Mamah” Borthwick Cheney, and she became his mistress. They moved to Europe to escape the scandal in Chicago. While Edwin granted Mamah a divorce, Kitty would not grant one to Frank.

When Frank return to the US in 1910, he persuaded his mother to buy land for him in Spring Green, WI, and this land was adjacent to property held by his mother’s family. It was there that he built a new home in 1911 which he occupied together with his mistress, their servants, and on occasion Mamah’s children who usually were in the custody of her former husband.

On August 15, 1914, while he was working in Chicago, a servant set fire to the house and then murdered seven people with an axe as the fire burned. Three of these people were Mamah, then age 45, and her two children, then ages 11 and 9. Having lost his ex-wife and children, Edwin later remarried and had three more children.

Frank also did not wait too long to have someone else in his life and he began living with a new mistress, Maude “Miriam” Noel. In 1922, Kitty Wright finally granted Frank a divorce, the terms of which included his not being able to remarry for a year. He married Miriam in 1923, but her addiction to morphine led to the failure of this marriage in less than a year. In 1924, still married to Miriam, Frank met Olga Lazovich Hinzenburg. He and Olga moved in together in 1925 and they had a child together later that year.

Frank and Miriam finally divorced in 1927. He again had to wait a year and he married Olga in 1928.

In my investigation into these people, I have found the following genealogical connections:

·        Through his Wright ancestors as well as my wife’s Wright ancestors, Frank in an eighth cousin, three times removed, of my wife. He is also a ninth cousin, four times removed, of myself.

·        Catherine Tobin, Frank’s first wife, is a seventh cousin, twice removed, of my wife and an eighth cousin, three times removed of myself.

·        Edwin Cheney is my tenth cousin, once removed

·        Martha [Borthwick] Cheney is a seventh cousin, three time removed, of myself (2 ways)

·        Maude [Hicks] Noel is my sixth cousin, four times removed

·        Olga Ivanovna Lazovich Hinzenburg was born in Montenegro and is not related to my wife or myself.

 

Taliesin homes

Frank Lloyd Wright actually built four homes for himself with the name Taliesin – three in Wisconsin (called Taliesin, Taliesin II, and Taliesin III), and one in Arizona.

Taliesin was begun in 1911 and was completed in 1912. The living quarters were burned in the fire of 1914 when Frank’s mistress and her children were murdered.

Within a few months of his recovery from this devastating event, Frank began work on rebuilding, naming the rebuilt structure Taliesin II. In 1925, there was another fire, apparently caused by an electrical surge which ran through the telephone system, and this second home was also destroyed.

Rebuilding yet again, the new structure was called Taliesin III. This final version measured 37,000 sq. ft.

Taliesin West was Frank’s winter home and school in Scottsdale, AZ, from 1937 until his death in 1959 at age 91. Today it is the headquarters of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation.  

 

Taliesin

Taliesin (pronounced tal-YES-in) was a 6^th century early Brittonic poet of Sub-Roman Britain whose work has possibly survived in a Middle Welsh manuscript, the Book of Taliesin. He was a renowned bard who is believed to have sung at the courts of at least three kings.

According to legend Taliesin was adopted as a child by Eiffin, the son of Gwyddno Garanhir. In later stories he became a mythic hero, companion of Bran the Blessed and King Arthur.

In addition to the poems attributed to him, he shows up in a variety of places in literature, including, Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s Idylls of the King. He is also the subject of a few musical works. And, of course, he is the individual who Frank Lloyd Wright named his homes after.

Our daughter gave her third son the middle name of Taliesin, as part of a series of middle names for her four children – each having a name after one of the countries in the British Isles – Marrok (English), Conall (Irish), Taliesin (Welsh), and Bhaltair (Scottish). You can read further details here.

The Canadian Pierreponts

The Pierrepont family of central Canada are descendants of Samuel Whitworth Pierrepont who came to Manitoba in 1911 from England. The below is a quick synopsis of his story.

Samuel Whitworth Pierrepont

Samuel was born in 1887 to Joseph and Elizabeth Pierrepont in Kneesall, Nottinghamshire. He was the oldest of what were eventually three siblings with his brother William born in 1888 and his sister born in 1889. His mother died in 1901 when Samuel was only 14. Even at that young age, Samuel had already left school and was working as a farmer with his father as his employer. In the 1911 census we find him living in Scawby, Lincolnshire as a joiner in an iron foundry, however, that was soon to change.

