h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The author if this article must be kidding. At least when it is stated that christian missionaries arrived in 1860. Aberdeen is not North America, you know. History goes back a wee bit further than this in Scotland. My own great grandfather's ministry in Aberdeen pre-dates this.

Yes but it was the new wave of incoming misionaries, at that time, that stopped the Burrey Man practices
BCNU - Crescent

Well, if you say so. Perhaps you could edit the article so that it does not seem to imply the christian missianaries reached Aberdeen less then 150 years ago?
Actually, I still have some difficulty swallowing your assertion that missionaries stopped the practice so recently. In the 1800s, Aberdeen was a large, flourishing city with complex, sophisticated intellectual ( Aberdeen University ), commercial ( fishing and agriculture ) and religious sectors. I would not expect the arrival of a few latter-day missionaries to have much impact on the city. Without any specific knowledge, I would ascribe the end of Burrey Man practices to Victorian rectitude. Do you have any documentation?

My ancestry's from Aberdeen, indeed, still have cousins there. I've never heard of the Burry Man - would like any more information you can dig up, also any other tales. Anyone know the tale behind the Banshee? My Grannie used to tell us about it when we were kids, and I can't remember the story. Would love to pass it on to my own son, who's old enough not to be scared, and interested in all things Scottish.

As far as I remember the banshee was originally an Irish legend, I will ask DD if he knows it Raven though Aberdeen was florishing at the time, there was no social security, there were few (if any) police, no saftey nets for people. I think you are seeing the past in a lovely rose tinted way. It was this time that 7-9 year olds were shoved up chimneys, slums in large cities, gin palaces, the class sytem was firmly in place, and fishermen would have virtually been ignored by TPTB of the time, they even lived in their own wee village Footdee which was away from the main town. Until the net of the Seaman Missions came along how would you stop it and other than the man himself, who would care about a stranger passing through? It is Aberdeen after all.
BCNU - Crescent

How we view people in the past is one of those questions that does not have an obvious method of being determined. On the one hand, these seems to be a lot of evidence that even as recently as 150 years ago people were brutish and ignorant. On the other hand, it is hardly credible that human nature can have changed that much, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the people in the the past were just like us, except of the absence of a few modern conveniences. As a personal choice, based on the ethic of 'do unto others ...', I tend towards the latter view.

I have no idea what TPTB might signify.

"It is Aberdeen after all" What does this mean? It appears that it might be a slur of some kind.

TPTB - The Powers That Be

And while it could be construed as a slur, as someone from Aberdeen it is humourous In the past 150 years the world has changed beyond ALL recognition, other than looking more or less similar to us, those people 150 years ago were not anything like us at all.

BCNU - Crescent

It is interesting that you feel comfortable making such a bold assertion. If you were to say that someone from Africa, for example, not only looked rather different from someone from Aberdeen, but was not anything at all like someone from Aberdeen, then you would expect to be accused of racism. I wonder if there is such a term as 'timism: the prejudice that people in the past were inferior to yourself.'

What do you suppose happened to change human nature so greatly in the last 150 years? Actually, the time available for the change is much smaller than this. My gandfather was born in Aberdeen about 120 years ago. He is dead now, but I remember him well, and he appeared well within the normal range of people I meet now.

For myself, I cannot help suspecting that if history were written in the opposite direction, so that the Victorians could read our accounts of our time, then they would consider us to be perfectly barbaric.

The Victorians, I imagine, would be horrified by our lifestyle, and I do not think people in the past were inferior to us, they were, however, different. 150 years ago the world was starting to chang, the people alive then had grown up in a totally different society. They had grown up in a society where there was no even vagually instantaneous communications, it could take a month or more to get to London, slavery was still around (now there is racism), only a small amount of people could vote, women were near slaves in their rights. Very few people could read, disease was not understood, there was only poor contraception, high birth rates, high death rates, epidemics rampant. Britain was only starting to become a 'developed' nation. They did not worship a loving New Testament god they were still in the Fire and Brimstone, Eye for an Eye, Old Testament, You Will Go To Hell, God. Britain ruled a huge empire, the natives WERE all considered inferior to the Englishman, mere savages. Starvation was commen, the poor had few, if any, rights. All these things were considered to be the divine natural order, how things were meant to be. Human rights were not even a glimmer. Now , if you grew up in such a society how close to the 'modern' way of thinking do you think that people would be. The people of 150 years ago had more in commen with people in Africa (especially those far from cities) today, than we do now.
BCNU - Crescent

My, my you really do 'dis' them old Victorians!

