LET'S HEAR IT FOR DONKEYS and their 7,000 years of service to humans.

Happy Donkeys (DreamCafeArt)

DONKEYS came to my attention recently because they kept popping up on television news reports.  They were neither the reason for the bulletins in which they appeared, nor were they even mentioned, but they were there.  The televised coverage was about people fleeing their homes, their countries and their livelihoods to safety.  Among the mechanized transports carrying people and goods were donkeys, either heavily laden or pulling carts top heavy with goods and people.

Now, I feel terribly for people in such a situation, but my heart really goes out to the donkeys, mules, hinnies or whatever hybrids they are.  They haven't messed up the world, we have, and then we make these poor, innocent beasts carry the weight of our mistakes.

Donkeys are rather overlooked because of the horse, their showier distant relative, whom they branched off from over 7 million years ago.  Horses are to donkeys what supermodels are to the average woman, at least appearance wise.  Horses can be raced, groomed, ridden and sometimes change hands for huge amounts of money.  There are work horses of course, and even horses eaten for meat, but then there are racing thoroughbreds, special breeds of horses, Spanish Riding School horses and so forth.  Nobody gets a donkey to do dressage or spends a fortune breeding them.  They are the unsung darlings of the equine family, uncomplaining and mostly unnoticed in work and in war.  Yes, horses have suffered dreadfully in war, I know that, but you don't see Napoleon sitting on a donkey to have his portrait painted, do you?  No one thinks of a donkey as a majestic beast and yet, they have been of use to us for much longer than horses.  The truth is, however, that Napoleon rode on a mule, not a horse, to cross the Alps.

Paintings of Napoleon crossing the Alps: the idealized version and the actuality.

We've recently seen donkeys carrying people and their goods to safety (or wherever they've been told it's safe - and usually isn't) in the war between Israel and the Hamas/Palestinians.  I include Palestinians in that last statement (although this post isn't about politics) but in the interest of accuracy.  The Palestinians, innocent and complicit alike, are bearing the brunt of this war but I'm sure it's the Palestinians using the donkeys because the Hamas have so many weapons, they can surely afford mechanical transport.  They can also hide in the numerous tunnels they have dug under Gaza and so, don't have to abandon their homes on a laden donkey.

Elsewhere, in other news reports from Sudan, Ethiopia, Syria and Afghanistan, where people are fleeing from war, famine or persecution, you'll see the humble donkey, or its cousins, bearing burdens for humans.  According to my research, which, I've distilled from various sources, the donkey originated in Africa from the African Wild Ass and was domesticated in North-East Africa around 7,000 years ago, 3,000 years before humans domesticated horses.  Donkeys were first used to carry people and goods in Egypt before their reach extended South to Sudan, West to the Sahara, and East to Ethiopia and onwards.

Throughout history they have been of immeasurable assistance to humans in trade that must be carried out by land routes because of their endurance and ability to carry heavy burdens long distances.  They can also be used for milking, raising water, milling, as pets and even rides for tourists.  Sadly, they can also be used for meat.  Approximately 3.5 million donkeys and mules are slaughtered each year for meat worldwide. (Source: Wikipedia)

The first donkeys to arrive in the Americas came on the ships of the second voyage of Christopher Columbus and landed at Hispaniola in 1495. (Source: Wikipedia).  They reached Mexico by 1528 and only reached the United States in 1598.  In 2006 it was estimated that there were approximately 41 million donkeys in the world.  Since then, donkey populations in China, which had the largest population of them, have decreased as well as some other countries, and it would be very difficult to make an accurate assessment of the number presently in the world.

Donkeys have also found their place in fiction, probably the most famous being a toy, Eeyore, in the Winnie the Pooh books.  Poor Eeyore was always depressed and, considering how donkeys are used as beast of burden, I wouldn't be surprised if they were, but I think depression is only experienced by human beings.  Donkeys are generally gentle, tolerant and forbearing.  They are, however, considered stubborn, but that is probably because they tend to 'freeze' in the face of danger, unlike horses that are likely to bolt and flee.  They just have a strong survival instinct. 

Eeyore (Courtesy of Disney)

Like many animals, donkeys have been used in war.  At least they are mostly used as pack animals, not to be ridden into battle, although they have often been in the thick of it.  Probably the best-known instances of donkeys used in war arose from the Gallipoli campaign in Turkey in WWI.  An Australian and a New Zealand soldier, (ANZACS - Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) both became well known for using donkeys to transport wounded soldiers from the front to first-aid stations.  I found it interesting, in my research, to discover the story of the New Zealand soldier, Dick Henderson, a stretcher bearer.  I had heard of the Australian soldier, John Simpson, also a stretcher bearer, and his donkey, 'Simpson's donkey', as it's part of Australian ANZAC folklore.  I am Australian, after all.  Surprisingly, however, I had not heard of our New Zealand counterpart and his donkey.

Dick Henderson, New Zealand stretcher bearer and his donkey and the photo that inspired the painting.

