Stuifheuvel

De Stuifheuvel heeft over de jaren heen zijn naam eer aan gedaan en lijkt door erosie helaas gewoon een wat grotere natuurlijke heuvel dan de kleine heuveltjes er om heen. Maar het is een kunstmatig aangelegde heuvel, aangelegd in de jaren 30 van de vorige eeuw. Indertijd waren er werkverschaffingsprojecten waarbij werkelozen vaak zwaar werk moesten doen, met de hand, om maar van de straat te blijven en nog iets nuttigs te doen voor de samenleving. In de wijk Kerckebosch werden zo twee vijvers uitgegraven, allemaal met schop, kruiwagen en kiepkar, en het zand werd naar de bosrand gebracht, waar het op een kleine natuurlijke zandheuvel werd gestort die daardoor veel en veel hoger werd dan de andere heuvels in de omgeving. Aan 1 zijde werd een brede trap aangelegd tot halverwege, daarna een spiralend pad verder omhoog, en bovenop werd een grote houten bank geplaatst. Er waren ook plannen om een echte uitkijktoren te bouwen zodat men nóg verder over de omgeving kon kijken, maar daar is het nooit van gekomen. Was indertijd ook niet nodig toen de heuvel nog hoog was en de begroeing er omheen veel lager.

Ook zonder uitkijktoren was de heuvel vele jaren een markante plaats in Zeist en omgeving, en de Stuifheuvel staat ook op verschillende oude ansichtkaarten van Zeist.

Op deze foto is de brede trap goed te zien.

Vooral vanaf de jaren 70 en 80 ging de erosie hard, door wind, regen en mensen. Er ontstonden paadjes die recht naar boven liepen in plaats van het spiralende pad te volgen, er werden nog hekjes en zelfs prikkeldraad geplaatst, maar het verval zette voort. De bank bovenop verzakte, het spiralende pad werd uiteindelijk helemaal opgegeven en de trap verzakte en verzandde tot de resten werden weggehaald. Maar nog steeds is de heuvel een stuk hoger dan de natuurlijke mini-heuveltjes in de lokale bossen, en nog steeds is de stuifheuvel een favoriete plek voor groepjes mensen om toch even lekker hoog te zitten, nu op de scheefgezakte bomen, vrijgekomen boomwortels en stronken. Ook komt de naam nog terug in de omgeving, een lagere school iets verderop heet De Stuifheuvel.

De huidige beheerder is Het Utrechts Landschap, en er liggen plannen om de heuvel (deels) te herstellen en er weer een uitzichtpunt van te maken, maar die plannen liggen er al een tijd en het kan nog best even duren. Tot die tijd is het jammer dat veel van de gebruikers van de heuvel zoals 'ie nu is niets weten van zijn geschiedenis. Ik zou het heel leuk vinden als ik via een PoI in de Niantic spellen, de geschiedenis en het ontstaan als aangelegde heuvel met zoveel hard handwerk kan verspreiden.

Bronnen: oude ansichtkaart van Marktplaats, boek over Zeist, herinneringen van mijn jeugd in de jaren 70/80 en https://zeistinbeeld.nl/2016/01/24/bovenop-de-stuifheuvel/

Pit bull owners about their dogs....

De Dood of de Pest?

Suzanna van de Hunnen schrijft in haar boek Stervensdruk hoe ze in de supermarkt gevolgd werd door Magere Hein, die zijn 'lelijke rotkop tussen (haar) en het blikje schuift' als ze de houdbaarheidsdatum leest, langer dan zij zelf zal leven. Alleen op de zuivelafdeling is ze veilig, daar volgde hij haar niet.

Nu mijn moeder in de laatste fase van haar kanker is -ook eierstokkanker, trouwens- is het gevoel heel herkenbaar. Overal lees ik data die mijn moeder niet meer mee zal maken, overal zie ik ook zo'n rotkop grijnzen. En zelfs de zuivelafdeling is niet meer helemaal veilig, de melk gaat nog maar de pudding houdbaar tot 3-12-2012? Daar is 'ie weer, die grijns.

Alleen de eigenaar van de lelijke rotkop, dat is bij mij iemand anders. De Dood loopt niet zo achter me aan. De Dood grijnst, maar dat kan hij niet helpen, zo kijk je nu eenmaal als je geen lippen hebt. Het is geen gemene grijns. Als fan van Terry Pratchett's Discworld en nog veel meer fantasy & gothic boeken & kunst, heb ik meerdere afbeeldingen van de Dood in mijn kamer hangen, en geen van hen heeft mij lastig gevallen over de afgelopen jaren. Niet sinds we weten dat de kanker steeds zou terugkeren en zelfs niet in de afgelopen 5 1/2 week waarin we weten dat er niet alleen geen levensrekkende behandelingen meer mogelijk zijn, maar dat het zelfs een heel snel proces zal zijn. Nee, kijk eens goed, dit is geen schone, witte schedel, maar een kop met een kale huid en grote bulten. Het is een van de andere Ruiters, Kanker, die nog vrij recent de functie heeft overgenomen van de Pest. Dàt is degene die de oorzaak is van al deze ellende, en degene die tijd genoeg heeft over de jaren heen de lijders aan deze ziekte en hun familie-leden aan zijn bestaan te herinneren.