'the world was starting to change' An argument could be made that the world was unchanging during medieaval times, and change 'began' in the Renaisance. Since then, change has been a constant.

I think you over-rate the significance of instantaneous communication. The fact that you and I can communicate like this is fun, but I do not see any great significance to it. When was the over-night train from Aberdeen to London intrroduced? I think it was over a hundred years ago.

Slavery is STILL around. I imagine that the nearest slave to Aberdeen today ( somewhere in NE Africa ) is about the same distance away as 150 years ago,

I am pretty cynical about the benefits of universal suffrage

I accept that the status of women has changed drastically in our time period, and represents a huge change.

Literacy rates, defined as 'functionally literate' - the ability to read and understand the labels on a cereal packet, are higher today. The proportion of people who are literate has probably declined.

Sure, we all live longer these days. THe Victorians would be most surprised by how little we have done with this boon.

It is hard to prove, by my impression is that Christian Fundamentalism holds greater sway today than 150 years ago. In the USA they nearly elected a president, whereas the High Anglicism that the Victorian elite subscribed to could not be more opposed to such stuff.

Well now, I was educated in rural Scotland nearly fifty years ago, an experience which seemed little different from that of my forefathers. I have lived in rural Africa, and most recently have done the hi-tech thing. My personal impression is that you are mistaken. The differences you mention are smaller than you imagine, and human nature is more resilient than you suppose, affected but little by the accidents of the surroundings.

What do you mean by 'dis'? And while an argument could be made that the world was unchanging since medieval times (well except before the dark ages there was the Roman Empire, so why not say that it has been changing since the end of the Romans, or wtf, the beginning of the Roman empire, or why not go right back to the biggest change in the human condition, if feeling pedantic - the agricultural revolution) you must admit that the changes since 1800 have changed the world that people actually live in, and their lives, an awful lot more than the rennaisance, or virtually any period since the agricultural revolution.

The instantaneous communication one small thing, but if had relatives down south it could be months between communication with them, it made the world very very large. London was virtually a different world to the people in Footdee. The countryside was still wild,
especially up north, people could disappear travelling between cities and not be missed for yonks. On the other note, it was 1850 when the first train rolled into Aberdeen, right when things started to change, when Aberdeen started to become less insular.

Slavery, though still around, is not generally practised in the UK anymore (though you say it is in Africa - it seems that people of 150 years ago were even closer to people in Africa than I thought), unless you count call centres I think that if there not slaves in Aberdeen, at that time and before, then there certainly were in London, Bristol and Liverpool. Also they would not have been seen as equals to the general population, and even if they were lucky enough to some how get their freedom, their career choices would be a bit limited.

If you are cynical about universal sufferage, who do you think should be allowed to vote? Should anyone? You must admit that universal sufferage is one of the fairest way to govern a population. It was also one of the first step on the road for equal rights for women. You admit that the change in status of women has been a huge change. This must mean that it was hugely different 150 years ago.

Literacy rates, at least in the UK have soared in the past 150 years and if you take literate as 'learned' the amount of people going to university, and getting degrees, must mean more people becoming 'learned'. In the UK, at least, that must mean that the proportion
is going up (as our population is, more or less, stable).

We do live a lot longer than most in the Victorian world, but the fact that the Victorians would of thought little of what we have done with all the extra years is disputable. If the Victorians had lived as long, I would of thought they would do much what we do now. You seem fairly disapproving about how these extra years are spent, so what we should do with these extra years?