The painting of Dick Henderson and his donkey transporting a wounded soldier, hangs in both Australian and New Zealand museums.  In John Simpson's case, the donkeys were bought ashore to carry water, but Simpson decided to use his to carry less seriously wounded soldiers to safety.  Those with life-threatening head, chest and stomach wounds could not be transported this way.  Simpson is credited with being the first to do this in the campaign.  The poor man died only three weeks after having landed at Gallipoli but had become a familiar sight in that short time transporting the wounded on his donkey and made his mark in history.

Obviously, donkeys and mules were used well before this war and for the same reason, but by the time WWI came around, photo coverage and in the field reporting, brought the animals to the public's attention.

A happier and somewhat less cumbersome task for donkeys and mules is to carry tourists.  Until I researched the animals, I didn't realize how capable they are of withstanding heavy loads.  I don't tolerate animal abuse, but once I knew this, I wasn't so anti their use for taking tourists for rides.  It's a hell of a lot better than being used in the firing lines or eaten once the food runs out.

Recently I found my late parents' photo album of their round-the-world journey and, 'lo and behold, there they were riding donkeys in Greece.  Mules tend to be larger and so I think that they are riding donkeys.

My parents riding donkeys in Greece 1974.

Donkeys, throughout history have been viewed as an inferior beast, possibly because they are servile and tolerant.  Their stubbornness has also made them appear stupid, when really, all they are is hesitant and careful.  A stubborn creature is not stupid, in fact, it knows exactly what it doesn't want to do.  They were, however, typecast early in written history and people's opinion of them hasn't changed much since.

"Donkeys were found in the works of Homer, Aesop and Apuleius, where they were generally portrayed as stupid and stubborn, or servile at best, and generally represented the lower class. They were often contrasted with horses, which were seen as powerful and beautiful." (Source: Wikipedia, Cultural references to donkeys.)

The Jewish religion even adds to this demeaning attitude to the creatures by considering them impure:

"In the Jewish religion, the donkey is not a kosher animal. In the Zohar, it is considered avi avot hatuma i.e. an ultimate impure animal, and doubly "impure", as it is both non-ruminant and non-cloven hoofed." (Source: Wikipedia, Cultural references to donkeys.)

I can't help feeling sorry for the dear creatures for being held in such low regard historically and, at the same time, used ceaselessly for our benefit.  At least by not being considered kosher, they are less in danger of being eaten in some societies.

Donkeys and their kin, asses and mules, have given us colourful analogies based on their perceived characteristics.  Examples of these include 'stubborn as a mule', 'make an ass of yourself' and 'donkey vote' (in which you simply mark your voting preferences 1,2, 3 without giving any thought to the candidates).  These sayings imply that donkeys and their kin are both stubborn and stupid, but that hasn't stop humans using them for all manner of things, and that's because these animals are reliable, capable and strong.  They don't bolt or flee in the face of danger either.  Surprisingly, they don't eat at much as horses either, making them more economical.

 "(Donkeys) need less food than a horse or pony of comparable height and weight, approximately 1.5 percent of body weight per day in dry matter, compared to the 2–2.5 percent consumption rate possible for a horse."  (Source: Wikipedia - Donkey)

Most of the world's donkey population is found in undeveloped countries and used as working and pack animals.  In developed countries where there are fewer of them, they are mostly used as pets and for breeding.  This is the case in the area in which I now live, which is at the edge of suburbia where farms and large acreages begin.  Near to me are a number of hobby farms with various unusual animals from llamas and alpacas to camels and donkeys.  Some of them have open days where children and adults alike can pet and interact with the animals.  Animals such as these are well cared for and a long way from poverty and war zones and it's wonderful to think that there are some creatures in the world being cared for by humans and living their best lives.

END

 

 

 

EDITING THE PAST: The dangers of whitewashing literature and history.

Image Credit: Paul Wood via Cartoon Stock.

Who dares erase the past?  A damned fool, that is who.  One who wants to rewrite history, or literature, in a context they judge to be palatable to the masses.

It is offensive to be considered a member of the masses, who apparently lack the ability to read literature in the context of the time it was written, and who must take offence at outdated terminology and opinions, and to have 'woke' members of society edit and alter original texts on our behalf.  These people take it upon themselves to be judge and jury of our morals (as if they were Nazis at a book burning) and alter original published texts written, sometimes, over a century ago, without the permission of a long dead author.

The result of such puritanical vandalism is to subdue, even negate, the original voice of the author.  It takes the words right out of his or her mouth.  It removes the historic attitudes of the time in which it is written, whereby the modern-day reader is denied insight into the mores of the times in which the text was embedded.  It is, thus, denying history and, as the saying goes, "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

What is most appalling about this 'editing' is that the majority of people are appalled by it and yet publishing houses that should have ethics, not yellow streaks running down their spines, are the ones taking part in the vandalism for fear of the 'woke' brigade.  The 'woke' brigade will include schools who have thrown themselves headfirst into the ocean of political correctness to protect the tender young minds in their care (over whom they refuse to exert discipline for fear of being sued), to protect their sensitivities and ensure they don't learn archaic discriminatory words or gender discrimination from Enid Blyton (author of Noddy) or Roald Dahl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory).