De Dood zelf doet zoiets niet, tenminste ik zie hem er niet voor aan. Hij heeft het waarschijnlijk ook te druk, hij heeft tenslotte niet alleen te maken met degenen die Kanker heeft aangeraakt, maar ook al die anderen die slachtoffer zijn van Honger, of van Oorlog, of van al die kleine, minder beroemde ruiters die soms in kleine groepjes, soms alleen, achter de andere Ruiters aankomen. Ongeluk, Verdrinking, Depressie en Zelfmoord altijd naast elkaar rijdend, en vele anderen... Allen samen zorgen voor datgene wat naar de Dood toe leidt.

De Dood zelf? Die zie ik meer als een professionele hulpverlener, die degenen die door andere oorzaken daar terecht gekomen zijn, over de drempel helpt. Hij gaat zelden of nooit zelf op zoek naar slachtoffers, en heeft al helemaal geen tijd om weken tot maanden om hen en hun familie heen te hangen. Hij is zo druk dat hij soms zelfs later komt dan verwacht of men hem zou... misschien niet verwelkomen, maar op zijn minst beleefd groeten & hem danken voor zijn werk.

(Kanker, intussen, staat nog steeds in een hoekje van de kamer te grijnzen. Ik kan het niet laten hem een beetje terug te pakken door te zeggen dat zijn voorganger, de Pest, toch maar mooi door de mensen van zijn paard gestoten is en dat de vooruitzichten voor hem op de lange duur ook niet erg florisant zijn, ook al is hij nog niet in zo'n terminaal stadium als mijn moeder. Hij trekt zich er helaas op dit moment weinig van aan.)

One Day Without Shoes 2012

Two years ago, I posted about Tom's 'One Day Without Shoes' (see the 2010 March entry). I wasn't very positive at the time, the entire thing seemed aimed at showing barefoot was dangerous, horrible, and each and every kid should always be in shoes. Only when asked further, did the Toms people say they worked with other charities (providing food, clean water, school supplies, etc, etc) and their shoes went to those places where they were needed most, but this information was impossible to find on their site, even with some clicking around.

I'm happy to say this year, their 'learn more' page (http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com/learn-more) is a lot more obvious about this, showing a map of where kids have to deal with sand fleas, hookworm, the particularly caustic soil that is the cause of podoconiosis, and far greater than normal dangerous debris from living on a landfill. Their FAQ also acknowledges, among other things, that 'Yes, there are some places in the world where going barefoot is widely accepted' and that they are working together with a larger charity providing a far wider range of things, giving their shoes to the kids who actually need them most.

The slogans and banners, which are of course limited to one- or two-liners, are still less obvious about all this, and I'm a bit sad to still see people on forums and twitter who apparently didn't read the details and are going on about 'any poor child who doesn't have shoes to wear all day, every day' or the hardships of going without shoes even on a nice, tiled sidewalk in a mall in the Western world, free of parasites and similar threats, but at least the info is there for those who look. A huge improvement. I can support the campaign this way :-)

If I were cold, I'd wear shoes

I walk barefoot and I frequently get comments like 'Oh, that must be cold!' and 'Oh, that must hurt!'. No, if I were cold or if it hurt, I wouldn't do it, d'uh! Also, if you looked any further at all, you'd see that I am not tense and shivering, and that I step confidently instead of tenderly picking my way. On Twitter there are also often comments about how it must be cold when people see a person walking or running barefoot, or even, now it's winter, in sandals or slippers. Why? What's with people to make them assume that just because *they* are easily chilled everyone else must be too? Why think that if we were cold, we would not have worn warm, closed shoes? Why, even, call us crazy idiots?

If I see someone do something different, I start with the assumption that people are *NOT* crazy. If I see someone with stiletto heels or 3" platforms, my first thought is that they've learned to walk on those stilts, and I'll keep that thought unless and until I clearly see them stumbling and tripping. If I see someone wearing a mini-skirt or shorts in winter, I assume they've got high metabolism and are not cold, unless and until I see them shiver or hear them complain. I could list a dozen more examples, not limited to footwear or clothing either, but it all comes down to the same thing. Different doesn't have to be stupid or dumb or uncomfortable. Different strokes, different folks. I wish more people would give others the benefit of the doubt, just because it's your way and perhaps the way of the majority of the people, that doesn't mean it's the only way. Next time you see something different, don't be so self-centered and look further before you flap out your comment. Thank you :)

Barefoot running & minimalist shoes.