Your impression that fundamentalism holds more sway now could very well be true, but not in the UK, and definately not amongst Aberdonians. The Anglican Church held little sway in Aberdeen. Presbeterianism and some Catholisism were the main Aberdonian religions 150 years ago, as they are now. As for the Victorian Anglicans being opposed to the modern day fundamentalists, if you look at the original Victorian Anglican 'message' it IS christian fundamentalism. In fact during the last General Assembly, with bishops from all over the globe, the African bishops were still preaching the original Victorian message - no women in the church, lesbians and gays are abominations to God etc. Yet again, the people of 150 years ago seem to be closer to the people in Africa than we are now.

You may well of been educated in rural Scotland, as may your father and your grand-father, but much before that there was NO education for everyday people in rural Scotland. It was around 150 years ago that all that started to change. Your own forum posting shows how different it was then (and, incidently, how different it is in Africa now). You are right about human nature not changing, but you seem to have an unreasonably high expectation of human nature. 95 percent of peoples 'human nature' is just to get by, have enough to eat, be healthy, warm, enjoy yourself as much as possible, keep out of trouble, and that is it. To fulfil that 'human nature' people are willing to do things you may consider 'barbaric', 'savage' or repulsive, and most are willing to do things that they, themselves, consider 'barbaric, 'savage' or even repulsive. People are also willing to overlook things that are equally 'barbaric', 'savage' or what you, or even they, consider repulsive. If other people are already doing these things then most people will just go with the flow.

As you were educated 50 years ago, and were living in rural Scotland, you are probably a lot closer to the people who performed the Burrey Man, than virtually anyone in Scotland now. I would reckon that 90 percent of the population in Scotland now would not be able to kill a pig, or a chicken, and even that last 10 percent, most would feel squeamish about it. People just wander down the supermarket now, and pick up there choice of food, 150 years ago, and even 50 years ago, you would of been getting, growing, killing your own. My mother grew up in a farmhouse with no electricity, no running water. Almost no one is doing that now in the UK. As I have said before the people 150 years ago lived in such a different world, and in such a different way to us now, that they could virtually be considered a different culture. In Aberdeen they even spoke their own language - Doric (which even in its debased, anglicised, modern day form is still virtually indecipherable) How different can you get?

Thanks for listening
BCNU - Crescent

"Yet again, the people of 150 years ago seem to be closer to the people in Africa than we are now"
With all due respect this is a stunningly sweeping and innacurate statement.

Actually universal suffrage is NOT the most efficient and best way to determine who can vote. Here in the US one must be 18 to vote, why can a 50 year old mental defective decide better to use his franchise than a 16 year old genius? To believe that it is so is pure hubris. Read Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Now THAT is an excellent and most intelligent way to determine who weilds the power of franchise! No, I'm NOT going to tell you what it is, pick up the book and find out yer ownself, it'll do your brain a good turn for once. And for the love of God don't think you can watch the film and understand what I'm talking about, it has very little to do with the book that R.A.H. wrote.
In regards to society having become more cultured and less barbaric, one must be kidding oneself to believe that. Belief in what was considered to be "normal and believable" throughout the years has changed as it always will. What was acceptable less than 50 years ago on television, compared to what is acceptable now is so radically different as to be night and day, ditto with the printed press. That much is glaringly visible in language use alone.
Why someone finds it hard to believe about a man being run out of town to take away bad luck, I'll never understand. Can anyone spot a similar incident in Christian beliefs? Hmmm...something about this guy having to get nailed to a peice of wood so everyone could be forgiven the bad stuff they did?
Yeah riiiiiiiight, got any proof?
Well, a bunch of guys who mostly caught fish for a living wrote it all down.
Oh, was there a very high literacy rate among fisherman back then?
Uhm...errr...well no, in fact very few people but a specialized class had the ability, but...
Sounds awfully STUPID when you put it that way and if you think virgin birth is what makes this exception special, obviously you haven't studied. I can easily go through and point out several religions, off the top of my head and that are now mostly no longer practiced, that their principal diety had the exact same beginning. Only a few thousand years BEFORE Christianity was even a glimmer in someone's eye.
I believe what you find objectionable about the entry is it having to do with a silly superstition and it makes you feel embarassed that your ancestors may have partaken in it. I for one find it a humerous anecdote and do NOT in the least doubt it has a basis in FACT. How many people's Grandparents believed in the "Evil eye", seven years bad luck for breaking a mirror, black cats crossing your path or walking under a ladder was bad luck, four leaf clovers and rabbits feet and horse shoes for good luck? How about Gypsy's having the ability to "curse" people and/or remove curses? I know mine did.
So why is this particular anecdote so difficult to digest? You want to hear a good one that's been in effect since the late 1700's here? People in the United States actually BELIEVE that when they cast their vote for President, that it has something to do with the electoral process! In fact it's the electoral college that decides who is President, they are a political party appointed group, NOT elected and there are no requirements at all for membership, nor any constraints as to how they must vote once appointed. There are in FACT 2 votes for Mickey Mouse on the official role. Were he to have received the majority, Mickey Mouse would be President, legally and binding and nothing could be done about it until he'd been impeached. How's that for unbelievable? Even though they're taught this in school, the belief persists that the common vote has some part in the process and people continue to vote for the President.
~S

