Come to Mexico for a Great Vacation ... at Starbucks?

Playa del Carmen's Beaches

I've complained before that people come down for vacation to Mexico and in reality see nothing of Mexico.  But forget about culture, history and tradition.  We know 95% of tourists simply don't care about that stuff. But what about the wide, beautiful beaches that made places like Playa del Carmen and Cancun so famous?  It's the same story.

This afternoon my family and I went down to the beach. Weaving our way through the crowded Fifth Avenue (the main tourist street, running parallel to the beach, a block or two away) we saw crowds of mostly non-Mexican tourists (including many Americans, Canadians, Europeans, etc.)  A block and a half later, after about 2 minutes of walking, we arrived to the beach.  I would say about 90% of the people were Mexicans - a complete turn around from the trendy main drag, filled with stores and restaurants that you could easily find in any major North American city.

We arrived in the mid afternoon when it was still warm and sunny, and stayed until the early evening when the sun had gone down.  I waded in the water with my kids, and later went into the water alone, floating on my back and looking at the stars and moon above me.  It was absolutely beautiful!

Yet, I couldn't help but wonder; why do all these Americans, Canadians and Europeans spend so much money to come to come to the beach, and then not go to the beach?  The big selling point here in Playa del Carmen is the beaches, which are some of the world's most beautiful - so beautiful and relaxing, in fact, that they made me (a former and very decided hater of beaches) fall in love with beaches.  Yet instead, they go to drink beer at a bar.

It's not only downtown.  I've been to resorts and seen pictures of others, where it's the same story.  The pools, beach clubs, restaurants and tennis courts are full of people and alive.  If there are lounge chairs or canopy beds down where the sand begins, an adventurous spirit may wander down.  But the actual sand of the beach is empty of northern tourists, and you would think there's something wrong with the water, since no one's in it (even now in the middle of "winter" the water is comfortably warm; these tourists wouldn't know that, though.)

So, just my same question again - why would you spend all the money to come down here, and instead of enjoying some of the most beautiful beaches to be found, go to Johnny Rockets and Starbucks?

Mexican Beer for Christmas Eve

Noche Buena Beer and A Nativity Scene

Mexico has special beer that’s only sold for a month or two before Christmas. It’s called “Noche Buena” which is both the name for Christmas Eve, and for the poinsettia flower. It’s a dark, bock-style beer with a strong, semi-bitter flavour, and it’s an important part of Mexico’s Christmas Eve celebrations (traditionally taking place at midnight, so technically on Christmas Day.)

Smashing the Seven Deadly Sins, and Other Observations about Piñatas

A little girl, destroying the seven deadly sins.

Recently I heard of an interesting explanation for the Mexican tradition of piñatas at posadas (see also my post from two days ago: "Why didn't you tell me you were the Virgin Mary?") Traditional piñatas have seven points on them, which represent the seven deadly sins.  The piñata is smashed during Advent and at Christmas to represent the victory over sin that Christ's birth promised.

Of course, to the children and adults hitting the piñata, the only thought in mind is breaking it open to rush for the falling candies, but the idea is out there.

So, here are some pictures of the piñata from our recent posada.  The piñata in the pictures has 5 points, but right after we had a larger one with seven points.

By the way, notice how I'm standing between the child with the stick and the other children, who seemed oblivious to the fact that a passionately swinging stick meant to smash a piñata could hurt them.  A neighbour later told me that these attempts at organization and safety showed how "European" or "American" (i.e. not "Mexican" or "Latin") I was.  Apparently an injured child is part of the routine.

"We try to control the kids, but they just don't listen," is the usual explanation.  I guess destroying sin has its price.  Since there were no injuries, it looks like this year I spoiled part of the tradition! (Needless to say, everyone was happy about that part!)

My son, giving it all to put a hole in the piñata.

Kids rushing for the candies falling from heaven.  See the rewards of battling sin?

All the neighbours from our street for a group photo.

“This Church Has Air Conditioning!”

Reposted from “Imagine,” my blog about religion that I cancelled this summer.
I assume that if your church has an space for announcements below it’s name sign outside of the church, this space should be reserved for one of the most important messages that your church has to offer the public.

I’ve seen everything from offers of eternal life, to threats of eternal damnation, to communal welcome messages, to verses of scriptural consolation.  The one that caught my attention the most was a church that I saw a couple of weeks ago with the following message in big, bold letters, outshining even the name and denomination of the church:

“This Church Has Air Conditioning!”

So has this particular church simply thrown in the towel - have they given up on the idea that they have truth to offer?  Or do they truly feel that the most powerful point they can offer the community is a comfortable climate?  Is it perhaps a kind of bait, and when unsuspecting people enter to enjoy their climate-controlled worship, they’ll hit them with the big one?

Physical comfort seems to be one of the key items of attention in church growth these days.  I remember hearing the principal of church growth set forth in my childhood church that once a church reached 70% spatial capacity, it would need to expand, open new service times, or start new branches; at 70%, new people would simply stop coming, or current members would leave due to the lack of elbow room.

While I suspected the integrity of this theory all along, I rejected it flatly as an invalid formula for true church growth when I saw a church that had 5 Lord’s Day services packed to the brim with people standing up, and even standing on the steps and yard outside the church where speakers had been installed.  The church is located in a hot climate and has very little “comfort” except for the large open windows and high ceilings; definitely no air conditioning.  A branch church is currently under construction, and it seems it will be packed full the moment it opens.  I have also heard of another church group which had very poorly designed buildings with low ceilings and bad ventilation which was experiencing similar problems; the churches were simply over-full despite lack of comfort and rapid opening of new church buildings. Also no air conditioning, and well over 100% full.

Conclusion; while I certainly have nothing against air conditioning and elbow space, neither have anything to do with church growth. 

I hope that the the air conditioning invitation I saw was simply excitement over a newly installed feature, and would soon be replaced with a more meaningful message.  Unfortunately, it wouldn’t surprise me if this was really the most important item they felt they could offer their community.

"Why didn't you tell me you were the Virgin Mary?"

Would your recognize the Virgin Mary?

This weekend, I participated in my fourth Mexican "posada," which is a communal re-enactment of the scene where Joseph and Mary arrive to Bethlehem and look for a place to stay, which take place during the 9 days before Christmas.  The re-enactment is followed by a party where a very traditional hot fruit punch is served to all those who participate, along with snacks, a pinata and other elements of Mexican festivities (=loud music & tequila.)

