Two Toddlers Go Out to Sea

Dated October 25, 1883, an item in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s “Weekly Notes of Cases” announces a divorce petition. It was filed by Marcus Heilbron, who wished to leave his wife, Rosa. Marcus states that Rosa “hath offered such indignities to the person of your petitioner as to render his condition intolerable and his life burdensome, and thereby forced him to expend several hundred dollars, as she, the said Rosa, demanded a trip to Europe and was bound to see her parents in Europe and other relatives, and left your petitioner alone at Homestead, in Pennsylvania, and your petitioner was forced to give up his home and break up housekeeping, and thus rendered the condition of your petitioner intolerable and his life miserable and burdensome, and the fact that she remained away and became the scandal and talk of the neighborhood of Homestead, Pennsylvania.”

The unhappy couple were my paternal great grandparents. What isn’t mentioned in Marcus’ petition is that when Rosa fled to Germany, she brought along my grandmother, Rena. I have a copy of the ship’s log of The Aller, documenting their return trip to the US from Germany. Rosa’s age is listed as 37, and little Rena was 2. They arrived in New York on February 23, 1892. The Weekly Notes says that Marcus initiated divorce proceedings on April 11, just six weeks after Rosa and Rena returned home.

Apparently, the time apart didn’t cool the passions on either side. In the petition Marcus goes on to complain that after she came back from Germany, his wife displayed “many outbursts of temper, not confined to bad language and threats, but accompanied by acts of great violence, and are scarcely denied by the respondent herself.” Marcus further states that “She admits that she broke a glass door in his store, and interfered with his customers; that she broke dishes and threw them down the stairs, threw hot coffee on the girl, and on two occasions, when her stepsons complained of the dinner, she brought in slop and threw it on the table.” It certainly appears that my great grandmother had a fiery temper, no doubt provoked by Marcus’ abuse. I’m sure he made it clear to one and all how much he loathed his wife, and wished to leave her, and thus Rena as well.

I also have a copy of a ship’s log for a voyage taken almost exactly 59 years after Rosa and Rena returned from Germany. Joyce Klein, age 33, and her son Kenneth, age 2, are listed as traveling in tourist class on the Queen Elizabeth. It sailed from New York on February 16, 1951. My mother was taking me to Germany so we could meet up with my father, who had left home some weeks previously to do research in the laboratory of a German scientist in Berlin. This was less than six years after the conclusion of WWII, in which my father had fought the Germans for five years. My father had lost relatives in the camps on both Rena’s side and his father’s side of the family.

Perhaps even more remarkable than that my father chose to work in Germany so soon after the war was that by going there he left my brother, who had been born just months previously. More amazing still is that my mother too left her infant son; when she and I boarded the Queen Elizabeth, Doug was a mere four months old. Years later, after I became a parent, I asked my father how he could possibly have left Doug at such an early age. He blithely replied, “He was so young, he didn’t know the difference.” And how could my mother do so? “Your mother was very strong-willed. She really wanted to come to Europe while I was there.” And who took care of my brother while the rest of the family were in Europe? “We found a lady from the Salvation Army.”

The recent discoveries of Marcus’s divorce petition and the ships’ logs has created an even deeper bond between me and my grandmother. At the age of two, our mothers took each of us across the ocean to Germany. Both voyages were triggered by our fathers: Rena’s mother was fleeing from her abusive father, while my mother was taking me in tow to reunite with my father. But even though the motives for each trip were different, Rena and I both must have felt apprehension, confusion, and fear.

My grandmother was no doubt a front-row witness to the tense and violent relationship between her parents. From the divorce petition we know only Marcus’ side. But family lore has it that he deserved everything my great-grandmother served him—broken dishes, slop, and all. And though my mother was taking me to–not away from–my father, I must have been very aware that my baby brother had been left behind. He was abandoned first by my father, and now by my mother. Though she chose to take me along this time, what guarantee was there that it wouldn’t be Kenny who would be left with the Salvation Army lady on the next trip?

So as my grandmother walked the decks of The Aller in 1892, and I walked the decks of the Queen Elizabeth 59 years later, I doubt that we were carefree children enjoying our ocean voyages. More likely, we were each anxious about the family dynamics, and worried about what we would find on our return home.

I don’t remember being consciously aware of my parents’ abandonment of my brother. And I wouldn’t be surprised that after the divorce my grandmother repressed her awareness of her parents’ mutually abusive behavior. But she couldn’t ignore her father’s absence; after the divorce he left, and cut all communication with his family.

When she was about ten, in an act of tremendous courage my grandmother found out where Marcus was living and went to his house. He refused to talk to her, or even acknowledge her presence. Thus, repressed or not, her early childhood memories of rejection were resurrected and reinforced. And when, just before I turned fifteen, my mother died of cancer, her death reverberated as the ultimate abandonment of not only my brother, but of me.

