Dear dear me ,

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

jonny jeez

Legendary Member
Drifting off topic...I read (probably on Teh Intarwebs, so it must be true, that when the Vikings (or whomever) discovered Iceland, they thought it was quite a nice place to live, but didn't want everyone coming there. A bright spark decided, therefore, to call it Iceland, as "the clue is in the name". Greenland was named such for the opposite reason - it's barren, cold and unwelcoming, so we'll persuade people we don't want here to go there.
That certainly fits with the nordic influence that I have met during my time there. I've spent months (overall) working out there and find the folk, the politics, The attitude and the landscape quite inspiring and very refreshing. They don't even have any military...don't need it. All of that will change as the country becomes more populated, most of the frankness and openness is down to the simple fact that everyone knows ...or is related to...one another, so there is little point in using any bullsh1t.

Having said all that, there is a lot wrong with Iceland, aside from its financial restrictions. There is a lack of culture and art, beyond local or folk. There is no real sense of identity, are they Vikings or Icelanders? And many of those who chose to move there, seem to also be escaping something, rather than adding something.(from my own personal experience)
 

tyred

Legendary Member
Location
Ireland
Life isn't perfect by a long way but having read Tess of the d'Urbervilles over the weekend I think I prefer life in the 21st Century thank you very much.
 

jonny jeez

Legendary Member
No but you can lookup how dangerous the world actually was. If you prefer to base your fear on how you feel rather than actual risk the you can walk around being petrified by kittens. I'd rather not.
Well, that really is my point. I am basing this on how i feel. I was clear to make that point in my original reply.

And right now, I feel threatened.
 
Err.... not it's not. In fact, the number of two (or more) party conflicts has been steadily going up in recent years. There was a steady increase from post-WW2 until about 1991, when there was a drop with the end of the cold War. However, that decline reversed in 2004 and has been increasing ever since.
Pinker.jpg
 
lot less to fear when the deaths are massively reduced. Not so much fun if you're being occupied and can't fight back I grant you.
 

jonny jeez

Legendary Member
I don't want to turn to pedant mode, my comments are about feelings and perception...but that chart of yours supports my feelings that over the last 10 years civil and foreign threats are greater than during the last world war.

The yellow bit was non existent during the war.where as now, its all that seems to exist.

Also, its a vast frame of reference, perhaps a scale illustrating the last 5 years would interesting.

Regardless, my comments are about my perception, which has, in the last 12 months...adjusted to a position that I would not have imagined would be acceptable to me a few years ago.

I never imagined that I would make decisions about holiday venues, nights out, and where to shop for my spuds...based upon perceived threat levels.
 
It appears your perception is not matched by the risk you face. Not a criticism but something you could look into? Have a healthy fear of real and present risk and don't sweat the imaginary. Life will be easier.
 

swee'pea99

Legendary Member
Life isn't perfect by a long way but having read Tess of the d'Urbervilles over the weekend I think I prefer life in the 21st Century thank you very much.
Watched a programme t'other night about the Brontes.

Charlotte, Emily & Anne sat around the table and wrote, basically because they needed money to live on, there being no safety net of any description. Fortunately they had talent to fall back on, and within a couple of years all three had become successful authors (Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre + a couple of others). Unfortunately in the meantime, their brother died - their only surviving sibling, two older sisters having died previously - and within two years, both Emily & Anne had died of TB. Still, they'd almost reached 30, at a time when the life-expectancy in the Yorkshire milltown where they lived was 25. Ah, the good old days...
 

raleighnut

Legendary Member
Watched a programme t'other night about the Brontes.

Charlotte, Emily & Anne sat around the table and wrote, basically because they needed money to live on, there being no safety net of any description. Fortunately they had talent to fall back on, and within a couple of years all three had become successful authors (Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre + a couple of others). Unfortunately in the meantime, their brother died - their only surviving sibling, two older sisters having died previously - and within two years, both Emily & Anne had died of TB. Still, they'd almost reached 30, at a time when the life-expectancy in the Yorkshire milltown where they lived was 25. Ah, the good old days...

Branwell managed to 'pickle' himself quite well though.

Patrick Branwell Brontë (/ˈbrɒnti/, commonly /ˈbrɒnteɪ/;[1] 26 June 1817 – 24 September 1848) was an English painter and writer. He was the only son of the Brontë family, and brother of the writers Charlotte, Emily and Anne.

Brontë was rigorously tutored at home by his father, and shared much of his sisters’ creative talent, earning praise for his poetry and translations from the classics. But he drifted between jobs, supporting himself by portrait-painting, and gave way to drug and alcohol addiction, apparently worsened by a failed relationship with a married woman, leading to his early death.
 
Top Bottom