In the Mexican re-enactment, a group of neighbours and friends from the community get together, light candles, and show up at the door of a the person hosting the party.  The people outside with candles play the role of Joseph and Mary (it doesn't matter how many people there are)  and the people inside are the innkeeper.  The re-enactment is in the form of a song where each "role" sings short verses in response to each.

Joseph asks for a place to stay, the innkeeper sends him away, threatening a beating if doesn't leave.  Joseph implores him for the sake of his pregnant wife and finally, 12 verses later, convinces him to let them in.  Everyone enters singing joyfully of the night Christ was born.  I've been to some (like last night) where a prayer is said, then the punch is served, etc.

Last night I especially noticed Joseph's final method of convincing the innkeeper:

"My wife Mary is Queen of Heaven, and will be the mother of the Word Divine."

The interesting part is actually the innkeeper's response, after so vehemently denying them service:

The festivities beginning, just after the re-enactment (my posada last night)

"Are you Joseph? Your wife is Mary? Enter, pilgrims. I did not know!"

If he had only known that it was Joseph and the Virgin Mary!  My first reaction to this is probably typical of a more reasonable Northerner; "What a silly little song! As if the innkeeper would've known or cared who Mary was."

Besides no mention of such a dialogue in the Bible, the idea that the innkeeper could've known who Mary the Queen of Heaven was is simply absurd and anachronistic.

But then I had a second thought. From what I understand, these plays are part of a long-standing Catholic tradition of re-enacting the Gospel, still very much alive during Advent and Easter time in Latin America and other some other Catholic areas.   On one hand, there's a cultural element here; everyone knows who the Virgin Mary is.  I'm guessing that one of the original purposes was to present these key stories to an illiterate population.  These re-enactments pull the events out of history and put them into Mexico in the current day and age where it only makes sense that all Joseph would have to do is identify his wife as the Virgin Mary.  The recognition of her roles and titles would also serve to teach and reinforce these concepts in addition to the story.

A Posada (not mine, just a good picture)

Purely for the sake of speculation, there might be something more to this.  The idea of "showing what happens" was (and is?) also the main idea behind religious icons, according to Pope Gregory I (6th century) among others.  I have also heard the Mass described in a function of "reenactment."  Both icons and the Mass show "historical events" in eternal terms, not merely placing the past into the present, but actually showing eternity within the framework of time. (The reason why icons of John the Baptist show him with his head firmly attached to his shoulders, but also holding his own head on a platter at the same time, and the reason why the Mass seems to "repeat" Christ's death and resurrection; it is not "repeated" but is eternity reflected in the framework of time.)

Perhaps there is an element of this idea behind the Catholic reenactments and the Mexican Posadas; in eternity, the innkeeper would know the significance of the event that's about to happen (the birth of Christ), and Mary would not be a simple Jewish girl from Galilee - she would already be The Queen of Heaven and the Mother of God (as is believed in Catholicism) and it would be necessary to recognize her as such.

I'm not sure if I'm taking this idea too far, but this "anachronism" becomes much more interesting when considered in these term.

Can my kid watch that TV show?

Do you check what your kids watch at their friends' house?

Today, my wife and I entered a new phase of parenthood; for the first time we had to address the question of whether a T.V. show that the neighbours' kids were watching was appropriate for our 4-year-old son.  Ever since infancy, we had been selective about what he watched, and time has always been limited (he doesn't watch T.V. or movies every day, and the ones he does, it's max. one movie or the equivalent.)

But today, the neighbor's kids (who deserve a few blog posts of their own, and from now on are getting a special label on this blog) showed up at the door and asked if our son could go to their house to watch a certain T.V. show.  Their mother pays almost no attention to what they do. (Today, for example, she left them playing outside, and went to visit a friend, locking the door to keep the house safe.  The kids were out on the front lawn, outside of the safely locked house.  This was after the T.V. incident.)  So now the question wasn't just about what we select, but also about evaluating what other people select and approve of.

To be honest, when my wife shouted the question up the stairs, it caught me off guard, and I realized that I had forgotten that as a parents we would not only have to guide our son in the process of choosing his own movies and T.V. shows, but also in the process of deciding whether his friends' shows were acceptable or not.  Knowing how the neighbour family worked, my first reaction was to assume it probably wasn't a good idea.  But since I was working at my computer I took a minute to look up the T.V. show in question.  (It's a pretty common show which I recognize from quite some time ago, but I couldn't remember much about it.  I'm not going to mention the name of it here, because this post isn't about that show in particular, but the idea in general.)

The general consensus (from internet reviews) seems to be that the show is moderately violent, promotes some airy-fairy moral values and is generally low quality (some pre-teens called it "cheesy.")  For this reason it got high ratings from "parents and educators" (I didn't waste my time to check who these "parents and educators" were.)  Presumable, since the violence isn't severe that and some commentator can cut and paste some moral values out of the plot, that makes a crappy T.V. show good for kids.

If you haven't already guessed, I find this criteria less than compelling.  First of all, it is STILL VIOLENT, even if it is "acceptable" violence. Secondly, lower violence is NOT the only criteria that makes a kids show good (this erroneous way of thinking is why Barney has made it so far in the world.) Yes, part of the criteria my wife and I use for T.V. shows is that they're not violent.  But we also count positive criteria.  We also consider whether it teaches anything positive either in terms of morals or education ("teamwork" because the heroes work together to rip the bad guy to shreds doesn't count)  and entertainment value.  If you exclude entertainment value, there's no reason whatsoever for T.V. or movies; even "educational" kids programs are made to entertain to some degree - if not, you could just use a book and pictures and probably get better results.

Back to the main story, after a quick review, I said no, not only because the show seemed poor both in terms of values and quality, but also because I remembered that my son had already watched a movie today.


So, we have now begun our role of teaching our son how to evaluate the shows and movies his friends choose, helping him to develop strong values, but avoid vast tyrannical prohibitions at the same time.  The good thing is that now, at 4-years-old, it's fairly cut and dry - we just say "yes" or "no" according to what we know is better. I know the hard part will come later.

[This idea is actually closely related to that of the 3 posts ago: A Trip to the Library – Educational or Entertaining?]

How do You Show Reverence?

I while back I think I posted about the difference between how we northerners tend to see morals (prohibitions) and how Mexicans tend to see morals (positive actions.)  (I can’t find the post now – maybe it’s just something I told someone.  If I find it, I’ll share the link.)