Tension and Pressure

The wooden pole in the storage room was sagging under the weight of the rarely used clothes we’d hung on it. So I drilled a hole in the ceiling and popped in a sturdy molly bolt, to which I tied a nylon cord. Then I wound the other end around the middle of the pole. Finally, I cinched up the cord and tied it tight, which straightened out the bend. The pole felt much sturdier, and the clothes hung better.

This was a satisfying fix, but as I put away my tools I felt a little uneasy. It took me a while to figure out why, but I finally did: I was acutely aware of the newly created tension in the cord. It was stretched so tight that when I strummed it, it vibrated like the C string of a cello. The entire pole was under the influence of this tension. And so was the drywall in the ceiling, resisting the downward pressure of the wings of the molly bolt. I could feel it! Disturbingly, I realized that this considerable force would remain active for as long as the cord stayed in place. That could well be years. Perhaps many years.

I’ve been doing a lot of other home projects lately. Almost all of them produce tension or pressure. Every time I screw two panels of a bookcase together, I’ve created pressure. Every time I hang a door, or earthquake-proof a bookcase by strapping it to a wall, there’s tension. Every time I bolt a mower blade in place, couple two electric wires together with a wire nut, or replace a board on the deck, pressure.

Tension and pressure are everywhere. My house, for example, stays together because of them—I become a little giddy when I think of all the joists and studs and beams being held in place by a vast army of screws, nails, and bolts. Layer after layer of balanced forces are keeping everything stable: the roof, the walls, the floors, the stove and fridge, the bed on which I sleep.

When I drive my car I’m conscious of being surrounded by a complex array of forces: the pressure I create by sitting on my seat, that of my seat against the chassis, the chassis against the wheels, and the wheels against the road. To say nothing of the incredible force being generated by the explosions within the cylinders when I step on the gas. Sometimes it’s hard to fathom why the car doesn’t simply blow apart as I drive down the interstate.

Omnipresent pressure and tension aren’t of course limited to things made by humans. When a storm blows up from the northeast, the big Doug fir in our yard sways ominously. At times I can sense the stress of the branches as they push back against the wind, and the pressure on the base of the trunk as it’s stabilized by the roots clutching frantically at the soil to keep the tree upright. But even on a beautiful day, when there’s no wind and the bay is smooth as glass, all is not really placid. Superficially in equipoise, competing forces are everywhere trying to get the upper hand: in the bay, the weight of the water is pushing down on the seabed below, while on the shore the soil and sand are pressing heavily on the bedrock. These components of the crust are mashing down on the molten outer core, which in turn is squeezing down on the solid inner core.

While my mind is subterranean, I can’t help but think of the upward force of that molten core, liable to increase to the point of volcanic activity, so common in this part of the world. To say nothing of the tectonic plates of the Cascadia Subduction zone. They’re constantly butting heads with incredible energy, gearing up to produce the inevitable Big One. (Good thing I bolted the bookcase to the wall!).

And when you think about it, tension and pressure are ubiquitous within our bodies too. The pressure exerted by our beating hearts sends blood coursing through a complex maze of arteries and veins, nourishing our tissues. As we’re all too aware, if the blood pressure is too high, it can cause great mischief in our hearts and brains and blood vessels. The forces that are intermittently generated within our bladder and intestines allow us to eliminate waste. Muscle tension, even at rest, keeps our bones stable, and the tension in our ligaments and fascia keep our muscles and organs tidily in place. Tension across an ear drum allows it to vibrate (sort of like the cord holding up the clothes pole), enabling us to hear. And on and on. Sometimes, lying quietly in bed, I’m very aware of this symphony of forces at play in my body. Although I know that they all work together to promote normal functioning, this doesn’t necessarily enhance my relaxation.

So how can we peacefully live our lives when we’re conscious of the sometimes-extreme pressure and tension in the things we build, in the natural world, and even within our own bodies? Well first of all, we can be happy that these forces are there—otherwise we wouldn’t be. If gravity and friction were somehow repealed, our houses, our machines, our entire world, and us, would just disperse into space. So celebrate all the pressure and tension, usually in benign equilibrium, that allow our world—including that cord which is so patiently holding up our spare clothes–to exist. Be prudent when messing with those forces. And most of the time, just ignore them.

Of Trolleys and Mice

The trolley problem is one of the most famous thought experiments in ethics. You are asked to imagine that there’s a runaway trolley racing down the line. It’s headed toward a group of five people who are tied to the tracks with no prospect of escape. From your vantage point in the trolly yard you have access to a lever that can divert the trolley onto another set of tracks, on which a single person is tied. The question is, would you pull the lever? Numerous surveys have found that about 90% of people would do so.

In a variant of the trolly problem, you’re on a bridge watching the trolley barrel down toward those five tied-up people. Standing next to you is a man. You know that if you push him off the bridge, his bulk will stop the trolley, saving the people bound to the tracks. Not surprisingly, even though the outcome is identical to the first instance–sacrificing one life to save five others–far fewer people would push the man off the bridge.

