Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> >The expression "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is, I think 
> quite widespread ?  If you are not familiar with it, it is fairly intuitive 
> to most people that it basically means "words only mean what we all agree 
> that they mean".

Not quite the meaning, I'd say, and the difference pertains to the discussion.

"A rose by any other name" refers to a single objectively defined object, a 
rose, and states that it would be the same no matter what you called it.  

In the topic at hand, 'what is the definition of homesteader', it is just the 
opposite.  It is the word that stays the same but what it refers to changes 
from person to person.

In the first case, the object stays the same but different words are used to 
describe it.  In the second case the word stays the same but describes 
different objects.

An example of the first, the 'rose by any other name' phenomenon, which some 
on the list might remember, is that 50 years ago bell peppers were not common 
food.  When they were introduced they were called "mangos".  Soon people 
realized that a bell pepper and a chili pepper were of the same genera and so 
they 
were viewed as a different type of pepper ... sweet pepper or bell pepper.  
One object, a pepper, but two words used to desctibe it.

An example of the second is what happened just after the second world war 
when the US offered Britain economic relief in the form of grain commodities, 
Britain asked for a huge amount of 'corn' and was dismayed when it received 
'maize' instead.    The Americans were using 'corn' to mean 'zea maiz' and 
the 
British were using it to mean 'wheat'.  One word refering to two different 
objects.

If you are in the habit of reading the laws and regulations that affect your 
life, you are familiar with the section of any legislation devoted to 
definitions.  When a regulation concerning trucks is witten, there will be 
"for the 
purpose of this regulation, a truck is defined as a motor vehicle of at least 
(blah, blah)..."   Otherwise the regulation is chaotic.  

What Gene has done in the section he has cited is not 'a rose is a rose'.  He 
is not describing a single phenomenon and explaining the various works used 
to describe it, rather he dealing with the one word 'homestead' and how it 
has 
a tendency to be used to described several phenomena.   People throw the word 
'homestead' about as if it means vaguely someone who lives in the country.  
Gene  coins the phrase 'those who move back to the land' to serve this 
purpose 
and reserves the word 'homestead' for a more specific meaning.

This is also what many of us do in the discussions on this list.   We are 
using the word 'homestead' in some specific way.  When you read the text of 
some 
legislation or regulation and in the definition section it touches on 
something that pertains to you, do you feel diminshed or abused by it?  If 
you read, 
'for the purpose of this legislation, 'pet owner' will be defined as any 
person 
who (blah, blah)', do you go about the rest of the day offended mutting to 
yourself "can't tell me what a pet owner is! Just because I don't fit that 
defintion, you can't say I'm not a pet owner!!"

Well that's how petty and ridiculous it is when there is a discussion of 
homestead topics and someone says, in effect, for the purpose of these 
discussions 
my defintion of 'homesteader is ....', and someone retorts "You can't tell 
someone they aren't a homesteader!  Just because they don't fit your 
defintion, 
you can't say they aren't homesteading!"

Yes I can.   It is a legitimate function of language and communication to 
define the terms you are using.

It reminds me so much of the Wizard of Id comic where in a single panel it 
shows Sir Rodney kneeling before a roadsing and offering up his sword.  The 
sign 
says "Yield".  

'Someone who vaguely wanders off into the country for whatever reason' is too 
watery a defintion of 'homesteader' to be of any practical value in a useful 
discussion.  Then it is supposed to expand to "someone who talks about 
wanting 
to wander off into the country for whatever reason".  

I've been on many gardening, self-sufficiency, homesteading, and frugality 
lists and when there's time visit blogs on those topics.  Invariably the 
discussions attract wannabes like flies and just as invariably some of 
wannabes 
continually want to elevate themselves by pointing out (or imagining) feet of 
clay 
among the actual practitioners.  "Ha!  You say you are frugal but you just 
admitted to sharpening a knife!  If you were REALLY as frugal as you claim, 
you'd 
find a piece of flint and knap it into a knife instead of using a knife that 
cost a whole $3!"  They themselves would cut off their thumb if they tried to 
use a knife, flint or otherwise, but somehow hope that it puts them in the 
same category with the frugal if they find some exagerated and or imagined 
flaw 
in the everyday practitioner.

Part and parcel of good communication is to define the terms you use anywhere 
they might be taken to mean something other than what you intend.  Everyone 
doesn't have to use the exact same defintion, but we must needs establish 
what 
definition we are using.  


James