 

A closely related idea is how we see reverence. I recently saw a review of a movie (“The Greatest Miracle”) which attempts to depict the spiritual events which take place in the Mass.  The writer took issue with the fact that in the movie, the characters were getting up and moving around the church during mass, even approaching the sanctuary.  The movie takes place in Mexico, and I realized that this issue was actually connected to the fact in Mexico, people have a different concept of reverence.  The following are some comments I made about the review:

 

While Canadians who arrive late for Mass I think would try to sneak into the back pews unnoticed, I’ve seen Mexicans arrive very late DURING MASS and walk right up to the steps leading to the altar to genuflect and cross themselves before sitting down. (During the movie, the angel actually complains about a family that arrives late.)  They also get up and move around during Mass more readily.  I think there are two factors involved in this.  One is that Mexicans have slightly different idea of reverence; Mexicans can go to great lengths to show outward signs of reverence (crossing themselves, genuflecting, bowing, fully participating in the appropriate prayers), but not feel they are being irreverent by changing places in the church during Mass. In fact, if you just finished confession, you will always be moving to your “normal” spot, and (in my experience) this happens every Mass when 2 priests are available. … Mexican morality (and reverence) is more heavily based on active outward signs (bowing, etc.) more freely expressed, not only the prescribed time, while we Anglophones tend to focus on prohibitions (you shouldn’t get up or make noise during mass, you shouldn’t show up late, etc.) I suspect a balance of the two is necessary (I’m too new to Catholicism to say if either approach is more correct than the other), but I’ve seen enough of Canadian and Mexican culture to know that this factor is definitely related to how each culture views “reverence.”

 

The second factor of people moving around is that in Mexico Catholicism is the default religion.  In the U.S., Canada and many other places, Catholics are a minority - a large minority, but for all but 2 days of the year, the only people who show up for Mass are the more devout Catholics.  This means these devout few will be more dedicated to showing reverence and respect through silence and staying still.  In Mexico, since it’s the communal religion, anyone and everyone - devout or not, sometimes even non-Catholic - shows up for mass.  This means that you’ll have non-devout people in the Mass who may not understand or value reverence.  So why do they go then?  Because it’s the only place where you go to experience God more closely.  Some people think they have to go, even though they are not devout.  In many parts of Mexican culture, it’s almost just automatic.  It’s what you do.  So while you have some devout and reverent people who don’t feel it’s irreverent to move about, there are also plenty of non-devout Catholics who simply don’t know better or care much about reverence.

 

Closely related is that I’ve seen people in Mexico who just happen to be wandering by, or feel down on life, and stop in for a prayer - during Mass or not.  Sometimes they stay for the whole Mass, other times they leave when they finish their own prayer.  In fact, this is the whole context of the movie; it’s just that the story conveniently has the three main characters show up just as mass is beginning.  If you imagine a real culture (like Mexico) where people will tend to go to the church as a refuge in times of personal turmoil, it’s not always going to work out so “neatly” that they show up just on time for mass.

 

Just to be clear, I agree with our northern ideas about reverence.  Also it’s not that every Mass in Mexico has noisy distractions and lots of people moving around (depending on the specific community, there are churches that wouldn’t have this at all), but what I saw in the movie looked “normal” in the context of Mexico, and I think it helps us to understand why they made the movie that way.

 

So, how do you think reverence is shown most appropriately?  Silence/prohibitions?  Outward signs and visible affection? Both?  Or maybe not at all?

Catholic Church in Decline in Canada?

I'm re-posting this from my other blog, "Imagine," which I'm deleting. 

There seem to be two fairly strong (and false) ideas present in Canada these days.  One is that Christianity is loosing footing among the younger generation; the other is that the Catholic Church, along with other traditional churches, is in even greater decline than Christianity as a whole, loosing numbers in droves to more contemporary churches and atheism.  I would argue that both of these ideas are based in manipulation of numbers to give the illusion of decline, presumably to suggest a lack of integrity or relevance.

Consider these stats about Catholicism and Christianity in Canada:

About Catholics:

• The population of Catholics in Canada between 1991 and 2001 GREW 4.5%, which is less than the population growth of 9.8% but nevertheless significant growth.
  
• In strict numerical terms Catholics grew by almost 600,000 - a number larger than the population of most cities in Canada.  Interestingly enough most "statistical" articles (including Stats Canada) present this as a decline.  How does growth of 600,000 people represent decline?
  
• By actual numbers (i.e. not percentages), Catholic growth outdid the #2 Christian group by over 5 times.

About Orthodox:

• Interestingly, the #2 group (in terms of straight numerical growth) was Orthodox Christians who grew by 107,000.
  
• The numerical growth of Orthodox is phenomenal when seen as a percentage; it was by far the highest percentage growth with 28%.

The only exception is "Christian, not included elsewhere" which grew by 110%; this stat can't be compared in itself since it refers to all miscellaneous groups, rather than one single group.  However, it's important to note a few points.

• One is that numerical growth in this "misc" category (425,000) was still well below that of Catholics.
  
• Another is that I believe this growth reflects the rise of many new, smaller denominations, and also the ever more popular non-denominational movement.
  
• Finally, it shows the fact that Christians in Canada are not so much abandoning their religion, but rather changing denominations or moving to a non-denominational concept (I think I read an article pointing this out about the U.S.)

Five months ago, I thought I was joining a church in sharp numerical decline, especially in a country like Canada, only to find out the exact opposite is true.  As these stats show, it's simply absurd to claim that all traditional churches are in numerical decline in Canada. Some traditional Protestant groups are definitely in numerical decline (for example, Anglicans and Lutherans), but  Catholics and Orthodox definitely aren’t.

Just to be clear, I don't believe that size, growth, or lack of either are necessarily important indicators of a church's integrity; I don’t believe that being “big” or “small” is any reflection of a church’s integrity.  I am presenting these statistics only to show that the idea is false that the most traditional churches are in numerical decline, and that this imagined decline indicates some faulty approach or lack of ability to connect with the current generation.

However, I do believe that these stats show the beginning of an important and positive shift in Canadian Christianity.

My next post will be about the role of immigrants in this pattern.

Stats from: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census

A Trip to the Library – Educational or Entertaining?

When I was visiting a library in Halifax this summer, I overheard a German family discussing some videos that the pre-teen children were choosing.  The parents were looking over the case of a video somehow related to Shakespeare – I’m guessing it might have been that version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo Dicaprio.