In 1911, Samuel married, to Gertrude Burman. As was the custom of the times, the marriage banns were announced from the pulpit three times on consecutive Sundays (May 28, June 4, and June 11) and they were married later that third week on June 14. Only 3 weeks later, on July 7, 1911, Samuel left his young bride in England and boarded a boat in Liverpool that was leaving for Canada. When the boat landed in Quebec, Samuel noted that he was a wheelwright in England but he intended on taking up farming once again when he arrived at his intended destination in Winnipeg. To pay for his voyage, it appears that he had indentured himself to work as a farm laborer for 5 years. (Others on the same voyage were pledged to serve anywhere from 2 years to life). Samuel was also noteworthy in that he declared himself to be a Wesleyan, unlike most of the passengers who were members of the Church of England.

In 1912, Gertrude, sponsored by her husband, also journeyed to Canada to join him. In the 1916 census we can find them living in Swan River, Manitoba. The first of their four children, Earnest, had been born in 1915. Samuel and Gertrude are living on the same farm as Samuel’s first cousin, George Pierrepont, and his wife, who had come to Canada in 1902 and who were most likely the sponsors of Samuel. Although George and his wife, Edith, had arrived earlier, Samuel and his wife are considered the beginning of this branch of the Canadian Pierreponts as George and Edith did not have any children.

 

Ancestral line of Samuel Pierrepont

In looking at this ancestral list, you will see that there are a variety of spellings of the last name. These spelling are taken from the original sources where they are subject to the vagaries of the person recording what they heard.

Prior to the 1800s, we do not have UK census records, but only a variety of church parish records. The spelling in these parish records has considerable variation. Since Joseph Downing Pierrepont (Samuel’s great-grandfather) had a life that spanned this period, the later UK records contained the expected spelling as Pierrepont, but earlier parish records showed this considerable variation.

Prior to Joseph, the only records available are parish records. As can be seen, these had different spellings for each of the generations.

 

Samuel Whitworth Pierrepont (Pierrepoint/Pierrapont) (1887-1951)

  Joseph Downing Pierrepont (1855-1938)

    George Pierrepont (1808-1904)

      Joseph Downing Pierrepont (Pierpoint/Perrepoint/Pierepont/Pierrepoint/Peirrepoint/Pearpoint) (1779-1864)

        William Pierpoint (1735-1796)

          William Parpoint (1706-1743)

            Adam Perepoint (1676-1708)

              William Perpoint (1627-1707)

                William Perpoynt (1601-1679)

                  John Perpoint (Parpointe/Pearpoint/Pairpoint) (1560-1601)

At this point in the genealogical record, any source material that can tie John to his ancestors cannot be found. However, there is every reason to believe that he is descended from the same individuals who were the ancestors of the New England Pierpont just a few generations later as the below section documents.

 

Connection to New England Pierponts

The Canadian Pierreponts are from the same area of England as the New England Pierponts, i.e., Nottinghamshire. The earliest in the Canadian line, John, was born in Southwell, about 12 miles from Holme Pierrepont. Later generations in that line were in Southwell, then Ossington, then Kneesall – all small villages in the same part of Nottinghamshire a few miles from each other.

The same vagaries in the spelling of the name also appear in the English ancestors of the New England Pierpont line. Although our official genealogy (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//gen/pier/piergen.htm) uses the abbreviation “P-re” for Pierrepont, you will see in the comments where there are references to source documents with these other spellings. For example, in the commentary for Henry P-re (3>111211222112) you will see the spelling “Pierpoint”, “Perepont” and “Pierpont”. In the commentary for his son, Henry (3>1112112221121) you will find “Perepoint” as well as “Perpoynt”. Even after the family arrived in Roxbury, MA, the same sorts of misspellings can be found, i.e., “Pairpoynt”, “Peare Poynt” “Pierrapoint”, “Perpoynt” and others.

The genealogy of the family in our official genealogy is also quite muddled and full of unanswered questions for that period of time in England (i.e., 1400-1600). For examples, see the commentary on “IR 74-100”. But in particular, note the very questionable list of children of the two uncles of John and Robert who are the immigrant ancestors of the New England Pierponts. Their uncle William (17>251) has a list of 5 possible children and their uncle Richard (17>252) has a list of 7 possible children. And the names in both these families include a William, which is the predominant name in the Canadian ancestral list above.

Unlike the connection to the Virginia branch of the Pierpoints who came from another part of England and for whom we have not been able to find a connection, there is no reason to doubt that there is a connection between the Canadian branch of the Pierrepont family and the New England Pierpont family – both because of being in the same county (shire) in England, having the same type of name spellings, and having the same use of first names. While the records are not very clear (in either of these two family branches), it does seem clear that there is likely a connection, even if it cannot be documented with certainty.

