I‘ve noticed a lot of traffic comes to my blog directed to a post I did quite a while ago about bundling;see https://pbenjay.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/bringing-back-the-bundling-board/ so I thought I should do some research and look deeper into this ancient tradition.
Worldwide Bundling: One of the most fascinating aspects of this subject is that the practice of bundling was not limited to the United States. I had always associated the term with the Amish and Colonial America. However, in the book, The Art of Bundling, by Dana Doten, (The Countryman Press and Farrar & Rinehart, 1938) there is a paragraph inferring bundling was an early practice in the British Isles and Wales;
“If you are eligible for the Sons or Daughters of the American Revolution you have bundling blood in you. More especially is this true if your forbears (sic) lived north of the Mason -Dixon line, a circumstance which should recompense you for those same ancestors’ failure to provide your line with colored slaves and a “big house before the war.” Because bundling is a proud heritage”.
In another authoritative book on bundling, the: History of Bundling: Its Origin, Progress and Decline in America, by Henry Reed Stiles, there is a traveler’s account describing the practice of bundling in Wales in 1797. Stiles comments that this practice was probably limited to the lower class of Welsh society.
In northern Europe, specifically Norway and Sweden, bundling was practiced as a form of courtship and as in Colonial America, long distances led to the practicality of a suitor spending the night before his long journey home. Swedes referred to the practice of young couples sleeping together before marriage as frieri. In Norway, “night running” was defined as young suitors having to travel quite far to court. And it wasn’t just Europe; there is evidence that this practice was part of the cultures in Central Asia and Afghanistan.
Colonial America: In my previous blog, I wrote about the practice of bundling in America; bundling was both a form of courtship as well as a practical solution to long distance relationships. It was also a means to earn a bit of money if you rented half a bed. Hotels and Inns were few and far between, so many a household offered to rent half a bed to a traveler for the night. A traveler might find himself sharing the bed with a young maiden but more likely it would be the head of the household AND there would be a bundling board between them.
Religion to the Rescue: New England and New Amsterdam seemed to be hot beds of bundling, especially Connecticut. Puritans saw this method of courtship as both convenient and practical. Bundling fell out of favor in the late 1700’s due primarily to a crusade against the practice led by the evangelical Congregationalist, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1793). From his pulpit in Northhampton, Massachusetts, Edwards delivered many hell fire and brimstone sermons. Eventually other preachers joined the crusade and by 1800, bundling had disappeared, at least publicly.
The Amish and Mennonites: Bed Courtship – These two religious sects have their own set of beliefs and practices and what went on in New England had no effect on them. They continued to bundle through the 19th Century and well into the 20th Century. Actually, there is evidence that bundling is still used as a form of courtship. Thaddeus Stevens, a powerful Republican from Pennsylvania once stated that for every case of “bundling” in Lancaster County, there were twenty cases in Vermont. I read an excerpt from a letter written by a Beachy Amish Mennonite woman living in Ohio and she said that bundling was still a practiced form of courtship in her small community.
Bundling was condoned in the Old Testament, if one takes the time to look up the Book of Ruth to prove it; and if it was the custom then among the Jews for “men and women to lie on the same bed, as lovers, without undressing,” then we have little doubt but that our plain friends used the same methods for getting couples into a convivial mood and a convenient embrace.
Harrison Ford bears “Witness”: In the movie, Witness, Harrison Ford spends the night sharing a bed with a beautiful woman. And there it was for all to see – the bundling board!
“Give Me A Number And I’ll Give You The Guts”
Posted in From My Point of View - Personal commentary on Movies and Books, Smooth or Crunchy, tagged Baseball, Branch Rickey, Brian Helgeland, Harrison Ford, Jackie Robinson, Negro League, Pee Wee Reese, Rickey, Robinson, World Series on April 23, 2013| Leave a Comment »
Jackie Robinson
“Give me a number and I’ll give you the guts” turned out to be a promise hard to keep. When Branch Rickey , the General Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers made the unprecedented and momentous decision to bring a Negro ball player into the major leagues, he altered the future outcome of American baseball. Rickey had it in his mind to change the game, prove that he still had it, and assuage a gnawing age-old guilt he harbored from his college days. And of course baseball was his life and his business and he knew the way to infuse life and money into it, was to win and win big. His eye was on the prize of the World Series.
But back to the promise…Branch Rickey planned on adding a black baseball player to his farm team, the Montreal Royals with the intention of bringing that player into the Dodgers. But not just any player; The man would have to be good, he would have to be strong, he would have to have courage and conviction, he would have to have a thick skin and he would have to want the prize as much as Rickey did. He found these characteristics and qualities in Jackie Roosevelt Robinson, a short stop playing for the Kansas City Monarchs. Rickey knew that the road ahead for this player would be fraught with every kind of discrimination that was still prevalent in our country at that time. He knew and hoped Robinson who was known to have a temper, would be able to withstand the pressures and pain that came with the number. All that Branch hoped for was, Promises made, promises kept.
In the 1940’s post-war era, baseball became and has remained as The National Pastime of the American public. People of all ages flocked to the games; It was an inexpensive and entertaining way to spend the afternoon and could also be a family affair. There were two white leagues (AL + NL) and the Negro league, each with their own style and fans and never the two to mix. That is until Branch Rickey decided to break the color barrier.
Brian Helgeland directed this film based on the significance of Jackie Robinson’s role in baseball. He extracted an excellent performance from Harrison Ford. Although at times, one might say Ford’s portrayal of Branch Rickey bordered on caricature, he was entirely believable and best of all, you forget that you are watching the former Indiana Jones. I thought there were notable performances from John C. McGinley who played the Red Barber, T. R. Knight as Harry (Harold Parott), Rickey’s right hand man, and André Holland who portrayed Wendell Smith, the sports writer for the Pittsburgh Courier, and Lucas Black as Pee Wee Reese. Chadwick Boseman embodied the moody and guarded reticence of the angry young Robinson and showed us a deeply moving display of pent-up anger and frustration when Robinson was being horrendously taunted by Ben Chapman, (Alan Tudyk), the manager of the Philadelphia Phillies.
42 brings the injustice and ultimately the absurdity of racial discrimination once again to the forefront of our consciousness much in the same manner as The Help. We are collectively ashamed and cheered by the triumph of those oppressed characters, once again confirming the age-old adage that good triumphs over evil. Rickie predicted it himself when he said, “ We can win only if we can convince the world that I’m doing this because you’re a great ballplayer, a fine gentleman.”
I found myself tearing up during many scenes, it was emotionally moving. I Loved It!
Rate this:
Read Full Post »