“Is this really educative?” asked the mother. (She said “educative” rather than “educational.”)
The father took the case. “I don’t think they have anything to do with Shakespeare these days,” he observed.
They proceeded to discuss the item in terms of morality, quality, entertainment and educational value.

Listening to the conversation, I realized two things; one is that this is probably a good thing; the other is how rare this kind of care is among parents these days.  In the whole week I spent in that library, this was the only family in which the parents were actively engaged in the values of their children’s choice of material.  Everything about it would be foreign to so many people; encouraging kids to go to the library, going with them as a family, reviewing and discussing the material they choose, caring, talking to them about it, knowing something about it …

For me, it was as though the conversation was from another world.  Where I live in Mexico, libraries are few and far between, and the few that exist are way underused. It would be a miracle that parents even encourage their kids to go to a library, let alone care what their kids are doing there.  When my wife and I arrived to Canada, she was simply overjoyed to have a good library right in the community, within walking distance.  While I think there’s a better culture for visiting the library, but I suspect it’s much more for entertainment than for learning. I also suspect that few parents actually supervise and discuss the educational, moral and quality value of what their kids choose.

With only a 3-year-old, I it’s not much of a task to review the content of the books yet. That’s coming in a few years.  I suspect one day we’ll be that odd family in the library who actually cares about all of that stuff.

Forbidden Love

Here’s a true story I’ve seen unfold over the past two years since I moved into my neighbourhood.  Among the first to move into the neighbourhood was a handsome youth with wavy blond hair (a rarity in Mexico) whom everybody loves (we’ll call him “Fernando” to protect his true identity.)

 

Within a couple of weeks another youth (“Ramon”) moved in two doors down, and the two became friends.  Somewhat later, the parents of Ramon became concerned that he was still single, and they decided to find a wife for him – yes, an arranged marriage!  The lovely young lady (“Lola”) moved in with Ramon; however, although they liked each other on a certain level, they’ve never really connected, and to this day their marriage remains somewhat distant.

 

As Ramon and Fernando continued to spend their evenings together, Fernando and Lola came to a difficult realization; they were in love.

 

As the days, weeks and months go by, their love grows, as does their sorrow.  While they find joy in the moments they could see each other, they were careful since they don’t want to hurt Ramon.  Either he is so innocent that he doesn’t notice, or he notices and chooses not to react (perhaps out of sadness, perhaps out of indifference to his marriage) – I really can’t tell. 

 

Lola and Fernando also fear Ramon’s parents who are determined not to let Lola disgrace their family.  Fernando’s parents (he lives in their house, still) are suspicious and are both disapproving and vigilant.

 

Just this week, a possibly dangerous development took place.  Lola’s godmother caught her and Fernando hiding in a home under construction – they were alone, with tears in their eyes and embracing.  She angrily sent Fernando home and scolded Fernando telling him he ought to be ashamed of himself.  While I don’t think that her godmother told Ramon’s parents, she did tell Fernando’s.  They're furious, and have forbidden him from leaving the house when she is out – she’s very traditional, and usually only goes out with Ramon, with leave of his parents. (You could imagine the shock of the godmother!)

 

Yesterday I saw Fernando sitting his window, watching out of his window, trembling with desire and bitterness; she saw him, walked over to the window, touched the roses growing below the window, and leaned over to smell one of them; as she did this her eyes met Fernando’s for a moment, and then she walked away and went on her way with Ramon.

 

The sad part about this story is that it’s true.  The happy part about the story is that it’s about dogs, not humans! “Fernando” is my dog, Simba. Ramon and Lola are the real names of the neighbours’ 2 Chihuahuas.  The only parts I changed were a few details to “humanize” the story – e.g. the “godmother” is the owner’s mother often who takes care of Ramon and Lola.  She didn’t really see tears in the dogs’ eyes, but the rest is true; I really did see Simba trembling with desire, Lola really did reach her head out to sniff the roses growing under our window, and their eyes really did mean.  Of course, I didn’t point out that Lola was sniffing the roses because Simba had “marked” them; that just wouldn’t have sounded romantic.

Online in Mexico - the Mexican Way!

Well, this isn't the connection I have, but I'm not sure which is sketchier.

After over a month of having internet access only at work and sporadically through a shared cell-phone network portable modem, I'm finally re-connected with a full-time internet connection at home!  The best part about it is that it's thoroughly Mexican way of getting the internet as well.

Back in Canada, if you want the internet, you call your phone company, they come and set it up, and it gets charged on your phone bill.  While this is definitely an option in a growing number of places in Mexico, phone lines have not yet been installed where I'm living - another difference, since I'm sure in Canada, homes wouldn't be sold before the phone lines go into the community.  The two options here are a cell-phone network connection like I mentioned above, or a sketchy wireless service that requires someone to put a big antenna on their roof.  I've now opted for this second option.  (No offense to anyone reading this who provides sketchy wireless connections -  I'm quite happy with mine right now!)

Fortunately I'm not the one with the big antenna on my roof.  One of my neighbors did that and he's splitting the service with a few people in the neighborhood.

So, now I can get back into my bad habits of staying up till 2 in the morning writing blogs and checking Facebook.

Our New Kitchen

Recently, we had a new kitchen counter put in, which ended up almost being a complete remodelling of the kitchen.  Before the remodelling, we had a door and a window at the back of the kitchen, a solitary sink and no counter.  The stove, dishes, toaster, etc. were all on various items of furniture.

We had the door and the window removed and filled in with concrete blocks. (All construction here in Mexico is concrete blocks and/or poured concrete.)  The door was moved about 3 feet over to a place where there had been a tall window before.

Then we had a counter built across the entire back and side of the kitchen with a shelf under it, and a space at the end for the stove – all out of concrete, of course.

At this point, before the work had been finished, and before the wall had been sealed off, we were hit by a tropical storm – about 2 weeks ago.  We spent much of one night mopping up water.  (See picture 2 – notice how wet the new blocks in the wall are.)

After the sun had dried up the new wall enough, the person doing the work for us put tiles on the counter and the wall, installed the sink into the counter (along with the tap and drain) and sealed off the wall, finishing everything – the wall and non-tiled parts of the counter – with a grey stucco. (See picture 3)  We also had the floor under the counter raised 2 cm so it could be used for storage.