I have recently read a few articles from concerned doctors about barefoot & minimalist running. They are seeing quite a few injuries in barefoot runners, which they didn't before the 'hype'. Well first of all barefoot & minimalist running is on the rise, and even those who believe it's healthy don't claim it's some magical way to run so you'll never be injured, ever. So naturally, more barefoot runners will mean more will get injured. But also, I think that they mistakenly lump barefoot & minimalist running together. Minimalist footwear is NOT a good thing when you're just starting out.

When you start to run barefoot, feedback from your soles is *extremely* important. Most obviously, during the transition period, your soles tell you when to stop before muscles and especially tendons and joints do. People are impatient, no matter how many articles caution to 'start slowly', many people start with 15, 20, 30 minutes. I guess that may sound like 'starting slowly' when you're a long-distance runner in shoes, but it's not. If you're not used to going barefoot at all, if you're one of those people who puts on shoes first thing in the morning and takes them off only sitting on your bed at night, maybe you have to start with one minute. Or even with walking barefoot more before running. Take your time, I mean *really* take your time.

But that's not all. More importantly, fully bare soles help you to get your running form right. I was a regular barefoot walker already, but even so I made the mistake thinking 'running = faster so I should push off and take long steps'. I got a blister right behind my first & second toe on one of my very first runs (when I was just running a few minutes). So, I looked up what I was doing wrong, found that in running barefoot you have to take shorter, quicker steps, and let yourself 'fall' forward (with the hips, not the upper body) rather than pushing off for those long, reaching strides. Problem solved and the next run was light and easy. Had I worn some minimalist shoe/footglove, I would not have noticed that I was pushing off too much and taking those long strides (also causing me to land with more impact), and either I'd still be doing it three months down the road, or quite likely by this time I, too, would've the kind of overuse injury that those doctors are treating.

I'm active in several barefoot mailing groups, forums, and search barefoot-related terms on Twitter, and I was not an exception. Many people who start running *really* barefoot ask advise early on based on very minor things like a blister or hot-spot, many who start in minimalist shoes are starting off too quickly and/or run into more serious problems later on & post about worse things.

For the same reason, especially when you're starting and still need to get your form right, make sure to run at least part of the time on pavement. It may seem counter-intuitive to run on these hard surfaces, especially when your feet are still tender, but even fully bare, if you run only on soft grass and sand, you won't notice form faults. When you're running correctly, you can run on pavement without jolts and shocks, and without abrading your skin. If you feel you're still jarring your body too much or getting sore soles very quickly, STOP running, go home, look up some good barefoot-running pages (I like http://therunningbarefoot.com ), find what you were doing wrong, and then go back to try again. If you find a softer surface (or never venture onto the pavement at all), again, you won't discover what you're doing wrong, won't be able to correct it, and in time even on the softer surface, the constant jarring may easily cause some overuse injury. I like the forest trail better than the pavement not for my feet but because I prefer nature and bird song sounds so much more than passing cars. But I do often include a stretch of pavement in my runs so I can feel if I'm still running lightly enough and no form faults have slipped in.

Now before I get all kinds of minimalist-shoe enthusiasts on my case (or the companies making them :)), these shoes can have their use. They can be useful in cold weather, if you live in some place with lots of broken glass and dirt, if you run after dark and you don't like running fully barefoot when you can't see hazards, to wear at places like work where shoes may be required, etc. But I firmly believe you should NOT START in them. If it's too cold find an indoor track, if your local roads are too littered then drive to some nicer area, and instead of running in the dark find time to run in daylight hours, at least for the transition period. Now as a long-time full barefooter I wouldn't be surprised if soon you'll find your feet have toughened enough that you won't need the minimalist footwear nearly as much as you thought you would, but hey, if you do still feel more secure in them *after* the transition period, then that's fine. Just don't start that way. Don't. Really.

One Day Without Shoes -a barefooter's opinion.

April 8, 2010, TOMS Shoes is holding its third annual 'One Day Without Shoes' campaign, to 'experience what millions of children endure every day'. They give a pair of shoes to a child in a third world country for every pair of shoes they sell.