Okay, when it comes to children's books, I'm more on their side.  Frankly, the Noddy and Big Ears books creeped me out and, if I really wanted to erase some children's stories completely, it would be the Brothers Grimm fairy tales.  In my mind they were simply not fit for children.  Loathe them as I do, I would not erase them.  They represent their times and the attitudes of those times.  While I would read neither author to children, I would leave the texts untouched because you CAN'T CHANGE HISTORY.  They are testament to their times.

However, when it comes to adult fiction, leave it alone.  For heaven's sake, the James Bond books by Ian Fleming are in the 'woke's' sights.  In this case, however, it is the publisher entrusted to the books' future imprints that has taken an initiative to not offend modern readers as they (and obviously the blockbuster movies) have managed to reinvent Bond by allowing him to change with the times.  

"Ian Fleming Publications Ltd, the company that owns the literary rights to the 007 series, hired sensitivity readers to review the classic books ahead of the reissue. The Telegraph said the new versions would feature a disclaimer: "This book was written at a time when terms and attitudes which might be considered offensive by modern readers were commonplace. A number of updates have been made in this edition while keeping as close as possible to the original text and the period in which it is set."   

BY THEARA COLEMAN, THE WEEK US PUBLISHED MARCH 9, 2023

In this case, the editing is to keep the character of Bond up with the times and ensure both the novels and the movies remain relevant to the present generation.  If, however, let us imagine, a publisher decided to edit Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice", to appeal to modern sensibilities, what would your thoughts on that be?  Mine would be horror.  One of the beauties of Austen's works are that they take us back to the morals and mores of a past time.  Her characters are works of fiction that give us a glimpse into history and the workings of the society and attitudes of her day.  We can see the role of women in society at a time when marriage was considered the only option available to them.  Young women of today, reading about the limited options available to their gender in that era, can revel, be grateful for and be vigilant to ensure that their sex is never placed in this abominable situation again thanks to authors such as Austen's, albeit fictional account of women's lives in the past.

Would we rather edit that history out so we are not appalled by it, or be aware of what society is capable of and be on guard should it ever repeat itself?

 Theara Coleman in her article in The Week US also states:

"Modern publishers often enlist sensitivity readers to help to screen literature for potentially offensive material, especially for children's books.  While some argue that the practice is a form of extreme censorship, others say it promotes diversity in publishing. Though it's more common for publishers to use sensitivity readers for future work, some have utilized their services to help identify published books that might need edits."

It's one thing entirely for a publisher to pre-edit a manuscript it has accepted responsibility for publishing, it is quite another to edit a published book (even one of their own imprints) that is decades, even a century or more, old.  I believe that is because they are taking away something quintessentially part of the original publication and that is its signature, if you will, in time.

It's not just literature that is making historical alterations.  I was somewhat surprised a year or two ago when I began seeing trailers for a show set in Regency England.  It was obviously a costume drama set in a Jane Austen type setting involving the Upper Middle Class and, I presume, some aristocracy.  I was a tad confused by coloured actors playing some of the titled characters.  I have nothing against this BUT it is a show appealing to a young (late teens to twenties onwards) demographic.  Again, fictional it may be, but in no way is it reflective of the era.  It would be lovely to imagine English people of that time being as egalitarian as we are today; that people of African descent weren't instead used as slaves and, if free, never allowed to rise up the social ladder.  I just hope the young viewers will not end up with a skewed view of history.  History was cruel.  It is better they learn the truth and see how much better we have become, than to hide the truth.  That is because there is reason for shame, and it should not be whitewashed.  Perhaps the show's producers feel that presenting this altered version of history will ensure youth will imagine society was always so egalitarian and so will continue to be, but I really think that is a bit of an odd way to go about it.

There is a word we should all become familiar with in this age of 'woke' editing: Bowdlerism.  It's definition: A policy of Bowdlerization, or censorship of removing what is considered indecent.  This kind of editing has happened previously in history.

According to Nicholas A. Basbanes in "Every Book Its Reader: The Power of the Printed Word to Stir the World":  

"Long before the British physician Thomas W. Bowdler (1754-1825) and his sister, Henrietta Bowdler (1754-1830), took it upon themselves to make the plays of William Shakespeare 'safe' for innocent eyes, the wholesale editing of another author's writing so that it might be more palatable to prudish tastes was known as 'castration' to some, 'winnowing' by others. But with the publication of the first edition of the Family Shakespeare in 1807, the world of letters got a new verb—bowdlerize—to identify the process of literary expurgation."

 And so, even Shakespeare isn't safe from the prudes of history.  Certainly, let people make blander versions for their own spurious enjoyment.  Just let's be sure to keep the original texts intact for posterity and to appreciate their genius.

END.