Critical Race Theory and other related topics

There have been a number of news articles recently about CRT and related topics. It seems that every day there is some new “controversial” aspect. I’d like to explore a few of these and give some comments on them.

 

The News Articles

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-school-board-approves-controversial-transgender-policy

Policy 8040 requires teachers to use preferred pronouns and allows “gender-expansive and transgender students” to participate in sports and other activities “in a manner consistent with the student’s gender identity.” It also allows transgender students access to school facilities that correspond to their “consistently asserted gender identity.”

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/amex-crt-training-urged-staff-to-adopt-a-hierarchy-putting-marginalized-above-privileged

[U]rged Amex employees to construct their own intersectional identities, mapping their “race, sexual orientation, body type, religion, disability status, age, gender identity [and] citizenship. White, males, heterosexual people, Christians, able-bodied people, and citizens would presumably count as “privileged.” “If members of a subordinate group are present, workers should practice ‘intersectional allyship’ and defer to them before speaking.” [T]he credit card company should reduce standards for black customers and sacrifice profits in the interest of race-based reparation.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/greg-gutfeld-oregon-reading-writing-math-racist

Oregon just decided that reading, writing and arithmetic are racist. It has decided to drop the requirement that students demonstrate that they’ve mastered those skills. They dropped the requirement in order to benefit “Oregon’s Black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color,” effectively turning their degrees into a participation trophy.

 

Personal Pronouns

Historically, in English, there are several sets of pronouns (see https://7esl.com/english-pronouns/). There is no controversy about the first-person singular set (I/me/my/mine/myself – the subject/object/possessive adjective/possessive/reflexive). Nor is the any controversy about the second person (you/you/your/yours/yourself), nor any of the plural sets (we/us/our/ours/ourselves; you/you/your/yours/yourselves; they/them/their/theirs/themselves). However, there is a controversy about the third person singular sets as there are three: The male set is he/him/his/his/himself; the female set is she/her/her/hers/herself; and the non-person/thing set is it/it/its/…/itself. These are controversial because you need to have a gender assignment to know which set to use and the non-person/thing set is not to be used for people. [Note that I have not encountered any such controversy in other languages, even though such gendered assignment of pronouns also occurs in them – such as “el/ella” for him/her in Spanish]

With the recent increase and public practice of individuals having a gender-identity that may or may not match their biological sex, there are now those who feel that people need to give you the set of pronouns that they prefer that you use. This may be as simple as a trans-gender female (i.e., one who is biologically male but who identifies as a female) asking that you use the female set of pronouns. Or it may be that a person who is bi-sexual asking that you use some alternative form of pronouns such as ze/zir/zirs (or ze/hir/hirs) or that you use the plural set of pronouns (they/them/their) which are gender-neutral. (See https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/Files/HSC/HEO/Pronouns.pdf for additional explanation.) But even those who are cis-gendered will often give their preferred pronouns as a way of showing that they are supportive of those who use alternative sets.

Let me give a few examples:

My niece, who lives in NYC, use this type of convention to identify herself as “She/her” (https://alissarumsey.com/about/)

One of the medical coordinators I am working with on the various Alzheimer’s studies that I am a part of, in her signature block has the following: “Fran Reckers (she/her/hers)”. Since Fran is a name that can be used by either sex, this is actually helpful, although each email from her also includes a thumbnail picture that conveys the same information.

Finally, I want to quote another “about” page for an individual who I knew when he was a classmate of my children (http://www.lovemultipliescoaching.com/about/). There are a bunch of somewhat controversial things here, not all of which I will comment on:

“Erik W. House (he/they) M.A., is a love and relationship coach, along with being a spiritual guide and healer, he works closely with people in the polyamorous, consensual non-monogamy (CNM), and kink/BDSM relationships. He helps both individuals, as well as, polycules in digging down to find what their unmet needs are so that his clients can create the lives and relationships they want.

As a neurodivergent child, he was often made fun of, called names like retard, freak, just to say some of the nicer ones. […]

Those who practice kink, BDSM, polyamory, and CNM should have access to spiritual practitioners, coaches, as well as licensed professionals who are willing and able to accept us as we are.”