Now I have gone barefoot by choice for fourteen years, and I am very happy with healthy, strong feet. I can tell you that going barefoot for a single day when you've spent a lifetime in shoes is NOT anywhere NEAR experiencing 'what children have to endure'. YOUR feet are going to be extremely tender and soft, you're going to wince at every pebble, shy away from every rose bush or thistle you spot, you'll probably get cold toes. You may even get sore calves because you walk differently from what you're used to. But THEIR feet are tough, calloused and leathery, they can handle much larger rocks without noticing them, they are only occasionally bothered by particularly nasty thorns. Many of them live in warmer climates, and they won't get sore calves because their calves are used to walking that way. I walk across broken glass, have cleared out thick bramble bushes wearing gloves but no shoes, have dug up parts of the garden using a regular shovel, been on hikes and recently taken up running, all without any trouble. In fourteen years, I have never yet had a cut, and even (glass)splinters and thorns happen only very rarely and leave no sores when they're picked out. When you're habitually barefoot, your feet get MUCH stronger than people who regularly wear shoes can even begin to imagine (it surprised me too, although I never thought that going barefoot was extremely painful or I wouldn't have started doing it).

Now don't get me wrong, in an ideal world going barefoot should be a choice, not necessity. I would like every child and adult to *own* shoes so they could wear them if and when they wanted. However, this isn't an ideal world and the children this 'shoe charity' is trying to reach lack MANY things that you and I consider 'necessities'. And in that case, I strongly believe footwear is not on top of the list of priorities to give to them. Apart from the fact that their feet are pretty tough, let's take a look at the list of facts from the charity's website.

Fact 1: In some developing nations, children must walk for miles to food, clean water and to seek medical help..'
And those shoes are going to last how long if they have to walk those many miles every day? Think of how long your kids' shoes last, and they don't walk a fraction of what these kids do. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide them with a well, starting equipment for farming, animals for raising, and more medicine? What's even better, the entire village benefits from that, not just the children.

Fact 2 is 'Cuts and sores on feet can lead to serious infection.'
Blisters from worn-out and out-grown shoes can also lead to serious infection. At least as bad or even worse, as blisters are known to be prone to infections, and the bacteria growing in old, smelly sneakers are of a particularly nasty kind too. Oh, about those nasty bacteria that live in closed shoes... do you think they'll wear these shoes with socks, and how often are they going to wash those? Old, sweaty shoes worn without socks (or with crusty, dirty ones) are worse than most of the things they step in barefoot!

And related to this, how much choice are these children going to have, are they going to be fitted correctly & how often are they going to get a new pair? Ill-fitting shoes are worse than no shoes, if they walk on shoes too small for them that's not going to do their feet any good! Apart from the obvious blisters (and possibly infections), here is an article showing that even in our Western world, many children walk on shoes a bit too small for them and it's causing foot damage like Hallux Valgus: http://newsblaze.com/story/2009031807190200001.tf/topstory.html So if that happens here, where we have shoe stores in every town, then what do you think is going to happen when you give a single pair of shoes to a third-world kid? Is anyone going to keep up with them, checking their shoes often enough and providing them with a new pair if they've outgrown them?

Fact 3 'Often, children cannot attend school barefoot.'
This may be the case in some places, but I know from various sources I trust that in many places in Africa and Asia kids are allowed to attend school barefoot. The teachers, when asked what was needed most, answered 'pencils, paper, books...' Sometimes more general things like food and safe water were named. Shoes were NOT mentioned to ANY ONE of the people who have visited third world schools & whom I know personally. I am sure some schools require footwear but I would replace the word 'often' with 'occasionally', and in general concentrate on school supplies when donating for the children's education.

Fact #4: 'In Ethiopia, approximately one million people are suffering from Podoconiosis, a debilitating and disfiguring disease caused by walking barefoot in volcanic soil.'
Fact #5: 'Podoconiosis is 100% preventable by wearing shoes.'

Okay, in some areas/circumstances shoes are higher on the list of priorities, if the donations are going there I support them. Same as to cold climates where children are kept from going to school in winter months without footwear and warm clothing! But send them there and concentrate on more important things elsewhere. If they concentrate on such areas, I also think it's more likely TOMS can keep the donations frequent and prevent the problems I named above, caused by outgrown and worn-out footwear.

I will go barefoot April 8 (as I do any other day) and ask people to donate to groups who help people in small villages with wells, farm equipment and animals, and medicine. Suggested charities:
Water/wells:
http://www.charitywater.org/
http://www.letsbuildwells.org/
Mosquito nets:
http://www.nothingbutnets.net
Livestock:
http://www.maasai-association.org/goat.html
http://www.sendacow.org.uk/
http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.204586/
Many, many items to chose from:
http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?section=10389
(note how this last organization has a *huge* list of different things to give, including clothing... yet I don't see shoes mentioned specifically. Hm, wonder if this is an oversight or maybe a large charity organization might have more of an idea what is needed than TOMS? ;-))