My apologies, it is sweeping and, as with all sweeping statements, inaccurate, at least in part. However, especially the people in African villages, away from the main population centres, I would of thought would of been closer to the people 150 years ago than us now. This thought was not mine, but raised by my Nigerian flat mate a couple of years ago. And if slavery in Africa is still practised, then at least those Africans, and those who allow it (not the victims, but the authorities), are closer idealogical to the people of 150 years ago, than the people in Scotland now (who, I would of thought would not like slavery).
BCNU - Crescent

Nah, no worries and no need to apologize. It's just an open discussion of opinions. Everyone's entitled to their own. Though they'd be far better off with mine. But hey, I'm just like this guy, you know?
~S

A most excellent post, well written and argued. Thank you

To 'dis' is to heap calumny on a person or thing as a competitive game. Originally, I understand, a Carribean ritual where the point was not the truth of the slanders, but their inventiveness. Entering mainstream culture through rap, it is also present in cyberspace, where it is often called 'flaming'.

I think you may have mis-read my earlier comment on change.

I thought, but was unsure, that 1850 would have been the date of the train arriving in Aberdeen. I think this establishes that Aberdeen was not especially isolated at that time.

A person not being missed for weeks has more to do with that persons state of alienation, than the standard of communications. A few weeks ago we had a 'rave' in this city, a telecommunications centre for North America, which resulting in 85 missing person reports. Sad, but not something that can be fixed by adding a few more OC48s

I think you are confused about the prevelance of slavery in the UK 150 years ago, but I guess we will never sort this one out without doing more research than either would care for.

I am afraid that I am cynical about the numbers of people going to University. It seems that this has been achieved by lowering the standards. What proportion of University graduates know how to construct a paragraph, or read a novel from begining to end?

The history of education in Scotland is longer and more illustruous than you suppose. Aberdeen University is the second oldest University in the UK.

It seems clear that our opinion of human nature is where we fundamentally differ. What experience has given you such a low opinion?

In rural Africa, the people I met who had no access to education or most kinds of communications technology were interested in a lot more than just getting by. When they were given guns, and were being shot at by the South African army, they gave the most serious consideration to whom they should or should not shoot. Their world was 'barbaric' perhaps, but they were far from that themselves.

Even in nasty places such as Sierre Leon or Sudan ( which I have not personally experienced ) the Warlords ( who seem to be quite insane ) must recruit pre-pubescents and brutalise them for months in order to obtain 'soldiers' willing to perform atrocities.

To me these examples, combined with that of Nazi Germany, show that you can, with a great deal of trouble, make a human into a barbarian, but the state of civilization has very little to do with it.