Finally, we finished the job by painting all the stucco, which we did ourselves with the help of our 3-year-old son. (See pictures 4 and 5, below)

We now have a wonderful new kitchen with plenty of space to work that is not the kitchen table and is easy to keep clean. We also have enough space for all the dishes and dry food underneath.  We chose plain white tiles, with a brown, blue and yellow traditional, Mexican trim. (See picture 1 – above - and 6 & 7 – below)

For another post about home improvements, see:
Another video blog - My new closet - I made part of it!
Renovation, the Canadian Way

Travel Safely in … Mexico City?

My closest brush with crime in Mexico City was one day when I was coming out of the subway, and I saw a guy who was very well dressed in the trendiest clothes listening to his iPod, wearing sunglasses that were probably worth more than the suit I was wearing and the laptop I was carrying put together.  Within about 5 seconds someone had approached him from the front, and someone else from behind, and stripped him of every last item of value he was carrying.

 

I had been carrying a briefcase and wearing a suit, but I guess these thieves know what they’re doing; although I was dressed for a business-type job, they could tell I really didn’t have items that would be worth anything to them.

 

For a place that has a reputation for being unsafe, I’d say it’s pretty impressive that during 2 years, this was my closest brush was crime – especially considering I lived in some not-so-nice neighbourhoods.

 

While I definitely been lucky, and had some excellent “guides” (my wife, friends, etc.), I think it’s also safe to say that a good way to avoid robbery in Mexico City is not to carry things worth steeling.  Dress in regular clothes and leave the valuables at home.

 

With that rule of thumb in mind, I think that it’s also safe to say that it’s no more dangerous to be in Mexico City than in just about any other large city.  People get nervous simply because of the city’s size; there are definitely places best avoided, and a common sense is needed, I would say this is even more true in cities like Detroit.  According to Wikipedia, Mexico City isn’t as safe as “highly developed western European cities such as Frankfurt or Barcelona but is safer then cities such as Moscow or Washington DC.”

 

Lonely Planet listed Mexico City as one of its “Top 8 places to (safely) visit in Mexico now,” saying:

 

“There really is no more fascinating city in the world than Mexico’s misunderstood capital. With a population of over 21 million (and a crime rate about a third of Washington, DC’s), Mexico City had a serious scrub-up for its bi-centennial, and now some places like mariachi-filled Plaza Garibaldi are considered (like Times Square in New York) safe enough to be a ‘Disney version’ of its former gritty self.”

 

Mexico City has many beautiful places to visit, and my advice to travellers is definitely worth going; travellers need to use common sense (as anywhere else) but can go there with confidence that they will be fairly safe.

Does Your Phone Have This Feature?

A while back, my son picked up the cordless phone, and came to show my wife and me one of the buttons on the phone.

“This button says ‘The Virgin Mary,’” he explained, pointing to one of the functions. “You can press it, and then you can talk to her.”

I figured that the feature was more likely in Mexico than in Canada.

Local History Expert – A Homeless Man in Halifax

Although in some sense they may be less reliable in accuracy sometimes, local, home-grown, self-made history experts are far more interesting than than the official ones.

I had a chance to experience such an expert in Halifax.  While my brother and I, along with our families, were walking down the street in Halifax past the historic church building known as the “Little Dutch Church” (pictured) and chatting about why this Anglican Church had been built for Lutheran German immigrants, a homeless man walking by overheard us, and took it upon himself to jump in the conversation and share what he knew.

Yes, the church was Anglican, he confirmed, even though the parish members were German immigrants.  The round church building just a block or two away (St. George’s) was also Anglican.  He knew about their history; he had slept in both churches in the past.  The one we were looking at – the “Little Dutch Church” – had been the scene of some archaeological controversy as well; some excavation under the building had unearthed some bones, which were recorded by archaeologists and then re-buried (see picture.)

These stories were told with the enthusiasm and eagerness of someone who simply wanted to share what he knew, and had no agenda, purpose, format or guideline in doing so.

We never learned the significance of the bones since at that point we reached the soup kitchen where the man was headed.

The Great Canadian … Gut!

2 or 3 months after moving to Canada, my wife and I discovered a problem; our pants were getting too tight! We found a scale, weighed ourselves and discovered that we had each gained about 10-15 pounds!

 

While weight comes and goes depending on different factors in lifestyle, there was no question about it; we had both gained considerably more weight during 3 months in Canada than we had at any point during our 5 years together in Mexico!

 

We have a few theories, some of which can be discarded, and others more plausible. 

 

The discarded theories include:

• Relatively recent childbirth: It’s a fact that most women gain weight during and after birth.  But there are two problems; this doesn’t offer me any excuse, and my wife had actually lost all of this extra weight before we moved to Canada, and she was down to her normal weight!  So this one’s out the window.

 

• I started a second blog: More blogs means more sitting time. But this is no excuse for my wife.  Also, I cancelled this blog, and we found no difference for the two weeks when we were in Halifax, and I wrote no blogs whatsoever.

 

• Canadians eat more fat and more carbs: True, Canadians seem to know no limits to these two nutrients; even “healthy” Canadians seem to think that eating fried steak with fried eggs and mayonnaise is a good low-carb diet. But Mexicans are at least as bad.  In fact typical Mexican food is probably worse.  Mexicans eat lots of bread loaded with sugar every day, plus tacos and tortas and tamales with grease dripping of them. See ().

 

We came to these more acceptable conclusions:

 

• Canada is built for cars: In Mexico, if you don’t have a car, you end up walking a lot more and getting more exercise. I would say 3/4 of the country’s communities are designed to be walked in. In Canada, most people have a car; if you don’t have one, you simply don’t go anywhere.  Most communities are not designed to be walked in, and don’t have anywhere to walk to. (There are, of course, major exceptions.)  We live in a small village that takes 5 minutes to walk across, which hardly offers any exercise. We’ve been fortunate enough to have a car made available to us when we need it.  (We are really thankful for this!  But we’re also sure the guts are somehow related …) We started daily bike rides, but it’s one thing to have daily bike rides as an optional form of entertainment, and a completely different thing to have a couple of hours of biking or walking as a normal, non-optional part of your daily routine (= our life in Mexico.)

 

• It’s easier to eat healthily in Mexico: While the typical Mexican diet is at least as bad as the Canadian one, it’s easier to be healthy in Mexico if you want to.  Fresh fruit and vegetables are cheap, as is freshly caught fish.  Someone pointed out how much oatmeal we eat for breakfast; in Mexico, we ate twice much oatmeal for breakfast, but we also ate twice as many fruit and vegetables, and we almost never ate desert or sweet things, since it’s so easy by cheap and good alternatives (fresh fruit.)  Red meat was a once a week meal, rather than the 2 or 3 times a day many Canadians seem to like. 

