July 18, 2015
Kevin
I haven't yet taken many photos of Dinan, only a few of St. Malo when Marilyne took me there. I'll get in the Dinan photos when Marilyne leaves tomorrow, as I'll mostly be on my own for day-plans. I plan to upload my photos of the last week or so today.
I'm in Dinan until July 23, when I leave to Paris for two days, and I leave Paris for Strasbourg on the 25th. Ideally, there will be no more massive schedule changes there, and I'll stay there, as planned, until I leave France. But, I'm prepared for changes, especially since it's usually free, far enough in advance (two days); I've learned that life's just going to throw them my way. I learned that the Tour de France is in Paris on the 26th; I wonder if it's worthwhile to stay and see it?
But, for now, I'm happy just relaxing in Dinan. There's a lot to see (even walking down the neighborhood is incredibly beautiful), and having a bed and a room and a pool and a shower and food and pretty perpetual bathroom access is wonderful.
For most of the time here in the home, though, I'm either eating with the family or talking with them or both, and there are a few ideas I've come to realize (or come to realize were a lot more complex than I'd first imagined).
Organic Food
On the farm, I became pretty used to just believing that eating organic food is better than all else. After all, nearly every input into the foods we eat (pesticides, water, compost, fertilizer, etc.) both affects its nutritional content and its taste, so by giving our foods only the best of inputs, we really do get the best quality of food. After all, even the crab-apples, which we ate at nearly every big meal, tasted like candy, and words cannot describe how amazing those eggs were. Nevertheless, most of my meals on the farm were either bread with jam or butter; couscous, vegetables, and salad; or some sort of combination of those two. Sometimes, when I ate with one of the families, I'd have chicken with bread and cheese, but otherwise, I became a vegetarian (unfortunately). This prompted a new idea: as much as I love organic food, I think I care more about having a healthy variety of foods (including lots of meat), because the mere diversity of inputs into my own digestion would probably be better than the best of inputs from only a few agricultural sectors. (Even eggs were only available two of the seven days.)
I do say "probably," though, because I'm not a scientist, I practically failed biology, and our (humankind's) knowledge of foods and diets and what is best for us has constantly changed throughout the last 120 years, and what may seem horrible for us (e.g. carbohydrates) may be the only source of energy for our brains. (Maybe it isn't carbohydrates, but something else, instead. Or, maybe, our brains rely on a variety of inputs, but we're still unsure of what they are.) I'm fully aware that I have to take all of my gastronomical contemplations and conclusions with caution, when it comes to what's good for us. Regardless, assuming that a varied diet is good for us, as people, I still wasn't fully satisfied with giving up my hopes for organic food altogether; there has to be some balance, some way to get a variety of food that's all organic (or something), that tastes good, too.
And, my current thought is this: if I prioritize a healthy variety of food, my second priority needs to be either that it's locally produced (for taste) or of good nutritional quality. (If the soil or whatever near me is bad, I don't feel so horrible about buying imported bananas.) I think that's what a lot of people here believe, too; at any market, be it a small shop in the city or a supermarket in the suburbs, nearly every fruit is from France or Spain, and a lot of it looks really good. They also have eggs and beef and pork and lamb 24/7. It may not be the best for the environment (although, it could be!), but they get excellent food. (The possibly organic, definitely local fruits here taste like candy.) The only sacrifice: while they eat a variety of foods, they don't wholeheartedly contradict the natural calendar of foods; apples aren't too common right now, and we just have to deal.
I'm not sure how realistic all of my thoughts are about food right now, given that I'm not sure how much money I'm willing to spend in the US (where there really isn't diversified agriculture, like France) for food, and I think I'm still going to eat with my meal plan at Haverford College. Regardless, I firmly believe that contemplating the food we eat will come in handy, somehow, some day.
Politics
To any liberal in America, France seems to be the next step forward, as if Bernie Sanders were to have already won ten years ago and put forth his entire agenda with raging success: there's free college, free healthcare, gay marriage, no gun ownership, and a reasonable campaign finance system. (They obviously have exceptions, like for hunting.) So, in France, people just don't even have to deal with talking about all of that. But, what that means is that they have new battles to fight, facing ideas I've never even thought of before my trip here.
One example: on my first full day in Paris, I found a rally in front of the Palais du Justice saying that people shouldn't be allowed to pay surrogate parents. That's a big deal here. A lot of couples that can't have children have decided to pay another woman to have their child for them (now that gay marriage is legal, it's become a lot more pressing), and these people were arguing that, because the child would never know its mother, and there's a financial transaction involved, that, ethically, cannot be allowed in such an advanced society. On the other side, I began to think that families may value the child being of their own genetics and may see that as more important to the child's well-being than the child not knowing the woman who birthed them. I'm not sure how many scientific studies there have been on this issue, which makes it all, more or less, a legislative guessing game as to what is best. At the end of the day, though, this 1) may be an issue we'll have to deal with, too, in a few years; and 2) goes beyond our American standardized two-party system: would outlawing this process be more conservative or liberal? Why? What would people even call it? I'm just not sure.
Moreover, in my month here, I've been talking with people about their last president, Nicolas Sarkozy, whom nearly every one of my hosts dubbed a racist. (Apparently, his relationship with Carla Bruni has been destroying her domestic success as a musician, as well, which may show how popular this belief is.) I asked around for a good explanation about how a racist could actually be elected president (even you, Donald Trump.), and what made him really that way? The rough answer: much the same with hard-line conservatives, he doesn't like immigration, because it takes away from domestic jobs, so he wants to stop it all. A little harsh, but not necessarily racist, right?
But, the discussion goes deeper: in France, there's universal healthcare, which seems to make sense to most people. (Basic healthcare should be a human right; rich people shouldn't be the only ones taken care of, if they develop cancer or diabetes.) It grows more complicated when clandestine immigrants get free healthcare, as well, without putting much into the system. (The same goes for documented immigrants with very low salaries.) The question becomes: how much should the average French citizen be charged in taxes, in order to pay for a flood of people in need of healthcare? It'd almost be like saying that because food and water and homes should be basic human rights, the US should increase its human aid spending 100-fold. Maybe.
Moreover, if we don't want to increase the actual taxes of French citizens, how much can the richest of the rich actually be taxed? Should economic freedom mean a potentially unlimited income? Should someone, in such a developed country, even be allowed to be a trillionaire, a 500-billionaire, or even a 10-billionaire? It's easy to say that we should be allowed infinite income, because we can somehow relate to those people, even though a salary of less than $20,000 per year is a lot more realistic than one at the other end of the spectrum. Even if we were to say yes to all immigration and take all of the funding that had previously been put towards check-points, deportations, etc., towards universities and small businesses, would the potential for newer markets and greater economic efficiency (ideally leading to new jobs for educated people) counterweight the drag of having so many more people? I'm not sure of my answers to a lot of these questions, and I take secret joy in America's comparative lack in progressiveness, because I don't have to worry about these issues when voting, but they will be the existential questions of my time, I'm sure. The new Great Gatsby will not only strike down the conception of the American Dream, but fight to redefine it altogether. And, I'm not sure to where any of that may lead.
I'm not sure how my answers to the above questions and my conceptions of life in France will change or bring new questions into mind, but there is a world of opportunity in discovering new issues to talk about. Perhaps, we, as a nation, really can let marriage equality, universal healthcare, and an end to flying Confederate flags slide, and we can begin to discuss some of these greater (or at least newer) questions.