In many ways, this “controversy” about personal pronouns is just an extension of the issues that existed in the 1950s when I was growing up. In elementary school, the teacher (who was always called “Mr.” or “Mrs.” or “Miss” as a matter of respect) needed to know what to call their students. [For context, I attended a small school that had one class per grade for grades 1-7.] This was usually the person’s legal first name, but it could also be a nickname or a middle name – in all cases the same name that the student’s parents would call them and with which they identified. But there were problems when there were two students in the classroom with the same name. For example, we had two boys with the legal name of “Robert”. If one normally went by “Robert” and the other by “Bobby” that would solve the problem. But since both of them went by “Bobby”, the teacher needed to differentiate and so one was “Bobby Fehrs” and the other was “Bobby Schlager”, i.e., using their last names.

But our class was a bit unique. We had a set of identical twins – Marie and Louise Clement. That was not a problem. But in the same small classroom we also had a cousin of theirs who also had the name Louise Clement. So how was the teacher to distinguish? She couldn’t use last names as with the two boys. She asked if she could call one of them Louise and one Louisa – but “Louisa” said that was not her name and rejected the idea. Fortunately, the two girls had different middle names (one was Marie (the same as her twin’s first name!) and the other was Beatrice. So, the teacher began calling them “Louise M” and “Louise B”.

Thus, on one hand the notion of using personal pronouns that are consistent with how a person identifies is no more controversial that using the name with which a person identifies. But on the other hand, there are no consistent pronoun sets to use when we get beyond the choice of the male/female sets. Even in the references above there is a ze/zir/zirs set and a ze/hir/hirs set (and I have encountered others as well). And what does it mean in the third example when Eric identifies as “he/they”? Is he interchangeably singular-male and plural?

 

Intersectionality

This term only came into being in 1989. It was the work of a legal scholar and was used to denote that sometimes how others perceive us is as a combination of two or more of the facets that define us (for a well written article see https://www.edi.nih.gov/blog/communities/intersectionality-part-one-intersectionality-defined). The “facets that define us” are not totally enumerated and are often selected from a broad list of items based on the situation. I have seen the following facets mentioned, and I’m sure that there are many others:

Race, indigeneity, class/socioeconomic status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, spirituality/religion, immigration/refugee status, language, education, employee status, body type

To give an example using just the facets of gender and body type, if you see someone who is both female and “skinny” you may react differently than if you saw a female who had average body type or a male who was “skinny”. Perhaps you would associate the term anorexia with that individual where you would not use that term for the male with the same body type.

I don’t see any issues with this term and there is definite value in recognizing that in order to understand an individual you have to know more than one of their facets. In fact, there is real danger in trying to categorize someone on the basis of only a single factor, such as “All ____ are ___”.

But there are two consequences to this that have gathered momentum in recent years. First, some have tried to attach labels of “oppressor” and “oppressed” (or other similar terms) to the two ends of each facet (Man are oppressors – women are oppressed; college-educated people are oppressors (i.e., smart) – those who only have a high-school education are oppressed (i.e., dumb)). [As an aside, body type is not a facet with the labels on the ends. Both ends of the spectrum, obese and skinny, are “bad” and individuals there would be “oppressed” and the middle is the area of being “oppressor”. The same is true of such facets as religion.] And second, many are trying to make the facet of race the one that trumps all other facets.

In the second news article quoted above, we see a good example of these problems. While asking their employees to “construct their own intersectional identities” is a reasonable exercise, the company then assigns labels such as “privileged” and “subordinate” to these facets. They then ask their employees to “practice ‘intersectional allyship’” and defer to those who are subordinate. Then in the last sentence quoted, they compound the problem by putting all the focus on the race identity when they talk about “reduc[ing] standards for black customers” and “race-based reparation.”

I’ll address these again below.

 

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Efforts to ensure diversity have been around for quite a while. And I agree that some of the efforts to combat blatant racism in the past have been necessary. But recently the DEI terms have begun showing up in combination and the focus has been on not “equality”, i.e., making sure that we give equal opportunity, but “equity”, i.e., requiring equal outcomes. And this focus is almost entire race-based.

I was recently invited to listen in on a conversation with the president of Michigan State on the topic “A Foundation for Learning and Deep Inquiry” This conversation featured Teresa K. Woodruff, Ph.D. Let me quote from her bio which was attached to the email invitation.

“Teresa K. Woodruff, Ph.D., provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, is a dedicated scientist, committed educator and innovative researcher. During this conversation with President Stanley, Provost Woodruff will discuss the development of diverse approaches to innovative and effective teaching and share news about new initiatives that are increasing access and success for all learners. She will also talk about her efforts to foster diverse, equitable and inclusive work and learning environments for students, faculty and academic staff.”