 

The difficult thing is that it’s really hard to eat differently in Canada; fruit and vegetables are expensive, often imported from the other side of the world, and rarely of good quality.  The fall is an exception here, since there is a good deal of local fruit available; yet if you are eating the fresh blueberries with Canadians, they like to mix them into ice cream!  Fish is outrageously expensive (compared to Mexico.)

 

I guess the bottom line is, even though most people in Mexico aren’t interested, it’s much easier to be active and eat healthy on a low budget than in Canada.  We’re hoping the guts will disappear when we get back to Mexico, and for our next time around in Canada, I think we’ll have to do more careful planning for exercise and healthy eating.

Made in Canada from Imported Ingredients

A while back, my wife and I bought a bag of peanuts in their shells.  Nothing terribly exciting interesting.  However, out of habit, I like to read the list of ingredients even on the simplest products.  The bag reads:

Ingredient

Peanuts.

May contain tree nuts.

So far, so good. Then, out of sheer boredom, and something to do as I peeled and munched on peanuts, I read the other side of the bag.  This is how the first two lines read:

MADE IN CANADA FROM

IMPORTED INGREDIENTS

 

I understand one part of this: the one ingredient (peanuts) is imported.

What I don’t understand is exactly which part of it was “made in Canada.”  Perhaps if it said “packaged in Canada” I could understand what they mean.  But “made in Canada??”

 

I didn’t think we as Canadians cared enough about whether a product was domestic or not to make this kind of absurdity necessary.  Then again, I could be wrong.

 

I guess I could call that toll-free number to find out exactly how a peanut can be made in Canada from imported ingredients.

On Prohibitions and Obligations

If we divide morals into two categories – things we shouldn’t do, and things that we are obligated to do – in general I would say Canadian culture has more focus on the first, and Mexican culture more on the second.  Of course, this is a very broad generalization, but I would say there is a definite tendency.

 

In Canada, when people speak of morals we generally formulate the idea in prohibitions; I remember my teenaged years that the measure of a moral life was often that of what we didn’t do; we weren’t supposed to listen to music that might have a negative influence on our lives, do drugs, etc.  Even in adult life, we tend to look at doing good in these terms; men shouldn’t cheat on their wives, people shouldn’t steal or commit fraud, etc.

 

Even people who have “liberated” themselves from morals usually see life from the same point of view; the basic question is “How much can I get away for my own sake?”  On the “moral” side people will tend towards saying “nothing” – we have to follow the prohibition.  On the “non-moral” side people tend to towards the idea that you can get away with what ever you like for your own sake.

 

The downside of this angle is that the focus tends to be on a prohibition and how far someone can bend that prohibition to their own convenience – in the end the debates concerning these prohibitions tend to be self-centered.  Of course, the good side is that there definitely are actions which are bad for us, or are unfair to others to whom we have responsibility, etc. and so they really are best avoided.

 

In Mexico, there seems to be less of a concern for prohibitions and a higher concern for obligations.  From my experience Mexicans will see their morals in light of what they should do for other people; I should call my mother, because she’ll feel good, I should give things to other people who need them, I should let people stay in my house, even if I don’t know them, etc.  Of course, a Mexican could reject this kind of morals as much as Canadians could reject prohibitions. The difference isn’t in how moral people are, but how those who see themselves as leading a moral life define those morals.

 

I’ve found along with this tendency in Mexico, people either take the prohibitions for granted, or simply ignore them altogether.  There is less debate or tension about how far prohibitions can be taken.  Of course, the second situation (ignoring the prohibitions all together) leads to some problems; i.e. a man helps his neighbours with work and gives to the poor, but cheats on his wife.  He’s active in moral obligations, but not terribly concerned with prohibitions.

 

Again, these are very broad generalizations.  Both Canada and Mexico include both views, but it’s a question of tendency.  It makes a difference in how we view the other culture; at a first glance Mexican culture may seem very immoral to a Canadian concerned with morals because of the apparent lack of inhibitions.  On the other hand, Canada may look very immoral to Mexican eyes – it may look self-centred, cold or even greedy. Understanding how another culture defines a moral life is important.

Wearing Religion on Your Sleeves

Recently, in a Q & A post for a very popular expat blog, a soon-to-be expat in Latin America was worried about finding a girlfriend in a very religious country; the soon-to-be expat was atheist.  The blogger reassured the concerned would-be expat that Latin Americans, although with very deep-rooted religious beliefs, don’t usually “wear their religion on their sleeves.”

 

I both agree and disagree.

 

In the normal meaning of this expression, meaning that someone talks about their religion to the extent that it might be uncomfortable for other people, I agree.  Most religious Latin Americans I know (even some that I would call “very religious”) would not usually discuss their faith or try to push it on other people.  They simply don’t seem to find that necessary.  In this way, they’re very discrete and not at all obtrusive in their beliefs (again, generally speaking.)  For this concerned expat, this would probably be enough; any girlfriend he found would probably not be pushy, even in this kind of relationship.

 

Yet, in another sense of the idea, I would disagree.  If we consider the “concrete” (although definitely not usual) meaning of “wearing your religion on your sleeves,” I would say Latin Americans do; i.e. they actually wear their religion on their sleeves – or at least on their arms.  Bracelets similar to the one in the picture are fairly common, in my experience.  Mexicans who wear the Virgin of Guadelupe or Saint bracelets may not talk about them, or even expect or hope that other people will notice; I suspect (although I can’t confirm) that they wear them to remind themselves of something or perhaps to use them for prayer more so than to show other people something.  While they wear their religion on their sleeves in the concrete sense, they don’t “wear their religion on their sleeves” in the sense that they are pushy and obsessed or are going to try to convert you or even talk to you about God.

 

I suspect many North Americans who wear “What Would Jesus Do” bracelets or the coloured bead bracelets would do so for a similar reason – primarily, even if not solely, to remind themselves of something. Yet, in English-speaking North America, we have a stigma that people who use these things will be obsessive about their faith.  Although this is definitely not true all the time, it is true more often here (Canada or the U.S.) than in Latin America.

 

For Latin Americans, the same is true of household altars, icons, statues, rosaries, etc.  You might see all of these things in someone’s home, car or bus (bus drivers take a lot of liberty in personalizing their vehicles,) but they probably won’t seem in any other way preoccupied or focused on the related themes.  In the worst cases, any of them could be “trends” or just the thing to do in your family or community; in the best cases, I suspect that these people use these items to remind themselves of their faith, to pray, etc. but are content to leave it that. They’re instruments of personal devotion, not of outreach or conversion.