We’ve got mice in our garage. Lots of them. They gnaw into bags of stored food, poop everywhere, and for all I know promiscuously spread hantavirus. They’ve got to go. But the idea of poisoning them, or even setting up kill traps, is abhorrent to me—they’re simply cute, furry innocents doing what mice are supposed to do. So, I’m using a “live trap.” The critters are lured by peanut butter into a little plastic cage, which captures them without harm. Each morning I check the trap. If a mouse has been caught, I drive it to a nearby forest and release it beside a decaying tree stump. Most often, little Mickey frisks out of the trap, sniffs the air right and left, then rushes right into a hole in the base of the stump. I’ve been very pleased with myself for this arrangement.

For confirmation that I was doing the right thing, I Googled ‘the most humane way to rid your house of mice’. I was startled to read that, overwhelmingly, the advice from animal advocacy groups is that quick and certain death with an old-fashioned snap trap was the way to go. How could that be? Well, it turns out that the kind of mice that end up infesting houses don’t do well in the wild, especially when transplanted far from where they were trapped. They can’t adapt to the new environment and perish due to starvation, disease, or predation. Yikes!

Even so, after reading this thoughtful advice I’ve persisted in “humanely” trapping the mice and transporting them to what is apparently certain sylvan death. In other words, I’ve continued to pull the lever rather than push the man off the bridge, thus distancing myself from directly causing their demise. Even worse, as opposed to the trolley problem, where the two modes of death are equally sudden, it appears that out of cowardice I’m opting for the more inhumane mode of exit.

Well, of course, the rationalizations came flooding in: Maybe the forest wasn’t all that far from our house, or maybe these particular woods harbored plenty of rodent-friendly food and water. Maybe the previous releasees had been able to set up house in the hole in the stump, so the new arrivals would be welcomed into a thriving colony of their former housemates. Maybe these environs weren’t rife with rodential predators. But on the other hand, if there were predators, and the mouse was going to die anyway, wouldn’t it be better that it served as nourishment for the resident eagles and foxes and owls rather than being thrown in the trash after getting whacked by a snap trap? Finally, in any case, even if the released mice had only a slim chance of living a full woodsy life, wouldn’t that be a better alternative than certain death in our garage?

And yet… All the organizations associated with animal welfare were clear: they strongly advocate a quick and painless death as the most humane alternative–my rationalizations were fooling only me. But, I must admit, I still haven’t changed my practice. The fact is, it’s so much easier to pull a lever than to push someone off a bridge. So, so sorry, my little furry friends.

Purebred Mongrel

My recent 23andMe report tells me that I’m 96.8% Ashkenazi, that is, Eastern European Jewish. This was quite disappointing. I always thought I was—and aspired to be—some sort of exotic mongrel; I’ve long been a proponent of the virtues of hybrid vigor. But it looks like I’m actually a purebred. Well, almost. What about the remaining 3.2%, the tiny chromosomal fragments that aren’t of the breed?

Turns out that they aren’t particularly interesting: 0.9% Eastern European, 0.4% Southern European, 0.2% Iberian, 0.1% Northwestern European, and—finally something a little off the beaten tribal path—0.1% Scandinavian! How nice to know that I’m at least a slightly mixed breed. But though I’m part-Scandinavian, I have to admit it’s a tiny part: if I were to convert the 0.1% of genes into 0.1% of my body weight, I’d be about 2 ½ ounces Scandinavian. That’s less than the weight of a serving of pickled herring.

If you add up these tiny bits of identified non-Ashkenazic genes, you get 1.7%. So what about the remaining 1.5%, which is unaccounted for by 23andMe? Maybe it’s just a rounding error. Or maybe it’s the most interesting part of my genetic heritage, which will remain captive until I pay the company a ransom for its release. It could still be that I’m more exotic than it appears.

In any case, I presume that those non-Ashkenazic European gene fragments represent interlopers who slipped into my purebred lineage long ago. In fact, 23andMe specifically informs me that the 0.1% of Scandinavian genes in my possession “were contributed by a single ancestor who was 100% Scandinavian, born between 1680 and 1770.” I wonder how they know—did they find a diary? However they determined it, it seems that this 98.6% pure Ashkenazi apparently had a great-great-great-great Grandpa Thor. I suspect that Grandpa Thor was a Viking warrior King, I can sort of feel it in my blood.

Uff Da! (whatever that means)—now I know why I’ve always enjoyed taking saunas! And maybe now that I’m aware of my Scandinavian heritage, I’ll start to think that Garrison Keeler’s Norwegian bachelor farmer jokes are actually funny. Moreover, since I’m surely eligible, I think I’ll put in an application to join the Sons of Norway. Conveniently, the nearest chapter is in Poulsbo, just a few miles from where I live. Maybe I’ll even run for office in the next SoN election—the prospect of an Ashkenazic-Norwegian treasurer might be a real vote-getter. At some point, I should sign up for one of those “roots tours” to the Nordic countries to see if I can connect with my heritage, and maybe track down a landsman or two. I’m even thinking of giving lutefisk another try. How wonderfully life-changing it is to learn of this 0.1% of my gene pool!