Note the DEI words (which are always presented in that order) in the last sentence. I have a few problems with this which I’d like to elaborate on.

First, while these “code words” sound nice, they conceal an entirely race-based, one-sided, approach. In the case of MSU, they are looking to have “equal outcomes” in all situations. This means that since blacks comprise 13.4% of the US population (see https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219), that we need to have them represent that percentage in all the university statistics – scholarships, population in each college of the university, graduates, etc.

But let’s look at it another way. Since white individuals comprise over 75% of the population (see the same census figures above), shouldn’t “equity” require that whites comprise 75% in each situation as well? Let’s look at something that is quite public about MSU – it’s sports teams – which are a huge money-making machine for MSU and most other major universities in this country. If we really believe in “equity”, shouldn’t we ask the university to ensure that 75% of the members of their football and basketball teams be white (and they are far, far, from that!) Oh, you respond, but that’s because we select our football/basketball teams based on the players abilities. And if MSU limited the number of black athletes in order to ensure “equity”, they would be at a disadvantage compare to other schools. Someone explain to me why “equity” is only an appropriate topic when blacks are under-represented and not appropriate when whites are under-represented. And why the focus on blacks when those who identify as Hispanic/Latino represent 18.5% of the population. If equity is about equal outcomes, shouldn’t we have those same percentages on the MSU sports teams?

But even more insidious are the ways in which we are trying to achieve “equity” – by eliminating any measurable standards. If MSU (and most other educational institutions) believes that participation in their sports teams should be based on ability, then why don’t they base things like their acceptance criteria to the university on ability (since education should be their primary focus)?

Most university admissions standards have already been bent way out of proportion in order to ensure that the student body is diverse enough, often by lowering standards for particular groups. (It would be interesting to see the average GPA or SAT scores of the starters on the average university football/basketball team compared to the average GPA/SAT scores for the university as a whole – but I digress.) I recall that last year there was a lawsuit against Yale University which alleged that “most Asian-American and white applicants have one-eighth to one-fourth the likelihood of admission as African-American applicants with comparable academic credentials.”

And now we’ve gone even further, as noted in the third news article above. Now an entire state (Oregon) has decided that “reading, writing and arithmetic are racist.” Really? Knowing that 2+2=4 is racist!? So now you’ll be able to receive your high school diploma in Oregon even if you can’t read or write or do simple arithmetic? As the article notes, now a high school diploma will be reduced to the academic equivalent of a participation trophy. And then they give a long list of types of individuals who they say this change will benefit. But they might just as well say “only whites know how to read and write”!

All this madness concealed under the banner of DEI and “equity”!

 

Critical Race Theory

Having dissected the aspects of personal pronouns, intersectionality, and diversity, equity, and inclusion, now let’s look at the topic I started with – Critical Race Theory (CRT).

CRT has been around as an academic concept for over 40 years. The core idea is that race is a social construct and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies (https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05). The basic tenets were created by several legal scholars (including Kimberlé Crenshaw who introduced the term intersectionality above.)

But this same article also states that “CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified.” Thus, we see why the above sections on intersectionality and DEI are so relevant to any discussion about CRT and why the problems/issues mentioned above are also problems/issues with CRT.

It was only a month ago that Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, said that CRT “has mostly been taught at the college level and is not taught at the nation’s elementary, middle and high schools.” (https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-racial-injustice-race-and-ethnicity-government-and-politics-ce1ca40ecbe5abf10afcc10864d1b3e9). But it’s pretty obvious that this statement is false.

One school district, D49 in Colorado, summarized it nicely when they banned the teaching of CRT (https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-school-district-bans-critical-race-theory) when they stated:

District leaders and staff shall not promote the following principles associated with Critical Race Theory in D49’s classroom curricula:

·        Race Essentialism: The assertion that race is the most important identity

·        Collectivism: The assertion that group identity is more important than individual identity

·        Accusatory characterization of individuals as oppressor or oppressed according to their race

On the other hand, a school district in Kansas recently spent $400,000 on CRT training for teachers, which told teachers to “reject and resist any parents who disagree with” CRT (https://sentinelksmo.org/teacher-leaves-shawnee-mission-over-critical-race-theory-masks/).

It’s pretty obvious to me that we are in a cultural war! On one side are the teacher’s unions, the establishment elite, and the politically progressive (mostly, but not all, democratic). On the other side are parents who care about their children and the future of this country and increasingly many school teachers who are quitting their public-school employers and moving to private schools or other venues where they are free from the union and/or school board dictates. Which side are you on?