 

I suspect that for this concerned would-be expat this would also be OK.

Short Shorts in Halifax

For people who live in a touristy beachfront town in Mexico like Playa del Carmen, where it’s common to see people in all places hardly wearing anything at all, it’s difficult to find a place where they can be surprised by the revealing clothing.  This is the case for me and my wife, but on a recent visit to Halifax, we were, indeed, surprised by the shortness of the shorts that women were wearing there.

About two weeks go, my wife and I were parked at Tim Horton’s in Halifax (a very popular doughnut shop chain in Canada) for her to use the washroom.  Just before she came back out to the car, a group of young women walked out of the doughnut shop; I couldn’t help but to notice how incredibly short their shorts were.

When my wife got into the car, she looked over at me and asked, “Did you see those girls?”  She had also noticed.  I don’t suppose too many people – male or female – couldn’t notice.

As we were driving, we came to several conclusions:

• This was not an isolated incident; short shorts are much more common – and shorter - in Halifax than any other place we’d been recently. Out of pure curiosity my wife and I counted as we drove down the street and it seemed that half of all the young women were wearing these really short shorts.
  
• Coming out of Mennonite country, this sight was probably surprising because of its sharp contrast. But …
  
• even in less “modest” parts of Ontario (like Toronto) we were sure we hadn’t seen this many short shorts.  My brother said it was because Halifax is a university town.  But Waterloo is even more of a university town, and I can’t recall seeing ANY short shorts there; I visit the city once a week on average, usually driving right through the university district.
  
• The most important fact is that for the past few years we were living in Playa del Carmen, on a Mexican beach where “modesty” is not an idea that really factors into clothing styles.  Sure, on the beach women wear bikinis, and off the beach clothing is often fairly scanty, I don’t recall seeing shorts as short as the ones in Halifax, or in that frequency.  While you can easily predict the shock of a couple coming out of Mennonite country, clothing really does have to be revealing to shock people coming from a touristy beach town like Playa del Carmen.

I don’t why, but Halifax seems to have a trend towards really short shorts.  The weather most certainly doesn’t justify it; Halifax was no longer hot at this time, and the evenings were actually getting cool, at least by our standards. We’re not sure how they managed not to feel cold.

Martin Luther vs. Desperate Housewives

A few weeks ago, there was a distinct pattern in our home.  After the kids were in bed and asleep by about 8:30, my wife would be watching DVDs of the TV series Desperate Housewives, and I would read about Christianity. My reading is from various sources but focused on a book about the history of Protestantism which features a somewhat menacing picture of Martin Luther on the cover; besides this, when I first started reading the book, she would ask me questions about some themes, which usually lead back to Martin Luther (or sometimes John Calvin).  Hence my wife refered to my reading as “Martin Luther” – for example, when we went to bed, she’d ask me, “So, what does Martin Luther say today?”

 

Our evening activities had thus become a contrast of Desperate Housewives and Martin Luther.  Thinking about this contrast, I’ve come to an important conclusion:

If Desperate Housewives had existed during the 16th Century, the Reformation would not have happened.

 

Here are the reasons why:

1. If Martin Luther had seen the women and men interact in this series, he probably would have been afraid to marry, and would have pointedly decided to remain in good status with the existing church simply to stay within the safe bounds of celibacy, regardless of all the perceived deficiencies of that system.
2. Luther, Calvin and the others could have attacked moral deficiencies of the culture represented in the series rather than those of the medieval church.
3. Those looking for a a place to apply purer forms of Reason could’ve used it to analyse characters and plots, rather than the Holy Scriptures.
4. Viewers would also have realized that grown, educated adults are incapable of “rational” living, thus rejecting the proposal that all are capable to interpret the Bible for themselves, and perhaps even rejecting pure reason as a viable approach to understanding.
5. The Reformers would’ve seen some of the long-term results of “de-sacralization” of the physical world and abandoned their agendas of iconoclasm and re-interpretation of True Presence and the Eucharist (Holy Communion.) 
6. Most importantly, if Luther, Calvin,Zwingli, Grebel and any of the others had seen this series, they simply would’ve become too addicted to spend any time on the agendas of reform, restoration or revolution.  Upon conclusion, they probably would’ve sought out some other T.V. series with similarly addictive qualities to fill their time.  (I find Desperate Housewives draws me in only a little, but the series Rome is much more addictive; most people I know, however, become very addicted to the first series.)

 

So, what would you choose – the Reformation or Desperate Housewives?

A New Direction

Recently, I’ve decided that this blog needs a new direction, or, more correctly, a new title to reflect a new direction it’s already taken.  Two changes have made this necessary:

 

1. I moved back to Canada for half the year, and I hope to do the same next summer.  This means that some of my recent posts have not been directly or even indirectly related to living in Mexico.  Instead of trying to limit what I can write about, I want to expand the focus of this blog to include a more general cultural exchange.

2. As of this week, I cancelled my other blog, called “Imagine,” which focused specifically on my religious experience.  Most of the posts in that blog ended up being about religious-cultural observations anyway, which means they would fit into the new direction this blog has been taking.

 

The task now is to give this blog a new title which reflects the broader range of cultural exchanges I’ve been commenting on – Canada and Mexico, culture and religion, the modern and the non-modern, etc.

 

Any suggestions are welcome.

Why I Don’t Like Resorts …

This may seem strange, but I don’t like resorts.  I recognize why so many people love them, and I have enjoyed both times I stayed at a resort … for the first day.  You can stay in a beautiful room, every need you may have is catered to, you have a large, luxurious pool at your doorstep, a slow relaxing walk to the beach (which you never take because a golf cart takes you,) there are excellent restaurants, and the list just goes on.

 

In short, you’re living like a king – with one major difference; YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO.

 

The planned events in places like these never appealed to me; yet, having the all-inclusive luxury at your disposal, you feel obligated to stay on the resort to take advantage of it; it makes no sense to go pay for food, drinks or entertainment somewhere else when you already have the luxury level of all of these in your plan.

 

Part of the total concept of the places, wireless internet is available.  While I’ve never been one to watch any T.V. or use any internet while travelling on vacation; both times, however, that I’ve been in a resort setting, by the end of day 1, I’ve been digging out the laptop I never thought I’d be using on vacation and tracking down the password for using the internet.  I simply felt bored and in need of something semi-productive to do.