I've been reading through the conversation, and find your comments interesting. Here in Canada 150 years ago, we weren't even a country. Confederation didn't happen till 1867. People were still homesteading on the prairies. Where I live people were still travelling by canoe, or ox cart to the Hudson Bay Trading Post for supplies. Natives were looked upon as second class citizens, never mind that their country had been stolen from them. In 1869 a Metis named Louis Riel led an armed rebellion at Red River, 5 miles from where I now live, against the government. Education was an option, and few learned more than basic reading and writing. 150 years ago it still wasn't unusual to come upon a sod hut, (soddy) with a family living in it while a cabin and barn were under construction. We have come along way since then, with all the amenities of so-called civilization. Now a university education is for the priveledged few who's families can afford the exorbitant tuition fees, or those who are willing to start their careers with a huge debt load to pay off student loans.

FIRST: Barney's Bucksaws...
http://www.tartans.com/
is one of the best all-round scottish sites on the net. from the same place, this is a great link for some cultural info http://www.tartans.com/
of scotland.
for some great legends, see:
http://www.tartans.com/legend.html
again, the same site)




NEXT!!

i must say that i not only enjoyed the article, but being a bit of a buff concerning legends of this type i found it completely credible. just to put the timeline in perspective:
"From about 1800, the Granite City emerged."
[Broken link removed by Moderator]

Properly constructed houses began to be built after the Napoleonic wars in 1815 but conditions could hardly be described as salubrious. A single open room with an earthen floor regularly sanded below roof beams blackened by peat smoke. The beams provided storage space for the fishing gear as well as being used to suspend drying fish, bunches of onions and rush-pith for wicks for the "eeley dolly" lamp.
[Broken link removed by Moderator]

The communities along the coast have always proved destinations for the itinerant preachers. The religious revival of 1859 - 60 blew a wild wind of change through the villages as the revival movement swept across the Atlantic from America.
(same site/cite)

elsewhere in the world in 1850:

Los Angeles was a wild west town with salloons and gunfights.
San Francisco had JUST become the destination of the goldrush- (san francisco '49ers)

Penicillin was the first antibiotic, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1929.

The last PUBLIC execution in France was by guillotine, and took place on June 17, 1939!!
ONLY 61 years ago!!

we often forget just how undeveloped the world was until so very recently. The advancements we have made seem so complex that it seems as though it should have takem MUCH longer to have developed them, when in truth, just 50 years ago most of mocern technology didn't exist! No matter how long ago the villiages were settled, or how long they were inhabited, we must remember that they were relatively unchanged until VERY recently.

One of my cherished possessions is a children's book.. it is published in LONDON ENGLAND in 1952, and is titled
"Mathilda, the girl who told lies, and was BURNED to DEATH."

This was a popular children's story, and was read to my mother as a child. I could conceivably be jailed for reading it to my child today. Times have changed.

A hundred and fifty years ago, The coastal villiages of scotland were tiny, close-knit societies rampant with superstition and prejudice. Fishing wasn't just a trade. it was a livelihood. each day's catch literally determined the difference between life and death. no one could afford the fishing to go bad, and they were willing to balme any and all for the slightest hint of misfortune. The rituall of the burrs is not unheard of, or unusual.

In many countries, bad spirits are said to follow people around. to rid yourself of them you must lead them away and escape them, or even scare them off. in austria, people will still jump out from behind a tree to startle a person believed to have an evil spirit following them (in hopes of startling the spirit into letting go of the beset)

anyway, when all of these points are taken into account, there is really nothing surprising in this tale at all! it is, however, quite fascinating. I think it could be a great project to start a 'legends and traditions of the world' section to the guide, and maybe even get a page put together!

Thank you, Archangel Zax I've bookmarked them for reading - its just what we've been looking for. My grandmother came to Canada just after the turn of the century, wouldn't teach me Gaelic (I know she spoke it, we could get her mad enough to loose English), or tell too many of the tales. She was pleased I was a Highland dancer, though. As a result,now, a whole lot of years later, I'm trying to learn at least key phrases in my native tongue, and find out all I can about my culture. I have a son who's a member of Sons of Scotland in Winnipeg, and he's gathering all he can, too, so he'll be pleased to see these pages.

you're most welcome BB! it must be kismet that we ran into eachother then! i am actually learning gaeilge and manx gaelic as well, and i have several REALLY great links to (gaelic) language courses online. the ones i use regularly are all free. i'll stop by your page and leave you some sometime soon!