 

I suppose part of the lure of resorts is that you can do just that; live in luxury, relax, and do nothing – unwind from all the stress of life.

 

Both resorts I’ve been in have been in Mexico.  Yet, I’ve had several other vacation/multi-day-travel experiences in Mexico that have been far less luxurious, but, for me far more enjoyable.  (These include my trip to Veracruz and to Progreso.)  In places like this there are certainly lots of tourists, but you see them blending in with real life.  In Veracruz my wife and I stayed in a cheap hotel where they gave us half price ($10) because the room had no TV.  Although the hotel had everything I expected from it (comfortable bed, warm shower and cleanliness) I felt no regret abandoning the hotel to go out and see the city – see the people, the parks, the children playing in the streets, the colonial city square full of splendid lights, the market food, street musicians and the baker who went well out of his way to show the warmest welcome possible to an old friend (my wife) … to me this was 1000 times more of meaningful and enjoyable. In Progreso I visited the old expat bar, where retired Americans and Canadians that had been there for several decades complained of the (very unwanted) influx of tourists that the new highway would bring.  Although some of them glared at me suspiciously as one of the unwanted outsiders, I found it easier to connect with more of these people than most of the people in the resort.

 

At the resort, I think the only person I connected to somewhat was the worker taking care of the kids who used to be a student at the English school where I worked.

 

I don’t oppose resorts in principle – there are some that have made real efforts to show environmental and social responsibility, although by no means all, just like any other business – but I still have to say honestly, I can understand the point on a logical level (i.e. why they should be enjoyable) but by my experience, I simply do not find them enjoyable.

Are You English, German or Spanish?

While I would describe my ethnic background in the fairly universally understood terms of “Canadian of Mennonite background,” the people still belonging more fully to this group have other terms by which they describe ethnicities.

 

For example, they might describe my immediate family thus:

 

“His parents are German, and he grew up German.  But now he and his sons are English and his wife is Spanish.”

 

Anyone who knows my wife, my kids and me knows that there’s nothing English, Spanish or German about us – least of all in terms of ethnicity or culture.  Of course, what these people are doing is referring to ethnicity/culture by the language spoken.  I’m English because that’s my primary language; my parents are “German” because they still speak the Mennonite dialect of the language between themselves; likewise my wife is “Spanish” because of her mother tongue.

 

I don’t know the exact reasons for this choice of terminology, but I can guess as to some of the underlying ideas:

 

• An idea seems to have come about that there’s something inappropriate, embarrassing or sometimes even insulting to refer to people by their true ethnicity; while in the parts of Mexico where I lived, most Mexicans are proud to be called “Mexican”, a number of Mennonites who have lived in Mexico seem to feel that the people consider it insulting.  I don’t know if this is true or if it’s just their impression.

 

• On a similar note, numerous Mennonites whom I’ve talked to  “correct” me discretely, yet pointedly, when I refer to them as “Mennonites.”  For example, if I ask them if there were many Mennonites at the community picnic, they will answer that there were a lot of “German” families, slightly emphasizing the word “German.”

 

• This leads to another point; while Mexican is clearly a national ethnicity, Mennonite is officially a church denomination; strictly speaking it refers to someone’s faith and religious views.  A very strong case could be made that the nature of the denomination (which sometimes, but definitely not always, dictates laws about clothing, transportation, entertainment and even language of its adherents) has in many cases created a corresponding ethnic culture; a similar case could be made about certain Jewish groups.  For this reason, it’s common to refer to anyone belonging to that ethnicity as “Mennonite” even if they have never joined that church, don’t adhere to its beliefs or have been excommunicated.  On the other hand, there’s justifiable hesitation in calling someone Mennonite after they’ve joined a new church, even if they retain the cultural practices.

 

• Finally, there’s a problem with calling the Anglophone population of southern Ontario “Canadians;” the problem is that it implies that the German-speaking Mennonites are not Canadians, when in fact many of them are.  They are NOT immigrants – at least not most of them.  They have been Canadian citizens for a longer time and for more generations than most Anglophone Canadians, having arrived to the Prairie Provinces during the mid- to late-1800s.

 

• A similar problem arises with the term “Mexican;” a growing number of Mennonites are now Mexican citizens, since that’s where they and their parents were born.  So, calling the Hispanic Mexicans only “Mexican” incorrectly implies that these Mennonites are not Mexican, when they are by all legal rights.

 

The biggest problem is that while ethnicity is clear, there is no clear rule for determining religion or citizenship of ethnically “Mennonite” people.  So, in light of all of this, I could  re-word the description of my family given above as follows;

 

“His parents are ethnically low-German speaking Mennonites of Canadian citizenship, and he was raised in this same culture; he and his children are now ethnically Anglophone Canadian but his wife is Hispanic Mexican.”

 

I'm not sure if this would go over so well with most people, though.

Our Daily Bike Ride – Part II – Leisure vs. Practicality

I’m happy that we’ve started the habit of our daily bike ride here.  It’s not only good exercise, but excellent family time.  I’ve always loved biking, and I’ve always used a bike whenever I’ve lived in a place where it’s possible.  I’ve noticed that my bike usage has changed.

When I lived in Playa del Carmen (as in Toronto several years before), I rode a bike for transportation; it was a practical tool.  Sometimes I used it for personal exercise in the morning.  Now, as during my teenaged years, I ride my book for pleasure.  I go out with my dad, my wife, my three-year-old, and the two girls of the family we share a house with; it’s a big happy family/community bike ride. (My mother very kindly stays at home to take care of the baby.)

The bike rides are wonderful and I’m glad we’re in a place where we can enjoy them.

Another Odd Job; Butchering Chickens

During the past week, some of the Mennonites ladies who live in the community found a new way to generate some income.  They bought living chickens for 75 cents a piece, butchering them, removing feathers and gutting; then they sold the chickens for $3 a piece.

Recently, these ladies had been inviting my wife to join in their enterprises (including the garlic scrape cutting job I wrote about a while back.)  However, although my wife spent a few months every year of her childhood on her grandpa’s farm, she could not, for the life of her, get herself to kill, pluck or clean chickens.  What she could do was take pictures – of everything but the beheading.

Enjoy the pictures.

P.S. – I would have expected this to be a part of my Mexico experience rather than my wife’s Canada experience, but in any case, here it is.